Senate
12 November 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2203

PETITIONS

Family Law Bill: Divorce

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

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 6,363 and 44 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens ofthe 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 at a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and the first petition read.

Family Law Bill

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 69 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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:

That we support the concept of no fault divorce in the Family Law Bill because:

1 ) Marriage is not merely a contract it is a relationship.

That if a party withdraws from that relationship for whatever reason, there is no good to be achieved by insisting on a continuence of a contractual shell.

) That where a marriage relationship has demonstrably broken down, divorce should be as quick, simple and possible in the interests of the dignity of the parties and the emotional well being of their 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 DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 46 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe 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.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

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:

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 BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 10 citizens ofthe 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: Divorce

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

-I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 39 and 48 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:

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 GUILFOYLE:

-I present the following petition from 41 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 497 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in Section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I present the following petition from 589 citizens of Victoria:

To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That the Family Law Bill (1974) is a matter of public importance;

That the subject matter of the clauses of the Bill will ultimately have the widest effects on the lives of the citizens of Australia;

That the proposals contained in this Bill are not adequately known to the citizens of Australia;

That the Bill as such has not been the object of the public scrutiny, dialogue and debate which it deserves;

That for these reasons grave concern is felt that the Bill may be passed before the community is aware of its long term consequences.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote that the Family Law Bill (1974) be made the subject of further community study and that to facilitate this aim the debate on this Bill be adjourned until April, 1975.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I present the following petition from 106 citizens of Victoria:

To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That the Family Law Bill (1974) is a matter of public importance;

That the subject matter of the clauses of the Bill will ultimately have the widest effects on the lives of the citizens of Australia;

That the proposals contained in this Bill are not adequately known to the citizens of Australia;

That the Bill as such has not been the object of the public scrutiny, dialogue and debate which it deserves;

That for these reasons grave concern is felt that the Bill may be passed before the community is aware of its long term consequences.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote that the Family Law Bill ( 1974) be made the subject of further community study and that to facilitate this aim the debate on this Bill be adjourned until April, 1975.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator PRIMMER:

– I present the following petition from 17 citizens of Victoria:

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

That the Family Law Bill (1974) is a matter of public importance;

That the subject matter of the clauses of the Bill will ultimately have the widest effects on the lives of the citizens of Australia;

That the proposals contained in this Bill are not adequately known to the citizens of Australia;

That the Bill as such has not been the object of the public scrutiny, dialogue and debate which it deserves;

That for these reasons grave concern is felt that the Bill may be passed before the community is aware of its long term consequences;

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote that the Family Law Bill ( 1974) be made the subject of further community study and that to facilitate this aim the debate on this Bill be adjourned until April, 1975.

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 Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that as a direct result of the recent Budget measure to reduce the taxation concession for education expenses from $400 to $150 a significant level of economic support, hitherto received, has been withdrawn.

Your petitioners believe that this Budget measure is regressive and is an unjustifiable act of discrimination inflicted on parents struggling to keep their children in independent schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action will be taken to remedy this act of discrimination.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and the first petition read.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I present the following petition from 63 citizens of Australia:

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

Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that as a direct result of the recent Budget measure to reduce the taxation concession for education expenses from $400 to $150 a significant level of economic support, hitherto received, has been withdrawn.

Your petitioners believe that this Budget measure is regressive and is an unjustifiable act of discrimination inflicted on parents struggling to keep their children in independent schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action will be taken to remedy this act of discrimination.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Palace Hotel, Perth

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 399 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessary either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore The Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel, St George’s Terrace, Perth on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.

Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said hotel from the owners thereof.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Palace Hotel, Perth

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 159 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessary either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore The Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel, St George’s Terrace, Perth on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.

Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said hotel from the owners thereof.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 2206

NOTICES OF MOTION

Public Service Oaths of Allegiance

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

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Public Service.

I indicate now that the Bill will fulfil the undertaking that there be a Bill with a title sufficiently wide to enable the matter of the Public Service oaths to be raised.

page 2206

THE SENATE

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

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, for the remainder of this period of sittings the sessional order relating to the sittings of the Senate and precedence of business be varied as follows:

1 ) That Government business take precedence of general business on Thursdays.

That the sessional order relating to the adjournment ofthe Senate take effect at half-past ten p.m. each Thursday.

page 2206

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2206

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Will the Prime Minister announce tonight a comprehensive economic policy or is he to add yet one more unrelated measure to the Government’s ad hoc economic program which to date has proved disastrous for the Australian people?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Whatever the Prime Minister announces will be for the good government of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate asked a political question. We are living in a world in which inflation is raging. We have one of the most prosperous communities in the whole world. We have a rate of unemployment which, though regrettable, is probably less than in any comparable country. Our rural industriesleaving aside meat- are in a buoyant state.

Senator Young:

– What about wool?

Senator MURPHY:

-Somebody says: ‘What about wool?’. One measure which has been taken by this Government and which has been commended by the whole community, particularly the rural community, is the introduction of the floor price for wool. It was the Labor Government’s initiative- an initiative which the previous conservative governments were not prepared to take- which introduced stability and security into the wool industry. Across a whole range of activities, when the world has been confronted with huge increases in oil prices and enormous social and economic changes, this Government has taken measures from time to time which are necessary to ensure the continuance of stability and prosperity in Australia. We are succeeding and we will keep on succeeding for a very long time to come.

page 2206

QUESTION

CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to Senator Bishop in his dual capacity as Postmaster-General and Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Firstly, will he immediately urge the Minister for Labor and Immigration to disregard the absurd Public Service Board directive on the virtual staff freeze existing in the citizenship section of the Department of Immigration in Sydney, where an efficient and dedicated staff is overwhelmed by massive citizenship applications, and make early additions to the staff engaged? Secondly, will the Minister intervene at the request of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union and myself to give a breathing space to all temporary Sydney Mail Branch officers whose permanency is in jeopardy due to delays in processing citizenship applications- delays which are epitomised in the Iskander case, the details of which he is already aware?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I know generally of the situation. In Sydney there are presently 7 mail exchange officers who have been accepted for employment because they have passed examinations but who are not naturalised. I will ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration to see what he can do to expedite this matter. I will also inform the Senate what action is proposed. Until such officers are naturalised they cannot take up permanent appointment. I will find out what I can this week and let the honourable senator know.

page 2207

QUESTION

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the apprehension in rural areas at the Government’s proposal to introduce a capital gains tax at a time when rural producers are facing heavy reductions in net income? Is he also aware that people are demanding to know, as quickly as possible, the details of the new tax impost? Can the Minister say when legislation will be introduced into the Parliament?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-As is well known and, indeed, as has been stated on many occasions, the Government has accepted the principle of a capital gains tax. I believe the majority of Australians accept that principle. It has also been pointed out that the details of the implementation of that tax have not yet been determined. I can understand why the honourable senator has asked the question. Obviously, the Government will ensure that it does not implement this tax in such a way as would create undue hardship for those people who have not been benefiting from the lack of a capital gains tax. The purpose of the tax is to ensure that those people who have been making large sums of money from capital gains at the expense of the community in general will not be able to do so in the future. I understand that the legislation will not be ready until March, and certainly the details of the way in which the tax will operate will not be available before then.

page 2207

QUESTION

AIRPORT FIREFIGHTING SERVICES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister may recall that on, I think, 22 October last I directed to him a question concerning rescue and firefighting services at the Wynyard and Devonport airports in Tasmania. Has he any further information concerning the provision of rescue and firefighting services, particularly since there are apprehensions in these regions as to the sufficiency and availability of these services during activities at the airports?

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

-The honourable senator’s question was referred to the Minister for Transport who has provided me with some further information. The present position is that rescue and firefighting services are manned at the Devonport airport from 0945 hours to 1745 hours daily and at the Wynyard airport from 0930 hours to 1730 hours daily. That is a continuous 8-hour shift at each airport, and it covers the majority of regular public transport operations. Until 6 weeks ago the services were manned outside those hours, but with the introduction of the economy measures the period of operation of the services was reduced to 8 hours in order to save the payment of overtime and penalty rates and to cover the time when the majority of the public transport operations took place. All such services throughout Australia are currently undergoing review as part of the Government’s cost recovery program. Decisions will not be made on such matters as hours of operation of such services or the withdrawal of such services until the Minister has received recommendations from his Department. The services provided at the Devonport and Wynyard airports are included in this review. The Senate will appreciate that the Minister is not in a position to decide whether there will be any variations in the hours of operation of these services at airports until he has received a report from the appropriate investigation authorities.

page 2207

QUESTION

WHEAT: FIRST ADVANCE PAYMENT

Senator YOUNG:

-I ask the Minister for Agriculture: Will he urge the Government to increase the first advance payment on wheat to $1.80 a bushel for the coming 1974-75 harvest in order to assist the liquidity problems of farmers and to help counter increasing costs, including the huge increase in the price of superphosphate? With world wheat prices so high and demand for wheat so strong, would not such a first advance payment be financially possible? If the Minister is not prepared to support such a proposal, will he give the reasons why, particularly in view of the fact that he is urging farmers to expand wheat production greatly, which will involve a big early cash outlay?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that the Australian wheat industry has asked the Government to increase the first advance payment. It should be pointed out, as Senator Young well knows, that agreement was reached between the Government and the industry to make a first advance payment of $1.20 a bushel on deliveries of wheat to the Australian Wheat Board this season. That was the minimum figure requested by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation earlier this year and it was granted by the Government. We are now asked to increase that first advance payment, despite the agreement which had been entered into. As was announced last week, the first advance payment for next season’s crop has been increased to $1.50 a bushel the purpose of that being to maximise the sowings of wheat for the crop in 1975, for reasons which do not need to be stated.

The argument in respect of increasing the first advance payment for this crop is, as Senator Young pointed out, that wheat farmers have insufficient liquidity to enable them to plant the new crop during April and May of next year. But the facts do not support that contention. Following the 1972 crop, wheat plantings in August increased from 18 million acres to 24 million acres, an increase of 33W per cent. Farmers increased their plantings to that extent at the same time as the Government increased the first advance payment and as prices began to move upwards on the world markets. In other words, the factor that caused wheat growers to increase their plantings by that massive one-third at that time, despite the fact that wool and meat prices were very high, was that they knew they would receive a good return. This year the expected return is better still. Wheat prices are higher; they are almost double what they were at that time. The wheat grower of Australia can be assured that for whatever wheat he can deliver next year to the Australian Wheat Board he will receive an excellent economic return.

In regard to the question of liquidity, I point out that it had been customary in the past, as Senator Young would know, once the Australian Wheat Board made the first advance payment, for growers to wait for subsequent payments from the pool. This is the first year in which 3 payments have been made to the wheat industry by the November of the relevant year. At this stage last year- that is, November of last yearthe average amount paid to wheat growers from last year’s crop was $5,100. This year the average amount is $1 1,000. In other words, the Australian wheat grower has received, on average, twice as much in cash this year as he received last year. On the predictions ofthe Australian Wheat Board, by February of 1975 the Australian wheat farmer will have received on average a little under $15,000 in cash- something that was unheard of in the past. The statement that there is a liquidity problem in the industry is just not supportable. We have heard the argument of increased inflation and increased superphosphate costs. If honourable senators look at the overall income received by wheat growers in that time, I think that they will agree that the liquidity position of the average Australian wheat grower today is better than it has ever been in the past. Certainly, it is better than it was in the last 2 years when growers in fact increased their plantings by one-third. I think that every Australian wheat grower will realise, as a business man, that he has one of the best economic opportunities available to him in 1975 that he has ever had in the history of the wheat industry.

page 2208

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION RADIO

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for the Media confirm that the introduction of the broadcasting system known as FM radio is soon to become a reality? Will he indicate the attitude of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in expediting this development? In the light of this advance in broadcasting, will the Minister translate for the Senate a Press statement by Mr Ben Hills of the Melbourne ‘Age’ newspaper that the Government was considering scrapping the Minister’s plans for the introduction of FM radio?

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

– It is true that Australian should get its first regular frequency modulation radio broadcast in a little over one month’s time. The station of the Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales is due to go to air at noon on 15 December. The station will be operated by that Society and it will be given the name 2MBS FM. The plans that are envisaged for this station are that it will broadcast music, and music only- I mention that especially for the benefit of my good friend, Senator Wriedt- for 8 hours a day from premises in the Sydney suburb of Artarmon. In regard to the speedy action which has been taken by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to hasten this development, I express my unqualified support for the expression which appeared yesterday in, I think, the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ by Professor Runcie who is connected with this cooperative station. He said that he was delighted with the swift action of the Board in allowing the station to get to air. In regard to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, some of the reports about FM transmission and, indeed, other aspects of the area covered by my portfolio, seem to verge on science fiction. It was suggested in a Press report that the Australian Government was changing its mind about the introduction of FM. I repeat, that after 23 years of lethargy in this area FM is about to come into operation. It will be in Australia in one month’s time.

page 2208

QUESTION

CANNING OF SURPLUS MEAT

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-Will the Minister for Agriculture consider including canned meat in the aid which the Government proposes to give to nations which are short of food? In Australia at present meat is so cheap that considerable amounts could be provided for these countries. A scheme such as this could help the Australian producers to dispose of some of their surplus production and perhaps to build up markets when conditions return to normal.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The Government is considering ways whereby the current surplus of meat in Australia might be used for food aid programs. But, as I am sure Senator Lawrie will agree, meat is generally an expensive commodity. As he suggests, we have either to can it before we send it overseas or to refrigerate it. The countries which are most concerned about food shortages are, of course, the ones with the least refrigeration facilities to handle it when it gets there. If we were to send fresh meat it is almost certain that most of it would be lost. One or two other alternatives are currently being looked at, but the fundamental situation is that with a food aid program we are not so much concerned in the immediate months ahead with protein but simply with getting food to hungry people. Of course that is where wheat becomes the critical factor. Nevertheless, I assure the honourable senator that all methods available in Australia for properly utilising meat are being considered.

page 2209

QUESTION

STATE OF ECONOMY

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that Totalisator Agency Board investments on Melbourne Cup day reached record figures in all States? Does the Leader agree that this does not bear out the contention of the prophets of gloom that the country is down on its uppers and facing bankruptcy?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Indeed, I would agree. A few weeks ago I indicated that the figures for the sale of beer and other liquors were higher than ever despite the excise. I have also indicated in relation to customs duty and excise that there is an extensive list of products normally manufactured in Australia which are in such short supply that we have had to let them come in duty free in order to meet the shortfall in supply. I also inform the Senate that in the financial year immediately concluded we had the lowest number of bankruptcies for IS years. In fact, there was a decline of 27 per cent on the previous year. If one starts to look across the spectrum one sees many indications of the healthy state of the Australian economy. The measures which the Government is setting in train will ensure that unemployment will be brought under control. As I have said, we will continue to enjoy the prosperity which is the entitlement of a country with the wise government which this country has.

page 2209

REFRIGERATION COMPRESSORS BOUNTY BILL

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by referring to the Refrigeration Compressors

Bounty Bill. Is the Minister aware of the impending consequences of significant unemployment in sections of the industry, particularly in a large decentralised New South Wales area, and indeed of probable higher costs to the Australian consumer if the restrictive nature of the Bill’s bounty recommendation is not quickly altered? Will the Minister indicate why the Bill has been so long delayed in its presentation to the Senate and whether its rapid appearance before this chamber will now take place?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The question really relates to a measure which is before the chamber and therefore I think it is strictly out of order. May I indicate that certain questions have been raised in relation to the Bill, including questions by the Opposition, and that these are being looked at.

page 2209

QUESTION

CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENT FOR REPATRIATION PATIENTS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. What provision is made under repatriation legislation for veterans to receive treatment from chiropractors? Does he agree that any form of treatment which benefits a patient should be freely available to the patient? Will chiropractic treatment be available to patients under the proposed national compensation scheme?

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

-At present the Repatriation Commission does not provide for treatment by either chiropractors or osteopaths. The medical treatment which is provided is given by duly qualified medical practitioners.

Senator Baume:

– Are not chiropractors registered in Western Australia?

Senator WHEELDON:

-Chiropractors are registered in Western Australia but their services are not covered by the provisions of the Repatriation Act. The view which the Repatriation Commission takes- I know that this has been the subject of some dispute- and the view which the Australian Medical Association and medical authorities generally take is that there is not sufficient valid convincing evidence to justify the claims which are made by the advocates of chiropractic treatment or osteopathic treatment, and for that reason repatriation benefits do not include payment for treatment by these practitioners. If the recipient of repatriation benefits wishes to receive chiropractic or osteopathic treatment it is entirely up to him but the Department itself will not pay the bill for that treatment. At present an inquiry on which the Repatriation Commission is represented is being conducted into this matter. Inquiry is being made in depth into the effectiveness and usefullness of the treatment which is provided by chiropractors. The Repatriation Commission is making a submission to the committee of inquiry.

So far as other forms of compensation are concerned, as Senator Baume pointed out by way of interjection, the State of Western Australia does provide by law for the registration of chiropractors, and chiropractic services are provided for under the Workers Compensation Act in Western Australia. Some fear has been expressed by chiropractors in Western Australia that they will lose their present status in the event of a national compensation Bill being passed. This, however, is not really a matter for the National Compensation Bill itself because the Bill does not provide for medical and hospital treatment; it provides purely for earnings- related and other forms of compensation for those people who have been injured or incapacitated. It is envisaged that the medical and hospital treatment which would include chiropractic treatment, if it is to be included, would be dealt with under the National Health Act. So my Department has no proposals whatever with regard to the present position in Western Australia. However, the chiropractors association in Western Australia is making some submissions to me which I will be studying.

One additional problem with regard to making provision for payment for chiropractic treatment is that within the ranks of the chiropractors there are 2 separate organisations, each apparently claiming that the qualifications claimed by the other are not valid qualifications. This makes it even more difficult than it would otherwise be to work out precisely what one is supposed to do about the matter. I repeat my answer to the first part of the question. So far as repatriation is concerned, we believe that as the position stands at present we must abide by the weight of scientific evidence and the weight of the opinions held by the Australian Medical Association, the medical schools of the various universities and the other organisations of duly qualified medical practitioners that there is no justification for repatriation benefits to include treatment by either chiropractors or osteopaths.

page 2210

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO THE UNEMPLOYED

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. How is it determined whether a person who becomes unemployed is granted the ordinary unemployment benefit under Commonwealth legislation or the 6 months full pay which is supposed to be provided to persons who lose their jobs because of the Government’s tariff cuts? Is it consistent with proper practice in the dispensing of public moneys that such moneys should be dispensed on the unchallengeable discretion of a Minister? Why has not tie Parliament been able to approve the terms and conditions on which such payments are made, instead of their being left to the Minister to ase his discretion for personal and political patronage?

Senator j BISHOP:

-The Senator raises a number of issues which go beyond the responsibility ofthe Minister for Labor and Immigration. For example, the structural adjustment system is a matter about which Senator Wriedt, as Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, would answer today in this place. Mr Clyde Cameron and an ad hoc group of Ministers administer what is called the RED schemethat is, the regional employment development scheme. I think the honourable senator’s question arises from a matter which is currently under examination by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, and that is whether those workers who have been retrenched by the Ford Motor Company of Australia should get the structural adjustment assistance. I attempted to get some information from the Minister before I came into the Senate this morning, but I was not able to do so. I would expect that the Minister would tell me today what he proposes to do in respect of that matter. The general question which the honourable senator raises relates to responsibilities of other Ministers and, I think, of the Cabinet, and his inquiries would be best served if I asked the Ministers concerned to reply. When I get that information I will give it to the honourable senator and to the Senate.

page 2210

QUESTION

BRISBANE FREEWAY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development aware that the Queensland Government has again served notice to quit on persons occupying homes on the route of the proposed freeway on the northern side of the city of Brisbane? Will the Minister agree that this action is only a petty campaign initiated by the Country Party Government of Queensland to disadvantage further low income occupants as parts of the current State election campaign? As no work is proceeding on the freeway, will the Minister take appropriate action to ensure that the rights of tenants are fully protected?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I do not know the position in Queensland. I will have to put the question to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. I know that the Queensland Government is the type of government which would exploit to the limit something underhanded from a political motivation. I will submit the question to the Minister and try to get an answer.

page 2211

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I do not know whether it is a matter for a prepared statement. The position with the Aboriginal Legal Service in Sydney at the end of the financial year in June was that about $S4,000 was unaccounted for.

Senator Greenwood:

– Fifty-four?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes. There were no dockets to cover the expenditure of some $54,000. At the end of June the Budget had not been presented and the Department advanced a further 2 months ‘ payment to enable the Service to carry on until the presentation of the Budget. In August, during the preparation of the Budget, a request was made to me that the Service be paid on a weekly basis for a further 2 months on the understanding that it would give me details of the expenditure for which it could not account. I believe that at that time the amount unaccounted for had been reduced to some $29,000. 1 approved of the expenditure but put the condition on my approval that it would be the last payment authorised by me until there was a full account given of the expenditure of the Service. Unfortunately my direction was not conveyed to the Aboriginal Legal Service and the Service seemed to take no notice of my requirements, so that in accordance with the conditions which I imposed on the August payment, I refused a further request for payments to the end of December until the expenditure had been accounted for. Representatives of the Service came to Canberra yesterday and explained their action. They said that the Service was short staffed and was doing its best and that as a result of the termination of payments they had employed a qualified accountant. They have now traced some of the money not accounted for and the outstanding figure has been reduced to $8,000. This, I am assured, can be accounted for by obtaining certain necessary documents.

Senator Murphy:

– It is a private voluntary organisation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is a privately run organisation but is funded by the Australian Government. Action was taken by the Service when further funds were cut off. Believing that the matter is now in hand my Department has funded the organisation to the end of December on the condition that this is the last funding that will be made unless the Service accounts to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General for the expenditure of the money. I think that the position is now resolved.

This private organisation, the Aboriginal Legal Service, denies any participation in the demonstration that was held in Canberra last week or any responsibility for the erection of tents in front of Parliament House. I am inclined to think that there may be some truth in this. There is a group of a few Aborigines who want to continue disputation between the Department and Aborigines, but this view is not shared by the Aboriginal community- and I have met many thousands of ordinary Aborigines over the last fortnight. This group, in the interests of continuing the disputation, has decided to erect the tents so that it may have some power base. It is unfortunate that the Australian public is inclined to accept those Aborigines who carry on such demonstrations as representative of all Aborigines. We hope to rectify this matter in the near future.

Senator Webster:

– What they did a few years ago was all right by you.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Senator Webster has a better memory than I have. In the near future we intend trying to acquaint the Australian public with the fact that Aborigines are the most peaceful, pacifist and likeable people in Australia. We intend to demonstrate this by bringing tribal leaders- real leaders of the Aboriginal people- to Canberra for the purpose of meeting the people.

page 2211

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S VISITS OVERSEAS,

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the deteriorating economic climate, with high inflation and the highest unemployment for more than 20 years, does the Prime Minister still intend to make his globe-trotting trip in the near future or does he intend to stay in Australia and attend to the problems of the nation? What will be the Prime Minister’s itinerary if he does go overseas? How long will he be away? How many overseas trips has the Prime Minister made since assuming office?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Murphy, do you wish to answer that question?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I will not go over the matters of inflation and the economic situation. I have indicated already that those problems are world wide. I think everybody in Australia accepts that there is world wide inflation. I think everybody should understand also that Australia is one of the greatest trading nations in the world. Certainly, when one compares our population with the populations of other trading nations, the trade that we have is an extremely important part of our economy. Our economic relations with other countries, not only the financial relations but the trading relations as well, are basic to our economy and prosperity. Obviously, if this nation is to maintain its prosperity and if the Government is to act properly on behalf of the people of Australia, it is necessary that Ministers and the Prime Minister regularly speak to those who are able to make decisions overseas. They must enter into trading arrangements and they must enter into financial arrangements. Obviously it is to the interests of Australia that those in charge of the Government of Australia do everything they can, in co-operation with those overseas, to see to it that we have mutually beneficial arrangements. I think that the honourable senator who asked the question would recognise on reflection that what the Ministers and the Prime Minister do when they go overseas advances the interests of Australia.

page 2212

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY COMPANY CHAIRMAN

Senator WALSH:

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister seen Sir Norman Giles ‘s report, as chairman, to Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort Ltd in which Sir Norman mentions socialism, free enterprise and a national companies Act? Does the Minister know whether the socialism of which Sir Norman disapproves would include the Government’s maintenance of the 250c floor price for wool and whether the free enterprise he eulogises includes the fraudulent company practises exposed by the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange? Does he know whether Sir Norman Giles has a propensity to mouth the loose and emotive cliches of the political propagandist?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I have noticed the publicised remarks of the knight in question. I suppose the matter might be summed up by saying that like many others of his kind he believes that one should capitalise the profits and socialise the losses. The honourable senator spoke of the wool industry. As I have mentioned before, this Government took the initiative of estabishing the security of the wool industry by means of the floor price. It is thanks to a combination of factors- good seasons, hard work and the efforts of our intelligent Minister for Agriculture- that the rural industries of Australia- apart, in fairness, from the meat industry- are enjoying conditions which can only be described as buoyant. I think it would be much better for the gentleman who made those remarks to start to assist the Government in its endeavours instead of indulging in carping cirticism.

page 2212

QUESTION

REDCLIFFS PETRO-CHEMICAL PROJECTS

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question, which I direct to the Attorney-General, concerns the report given by the committee investigating the environmental effects of the Redcliffs petrochemical project in South Australia. Is the Minister aware that it was recommended that major changes should be made to the Indenture Act which will be presented to the South Australian Parliament concerning this matter? In view of the unwillingness of the consortium to give an undertaking to the inquiry that it could meet certain emission standards, and in view of the confusion and secrecy with which the South Australian Government has surrounded the discussions, will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to give an undertaking that no Australian Government support will be given to the Redcliffs proposal until the necessary legal safeguards as recommended by the inquiry are incorporated in the South Australian legislation?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Without endorsing everything that the honourable senator has said, particularly any criticism whatever of the South Australian Government, I will put to the Prime Minister what the honourable senator has asked.

page 2212

QUESTION

PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Did the Minister for the Media yesterday address the annual conference of the Professional Musicians Union of Australia now being held at Newcastle? Is the Minister aware that this union and other unions involved in the media industries are concerned to ensure protection of their members’ wages and working condition entitlements in the event of the

Government’s deciding to establish public broadcasting stations? In other words, are the unions concerned that their conditions might be affected by well-minded amateurs using public broadcasting more in the form of a hobby than as a career? Will the Minister ensure that in considering public broadcasting the views and opinions of the trade union movement will be kept in mind?

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

– It is true that yesterday I went to Newcastle to address the annual federal conference of the Professional Musicians Union of Australia. At that conference a number of questions relating to employment opportunities for people working in the media industry generally were raised with me. One of the questions that was raised with me by the union related to the Government’s giving consideration to the introduction of public broadcasting. It was certainly not a new question raised with me for the first time only yesterday. A number of other unions have raised the issue with me- the Professional Radio Employees Institute, the Electrical Trades Union, Actors and Announcers Equity, the Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association and, on an unofficial basis, the Australian Journalists Association. I can understand and indeed have some sympathy for the attitude being expressed by those unions. They are rightly concerned to ensure the industrial protection of their members. Certainly this is something that has to be faced up to by those who are pressing for the immediate or early implementation of a system of public broadcasting in Australia.

For my part I have given an assurance to the unions that the matter is certainly not being overlooked by me or by my Department. Yesterday when the matter was raised with me I told the Professional Musicians Union that very shortly I expect to be establishing an advisory committee to tender advice to me, to my Department and to the Government on this matter and in this sphere. I undertake that when I do that, a representative of the trade union movement involved in the media industries will be made a member of the advisory committee so that he can express those views to the committee.

page 2213

QUESTION

OVERSEAS CAPITAL

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Did the Government frown upon multinational companies and foreign capital before and after it came to office in 1972? Has the Government now conceded that overseas capital is essential to give stimulus to business investment? If so, what encouragement is the Government giving to those overseas investors who have invested in Australia, some over many years, and who since the advent of this Government have been disadvantaged because of the Government’s previous policy?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I am surprised that the honourable senator would ask me such a question. He sat on the same committee as I did- the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control. Before this Government was elected to office a report was prepared by that Committee. As I recall it, except for some general reservation which was made, the Committee came up with the unanimous report dealing with the specifics of the whole question. I think the honourable senator ought to recall what was said by that Committee. It will show that his attitude to this question is quite wrong. The Government’s attitude to multi-national corporations is to treat them in such a way that we will get whatever benefits might flow from their operations and to avoid the difficulties that have arisen, whether in Australia or in other countries, from the operations of the multi-nationals. To speak of them as if they were a particular species of insect, according to whether one is for or against them, or to say that there is some hostility is an absurdity. Multi-national corporations play an enormous part in the economic life of the world. Their operations must be regarded in that way. One cannot brush them off and say that they are either good or bad. It would be quite absurd to treat these enormous corporations which so much affect the life of us all in that way.

page 2213

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Government’s adoption of Opposition policy in the economic measures announced on Sunday and to the taxation cuts to be announced by the Prime Minister tonight. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the Budget, not yet 2 months old, failed to arrest Australia’s economic decline? Do the new measures amount to a repudiation of the Government’s economic strategy?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is clear that this Government has indicated that it will from time to time take the measures which are necessary for the welfare of the community. One of the things that has been made clear, I think, by members of the Government for a number of years is that there ought not to be such an emphasis upon the document called the ‘Budget’ and that it ought not to be treated as if it were a magic document or some kind of holy writ. It is clear that in many areas there ought to be planning which extends over a number of years. It is the height of foolishness to endeavour to conduct programs on an annual basis. We already have the triennia which is operated in the educational field. Some of the programs are moveable and so plans can be made ahead for 3 years. Other countries have implemented 5, 7, and 10-year plans. What we are endeavouring to do in Australia is to plan ahead and to adapt those plans in accordance with the exigencies of the moment. This Government and any other government will continue to do that. It is time, as the Treasurer has stressed that we got away from this notion of the sacredness of the Budget and the notion that it is some magic kind of document. Instead we should look at measures which the Government would be wise to take at the moment. Whether it be taxation cuts, reduction of interest rates or whatever measures are deemed by the Government to be in the interests of the people, those measures will be introduced at a time which seems most appropriate for the welfare of the community.

page 2214

QUESTION

INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of widespread newspaper reports that the Austraiian Government proposes to abolish existing income tax deductibility of donations made to charitable organisations? Has he received submissions against this proposal from organisations carrying out a wide variety of social and charitable work, including a detailed submission dated 4 November 1974 from the Brotherhood of St Laurence in Victoria? Is he aware of the Brotherhood’s complaints that it is unable to get from the Treasurer any assurance that there will be consultation with voluntary charitable bodies before carrying out such a proposal which it estimates would lead to the loss of half of its current donations? Will the Treasurer now give an undertaking not to abolish the deductibility but to continue to support community participation in providing for social welfare needs?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I understand that the Federal Treasurer has indicated that there is no substance whatsoever in the statements which are being made by these various organisations or individuals. Obviously this is part of a campaign to confuse people. That is the whole intention of these statements. They have no foundation of truth whatsoever. These things are concocted in an effort to confuse the Australian people generally at the present time. A story is spread around and questions are asked about it. The statements are untrue and, I think, unworthy of being raised in this chamber.

page 2214

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration supply the Senate with the following information on unemployment in each State: The number of people receiving social security unemployment benefit, the number of people receiving assistance under the income maintenance scheme, the number of people involved in the national employment and training schemesometimes known as the NEAT scheme- and the total weekly cost of unemployment to Australia?

The PRESIDENT:

– This question should be placed on notice.

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Yes. The question also concerns the Minister for Social Security. I suggest that the honourable senator should place the question on notice.

page 2214

QUESTION

ABORIGINES: DEMONSTRATION IN CANBERRA

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I remind the Minister of newspaper reports that some of the Aborigines who protested outside Parliament House last week had not arranged return transport to their homes. I ask the Minister: After the demonstration were any of the Aborigines lodged in accommodation in Canberra at government expense? If so, how many, and where were they accommodated? After the demonstration were any of the Aborigines sent to the South Coast of New South Wales in taxis at government expense?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-To the best of my knowledge, no government expense at all was involved in the demonstration, other than I believe that a car from the Queensland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service was used to bring demonstrators from Brisbane. My latest information is that upon their return to Brisbane those people were dismissed by the Queensland Legal Service.

page 2214

QUESTION

OFF-SHORE OIL EXPLORATION

Senator DURACK:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the refusal of the Minister for Minerals and Energy to agree to the renewal of a number of permits for the companies drilling for oil in the off-shore areas of Australia under the Petroleum (Submerged

Lands) Act, the reason being, I gather, the uncertainty about the question of the ownership of the off-shore areas and the sea bed. Is the AttorneyGeneral aware of the fact that it does not appear that the High Court will be commencing to hear the question to determine the ownership of the continental shelf and the sea bed until early next year and that it may well be this time next year before any resolution of the question of sovereignty is made? In view of the severe effect that this uncertainty and the policy of the Minister for Minerals and Energy is having on the program of oil exploration, will the Government agree to carry on the permits under the existing legislation, or can the Attorney-General in any way expedite the High Court hearing and the resolution of the matter?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The question raised by the honourable senator is a very important one. It has given me and also the Government great concern. The fact is that there is a challenge to the legislation in the High Court. The fact is that I asked the Solicitor-General to take every step to endeavour to have the hearing of the matter expedited in the national interest.

Senator Webster:

– When did you do that?

Senator MURPHY:

-Some months ago. My recollection- and if the Senate will permit me I will depend upon my recollection now- is that a month or so ago the Solicitor-General approached the Court and indicated that it was the concurring wish of the Australian Government and the 6 States involved in the litigation that the hearing of the case be expedited. As I recall it, they wished it to be heard this year. I am given to understand that, as the honourable senator indicates, the case probably will not be heard this year but will be heard sometime next year. The Government is, of course, in the hands of the High Court of Australia as to when the matters will be heard and when any judgments will be given. But there is no doubt that in this and a number of other important constitutional cases it is quite disturbing that in the ordinary course decisions may not be given to resolve matters until a very considerable time passes. I assure the honourable senator that I will continue to do whatever can be done to have the matter resolved as soon as possible.

page 2215

QUESTION

MUNICIPAL AND SHIRE COUNCILS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that many municipal and shire councils throughout Australia are now confronting very serious financial crises which have already resulted in the reduction of staff and which will result in the sacking of thousands of workers in the weeks immediately ahead? Is he aware that due to credit restrictions many or most councils cannot raise their loan funds to support their works programs and that the Commonwealth Government has indicated that it will do nothing to assist in this regard? Is he further aware that, in spite of endless form filling and letter writing, most councils have had no positive result or help from the much-vaunted assistance plans, including area improvement, regional employment development, Australian assistance and others? Finally, does the Government understand that soaring inflation and failure of borrowing programs have wrecked local government programs at a time when such bodies should be used to re-employ many of the 200,000 unemployed in Australia and that the projected grants to local government from the Grants Commission, delayed and not yet in the hands of councils, will be hopelessly inadequate to assist even in the bare maintenance of local programs?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is astonishing to hear the honourable senator opposite criticise the Government over its financial relations with local government. If ever there was a government which tried to introduce some financial stability into local government, it is this Government. During the whole of the 23 years while the Party of which the honourable senator is a member was in government, local government asked in vain for grants from the Australian Goverment. For the first time now, local government has received such grants. This Government set about to bring local government under the aegis of the Grants Commission. The Grants Commission has listened to the cases made by local government. I understand that some 400 grants have been made. In any event, my colleagues behind me suggest that that is approximately the number, including some very large sums -

Senator Carrick:

– It is approximately 400 out. It is 800 grants.

Senator MURPHY:

-I thank the honourable senator. Some 800 grants have been made, and they have included some very substantial amounts. I do not know about delays in the payment of moneys. If that is a legitimate complaint, it will be inquired into. But I do know that this Government is the only government that listened to the pleas of local government for direct finance from the Australian Government to assist local authorities with their problems. If local governments are in difficulties my understanding is that they may again approach the Grants Commission -

Senator Carrick:

– For next year.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, for next year. I have no doubt that the scheme which this Government has introduced is the only way out of the financial mess which the previous Government left local government in. We all know what happened. Under the control of the previous Government, of which the honourable senator was a supporter, an enormous load of debt was incurred by local government with no assistance at all from the Federal Government. Instead, we saw a diminution in the relative amounts of money owed by the Australian Government and an enormous increase in the sums owed by local government. Previous governments left local government floundering in a financial mess. Now, when this Government is endeavouring to get local government out of that mess, the honourable senator criticises it. I do not think local government will listen to him.

page 2216

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Science for the period 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974. Due to the limited numbers available at this time I have arranged for reference copies of the report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2216

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– I present for the information of honourable senators a report by the Industries Assistance Commission entitled ‘Commercial Motor Vehicles, Parts and Accessories’, dated 17 September 1974.

page 2216

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present 2 reports of the Industries Assistance Commission entitled ‘Textile and Apparel Machinery etc., and Paper Making and Printing Machinery etc.’, dated 23 July 1974, and ‘Mattresses, Quilts, Eiderdowns and Cushions’, dated 23 August 1974, which were forwarded to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 15 August 1974 and 5 September 1974 respectively.

page 2216

DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE ON WILLS

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the Diplomatic Conference on Wills held in Washington DC on 16 to 26 October 1973.

page 2216

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) ACT

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

Pursuant to section 10 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-73 I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the financial year 1973-74 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.

page 2216

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

– On behalf of my colleague the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) and for the information of honourable senators I present a report prepared for the Department of Education entitled Recommendations Concerning Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory’.

page 2216

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOLS TEACHERS COLLEGES) ACT

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

– Again on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) and pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Act 1968-1972, I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the financial year 1973-74 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.

page 2216

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present 3 reports prepared for the Department of Supply entitled: ‘Central Studies Establishment Annual Report 1973-74’, ‘Defence Standards Laboratories Annual Report 1973-74’, and Aeronautical Research Laboratories Annual Report 1973-74’.

page 2216

WORKSHOP ON ABORIGINAL MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present a report prepared by the Australian Department of Health Entitled ‘Workshop on Aboriginal Medical Services; Albury, New South Wales, 5-7 July 1974’.

page 2217

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I present a report on the working and admistration of the Department of Transport including those matters on which the Minister for Transport is required to report pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1 920- 1971.

page 2217

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I bring up the third report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2217

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Overseas Trade, Dr J. F. Cairns, is attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the International Bauxite Association in Guyana and will be absent from Australia until 16 November. In his absence the Special Minister of State, Mr Lionel Bowen, is acting as Minister for Overseas Trade.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, who left Australia on 31 October to attend a meeting of iron-ore producing countries in Geneva and a meeting of the Ministerial Conference for the Economic Development of SouthEast Asia in Manila will return on 18 November. In his absence, the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, is acting as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will represent those Ministers usually represented by Senator Willesee in the Senate.

The Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, will be absent from Australia until 17 November attending a ministerial meeting of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Environment Committee in Paris. In his absence, the Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, is acting as Minister for the Environment and Conservation.

page 2217

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1974.

Social Services Bill (No. 3) 1974

page 2217

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives nominating Mr E. L. Robinson and Mr P. J. Nixon to serve as members of the Joint Committee on the disclosure of Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament.

page 2217

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Motion (by Senator James McClelland) agreed to:

That order of the day for presentation of the report of Estimates Committee A be postponed until a later hour this day.

Estimates Committee B

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B relating to the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee C

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee C relating to the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee D

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee D relating to the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings. I move: That the report be printed.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is it permissible to speak to the motion?

The PRESIDENT:

– I understand that the terms of the resolution setting up the committee system provide that the reports of the committees shall be received by the Senate without debate and their consideration deferred until consideration of the Appropriation Bills. If Senator Greenwood wishes to pursue this matter he must ask for leave of the Senate.

Senator Greenwood:

– What I would say would probably be controversial. I think it would not be proper to ask for leave if likely to flow from my asking for leave would be other people asking for leave, but I ask for leave to explain my purpose.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I appreciate the circumstances in which leave was granted. A matter arose at Estimates Committee

  1. It relates to the non-appearance in the particulars of proposed expenditure of an item of expenditure. A point may well be taken in the course of a debate upon the Appropriation Bills, particularly in the Committee ofthe Whole, that if the item is not included debate on that subject ought to be precluded. If the circumstances in which the matter is not included are that there has been a ministerial expression of opinion that Parliament is to be by-passed, the Parliament may be shut out from effectively debating the matter. I wonder whether the Minister might respond and state whether there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter. It was raised at the deliberations of Estimates Committee D. I have received a reply which I regard as totally inadequate.
The PRESIDENT:

– Does the Minister seek leave to reply?

Senator Wriedt:

– If it is necessary for me to reply.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– My understanding was that the matter to which Senator Greenwood referred concerned a statement allegedly made by a Minister. Senator Greenwood raised it during the course of hearings of Estimates Committee D. My understanding was that there would be an opportunity in the Senate or the Committee of the Whole for the matter to be pursued if he so desired. I would have assumed that would have been the normal procedure. I am not in a position to say whether that is so. I must say, in fairness, that Senator Greenwood indicated the possibility of his raising the matter again in the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee E

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee E relating to the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee F

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee F relating to the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard record ofthe Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee G

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee G relating to the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2218

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I speak on the first reading of this Bill in order to take the opportunity which I sought to avail myself of a short while ago. I do so for fear that there may be some disability in doing it at any later stage. The purpose of my rising is to refer to a statement which first came to knowledge in Australia on 7 October. It was a statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) when he was passing through Singapore on 6 October and my report derives from one correspondent whose article appeared in both the ‘Australian Financial Review’ and the Melbourne ‘Age’. The writer is a Mr Michael Richardson who would be known to a number of persons in Parliament because for a period of time he was attached to the Press gallery here. The reported statement by Dr J. F. Cairns in Singapore has not been denied from my reading of the newspapers, by Dr Cairns or by anybody on his behalf. It was questioned in Estimates Committee D whether one should rely to a newspaper report but in the reply I subsequently received from Senator Wriedt there was no denial of the allegations which were contained in the newspaper report. One might go further and say that Senator Wriedt ‘s letter to the Chairman of the Committee, a copy of which has been forwarded to me, indicates that there is basis for the view held by Dr Cairns. The report in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ states:

The Australian Government is charting a new and controversial course in political management with a plan to bypass Parliament in setting up an overseas trading corporation- an enterprise that will put the Government into business as an exporter and importer

It intends taking this radical step to prevent the Opposition in the Senate from blocking or tampering with the Bill that would otherwise be required to establish the corporation.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, said yesterday the Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, was studying alternatives to the passage of legislation through Parliament.

The very fact that such a move is under consideration indicates the depth of pent-up impatience in the top echelons of the Labor ministry with the parliamentary process as presently constituted in Australia.

Leaving out one paragraph the report continued:

He said-

And the reference is to Dr Cairns- he believed it was ‘a waste of time’ to try to establish the overseas trading corporation by legislative enactment because of the way the Senate had treated the Bill to set up the Government-sponsored Australian Industry Development Corporation.

He said the proposal to invoke the Federal trade power and use the provisions of the Companies Act in the Australian Capital Territory in order to found the corporation and have it in operation by next year was not yet a definite decision. ‘ But it ‘s pretty close to it, ‘ he added.

The other paragraph I wished to read from the report contains the following comment by Mr Richardson:

Disclosure of the studies into ways of circumventing Parliament casts a number of far-reaching doubts over principles whose acceptance has been at the heart of Australian parliamentary democracy based on the party system and the electoral mandate.

I find it strange that there has not been more concern expressed by commentators or by parliamentarians about the implications of what Dr Cairns has said. In times of stress or, as the author of the article writes, ‘in times when there is an impatience with the parliamentary process’, the way of the authoritarian becomes much more acceptable. To have the Deputy Prime Minister of this country openly indicating that it is pretty close to being accepted that Parliament will be by-passed in order to achieve a policy objective is tantamount to adopting the attitude that Parliament does not matter any more. I think that this is a matter which ought not go without some mention.

I raised the matter by question to Senator Wriedt, the Minister for Agriculture, during the hearings of Estimates Committee D and I ascertained a number of interesting facts. The first is that the Minister said that it was a definite Cabinet decision that this corporation was to be established. The second point was that there was no item of proposed expenditure contained in the appropriations with respect to this particular corporation, although I recognise that it was suggested, and I would have thought it is probably the case, that the decision was made after the appropriation estimates had been prepared for that year. But as far as the future is concerned, the only hope one can express is that there will be contained in the Supplementary Estimates some proposed expenditure for this matter. At that stage, of course, there may well be a fait accompli and if a company is established under the Companies Act it is more than likely that there will be no item of expenditure required out of government in the appropriation Bills, whether they be the annual appropriations or the supplementary appropriations, for that company.

This to me raises serious questions which ought to concern the Senate because it is only in this place that we can devote the time and some attention to the ramifications of what is proposed. This particular instance of by-passing Parliament has a publicity attached to it which makes it all the more significant. There have been other instances in the lifetime of this present Government in which Parliament has been by-passed and there has been no boasting of the fact that the parliamentary processes are being ignored. Doubtless, in discussion of other estimates, mention will be made of the way in which without one word of parliamentary approval as to how the money is to be expended some $12m is now available for legal aid. Again without one word of parliamentary approval as to how the money is to be expended, there is a sum of money for the Australian assistance program. There has been an expenditure by the Commonwealth of vast sums of money on the purchase of land and it would be very difficult to see how such purchases of land could be for any Commonwealth purposes. There have been, of course, the efforts- I would regard them as strained attempts- to invoke a Commonwealth power to justify legislation where on the face of it there is no Commonwealth power, but that is a matter of by-passing the Constitution for which ultimately the High Court of Australia is the guardian. In terms of by-passing the Parliament and not submitting to parliamentary approval legislation for the dispensing of money, only Parliament can raise its voice to protect its processes and the purposes for which the institution is founded.

I asked a question this morning of Senator Bishop, the Postmaster-General, about the way in which some persons who are unemployed receive $31 a week and others who are unemployed receive for 6 months whatever was their average wage over the previous 6 months. There is no parliamentary enactment which determines what criteria are to be applied. It would seem it initially is up to a government officer, or ultimately the Minister concerned, to decide whether a person is to be a fortunate recipient when he is unemployed or whether he is simply to receive the basic rninimum of $3 1 plus the $20 for his wife. These are matters which ought to concern the Parliament. I rise solely to raise my voice and suggest that these matters ought not go without mention. The bypassing of Parliament is effectively the course which the authoritarianthe dictator- will always use. I think that the tendency we are seeing on the part of the Australian Labor Party to bypass the Parliament is frightening in its implications. I hope that there are within the Labor Party parliamentarians who will object to being shut out from the decisions which a few Ministers or the whole Cabinet happen to be making.

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

– This attitude being adopted by the honourable senator is different from the attitude he adopted on the Australian Film Commission Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not see that there is any difference whatever. The Minister introduced his Film Commission Bill. He asked for parliamentary approval. At the moment Parliament is operating in regard to its consideration of that Bill as Parliament should operate. Views have been expressed different from the Minister’s views, and ultimately it may be that a Bill will emerge which will be satisfying to everybody concerned, because the parliamentary process has not yet been completed. In a sense I am indebted to the Minister for his interjection because the contrast in the way in which he dealt with his Film Commission Bill in submitting it to Parliament and the way in which other matters have been dealt with is quite striking. The bypassing of Parliament undermines the whole concept of parliamentary democracy. It breaks down essentially the rule of law. One ought to recall and accept that laws are accepted in our community because they are passed by the Parliament, because Parliament is the place where power legitimately resides. To bypass the Parliament weakens the whole basis of law.

Dr Cairns ‘s statement, as reported by Mr Richardson, that it would be a waste of time to bring forward legislation, implies not only that the Senate is a waste of time but also that the whole of Parliament is a waste of time. I can only regret that from another angle we are seeing in Dr Cairns the same attitude as he expressed in 1970- that Parliament is only one of the places where power can be expressed. I hope that this Parliament will not accept easily the bypassing of its processes or the emergence of other areas of power which can claim the same legitimacy as this Parliament.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-! speak in relation to this Bill and I draw attention to the report of Senate Estimates Committee D.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator will not be able to refer to Estimates Committees reports during this debate. After this debate is concluded on the Appropriation Bills he may discuss the reports and their provisions.

Senator WEBSTER:

-I think that I can discuss anything that I like on this Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– I remind Senator Webster that the reports from the Committees shall be received by the Senate without debate and their consideration deferred until consideration of the Appropriation Bills. We are considering the Appropriation Bills at the moment and I must act according to that provision. If Senator Webster wishes to speak on the first reading on any matter other than this one he is entitled to do so.

Senator WEBSTER:

-I thought this was the Bill.

Senator Greenwood:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. I must say that I spoke on a matter which arose from Estimates Committee D. I spoke on 2 grounds: Firstly, the Standing Orders permit debate on a first reading on matters relevant or irrelevant to the Bill: and secondly, on the resolution to which you have just referred, consideration of the reports is deferred until consideration of the Appropriation Bills. We are now considering the first reading of the Appropriation Bills. I would have thought that in those circumstances it would be unfair that I was able to speak, as I thought legitimately, yet Senator Webster was denied.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Greenwood did refer to Estimates Committee D but not to the subject matter of the report. I ask Senator Webster to bear that in mind if he wishes to speak to the first reading. The report itself will be discussed in the Committee of the Whole later on. You are entitled, Senator Webster, to cover any ground you wish to cover in the first reading stage of this debate.

Senator WEBSTER:

-I believe it is my right, as a senator, to speak on any matter I wish to speak on in the first reading stage of this Bill. I will defer to your view and I will speak to the matter during the second reading debate.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I rise to speak on the first reading ofthe Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974. I am rising to speak on 3 matters. Under standing order 190 I believe that I am entitled to speak on matters relevant or not relevant to the Bill. I want to refer to 3 matters relating to pharmaceutical products in Australia. These relate to the supply and availability of insecticide to fight the present plague of the spur-throated locust and to 2 matters of pharmaceutical benefits. Last week I sent a telegram to the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) concerning the availability of insecticide in Australia to fight the present plague of the spurthroated locust. Honourable senators will remember that the locust in question is normally found in Queensland but has recently crossed the border into sunny New South Wales. They are now advancing on the town of Walgett and on the wheat crop in that area which is ready for harvesting. The problem with this particular locust is that it can be attacked only by certain kinds of insecticide. These insecticides are Diazanon and Folithion- 2 products which are not manufactured in Australia. Both of these insecticides are imported into this country from raw materials prepared in Switzerland or in Japan. The situation is that even if the Government moves now- I remind honourable senators that Senator Martin has spoken on a number of occasions regarding this locust and the damage it is doing- there are inadequate supplies of insecticide in Australia to enable this locust plague to be fought effectively.

I have checked with the 2 drug companies involved and have been told that at the moment they are out of insecticide and that no supplies are expected in the near future. Knowing this, I took the opportunity to look into the question of how the insecticide was being imported and what the world situation was. As a result of these inquiries I sent a telegram to the Minister for Agriculture last week impressing upon him the urgency of the situation and asking the Government, as a matter of urgency, to try to make some approaches on a government to government basis. The situation is that the drug companies in Switzerland and Japan are not at present able to promise Australia the adequate supplies we need to make up the insecticide to fight the plague. The situation is quite simply that we may be in a position where we cannot take effective action.

I understand that South Australia- it is that State’s good fortune- has some kind of stockpile and it may be possible to get a loan from South Australia. I understand that a ship is on its way to Australia containing some of the raw material but that the normal unloading time in the port of Sydney is anything up to 6 weeks. I have asked the Minister for Agriculture to consider, as a matter of grave urgency, taking some positive action to put in the hands of the growers the insecticide they need. This may require a direct approach to the governments of Switzerland or Japan asking them to use their good offices. It may involve an approach by the Government to the drug companies.

Senator Wriedt:

– It all has been done.

Senator BAUME:

– It had not been done last week according to the drug companies, lt may involve a special appeal to unions in Australia which, if they understood the situation, might make special efforts to expedite the unloading of this material when it reaches Australia.

The wheat growers in the Walgett area in the north west of New South Wales are most concerned. They are very much in need of a good wheat crop this year and they are very concerned that these locusts will get out of hand. These locusts have a life cycle which is such that if the insecticide is not made available soon they will commence the egg-laying phase of their life and at that stage we will have the locust established in New South Wales. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance to the people of New South Wales not only that he will make moves to obtain this insecticide but that the insecticide will be available and will be available in adequate amounts. To date I have received no reply to my telegram. Perhaps it has not been possible to provide a reply in the week’s recess. I hope that we can get some effective action because many people are very concerned.

The other 2 matters on which I wish to speak concern a drug and a therapeutic appliance used for human beings in Australia, both of which have come under some kind of suspicion. I raise with the Senate the question of the mechanism that we are using to warn the public when dangers apparently rise from the use of therapeutic substances. One of them is an intra-uterine contraceptive device and the other is a drug. In each case the problem is similar from the point of view of the users. First, I draw attention to the fact that in October 1974 the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee circularised all doctors in Australia, drawing attention to a possible association between the use of a drug and the development of cancer of the breast in women. This is a very serious matter. Cancer of the breast is a common disease which carries with it considerable mortality. There appears to be some evidence to indicate that a drug which is being used in Australia has some causal relationship to an increasing incidence of breast cancer. I will read to the Senate parts of the letter from the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee because the matter is important. The letter is signed by Sir

William Morrow who is Chairman of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. He would be one of the most respected physicians in Australia. He is a man whose opinion and judgment are beyond question. The letter states:

The association between carcinoma of the breast and the use of rauwolfia derivatives- rauwolfia is the name of the drug - detected by the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program was also found in surveys from the United Kingdom and Finland. The fact that the association was shown in 3 different sets of data enhances the likelihood of a causal relationship.

We have a situation where in 3 countries it has been possible to raise the suspicion that people using rauwolfia drugs may be more than usually prone to develop breast cancer. This is a matter of the utmost seriousness and importance. As I have said, this is a particular kind of tumour which occurs with great frequency in Australia. It is the cause of much distress and considerable mortality among Australian women. The final paragraph of the letter which Sir William Morrow sent to all doctors in Australia reads as follows:

With the above reservations, the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee does not recommend the withdrawal of rauwolfia derivatives. It considers continued surveillance necessary and suggests that medical practitioners should review the role of rauwolfia in the anti-hypertensive regimen of individual patients since alternative drugs are available.

The situation is that rauwolfia- honourable senators might know it as reserpine or various other proprietary drugs- is a simple form of blood pressure lowering pill. But it is neither unique in its action nor indispensable to the practice of medicine today. If it were unique or indispensable we would have a situation where we might have to say that we had to balance the advantages of continuing to use the drug and the disadvantages of continuing to use it and perhaps running the risk of causing this malignancy. The situation we have, though, is that other drugs will do the job perfectly well. It is possible to treat people with hypertension without using rauwolfia. It is possible to give perfectly good medical care without ever resorting to this drug.

I would be the first to admit that for many years in my management of patients who have had high blood pressure I have used rauwolfia drugs, and have been pleased to use them. Such drugs have been very effective. They have been safe in other ways and such side effects as they have are well known and easily recognisable. But I would wonder why if we have a situation in which there is even a hint that a drug used for the treatment of a common condition and a drug not unique in its properties might be causing cancer or might be contributing to cancer in Australian women we do not seek the voluntary withdrawal of the drug by the appropriate drug company until the facts are known. I do not want to disadvantage the drug company concerned. I feel that it may be more disadvantaged if it does not withdraw the drug from sale.

We have had 3 lots of studies from 3 countries in the world. The studies have been conducted in the United States of America at Boston under the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program, in Finland and in the United Kingdom. All of these studies have been published in a most reputable medical journal, the ‘Lancet’. There is even a suggestion from those studies that there is a possible association between a common cancer in women and a drug used for a condition for which other treatment could be effective. I wonder how we as a society can continue to recommend the use of this drug and to recommend its use and availability on the pharmaceutical benefits list. Surely action is called for at this stage to have the drug withdrawn voluntarily and to have the drug taken off the market by the manufacturers. Preferably, the Government should approach the company concerned and put to it that this is the proper thing to do until we are able to carry out the kinds of studies that will establish whether or not this relationship is a proven one.

We did not hesitate when the question of cyclamates- artificial sweeteners- was brought up. The Government approached the manufacturer of cyclamates and in a voluntary fashion the availability of cyclamates in Australia was limited. This was done because there had been a suggestion that they were associated with the development of a certain type of cancer. If it is good enough to follow that course with cyclamates, surely it is more important when we are dealing with an anti-hypertensive drug, a widely used and very well known agent, that not only should we draw the position to the attention of members of the medical profession but also we should draw the position to the attention of the whole community. One of the reasons that I have risen to speak about this preparation is that, although I think it is admirable that the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee has circularised the medical profession and doubtless it has circularised the pharmaceutical industry, I doubt whether the Australian public has been informed. I suppose it is fair to say that when a decision is being made as to the way this drug should be prescribed the consumer might well be given some say in the decision. We should emphasise to people that other drugs are available. This drug may well prove to be safe. It may be impossible to prove beyond doubt that this association does exist. But we have a letter issued on 25 October 1974 from this most reputable body in Australia stating that it is worried that there may be an association and yet not recommending any kind of withdrawal of the drug.

I would hope that the Government would have another look at the situation and that it would see its way clear to approach the drug company and to ask it whether it does not think it has a responsibility to set up the studies which might be needed to help clarify this issue and whether in the meantime that company does not have some responsibility in regard to the availability of the drug. We might certainly want to take some measures regarding continued availability of the drug on the pharmaceutical benefits list. I add at this point that the kind of study which might be necessary to prove conclusively whether the drug is guilty or innocent may be very difficult to carry out. It may be necessary to do cohort studies, that is, studies of people of certain ages, in an on-going fashion. This may take a number of years. But we have had other examples in the pharmaceutical industry over the last few years of drugs being brought under suspicion. In such cases, pending the resolution of that suspicion, the companies involved have taken it upon themselves voluntarily to limit the availability or sale of the product.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator BAUME:

-Mr President, before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was discussing 3 matters of importance, one of which is the availability of insecticide to enable us to fight the plague of spur throated locusts in New South Wales. I remind the Senate that I then moved on to discuss the potential danger from the use of rauwolfia drugs and the point I was making before the sitting was suspended is that the public has a right to know whether any dangers exist from the use of particular therapeutic substances. Members of the public have a right to know whether they wish to use that substance or wish to express an opinion to their doctor. A third therapeutic substance which I want to discuss is a form of intra-uterine conceptive device.

As the Senate will know these devices are small pieces of material which are inserted inside the womb of a female to prevent the birth of children. The device functions as a form of contraceptive although, in fact, it is an agent which produces very early abortions. It is a widespread form of birth control and it is being used more and more widely. The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee has again issued a letter of warning. On this occasion, as far as I can tell, it is undated. In the letter the Committee raises some doubts about one of the forms of intra-uterine contraceptive device. I mention that there are several such preparations. Some of them are favoured by some doctors and some by other doctors. I shall read parts of the letter because it raises the same kind of question in relation to how the public safety is best protected. This letter is signed by Sir William Morrow on behalf of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee and reads as follows:

Dear Doctor,

Septic Mid-trimester Abortion

The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee has been made aware of several cases of septic mid-trimester abortion which have occurred in this country in association with the Dalkon Shield intra-uterine contraceptive device. This complication was first recognised in America where the manufacturer has voluntarily suspended sales of the device pending elucidation of the potential hazard.

The letter then goes on to list information which the Committee would like to gather from Australian doctors to get a true picture of this hazard, whether it is occurring frequently and how widespread and severe it is.

Senator Wheeldon:

– To whom is this letter addressed?

Senator BAUME:

– It is sent to every doctor in Australia. Before lunch we were discussing another letter which had been sent to every doctor in Australia. As a registered doctor I received this letter, in company with every other medical practitioner in Australia. I am bringing it to the attention of the Senate in that light. It is a letter which has been made public. We have a situation where the medical profession has been made aware of a possible complication from a particular intra-uterine contraceptive device which is only one of a number of available devices.

Several points come out of this letter. The first point is that some cases of this complication have been reported in Australia. The letter makes that clear. The second point is that the complication was first recognised in the United States of America. I took the trouble to telephone some gynaecologists whom I know and who are experts in these matters to learn from them their assessment of the situation and how serious it is. They confirmed for me that there is no doubt that there have been a number of quite serious complications in people who have this form of intra-uterine contraceptive device fitted. In the United States of America 6 deaths were reported to the Food and Drug Administration which is the authority responsible for regulating therapeutic substances in the United States. It was the American FDA which first alerted the Australian authorities.

It is not at all certain that the American experience can be blamed with certainty on this device. I return to the statement which I made earlier on the rauwolfia drugs. We are dealing with a suspicion, but a reasonable suspicion, against a therapeutic substance. In Australia most specialist gynaecologists who are fitting an IUCD- an intra-uterine contraceptive device- now are not fitting this type. What concerns me is to raise with the Senate the question at what stage the public should be made aware that there is a possible complication because the complication raised in this letter- septic mid-trimester abortionis a very serious one. It is an extremely serious time of any pregnancy for abortion to occur. Septic abortion, when it occurs, is always a very serious complication and potentially fatal. If doctors decide that they should be using intrauterine contraceptive device? they may Stil do so without using this preparation. As the company involved has voluntarily suspended sales of the device in the United States, why has it not suspended sales in this country? What is the virtue in protecting the women of the United States of America and not offering the same protection to the women of Australia?

Senator Primmer:

– Out of sight, out of mind, does the honourable senator think?

Senator BAUME:

– I think the company would be quite amenable to an approach from the Drug Evaluation Committee for a voluntary removal of this product from sale. But I think it would not hurt if we prodded the company a little. I know the company involved. As far as I know it has very high ethical standards and its products enjoy a reputation as very reputable substances. But here we have a situation where we are being warned by the Drug Evaluation Committee of a complication which could mean the death of women. It is the kind of contraceptive arrangement which is often used for women who cannot afford to use the oral contraceptive pill. It is the kind of complication which, if neglected, could lead to the death of these women. I think it appropriate under these circumstances for the company to apply to Australia the same kind of standards that it has applied in the United States and that is to withdraw the substance, to clarify the situation, to find whether this is a true complication of the apparatus and, if it is a complication, to withdraw it completely. In fact, if it is good enough to take this product off the market in the United States there is no real justification for keeping it on the market here. I think this is a moral question for the company to face. It is a fact that the company has been trying to let the doctors of Australia know that this possible complication exists, but I feel we could well go further and not only let the doctors know but also make the public aware that one device is possibly hazardous. We should let women have part of the say when they attend a doctor and when a choice is made of a proper contraceptive device for them.

In relation to these 3 matters I am concerned to hear from the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) what can be done to ensure supplies of insecticide to fight the locusts. I am anxious to hear from the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham), what we will do about the drug rauwolfia, especially since there has been a suggestion of an association between the use of rauwolfia and breast cancer. I am concerned to hear from the same Minister what out attitude will be towards the use of the Dalkon shield intra-uterine contraceptive device. I think these are all matters of public importance which could well occupy the attention of the Senate.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

– I rise to speak briefly on the subject of locusts. On 2 occasions in this Senate I have asked questions of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) on the subject of aid to the States to combat the locust plague. The answer generally has been that the Australian Agricultural Council decided, in its wisdom, that the money that was available would be used to combat one particular species of locust and that the Federal Government could do nothing about that; and furthermore that the Australian Government by providing the assistance of the Army had already contributed some aid to Queensland to combat the locust plague.

I wish to draw to the attention of the Senate the problem as it exists in Queensland, and as I believe it is extending to other States, in respect of 2 types of locusts. These are the spur-throated locust and the migratory locust. For some reason it always affords certain senators some amusement when we start to talk about the spurthroated locust and the migratory locust. I must assure the Senate most earnestly that these locusts are affording wheat farmers no amusement at all. There is at present a very pedantic distinction drawn as to which types of locusts should attract aid from the Federal coffers as well as the State coffers.

The general situation in Queensland is that the spur-throated locust has been a threat in southern Queensland and is now also a threat in New South Wales. The migratory locust has been a big threat in central Queensland. The plagues of these different species have generally occurred at different times of the year. At this time of the year the spur-throated locust is at its worst, and in the early months of the year- the summer season- the migratory locust in central Queensland goes into its pattern of destruction.

I asked a question of the Minister about this matter on 17 October pointing out to him that the spur-throated locust was not now just a major problem in Queensland alone; it had also become a major problem in New South Wales. In reply to the question he said that the Federal Government would give some consideration to extending aid to combat this kind of locust. Since then a new threat has developed in Queensland. As a result of extraordinary winds, very large swarms of the spur-throated locust have been blown into central Queensland. This type of locust is now threatening crops in central Queensland as well as crops in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. The grain farmers in central Queensland who now have this additional problem of the spurthroated locust know that they have yet to face the problems that will be upon them with the expected migratory locust plague early next year.

The decision of the Australian Agricultural Council was that only the species called the Australian Plague Locust would attract aid. I would like to read to the Senate a copy of a telegram on this subject which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) by the Premier of Queensland (Mr Bjelke-Petersen) requesting a change in this policy. This is the message which was referred to by the Minister for Agriculture on 17 October. I think that the facts in this telegram are highly important. By virtue of the fact that since then the threat has developed even further than it was expected at that time shows just how urgent the problem is for the Australian grain grower. The Premier’s message reads:

The worst migratory and spur-throated locust plague in forty years continues to threaten the central and southern Queensland cropping area. The estimated value of summer crops at risk is approximately sixty-five million dollars.

I interpose to say that with the phenomenon of the spur-throated locust being distributed more recently in large numbers in central Queensland, the estimated value of crops at risk is now up to $ 1 50m. The telegram continues:

Spur-throated locust plagues are now attacking wheat crops in the St George district and moving south and east.

Plagues are also located in northern New South Wales adjacent to the Balonne shire. Swarms cover an estimated two hundred thousand acres. Infestations are now present in Murilla Bendemere, Warroo, Bungil, Tara and Waggamba shires. All summer crop plantings are threatened and new generations must be attacked as they hatch.

In addition the migratory locust threat also develops. Egg beds and hatchings are numerous in the Taroom, Bungil, Booringa and Warroo shires. Migratory locusts pose the most serious threat. It is expected that four generations will build up and move south and east.

These are the ones that have traditionally been a problem in central Queensland. The telegram continues:

The last generation population build up would coincide with late summer crops in 1974-75 season. The pest can best be tackled in the early nymphal band situation given sufficient manpower, spray facilities, chemicals and finance. In addition, migratory locusts again threaten areas of central Queensland with generation multiplication problems of at least the same magnitude as last season expected.

I cannot accept that the variety of the species should be the factor which determines the question of Commonwealth Government financial assistance. I would expect that the prime consideration should be necessity to ensure that crops are protected from pests of this nature which can result only in economic hardship to those primary producers so affected.

A locust control co-ordinating committee has been set up at Roma to attack the problem near south western region of the state. The organisation is considered adequate for central Queensland districts.

In other words, the organisation is there to attack the problem if the finance is forthcoming. The telegram goes on:

Insofar as financial assistance is concerned graingrowers are contributing to a fund and my Government is contributing with funds and staff. Local authorities are also participating.

As an indication of the magnitude of the problem it is estimated that total expenditure to control the menace could reach two million dollars or three per cent of the gross value of summer crops. Additional state funds are just not available on this scale.

To protect crops in Queensland and affected areas in New South Wales I would therefore ask your Government to give immediate tangible recognition to the problem by way of substantial financial assistance towards the campaign against the locust plague.

In statements that have been made on this matteras I have said, to date I have had the opportunity only to ask questions not actually to speak on this- there have been fairly strong implications that the Queensland State Government was not playing its role in this. In fact, in the last financial year the Queensland Government spent more than $500,000 of its own money. There was also a very substantial contribution from the growers themselves in various ways. Before the problem unexpectedly expanded enormously it was estimated that $2m would be required to combat the locusts which makes this, I think, something of national importance.

Some assistance was given last year by the Australian Army but I think the public has been misled about just what was involved. As I under.tand it, the Australian Government made available to the grain growers of central Queensland or to the State Government certain Army personnel and equipment on the condition that the State Government, or whoever, should pay the cost of relocating the Army personnel and supporting them while they were in the area. The people who were concerned about the plaguethe State Government and the local producersalso had to provide all the insecticides and all the other equipment necessary for aerial spraying. The State Government and the growers have incurred enormous expenses. While undoubtedly they are very grateful to the Army for providing the manpower which meant they did not have to seek additional men who could not be found at the time and also for providing the equipment, in a rather limited sense one must admit, nevertheless it was not an overly generous gesture.

I think the time is ripe now for us to look at this thing fairly. The fact is that the Government has no compunction at all about telling Queensland how it should attend to all sorts of things like health and roads. In Queensland we are expecting a lot of gratuitous advice from the Prime Minister over the next few weekends leading up to our State election. This Federal Government has had no compunction at all in determining these enormously important areas and in determining where the hospitals will go, where the roads will go and what the priorities are even though they may not be the priorities of Queenslanders. Given that, I suggest that it is just a little hypocritical for the Government to say that locusts are a State problem, that we have State boundaries and the State Government should therefore bear the whole burden. It is very nice to be able to decide where popular things like hospitals should go and to be able to opt out of the unpopular things like killing locusts of whatever species.

I plead with the Government to consider, in the terms the Minister has indicated he would in his answer to my latest question on this matter, very seriously and very urgently this appeal from Queensland for assistance to combat these other types of locusts. The Minister has said, I think on every occasion, that the decision to confine the aid that was made available last year to combat the Australian plague locust was a decision ofthe Australian Agricultural Council. I must say as plainly as I can to the Minister that he knows very well that the Federal Government has a very large influence on the decisions that are made by the Australian Agricultural Council. If the Federal Government wishes to give money for this purpose it can give it regardless of the decisions of the Australian Agricultural Council. It can indeed put very heavy pressure on the Australian Agricultural Council to that end, if it so chooses. State government elections and State and Federal friction apart, we must remember that a large number of primary producers who have worked hard are threatened now by a natural phenomenon and must be assisted. We cannot just sit back and let these crops, which are immensely valuable to Australia and, we hear day after day, to the world with its present food shortage, go to waste while these petty little points are argued. I appeal to the Minister as strongly as I can to hasten the decision by the Federal Government to give assistance for the eradication of locusts wherever they are a major problem to primary producers.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I speak upon a growing practice by the Government, specifically by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy), of seeking an alibi for inflation by claiming that in Australia all our woes arise from the importation of inflation. It seems to me that the Leader of the Government now has one tune that he sings in answer to every question at question time. He blames the importation of inflation for the evils that have beset this country since the Australian Labor Party came to office. I wish to place briefly on record these facts: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, whose findings, I believe, both the Government and the Opposition accept, had on record that throughout the 1950s and the 1960s, for some 17 years, Australia had the lowest rate of inflation of any industrialised country in the free world. Australia was subject to pressures from the outside world during that time, and inflation was imported during that time. Under a Liberal Government inflation ran at the lowest level in the industrialised world. So we start from quite a clear point of view. It is possible to protect Australia from imported inflation. During that time in Canada, England and America inflation ran at something between 6 per cent and 8 per cent while in Australia it ran at an average of 2.5 per cent. So it was possible to stop its importation.

Let me test this matter about which Senator Murphy has been very verbose. Firstly, we measure inflation by the consumer price indexthe CPI. Almost all the ingredients in that index are goods, services or commodities that originate in Australia. Incidentally, those that do not are for the large part, commodities which have suffered from the tariff cuts of the Government and are therefore affected by importations. These include footwear, clothing, furniture and items of that nature. We have an extraordinary situation. On the one hand the Government says that if goods are brought in from overseas inflation is imported. On the other hand, it says: ‘We cut tariffs by 25 per cent so we could buy goods cheaper overseas than we could make them in Australia.’ Even Senator Murphy in seeking every day to delay question time with his little essays cannot co-relate these 2 things- that we cut tariffs to get goods such as footwear, clothing, furniture and automobiles cheaper from overseas and yet somehow or other when we import these goods we are importing inflation. That takes a little unravelling.

About 80 per cent of all the goods, services and commodities in Australia have absolutely no direct or indirect connection with the influence of prices overseas. The residual 20 per cent are not all goods or services that are imported but they are also those that are affected by trade because clearly such commodities as wheat or wool take their character from the costs of international trade as well as from the local market. So 80 per cent of all items registered to make up our prices are Australian in origin. Yet Senator Murphy says that we import inflation. If it were dearer to import from overseas than to produce in Australiaif Australian costs were lower in generation than those overseas- clearly we would not need tariff barriers. One could tell that to the textile workers, the clothing workers or the automotive workers. The tariff barriers stand as proof that at this moment those industries inside them are producing goods dearer than they can be produced overseas.

I think that even Senator Murphy must have heard an extraordinary change in argument by his Government over recent months because until 6 months ago the Government argued that inflation was caused in Australia and was caused by profit. In other words, the Government and Senator Murphy said it was a demand inflation caused by excessive profits put on by Australian manufacturers. This was the story for the first 14 months of this Government- not that we had imported inflation at all but that high prices were due to profits. The Government had its little day with the Prices Justification Tribunal, then it changed its tune. It agreed with the Opposition that the fundamental cause of inflation in Australia, as articulated by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and every other Minister, was cost-push- the frenzied chasing of nominal wages to overtake prices. Nominal wages went up because of over award demands. The Government said: ‘If we could control over award wages we would control the main cause of inflation in Australia- cost-push.’ Let us get the situation quite clear in our mind. Let us have no more little lectures from Senator Murphy about imported inflation. During the 23 years of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government we had the lowest rate of inflation in the world and were unaffected by imported inflation. This Government cut tariffs because of its argument that by importing goods from overseas we would obtain them cheaper, and that was demonstrable. Yet it has said repeatedly that inflation in this country is caused by cost-push.

The main cause of inflation overseas is, of course, the quadrupling of oil prices in the last 6 months by the Middle East states. That has had almost no effect on Australia. Indeed, the Minister for Minerals and Energy in another place, Mr Connor, takes pride in resting on the previous Government’s record of ensuring that all automotive fuel found and refined in Australia is unaffected by overseas prices. I think that the total cost of imported heavier crudes is about $400m. It will rise of course to $ 1,200m. It is still a small figure. If we have imported inflation why have we moved from being the country with the lowest rate of inflation in the world to the country with about the second highest rate? From whom are we importing it? Are we importing it from only one country, the country with the highest rate of inflation? Let us have some logic in this kind of argument. West Germany does not seem to be besotted by this problem. Of course we look towards Japan at this moment. It has been the victim of the quadrupled oil price. Its rate of inflation exceeds ours at the moment, but we are overtaking it. The simple fact is that built into the Budget was an acknowledgement that that Budget and the forces within it would produce an inflation rate of something like 26 per cent in the financial year.

I rise on this first reading in the hope that even the Government would not have the gall in the future to use that alibi in this Parliament. Is the Government denying that tariff cuts bring cheaper goods from overseas? Is it denying its arguments on cost-push? Does it now reject the findings of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and all its figures? Does it deny that in the 1 950s and 1 960s we had the lowest inflation in the world? Does it deny that we now have the second or third highest in the world? And if we import it, how the devil is it that with something like 100 nations in the world from which to import inflation we have so concentrated on the one or two that the whole of our inflation comes from? This is absolute nonsense and it is time that the Leader of the Government in the Senate was taken to task on it. The simple fact of the matter is that the consumer price index figures are almost totally for goods and services produced in Australia. The others that are imported are largely those in respect of which the Government cut tariffs. Its pretext was to cut tariffs to get costs down. If all goods and services in Australia were taken into account we would find that 80 per cent of them were quite unaffected by the outside world.

This Government simply cannot escape the fact that by its own actions and by its own Budget it has created this situation. Incidentally, we are told that the Budget must be regarded as something which is changeable, something which we can change from time to time. The Leader of the Government in the Senate gave us a little lecture this morning and said that perhaps we ought to have a 5-year plan. My goodness! The Government cannot have even an 8-weeks plan because it is less than 7 weeks since this Budget came into the Parliament and it is to be changed radically tonight. It was changed three or four times in the course of that 7 weeks. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no such long range plan and by its own actions in the Budget the Government has caused inflation. Let me fist some matters, and let the Government deny them.

Was it not the Government which by its action in January last year virtually eliminated the European selective immigration scheme and cut out 50,000 workers, all of them scheduled to go into the steelworks, the building and automotive industries? Was it not the Government which had deliberately set out by that action to create over-full employment in those industries and therefore a scarcity of men and materials for those industries, a scarcity which emerged within 3 months? Was it not the Government which by that action made the simple 3-inch building nail scarce to the point where there was a 3 months delay on them? This is one effect that it had. Was it not the Government which through the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) urged upon the country the proposition that the trade unions should bypass arbitration, go in for collective bargaining and yell for and obtain above-award wages? Was it not the Government which then called upon the unions to do the very things it now says they should not do? Was it not the Government which, when the bond rate at the lowest level was still yielding sufficient money for loan funds, put up the bond rate by 2 per cent and increased interest rates to the highest they have been in Australia? Was it not the Government which switched 10,000 workers from the private sector to the public sector and thereby denuded the private sector? Was it not the Government which cut out tax incentives and subsidies to agriculture and thereby forced up the price of food? Was it not the Government which went in for the greatest credit squeeze we have seen in this country? If it set out to promote inflation that is precisely, step by step, what it would do.

Was it not the Government which in 2 years harvested 95 per cent more income tax in Australia and therefore caused an amount for tax to be built into the price of all goods and services? Was it not the Government which introduced a wide range of indirect taxes right throughout commerce and industry and forced up prices? Was it not the Government which forced the States, by denying them funds, to put up more and more indirect taxes and charges? Were these things imported? Did we import those dozen items I have listed? How could anything overseas have affected that array? It is very important that on the eve of another disastrous mini-Budget or two- God knows how manythat we should remind ourselves of 2 things: That the Government should not be allowed to get away with its alibi of importation, and it should have sheeted home to it that step by step in respect of a dozen items of deliberate action it has produced a situation where Australia today has the worst unemployment since the depression years. We have a seasonally adjusted level of 3.2 per cent. The Minister for Labor and Immigration said that he would not stay in the Government if it reached 3 per cent- and no doubt his resignation will be announced tonight. He is on record as having said that. It will be an interesting test of the ethics and morality of this Government and of the collective operations of the Cabinet to see whether a Minister, the Minister for Labor and Immigration no less, having said that he would not be prepared to associate with the Government if unemployment went beyond 3 per cent, will now announce his resignation when the current statistics show 3.2 per cent.

The Government which we are looking at now went into office saying: ‘We are the Government of full employment; we are the Government which will reduce industrial strikes.’ Yet it has the worst industrial record of any Government in history. It has forced up prices. The Government said: ‘We are the low interest rate people’. Mr Crean- I wonder where he is and whether he is still the Treasurer- said that he did not think interest rates should be more than 3 or 4 per cent, yet people are paving 14 to 16 per cent today. This morning Ministers were reminded that the Government went to the people of Australia and said: ‘We are opposed to anything but Australian ownership; we are opposed to foreign investment.’ The Government opposed it and indeed stopped it by applying a 33 per cent surcharge on imported capital. It said: ‘We are the people who believe that inflation is caused largely by the multi-nationals.’ The Leader of the Government in the Senate speaking here this morning had the gall to defend the multi-nationals when time after time when the Opposition appealed to the Government about the rise in prices the Government said: ‘It is the multi-nationals which are causing this’. Suddenly because Dr Cairns is in full flight around the world desperately looking for money the multi-nationals are good and foreign investment is good. The Government ran down overseas reserves at a time when every penny of trading money is vital to us. This Government is now trying to catch it up by chasing and begging money around the world. What an interesting thing it is that the man who says that he is going to change the system, Dr Cairns, has gone to the home of free enterprise on his knees begging for capital. This is the incredible situation with which we are faced. The people who pervert question time day after day are now speaking in double talk, putting forward a thesis the opposite of the one they put forward some 3 months, 6 months or a year ago.

I rose only to put the record straight. There is only one reason in Australia why we have this record inflation which will grow worse no matter what steps are taken tonight. The Government has destroyed investment capital in this country. There is only one reason and it lies in the deliberate policies of the Government which are aimed at shifting massive spending from the private sector to the public sector so that socialism - democratic socialism as the Government calls it- should come to this country. If honourable senators want to see the formula for that transposition let them listen to the figures for the past 10 years that I shall cite. Ten years ago, in 1964-63, the total national Budget was $4,000m, or US$4 billion. In the next 7 years until 197 1-72 on the eve of this Government taking over, the national Budget had crawled from $4,000m to nearly $8,000m. There was a gain of almost $4,000m in 7 years. In the next 3 years, mostly in the 2-year period of this Government, it went up by $8,300m. In 7 years the national Budget went up from $4,000m to $8,000m and in 3 years it rose to $16,300m. Australia has changed from a tax system whereby in 1972 we were reducing taxes to a system which this year will harvest 95 per cent more income tax. That has happened in the 2 years of this Government. This Government will harvest 46 per cent more income tax this year. Those are the reasons and do not let us have any more of this nonsense. Is not the Government willing to stand by its policies? Is not the Government willing to defend what it has done?

Senator Wriedt:

– Sit down and we will.

Senator CARRICK:

– There is a chance you will? You do not know which are your policies from day to day.

Senator Wriedt:

– Sit down. You have been going long enough. You have made your point. Give us a go.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am sorry that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) is embarrassed. It should be on record that the Minister said: ‘Sit down. You have been going long enough. You have made your point. ‘ My goodness, it is a delight to hear the recognition that we have made our point. I rose in the hope that at least in the future Government members would have sufficient honesty and sufficient sense of humour never again at question time or otherwise to get on their feet and talk such ludicrous nonsense as has been talked in recent days.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– Neither locusts nor tariffs nor 3-inch building nails fall within the ambit of my responsibilities. However, intra-uterine devices do so I shall confine myself to the matters raised by Senator Baume. If I understood him correctly- I think I did- the matter raised by him concerns the use of the drug rauwolfia which it appears has a causal relationship to breast cancer.

Senator Baume:

– It may have.

Senator WHEELDON:

– It may have a relationship to breast cancer. He referred also to the use of certain intra-uterine contraceptive devices which appear to cause septic abortions and in some cases death. The position apparently is that the National Drug Evaluation Committee has sent a circular to medical practitioners asking for any evidence they may have or any views they may have on the relationship of this drug and these devices to the unfortunate consequences to which he referred. I understood Senator Baume to be saying that there already could be sufficient evidence to make it appear that rauwolfia and these devices are unsafe and that something more should be done than just collect evidence at this stage. I can only say that my knowledge of these technical matters is considerably less than that of Senator Baume but I think that the matter he has brought up is of some national concern. I believe it has been acknowledged to be a matter of national concern by the National Drug Evaluation Committee because of the action it has taken already in corresponding with medical practitioners. I shall ask the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) to let me have a statement on the important matters raised by Senator Baume this afternoon and as soon as I have received it I shall seek leave to make a statement to the Senate so that Senator Baume and others who are interested may be informed of what position the Minister for Health takes.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– It is interesting to recall that before this Government came to power its members and supporters were very critical of the Liberal-Country Party Government because of the high rate of inflation and the concern that was being expressed about unemployment in this country. When this Government took over a very short time ago inflation was running at about 4.6 per cent and falling, and unemployment was being reduced. We were again reaching the stage of full employment. Since then we have seen a complete reversal of the whole economy of this country. We see that inflation today is running well in excess of 20 per cent. In fact inflation in Australia, a major trading country, is running at one of the highest rates of any country. There are some countries with higher rates of inflation but they are smaller countries. Japan, a big trading country, has a higher rate of inflation.

We hear excuse after excuse from this Government for why we have inflation. It is easy to see that the reason we have this great rate of inflation is the economic management and instability of this Government in this country. This Government came to power hell bent, if I may put it that way, on forcing its socialistic policies upon the Australian community and the Australian way of life. These policies were first and foremost and economic logic took a secondary place. This Government has continued in that vein the whole way through. We have seen a stop-go situation. In fact it has been worse than that. It has been a stop and full acceleration situation. So often there has been merely a panic button operation. I could refer to such things as the 25 per cent cut across the board in tariffs which virtually was an economic time bomb. Nobody knew when or where it would go off. We have seen the great unemployment that that 25 per cent cut has brought to this country today. Our unemployment figure is the highest in the history of this country and I hope we will not see it again. Nobody wishes to see the great amount of unemployment that we have. I fear what the situation will be early next year when so many young people leave school and join the work force but are unable to get jobs.

It is no good the Government making excuses, as it has done. It says that Australia has imported a lot of this inflation. No doubt international inflation does have an effect upon any country but again I remind the Senate of what the situation was not so many years ago when inflation overseas was running extremely high. We saw high inflation in the United States of America and in England. We saw high inflation in France and the same in West Germany. What was our rate of inflation at that stage? At that time we had one of the lowest rates of inflation of any major trading company. The situation today is the reverse. We are one of the leaders in the field in the international inflationary race. It is no credit to this Government, nor is it any consolation to this country, that we should be in such an unfortunate situation, one which basically has been self inflicted by the policies of this Government.

The Government completely cast aside economic logic in formulating its policies and went straight down the hill with its socialistic ideals. One can say: ‘OK, there is international inflation’. One can look to Japan where inflation is running much higher than it is in Australia. However the bulk of this inflation overseas is directly related to the energy crisis. Japan, for example, is one country which was solely dependent upon external supplies of crude oil. Hence she and many other countries were adversely affected by that situation. That did not affect Australia. We have been proudly boasting that we are 70 per cent self sufficient in oil in this country so this Government should not try to use the energy crisis as an excuse for the rate of inflation that we have today. In its first Budget, which was a disaster, the Government budgeted for a deficit to make sure that it would do the things it said it would do, irrespective of the economic situation. We saw the Government spending money like water and the well would never be pumped dry. But the well was pumped dry. Senior Ministers were themselves encouraging wage demands in this country and criticising the Opposition for daring to say on any occasion that excessive wage demands were adding to the cost push factors of inflation in this country. They tried to ridicule the Opposition for this criticism.

We noted Dr Cairns making statements implying that wage demands do not have any effect upon inflation. I wish to quote from an article in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 29 July this year. It said:

The Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, has called for substantial wage and salary increases for workers to meet the rising cost of living.

I repeat that the words ‘called for substantial wage increases ‘. Dr Cairns said:

There must be substantial wage and salary increases to allow for cost-of-living increases and for the correction of anomalies in work values and relativities.

He made that statement to the Victorian Australian Labor Party Conference on 29 July. A few days later, on 12 August, there was suddenly a big change in the attitudes of our Deputy Prime Minister. On 12 August he called for unionists to modify wage and salary demands. He said that the power to halt inflation lies elsewhere than just in other fiscal policies; inflation in the next year would be caused by wage and salary demands. Dr Cairns said:

I have to say to unions across the nation: ‘Go easy, mate.Think of those who are not as well organised as you are. Wage rises are not at the expense of the big employers but at the expense of the mothers and fathers of your comrades, and your own children. ‘

So he went on, completely contradicting what he had said a few days before and what he and other Ministers of this Government had been saying for months before. Let us turn to other areas in which this Government has completely disrupted the economy of this country by its philosophies and its attitudes. I refer to the area of overseas capital, which was regarded as dirty money. It is on record that many Ministers and supporters of the Government have condemned multi-national corporations and overseas capital for coming into this country. The Government brought in a policy of a 30 per cent freeze on overseas capital, making it at an absolute premium price for such money to come in. We have seen our wondrous Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) with his policies which have done all they can not only to discourage but also to discredit overseas investors and overseas explorers who were prepared to come into this country and do what they could to assist us in our mineral and oil exploration and development. The tragic situation is that our oil exploration has slowed right down to a bare minimum and companies have turned their backs on Australia and have gone elsewhere, for the simple reason that this Government regarded them as sinners who should go out and risk millions of dollars worth of capital and expertise to find something. Having found it, this Government would step in, put the squeeze on them in many ways and virtually take it over. That is the situation we have reached. It will take a long time to restore confidence in this country.

The Government became conscious of this situation a short time ago and so we saw the freeze reduced to a token of some 5 per cent on overseas funds. But ironically the Deputy Prime Minister- the Treasurer to be, as one would anticipate from reports in the Press- is overseas at the present time, not concerned so much with overseas trade as with hawking around the money markets of the world to see what overseas capital he can encourage to come into this country. It is just not a case of reversal of attitudes; it is a case of sheer political hypocrisy. How can any Government and any Minister- particularly a Prime Minister- in the short space of a few weeks completely reverse attitudes and go cap in hand to the very people who were not just being asked to show moderation in investment in Australia but being condemned? Yet at the present time the Deputy Prime Minister is over there pleading with them to bring their finance into this country to try to get Australia moving again. We find the same situation with private enterprise which has nearly been killed in this country because of the Government’s attitudes and policies. Liquidity has dried up to such an extent that many companies which should not have crashed have been starting to crash.

Senator Primmer:

– They were the spivs and the speculators.

Senator YOUNG:

– I take it that Senator Primmer refers to people who have invested in building societies as spivs and speculators.

Senator Primmer:

– On pretty shaky ground.

Senator YOUNG:

– There he goes. I ask him which people comprise a building society. The average citizen of this country, the multitudes are the ones who invest their money in building societies. Old people have put in their savings as well as young people wanting to build a home of their own. That is against the desires of this Government, which does not believe in private ownership of homes. It wants to force people to live in multi-storey flats and government-owned homes so that it can have control of their housing. Senator Primmer should not deny that because his Government’s Minister for Housing had to concede the point due to the attitude of the Senate. He agreed to lift the proportion of freeholding in his Housing Bill last year after pressure from the Opposition and States. This Government does not believe in free enterprise and free ownership. It has done all it can to squeeze people.

The same situation applies to people who are trying to educate their children. The Government has aimed at what it terms and thinks are the moneyed people of this country. It has done all it can to erode and destroy our private schools. The reduction from $400 to $150 a student as a taxation deduction for educational expenses is a wonderful example. But the policy has misfired because the people who have been hit are the very people whom the Labor Party says at election times it is representing and will support. I would like to remind the Senate that the people who find it the hardest to dress their children and to provide them with text books and amenities they need for their education are the average working people of this country and not the wealthy people at whom the Government has been aiming. The wealthy people do not greatly feel the reduction to $150. Those who feel it are the families where the mother and father are working and have three or four children going to high school. This Government is trying to take away the right and ability of those parents to provide their children with a choice of school and school uniform, and thus seeks to destroy the pride of the children. All children in this country are equally entitled to wear their school uniform whichever school they attend. What the Government has done is make it jolly near impossible for parents to do that.

I defy any honourable senator on the other side of the chamber to tell me that it is possible to dress high school children in school uniforms, keep them in shoes, socks or stockings, provide them with school blazers and with their text books for $150. It cannot be done. If honourable senators are not prepared to take my word for it they can go into the electorate and ask the people of this country. It ever this Government made a great political mistake it made one over the reduction of the allowance from $400 to $150. But then we can look at what has happened in other areas. We can look at the great credit squeeze created by the Government and we can look at what this Government did not do when that was on. I must give credit here to the Premier of South Australia and the Leader of the Opposition in the South Australian Parliament.

One of our building societies in South Australia during the panic period a few weeks ago, brought on by the lack of leadership of this Government, had a great run on its funds. The Premier of South Australia spoke to the people and gave them a guarantee that the particular building society concerned would not go broke.

The Leader of the Opposition in South Australia did the same thing. Politics did not come into the matter. A State-national approach came into it. People who withdrew their money from the building society that day were the next morning putting their money back into the society because they had confidence. That confidence was given to them by the leadership of the Premier of South Australia and the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia. The panic was initially brought about because of the lack of leadership and the insecurity of the economic climate created by this Government because of the ridiculous credit squeeze which was imposed upon Australia.

When companies are starting to fall can honourable senators blame the people for wondering which will be the next company to fall? In those circumstances they cannot be blamed for taking their life savings and investments out of a building society. The situation which arose in South Australia should never have happened. It is all very well for honourable senators opposite to say that spivs and speculators were involved in this matter. I do not regard people who put their life savings into a building society as spivs, nor do I regard a young couple who are saving to build a home as spivs. It might be against the policy of this Government for young couples to own their own home and their own block of land. Good luck to them. The Opposition believes that they should be able to own their own home.

I turn now to what has happened at the present time. We find- if the Press reports today are correct- that after the short space of 7 weeks we will have a mini-budget introduced tonight. It will not be a budget brought down by our official Treasurer, Mr Crean, who I think has been one of the most unfortunate and one of the most denigrated politicians to come to Canberra. With all the criticism he has had the grates have come from his own Party and from within his own ranks. At the present time we are hearing all sorts of rumours about the Treasurer. It is not the Treasurer who will be introducing this minibudget tonight. As I understand it, it will be a statement from the Prime Minister. It will probably be made in the absence of the shadow treasurer. One wonders what we will see in this mini- budget. It is only 7 weeks since the Budget was introduced. It will be interesting to see just what will be in the so-called economic policy set down by the Prime Minister tonight. I will forecast that there will be a change of philosophies involved in this mini-budget.

At last this Government is starting to wake up to the fact that if a government wants to be a socialist government it can be that kind of government but there is only one way in which it will finish up and that is downhill economically. This is what has been happening to this country. We are going downhill rapidly and it will take a long time for this country to recover. It will take a terrific time because the people of Australia have lost confidence. The people overseas who have invested money in Australia have lost confidence. One only has to look at the Budget which was brought down 7 weeks ago to see why this has happened, let alone the previous period. If one examines the area of company taxation one can see the squeeze that was put upon companies which resulted in increased prices being charged by the companies. In Australia increased prices affect everybody in the consumer field.

If one turns to the area of capital gains tax one will realise that it is not a capital gains tax in the true sense of the word. It is a capital gains tax that was set to work to kill the property owner, large or small, in this country. It is a capital gains tax which was to do everything it possibly could to destroy the initiatives, the incentives and the preparedness to invest. We find the same thing applies with the 10 per cent premium on so called unearned income. I would like someone to define for me ‘unearned income’. Are the benefits received by a person who invests his money in some society or company as risk capital to be regarded as receiving unearned income? I do not regard such benefits as unearned income. Again, what the Government has done in this area is to hurt the little people who have invested their money- the superannuitants who would like to see a little more cream on their jam. These are the people the Government is hurting. I anticipate that we might even expect something in this area tonight from the Prime Minister. I feel that this has been one of the most ridiculous policies that has been implemented in this country. The cost of collection alone would balance out a lot of the return which would be received. All the Government is doing is hurting people and killing incentives.

This Government, as Senator Carrick stated, in the short space of 2 years has had a great increase in revenue. It has doubled from some $800m to some $ 1 ,600m. This Government, during the last 2 years, has got fat on inflation because of the increase in revenue, particularly in the area of income tax. Taxation set at such levels today because of inflation has got completely out of hand and has helped to encourage wage demands in this country. The high rate of taxation proportionate to the great increases in wages is eroding much of the real income of people in Australia today. No doubt we will see something in this area announced by the Prime Minister tonight. This Government has got fat on the increased revenue. The States have got poorer and this Government has made sure that the States have got poorer and poorer for one reason- and one reason only: This Government still wishes to dominate the State scene. This Government is a centralist government and is hell bent on doing all it can to get centralism firmly established in Australia.

Senator McAuliffe:

– That is different from what the Premier of Queensland is telling the people up there. He says they have never been better off.

Senator YOUNG:

– I will mention Queensland in a minute. I will go one step further and refer to my State of South Australia in a few minutes. This Government has been giving money to the States but not by the normal type of grants. They have been making grants which are in the form of direct aid- the type of grants which the Government can push through under section 96 of the Constitution whereby the Federal Government can tell the State governments how much money they will get for their extras and how that money is to be spent. The Federal Governmentone can see this in so many of its policies- has been doing all it can to erode State authority and to bypass the State parliaments as much as possible to enable it to have total power in Canberra. This has been done by direct policies and indirectly- by the back door. It has applied section 96 of the Constitution which it has not used but rather has abused. That is the only way one can describe it. So many of the policies of this Government clearly have led to a policy of centralism and the destruction of State parliaments -not just to the erosion of State authority but to the long term destruction of the State parliaments.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I did not think that we would hear the honourable senator reflect on the Grants Commissioners.

Senator YOUNG:

– I am not reflecting on the Grants Commissioners. If Senator McAuliffe wants to misinterpret my words, he can. I am referring to section 96 of the Constitution and the way in which this Government operates under it without Grants Commissioners. If the honourable senator does not believe me he can ask some of the State Premiers. If he does not want to believe the non-Labor Premiers he can ask some of the Labor Premiers and they will give him the answers. I wish to quote what the Premier of

South Australia said on 23 October. He was referring to the Federal Labor Government and its attitude towards the States. He referred to the new taxes he had to implement- shocking taxes -such as the 6 cents service charge, as he called it, on petrol and other taxes which are all inflationary. These are the sorts of things Premiers did not want and which economists would never have done but which, by compulsion, the States have had to introduce in order to raise money. One can be critical perhaps of the States for implementing such forms of taxation but one, at the same time, has to be sympathetic because the States still have to run a budget. The States are left to administer much of this country. This Government is so miserly purely for one reason and that is to thrust its centralist policies upon the States which have no alternative but to go out into the area of revenue earning. Speaking on the implementation of certain taxes that are not good taxes, Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, said:

The taxes result from the direct and deliberate refusal of the Commonwealth Government to accept a co-ordinated policy to contain inflation.

Later Mr Dunstan stated in the Parliament:

It is important that people should feel that decisions which vitally affect them are taken close to home, where they can exercise influence, rather than thousands of miles away.

The newspaper article went on:

Like so many things that Mr Dunstan has said this week, his changing views of Australia ‘s parliamentary system will give Mr Whitlam something to think about.

This has been the change in the attitude of the Labor Premier of South Australia who can see what this centralist Government is trying to do and who has openly, on so many occasions, criticised this Government for its centralised approach and its miserly attitude towards the States.

One also has to look at what the Minister for Transport in South Australia, Mr Virgo, has said regarding grants to local councils. He has openly condemned the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and this Government for the way in which they are going about certain things in order to get control of what he considers should be a State authority. I was interested to read the headline in today’s ‘Australian’ which states: ‘Dunstan offers ‘to drop new taxes’. The article states:

South Australia’s planned consumer taxes on petrol and cigarettes to raise another $2 3 m a year will be dropped immediately if the Federal Government gives enough help to the States.

Here is one instance in which the Premier of South Australia himself is prepared to admit that the taxes that he proposes to implement are not good taxes but that he has no alternative to introducing them if the Federal Government will not give the States more money. So I hope that tonight in the mini-Budget that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) brings down we may see a little more consideration given to the States and a little less emphasis placed upon the socialistic ideologies of this Government which have led Australia down the tragic road of high inflation and led to the creation of a state of insecurity in the Australian community. I hope that this Government will show enough common sense and responsibility to realise that for 23 years Australia was run on policies that developed this country. We had development and prosperity which were the envy of so many countries. But today, because of the socialist policies of this Government, we have reached the stage not simply of stagflation but of stagnation. It will take a long while to get Australia moving again. I hope that at least this Government will put aside its corny politics and get back to a bit of economic wit and wisdom and try to do something to lead Australia along the road which it should still be taking instead of the road it has been taking for the last 2 years.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-This afternoon a number of speakers have referred to the major problems which face Australia. They have referred to the tremendous problem of unemployment and the tremendous problem of inflation. I wish to deal with another aspect which, though not as major, is I think perhaps in many ways more despicable in relation to the way in which the Government is conducting itself at the present time and the way in which it has conducted itself in the last two years. Not only has there been the rising problem of unemployment and the rising problem of inflation for the business community but also there have been the delusions under which the Government has suffered and the illusions which it has endeavoured to foist on the Australian people in the course of the suffering which they have had to endure particularly in recent months. I wish to bring before the Senate 3 examples of the type of delusion and the type of illusion perpetrated on the people and which are in the range of Government activity which I have described.

This morning I asked a question of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in his capacity as the Minister in this chamber representing the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and he gave me an answer. The question related to what I understand is something well understood in the community, that is that there is a possibility of the income tax deductibility on donations to charitable organisations being abolished. This morning I received an answer which suggested that it was a false rumour, that there was nothing in the thing at all. The Minister was indignant at the thought that this should be suggested. I am sure that I did not base the question I asked this morning nor am I basing the remarks I am now making on any sort of false conjecture at all. In fact, there has been- perhaps there is not now, I do not know- a very real threat to the donations which each year were and are given by thousands of people in their own charitable desire to help and to take an interest in a great number of organisations in this community that are doing charitable work.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Your Government would not allow ambulance expenses to be a deduction.

Senator MISSEN:

– It may not have done so.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Your Government refused it.

Senator MISSEN:

-Of course, that would be no excuse for Senator McAuliffe ‘s Government to take away the income tax deductibility on these donations, would it? A suggestion that we may have refused deductibility for some very useful expenditure is no reason for the present Government to consider taking away the income tax deductibility on all charitable bequests, and that has been the allegation made in the community for some months. I am not putting this forward just as my suggestion, because part of the basis of my question this morning was the circular from the Brotherhood of St Laurence. It is not a party political organisation; it is a fine charitable organisation in the State of Victoria. I think that honourable senators opposite must agree that it is an organisation which deserves support.

Senator Poyser:

– My wife gave 30 years of her life to it.

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA · LP

-I hope that Senator Poyser’s wife is talking to him about the subject, and I hope that it has had some effect. This organisation has written to the Treasurer again and again in an endeavour to obtain some assurance or some determination, because it says: ‘Take away the tax deductions from our donations and half of our donations will go. ‘

Senator McLaren:

– That has been denied, and you know it.

Senator MISSEN:

-I ask Senator McLaren to listen to what has been stated by the Brotherhood of St Laurence in a circular which no doubt he has received, because I think that all honourable senators have received it. In this circular the Brotherhood says that on 9 July last the Australian Council of Social Service worried about this rumour- if this was all it was- wrote to the Treasurer requesting full consultation with the agencies likely to be affected. The Brotherhood points out that the Treasurer replied on 23 July. Did he say: ‘Nothing like this is going to happen ‘? No. This is what he said:

I will bear in mind your Council ‘s offer to undertake discussions concerning the likely result of curtailing the tax concessions. However, you will understand that normal budgetary restraints will not permit me to indicate at this time whether or not the Government may be likely to review the scope of the present concessions.

If that is anything, it is certainly not no. If the Treasurer had no such suggestion in mind, and if the matter is so ridiculous, as Senator Wriedt suggested this morning, then surely that would have been the time to deny it. But no, the question was left open in that phrase which the Treasurer used. The Brotherhood drew attention to the fact that no undertaking was given that there would be any prior consultations. So on 3 September Mr David Scott, President of the Australian Council of Social Service, wrote again to the Treasurer seeking assurances. On 2 October the Minister assisting the Treasurer replied that the Government ‘shall keep in mind the suggestion of prior discussions with representatives of voluntary organisations such as yours’. Not satisfied with that the Australian Council of Social Service wrote to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) in order to ascertain whether he had any idea on the matter. His reply was:

No such policy was implemented in either of our 2 Budgets and I am not aware of any intention to introduce it in a future Budget.

In all of that correspondence over many months, nowhere is the assurance given that this very excellent concession will not be abolished. I believe that its abolition would be worth only about $13m to the Government. In considering the tremendous importance of the excellent charitable intentions which individuals have and of the value of these deductions to the organisations themselves, the easiest thing in the world was for the Government to say: ‘No, this income tax deductibility on donations to charitable organisations is not to be abolished’. But no was not said. I say to the Minister for Agriculture, who this morning pushed this suggestion aside as not being a possibility and as being no more than a rumour, that the truth must be found in the activities of the Government. It may not be a fact that this income tax deductibility on donations to charitable organisations is to be abolished. I hope that it is not a fact; I hope that it will not be done by the Government. But I suggest that it is something which was very much in mind. It is something which is deplorable even if it was only in contemplation because these donations are among the most desirable things in this community.

I will take another example of the deceptive way in which the Government has operated in carrying out its promises to the people. I will take its promises to the small businesses in the community. A year or so ago Mr Enderby said:

The small business program as envisaged would be comprehensive and balanced and designed to have a favourable impact on the long-term viability of the small business sector . . .

He then detailed a number of things that he would do. He stated that he would be:

Raising efficiency and profitability, strengthening the competitive position of small business firms in relation to the large and including overseas owned. Enabling small firms to cope better with structural changes in the economy. Improving industrial relations and the welfare of the workforce involved.

Obviously, that last aim has fallen completely by the wayside. Apart from that, what is the position a year later? What has happened to this program which surely is a highly desirable program? If we bear in mind the current requirements which small businesses face- the tax collecting system, the tax recording system, payroll tax, income tax deductions, sales tax returns, paper work and all the other things they are called upon to do- we would expect that by now, in this period in which small businesses more than any other businesses are suffering from the effects of inflation and are naturally having to discharge workers, the Government would be evolving an excellent scheme. But what is the position? An article in the ‘Bulletin’ magazine of 26 October records the following as being the present situation. It states:

A year later all that’s to be shown of the National Small Business Bureau is a pamphlet from the Department of Secondary Industry on the speeches made at the seminar, a telephone number in Canberra, a recently appointed director, Mr Brian Hegarty, and a staff to be counted on the fingers. They will have to spread themselves a long way.

One of my colleagues in the other place recently took it upon himself to make some inquiries to find out how well known and how active this National Small Business Bureau was. He rang the Department of Secondary Industry and was given a telephone number to ring. He rang that telephone number and found that it was the wrong number. So he rang again and this time he received the correct telephone number. He then asked for Mr Hegarty and found that he was overseas. He then asked for Miss Ritchie and was informed that she was away. Finally, he got in contact with a- junior in the Department- the only person he could speak to- and was informed that. apparently there is an approved complement of twenty, said to be twelve, but upon making inquiries was informed that there is no real staff operating in this area. To be included in the category of small business which, of course, should be a very big and comprehensive group in the community, a business has to have fewer than 100 employees with less than 2 people in a managerial position. It has to be a very small business indeed. Of course, at the moment such businesses are receiving practically no assistance at the time of their greatest need. So I say that in this second instance here is something which should have been done by the Government. It was a matter of urgency last year when this grandiose announcement was made. So far, the Government has produced practically nothing to assist at the time when small businesses are in greatest need.

The third delusion which I say is created by the Government is in relation to unemployment. Many people have spoken about that. Honourable senators will recall a question that I asked a few days ago. It elicited the answer that when a person is approved for the NEAT scheme- that is, the National Employment and Training scheme- the names of such people are taken off the unemployment list. And apparently this applies also in relation to the RED scheme- the Regional Employment Development scheme. I would very much like to know how many people would be included in this category today. We are given the figures in relation to unemployment. We know that unemployment is extraordinarily bad and we know that unfortunately it will become extraordinarily worse. But I would like to know what are the real figures. How many people now have been added to this list- this sort of halfway house between heaven and hell- who are being trained and apparently being paid a very good salary? I would like to know how many people are in that category and therefore what are the real unemployment figures at the present time. We do not have these figures. We ought to have them. Members ofthe community ought not to be suffering under some delusion.

Honourable senators who listened to a radio broadcast last night- I think it was the PM news commentary program- would have heard reporters inquiring of people who were approaching the Commonwealth Employment Service for a job as to whether they had heard anything about this scheme. Such people were asking whether they had been told about this scheme because the Government has made great play over many months about the importance of the NEAT scheme and what it would do for the community. But person after person who came to that employment agency seeking work stated that he or she was told nothing about the scheme.

Senator Durack:

– The capacity of the scheme is about 8,500 people this year.

Senator MISSEN:

-Is that the capacity?

Senator Durack:

– Yes.

Senator MISSEN:

– That is only scratching at the problems. Even so, we ought to have the figures. We ought to know how many people are actually engaged in this scheme at the present time and how many names of people are being taken off the unemployment lists. We ought to know the real situation in this country.

I say that these are just examples of the deception which the Government has played at the present time. No doubt, we will hear a more grand deception tonight. Perhaps I am just speaking of the fringes of the problems. But they all amount to this: A Government that cannot be honest with the people ought not to keep putting itself before the people as a government that is capable of solving the problems. It cannot solve the problems. It is not trying and it is deceiving the people by not telling them what the problems really are.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)-I call Senator Webster.

Senator McAuliffe:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I inform you that Senator Webster has spoken already in this debate. He rose in his place this morning and addressed the Chair. The Chair gave a ruling and the honourable senator continued his remarks and then sat down. The honourable senator stated that he would direct his remarks to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. I submit that Senator Webster has made a contribution in the debate this morning and that this is his second attempt to take part in the debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The point of order is upheld. The only way Senator Webster can speak at this stage is by leave of the Senate.

Senator Webster:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, may I speak to the point of order?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Yes.

Senator Webster:

– I do not do so to question your ruling, but I rose this morning -

Senator McAuliffe:

– The Acting Deputy President has upheld the point of order. You are protesting about it.

Senator Webster:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, if you have been advised that I spoke this morning on the motion before the Chair, you have been advised incorrectly. Senate Hansard will show that tomorrow. I take note of the point. I take note of your ruling. Your ruling that I spoke in this debate this morning is entirely wrong. I will be seeking an apology at a later time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Before we proceed any further, I state that I am acting on the advice of the Clerk.

Senator Webster:

– The Clerk has advised you incorrectly on this matter because I did not speak this morning in this debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I can understand the position insofar as Senator Webster is concerned. The fact is that technically he had the call and apparently he chose to speak during the first reading stage. So in those circumstances I think it should be ruled that he had the opportunity to speak, he did speak and therefore he has spoken in this debate. Senator Laucke, do you wish to say something?

Senator Laucke:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, with every deference to you and to the advice you have received in respect of this matter, I feel that when Senator Webster spoke this morning it was more or less to obtain information as to whether he could proceed at that point or should speak at a later stage. He was then told that it would be appropriate for him to speak at a later time. I think that that was the interpretation placed on this matter by Senator Webster. Certainly, it was my assessment of the matter at that time.

Senator Poyser:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, do I understand that this point of order is still being debated or have you ruled on the point?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- I have given a ruling that the point of order is upheld.

Senator Poyser:

– In that case, I cannot understand why Senator Laucke was allowed to speak to the point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You will realise, Senator Poyser, that I was not in the Senate chamber when this happened this morning. I was advised by the Clerk. In those circumstances, I want to be quite fair about the position. I think that the solution to Senator Webster’s problem would lie in his seeking leave of the

Senate to make a statement. He would then be able to speak now.

Senator Webster:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I would seek leave of the Senate to speak. I would do so on the basis that when I rose this morning, although I would not be positive ofthe first two or three words that I used, they were in relation to the report of Senate Estimates Committee D.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted for Senator Webster to speak?

Senator Poyser:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Many matters have been raised during this debate. There are one or two points on which I wish to comment. The first subject raised by Senator Greenwood in this debate was subsequent to matters which were raised in relation to Senate Estimates Committee D. It is true that during the course of that Committee’s deliberations Senator Greenwood referred to a Press report of a statement which allegedly was made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns, in Singapore. In the statement Dr Cairns is alleged to have said that he would recommend the bypassing of the Senate in order to bring about die creation ofthe Overseas Trading Corporation. One would have thought that Senator Greenwood would have indicated that he intended to raise this matter, but he chose to bring it up here under these circumstances even though I had indicated earlier that it was my view that he should be permitted to debate the matter, if he wished, in the Committee of the Whole. But he chose to raise it today.

He also said that he could not understand why the journalists, politicians and other people had allowed this statement to pass almost unnoticed. Surely the answer to that question is that nobody else would raise such a matter which was based on a report in some obscure publication emanating from Singapore. The fact is, of course, that preliminary legislation is being drafted on the Overseas Trading Corporation for presentation to Parliament. Obviously the Government is at liberty, if it so desires, to look at the implications of the possibility of that legislation being rejected by the Senate but the present intention is to ensure that this legislation comes before Parliament in the normal way. I believe that Dr Cairns was quite entitled to pass comments on the legislative difficulties of this Government if he saw fit. But, in fact, the situation has been distorted to suggest that in some way he would suddenly make some major decision without reference to the Parliament, something along the lines of what happened when we sent our troops to Vietnam or when we bought the FI 1 1 aircraft. Then Parliament was not consulted. No one knew about that until after the event. It is true that these are- procedures which in a parliamentary democracy should not be condoned. But there is no action or intent on the part of Dr Cairns, nor was there in Singapore, to bypass the normal parliamentary procedures.

Senator Baume then went on to seek my views concerning the matter of locusts in New South Wales. Senator Martin also raised the matter of locusts in Queensland. I have indicated in the past that the proper procedures- which were not laid down by this Government but which were laid down by our predecessors- require that in matters involving natural disasters in any State it is the duty or responsibility of the Premier to make an approach to the Prime Minister. It was also recognised by the previous administration that where, in its judgment, a State was able to provide the financial resources to overcome these natural problems which arose, it should do so. Basically that is the policy which we have followed. It is only when a State believes that it is beyond its financial resources to do these things that an approach should be made to the Commonwealth.

I shall not go into all the details about locusts because I think the Senate has heard a lot about them in the last few weeks. The New South Wales Minister has maintained, I think with some degree of correctness, over the last year or two that the spur throated locusts migrate from Queensland. If the Queensland Government were able to eliminate this threat in its State New South Wales would not be concerned with the problem of the spur throated variety. However, irrespective of whether that is so or not, I have indicated that the greater problem is, of course, in Queensland. In reply to some questions asked by Senator Martin over the past few weeks I indicated that the proper procedure should be adopted whereby the Queensland Government makes an approach to the Australian Government. Despite the presence of those locusts in Queensland no approach was made until a fairly late period.

Senator Martin:

– The Premier claimed he wrote in April.

Senator WRIEDT:

– No approach was made until 16 October this year when the Premier of Queensland advised the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) of the problem of locusts. There was no request for any financial assistance despite the fact that this Government is the first Federal

Government in history to make finance available for the fighting of locusts in any of the States. It was this Government which was prepared, alongside the other States and! with the Australian Agricultural Council, to set up the- Plague Locusts Commission. Anyway* .the Premier of Queensland made application on< 16 October. On 25 October he was requested to provide more details. Those details were provided on 8 November and 2 days later the Prime Minister replied to the Queensland Premier accepting his proposition of a total cost of up tq $720,000 and offering to share the cost on a $1 for.$l basis. That was only 48 hours after the Queensland Premier supplied the details which any government could expect to have before it made a commitment of that financial magnitude. No Australian Government could have done more or done it more quickly than accept within 48 hours the figures that were provided by the Queensland Government. There is nothing to suggest that the record of the present Government in any way has been slow. We awaited a detailed case from Queensland. Within 2 days of receiving the detailed case we accepted it and advised the Queensland Government accordingly.

In relation to the case of New South Wales which Senator Baume is more concerned about, I understand that the Premier of that State sought finance totalling $85,000. Here was a clear case in which that amount would not be beyond the resources of a State such as New South Wales. If, in fact, the wheat crop means as much as it obviously does to that State- and as Senator Martin stated it means $150m to Queensland- surely it is the prime responsibility of the New South Wales Government at least to find the sum of $85,000 to assist in that plague eradication campaign. This does not mean that the present Government is neglecting New South Wales. We will be taking part in helping to finance the Plague Locusts Commission which will be of assistance not only to Queensland but also to New South Wales. The last point which Senator Baume raised concerned a telegram which he sent to me. Unfortunately I have been away this last week. I have a copy of that telegram on my desk and I shall be sending a reply off to him today.

Senator Baume also raised the matter of pesticides. There is a long history to this matter. As he apparently understands, we have not been able to get the chemicals from overseas. They are is short supply all around the world. The demand is very high for them and the prices are high. It is just like selling our wheat at the present time.

The demand is high and the price is high. We cannot get the required amount of chemicals from overseas. The Government has been aware of this difficulty for some months. With industry we have endeavoured, in co-operation with our trade posts overseas, to improve the supply of chemicals to this country. There are certain basic elements in pesticides which we cannot produce here and for which we depend on overseas countries as our sources of supply. The Government, as I have said, in conjunction with industry is doing the maximum that it possibly can to ensure that we do get adequate supplies of pesticides.

Senator Baume:

– Are we going to succeed in getting supplies?

Senator WRIEDT:

– It is not possible to give an undertaking of that nature because it is just like buying any commodity in the world that is in extremely short supply. One endeavours to get it. One pays the price for it. But neither the Government nor industry itself can give an undertaking that we will get it. We will do the best we can to get it. I imagine that if we are very careful in our application and use of pesticides we will have sufficient supplies but it is not possible to say that there will be adequate supplies. We just have to get as much as we possibly can from overseas.

I have no great desire to enter into a lengthy debate on the economy as did Senator Carrick and Senator Young, but the comments which were made by both of them I think warrant taking a little of the time of the Senate to answer because if there is anything that distinguishes this Government from our predecessors it is the fact that we have believed -

Senator Webster:

– It is a lack of success.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I think Senator Webster’s interjection was ‘ a lack of success ‘.

Senator Webster:

– The thing that makes the difference between the two is your lack of success.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Your interjection reminds me of similar comments that you and your colleagues were making last March and April. You were so sure that all you had to do was to pull this Government on and you would be back in government. Well, you were not and you will not be after the next election despite all your cockiness now. You think that everything is being made for you because of alleged mistakes, as you like to call them but we will see, Senator Webster, that you will remain where you are, that is, if you are still in this place which would be unfortunate. The important thing is that our priorities are different because we believe that there are people in this country who were neglected and important areas of Government expenditure which were neglected.

Senator Carrick said it was this Government that did this and this Government that did that. I will tell him some of the things this Government has done on the other side of the coin and which he was not prepared to admit. It was this Government which gave the pensioners of this country a decent living for the first time in 23 years. It was this Government which gave the education authorities of this country for the first time sufficient funds to give every child in Australia a decent education. We were the ones who increased the whole range of pensions and benefits to the more needy in the communitythe people who could not help themselves as much as the people whom honourable senators opposite represent and help. Certainly there have been changes in this area. We are not worried about any one of them. We have endeavoured through our efforts to bring in health services to help those same people. But, of course, honourable senators opposite oppose it because it means just what they talk about- a shift of resources. It is a shift of resources away from those who have it to those who need it. We do not intend to be diverted by you or anybody else in our basic aims.

Senator Carrick talked about a 25 per cent reduction in tariffs. Of course his Party would not reduce tariffs by 25 per cent when it was in government. Before his Party came into government it was advised by the Reserve Bank of Australia to revalue the Australian dollar but it would not do so because it was not game politically to do so and because it knew it would make it unpopular. All that Government did was to allow this massive increase in the money flow in the Australian economy. We inherited decisions that previous governments should have taken but which were not taken because they were not game to take them. We reduced tariffs in order to get a greater supply of goods into this country because we knew it was essential to do that.

Senator Carrick went on to talk about the cost push and he, of course, got on to his usual subject of the trade unions and all this sort of thing. But which government was it that sought power over prices and incomes in order to get some sanity into all this? Who was it that opposed us? It was the Liberal-Country Parties because they do not want to see those things eventuate. All they are concerned about is to go back to the days when they had it all their own way- the old God-given right ‘we were born to rule ‘. But somehow something went wrong 2 years ago and the people who now sit opposite were out of power and they have been sore about it ever since. They would give anything to be back here but the fact is that we have done things in those 2 years. Even for the rural community, I might remind you Senator Carrick, we have done things which the Government which you supported would never do. As Senator Murphy said this morning, what would be the position if we had not done what we have done for the most important rural industry in this country, the wool industry? Even Senator Webster, a member of the Australian Country Party, would not do that. They were not even game to do it. This morning Senator Young asked me what we had done for the wheat industry. I told him. I hope that at least he might remember. These are the facts about what we have done. We have not gone out looking for a miserable vote just by handing someone $1 by way of a bounty or a subsidy. We have directed our assistance where it will have the greatest impact and that is why, for the information of those who are seeking to interject, this year we see the first increase in the rural population of Australia since the Second World War. We are told many times about the tragedy of inflation and so on and how bad it is now compared with what it was then. Of course it is higher now. We were told, it was only 2 per cent or 3 per cent a few years ago but our growth rate was about 2 per cent too. We had one of the lowest growth rates of the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development right through the 1950s and the 1960s, and now we have a growth rate in real terms of 7 per cent which is nearly 3 times as good as it was under previous governments. Let me take one thing that comes to mind. Only last week Ansett Airlines of Australia published its annual report. I hope that honourable senators opposite read that report which said that in the last 12 months Ansett had a 22 per cent increase in its traffic under this terrible Government. Last year Ansett had a 10 per cent increase. The year before that there was a 4 per cent increase. There was a 4 per cent increase under a Liberal Government. Then there were increases of 10 per cent and 22 per cent. You can always bet that when things are going bad the airlines start to lose business but obviously Ansett is not and its competitor is doing just as well. In September, only 2 months ago, there were record levels of motor vehicle registrations in this country. The strength of this economy is reflected in figures such as those I have quoted. It is a desperate gamble on the part of the Opposition parties that they are thinking about but it will be as disastrous as the last one. We will see the results when the numbers go up.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

page 2241

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1974-75

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Georges)- Senator Webster, this motion is not open to debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The ruling is that this motion is not open to debate on this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

page 2241

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

-No, it has not as yet.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I consider that the Committee of the Whole is out of order in discussing this matter until the Senate has the report of Estimates Committee A.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would think you are quite right. I will take the advice of the Clerk on this matter. We have not received the report of Estimates Committee A.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There is nothing in the terms of appointment of the Estimate committees which states that the report must be presented before the Committee of the Whole discusses the Appropriation Bill. A Bill has been brought before us and read a first time and a second time. The Committee stage was adjourned to a later hour of the day. Normally after the second reading we go into the Committee stage. As I understand the position, Estimates Committee A has asked for leave to report at a later hour this day, and the Senate has agreed to that request. I believe the arrangements are that the Committee of the Whole will start by considering the proposed expenditures of the departments which were examined by Estimates Committee B. No question arises of considering the proposed expenditures of the departments which were examined by Estimates Committee A until such time as its report comes down. It should not stop us from discussing the Estimates as we normally discuss them. If the consideration of those expenditures is deferred until then, I would say that there is nothing in the Standing Orders that would enable you, Mr Chairman, to rule this procedure out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The point of order that was raised by Senator Lawrie has some merit. The Minister for Agriculture intends to move that the proposed expenditures be considered commencing with the departments examined by Estimates Committee B. The consideration of the proposed expenditures of the departments examined by Estimates Committee A will be deferred until that report is brought forward.

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That clauses 1 to 7 and the First Schedule be postponed till after consideration of the Second Schedule; (2) that, unless otherwise ordered, the votes in the Second Schedule be considered in the same groupings and order as in Estimates Committees B, C, D, E, F, G and A respectively.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $354,265,000.

Department of Services and Property

Proposed expenditure, $83,3 10,000.

Department of the Special Minister of State

Proposed expenditure, $66,296,000.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $30,639,000.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– Is it competent for senators to speak on the whole of the report of Estimates Committee B or must we confine ourselves to individual items?

The CHAIRMAN:

-Any item in the report of Estimates Committee B is open for debate.

Senator CARRICK:

-I draw the attention of the Committee of the Whole to the report of Senate Estimates Committee B as it relates to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I draw attention to a number of matters. Firstly, honourable senators will note that the Committee reported that it was not entirely satisfied with the quality of the information made available to it by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) and the officers present at that Committee hearing. As a member of Estimates Committee B I say that personally I found the Department lacking in the ability to give information. That information should have been forthcoming. It is important in the future that officers of sufficient status and with particular specialties should be available to participate in the Committee hearings so that honourable senators can obtain the information they require. I stress that point. Secondly, honourable senators will note that the Committee’s report draws attention to the fact that there was virtually a complete lack of information in some specialist sections, including the ones outlined in the report. It says:

Firstly, there were no officers present from the International Organisations Division of the Department and therefore the Committee was unable to obtain satisfactory replies to questions relating, in particular, to Australia’s activities at the United Nations and its participation in the various agencies of the United Nations.

It is of great importance for the Senate to examine those matters and the Committee found item after item on which it could get no explanation at all. Thirdly, in regard to the new agency to handle foreign aid, my impression is that here we have a new authority, enormously proliferating, with its functions not clear, and an authority which could easily get out of hand in terms of Parkinson ‘slaw.

Having said that I would like to direct my attention to those items that relate to foreign aid in the present crisis and to what I regard as the most important issue which has confronted this world since World War II. That is the crisis in food, starvation and disease throughout the world. I direct my attention to this matter in the hope of getting a response from the Minister specifically in relation to the food conference in Rome. I had hoped that there would have been detailed statements made by now to this Parliament so that Australia would have a knowledge of the circumstances as the Australian Government saw them, of the submissions made by the Australian Government and of the commitments agreed to by the Australian Government. As I understand it, the situation is that with the growth of population, particularly in the Third World, together with drought and the lack of technology there is likely to be starvation, disease and death of an order not known before in human history and a disaster at least equivalent to World War II.

It has been estimated that as many as 30 million people could die in the coming year from starvation and disease. In the face of that there was assembled in Rome a committee to which Australia was invited and on which Australia participated. We have not had, as a Parliament or as a nation, any statement by way of either background or explanation of commitments from the Government or the Minister. The news that comes to us is that the attempt to commit the countries of the world to supplying food, money and the various specialist requirements was virtually a partial failure, and the Minister can correct this information if it is wrong. As I understand it, the total amount of food for which commitments were given is less than one-tenth what might be required to avoid disaster. For example, I believe that the huge nations- Russia and China- made no formal or specific commitments. Our only knowledge of what Australia has done is gleaned from the media, and this has not been corrected. That knowledge, stated accurately, runs this way: That Canada having made a commitment, the Australian Minister present had to consult by telephone his Prime Minister in Australia to determine what might be Australia’s commitment at what I describe as the most important conference in the world since World War II. I understand that what happened is that we decided to match Canada on a per capita basis. If the events are not as stated the information has not been corrected.

It seems to me- and, I am sure, to the people of Australia- quite intolerable that Australia would go to such a conference without a prepared submission and without facts and figures being made available to the people of Australia as to the diagnosis of the world situation, and without a complete and specific recommendation from Cabinet as to Australia’s commitment, not just in terms of a gross figure of money- and even that was not done- but in specific terms as to foodstuffs and direct help. Much is made of other perils to the world but the simple fact is that we in a country blessed by many resources and a relatively small population in comparison with foodstuffs produced, and also with high technology, have an absolute responsibility to other countries, a responsibility not to be measured by whether we match Canada or some other country in sheer humane terms and by our ability to give. Our help should not be measured simply in terms of foodstuffs. I have been in my time in many under-privileged countries and I speak not from theory about the experience of starvation, near starvation and the disease that comes from the absence of carbohydrates, proteins and, particularly, vitamins. I have seen the real horror of death and disease from beriberi, from starvation and from the various disasters that flow from malnutrition.

It seems to me that what we have done is not a fraction of what we should do and the fact that Australia has not been told what is being done is extraordinary. One would have thought that the Minister would have come back home to set targets for production, targets for diversion, targets for reconstruction of the whole of our commitments, targets for the supply of drugs, medicines and vitamins, targets for the supply of protein concentrates and, above everything, targets for the number of skilled people to be made available to these areas because far more important than carting food and carbohydrates to these countries would be sending hundreds of people with technical experience to enter as quickly as possible into agrarian pursuits in these countries and to assist in overcoming the ravages of drought and underproduction. More important than food would be fertilisers and those things which go basically to helping these countries produce from within.

The real question is: How can we help them within their countries to produce the food and the necessities to keep them alive? We have had no response at all from the Government to this question. Nothing has been said to us except in a rather begrudging way in the Press that we will match Canada, and we guess that this decision was made in a telephone conversation. That is nothing at all to be proud of. What I want to stress is that quite apart from the problems of Australia’s economy, Cabinet should give urgent and thorough consideration to how Australia as a leader can give help. We are very proud to race around the Third World and recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Baltic States to win a few votes to try to get the Presidency of the United Nations. We are very proud to go to China and prove to the Third World that we have an interest in it, but if we really have an interest in the Third World it ought not to be measured by whether we get votes for the Presidency of the United Nations. It ought to be measured in terms of whether we will give, and give till it hurts, and send help, and send help till it hurts. This is the real test of whether tins country is talking for sheer propaganda purposes to try to get the numbers at the United Nations or whether it really wants to help.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You do not want us to have our own foreign affairs policy. You want us to be a stooge for America like you were.

Senator CARRICK:

– Here is the real test. One would not expect that Senator Mulvihill would have heard what I have been saying. I am talking about the hundreds of millions of people of the Third World who are dying of starvation. All the Government is doing is talking. It is doing nothing else. Today we have seen a classic diversion by the Minister in charge of the House and now there is another classic. I want to get back to what I was saying. Does any Government supporter in the Senate say that -

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are a phoney.

THE CHAIRMAN (Senator WebsterOrder! Senator McAuliffe, I ask you to withdraw that remark about the honourable senator.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Well I will say -

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable senator will withdraw the remark unreservedly.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I will replace it by saying that he is a millionaire in words and a bankrupt in ideas.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You will replace it by nothing. You will withdraw the remark.

Senator McAuliffe:

– On what grounds, Mr Chairman?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr Chairman, may I intrude? The Standing Orders are quite clear in regard to this matter. When the Chairman of Committees or the presiding officer stands in his place every senator shall resume his seat. Senator McAuliffe refuses to resume his seat and is standing defying you. I ask all honourable senators, including the honourable senator concerned, to obey the Standing Orders.

Senator Wriedt:

– May I speak to the point of order? What Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has said is quite true but it also is customary to allow a senator who is asked by the Chair to withdraw a remark an opportunity at least to say a word or two. With respect, I suggest that Senator McAuliffe is not getting any opportunity to say anything.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator McAuliffe, you will please withdraw your remark.

Senator McAuliffe:

– May I be given the protection that a senator is entitled to under the Standing Orders? Mr Chairman, with respect, why am I being asked to withdraw the remark?

What remark is offensive? What is the reason for asking for my withdrawal?

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honourable senator will resume his seat I shall read the standing order to him. Standing order 418 states:

No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House . . .

The standing order goes on to state: all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

I rule that your comment was highly disorderly and I ask you to withdraw it.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Thank you. I call Senator Carrick.

Senator Button:

– You were telling us about your contribution to Vietnam, I believe

Senator CARRICK:

– I would be happy on any occasion to talk of contributions to Vietnam. I, for one, have lived among those people. Unlike almost everybody in this Senate, I have lived among the Vietnamese. I have seen their struggles. I have a very great admiration and affection for them, unlike those who from a distance see darkly. Talking of the previous Government’s contribution to foreign aid, it was, with the exception of France, the highest per capita in the world. Therefore, when I am called a phoney I find it a title of honour. Having seen at first hand, and having been at first hand part ofthe people who starved and died from diseases, I make this emphatic plea to the Government: As a matter of urgency, in Cabinet, will the Government recommit its whole aid and then make a statement to the Senate and to the Parliament on what the position is and what our contributions will be, not only in foods but in drugs and in men and women who can go there and by their technology give leadership out of this world disaster?

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I want to speak briefly about the report and to underline some of the points made by Senator Carrick. I underline what he said about the degree of uncertainty that existed during the hearings of the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. With great respect to the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, I do not think that the Committee was as well served as it might have been in conducting its examination of those estimates. I am referring to the report of Estimates Committee B. I hope that the Department will take the Committee’s representations into account for future hearings because in these days of rapid development and rapidly changing circumstances the matters discussed at the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee B take on a degree of particular importance and there is a necessity that honourable senators sitting around a table and examining the estimates should have information in detail readily and quickly supplied to them.

I refer in particular to the segment within the report relating to Australia’s aid projects. I hope that in future the officers who come before the Committee will be better armed with detail. This is of special relevance because the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) has just returned from the very important World Food Conference at Rome. This morning at question time I stood a considerable number of times to ask a question but, because of circumstances, by the time Mr President got round to my section of the Senate the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) had asked that further questions be placed on notice. I wanted to ask the Minister for Agriculture a question relating to the World Food Conference and Australia’s donation in terms of international aid. The Minister will be very familiar with the Press articles of yesterday, but I wonder whether he knows just how much significance was attached to that Conference by the media in Australia while he was away? I suppose that on most days on which he was attending that Conference in Rome at least the Australian Broadcasting Commission news bulletins gave very great prominence to the progress of the Conference and to some of the things he said. Indeed, in some magazine programs we heard extracts from the Minister’s conversations at Press conferences and at other occasions during the Rome meeting. As part of the question I wanted to ask the Minister this morning I would have sought clarity about the confusion which exists in relation to one report of $17m and another report of $30m in wheat and in cash. I wanted to ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to clarify the matter to the Senate and say whether this was a fresh amount or whether it was included already in Australia’s present Budget. Senator Carrick has highlighted this matter and I underline it. I would have thought that the Minister would have indicated that he was going to make a statement shortly. If he was not in a position to do that I would have hoped that he would have indicated that a statement was forthcoming. The Minister for Agriculture knows that in recent weeks we have dealt with a Bill relating to the Asian Development Fund and, more recently, a Bill relating to the Australian Development

Agency. He knows of the involvement of honourable senators in this field. I hope he will indicate to us that he proposes to make a statement in detail and make up in some way some of the deficiencies which we felt we suffered when we were discussing the lines in the estimates dealt with by Senate Estimates Committee B.

I do not want to traverse the whole matter of international aid. I have done that on other occasions and there will be further occasions on which to do so. However, I believe it is time that the Minister and the Government took up the line which the Minister himself took up on one occasion here when he said that there needs to be a greater public awareness and a better public opinion about Australia’s international aid. The Minister is in a singularly advantageous position now, having freshly returned from one of the most vital conferences of our time which dealt with the very serious and drastic situation which exists in the world. I hope he will indicate what he proposes to do along these lines.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I look with interest upon the report which has come from Estimates Committee B. I am intrigued at the forthrightness with which the Committee has expressed its opinion. It has stated, in terms which are unusual for Estimates Committees:

The Committee had difficulty in obtaining all the information required in relation to its investigation of the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs. This was for 2 reasons. Firstly, there were no officers present from the International Organisations Division of the Department and therefore the Committee was unable to obtain satisfactory replies to questions relating, in particular, to Australia’s activities at the United Nations and its participation in the various agencies of the United Nations. Secondly, the Committee was disappointed that more senior advisers on departmental policy were not present to be examined.

I think it is fair to say that the Senate has been treated with contumely and with contempt by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) in the time that he has held that portfolio. The Senate has passed a resolution expressing its lack of confidence in him, but it seems to have invited no change in his attitude. The way he treated a Senate Committee, as reported by that Senate Committee, is a fair judgement of the man himself and it is also a reflection on the way in which he is administering the foreign affairs of this country.

It is not altogether surprising that we should not be able ‘to obtain satisfactory replies to questions relating, in particular, to Australia’s activities at the United Nations’. We know, because it has drifted out, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is a candidate for the presidency of the

United Nations. The way in which Australia’s national interests have been subordinated to his personal advancement is a matter for national shame. We have seen Australia cavorting in a way in which Australia has never been acknowledged or recognised as behaving in the United Nations in the past. We have seen what I believe is the disgraceful conduct of abstaining on the question of whether the Palestine Liberation Organisation should be represented at the United Nations. If there was any sense of consistency or belief on the part of the Government, having regard to its protestations against terrorism, it would not have had a bar of that organisation’s being allowed to go into the United Nations, and the more should that attitude have been adopted because of what has been acknowledged by that organisation as its so-called achievements in the field of terrorism throughout the world.

Other activities include most recently Australia’s decision to support the expulsion of South Africa, which astounded observers at the United Nations. We have 2 representatives from the Senate present as part of the Australian delegation to the United Nations. I was pleased to see that one of those members- Senator Wright -was prepared publicly to condemn the Government’s stand in relation to South Africa. It was very interesting that he said that the vote lamentably betrayed Australia’s interests, so admirably defended by the representatives of Great Britain, the United States and France. Senator Wright said that, by its vote, Australia regrettably sought the applause of the African nations and the communists. What we are seeing at the present time is Australia departing from the traditional alliances and allegiances which have always characterised it and which I believe represent the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. Instead we are becoming or seeking to become a member, or an honorary member, of the Third World. If this is what the Australian Government is calculatedly deciding to make Australia’s course, let the members of that Government who believe that that is the right course for Australia come out and openly justify why they are doing that. Let them reveal their communist alliances and affiliations. Let them reveal to the people of Australia how much they are under the thumb of the communist-led unions in this country and how they are unable to resist the pressure which is put upon them. If that not be their attitude, let them explain how and why it is that, in support of the present Minister’s candidature as President of the United Nations, they are not prepared to remain in the area in which Australia has traditionally moved.

Why is it that we had the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in China stating that in Communist China he sees all that he would have as Australia’s aspirations? Why do we have the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) linking himself in such fulsome words with the countries of the Third World? In short, why are we moving away from those countries which are the only countries able to give us protection in the event that we might need it at some time in the future? I find the decision which was made by Australia with regard to South Africa quite inexplicable. The views which the Opposition parties have expressed with regard to South Africa’s policies are well-known, even though we recognise that there is a lack of understanding of what the word apartheid’ actually conveys. But whatever be the attitude taken by the Australian people and by the Australian Government with regard to South Africa’s policy, the double standards of this Government require some exposition by the Government. Of course, we are not receiving it.

If the objections to South Africa’s policies are objections to what are called racist policies it ought not to be ignored that the same types of policies are pursued throughout black Africa without one word of condemnation by this Government. We ought to recognise that in the eyes of other countries the policies which are adopted by the Australian Government have the same racist tinge which we ascribe to South Africa’s policies. If there is objection to the apartheid policies of South Africa it ought to be recognised that this Government is pursuing the same sort of Bantustan policies with regard to the Aborigines in this country. Its unwillingness to recognise the double standards which characterise this Government’s approach is remarkable. One has only to look at the policies of black Africa over the past 10 to 15 years to see that in some of those countries which are the most outspoken critics of South Africa there are policies which are far worse than anything in South Africa itself. In Kenya on independence some 15 or 16 years ago there were 180,000 Asians. That number has been reduced so that at the present time there are only 86,000 Asians. That has been a deliberate policy of exclusion and discrimination which has passed unmentioned and uncriticised generally by the nations of the world. If one looks at Tanzania one finds that on independence there was an Asian community of 100,000 people. Now it is less than 40,000. In Uganda, whether under President Obote or President Amin, one finds the same general pattern. There are an estimated 500 Asians in Uganda now when on independence there were some 80,000 Asians. .

Senator Wriedt:

– From what are you quoting?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am quoting from facts which can be obtained from any record which you care to look at if you are interested. If you are wanting to have the information at some stage after I have finished speaking it will be provided for you.

Senator Wriedt:

– Will you table it?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am providing it from my notes. I understand that Senator Wriedt is questioning the figures which I am giving. They come from the advisers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. If there is any error in the figures which I am revealing, let it be stated. I believe that they are correct figures because I have extracted them from various documents which I have read on this subject. I am sure that we will all be gratified to know what is the accurate position. But even before President Amin came to power in early 1971 there had been campaigns by the black majority of Uganda of violence and intimidation of Asian businesses. President Obote nationalised businesses affecting Asians. President Amin required Asians to register and in August 1972 Asians were required to leave the country and they left the country in great numbers. Now we find within the last week or fortnight a similar discriminatory policy being adopted with regard to British nationals. The pattern can be reproduced in detail with regard to the other countries- Zambia, Kenya and Uganda.

I mention these things only because it appears to me that in the field of international affairs Australia should adopt a standard which it can uphold with regard to all countries. Let us adopt a policy with regard to freedoms of individuals as we apply it in condemnation of Russia. Let us apply it, if it be applicable, in the case of South Africa. Let us apply it, if it be applicable, in the case of the countries of black Africa. But let us not follow a policy which is indicative of this Government’s attitude that it will support terrorism in some places and condemn it in others. That will make Australia an object of contempt and ridicule throughout the world. One of the tragedies of this Government is that it has reduced Australia’s standing in a short period of 2 years in a manner which I think has astounded our allies and friends.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

, asking a number of questions without notice and making a number of shadow ministerial statements without leave. The members of Estimates Committee B asked a number of questions of officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In relation to some of those questions it appeared afterwards that the Committee was not satisfied with the answers that had been given. That, of course, is what appears in our report. Neither members of the Government Party nor members of the Opposition Parties who were on that Committee at the time requested further information from the Minister. These comments were made subsequently when the report was being compiled.

On the basis of a misreading of the Committee’s report to the Senate, Senator Greenwood has taken it upon himself to make an attack on the Minister. I want to come back to that in a moment in the light of what the Committee said. Before doing so, I should say that the first step in the attack which was made by Senator Greenwood was on the basis that the Minister was in some way a candidate for the Presidency of the United Nations and that the attempts which the Government had made to reach rapport with a number of countries of the Third World had been made purely for the purposes of securing the successful candidature of the Minister for Foreign Affairs for that position. The only matter of record in the Senate regarding this is a question asked by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack on 1 6 August this year in these terms:

I preface my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by saying that I have become engrossed in the current speculation that an Australian is a candidate for the presidency of the United Nations. Will the Minister inform me what overtures have been made to the so-called Third World group for support for such candidature? What overtures for such support have been made to the communists and Cominform countries by recognition? Are recent diplomatic and socalled initiatives part of the campaign and do they explain the diplomatic shifts in our foreign policy now observable? Will the Minister agree that this is reminiscent of the Evatt candidature in the late 1940’s?

Senator Willesee, the Minister, replied:

I am glad that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has become engrossed in the possibility of an Australian being elected president of the General Assembly next year. No, we have not approached any of those groupings because it would be plain stupid to do it. They do not have a vote.

That is the only matter of record in the Senate on this question. Senator Greenwood has had ample opportunities in question time, of which he usually takes advantage in one way or another, to ask further questions about this matter. Instead, today, on the basis of this Committee’s report, we have been subjected to a whole series of rhetorical questions about the direction of the Government’s foreign policy. If Senator Greenwood really wants to know the answers to those questions he will find them in statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on numerous occasions.

Senator Greenwood:

– When have we had a foreign affairs statement in this Parliament?

Senator BUTTON:

– On numerous occasions; and statements were made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition before the 1972 election. These are statements which have been adhered to by the Government since it came to power. I should like to return to the report and simply say that I concur with Senator Davidson on this matter. The members of the Committee were concerned that in regard to Australia’s contributions to various United Nations organisations and so on, there was no representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs present who seemed able to give us a detailed and precise account of how our payments to those bodies, by way of affiliation fees or by other means, were made up. In our report we set out quite clearly and carefully that we felt that officers should have been available to provide that material. No criticism was directed at the Minister in the course of this Estimates Committee hearing on this question. No information was asked for by any individual senator in relation to these specific matters which was not provided. The comment was made only in the drawing up of the report that it was felt that in future it would be advisable for appropriate officers of the Department to attend in relation to this particular question. To use that statement in the report as a launching pad, as it were, for a tirade against the Minister is just a non-sequitur of outstanding size and only Senator Greenwood could indulge in it.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I rise to speak briefly to this pan of the debate to follow up some of the things to which Senator Greenwood adverted. He raised some very important matters. One that concerns me is Australia’s decision to support the right of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to speak at the

United Nations. This seems to be one of the most shocking decisions which any Australian Government could have made over a large number of years. We have a situation where a loose organisation, a confederation of a number of terrorist groups which is not representative of the community it seeks to represent and which has exerted all its power through terror, seeks to sit down at the bargaining table and to address the United Nations to try to have a voice in what should be a responsible institution.

I think it reflects, as Senator Greenwood said, the double standard which has crept into the conduct of our foreign affairs. It reflects this double standard when we are willing to accept under any circumstances the Palestine Liberation Organisation with all that it stands for in terms of terrorism, torture and murder and its avowed aims which are the destruction of the State of Israel and the genocide of the people. It reflects this double standard when we are willing to accept that organisation but at the same time to mouth piously about other nations when they do not match some moral standard with which we claim to be associated. I would remind the Committee that Palestine, as nearly as we can remember it, was the mandated territory created after 1918. After the Balfour Declaration there was a state of Palestine. That state today is represented by the states of Jordan and Israel. Most of the refugees who come under the banner of the PLO live in Jordan. In fact, most of the refugees- the largest precentage of them- are still in Palestine in the sense that Palestine existed following 1918.

The refugee problem is a very complex one, it is almost insoluble, but it will not be helped by the recognition of the PLO or by allowing the PLO to have a voice in the United Nations or in any other international body. In fact, we are looking at one step towards the destruction of Israel. If the Australian Government wants to support recognition of the PLO, it should be clear that this is what it is doing- it is going one step along the way to destroying Israel. The Palestine Liberation Organisation says that it will talk to anyone provided he accepts as a basic tenet that Israel must give in and give way. I remind the Committee that in 1948 it was a Labor government, and particularly it was Dr Evatt, who played a very major role in the creation of the state of Israel. It was the initiative taken by Australians in the United Nations in a hostile world that helped to get through the United Nations the votes to form the state of Israel. Up to this year Australia was highly regarded by many Jewish people around the world in recognition of what it had done. Yet today we see a situation where the Government is reversing its policies.

One could ask: Why reverse the policies? Is it that we have seen a new morality? Of course it is not. The fact is that Australia is seeking to protect its oil interests. The so-called even-handed policy is not even-handed; it is lopsided. It is an antiIsraeli policy, and this Government has demonstrated, not once but a number of times, that in its dealings in the Middle East, it is moving further and further from Israel and further and further towards the Arab nations.

Senator Missen:

– It looks after only one side.

Senator BAUME:

– It looks after only one side. I would not be surprised if soon we saw more trade deals completed between Australia and Arab nations. Apart from trade deals, there may be political prices to pay as well, and those prices will all be at the cost of the state of Israel. If we had an even-handed policy I suppose we could accept it. But this decision to support any recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation is a disgrace. It is something of which Australia as a nation should be ashamed, which the Australian Government should see as a cynical move designed to protect short term interests and which the Australian Government must recognise is one step along the road to destroying Israel. We were midwives at the birth of the state of Israel. It looks as if we will be among the executioners along the way to the destruction of that state. I think Australia owes it to the Israeli people and the Israeli Government at least to give them the proverbial Australian fair go. They are not getting that at the present time. If Australia follows this kind of a policy we may one day walk alongside the PLO as pall bearers after the total destruction of the state of Israel. I condemn this action by the Australian Government and this continued imbalance in its foreign policy initiatives.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise in this debate only because I think we all respect in many ways the feelings of Senator Baume and other honourable senators who have raised this issue of the recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. But anybody who has studied the Middle East situation will find that there is a parallel between that position and the devastating strife in the industrial field at the present time. The ultimate aim is to get the conflicting parties around the table, and I do not say that in any platitudinous sort of way. As far as the state of Israel is concerned, one of the great tragedies today is that every time there is a conflict the armaments of war cost more. We know the terrific taxation that is imposed on the relatively small population of Israel. We know even this week of the internal crises which have occurred in Israel because ofthe heavy financial commitments that that country has undertaken.

I suppose that as a member of the Australian Labor Party and as a socialist there are many things on which I differ with Kissinger. But I think we all know- Senator Devitt pointed this out on an earlier occasion- the thankless task that Kissinger has had in trying to mediate in this very difficult situation. I say this to Senator Baume: I am certainly not an advocate of terrorism. I take him back through the corridors of time and refer him to what happened at the last Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party. I know that now the Federal Conference of the Liberal Party has a virtually open door as we have had for a long while. It is no secret that the resolution which was sponsored by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on this much maligned policy of open-handedness urges that in every way the United Nations should be the mediator in the Middle East conflict. There were amendments to the resolution, some that could be deemed pro-Arab and others that could be deemed pro-Israel.

I know that all of us get emotional about certain facets of foreign policy. But the great tragedy is that the longer this armed truce continues in the Middle East the heavier will be the financial burden imposed on the state of Israel. I think that is undeniable. Although some formula may be adopted or a demilitarised zone may be agreed upon, I emphasise that ultimately there will have to be a sizeable United Nations force in the Middle East. I know that passions get inflamed when we get on to the question of occupancy of the west bank and the Palestine refugee problem. But I say respectfully that we must consider the high cost of armaments. The dilemma in which Israel finds itself is that without another war occurring, she could be bled white in the next 10 years. With the imposition of crippling taxation in order to maintain her existing defences. The only way in which Israel can get defence security initially is through some tacit agreement with the super powers which in turn have probably got to control some of the hotheads in the Arab fraternity. It is true that probably Jordan would be called a dove and some of the other Arab countries would be called hawks. But I say to Senator Baume that the attitude of the majority of the members of the Labor Party is: Where can the United Nations defuse the situation? Whether we like it or not, if the element within the Arab community which is adopting this take-all attitude is not calmed down, there will be trouble.

I return to the initial point I made in this debate about the parallel between the Middle East situation and the trade unions. We have to get all the parties talking around the table. I agree with Senator Baume that you could never allow the Golan Heights to be used for hostile artillery fire. Somewhere in the grey area the initiative has to be taken, whether by Kissinger or by the United Nations or by a middle power like Australia. I am thinking now of the role which the Scandinavian countries have always played in peacekeeping forces. I do not say this in order to provoke Senator Greenwood, but while we differed with him on the question of Australian troops in Vietnam, we have always believed in using Australian troops for genuine peace-keeping efforts, such as the Middle East one.

I conclude by saying this to Senator Baume: Nobody wants to see a little nation wiped off in some new concept of the Middle East. But candidly, in some way we have to defuse the situation. Otherwise, without any more wars at all, Israel will be virtually liquidated because of the cost of its current rearmament program which is necessary to enable it to survive. It may be that our tactics are wrong, But I return again to what Senator Devitt said on another occasion: Kissinger is a very effective manipulator, and I do not say that disparagingly. When I see the constant movements that he is making I realise that he has a very difficult job. I say respectfully that we must get some of these wild men around the table and we must convince them that they have to accept responsibilities, just as militant unions sometimes have to accept responsibilities when they appear before a judge. That is Dr Kissinger’s motive. I know that is also in the minds of Senator Willesee and the Prime Minister.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I rise to speak briefly on the Estimates and in particular upon the report of Senate Estimates Committee B. I do so for a completely different reason from the reasons for which honourable senators have spoken in the depate previously to me. My reason for speaking is to raise some very serious matters which I believe have been raised by the report of this Committee over the signature of its Chairman, Senator Button. I must say that I was rather surprised at Senator Button’s intervention in this debate and at his criticism of some comments made by Senator Greenwood on the same subject. But long before Senator Greenwood had spoken on this matter I had noted myself some of these major matters which I think have been very properly raised by the Committee and, indeed, reported to the Committee of the Whole by Senator Button, the Chairman of the Estimates Committee.

I note that the Committee stated that it had difficulty in obtaining all the information required in relation to the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. It gave 2 reasons for this difficulty. Firstly, the Committee states that there were no officers present from the International Organisations Division of the Department and that it was unable to obtain satisfactory replies to questions relating in particular to matters covered by that body. I was very was disturbed when I read this. I was not a member of the Committee. I did not attend any of its deliberations because I was occupied with other Estimates committees and with other concerns. But it does seem to me that this statement raises a matter of very fundamental importance to the Senate and to the whole process of the Estimates committees. It would seem to me to be a major responsibility of a Minister to ensure that there are officers present who may be required to answer auestions on any of the items. I believe that for there to be a situation when no officers are present reflects very badly on the Minister concerned. I would think that perhaps the Chairman of the Committee himself could have intervened and taken some steps in such a situation.

Senator Button now seeks to defend the situation by saying that it really did not inconvenience the members of the Committee and that they did not really ask any questions on this matter. If there was nobody there to answer the questions, I can well imagine that the members of the Committee would not have asked any questions. But what strikes me as being most peculiar is that the Committee unanimously reports to the Senate, over the signature of Senator Button himself, that: the Committee was unable to obtain satisfactory replies to questions -

So it is quite impossible to understand what on earth Senator Button’s defence amounts to, except apparently an opportunity to attack Senator Greenwood. However, that is only one of several matters which are of concern to me in this Estimates Committee report.

The second matter it reports to the Senate is that it was disappointed that more senior advisors on departmental policy were not present to be examined. I was very interested in this comment because it has appeared to me since I have been a member of the Senate and have attended the meetings of Senate Estimates committees that there is an extraordinary discrepancy between the seriousness with which departments take the whole exercise of Estimates committees and the Senate’s examination of the Estimates in this manner. I notice that a number of departments send along none other than their permanent heads. I applaud such departments for this action. I think that it is only a proper respect to the Parliament and the Senate for a permanent head to be prepared to lead his team and to be present to answer questions. I would not like to see him take over and I would not like to see him exclude other officers from answering questions. I think that the more diverse the fields covered by the number of officers from departments who appear before the Estimates committees, the better. Certainly, where specialists are operating in certain fields, they ought to be examined separately. I think that its a very poor reflection on a number of our departmental heads and on the Ministers concerned because they must be responsible in the end for those who appear before Estimates committees. Sometimes very junior officers appear before the Committees to represent departments. As I say, on many other occasions I have noticed that year after year the permanent head of a certain department will appear before the Committees, but in many cases only an assistant secretary represents a department. I take very great exception to the fact that on many occasions only assistant secretaries appear before the committees. I believe that it reflects very badly on the Minister concerned that he permits this sort of thing to happen.

The next matter which I note is the Committee’s comment that it was concerned at the lack of any detailed report to the Parliament relating to Australia’s aid projects. The Committee thanked the Minister for his assurance that something will be provided for the Parliament in this regard. Again, I would have thought that when the Parliament is being invited to make appropriations of large sums of moneythat is what all this exercise in regard to the Estimates is about- the Parliament, and the Senate in this case, obviously should have been given more detail than was provided to it on this occasion. So we have in this report 3 very major matters of concern not only in relation to Senate Estimates Committee but also in relation to the Senate itself. Firstly, there is the fact that no officers were present to give the necessary answers on one matter; secondly, there was an absence of senior advisors and thirdly a lack of information supplied on this particularly important matter of Australian aid projects. Finally, the Committee states that it is concerned at the number of single line appropriations which it had been asked to consider. It is stated that the Committee accepted the assurance of the Minister that the Department would consult with the officers of the Treasury with a view to ensuring in future years that these amounts will be itemised, presumably in the proper and traditional manner. I must say that I find that Senate Estimates Committee B was a very long-suffering and rather generous Committee. Senator Carrick, my colleague who sits next to me, was a member of the Committee.

Senator Button:

– He was not there half the time.

Senator Carrick:

– He was there for all but one session.

Senator DURACK:

-Senator Button says that Senator Carrick was not there. I wonder whether the honourable senator was there when he signed this report, judging from what he has said today. The fact is that this Committee, I suppose in a generous manner, accepted various assurances from the Minister that in future he will do better. He will certainly need to do an awful lot better and a lot of other Ministers will need to do better, as I propose to show when the Committee of the Whole comes to its consideration of some of the reports of other Estimates committees, particularly that of Senate Estimates Committee D.

I am deeply concerned at the fact that there should be this intrusion of single line appropriations in Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1 974-75. We have become rather regretfully familiar with single line appropriations for capital works and in relation to trust funds. We have had a good deal of discussion in the Parliament quite recently about the problems which have arisen where a single line appropriation has been made to some trust fund or independent corporation. We have encountered the difficulties of finding out what such bodies are doing with the money and so on. I would have thought that the tendency would have been to require much more detailed estimates than these single line appropriations. I believe that this has happened in many cases. I was most impressed at the meetings of Senate Estimates Committee F. I do not know whether Senator Mulvihill, the Chairman of the Committee, should receive these congratulations.

Perhaps I should congratulate the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) because the single line appropriation for the Post Office had 36 pages of single spaced typing in explanation of that single item. That is the sort of thing of which I expect to see more and more. Yet what do I find here? This Committee says that in the appropriations for the Department of Foreign Affairs there were a number of single line appropriations. This is very serious indeed. It is quite ridiculous that these entries should have intruded. There can be a result of either sheer laziness or a deliberate attempt to mislead and to confuse this Parliament and those people who are concerned in these matters. I believe that the Senate should take very serious note of the report of Senate Estimates Committee B. I thought that Senator Button would have been here to defend the Committee. I hope that he will. I believe that these matters which are raised here should be seriously noted by the departments and by the Ministers to ensure that these great failings will not be repeated on future occasions.

Senator BUTTON:
Tasmania

– I am grateful to Senator Durack for attributing the virtue of generosity to Senate Estimates Committee B and to myself. I am afraid that I cannot attribute the same virtue to him. Certainly I cannot attribute the virtue of diligence in reading our report because I think it quite inappropriate to attack- this seems to me a matter of logic- the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) about single line appropriations considered by Estimates Committee B which were in fact single line appropriations for another department altogether, namely, that of the Special Minister of State. That is where the Committee directed its criticism about single line appropriations and not to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I draw attention to 2 other matters raised by Senator Durack. In speaking to this report earlier I said that the Committee was concerned about the absence of officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs to answer specific questions relating to the United Nations and other international organisations and about our contributions to them. In that situation we asked the Minister whether those questions could be given written answers. Those answers which were sought by the Committee appear on page 9 of the appendices to this report. At that time every member of the Committee as it sat was satisfied that those written answers should be given. They were given and they were accepted by the Committee when it met this morning. So it is not a fair criticism of the Minister or of the Committee to say that those answers were effectively not given. They were given. Our criticism was made of the absence of officers on the day on which the Committee sat. Paragraph 5 of the report which deals with the matter of aid programs, states:

The Committee was concerned at the lack of any detailed report to the Parliament relating to Australia’s aid projects and thanks the Minister for his assurance . . .

The context in which that arose was in answer to a set of questions from Senator Davidson. He asked a series of probing and thoughtful questions about Australia’s aid program and the estimates for that program. But to say that the Committee by paragraph 5 of its report was doing anything more than saying that it would like further information on the matter- not at the Estimates Committee hearing, but in due course- is to draw something out of the paragraph of the report which cannot properly be drawn. In general I say about the report of Estimates Committee B simply that I believe that as a committee of the Senate we acted in good faith. As a senator one has a role to protect the interests of the Senate and to see that at all times as much information as possible is made available to estimates committees. But in acting in that degree of good faith, which I believe all members of the Committee did, we did not open ourselves to anything more than that. We did not open the Committee to the criticisms which have been raised here today on a purely party political basis.

Senator Durack:

– No one is criticising the Committee.

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes, the honourable senator was. What the Committee did was to put a forthright view about what happened at the hearing of the Estimates Committee on the first day. If we are to be blamed for the circumstances in which this matter arose, as I pointed out and if that is to be used as an attack on the Minister the Estimates committees will be deterred from doing that sort of thing in the future.

Senator Greenwood:

– It is the Minister’s responsibility, is it not?

Senator BUTTON:

-The point I am trying to make which Senator Greenwood seems to have gravest difficulty in understanding- it might be my fault but I suspect it is the honourable senator’sis that nobody on the Committee raised the criticism in the way in which the honourable senator seeks to do.

Senator Greenwood:

– I read out only what is in the report. Why did not Senator Button change the report if he had a different attitude?

Senator BUTTON:

-Nobody in the Committee raised the question which the honourable senator now seeks to raise. Senator Carrick cannot but agree with me that when we met this morning there was unamimous acceptance of the answers which were given by the Department.

Senator Carrick:

– And of the report.

Senator BUTTON:

-And of the report. I do not back away from it. I was there for the whole time so I know what happened. The point which I simply make. is that if Senator Greenwood wants Estimates committees to present reports which are prejudiced by party political allegiences then, as I understand it, that cannot be the correct function of an Estimates committee.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

- Mr Chairman, I speak as a member of Senate Estimates Committee B and as one who was very much present. Lest anyone has any doubt I refer him to the report of the Committee and to the substantial number of questions asked by me and to the answers given. I was present at the time. It is true that at a final session which had been deferred I sought and was granted a pair so that I could go to a funeral. It is not my habit to be absent from a committee. The Government knowing that perhaps may now laugh. Let me make this perfectly clear.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The honourable senator missed meetings in Brisbane of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts.

Senator CARRICK:

– I was attending a meeting of another committee of the Senate. The supporters of the Government will live to regret the day that they ever did that because consistently since then that Committee has had an appalling and atrocious attendance from Labor Party members. Since honourable senators on the Government side raise this matter in the future they will be named. They will live with it. If they want to live by the sword, they will die by it. Let me make it perfectly clear. Nobody can be at 2 Senate Committee meetings at once. It is to the eternal disgrace of the Committee that it was not announced in Brisbane what we were doing at the time. At least we had the grace always to record the apologies from Labor Party members when they were absent.

This report means precisely what it says. I heard Senator Davidson say that that is right. I have no doubt in the world that Senator Sim will say that that is right. Senator Grimes is here. He was a consistent questioner but consistently he got no answers. That may encourage him to take part in the debate. At least he was there for the sessions we are discussing. I am not sure of the remainder. I am not sure of that. Let me repeat what I said. I said that I have not attended an estimates committee hearing where the Minister himself was so lacking in ability or willingness to give information. Let me make that clear as a personal statement. The position is very similar with respect to his replies to questions which are asked of him in this place. The present Minister for Foreign Affairs is abysmally lacking in his willingness or ability to provide information. It should not be left to bis officers. It is true that on each of the occasions of which I speak he was very willing to say ‘I do not know the answer but I will get if for you. ‘ and we respect that. But the simple fact is that many of these matters ought to have been known to him as a Minister, and he did not know them. Equally the team that he brought with him was his team. The absence of either senior officers or officers representing certain functions is something for which he must take responsibility.

These things have been said and they have not been denied at all. I felt that in respect of a department which is of profound importance we were poorly treated not by the officers but by the Minister himself in his lack of supply of ready information. The fact that we asked for it and got it later was our only recourse because it was not possible to do so at the time. We would have continued our questioning for much longer except for the obvious fact that we were finding that there was not available during the proceedings of that Committee a ready supply of information.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I rise to speak briefly on this Committee. I do so primarily to express by concern and criticism of the attitude of the present Federal Government in foreign affairs. This Government either did not have the courage of its convictions or it was completely misled in regard to the voting at the United Nations on the Palestine Liberation Organisation where Australia abstained from casting its vote. The PLO is regarded not merely by the majority of Australians but, I would say, the majority of the people of the world as none other than a terrorist organisation, an organisation which has done so much harm and brought so much tragedy to so many people. Yet Australia abstained from voting on the issue. Yet in respect of South Africa, Australia went along in supporting South Africa’s expulsion from the United Nations. I was very pleased to note that countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France did veto such a motion. One wonders just where standards are and where double standards are when some countries, particularly Australia, are prepared to support the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations. One wonders what motives were behind such an attitude. I cannot be other than critical of the fact that Australia saw fit to do this. One can be critical of many of the actions taken by the Government of South Africa if one desires to do so in the areas of petty apartheid. But if one looks at the area of separate developments in South Africa -

Senator Georges:

– What sort of apartheidpetty?

Senator YOUNG:

– For your information, Senator, there is petty apartheid and there is also apartheid. There is a big difference between the two.

Senator Georges:

– Why are you using the word ‘petty*?

Senator YOUNG:

– If you bothered to find out you might be a bit more enlightened on the whole situation. There is a difference between petty apartheid and apartheid. I am not going to take the time of the Senate to explain but if you want educating come and see me afterwards. Australia itself practises apartheid. We have separate developments in Australia. We practise apartheid ourselves- for example, New Guinea. It is still not independent. New Guinea is still closely associated with Australia. It is still Australia’s responsibility. But what is and what has been the situation regarding New Guineans who wish to come to this country for permanent residency? As I have said, there is separate development. I do not disagree with this. We must do all we can to help Papua New Guinea become a mature nation. We must give it all the encouragement and assistance that we can in this area but let us do these things rationally.

Having said that, one must go further and look at the whole situation relating to the attitude of Australia, particularly that of the present Australian Government, and the way in which we are seen in the eyes of so many countries. There has been criticism and questioning from so many people overseas- ‘What are you really doing? Why are you doing this?’ Let me refer to South East Asia. Countries in that region have expressed concern at Australia’s attitude. We saw this sudden shift with the recognition of China. Let me hurriedly comment that I do not disagree with that. Recognition of China had to come and wisely it was done. But in the process of recognition there was no need to walk all over a country like Taiwan which we have done. It is a country which today this Government is still mercenary enough to trade with but it is a country in which we do not even have a trade commissioner or an attache of any sort representing trade. Therefore these things have to be done through the back door of Hong Kong- double standards again.

How can we look at these various standards and be critical? We do not even bother to look at our own internal position yet we look at the position in other countries. This Government is prepared not only to criticise but also to condemn South Africa. Australia is completely prepared to ignore the attitudes and activities of the PLO. Yet what is the situation in respect of China? What has been and what is the attitude of the Australian Government towards the genocide that has been practised and is being practised in Tibet? What has been the attitude of this Government? Does this Government reflect upon what Russia did when it rolled over Czechoslovakia when the greatest crime the Czechoslovakians were committing was starting to think for themselves? OK, we overlooked that. I will not condemn the Australian Government for having done that. What I do condemn is the double standards that come into this. They are the things that concern me.

To go a step further, let us look at the tragic attitude that we adopted in relation to the baltic States. These are the things that concern me. If we are going to have a standard let us have a standard and stand by it. But let us not have 2 standards whereby, on the one hand, we are prepared not only to criticise but also to condemn some countries and, on the other hand, we overlook what has been done and are prepared just to ignore all that is happening and let them go their own way. These are the things that concern me today as regards our present foreign policy.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak very briefly. I wish first of all to say that when the debate was initially held on the setting up of the estimates committees I had some misgivings as to our attitude and whether these committees should be set up but having heard the manner in which the report of Senate Estimates Committee B has been turned into a political football this afternoon by Senator Greenwood I have no doubt that our Party was right. I wish to clarify one point which Senator Carrick brought up. It is true, I think, that the statement in the report of this Committee that we were disappointed at the lack of information on certain items from the Department of Foreign Affairs did arise out of questions that I asked and indeed Senator Sir Magnus Cormack asked about Australia’s expenditure at the United Nations. But neither Senator Sir Magnus Cormack nor myself was particularly questioning the amounts spent, whether they were too large or too small. We were concerned about how Australia’s contribution to the various United Nations funds was assessed. As has been said, no one at the Committee hearings could give us a clear picture and it is apparent from talking to officers in the

Department since that contributions are assessed in different ways according to the purpose of the funds.

I was interested in this. I still am interested in this and I will still look for this information. I am sure that I will get it. Some of this information is in the report. Being interested in this subject, I looked at the Hansard reports of the same Committee for previous years, and I found that this was the first time that this question had been asked. This may be one of the reasons that the specific person from the Department was not present. He probably sat there each year waiting for someone tq ask the question. For some reason someone new on the Committee asked the question. We will easily obtain the answers. We could probably more appropriately obtain the answers in the Senate. In fact I have asked for further answers to those questions that were asked at the Estimates Committee.

I was surprised by Senator Carrick ‘s remarks about the Minister for Foreign Affairs because I can remember one of his colleagues on the Committee commending the Minister at the end of the sessions of the Committee for the way he had conducted himself. This Committee went conscientiously about its work. We saw ways in which we thought the functioning of this Department could improve, and we put them in our report. We hope that they will improve. When on the last day that the Committee sat we decided to put this matter in the report one of the members of the Opposition on the Committee pointed out that it was not the first time it had happened; it had been happening for years and years. Our minor criticisms, our suggestions for improvement, are being used in typical fashion by Senator Greenwood in a paltry political argument in this place.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I refute the suggestions that in some way a senator ought not to refer to matters which are contained in the report and to place the blame for omissions on the person to whom all such blame must attach in this place. The blame must attach not to officers of a department but to the man who politically carries the responsibility for the department. No matter how many second thoughts members of the Government who served on this Committee may have, the words of the report speak for themselves. It is quite clear from the words of the report that the members of the Committee had difficulty in obtaining all the information they required. They gave the reasons that they were unable to obtain that information. This reflects upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). We have had ample experience of the Minister’s shortness in dealing with questions, his refusals to give information and his willingness to allow the Senate to be misled about matters which are his responsibility.

Not very long ago we had the disgrace of the Ermolenko affair in which the Minister withheld information from this chamber. If we had had the information it might have prevented a person being taken out of this country against his wishes. At present we do not know whether he went out of this country against his will, but there is no question that the Minister’s conduct was a factor in enabling him to be whisked out of this country in a manner which reflects no credit upon the Minister, upon the Government or upon its willingness to adhere to principles under which the courts determine whether people are being held against their will. We have seen conduct on the part of this Government- I do not go into it in detail- for which the Minister carries the responsibility. I refer to what has been said about the recognition of the Baltic States. To this day we have been given no adequate reason- there has been no attempt to give any reason, as my recollection serves me- why before 18 May 1974 the Government adopted an attitude that there would be no change from the traditional policy which successive governments had followed, and why in the middle of July a decision was taken that the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union would be recognised by this Government.

We say that it is all part of a shameful exercise by this Government to curry favour with a number of nations in the world with a view to securing votes to promote a person’s candidacy for the presidency of the United Nations. There is no question that Senator Willesee is a candidate. If it is not true, I ask the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) or any honourable senator to say forthrightly that Senator Willesee will not be a candidate for the presidency of the United Nations. We know that he has been canvassing support, and other people have been canvassing support on his behalf around the world. It is a sorry day when Australia’s national interests are subordinated in this curiously selective way to the desire to have a person as the President ofthe United Nations. That is not the only consideration which seems to be motivating the Government’s foreign policy. I spoke only because it appeared that the report of this Senate Committee gave ample evidence of that which we in the Opposition have been experiencing during the time that the present Minister for

Foreign Affairs has had his portfolio- an unwillingness to come clean with what Australia is pursuing.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The debate on the report of Estimates Committee B really has centred on an attack on the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). Senator Greenwood’s closing remarks made it quite evident that this attack is being levelled at Senator Willesee simply because he is a possible candidate for the presidency of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Therefore, he must be denigrated in his own Parliament by his own countrymen to lessen in some way his chance of becoming the second Australian President of the United Nations.

Senator McLaren:

– Sour grapes.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes, sour grapes. It is a great achievement. I am quite sure that Senator Willesee would not be even considered for that role unless he had earned the respect of other delegates to the United Nations and of foreign affairs personnel generally around the world. That alone is sufficient credit to justify the respect that he ought to be shown in this chamber, particularly in his absence. Senator Greenwood made his usual comments about communist associations by this country. I forget the precise words, but this has always been his line in this place. He could never be described as a fascist because he defends South Africa. I would not call him a fascist because he defends South Africa. But he takes exactly the opposite line to the one which he claims to take. Anybody who suggests for a moment support for any regime which Senator Greenwood does not like automatically becomes a communist or is associated with the communists. That is the same twisted mentality that he and a lot of other people show -because a given line is taken with respect to a country, therefore somebody is a communist or a fascist. I disregard that sort of emotional nonsense. If there is one person in this Parliament who I think has shown a sense of balance and proportion in these matters it is none other than Senator Willesee because he has always been balanced and reasonable in his approach to these matters. He is the type of person that we need on the world scene today and he has been promoted into a position of pre-eminence in world affairs. But he has been denigrated by his own parliamentary colleagues in the Australian Parliament for no other reason than sour grapes. It is a disgrace and it is not worth spending any further time on.

Earlier in the debate Senator Carrick made reference to the World Food Conference. Again we see this lamentable attitude of trying to score a political point off the efforts of people who are trying to do something in a difficult situation. I, as the Australian Government representative, am to be criticised in some ways because of the need to make a telephone call to Australia to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam). Is it not natural that any Minister overseas, if he saw fit to contact his own Prime Minister, would be at liberty to do so? Would not Mr Butz, the Secretary of Agriculture who represented the United States, or Dr Kissinger have rung through and spoken to President Ford if he saw the need to do so? Would that be a matter of criticism by Senator Carrick? The whole purpose of the conference was to try to get something started.

I might say that on the first day of the conference it was a disappointment to most delegates that the lead which was expected to be given on the first day was not given. It took the Canadians to do it in the first speech on the second day, and Australia, I think quite rightly, supported the Canadian position. In the atmosphere of a world conference of that nature at which there are hundreds of delegates and hundreds of people making the decisions on the part of the various nations, everyone is looking for a lead. The conference was given it and Canada deserved to be supported. That was the reason why the Australian delegation took the attitude that it did. It was recognised in a publication which was published daily at the conference where in an article headed: ‘They’ve come up trumps’, this appeared:

Australia, Canada, Sweden and West Germany, offer food and aid programs. Canada and Australia put their money on the line yesterday during speeches in the Plenary- and made it clear they thought other major grain producing nations should do the same.

That heading and the introduction reflects the feeling of the conference and we would have been remiss as a delegation if we had not been prepared to support the positive stand that was taken by the Canadians.

I do not wish to get involved in the matters raised concerning the Middle East. That is not my responsibility. It is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). But 1 understand that in respect of Estimates Committee B- and this, I thought, was adequately covered by Senator Button and Senator Grimes- there was not present the officer responsible due to the fact that he was overseas. Unfortunately, coincidental with the meeting of the Committee that day there were some rather critical things happening in the General Assembly in New York and there were some urgent matters which required directions to be sent from Canberra to New York. That perhaps caused the lack of immediate information to the Committee. It is also my understanding that the questions which were asked have been answered and I am quite sure that if there is further information needed it will be provided. Even though most of us have some reservations about the continuation of the Estimates Committees, the Government wants to see that if they are to be continued they are continued in their proper role and that they are not abused as they have been, and as we all know they have been. The Government’s policy is to provide the maximum information and not to withhold information. I would be very surprised if at any stage it can be demonstrated that any Minister, himself or through his departmental officers, has deliberately withheld information.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– When speaking earlier in Committee I made a plea that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wridet) give consideration either to making a statement or to tabling a document in relation to the Rome conference from which he has just returned. As I said at the time, there was a considerable amount of media interest in the conference and quite considerable coverage was provided of it. Some of the media statements since his return leave me in a little confusion. I ask again whether the Minister will consider either making a statement or at least tabling a document which contains information about the conference because there is a growing interest in this aspect of Australian affairs today and the provision of this information would greatly assist community awareness of some of the problems that the Minister was grappling with in Rome.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (5.50)- I rise because I became interested in the remarks of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) who was in charge of these Estimates. I do not think when I quote these words that he will be very happy about them. He said that the future of Estimates Committees is in doubt. I merely say that there is a misunderstanding in a parliamentary democracy as to the role of government and the role of parliament. No government gets any money to carry out its works except when it comes through parliament and asks for money, and if parliament wants to know how the money has been expended parliament is entitled to find out. It has the right to know the answers, as Senator Wriedt has indicated. But to say that the probing capacity of parliament to discover how its money is being spent is in doubt is something I find offensive to me as a member of Parliament. It is fundamental to the parliamentary system that parliament has the right to know how the money that is voted from the Consolidated Revenue Fund has been expended. If there exists in the mind of any Minister of the Crown, either now or in the future, the view that Parliament will be deprived of the right of knowing how its money will be spent and that that information will be withheld by the abolition of a method now available to Parliament for the first time perhaps in 60 years, then we will have reached a constitutional crisis.

To illustrate how important this probing system is I tell honourable senators a story. I can find the reference to it but have not had time to look for it. If any honourable senator wishes to have it I will find it. In 1947-48 the then Minister for Supply in Mr Atlee ‘s Government in the United Kingdom buried in the Defence vote the sum of £780m under a false heading. That £780m was extracted from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the United Kingdom because the House voted for it notwithstanding its own estimates committee. It was extracted from the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the will of the House of Commons because the House did not know what it was voting for. It was f 780m to build a hydrogen bomb. That was a most searing historical experience that has been embedded in my mind ever since I discovered it. I mention it only to illustrate that governments fall into the temptation, whatever their view, of disguising the purpose for money that parliament has voted. Therefore it is the fundamental responsibility of parliament increasingly to make sure that it always holds the power to get answers on where the people ‘s money has gone.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I am brought into the debate by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I agree with him in part but I disagree with him in substance because I think he misunderstood what Senator Wriedt intended. What Senator Wriedt said was not that the continuation of Estimates Committees of the Senate or the investigation of the Estimates by the Senate was in doubt but that the estimates committee method of investigating the Estimates may be in doubt. And if that method happens to be in doubt it is because of the behaviour of some honourable senators opposite. Their behaviour at these committees -

Senator Greenwood:

– Do they ask too many questions?

Senator GEORGES:

-It is not that they ask too many questions. There are questions which ought to be asked and I support Senator Sir Magnus Cormack in this respect. Questions ought to be asked and the expenditure ought to be investigated but there is a considerable difference between doing that in a general way and the way which some honourable senators adopt. In particular I refer to Senator Greenwood whom I suffered for some 2 weeks on Estimates Committee A because he asked for detailed information that could have been obtained from the Department in the ordinary course of the day to day running of this Parliament.

Senator Greenwood:

– How?

Senator GEORGES:

-By simply asking the question, either by putting it on notice or by contacting the department. The Estimates Committee was reduced to a procedure of embarrassing the Minister. That is a fair political tactic within certain circles. This is what the Minister, Senator Wriedt, intended to indicate when he said that the investigation ofthe estimates was in doubt. I think Senator Sir Magnus Cormack will accept that statement. I would like to support him on the need for Parliament to investigate expenditure. The particular reference he raised- the expenditure of f 780m by the British Governmentbrings to mind just how a government can make a decision which is hidden from the people and which subsequently leads to another decision which is also hidden from the people. When the lend-lease arrangements were being debated and agreed upon, Great Britain surrendered her right to decide how any bomb would be used. That was the position if she wanted the lend-lease arrangements. At that time 2 American senators said that they would not agree to the lend-lease arrangements unless Great Britain surrendered her right to decide how the atomic bomb would be used, a bomb which it spent £780m in developing. For this reason I agree with Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

The investigation ofthe Estimates by this Senate in my opinion are the most important function of the Senate. I have believed to this point that use of the Estimates Committees is the most effective way of doing this. I do not see why that system should be endangered by idle questioning at the committee hearings and by subsequent idle questioning and debate in the Committee of the Whole, an example of which we have had this afternoon.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-Following on what Senator Georges said, I would like to remind the Senate that there are many dangers to the efficient functioning of estimates committees. I was a member of one of the estimates committees. We were allowed to ask questions and no impediment was placed in the way of our getting the eye of the chairman. Our work was completed without our sitting for too long. I took the opportunity, as did many other honourable senators, to sit in at a lot of the other committees. I must say, for example, that at the hearings of Estimates Committee A I was received most courteously and allowed to take part in the deliberations, as is my right as a member of the Senate. But that was not the situation with all the committees. There was at least one estimates committee at which I sat in where there was a very conscious effort on the part of the chairman to get the estimates finished and, if he could, to curtail questioning and to curtail attempts to ask questions. It was very hard to get the call from that chairman. I want to put to the Senate the danger -

Senator McLaren:

– Which committee?

Senator BAUME:

– The chairman is here and he knows. The fact of the matter is that this did not happen only to me, a visiting senator. It was very difficult to get the time to look at an item before it had been passed over. I would just like to say that the dangers -

Senator McAuliffe:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to take a point of order. Senator Baume has said by innuendo that the chairmen of some committees refused to give a chance to a senator who was not a member of the committee to ask a question. With a blanket accusation like that all chairmen of committees are suspect. I am the chairman of Estimates Committee C and I would like to know whether the honourable senator is referring to me. If he is not, I would like him to mention that he is not referring to me. With a blanket accusation like that I must accept the charge.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-There is no substance to the point of order raised by Senator McAuliffe. It is quite appropriate for him to speak and ask the question at an appropriate time. It would serve the purpose of the Committee if we hurriedly dealt with the Department of Foreign Affairs and passed these estimates before the sitting is suspended for dinner.

Senator BAUME:

– I will be brief. I thank Senator McAuliffe for the suggestion that it could have been him. It was the Committee of which he was chairman where it was difficult- I did not say impossible- to catch the eye of the chairman and get the call.

Senator McAuliffe:

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. That is an accusation against my chairmanship of the meeting. When the report of Estimates Committee C is being debated I hope the honourable senator will again raise the matter. The honourable senator came into the Committee ‘s meeting for one brief second and sat down, and I spoke to him afterwards. I ask you, Mr Chairman, to ask Senator Baume to withdraw the accusation that I prohibited his asking questions at Senate Estimates Committee C.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am unable to ask Senator Baume to withdraw the comment. I am not aware whether it is factual.

Senator McAuliffe:

– It is offensive to me, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator McAuliffe, you may take up the matter later.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Progress reported.

page 2258

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Ministerial Statement

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales-

Leader of the Government in the Senate) (8. 1 )- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam. It is a statement on the economy. Mr Whitlam is making a statement in the same terms in the House of Representatives now.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– In making the statement when I use first person personal pronouns they will refer to Mr Whitlam. The statement is identical to the one which he is making.

Introducing the Budget in September the Treasurer (Mr Crean) emphasised the importance of maintaining the utmost flexibility in responding to economic developments. The Treasurer stated:

Should the need arise, we stand ready during the year to take action on the expenditure or the revenue side of the Budget to give a quick stimulus to demand and employment.

Our underlying purpose is to create conditions for co-operation and restraint. The measures I shall announce tonight are designed to further that aim. The Australian economy is beset by the twin problems of rapid inflation and rising unemployment. We share these problems with all comparable economics. The 2 problems are universal but their concurrence is unique in modern times. The Australian Government, therefore, like the governments of all comparable countries, faces problems of economic management of unparalleled complexity, uncertainty and difficulty. For all governments and for most nations these are testing times. In the final analysis the test concerns not the basic strength of national economies- Australia’s basic strength is indisputable- but the strength of nerve and will on the part of governments and people alike.

It is essential, therefore, that the people of Australia should understand what is happening and why. Concern- real and genuine concernmust not give way to despair, for the situation is difficult and changes are occurring with unprecedented speed. They are not beyond control. Problems of the rapid rise in unemployment and continuing steep rise in prices and costs are interlocked. The rate of wage and salary increases has easily outstripped the rate of increase in prices. The consequential squeeze on profits has been sharp. This has in turn led to a loss of confidence by business in its ability to obtain an adequate return on capital in an inflationary environment.

Employees can price themselves out of the market as effectively as business can. There are signs that this is happening. As the Treasurer said recently, in current circumstances: ‘One man’s larger pay packet may mean another man’s job’. Employers are economising on labour, scaling down their operations and their investment and hence the employment opportunities they provide. The rapid increase in wage costs which businesses have experienced introduces an element of uncertainty in business calculations which greatly increases the risk involved in making new investments.

The Government’s immediate concern must be to stop and reverse the downturn. The decline in employment and overtime now evident will reflect itself in a weakening of demand in the near future. If unchecked, the downturn would begin feeding on itself. The Government has decided, therefore, to provide a further demand stimulus to the economy. The Government also intends to take action which strikes at the root of the cause of the present downturn, the high rate of inflation and the decline in business profitability. What is needed is a stimulus to the economy which increases demand whilst at the same time abating cost pressures and enhancing private profitability.

The Government has already taken a number of decisions on the exchange rate and on the supply of money- the most recent of which were announced on Sunday by the Treasurer- which will substantially lift business confidence. These measures add up to a very substantial relaxation of monetary policy, and financial conditions can be expected to become a good deal easier in the months ahead than they have been in the recent past. In the past week the Governor of the Reserve Bank has written to the banks requesting them to increase appreciably their rate of new lending and I would expect to see a prompt response by the banks. Some savings banks are already stepping up the rate of their housing loan approvals.

The new measures I announce tonight are designed, firstly, to maintain consumer demand through a substantial reduction in personal income tax; secondly, to attack inflation by reducing the pressure for wage increases through a substantial improvement in after tax take home pay next year and specifically to break the wageprice spiral by giving business a breathing space in wage demands based on price increases in the December quarter; thirdly, to enhance profitability by a reduction in company tax, by requesting the Prices Justification Tribunal to give particular consideration to the adequacy of return on capital and by urgently investigating the implications of rapid inflation for the taxation of companies; and fourthly, to support particular industries where special problems are emerging.

The proposed measures together with the announcement made by the Treasurer on Sunday night represent decisive action to stimulate demand and employment, to contain the growth in money wages and to restore business confidence.

Personal Income Tax

The Government has decided to reduce further personal income tax. Honourable senators will recall that in the 1974-75 Budget it was proposed that the rate scale be restructured to reduce income tax payable by $370m on a full year basis. We now propose to restructure the rate scale to apply to 1974-75 income in order to reduce income tax payable by an additional $650m. In total then the rate scale now to apply to 1974-75 incomes involves a tax cut of over $ 1,000m. (Opposition senators interjecting)-

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is good to hear the general approval of the proposals. Additional tax relief was provided in the Budget in the form of a rebate of dependants’ allowances for low income families and deductibility of mortgage interest payments. These will cost the revenue close to $200m per annum. My announcement tonight thus brings the personal income tax cuts provided for by the Government this year to $ 1,200m.

The new restructuring of the rate scale I am announcing tonight will have the effect of increasing the take home pay of most full-time employees earning up to average weekly earnings by about 3 per cent. There will be lesser reductions at higher incomes. The precise details of the new rate scale are being made available separately.

As a consequence of the changes to the rate scale announced in the Budget as further modified by my announcement tonight, there will be very large reductions in tax payable by the average wage-earner. Let me give 2 examples, both relating to a taxpayer with a dependant wife and 2 children and with other concessional deductions equal to 10 per cent of annual income.

Such a taxpayer, earning $100 a week, would be liable for an annual tax of $568 on the basis of the 1973-74 rate scale. The new rate scale and the low income rebate will reduce this liability by $304 to $264, or by 54 per cent. His after-tax pay will be about 6 te per cent more than it would have been without the tax cuts.

A taxpayer in similar family circumstances earning $140 a week would be liable for an annual tax of $1,160 on the basis of the 1973-74 rate scale. The new rate scale will reduce this liability by $283 to $877, or by 24 per cent His after-tax pay will be over 4te per cent greater than it would have been without the tax cuts.

It is proposed that the new rate scale announced tonight will be reflected in (pay-as-you-earn) deductions on pay days after 1 January 1975. PA YE deductions made from January on to the end of the financial year will be set at levels designed as far as possible to give the taxpayer the whole benefit of the new tax reduction in respect of income year 1974-75 in the JanuaryJune half year. There will be, in consequence, an even more substantial percentage increase in take-home pay for most employees.

Housing Loan Interest: PA YE Deductions

The scheme of housing interest deductions for income tax purposes is to apply in respect of interest payments after 1 July 1974 as announced in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. It is intended that as from the first pay-day after 1 January employees will be able to arrange with their employers for adjustment of pay-as-you-earn instalments to allow for the effect of the interest deduction. This will reinforce the impact of general tax reduction by providing a further boost in takehome pay.

page 2260

QUESTION

INFLATION

These measures are designed to achieve the first objective I mentioned earlier- namely the maintenance of consumer demand. The substantial reduction in personal income tax, however, bears directly upon the second objective- the attack on inflation by reducing wage pressures.

At present, applications are before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the introduction of wage indexation- in other words, the automatic adjustment of wages to price increases. The Australian Government will play an active and positive role in these proceedings to support wage indexation on the basis of full compensation for price increases on a percentage basis up to the level of average weekly earnings, with a flat rate adjustment for higher incomes.

The recent level of increases in wages and salaries, both in terms of award and over-award rates, has been due in part to the need for trade unions to protect their members against substantial future price increases.

A system of wage indexation would have the advantage of protecting the real purchasing power of wages and salaries generally. The hearing of claims coining from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other employee organisations is to proceed during this month and in December, and the Government is hopeful for a decision from the Commission at the earliest possible date.

The Government is aware that there may be an understandable feeling amongst employees that too long a period will pass before the Commission is able to announce its decision. The Government will, therefore, make submissions before the Arbitration Commission to the effect that the changes in the rate of income tax, announced in my statement tonight, should be regarded by the Commission as compensation of the increases in the cost of living which is expected for the December quarter 1974. In other words, the Australian Government will be submitting to the Commission, in connection with the most appropriate date for the introduction of cost of living adjustments, that the anticipated increase in the consumer price index for the 3 months October, November and December 1974, will be compensated for by the increases in take-home pay resulting directly from the reduction in personal income tax announced this evening.

The Government expects that the trade union movement, in the interests of its members, will co-operate with it by seeking the introduction of wage indexation in a way that will minimise inflationary pressures and avoid unjustified wage claims. Increases based on price movements in the December quarter, whether by arbitrated decision or by agreement would, in the Government’s view, not be justified. Present trends suggest that the commencement of a system of wage indexation would be fair and reasonable if it began with the consumer price index figure for the March quarter 1975.

The Austraiian Government will put to the Commission that it should take particular account of the tax reductions which are designed to protect the take-home pay of employees. To introduce cost of living adjustment on the basis of price increases in the present quarter would involve double counting- it would continue the dangerous cost and price increases harmful not only to the whole community but to the employment prospects of wage and salary earners.

Inflation must be restrained- to protect jobs as much as anything elese. We will be making it clear wherever possible that money wage restraint is essential. Employees and their representatives will be fortified in the knowledge that steps are being taken in other areas to maintain and advance real living standards. The reintroduction of cost of living adjustments would ensure that the real wages of employees are protected in the years ahead. In the transition period the Government tax cuts will preserve the value of their take-home pay.

The Budget tax cuts took effect in PA YE deductions this month and January pay packets will in addition reflect broadly double the cut we have now made in the rates announced in the Budget. Those employees arranging with their employers for adjustment of PA YE instalments to allow for the effect of housing interest payments will enjoy a further increase in the takehome pay.

These benefits and the submission to be made to the Arbitration Commission about the appropriate date for commencing cost of living adjustments, are actions and proposals which essentially go hand in hand and are meant to be related to each other. They will give the business community a breathing space from wage claims whilst ensuring that real wages are more than maintained. We have to break the vicious circle of prices chasing wages and wages chasing prices.

The Government is concerned that all employee organisations, all of Australia’s employees, should understand and be fully informed of the Government’s policy on pay fixation and related issues. The policies outlined in the Budget and the new measures announced tonight will improve the real wages of employees and are in this sense an alternative to wage claims. This approach will be discussed with employee organisations of all types and needs to be explained to all trade union members. In looking at the Government’s proposal to offer a tax cut in compensation for the cost of living changes for October, November and December of this year, it must not be overlooked that under this Labor Government wages and salaries have, in fact, more than kept pace with price increases.

The past year has been a year in which very substantial wage claims have been granted. In the 12 months to August 1974, the average award rate has risen by 43 per cent for adult females and by 27 per cent for adult males. The latest consumer price index figures available show an increase in prices of 16 per cent in the year to the September quarter 1974. The important fact is that, despite a period of rising prices, wage earners have had a good increase in their standard of living in that time.

I intend to encourage a program of visits by Ministers and Government members of Parliament to speak at trade union forums. They will outline the policies and objectives of the Government. This program of visits is in keeping with the principle of consultation and discussion which trade union organisations have often emphasised as being desirable.

The visits to trade union organisations will be a two-way process, with Ministers or Labor members of Parliament also receiving comments and questions on matters of interest and concern. It is expected that visits will be made to a variety of employee organisations including trades and labour councils in each State, white collar and Public Service organisations, annual conferences of trade unions, Federal and State executive meetings, and also meetings of rank and file members during factory lunch-time periods, etc.

Members of this Government have, of course, addressed many such gatherings. The opportunity which the Government’s new proposals gives us to break the wage-price spiral requires a more systematic effort in the area of contact and consultation with trade union organisations.

The Private Sector

The third objective I stated earlier is to restore business confidence by enhancing profitability. The Government’s decision to cut personal taxes for some wage increases is particularly significant for the private sector, both in terms of costs and demand.

Business profits are being adversely affected by flagging demand and by the effects of inflation on cash flows and the replacement costs of assets. One consequence of declining profitability of business generally has been that the capacity and willingness of business to undertake new investment have been eroded.

The Government recognises these problems and is determined to correct them. The measures I have already announced should adequately deal with the decline in demand, even if, as is always the case, their full impact will be felt only after a lag. However, ultimately these measures will be ineffective unless they are accompanied by restored business confidence and profitability. It is an essential part of the Government’s present strategy that we should stop the profits slide, restore confidence and encourage renewed private investment.

The Treasurer announced in his Budget Speech that the rate of tax on both public and private companies in 1974-75, in respect of 1973-74 income, was to be 47Vi per cent. The public company rate was already at that level and, as foreshadowed in the 1973-74 Budget, the private company rate was to be increased from 45 to 47 Vi per cent to bring the private and company rates together.

The Government has now decided that the rate on public and private companies in respect of 1973-74 income will be 45 per cent instead of 47te per cent. The public company rate will therefore be reduced to 2V4 per cent below last year’s level, and the proposed increase in the private company rate will not take place. The Budget proposal would have applied a common rate to public and private companies; that will still occur, but the common rate will be 45 per cent and not 47V4 per cent. A consequential reduction will be made to the rate on 1974-75 income of a superannuation fund that does not observe the 30/20 rule. The 1974-75 financial year rate for taxable income of co-operative and non-profit companies in excess of $10,000 will be 45 per cent in lieu of 47 Vi per cent.

Prices Justification Tribunal

I now turn to the continuing role of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Since the Tribunal came into operation in August 1973, it has played an important part in our efforts to curb inflation. I believe that it has been very effective in concentrating the attention of companies on the need to restrain cost and price increases. Companies with wage and other cost increases in the pipeline are now finding that these increases are being examined more, critically than they may have expected. There can be no doubt that the Tribunal has been successful in restraining prices below the level to which they would have risen if the Government had not established the Tribunal.

The inflationary problem is now more complex than when the Tribunal was established. Rapid inflation is now accompanied by rising unemployment and a falling away in the private investment on which economic growth and our continued prosperity greatly depend.

One of the problems is that, in considering new investment projects, business is concerned about the prospects of maintaining worthwhile returns, not just in the immediate future, but over the whole economic life of the investments concerned, subject, of course, to normal market risks. The rapid inflation that we have experienced has added to the uncertainties.

I am therefore writing to the Prices Justification Tribunal to indicate the Government’s view that, in the present economic circumstances, it should now give particular attention to the problems of sustaining and stimulating an adequate level of private investment and of maintaining rates of return on capital which will induce the new investment required to maintain economic growth and employment.

The Tribunal will of course continue to act in accordance with its statutory responsibilities to ensure that prices are not set at levels which are higher than are properly justifiable and that companies are not passing on in prices avoidable increases in costs.

Tax Inquiry

It is well known that rapid inflation has a distorting effect on the taxation paid by persons and, in some circumstances, companies. The Government recognises that companies can be adversely affected by taxation treatment of depreciation and stock valuations. The tax measures I have announced tonight are directed towards meeting a particular situation but, in the longer run, it is important that attention in depth be paid to the question of whether there ought to be any changes in our taxation system to take account of the effects of inflation. Accordingly, the Government proposes to appoint a panel to report, by May 1975, on questions relating to the effects of inflation on taxation paid by persons and companies. Membership of the. panel and the detailed terms of reference will be announced at a later date.

The fourth group of measures which I wish to mention this evening involves support for particular industries where special problems are emerging. The Government is concerned to preserve employment opportunities whilst ensuring that these interests are balanced against the nation’s longer term economic interests.

Housing

The Government has decided to increase further the availability of finance for housing.

I mention that the Government has already approved no less than $3 10m for welfare housing purposes in 1974-75 and, after carefully reviewing the situation in Queensland, we have now agreed to provide a further $8m for welfare housing in that State. These funds, which include $127m to be channelled primarily through ter.minating building societies, are over 40 per cent more than those made available last year.

In the private sector considerable scope for increased lending for housing by the savings banks was provided in early September with the amendments to the Banking (Savings Banks) Regulations. At the same time the savings banks were requested to increase their loan approvals for housing.

These amendment have enabled the savings banks to increase substantially their lending for housing and, on present indications, loan approvals by the banks in the December quarter could be as much as 50 per cent higher than in the September quarter.

In addition to the stimulus being provided to housing activity in both the public and private sectors by these measures, we consider there is a need to further supplement the flow of finance for housing. Accordingly, we now intend to introduce legislation at an early date to appropriate $150m to the savings banks for lending for housing.

The detailed arrangements will be discussed with the savings banks but the funds will be provided directly to them by the Government on terms and conditions to be agreed with the banks. They will be lent by the savings banks on the same terms and conditions as apply to normal savings bank loans financed by the banks from their own sources. They will be available to men and women for the acquisition or erection of homes and for extensions to existing homes.

I should make it clear that we gave careful consideration to the possibility of channelling some of these funds through the permanent building societies. However, in view of the more even geographic spread of savings banks and for ease of administration, we have decided to limit the scheme to the savings banks. The permanent building society movement has the Government’s full support in the role it is playing in providing home finance and we hope that societies will be able to expand lending from their own resources.

The purpose of the additional $ 1 50m is to provide an additional quick-acting stimulus to activity and employment in the home building industry. The funds made available to them under this measure will be used by the savings banks to increase further their rate of housing lending beyond the increased rate they have already been asked to achieve following the recent amendments on the Banking (Savings Banks) Regulations.

The measure will provide an appropriate additional stimulus to the building industry at this time. It is a short-term measure geared to current circumstances. The Government is determined, however, to avoid a return to the boom conditions which were beneficial neither to the community nor to the industry.

Home builders can plan ahead with confidence that the Government intends to ensure that loans will be available to home purchasers and that the significant increase in take-home pay, particularly from home interest tax deductibility, will enable purchasers to service their loans.

Motor Vehicles

The Government has been considering the long-term future of the motor vehicle industry for many months. The public debate and inquiry have been more open and intensive than any other industrial decision making process.

I am pleased to announce that the Government has approved in principle a long-term motor vehicle policy. In essence, the existing motor vehicle plans will be replaced by a single, simplified, lower content plan which will encourage longer production runs by both vehicle manufacturers and component producers. In addition, the Japanese motor vehicle industry has been invited to examine the new policy with a view to expanding its operations in Australia. As part of the long run policy and also because of the very high level of car imports, comprising over 40 per cent of registrations, relevant import duties will be generally increased by 10 per cent. These duties will be lowered again when imports fall to or below 20 percent of registrations over a designated period. Details of the proposals will be announced in a separate statement.

This decision should have an immediate effect but I wish to emphasise that this effect will occur within the context of a long-term plan for the development and rationalisation of the industry.

Textiles

The Government has paid particular attention to the present difficulties of the textile industry. It has established the Textiles Authority within the Industries Assistance Commission to examine cases, under the GATT arrangement regarding international trade in textiles, for restraints by countries exporting textiles to Australia. Following the Authority’s first report in July, restraints have been negotiated for a wide range of knitted and woven apparel. I have just received the Authority ‘s second report covering yarns, knitted fabrics and towelling and will announce action on this in the very near future. I expect to refer further textiles matters to the Authority later this week. At the same time the Commission is reviewing the whole of the long-term protective requirements of the Australian clothing industry. The textiles industry is, of course, vitally important to the economy of a number of country areas and the Government has recently announced a scheme of special assistance, including the direct payment of subsidies, to firms which have been affected by certain Government decisions.

Beef

Another industry in which there is very great uncertainty at the present time is the cattle industry. We are aware of the very severe problems which have been caused by the closing off of many overseas markets. We are examining as a matter of urgency representations we have received from the industry seeking help for those producers who have been hardest hit by these developments. Any such assistance of course needs to be administratively feasible and directed to those least able to meet current problems.

Loan Guarantees

The Government’s adjustment assistance program is designed to assist firms to restructure their activities, from uneconomic to economic areas of production. Loan guarantees are an integral part of the structural adjustment assistance measures announced on 23 April 1974. Like the Government’s other structural adjustment measures,, they are available to firms adversely affected by prescribed structural changes under the criteria announced on 23 April 1 974.

It was the’ Government’s original intention to introduce legislation providing for loan guarantees with the legislation to establish a Structural Adjustment Board. However rather than wait for the legislation to establish the Structural Adjustment Board, which will take some time to prepare, the Government has decided to introduce separate legislation providing for loan guarantees in the current Parliament session.

Conclusion

The Australian Government fully recognises the crucial importance of the private sector in the development of Australia. It is not just the importance we attach to the private sector as the greatest source of employment. We are deeply aware that in a mixed economy such as ours the prosperity of the private sector is basic to the Government’s social objectives. The program of social reform embarked upon by the present Government cannot be achieved without a strong and growing private sector. Nothing could be further from the truth than that we are antibusiness or hostile to business; we recognise the interdependence of all sectors of the economy.

It is no solution to our current problems, as some would have it, that we cut Government spending. If we were to take such a decision now we would risk aggravating unemployment, not to mention undermining the confidence of that section of the business sector which depends on Government orders. A reduction of budgetary expenditure would of necessity have a primary impact upon areas which provide demand for products of the private sector. Cuts in Government spending will simply aggravate our present problems. Our program of government expenditure has been achieved without excessive increases in the number of public servants. The staff ceiling control on the Australian Public Service will be retained in a modified form. This will be the subject of a separate statement.

Further, and it cannot be stressed too often, the quality of life in Australia- the real standard of living of all Australians- cannot be maintained, let alone raised, unless governments accept responsibility for community services which individuals can no longer provide adequately for themselves.

Mr President, the Government will have to maintain its close surveillance of the economy and retain its flexibility for the months ahead. We believe the new stimulus to the economy is appropriate to the problems we face: We must be wary of the possible re-emergence of excess demand pressures within our economy. The new measures announced tonight are designed to ensure that the private sector continues to grow.

Equally we believe these measures, building upon the continuing program expressed in the Budget, provide a sound basis foi* co-operation with all sections of the community and between all sections ofthe community in the undoubtedly difficult days which lie immediately ahead. The requirements of a mixed economy in a democratic society are never simple, never easy. The whole nature of such a society involves a tremendous range of competing choices in making decisions- the decisions made by government, the decisions made by organisations, the decisions made by individuals.

The pressures created by these competing demands are now world-wide. Not for the first time, an Australian Labor Government finds itself in power at a time of profound international difficulty. As in those other times, the spirit of the nation is as important to ultimate success as the policies of the elected government. Quite apart from their economic thrust, the measures I have announced tonight are aimed at strengthening the spirit of national co-operation and confidence, by showing Australians that they have elected a government firm and vigorous in meeting the challenges of our time- difficult times indeed, yet like all such times, a test for the essential great qualities of this nation, a test which together, Government, Parliament and people, I am confident we shall meet.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75 In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Senator BAUME:

– Before the sitting of the Committee was suspended we were discussing several matters relating to the functioning ofthe

Senate Estimates committees. Some doubts had been expressed about the capacity of these Committees to function. I remember that Senator Wriedt mentioned in passing that there could be some doubt about the continued existence of Estimates committees. The statement was made in a very general way. Following upon that, Senator Magnus Cormack made some general statements about the problems of achieving parliamentary supervision of expenditure. At that stage I rose to point out that there are several ways in which the work of Estimates committees could be distorted. One way is by unduly detailed questioning as has been mentioned from this side of the chamber. Another way is in the situation where it becomes difficult to ask all the questions one wants to ask. I remain with the statement that unless one has the chance to ask the question one wants to ask at an Estimates committee hearing it becomes difficult to get the best value from such a committee. I think that if there is any difficulty at any stage in getting the call at an Estimates committee hearing the committee ‘s value is somewhat diminished.

Senator Milliner:

– Was the honourable senator restricted?

Senator BAUME:

– I was restricted. I will say that at the hearings of the Committee of which I was a member- Estimates Committee E- there was no problem

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr Chairman, I must raise a point of order on this matter. I have been in my room listening to the debate all afternoon. As to the relevancy of the debate, a debate on the Estimates committees is obviously the proper time to deal with this subject. Such a time would be when we were appointing the Estimates committees and discussing their role. We have just passed the second reading stage of an Appropriation Bill. We are in a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of a further examination of those appropriations. This should not be a rehash of what the Estimates committees may and should have done. I ask the honourable senator to refer to the item in the Appropriation Bill to which he is speaking. I ask you, Mr Chairman, to confine honourable senators to particular items.

Senator Poyser:

– He has been talking all day.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, I know. This has been going all day and no one has raised the question. I think it should be raised as we are setting a dangerous precedent here.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-The Committee is directing its attention to divisions 250 to 258 which are under the heading of Department of Foreign Affairs. The proposed expenditure is $354m. It is quite appropriate for an honourable senator to refer to the reports of various committees.

Senator BAUME:

– In answer to Senator Cavanagh I point out that in fairness to Senator McAuliffe who, before the suspension of the sitting had expressed some concern at what I said, I was anxious to resume my remarks so as to be certain to give him a chance to answer me as he wishes to do.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The honourable senator will get his chance in relation to Committee C.

Senator BAUME:

-That is fair enough. The point I want to make and the point I make again is that I sat in on questioning by several Estimates committees. I formed an opinion that it was not always equally possible to get the call. I just make the point that that is one way in which the value of the committees may be diminished. That is the only point I wish to make.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– It is true, as Senator Baume has said, that before the suspension of the sitting for dinner he made certain statements and accusations which I interpret as reflecting on the members of Senate Estimates Committee C and on myself as chairman. He reflected on his own colleagues Senator Laucke, Senator Scott and Senator Guilfoyle and also on honourable senators from this side of the chamber, namely, Senators Coleman and Melzer and myself. I regard the honourable senator as reflecting on them because he said that he was stifled by not being allowed to ask questions. Before Estimates Committee C commenced its questioning on the estimates of the Department of Tourism and Recreation, Department of the Media and Department of Education I laid down guidelines for the procedures which would be followed regarding questioning. It was unanimously agreed by the members of Estimates Committee C that we would deal with the Estimates division by division, that we would go around the table commencing clockwise and afterwards we would go anti-clockwise. After the members of the Committee had been invited to ask any questions regarding the division or subdivision it was agreed that we would then invite to ask questions any other honourable senators who were present at the hearing. This procedure was agreed upon unanimously by the Committee. At no time did the Committee ever deviate from this procedure.

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

– That was the previous practice.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– As I am prompted and reminded it was a procedure which was introduced by previous chairmen when honourable senators opposite were in government. Senator Baume was not present at any time during the discussion on the estimates for the Department of Tourism and Recreation. He came in at the latter part of the discussion on the Department of the Media. When Senator Guilfoyle had asked many pertinent and intelligent questions of the Minister and of the departmental representatives Senator Baume endeavoured to get on the bandwagon. I broke the procedure and allowed him to ask a supplementary question following a question asked by Senator Guilfoyle. Senator Baume came in again at the latter part of the questioning on the estimates for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and on the latter part of the estimates for the Department of Education. In all he asked 5 questions and received 5 answers. Never at any time was he refused the call if he wanted to continue his questioning. He was completely exhausted because he had no knowledge or expertise with which to ask the witnesses or the Minister for any information. Some of the gems which fell from his lips by way of questioning are these:

Senator BAUME:

– On the point Senator Guilfoyle was raising, is this question of technical equipment going to be a recurring item? Are you going to require $270,000 every year?

Mr Connolly of the Department answered the question. Senator Baume asked:

Shall we then see this item decreasing?

Mr Connolly stated:

One would hope so.

That is the type of question which was asked by Senator Baume. This is the gem which fell from Senator Baume ‘s lips in the discussion on the estimates for the Department of Education:

Senator BAUME:

– What are the levels of the consultation fees payable?

Mr Scutt; The standard rate which applies to all Australian Government Committees. I think it is $35 a day.

Later on Senator Baume asked:

What is the variation in those figures from the year before?

This followed a question asked by Senator Laucke. The departmental officer answered:

I have not got that comparison with me, but I could make it available to the Committee.

That information has been made available to the Committee. I wonder whether Senator Baume has displayed interest in going to the Committee secretariat and asking for a copy of the information. I shall let him answer that question himself. As chairman I cannot be blamed if Senator Baume found himself at the questioning as a preliminary boy among the champions. If he felt out of his depth he should not blame me. Somebody said that he should change his mentor and replace Senator Greenwood with somebody else. I believe that the action of Senator Baume in reflecting not only on his own colleagues but also on other honourable senators who were members of that Committee was a most despicable act. The worst part of all is that the honourable senator who is a johnny-come-lately reflected on the integrity -

Senator Marriott:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. It is offensive to me for Senator McAuliffe to say that Senator Baume took part in a despicable action. I ask for that statement to be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-I think that in the parliamentary sense we must accept that statement. I do not uphold the point of order.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-I am amazed to think that an honourable senator with such short experience in the Senate should have taken it upon himself to reflect on colleagues who have greater experience. Senator Baume should have congratulated the members of Senate Estimates Committee C who got on with the business for which Senate Estimates committees are constituted. They sought information from the Minister and from the departmental representatives. Unlike other honourable senators in this chamber on other committees the members of Committee C did not put the departmental representatives through an inquisition. They did not start questioning in order to embarrass them for political advantage. This Committee, to the credit of Senator Laucke, Senator Scott, Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Melzer and Senator Coleman got on with the business of the Estimates. Because they attended to the business before Estimates Committee C they were able to complete their questioning by 9.30 p.m. They did not engage in useless political manoeuvring. If there is any doubt about how the members of the Committee felt in regard to the conduct of Estimates Committee C let me read to the chamber the unanimous resolution that was carried by members of that Committee. It reads:

The Committee wishes to express its thanks to the Minister for the Media, Senator Douglas McClelland, and to the departmental officers for the full and frank response which the Committee received to its questioning.

Senator Poyser:

– Was Senator Baume there when they carried that motion?

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– It is hard to know how long he was there. He made 2 fleeting appearances. I do not wish to reflect on you, Mr Chairman, but I must say that I was surprised this evening that a senator of your experience and one who has shown fairness over a long period of time should have allowed Senator Baume to continue. I hope that you were not smarting from being rebuffed today from the Chair when you really did endeavour to breach the Standing Orders by attempting to speak twice in the same debate. It was so out of character of you this evening when you were in the Chair to allow Senator Baume to continue reflecting on his colleagues and other senators by saying that he was denied the opportunity to ask questions at Committee C. I forgive you on this occasion because I know that you were preoccupied with an earlier happening and I hope that will never occur again. After all, Senator Baume did reflect on the Committee and you did make me withdraw for having called Senator Carrick a phoney. As I told Senator Baume early in the piece in this chamber, when new senators come here, irrespective of what side they sit on, the senators in this place are willing to make available to them their experience and to give any advice or help to them in any way. I have met Senator Baume many times in the lobby and we have had a discussion. If there was any way in which I could have offered advice about some place or something else I have endeavoured to help him. I will give him a word of advice: Next time before he engages in irresponsibilities as he did today, he should check the facts and have his facts right.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-At one point during Senator Baume ‘s comments I thought he was on the point of acknowledging the situation which obtained in Estimates Committee E but he may have been sidetracked or his mind may have tended to course in some other direction and he did not go on to make that acknowledgment. So I think it is incumbent upon me to set the record straight in that respect. During the examination of the estimates coming under the responsibility of Committee E, every opportunity was given throughout the whole of the proceedings of that Committee for any member of that Committee to ask questions. Of course the courtesy was extended to other honourable senators who came in to join the deliberations of the Committee and to ask questions. In fact, at one stage- this is interesting to record in the light of the words which have just been uttered members of Committee E objected because they said I gave Senator Baume too good a go and that he was hogging the show. Senator Townley, one of his colleagues, objected and said: ‘When are you going to give us a go?’ At that point I had to alter the procedure that had been followed up to that stage to enable every member of the Committee to -

Senator Sheil:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I suppose I am as anxious as anybody else to move on to Estimates Committee E. I submit that Committee E has not been criticised and therefore there is no relevance to the present discussion on the report on Committee B.

Senator Devitt:

– On the point of order, Mr Chairman, Senator Baume made the general observation that he was not given an opportunity. I just want to clear the record and say that he was. There may not have been any discussion in relation to the affairs of Committee E because it was well conducted and carried out its work very well, very efficiently and very successfully. So I have to take the opportunity at this point to correct the impression which has been given that Senate Baume was not given a go. That is my observation on the point or order.

Senator Laucke:

– As a member of Committee C I must say this. The tenor of the Estimates Committee’s inquiries was well expressed in that paragraph of the report of that Committee when it was said that the Committee wished to express its thanks to the Minister for the Media and to the departmental officers for the full and frank response which the Committee received to its questioning, to which I could add that the actions of the Chairman of that Committee in respect of the conduct of that inquiry were, in my opinion, faultless. He was certainly to a degree peremptory in getting through some of the questioning but in my opinion there was no evidence of an unfairness in ability to tender questions to the Chairman. I must say this because it would be churlish of me not to do so. Senator McAuliffe handled that Committee in a way which led to an expression of thanks to the Minister for the Media with which I would include the Chairman of that Committee so far as the activities of the Committee were concerned. It is so that in the Committee’s deliberations there was a firm movement of questions around the table by members of the Committee, both clockwise and anti-clockwise and thereafter invitations to ask any further questions by members of the Committee and then questions from those honourable senators who attended the hearing. That is my assessment of the Committee hearings. I think it is my duty to say so here tonight because of the suggestion that there was not an opportunity to ask questions in that Committee.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

– Order! I have been rather lax with the Committee in allowing honourable senators to speak on a variety of matters. The previous 2 speakers have devoted their comments to matters other than Division 250 which relates to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I would ask that honourable senators assist the Committee to get this vote through by confining their remarks to Divisions 250 to 258.

Senator DEVITT:

- Mr Chairman, will you allow me now to complete my comments because the point of order which was raised interrupted me?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. I did not hear it as a point of order.

Senator DEVITT:

– Oh, yes it was.

Senator Sheil:

– I raised a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That was a point of order but I did not understand that Senator Laucke was speaking to the point of order. I thought he was making a statement on another matter. I will call Senator Greenwood if he wishes to rise.

Senator DEVITT:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I have not completed my remarks. You, Mr Chairman, called me. I was on my feet when I was interrupted by a point of order and I now claim the right to complete my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I bow to you, Senator Devitt. I thought you had finished your comments.

Senator DEVITT:

– I just want to say this -

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

- Mr Chairman, I raised a point of order. You have not ruled on it. If Senator Devitt wishes to continue- I thought he had finished- I would ask you, Mr Chairman, for a ruling on my point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– My understanding is that there is no substance in the point of order raised on Senator Devitt ‘s comments.

Senator DEVITT:

-I will conclude my remarks but I just want to put the record straight on this. In fact, in Committee E nothing that was done there -

Senator Baume:

– Committee E?

Senator DEVITT:

-I am talking about Committee E and the observation that I was making about that Committee. There was no lack of opportunity for anybody to ask questions. The only 2 occasions when this might have been interferred with was when Senator Townley raised a question as to whether Senator Baume should hog the whole show and I thereafter changed the course of questioning to give everybody an opportunity. The second occasion was when Senator Townley raised the question as to whether Senator Shiel had any right to ask a question.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. My point of order relates to procedure. Are we dealing with the report of Committee B or are we now embarking upon an examination of the report of Committee C? That is what I wish to know.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I acknowledge your point of order, Senator. I think it is well taken. I would just ask the honourable senator to move on from Committee E to which he is referring and to deal with Committee B. Senator Devitt you have the right to speak. You are in continuation.

Senator DEVITT:

-I think I have put the record straight on that. I do not want to delay the Committee’s deliberations on this matter. I conclude my remarks.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I rise to clear the obvious smokescreen which has been raised by honourable senators in the Government side to cover up the real point of criticism which is being made. I am concerned with the report of Estimates Committee B which is relevant to the estimates which we are considering. In the course of his justification of a very clear criticism by this Committee ofthe conduct ofthe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee), Senator Wriedt said -

Senator Poyser:

– I rise on a point of order. This is obviously tedious repetition because this is the fourth occasion on which Senator Greenwood has raised this point. I often wondered why this brilliant young lawyer became a senator. I found out that he was paid by the word, and nobody could afford to employ him any more.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator WebsterSenator Greenwood is quite in order.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-That last pseudo point of order, as I would call it, is typical of the abuse in which Labor senators are well practised, but it does not serve to obscure the point which must be made. In his defence of the Committee ‘s criticism Senator Wriedt indicated to this side of the chamber that the future of estimates committees was in doubt. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, in words which commanded the attention of everyone in this chamber, pointed out that no temporary servant of government determines whether the Parliament will grant the moneys which are necessary for the carrying out of the Government’s affairs. Parliament itself does that. It is not for Senator Wriedt nor for any other member of this Government with their general intimidatory tactics to prevent members of the Senate from having information supplied to them as to the purposes for which the Government is seeking money. Senator Baume rose to support Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, and he indicated his experience in another committee. Because he had the temerity to say that he found it difficult to raise his voice in another committee he was immediately subjected to attack and abuse by senators on the Government side. Senator Baume will have the defence of this side of the chamber because that sort of approach by Government senators is nothing more than intimidation and an endeavour in the form of an abusive reply to prevent a person from having the say to which is entitled in this chamber.

Senator Poyser:

- Mr Chairman, you ruled a few minutes ago that future speakers in this debate should relate their remarks to the proposed expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Obviously Senator Greenwood is doing what many other senators have done in the past, but in view of your plea a few moments ago I would request that you bring him back to the estimates before the Committee of the Whole. I will continue to raise this point irrespective of which side of the chamber the speaker is from.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I take note of your point of order, Senator Poyser, and I have no doubt that you would not have spoken if I had applied my ruling correctly previously.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am again interested in Senator Poyser because we are becoming accustomed to his tactics in this chamber. He clowns, laughs and interjects whenever an Opposition senator is speaking. When a few pertinent points are made he makes some facile, pseudo point of order and hopes that he will be listened to. On one occasion he has disobeyed the Standing Orders. On the next occasion he is trying to rely upon them. I have ascertained since the discussion in the Committee as a Whole this afternoon that during the examination of the proposed expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs the Minister for Foreign Affairs was nonchalant, disinterested and could not care less about questions being asked by senators from this side of the chamber. As we have seen in this chamber, that is typical of his attitude. Therefore, it is fair that a committee which is representative of both sides of the chamber should take him to task for the way in which he responded to Estimates committee questioning. It is high time that point was nailed on the Government and on this Minister.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I presume that Senator Greenwood’s last comment was referring again to Senator Willesee. I repeat what I said earlier:

This is typical of the sort of deliberate denigration we have had of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his absence from this Parliament. I believe it is to be regretted that Senator Greenwood continues to adopt that line. I wish to speak on the matter raised by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack which was referred to again a moment ago. I have taken the trouble to refer to my Hansard pinks. I said:

Even though most of us have some reservations about the continuation of the Estimates committee, the Government wants to see that if they are to be continued they are continued in their proper role and that they are not abused as they have been and as we all know they have been. The Government’s policy is to provide the maximum information and not to withhold information.

I do not know the basis on which anyone reads from that statement that I said that the future of the Estimate committees is in doubt. The point was made earlier in an explanation by a government senator that I had said that there are reservations about the operation of Estimate committees. That has nothing to do with the Estimates. The Estimates must continue in this Parliament. We all know that. There was not even the slightest suggestion about or reflection on the procedure for considering Estimates in the Committee of the Whole. I refer to the point raised by Senator Davidson when he asked me again about the World Food Conference. It would be premature for a statement to be issued at this time because the Conference will continue for another two or possibly three weeks and some important decisions will almost certainly be made in the committees after the plenary session is completed. I point out to Senator Davidson that until such time as the Conference is completed I would not be in a position to make a formal statement to the Parliament.

Proposed Expenditure- Department of Foreign Affairs, $354,365,000-passed

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-Is it the wish of the Committee that all the divisions of the Department of Services and Property be dealt with together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– One of the many claims made by the Australian Labor Party in seeking election to government and early in government was that it disapproved strongly of the principle of the previous government in substantial leasing or renting of premises and that its policy would be to alter that arrangement radically and to provide accommodation in its own buildings. I draw the attention of the Committee of the Whole to attachment 4 as circulated. It contains information supplied in reply to a question by me. I asked whether there was an increase in rented premises. It will be noted that from 30 June 1972 to 30 June 1974, which is substantially the period of office of this Government, owned accommodation has increased by 14 per cent and leased accommodation by 41 per cent. I think that that should be clearly noted. The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in his reply might reverse that policy as one by one Labor Government policies have been reversed. Lest there be any doubt about the document from which I am reading I seek leave to have attachment 4 as circulated to honourable senators incorporated in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

ATTACHMENT 4

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

Additional Information to that Provided at Hearing on IS * October 1974

Division 523-Rent $34,037,000

Senator Carrick

Hansard Reference- Page 89

Question- I have the impression that the overall volume of rented space has very considerably increased in the last year or two. Has the Department any statistic, not measured in money for rental but measured in actual space rented, which would either support, or give the lie to my belief? In other words, has there been a substantial increase in space rented? Can we measure it other than in costs?

Answer- The following table provides details of Government office accommodation from 1969 to 1974.

shown in the table above exclude the statistics for country areas as these are available only in respect of 1973 onwards.

Senator CARRICK:

-I thank the Senate. I draw the attention of the Committee of the Whole to a quite serious matter. I refer to the latest report by the Auditor-General. On pages 196 and 197, the Auditor-General reports that a substantial number of buildings which are rented or owned by the Government throughout Australia remained unoccupied and unused for extremely extensive periods. Let me quote from the Auditor-General’s report:

In one case, a property purchased in December 1971 for $1,050,000 was still only partially occupied. Another property, purchased in February 1969 for $190,000, had been vacant since acquisition. A third property, purchased in June 1973 for $198,854 and intended for ultimate demolition, had been vacant since acquisition. A site purchased in October 1972 for $60,000 had been found unsuitable for the intended purpose and its development was in doubt.

Senator McLaren:

– What date in 1972 was the purchase?

Senator CARRICK:

– A site was purchased in October 1972.

Senator McLaren:

– Under what government?

Senator CARRICK:

– Precisely 4 weeks before we finished as the Government it was purchased and has been found unsuitable for the intended purpose by this Government. The AuditorGeneral goes on and says -

Senator McLaren:

– You purchased it. You cannot blame this Government for that.

Senator CARRICK:

-Not surprisingly the Auditor-General holds views slighty different from those of Senator McLaren. I would worry about the qualifications of the Auditor-General if he did not. The Auditor-General listed a series of other properties which had been unoccupied. The report said:

Instances were also noted of properties remaining unoccupied long after having been vacated by the holding departments.

A property valued at $ 1 ,200,000 was still unoccupied after having been vacated in August 1972. Another property valued at $2,425,000 had been vacant since November 1972. A further property valued at $110,000 had been vacant since August 1972.

I draw attention also to the Auditor-General’s statements regarding occupancy of leased premises. He pointed out:

In one instance, in excess of $1 10,000 had been paid in respect of unoccupied areas of leased space and there were indications that the figure could ultimately exceed $500,000. In another 2 cases, the respective amounts involved were approximately $ 1 50,000 and $ 146,000. The remaining cases ranged from approximately $ 12,000 to $80,000.

I asked for information to be supplied as to the nature of the circumstances and honourable senators will note in Attachment 2 some four or five pages in which property after property is set out For example, workshop premises at Concord West, being unoccupied Government premises, were purchased by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and contracts were exchanged on 17 December 1971. Settlement took place on 9 June 1972 and the premises were not occupied after the best part of 1 8 months had elapsed. A property in Blackburn purchased at a cost of $190,000 in February 1969 is still not in use. In the case of a property in West Street, North Sydney, there is a similar situation. There is list after list of properties owned but not occupied. And when we come to unoccupied leased premises we see property after property leased, rents paid for years, but no occupation. Here we have Bridgegate House in Elizabeth Street, Sydney. A lease for this was made for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and commenced on 9 November 1973 at a rental of $347,588.80 per annum. It is understood that the premises are not yet occupied. There was a similar situation in respect of a lease at Central Square. Ship News House at North Sydney was leased from 7 June 1971 at the request of the Postmaster-General’s Department. It is understood that the property was progressively occupied between March and June 1972. The rental paid from the commencement of that lease until the premises were occupied amounted to approximately $ 1 46,000.

Senator McLaren:

– Your Government again.

Senator CARRICK:

– On the contrary, what the honourable senator does not understand, because no doubt he is incapable of reading the Auditor-General’s report, is that the AuditorGeneral explains that for an initial period of 6 months or more it is obviously necessary to put the carpenters and decorators in to refurbish the place before it is occupied. The Auditor-General is referring to the year 1973-74 in which, tragically for Australia, the Whitlam Labor Government was in power. The criticism by the AuditorGeneral is of the Labor Government.

Senator Milliner:

– What did you buy them for?

Senator CARRICK:

– If the honourable senator queries whether it was right to buy them, he is hoist with his own petard. If it was wrong and if the Whitlam Government says it was wrong why has it held on to them and not sold them? Why has it kept these premises if it was wrong? The Auditor-General, on the contrary, says that there is some anticipation that they will be used. It seems to me that honourable senators on the Government benches are not helping their own cause by their interjections so I urge them to continue. In respect of the Carlton Centre in Elizabeth Street, Sydney, on the unoccupied portions of an area of 35, 1 38 square feet leased from 19 March 1973 at the request of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, the rental amounted to approximately $80,000. Similar situations prevailed in respect of premises in Grosvenor Street Sydney where the cost was $12,000; at Miranda Fair, Miranda, at a cost of $12,750; at Aviation House, Brisbane, at a cost of $35,000; at Scottish Amicable House, Parkside, South Australia, at a cost of $ 16,000.

The basic policy of the Government in terms of services and property was that the Government would build its own properties and occupy them and cut down on leasing. The simple fact is that no government has expanded with such Parkinson tendencies as has this Government. No government has equipped its Ministers and its officers with such elaborate premises. In Sydney their premises are among the most elaborate and attract some of the highest rentals in Sydney. It is not good enough for Ministers to set themselves up in government buildings. Honourable senators will find that they have gone into elaborate buildings. The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) at least for some time was in the tower building at Australia Square. Wherever one looks there is this tendency. I rose on these estimates simply to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the AuditorGeneral as usual has done a great service to the Parliament in drawing attention to defects. The information supplied by way of questioning has illustrated a series of quite grave defects which I hope will be rectified shortly.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I intervene in the debate only to follow up what was said by Senator Carrick in relation to the functions of the Department of Services and Property. Despite what he quoted from the Auditor-General’s report he might have conceded, as a non-ministerial senator, that with the appointment of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) there has been an attempt to give us certain facilities that are needed to combat the massive pressures that we are subjected to. I say that with some feeling. To show the distorted values that we have, I met the former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable W. McMahon- my local member- after we became the Government and certain innovations had taken place. He asked me why we could not do more. When I referred him to what had happened over the last 7 years that I had been a senator, he said: ‘Yes, but the Minister for the

Interior was never of my Party; he was a member of the Country Party’.

Let us be realistic about it. I am not trying to play party politics, but in respect of every amenity that has been provided no Opposition senator has been backward in going for as much as he could get. I will give some illustrations of the injustices that we were subjected to. Under the system of shadow ministers and representatives, Senator Douglas McClelland, who will bear me out on this, and I on various occasions were asked to represent first the Right Honourable Arthur Calwell and then the Honourable R. G. Whitlam. I suppose the taxpayer was benefiting but the fact was that we had to go in our own cars to a particular function in Martin Place but did not know where we could park. When I suggested that we park where Ministers parked you would have thought I wanted to storm the Bastille or sing ‘The Red Flag’ in this chamber. The only way I got justice from the then Minister for the Interior was to deliberately park where I should not park and when I got my infringement notice I sent a copy to the Commissioner of Police in Sydney and another copy to Peter Nixon and said: ‘You can fight it out and do what you like’. Within a short time I was given certain parking facilities. Anything I got under the Liberal-Country Party Government I got because I agitated for it, and I do not think I was under any obligation in seeking it.

Even under this Government the gap as far as facilities and modern requirements are concerned remains fairly wide. My main complaint relates to some of the disabilities we suffer here and in our respective capital cities about which nothing has been done. I wrote numerous letters to Ministers for the Interior. I remember something even more despicable. I am referring now to an earlier Minister, the honourable Ralph Hunt. The Liberal-Country Party Government was so stupid in the way it ran operations that when the gatekeeper at the parking area in Sydney took his meal break or had to go to the repatriation hospital it put on the gate a man who did not know how to drive a car. On one occasion there was a massive traffic jam and I got on top of a utility and said to the people: ‘Don’t blame the gatekeeper, blame the bastard of a Minister’. That Minister was Ralph Hunt. There is no use backing and filling. I do not believe in any dignity. This is the Keystone outfit that the LiberalCountry Party Government had. I do not spare the Department of Services and Property. There are still things that are needed. The Department knows that I get on the telephone and tell it so. Let us be a little bit honest and say that we have gone a long way since we had those inept Country Party Ministers for the Interior.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise to make a few comments because of the remarks of Senator Carrick. As is usual when Senator Carrick rises to speak in this place he missed no opportunity to endeavour to denigrate this Government. He quoted from the Auditor-General’s report and I want to repeat some of the things he read from it. In most cases the extracts refer to actions taken by a government which he supported. It is quite obvious that the purchasing officers acting under the instructions of his Government either leased or bought properties which were not suitable for the purposes for which they were required.This was pointed out in the Auditor-General’s report. On page 1 96 of that report under the heading ‘ 3. 1 9. 1 Government-owned Properties Unoccupied for Extended Periods’ the Auditor-General had this to say:

Audit examinations during the year disclosed a number of instances where properties purchased by the Government had subsequently remained unoccupied for extended periods.

Why was this so? It was so because, as I said a few moments ago, they were purchased by the Government which the honourable senator supported although they were not suitable for the purposes for which they were purchased. The Auditor-General continued:

In one case, a property purchased in December 1971 for $1,050,000 was still only partially occupied. Another property, purchased in February 1969 for $190,000, had been vacant since acquis tion.

Who was responsible for that? It was not the Whitlam Government. The Auditor-General also said:

A site purchased in October 1972 for $60,000 had been found unsuitable for the intended purpose and its development was in doubt.

Who was in government when that property was purchased? This report continues:

Instances were also noted of properties remaining unoccupied long after having been vacated by the holding departments.

A property valued at $ 1 ,200,000 was still unoccupied after having been vacated in August 1 972.

The Opposition Parties were in government then. The Auditor-General continued:

Another valued at $2,425,000 had been vacant since November 1972. A further property valued at $1 10,000 had been vacant since August 1 972.

In every case these properties were either purchased or leased by the previous McMahon Government yet Senator Carrick rose in this place and tried to lay the blame at the feet of the present Government. The Auditor-General later said:

The Department of Services and Property has informed my Office that an inter-departmental committee is presently reviewing the use of Government land holdings and formulating policy options and procedures in accordance with Government objectives.

I am sure that the outcome of the findings of that committee will be that this Government will not continue to make the stupid mistakes made by the Liberal-Country Party Government, as instanced by what I have quoted from the AuditorGeneral ‘s report.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

- Senator Carrick raised the question of properties being unoccupied and I thought it appropriate that Senator McLaren should read that section from the AuditorGeneral’s report. I would have assumed that Senator Carrick would have read it if he really desired to put a fair argument to the Senate, but that is the qualifying point. There is some additional information which I am sure Senator Carrick would be extremely pleased to hear. This relates to some general reasons for increases in rents between June 1972 and June 1974.

The average rental per square metre has increased from $42.14 in June 1972 to $45.53 in June 1973, an increase of 8 per cent, and to $49.04 in June 1974, an increase of 18 per cent on the June 1972 figure. This increase in the rental rate cost an estimated $1.7m in 1972-73 and $2. lm 1 973-74, making a total of $3.8m for the 2 financial years. During the same period the amount of space leased has increased by 95,400 square metres from 554,600 square metres in June 1972 to 650,000 square metres in June 1 973, an increase of 1 7 per cent. It increased by a further 132,000 square metres to 782,000 square metres in June 1974, an increase of 41 per cent, which is the figure to which I think Senator Carrick referred. This increase in area cost an estimated $4.5m in 1972-73 and an estimated $6. 7m in 1973-74.

Ofthe increase of 95,400 square metres in the space leased in 1972-73, approximately 55 per cent is estimated as being attributable to the need to provide more suitable accommodation, while the balance is attributable to increases in staff numbers. Of the increase of 132,000 square metres in space leased in 1973-74, approximately 40 per cent is estimated as being attributable to the need to provide more suitable office accommodation, while the balance of 60 per cent is attributable to increase in staff numbers.

Senator Carrick raised the question of the apparent conflict of the comments made in the

Auditor-General’s report by referring to unoccupied properties presently owned by the Government. Insofar as unoccupied Government owned properties are concerned, there are 7 properties involved. Four of them are properties which were acquired but not occupied and the other three are government-owned properties which have been vacated but not re-occupied. All 4 properties included in the first category were purchased at the request of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. They have been available to that Department since acquisition and arrangements for their occupation and use have been a matter for it. In the case of the other 3 properties mentioned, one is to be redeveloped for the Australian Archives Office and the Australian Broadcasting Commission, another is a migrant hostel and is being held for migrant accommodation purposes, and the third is being retained, in accordance with Government policy, rather than being sold.

In respect of delays in occupying leased premises, there are 8 leases involved. In 6 cases the Postmaster-General’s Department was the client department while the Department of Defence and the Attorney-General’s Department were the client departments in the remaining 2 cases. The delays in occupancy in each case are understood to have resulted from delays in fitting the premises. Until recently the fitting out of leased premises has been the responsibility of the client department and the Department of Housing and Construction. Reasons for delays in occupancy are therefore a matter for those departments. It might be noted that under new procedures the Department of Services and Property and not the client department is responsible for arranging the fitting out of leased premises with the Department of Housing and Construction. These procedures have been introduced so that client departments may occupy leased premises as soon as possible after the date of commencement of the lease.

Proposed expenditures- Department of Services and Property, $83,310,000, Department of the Special Minister of State, $66,296,000, and Department of the Capital Territory, $30,639,000-passed

The CHAIRMAN:

– That completes Group B. We will move to Group C. The Minister in charge is Senator Douglas McClelland.

Department of the Media

Proposed Expendtiure, $ 1 1 5,4 1 9,000

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, am I competent at this stage to refer to an intention that I have to move a motion in respect to the placement of certain items in the Appropriation Bills, a matter which has been referred to in the report of Estimates Committee C?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-If you would address yourself to the matter I would be more familiar with it.

Senator LAUCKE:

– I raise a matter of great importance concerning the constitutional rights and privileges of the Senate. As I have said, it is in relation to the placement of certain items of expenditure in the 2 Appropriation Bills, bearing in mind the limitation placed on the Senate in that certain accepted categories of expenditure may or may not be subject to amendment by the Senate. I refer to paragraph 4 of the report of Estimates Committee C which says:

During its examination of the departmental estimates, members of the Committee queried whether certain items of proposed expenditure were correctly included in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75, a Bill which appropriates moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government and which the Senate cannot amend, or whether the items should have been included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2 ) 1 974-75, a Bill which the Senate may amend.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Senator Laucke, you are in order in dealing with the matter now.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Thank you. In the report of Estimates Committee C the Committee has reaffirmed a recommendation made by that Committee in November of last year. This recommendation reads:

That the matter of the interpretation of the 1965 compact insofar as it relates to new policies should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

I shall explain the compact at length in a few moments. Estimates Committee C decided unanimously that at the conclusion of the Senate’s consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) I should seek leave of the Senate to move a motion which, if passed, would refer the interpretation of new policies to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. There may be a number of honourable senators not conversant with the implications of the matter which I now raise. I point out that section 53 of the Constitution provides, in part:

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

Section 54 of the Constitution states:

The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.

The question of the interpretation of the Constitution as to what revenue or moneys should be considered as falling in the category ‘ for the ordinary annual services of the Government’ has since Federation been regarded not as a matter for the Government’s interpretation or for that of the High Court but rather as a matter to be decided by the Parliament. In 1964 the then Leader of the Government in the Senate announced a government decision as follows:

Briefly, the Government has decided that, from 1964-63, the contents of the Appropriation Bill and the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill will be amalgamated, subject to the separation out and inclusion in separate measures of any particular items which, as a matter of interpretation, do not fall within the description of appropriations for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

In the debate on the motion to take note of the statement an amendment was moved as follows:

That the Senate refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of the proposed change in the contents of the annual Appropriation Bills and resolves to consider such Bills.

The Appropriation Bills 1964-65 were in fact presented in the form that the Government had proposed but a committee of government senators was set up under the chairmanship of Senator Sir Mangus Cormack to inquire into the matter and to present a report to the Government. It was finally presented to the Parliament in 1967. It is Parliamentary Paper No. 55. The personnel of that Committee were Senator Sir Magnus Cormack then Senator M. C. Cormack- as Chairman, and Senator G. C. McKellar, Senator Wedgwood and Senator Wright. The introductory lines of the report from that Committee of government senators on Appropriation Bills and the ordinary annual services of the Government read as follows:

The 1964 decision to change the form of the annual Ap-

Sropriation Bills involves a reduction in the powers of the S enate.

Certain recommendations were made in respect to the method of handling Appropriation Bills, not as a composite set of financial figures but with separation. Discussion followed the tabling of the report and the then Treasurer announced what is now known as the 1965 compact to which I referred in my opening remarks. It is recorded in Hansard No. 46 of 1965 at pages 1484-1485 as follows: the Government has now decided that henceforth there will be a separate Bill, subject to amendment by the Senate, containing appropriations for expenditure on-

  1. a ) The construction of public works and buildings;
  2. The acquisition of sites and buildings;
  3. Items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure;
  4. Grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution; and
  5. e ) New policies not authorised by special legislation.

Last year members of Estimates Committee C queried whether it was appropriate that proposed expenditure for the national health insurance plan and the National Commission on Social Welfare should be included in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) for 1973-74, a Bill which the Senate could not amend or in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) which the Senate could amend. In other words, should provision for moneys to cover new policies be included in a Bill for annual services which could not be amended or should it be included in the other set of financial papers- in Appropriation Bill (No. 2)- which the Senate could amend? The reply of the Treasurer at that time, Mr Crean, to the Committee reads in pan:

In determining bids to be included in Bill No. 2 (Document B) for these Commissions I have observed the undertaking given by the then Treasurer, Mr Holt, which was expressed in Hansard, Volume 46 pp. 1484-1485 of 13 May 1965 as follows: the Government has now decided that henceforth . . .

There is again listed the items which would be the subject of inclusion in Appropriation Bill (No. 2). Mr Crean went on to say:

This undertaking followed Mr Holt’s separate discussions with a committee of Government senators and representative members of the House of Representatives in May 1965 in order to reach agreement on how to proceed on the recommendations of a committee appointed by Government senators on ‘Appropriation Bills and the Ordinary Annual Services of the Government ‘.

He proceeded:

The undertaking (e) above in relation to new policies was in fact a precis of recommendation (8) contained in the Committee’s report of 28 October 1964:

Recommendation (8), with the heading ‘New Policies’ which is underlined, states:

As far as possible, the first provision for new policies which have not been authorised by special legislation, and for which the annual Parliamentary authorisation proposed is an Annual Appropriation Act -

This is underlined - should be included in a Bill for other than the ordinary annual services of the Government.

Mr Crean stated further:

The underlining has been added because it highlights the crux of the issue which distinguishes the provisions to which your Committee took exception, from other provisions for new policy included for the first time in Document B. It seems to me that the proposed expenditures questioned by members of Committee C conform in that the Social Welfare Commission Bill 1973 is now before the Senate and 1 understand that the Minister for Social Security intends to introduce the Health Insurance Commission Bill 1 973 during the current sittings.

Moreover, the practice followed this year is consistent with that adopted in the past, e.g., the provision for the Australian Commission on Advanced Education, Division 237, Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1971-72 (the enabling legislation was assented to on 9 December 1971) and the provision for the administrative expenses of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board, Division 234, Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1970-71 (the enabling legislation was assented to on 4 November 1970).

I feel that the Treasury interpretation of recommendation 8 of the Government Senators’ Committee on Appropriation Bills is acceptable as a literal interpretation. But, I cannot, and in November 1973 Estimates Committee C did not, feel that the interpretation made was in the spirit of the 1 965 Compact. To accept such an interpretation would be tantamount I believe to agreeing that a Government could place any financing for new policies in a Bill which the Senate may not amend purely on the basis that the required legislation would be forthcoming at a later date. The Senate would be called on to pass finance for new policies, legislation for which may not have been even seen at that time by any member of the Parliament other than immediate Party members.

The more practical course would appear to be for funds for new policies which had not received legislative authorisation at the time of the Budget to be included in the Appropriation Bill which the Senate may amend. However the matter is a complicated one and for this reason I consider that a committee of the Senate should investigate the matter and report to the Senate. In considering the estimates for 1974-75 Estimates Committee C found two matters which it doubted should have been included in the Bill which the Senate may not amend.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Lawrie). - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

-I just rise to say that I think that what Senator Laucke has put to the House is of extreme interest.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (9.48)- I would like to address myself to the matters that have been raised before the Committee by Senator Laucke. I think it is wise to remind honourable senators of the reasons that led, in the first place, to the Appropriations Bills entering the Senate in the fashion and form in which they do and to which Senator Laucke has addressed himself. The circumstances- if Senator Laucke has not mentioned this already to honourable senators- is that as a result of a great deal of discussion which arose in the Senate in 1963 and to which Senator Murphy addressed himself, I recollect with great clarity an ad hoc committee of senators was appointed to look at the problem of what are known as the ‘ordinary annual services of the Government’. This led to a detailed examination of the real meaning of ‘ordinary annual services of the Government ‘. It is a matter that has bedevilled the Senate from 1901 onwards, including several references in the High Court to the meaning of those words.

To cut a very long story short, in 1965 an agreement took place between the Prime Minister of that day and the Senate that the Appropriation Bills would take a certain form. So I address myself to the definitive statement- I had hoped it would be a definitive statement- of the Treasurer of that day, Mr Harold Holt, who on page 1484 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 13 May 1965, as the result of an agreement, said:

When presenting the Appropriation (Special Expenditure) Bill 1964-65 last August I explained that that Bill contained those appropriations for which, in the opinion of the Government and its legal advisers, a good case could not be made out for the view that they were for the ordinary annual services of the Government. At the same time I said that discussions on the classifications of appropriations were continuing.

Leaving out some matters, the Treasurer of the day said that the Bills would take this form: . . subject to amendment by the Senate, containing appropriations for expenditure on-

  1. The construction of public works and buildings;
  2. The acquisition of sites and buildings;
  3. Items of plant and expenditure which are clearly definable as capital expenditure;
  4. Grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution; and
  5. New policies not authorised by special legislation. Subsequent appropriations for such items will be included in the Appropriation Bill not subject to amendment by the Senate.

It is perfectly clear to me, as a participant in the events that took place at that time, that a new item first appearing in the Appropriation Bill is a matter subject to amendment by the Senate and not subject to request. I think that Senator Laucke is probably addressing himself to this matter when he says that the Treasury, in compiling the Appropriation Bills, cannot anticipate an appropriation that will become an ordinary annual service of the government. It does not become an ordinary annual service of the government until it has first appeared in an Appropriation Bill as a new item of expenditure. Therefore, I think that in terms of constitutional and parliamentary propriety the attention of the Treasury should be drawn to this matter. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) should indicate to the Treasurer of the day that the Senate will not accept in future anticipatory items inside the Appropriation Bills which appear in the Appropriation Bills for the first time as non-amendable items. They are not request matters; they are amendable matters.

Of course, a clear case is the item relating to the appointment of an ombudsman for the Army. That item appears in the Appropriation Bill. It has not appeared on any previous occasion as an item of expenditure. The item relating to this appointment appears for the first time and it is not an ordinary annual service of the government. It is a new item in the Appropriation Bill and therefore is subject to amendment by the Senate and not to request. I would be grateful if the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) who is in charge of this appropriation would bear this matter clearly in mind. If in future items of this nature appear in an Appropriation Bill as non-amendable items then the Senate, by my resolution or motion, will proceed, I hope, to reject the Appropriation Bill so that the matter can be put in its proper form.

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

– I have listened with great interest to the remarks of Senator Laucke and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I think that Senator Laucke had not quite completed his remarks when his time expired. Therefore, so that he can complete the putting of his case on the record I will defer to Senator Laucke at this stage.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (9.54)- I would just like to say that I had not anticipated that the courtesy of allowing Senator Laucke to complete his speech would be extended. I should have anticipated this. I hope that Senator Laucke will forgive me if I have in any way pre-empted what he has to say.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I appreciate very much the gracious action of the Minister in allowing me a minute or two to complete what I was saying about this highly important matter. When my time had expired there was no move to grant me an extension of time so I could not proceed. I thank Senator Sir Magnus Cormack for his expression in respect of this matter. There were 2 relatively small matters in the 1974-75 Estimates which we are now considering which were included as an annual service in the Bill which the Senate may not amend. One related to an act of grace payment to the Australian Government Advertising Advisory Council and the other to a grant-in-aid to the British Commonwealth Youth Program. Although the matters were small they served to remind the Committee that no action had been taken on the recommendation that it had made in November of last year in respect of referring this matter for consideration by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Whilst dealing with the problems associated with the interpretation ofthe 1965 compact I would raise again for the Committee’s consideration the appropriateness of placing the Estimates for Parliament in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ). Honourable senators will recall that in 1964 Senator Murphy expressed the view that Parliament is not an ordinary annual service of the government. In fact he said:

It may be ordinary; it may be annual; it may be regarded as a service; but it is not a service ofthe government.

The Committee of Government members in its 1965 report agreed with this view and recommended that ‘appropriations for the purposes of Parliament should not be included in the Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services of the government’. This evening I mention that to the Committee as something worthy of note now. These are matters of profound constitutional importance affecting, as they do, the powers of the Senate, and as such I believe that they merit the consideration of all honourable senators. At the appropriate time I shall move for reference of this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

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

– I appreciate the matter which Senator Laucke has raised. It was the subject of a reference to the Committee ofthe Whole by Estimates Committee C last year. There is a re-affirmation of that Committee ‘s recommendation on this occasion by the present Estimates Committee C. As I understand the situation, Senator Laucke is not actually querying the explanations that were given by me as the Minister responsible for reporting to the Committee on the 2 items to which he has referred, namely, the one relating to new expenditure being incurred by the Australian Government Advertising Advisory Council and the one relating to expenditure on youth activities by the Department of Education. But he is raising as a matter of general principle the question whether matters relating to new policies that have not been authorised by special legislation should be included, as I understand his argument, in Appropriation Bill (No. 2), which is subject to amendment by the Senate, and not included in Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ), which is not subject to amendment by the Senate. As I have already said, I note that the Estimates Committee in presenting a report to the Committee of the Whole has now re-affirmed the recommendation that was made to the Committee of the Whole in November 1973 by Estimates Committee C. The recommendation was that the matter of the interpretation of the 1965 compact insofar as it relates to new policies should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

Senator Laucke has indicated that at the appropriate time- I think that will be when the Senate moves into the third reading debate- he will propose such a motion. Bearing in mind the letter that he read from my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Crean) that was tendered to the 1973 Estimates Committee, and without necessarily committing the Government at this stage, I personally can see no reason why the Senate as a whole, and indeed the Government, should object to the matter being referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. After all, that is a recommendation of this Committee reporting to the Committee of the Whole. One must realise naturally that the majority of members on the Committee were Government members. I appreciate the points that have been raised by Senator Laucke. They are of tremendous importance for the Senate. I believe that they need to be looked at carefully. However, in the short time that has been available to me to look at this matter I have sought some advice from the Treasury. I am advised that in matters of this nature the Treasury carefully watches what should be included in each Bill as a matter of principle and that in so doing it does not anticipate that approvals will be given in principle.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is that advice in writing or is that advice that they have tendered to you? ‘

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

-That is just advice they have tendered to me. I must say that the officer who has tendered the advice to me is, as I understand it, not the appropriate officer who would be giving the advice in such circumstances. But that is the advice immediately available to me and I put that on the record bearing in mind the letter that my colleague, the Treasurer wrote to the Estimates Committee.

Senator Greenwood:

– I only add a word of caution. The same issue arose in Estimates Committee A and that has not yet reported.

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

– I only put this on the record bearing in mind what my colleague, Mr Crean, the Treasurer, said in 1973. Having said that, I state that I appreciate the tenor of Senator Laucke ‘s remarks. It is a matter for the Senate as a whole. All I can say is that I appreciate and understand the reasons for the Committee’s recommendations.

Proposed expenditure- Department of the Media, $ 1 1 5,4 1 9,000-passed.

Proposed expenditure- Department of Education, $275,522,000, and Department of Tourism and Recreation, $8,356,000- passed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Lawrie). - That concludes the examination of the departments covered by group C. We will now proceed to the examination of the departments covered by group D.

Proposed expenditure- Department of Agriculture, $49,418,000-passed

Department of Overseas Trade

Proposed expenditure, $27,205,000.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Tasmania

-I rise only to raise a matter- I seek a response from the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) who represents the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) in this place- which was adverted to earlier this day during the debate on the motion that the Appropriation Bill be read a first time. I refer to the proposal which I understand is a firm government decision to establish an import export company. I ask the Minister whether he is able to say that the statement attributed to Dr Cairns when he was in Singapore, and which is not denied by him, that the Parliament is to be by-passed is a statement which can now be confirmed or whether it is a statement which can be denied categorically? Is the Minister in a position to say whether this corporation, when it is established, will be established by legislation or whether it will be established in the way that Dr Cairns has said is by-passing Parliament? I ask this in the light of the fact that Senator Wriedt forwarded a letter to the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, Senator Primmer, in which he indicated that it would be only natural, having regard to the attitude of the Opposition in this place, that the Minister would be looking at ways other than by passing legislation through the Senate to have the organisation established. I ask the Minister to be more specific than he has been in such responses as he has given already and to indicate what is the Government’s intention. Is it prepared to say what it will be doing?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

- Senator Greenwood has raised again the matter which was debated in the Senate this morning. I have nothing further to add to what I believe was a full statement on this matter. I emphasised then the point that there is no substantiation of any statement by Dr Cairns that the Parliament will be by-passed in respect of the establishment of the Overseas Trading Corporation. I have no knowledge other than what I gave the Senate this morning. I indicated to Senator Greenwood during the hearing of the Estimates

Committee that I would obtain whatever information I could. The information that was supplied to the Committee was that which was forwarded from Dr Cairns. I think that Senator Greenwood is making a lot out of what in fact is probably not an issue at all. That is the reason why he is the only one who appears to be expressing any great concern. Nobody else is making an issue out of this statement. It was a statement that came from Singapore. I do not think that there was any reasonable ground to assume that Dr Cairns was suggesting that the Parliament would be by-passed.

Senator Missen:

– It is very easy for him to deny, surely.

Senator WRIEDT:

– That may be, but when Senator Missen has been in this game of politics long enough he will know that there will be many occasions on which the Press will say things that Senator Missen is alleged to have said and which will cause the honourable senator to make all sorts of explanations and denials. But the honourable senator will learn that as time goes by. I think that what we are dealing with here tonight is precisely that same situation.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise simply to highlight the inadequacy of the Minister’s explanation.

Senator Poyser:

– You will not get anything more.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not doubt that the Minister personally cannot take the matter any further. We have the clown sitting behind him coming in with his usual type of interjection. That does not help the matter, either. The real points that have to be made here are that, firstly, the statement was highlighted in Australia as a statement made by Dr Cairns in Singapore. Secondly, the statement was highlighted in Australia because of the import of what was involved in that statement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns). If the statement is made that Parliament will be by-passed so that there will not be a waste of time involved in taking the legislation through the Senate, that is a matter of some concern. Thirdly, I think that when such a statement is made by Dr Cairns, who has a long record of indicating that Parliament is only one of the places in which power may be exercised it is a frightening apprehension that any one concerned with the future of this country will have as to whether or not Dr Cairns has something else in mind. Fourthly, although the statement received publicity at the time there was no denial by Dr Cairns or anybody in the Government on his behalf. I raised this question during the hearing of the Estimates Committee approximately a month ago. The matter was taken by the Minister to Dr Cairns. The Minister said he would seek information from Dr Cairns. In due course he was able to provide a reply to the Chairman of the Committee. That reply was passed on to me. So the matter must have come to the attention of Dr Cairns. The letter which the Committee received does not have any suggestion that the statement made was untrue. It was signed by Senator Wriedt and addressed to Senator Primmer as Chairman of the Committee. It states:

During the Committee’s consideration ofthe estimates of the Department of Overseas Trade, Senator Greenwood raised matters relating to the establishment of an Australian Overseas Trading Corporation.

The situation is that on 7 August 1974 Dr Cairns made a Press statement about the creation of an Australian Overseas Trading Corporation. Copies of this statement are enclosed.

Before continuing with the letter I simply interpolate that in the statement which is made one finds no reference as to how this Corporation is to be set up except that it is intended that it will be operating before the end of the year; that is before the end of 1 974. We are now getting pretty close to the end ofthe year. The letter continues:

An interdepartmental committee has almost finalised a detailed outline of legislation for the establishment of the Corporation. As stated by Dr Cairns, in response to a query in Singapore, no definite decision has been made to depart from the proposed introduction of legislation.

However, given the attitude of the Opposition parties to many important Government legislative initiatives it is only natural that Dr Cairns and the Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, would study alternatives to the passage of legislation through Parliament should this contingency be required.

In the light of what was said by Dr Cairns as reported by Mr Richardson in Singapore, there is one aspect which ought not be ignored because the report in the newspaper, referring to Dr Cairns, states:

He said the proposal to invoke the Federal trade power and use the provisions of the Companies Act in the Australian Capital Territory in order to found the corporation and have it in operation by next year was not yet a definite decision. ‘But it’s pretty close to it,’ he added.

My concern is to ascertain whether at this time the Government is prepared to state whether the proposed corporation will be set up by legislation or by this underhand means of bypassing Parliament. I suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that he is not giving a response adequate to his knowledge as disclosed by this letter or adequate in the light of the fact that Dr Cairns must have adverted to this matter, simply to say that there is no confirmation of the Press report. The letter acknowledges that a query was made to Dr Cairms in Singapore and that he responded to that query. He said that no definite decision had been made to depart from the proposed introduction of legislation. I suppose that is consistent with what was reported in the newspaper. But Dr Cairns also said that he was pretty close to the stage when a decision would be made, in fact, to depart from the legislation. Then we have this curious final paragraph that because the Opposition has proved difficult for the Government there is no wonder that people are studying other methods.

Is the parliamentary process such an impediment to an authoritarian government that it must seek to bypass the Senate in some way? That is the true style of the dictator. Time and again we have seen in this chamber an attitude that if the Opposition does not agree with a proposal which the Government is putting forward then, simply because of that disagreement, the Opposition must be wrong. I have always suspected that there can be no such thing as democratic socialism because the essence of socialism is that one can have a plan which must not be altered. But once we concede democracy then socialist plans can be altered and we have the worst of all worlds. What I am saying is that in these circumstances there is a desire to follow the traditional authoritarian path. In the light of what is in the letter and in the light of what the Minister conceded in what he wrote to the Chairman of the Committee I ask him whether he is still prepared to say that there is no confirmation of what Dr Cairns said in Singapore. That seems to me to be a way out which convinces nobody and only heightens the suspicion of what is going on.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Proposed expenditure- Department of Minerals and Energy, $44,181,000; Department of the Treasury, $132,627,000; Advance to the Treasurer, $75m; Department of Northern Development, $2,547,000; Department of the Northern Territory, $36,213,000; and Department of Manufacturing Industry, $162,293,000- passed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-We now pass to the departments covered by Senate Estimates Committee E.

Department of Repatriation and Compensation

Proposed expenditure, $650,953,000.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-During the discussion of Senate Estimates Committee E a number of questions came up which I think should be mentioned for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole. It is apparent from examining the estimates in division 462 that there is a shortage of trained staff in Australian repatriation institutions. On questioning the departmental representatives present at the Committee hearing there was no indication that they saw a means of finding the doctors, nursing staff or other professional staff which will be needed to fill the positions and to adequately look after the veterans who are in receipt of repatriation benefits. The information which we received from Mr Kelly who helped us at the Estimates Committee hearing was that 23 specialist doctor positions were vacant out of a total establishment of 1 14. That is a very large percentage of vacancies in that part of the repatriation establishment. There is a considerable shortage of nursing sisters and associated nursing staff such as nursing aides. Mr Kelly commented further that if we looked at all the associated skills such as paramedical skills which go to make up the proper functioning of a repatriation hospital or department, we would see considerable shortages of staff. I think it is important when we look at the estimates to realise that they are based on the establishment being fulfilled. But at the moment there seems very little likelihood that we will reach that happy situation. In the present situation there is a shortage of trained staff in the service of repatriation hospitals.

I mention that we can come back to this theme later when we consider the estimates for the Department of Health because a similar situation exists. For example, in the Northern Territory there is a great deficiency in the staff available to fill the positions which are available on establishment. That is one of the matters of which I think this Committee should be aware.

There is another matter which concerns the procedures which the Department adopts for the spending of money and the criticisms made of those procedures by the Auditor-General. This matter was raised by our Committee. If honourable senators look at the Hansard of Estimates Committee E they will see at page 190 that quite a discussion took place on the criticism made by the Auditor-General. I again draw to the attention of the Committee that money was expended at the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, to provide a child minding centre. This is obviously an admirable kind of service to provide. It was made clear by the departmental officers that it was provided to help in recruiting staff to hospitals. I have already agreed that there is a shortage of staff and that we should do whatever we can. But the AuditorGeneral has commented that this child minding centre was established without appropriate authority from the Public Service Board. We had quite a discussion on the Department’s attitude with Mr Kelly who was advising us. Mr Kelly stated:

The answer is that in our view the authority was there for it . . .

The Auditor-General’s view was that the authority was not there for it. I am not arguing with the provision of the service. I think it is excellent. But I want to raise for the consideration of the Committee the fact that a service was set up before appropriate authority had been obtained to authorise staffing. 1 understand it was done on a temporary basis by moving staff from other positions but I would like to be sure that the Department, in spending money in the future, will do so within the limits set by the Auditor-General and with the approval of the Public Service Board when it fills positions in its service.

The only other point I wish to make refers to that item in division 466 concerning payments made to local medical officer and ancillary medical services. We are in danger in Australia at the moment of large numbers of doctors resigning from the services where they offer concessional care to increasing numbers of Australians. I want to sound a word of warning that if we continue to increase entitlements to repatriation benefits without adequate consultation with, for example, the medical profession more doctors, particularly doctors in country towns and in isolated areas, will cease to make themselves available to give care to repatriation patients. This is something that has to be watched very closely when the Minister, for example, is seeking to widen the basic cover which can be offered to veterans. There must be adequate consultation with the health professions because a lot of doctors have told me privately that they are not happy with the way in which additional people can become entitled to concessional care with minimum consultation with them or with their professional colleagues.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I refer’ to a recent announcement that the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) made with respect to the reopening of the Birrallee section ofthe hospital in Belair, South Australia, for, I understand, the benefit of nursing home and convalescent patients. Senator Baume has mentioned the matter of staffing repatriation establishments. I understand that the reopening of Birrallee is to be done without increasing the staff. I also recall in the statement made by the Minister that the rehabilitation services at the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital are to be extended.

Senator Keeffe:

– You need rehabilitation badly.

Senator JESSOP:

– I am talking about repatriation patients who I understand do require increased facilities and I commend the Minister on recognising this need. I am concerned that this may react against the interests of acutely ill patients at the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital. I am also concerned that the Birrallee area is on very steeply graded terrain. For this reason it occurs to me that it would be inappropriate for wheelchair patients and also for elderly or feeble ambulant patients. As the Minister may be aware, the wards are on different levels. If this place is to be used for convalescent and nursing home patients they will be restricted to one level. 1 ask the Minister whether he has contemplated any extensions or any renovations with respect to the facilities that are available at Birrallee because I am quite certain that the facilities there at present would not be conducive to the adequate housing of wheelchair patients. I would also like to know whether it is a fact that this establishment is to be reopened without any increase in professional and support staff. In addition, when will the ward of the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital at Birrallee be opened?

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I would like to comment briefly on the matters that have been raised by Senator Baume and Senator Jessop. Dealing first with the last point that was raised by Senator Baume, I am conscious and the Department is conscious of the fact that as we increase the benefits that are available to veterans- I take it that the increases in the benefits available to veterans are not being opposed- that we will obviously need more medical officers and practitioners to participate in the various services offered under the Repatriation Act. Certainly we are bearing in mind the problem that has been raised. I think it can be fairly claimed that the Department has had a good relationship with the Australian Medical Association and professional bodies. Although there have been occasions when they have not been entirely happy with the Government, I think that on the whole there have not been any heated criticisms by them of either the administration of the Department or the relationships which we have had with their members insofar as the facilities that are provided are concerned. But I do take heed of what Senator Baume has said.

With regard to the child nursing centre at the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord, New South Wales, the annual cost of maintaining the centre is estimated at some $30,000. It is estimated that we will be receiving $2 per child per week which is about $8,000 by way of fees paid by the parents and guardians of children who use the centre. In addition to this, there is a saving in overtime payments and also a saving generally for the community on the provision of outside services which are being made up by the provision of this facility at the Concord Hospital. With regard to the contretemps which appears to have developed between the Department and the AuditorGeneral, it was certainly not because of any neglect of the Department’s officers but rather there was a disagreement apparently between the Department and the Auditor-General as to precisely what was the authority of the Department to enter into these activities. It was not an oversight or a negligent action; it was actually a disagreement between them. In any event, the recruiting of the SO nursing staff who are being employed additionaly because of these new arrangements was done within the framework of existing vacancies so it does so happen that the expenditure has not exceeded any budgetary limitations that had been placed on the Department. The dispute between the officers of the Department and the AuditorGeneral, I suppose, is therefore rather largely an academic dispute rather than one of any great substance although obviously the views of the AuditorGeneral have to be taken into account.

Senator Jessop has mentioned the reopening of the nursing home at Birrallee. This had been closed. I think itwas felt that there was a need for the reopening of the home. I think generally it has been accepted with some acclaim by ex-service organisations and by other people that the home has been reopened. There has been no reduction in the care which is being provided to acutely ill patients. I am in a position to give that -

Senator Jessop:

– But Birrallee is not open yet. I am worried about the future.

Senator WHEELDON:

-There will be no reduction of services. I think we can confidently say there will be no reduction. I do not know what Senator Greenwood finds so amusing about this. We can give Senator Jessop the assurance that there will be no reduction in the care which is provided to these patients. I inform Senator Jessop and Senator Greenwood who takes a lively interest in these matters that should they become aware that such has been the case, then I would certainly ask them to draw it to my attention. The administration is aware of the problems of the terrain in this area. I am afraid my knowledge of the topography of that part of Senator Jessop ‘s State is not great because I usually see it from an aeroplane, and not as closely as he does while he is engaged in his parochial duties.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-It being 10.30 p.m. in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator WHEELDON:

-The Administration is aware of the problems of the terrain. Those problems have always been there. We believe that they will not pose any serious difficulty in the administration of the hospital and that the difficulties that Senator Jessop has foreseen will be quite successfully overcome.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I do not know how long we are proposing to proceed. I would have thought that this was contrary to the arrangement which was made.

Senator Cavanagh:

– If I could intervene now, it is going on-

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Greenwood is on his feet. Unless there is a point of order, Senator Greenwood can proceed.

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-If Senator Cavanagh is about to say what the arrangement is for this sitting

Senator Cavanagh:

– If you sit down I will move that progress be reported. I thought the Minister would conclude the debate, and it was only a matter of putting the question. Therefore I move that you, Mr Chairman, report progress.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The question is:

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Progress reported.

page 2282

ADJOURNMENT

Report of Senate Estimates Committee A

Motion (by Senator Wheeldon) proposed:

That the Senate do no adjourn.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-On behalf of Senator James McClelland I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A relating to the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard report of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

page 2283

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Fuel Reserves

Portuguese Migrants (Question No. 217)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

What was the intake of Portuguese migrants for the years 1964-1974.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

– I am informed that the intake of Portuguese migrants (settlers) (a) for the individual calendar years was as follows:

Entry Permits for Italian Nationals (Question No. 27)

Senator Chaney:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) What action, if any, was taken following upon the visit made to Italy by the then Minister for Immigration, Mr Grassby, on the issue of entry permits to persons in that country who had been previously refused entry into Australia; if action was taken, how many entry permits have been issued to such persons.
  2. What were the grounds on which entry had been previously refused to these people.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Visitor visas for limited periods were granted to three persons. Departmental records show that each has since returned to Italy.
  2. Character.

Television: North-west Tasmania (Question No. 147)

Senator Wright:
TASMANIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Was an announcement made that a television transmission station would be erected in north-west Tasmania; if so, when will the station be constructed and be in operation.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

I have made no public announcement regarding plans to establish television transmitters in north-west Tasmania.

Though the planning of such facilities is the responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and it is customary for my colleague, Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland, to make announcements in this area, the actual establishment of such facilities is the responsibility of the Australian Post Office.

In answering the honourable senator’s question I can, therefore, say that a comprehensive network of translators is being provided to improve long-standing poor reception of the National television service in the Burnie, Wynyard, Smithton and Stanley areas.

The total cost of the project is estimated to be about $500,000 and is expected to be completed by December, 1975. On present planning the improved services should be available about the end of 1975. Some buildings of the first stage will be completed by November, 1974.

The four translators will be built at Round Hill, Table Hill, Lileah and Tier Hill.

Birds of Paradise (Question No. 164)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Has any liaison been developed between the Department of Customs and Excise and the Papua New Guinea Government authorities to curb the illegal export of birds of paradise from that country to Australia.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

The plumage and skins of Birds of Paradise can only be legally imported into Australia for education or scientific purposes.

The detection of goods of all types being illegally imported into Australia is a formidable task for officers of the Department of Customs and Excise. To cope with the problem it is necessary that they establish the closest possible liaison with their counterparts in other countries.

Excellent liaison does exist between Customs officers in Australia and Papua New Guinea. This was reinforced earlier this year when a senior officer from the Department in Canberra went to Papua New Guinea for discussions on problems involving the policing of fauna imports and exports.

Sick Leave (Question No. 171)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. How many days’ sickness were taken by workers in Australia for each ofthe past three years.
  2. What is the frequency of absence from work because of illness between unskilled workers and professional men and women.
  3. Do the figures show, as in England, that unskilled workers remain at home because of illness or injury two and a half times more frequently than professional workers.
  4. Do unskilled workers lose, as in England, four and a half times as many days from work in a year as do professional workers.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department carried out a survey of absence in a sample of undertakings in October 1973, the results of which have been published in the Personnel Practice Bulletin for March 1974. A rough estimate of the amount of sickness absence in 1973 can be obtained by adjusting the survey findings on absence rates to take account of the industrial distribution of wage and salary earners in the Australian labour force, and deducting estimates of time lost through industrial accidents and diseases. On this basis, an estimated 45 million working days were lost through sickness absence in 1973, representing an average of about 9’/s days per employee. Similar figures are not available for the 2 previous years. (2), (3) and (4) Information was not obtained in the survey to enable comparisons to be made between sickness absence of unskilled workers and that of professional people in Australia. However, the survey indicated manual and nonmanual workers lost 6.2 per cent and 2.6 per cent of rostered time respectively during the period of the survey. Further information is provided by a survey undertaken in 1972-73 by the Public Service Board, on behalf of the Joint Council, of sickness absence among a sample of Australian public servants. This indicated that in the Australian Public Service about 40 per cent of managerial staff and 22 per cent of professional staff took no sick leave in one year, compared with about 9 per cent ofthe sample as a whole.

Health Insurance Commission (Question No. 196)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What capital expenditure is the Government presently committed to in establishing the Health Insurance Commission.
  2. What is the estimate of the total cost of capital equipment in the establishment of the Health Insurance Commission.
  3. Has capital equipment already been purchased subject to competitive tender.
  4. When were such tenders called.
  5. 5 ) What was the response to such tenders.

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

  1. The Commission at this stage has made no firm commitments for capital expenditure, however plans are well advanced which will lead to estimated commitments and expenditure of $1,770,000 as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1974-75 (page 23) and Table II (page 45) of the document Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure ( 1 974-75 Budget Paper No. 4).
  2. Capital equipment to be purchased by the Commission will be limited to office furniture and normal office equipment. It is planned that the Commission be operational by 30 June 1975 and provisions for expenditure by that date are $870,000 for purchase of furniture and $900,000 for purchase of office equipment. As this latter expenditure is not, in Governmental accounting terms, classified as Capital Expenditure, the provision is made in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75.
  3. No purchases have been made to date.
  4. 4 ) See answer to ( 3 ) above.
  5. See answer to (3) above.

Canada: Health Care Services (Question No. 201)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister for Social Security have tabled in the Senate a report on his most recent visit to Canada to study health care services in that country.
  2. Did the Minister’s investigations confirm what the others had discovered, namely that health care costs have escalated alarmingly in Canada since the introduction of the compulsory health scheme.
  3. 3 ) Has bulk billing by doctors been a major factor in that escalation, bringing with it gross over-use of the system.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not the usual practice to do this and 1 do not intend to do so.
  2. All advanced western countries are experiencing rapid cost escalation in the provision of health services regardless of their system of financing. Canada is no exception, neither is Australia. There is no evidence available that would suggest that health care costs are increasing at a faster rate in countries that have universal health insurance than in countries that have other forms of financing.
  3. I found no indication that doctors were over-utilising or opposing the Canadian Health Insurance Scheme because of any bulk billing systems. What I did find was that Canadian Medical Associations of Provinces, in common with all political parties and the community generally, wholeheartedly supported the universal health insurance scheme and claimed that better quality health care was being provided than under the previous private health insurance arrangements.

Fumigation Processes (Question No. 207)

Senator Withers:

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

Does the Department of Health ensure that all fumigation processes are carried out by trained and experienced operators.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

Fumigation processes undertaken by the Department of Health are earned out by trained and experienced officers.

Where fumigation processes are carried out by commercial operators, the Department of Health has no jurisdiction over their training of experience. However, the operations are supervised by quarantine personnel to ensure that correct quantities and concentrations of fumigant are used and that the prescribed time of gas exposure is observed.

Textile Industry: Queensland (Question No. 273)

Senator Bonner:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In view of the distress in the textile industry in Queensland, which is causing widespread unemployment particularly in small country towns and cities, will the Minister give an assurance that he will facilitate an application to the Industries Assistance Commission for emergency tariff protection for these industries.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

The Government is prepared to look at any case for emergency tariff protection submitted to it on an industry basis. The industry may, however, wish to examine whether action taken as a result of references to the Textiles Authority established within the Commission or under the Government’s recently announced scheme of assistance for towns and cities outside metropolitan areas would more appropriately meet its problems. The Department of Manufacturing Industry should be contacted regarding applications for any of these forms of assistance.

Diplomats in and from China: Travel Restrictions (Question No. 279)

Senator Sim:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What travel restrictions apply to Australian diplomats in the People ‘s Republic of China.
  2. What travel restrictions apply to diplomats of the People *s Republic of China in Australia.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The travel restrictions which apply to Australian diplomats in the People’s Republic of China are the same for all foreigners resident in Peking. Free movement is permitted only within a 20 kilometre radius of Peking as well as within corridors along specified routes to the Ming Tombs, the Great Wall and the Airport. (Within this radius, there are many parts which are out of bounds to foreigners or which can only be reached by one specified route.)

Permission to travel outside Peking to a small number of designated cities must be sought from the Foreign Ministry at least 24 hours in advance. Travel to other areas is very limited and is arranged upon application, generally two weeks in advance, to the Foreign Ministry. The Ministry occasionally arranges for groups of diplomats or journalists special tours to points of interest, to which it is otherwise difficult to g°-

  1. Travel restrictions applying to diplomats of the People’s Republic of China in Australia are in response to restrictions imposed upon members of the Australian Embassy in Peking. The same restrictions apply to the Chinese journalists attached to the Chinese Embassy in Canberra.

An application seeking permission for travel outside a 45-mile radius from Parliament House, Canberra, must be lodged with the Department of Foreign Affairs 48 hours in advance. There are no restrictions on the number of applications that may be lodged, nor on where the applicant may travel other than where Defence Establishment restrictions apply.

Journalists in and from China: Travel Restrictions (Question No. 280)

Senator Sim:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What travel restrictions apply to Australian journalists in the People ‘s Republic of China.
  2. What travel restrictions apply to journalists from the People ‘s Republic of China in Australia.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

See the answer to question No. 279 supra.

Electoral: Employment of Candidates (Question No. 297)

Senator Withers:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions, and Statutory Authorities under the PostmasterGeneral’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 elections, publicly advocated the return of a 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 1 975.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) I refer the honourable senator to the information provided by the Prime Minister in reply to Question No. 302 (Senate Hansard, 3 1 October 1 974, page 2 1 98 ).

Aboriginal Public Servants

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

-On 30 October 1974 Senator Rae asked the following question, without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Murphy, in the absence of Senator Cavanagh. Is the Minister aware that some Aboriginal members of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs were not at work today? Is the Minister aware of rumours around Parliament House- if so, can he verify themthat there has been a lockout of those Aboriginal employees from that Department?

The answer to Senator Rae ‘s question is as follows:

All Aboriginal employees who did not turn up for work on Wednesday, 30 October, submitted leave forms in the normal manner. No Departmental officer was prevented from entering the office or working.

Fumigation of Ships (Question No. 211)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many ships from overseas ports have docked in the past 12 months at Fremantle, Albany, Bunbury, Broome, Port Hedland and Geraldton.
  2. How many of these ships were inspected by trained quarantine staff.
  3. How many recommendations for fumigations of the ships were submitted.
  4. How many of these recommendations were carried out.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1) to (4) The following quarantine statistics are kept at seaports in respect of vessels arriving from overseas ports:

    1. number of vessels medically cleared by Quarantine Officers; and
    2. number of vessels inspected by trained quarantine staff to determine the extent of rat and vermin infestation.

For the twelve months ended 31 August 1974 the following statistics apply to the undermentioned seaports:

Queensland: Private Hospitals (Question No. 43)

Senator Georges:

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

  1. 1) Is the approval of private hospitals in Queensland, for purposes of the National Health Act, dependent upon approval in the first instance by the Queensland Government.
  2. Is one of the conditions of this approval a requirement that certain minimum fire protection standards must be established and maintained.
  3. Does the Queensland Government enforce this requirement rigorously.
  4. Are there any instances where the Queensland Government has allowed a private hospital to continue in operation despite the fact that an adverse fire report has been filed against it; if so, will the Minister indicate (a) the private hospitals concerned; (b) the principals or owners involved; and (c) details of occasions when adverse fire reports have been filed, and the findings contained in those reports.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no such requirement in the National Health Act, but it is usual for premises not to be approved as a hospital under the National Health Act unless the premises have been licensed to operate as a hospital under the relevant State legislation.
  2. The National Health Act does not provide for conditions of approval to be imposed on private hospitals approved under that Act.
  3. I am informed that the Queensland Government requires private hospitals to meet fire safety specifications.

However, where extensive work is necessary, to bring existing premises to an acceptable level of fire safety, the normal practice has been for the State authorities to set a time limit for the work to be carried out.

  1. I am informed that there are six private hospitals which do not meet fully the requirements of the appropriate fire brigade. The State licences of these premises have been allowed to continue during the period that the requirements outlined in the fire reports are being rectified.

    1. and (b) The names of the approved private hospitals which currently have adverse fire reports and the principals or proprietors of these hospitals are:
    2. i) Private gain hospitals

Fermoy Auchenflower- Dr G. Shiel.

Glandore, Gympie- Glandore Pty Ltd, Principal Director, Mr David Leitch.

  1. Religious and Charitable

Boothville Windsor- Salvation Army.

St Andrews, Brisbane- Presbyterian Church.

St Stephens, Maryborough- Presbyterian Church.

St Johns, Rockhampton- Church of England.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741112_senate_29_s62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant