Senate
10 December 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator J. J. Webster) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3253

PETITION

The Clerk:

– The following petition has been lodged for presentation.

Taxation: Education Expenses

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:

Whereas the Treasurer of the Australian Government has proposed that the concessional deduction for education expenses be reduced from $400 to $ 1 50.

We the undersigned, humbly petition the Senate to return any legislation which could give effect to such a proposal to the House of Representatives and request that the concessional deduction for education expenses be restored to $400 for each child attending an approved school or college.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Baume.

Petition received.

page 3253

LETTERS-PATENT

Notice of Motion

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that the following Address to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second be agreed to:

To the Queen ‘s Most Excellent Majesty

Most Gracious Sovereign:

We, the Members of the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, request your Majesty to continue the Letters Patent approving the use of the honourable title ‘Royal’ by certain of the Australian Armed Forces, such as the Royal Australian Navy, those corps and regiments of the Australian Army which have been granted approval to use such title and the Royal Australian Air Force.

That, pursuant to standing order 368, the foregoing Address be transmitted to the Governor-General by the President, with a request that His Excellency cause the Address to be forwarded to Her Majesty for presentation.

page 3253

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales-

Leader of the Government in the Senate)- I inform the Senate that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, Mr Stewart, is visiting certain countries of the Pacific Area Travel Association in his capacity as Chairman of the Association and will return to Australia on 1 8 December. In his absence, the Minister for Services and Property, Mr Daly, will act as Minister for Tourism and Recreation.

I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, will be absent from Australia on a visit to Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore and will return to Australia on 19 December. In his absence the Minister for Science, Mr Morrison, will act as Minister for Defence until 14 December after which time the Postmaster-General, Senator Bishop, will act as Minister for Defence.

page 3253

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3253

MISS JUNIE MOROSI:

page 3253

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CAR BOOKINGS

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will the Minister table all records of bookings of Commonwealth cars showing pick up points, destinations and length of wasting time, where applicable, involving Miss Morosi?

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

– I will certainly endeavour to supply whatever records are available touching on Miss Morosi, but I think the Leader of the Opposition is aware that the manner in which records are kept rarely shows who are the passengers in cars. I have some note from Mr Bryant’s Department, the Department of the Capital Territory, which shows how things are done, certainly up here in Canberra. The note states that the following records are maintained:

Booking Cars (excluding Parliamentary Shuttle Service) providing details of initial booking, i.e. time required details of journey, passenger’s name, authorising officer and account charge number are kept in the Transport Accounts Section for a period of two years when, in accordance with official instructions, they are destroyed.

Drivers Dockets (excluding Parliamentary Shuttle Service) providing trip details including mileage, pick up and destination, times involved and signature of passengerare forwarded to clients. A duplicate docket is maintained in the Transport Accounts Section for a period of two years when they are destroyed in accordance with official instructions.

The note continues:

In addition the request for vehicles by Parliamentary Transport Officers involving a large volume of bookings through the normal transport operations control system would create duplication of effort, unavoidable time delays and additional pressures on the operations control centre.

There would be no difficulty in identifying and extracting the individual trips of Ministers, Members, Senators with the exception of shuttle car trips. However, there would be considerable difficulty in extracting this information for Ministerial Staffs.

The note goes on to give the reasons for the difficulty in extracting the information for Ministerial staff- that there are thousands of dockets and so forth. As far as possible, I think that the material ought to be made available. Indeed, I suppose that there is no reason why all the material relating to all car trips of all members, senators, Ministers and their staffs should not be made available. If the Leader of the Opposition would like that -

Senator Withers:

– You can table mine any time you like.

Senator MURPHY:

– It is not a matter of tabling one, because that means that all the information has to be extracted. Whatever information can be given will be given.

page 3254

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMS: POINTS SYSTEM

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article in today’s edition of the ‘Australian’ in which it is claimed that the television points system has failed? The article also claims that local content and the quality of local content have declined. Is this a factual assessment of the results achieved since the points system was introduced?

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

– I have seen the statement to which Senator Poyser refers and, I must state, with great respect to Mr Hamilton, that when he makes allegations of the kind that he has made, apparently without inquiring into the facts, unfortunately all he does- and I say this with great respect to him- is to destroy his own credibility as a critic. The latest figures that I have been able to obtain from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board show that there have been striking increases in local content in 3 important areas since the points system was introduced 2 years ago. I notice that Mr Hamilton wants a 75 per cent Australian content in programming, and that of course would be across the board. The object of the points system is to bring about an increase of Australian content in prime viewing time, thus increasing the quantity and bringing about an improvement in the quality of Australian productions. So far as drama is concerned, before the introduction of the points system, the first release drama was running at about 14 hours a week. Recent figures show that it is now running at 22& hours a week, which is an increase of some 60 per cent. So far as current affairs programs are concerned the Board tells me that there has been an increase of some 40 per cent in current affairs programming in peak viewing time. So far as local content variety is concerned- and I understand that this figure includes the Australian Broadcasting Commission, on which network Mr Hamilton had a series of programs- the Australian content is up by some 40 per cent.

Another factor that I should mention in reply to the honourable senator is the number of sets in use, which might give some idea of the viewers’ feelings on an increase in quality. For 10 years before the introduction of the points system there was a consistent falling off in the number of sets in use but this trend has been reversed in the last 18 months since the advent of the points system.

page 3254

QUESTION

DUNGCA FAMILY: ENTRY TO AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Will the Minister table the file relating to the entry into Australia of the Dungca family?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I will do what I can to facilitate the tabling of the document referred to.

page 3254

QUESTION

REPATRIATION HOSPITALS

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I preface it by drawing attention to the fact that extensive alterations to the repatriation hospital in Hobart are in the course of construction, and that fact prompts my question. Will the Minister indicate what provision is made by the Department of Repatriation and Compensation for staff training? How many of the Department’s general hospitals are teaching hospitals for medical undergraduates? How many such undergraduates were taught at these hospitals last year or this year? Specifically, what is the position with regard to medical undergraduate training in relation to the repatriation hospital in Hobart?

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

-The Department of Repatriation and Compensation primarily through its activities in the field of repatriation, specifically the Repatriation Commission, provides extensive medical services. Obviously it is necessary, if we are to provide adequate medical services for the large number of people whom we must serve, that training be given in the medical and nursing fields. All the repatriation general hospitals are now teaching hospitals. For the year ended 31 March last 364 medical undergraduates underwent training in repatriation general hospitals, and 320 student nurses underwent this training. In addition considerable numbers of graduate nurses, nursing aides and postgraduate nurses also received their training in repatriation general hospitals. The Department was responsible, through its initiatives, for securing the establishment by the State of Victoria of a 3-year diploma course in prosthetics and orthotics. I must confess that I do not know precisely what they are- perhaps some of the other senators can enlighten me- but I am told that they are of considerable importance to the general medical services. Overall the Department is concerned about this matter and does use its own hospitals and through its initiatives makes use of other services for the training of medical and paramedical staff.

page 3255

QUESTION

MISS JUNIE MOROSI

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– When did the AttorneyGeneral appoint Miss Morosi as a marriage celebrant? As I understand it, she has performed a number of ceremonies at a fee of between $15 and $30 since she has acted in this capacity. Will the Minister provide specific details concerning the number of marriages celebrated and the total amount of fees paid to her since she has officiated at such ceremonies?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I suppose she would have performed the ceremonies during approximately the last 12 months because I think it was only about 12 months ago- it may have been a little more than that; in September 1973- that the first celebrants were appointed. The appointments of Miss Fuller, Mrs Lois D’Arcy and Miss Morosi were given nation-wide publicity on television and in the Press.

Senator Marriott:

– Who arranged that?

Senator MURPHY:

-I think they would be quite capable of arranging it for themselves. If Miss Morosi has charged between $10 or $15 and $30 for performing ceremonies, it appears that she has charged strictly in accordance with the regulations that govern these matters. There are regulations that provide for a fee of $5 for dealing with a notice of intended marriage, interviewing the parties and so on, and seeing that all is in order. The regulations provide for a fee of $ 10 if the marriage is performed at the home of the celebrant or a registry office in business hours, an extra $5 if it is performed outside business hours and an extra $10 if it is performed up to 30 kilometres away from the home of the celebrant or the registry office. So that means a marriage performed on a weekday at the home of a celebrant would cost $10 for the ceremony plus $5 for the notice of intended marriage. If the marriage were performed on, say, a weekend up to 30 kilometres away from the home of the celebrant in total the cost would be $30. 1 suppose the numbers of the ceremonies could be obtained.

As the honourable senator is interested in the question of celebrants, I should inform him that there are celebrants other than Miss Morosi and that some of them have been recommended by members of his own Party in this House or the other House. They have been appointed and have carried out their duties very well. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the latest applicant for permission to act as a marriage celebrant. I have agreed to appoint him, but my course of action has been in contradistinction to some of the ways in which the Opposition appears to treat the Government. Had I simply acceded to his request to appoint him, it would of course have disqualified him from holding office. I have taken great care to protect him and some weeks ago directed that a special regulation be made to protect his position. This regulation is being drafted and should become law in time for the Leader of the Opposition to perform the marriage that he wants to perform. I suppose that is an interesting reflection upon the different ways in which the Government and the Opposition treat one another in this House.

page 3255

QUESTION

RURAL INTERESTS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Is it correct that the leader of the National Action Group recently indicated that it had been necessary to form such an organisation because of the inability of the Australian Country Party to represent the interests of rural dwellers and primary producers? Is it also correct that the Orange Branch of the Australian Country Party is reported to have passed a motion of no confidence in the New South Wales Liberal-Country Party Government, condemning that Government’s attitude towards rural dwellers? Can the Minister confirm that the present Australian Government will continue to consider sympathetically submissions from rural interests?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

– It is true, as Senator Primmer points out, that the National Action Group chairman has made that claim. I think that it is a factual claim. It is because the Country Party has been unable to represent primary producers adequately, that they thought it was necessary to form a different group, and they have done so. It is also true that the New South Wales Branch of the Country Party only last week-end passed a motion condemning the New South Wales Liberal-Country Party Government, accusing it of thinking only in terms of urban dwellers and not of people living in the country. This is understandable too, because the Country Party is the Party that opposed the creation of the Industries Assistance Commission. It opposed other things which the growers themselves wanted. It is currently opposing wool legislation before this Parliament which the growers want. The disillusionment with the Country Party that obviously exists in the rural areas is understandable.

page 3256

QUESTION

MISS J. MOROSI: APPLICANT FOR GOVERNMENT FLAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to my previous question of 5 December, when the Leader of the Government said that he would refer to Mr Bryant, the Minister for the Capital Territory, the question of whether or not he would table the file concerning Miss Morosi ‘s application for a government flat. Will Mr Bryant table this file, and if not, why not?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The file is at present with the Commonwealth Police. The honourable senator may recall that the letter which was sent by me was leaked out -

Senator Wheeldon:

– Stolen.

Senator MURPHY:

– It was stolen from the Department of the Capital Territory and leaked out, apparently into the hands of the Opposition or someone who gave it to Opposition members. Mr Bryant called in the Commonwealth Police, who obtained the original file and are investigating the disappearance of the letter. However, some documents which have been given to me are copies of what the Commonwealth Police have, including a copy of the letter which I sent to Mr Bryant. These documents are available.

Senator Young:

– Does that include all the documentation in relation to the matter?

Senator MURPHY:

– It is the documentation which has been given to me. I will table these papers. If there is anything else that the honourable senator wants and we have it, I will table those papers. I think the honourable senator did ask some questions before about this same matter including, as I recall it, whether some lease had been signed by Miss Morosi. I think that either those documents or the information I have from Mr Bryant shows that no lease was signed by Miss Morosi.

page 3256

QUESTION

PROFESSOR MESSEL: APPOINTMENT TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S STAFF

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Attorney-General. How long has Professor Messel been a member of Senator Murphy’s staff? What is his present remuneration? What special qualities does he bring to the Attorney-General’s staff, what are his duties and what will be his additional remuneration now that he has been appointed a member of the Atomic Energy Commission?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Professor Messel is a Bachelor of Arts, a Bachelor of Science and a Doctor of Philosophy. He has been Professor and Head of the School of Physics and Director of the Science Foundation for Physics in the University of Sydney since 1 952. 1 may say that I am aware of the fact that under him in that School there are some of the most distinguished professors of physics in the world, working on some of the most advanced research in the world in topics such as solar energy. He is the Joint Director of the Astronomy Centre of Cornell University and Sydney University, and has been since 1964. I do not know whether the honourable senator would want particulars of his education in Manitoba or that he obtained the GovernorGeneral’s Silver Medal in Canada during his education, or particulars of his other services. He has had a great number of publications in the scientific field. He is a man who obviously is held in very high regard by the Chancellor and ViceChancellor of the University of Sydney and by scientific people around the world.

As a part-time consultant- I regret I cannot give the honourable senator the exact remuneration he receives but I think it is some $7,000 or $8,000 a year- he has brought to my staff a great deal of expertise. In the conduct of the most important case that Australia has ever had, what is said to be the greatest case that has ever been in the International Court of Justice, his work has been of extreme value to Australia. In the preparation of the lengthy documents, the memorials in 2 stages of that case, his advice and assistance on that and other matters have been invaluable to the Government. So much are his services valued by the Government that the proposal to appoint him to the Atomic Energy Commission was made by the redoubtable Mr Connor. As I think everyone agrees, while Mr Connor is a very gentle man, he is a man of very great perspicacity and strength and he selects about him people of value who will enable him to carry out his difficult tasks. Is it to be a crime any longer in this community that one appoints to high government posts or small government posts or to staffs people whom one knows and values, or is it to be said that to appoint someone whom one knows is to be regarded as in some way improper and irregular?

page 3257

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR MINISTERS IN CANBERRA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. Is it a fact that the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Moss Cass, was allocated a government flat in Canberra in 1974? If so, on what date? Is it a fact that at the time of the allocation of a government flat to Dr Cass he and his wife were the owners of a house in Caley Crescent, Narrabundah? Is it also a fact that in 1973 a Commissioner for Housing loan was transferred to Mr Al Grassby for the purchase of a house in Wargi Place, Aranda when Mr Grassby ‘s wife was already the owner of a dwelling unit in MacGregor Street, Deakin?

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

-I will refer the question to my colleague and obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 3257

QUESTION

LONG SERVICE LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS OF VIETNAM VETERANS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. In the face of the reluctance of some employers to include service in Vietnam as part of a person’s employment when assessing long service leave entitlements, will the Minister seek an early ruling from the Minister for Labor and Immigration which will provide guidelines for such workers who served in Vietnam, many of whom were conscripted to do so, as to their entitlements under both Commonwealth and State awards?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-I will take the question forward. I think that it affects more than the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Anyway, I will try to obtain an answer for Senator Mulvihill before the Senate rises this week.

page 3257

QUESTION

MR DITCHBURN

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can he inform the House whether Mr Ditchburn who was appointed to the Films Board of Review, is or has been an importer of films?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Of course I, like most other members of this House, became aware of the scurrilous pamphlets and circulars which were being put around the place.

Senator Keeffe:

– By the Country Party.

Senator MURPHY:

– It is not for me to say out of which offices they came. I am not prepared to accuse the Opposition on the basis of the rumours which have been spread around this place. The information which has been given to me about that indicates that the answer is no. I think that the honourable senator ought not to be suggesting -

Senator Maunsell:

– I am not suggesting; I am asking a question.

Senator MURPHY:

– Certainly he has not in the terms that have been circulated, and the rumour and the gossip. As far as I am aware there is absolutely no foundation to that or to the scurrilous kinds of additions which have been made to it.

page 3257

QUESTION

MISS JUNIE MOROSI

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to 3 actions taken in the District Court of New South Wales, the details of which are as follows: The first action: Plaintiff, John Adam on behalf of the Australian Coaching College; defendant, Junie Morosi; cause of action, account stated $320; result summons 1 June 1972, judgment 17 July 1972, garnishee 11 May 1973. The second action: Plaintiff, Oceanic -

Senator Georges:

– You surprise me, Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am giving the information to seek information. Plaintiff, Oceanic Leasing Co. Pty Ltd; defendant, Morosi, J.; cause of action, arrears of rent $533; result: Summons, 13 August 1971, judgment 3 December 1971, garnishee 26 September 1973. The third action: Plaintiff, Rosenmeyer, S.; defendant, Ditchburn David; cause of action, rent due $350; result: Summons 13 May 1971, judgment 28 May 1971.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Will you please ask your question, Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, Mr Deputy President. I ask: Is the Junie Morosi concerned the Junie Morosi recently appointed to the staff of Dr Cairns? Is the David Ditchburn concerned the David Ditchburn appointed to the Films Board of Review? Is the Minister aware that Mr John Miller, Managing Director of Shaul International Pty Ltd, is reported as claiming that the company TCI Travel Holdings Pty Ltd had falsely represented that it was an agent for hotels covered by another company and that restraining orders were secured against TCI Travel Holdings Pty Ltd in the New South Wales Supreme Court on these grounds? Finally, was the Attorney-General aware of these matters prior to their disclosure, and if so, for how long?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I thought the day would not come when the Senate would be degraded in this way by the honourable senator. Apparently the honourable senator opposite is proving that at some stage judgments were obtained against Miss Morosi on the ground that she owed some money, or because of some other commercial dealings in which she had been involved- the kind of thing which happens every day in the courts involving a contest between people as to who had some agency and who did not. I do not know that it is proper for me to enter upon these things. I will say that I think it is disgraceful that these private details should be aired in the Senate. It is the kind of thing that one gets when one goes through some kind of credit agency and starts to bring the facts out into the light of day. I would have thought that the Opposition ought to have been content with what it has done to Miss Morosi already. Is the intent to endeavour to prevent her from getting any employment whatever in the community? May I say again that the honourable senator has not established that she has ever been convicted or even charged or even questioned by the police about any matter. So far as I am concerned- and I would think that most Australians would think in this way- it is pretty disgraceful to raise up against a person that she had been involved in some kind of civil legal action. As far as I am aware she has never been ever bankrupt or even issued with a notice of that sort. Yet, the honourable senator has raised in the public arena the affairs of a person simply on the basis that some judgment was obtained against that person.

page 3258

QUESTION

NUCLEAR WASTE: ANTARCTIC

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. By way of preface I would like to refer to reports of the intention to use the Antarctic as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. In view of the severe ecological damage that may result from this, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Australian Government will take every step to oppose such a proposal?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– The dumping of radioactive waste is specifically prohibited by Article 5 ( I ) of the Antarctic Treaty. However, Article 5 (2) states that international agreements concerning the use of nuclear energy and disposal of nuclear wastes shall apply in the Antarctic if all Antarctic Treaty parties agree. The Prime Minister and some other Ministers in addition to the Minister for Science have earlier expressed strong misgivings about proposals to dump nuclear waste in the Antarctic, especially in the absence of scientific data concerning the likely effect of such dumping on the Antarctic environment. This matter is included in a comprehensive review of Australia’s policy towards the Antarctic now being undertaken in preparation for the eighth Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting scheduled to take place in June next year. Of course, Australia will be represented at that meeting.

page 3258

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND MEAT

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade been drawn to the fact that meat from New Zealand is available for sale in Australian butchers’ shops? In view of the desperate position of Australian meat producers will the Government consider invoking the emergency clauses in the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement to temporarily suspend imports of meat from New Zealand?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I can only indicate to Senate Lawrie that meat has been coming in from New Zealand in very small quantities for many years- long before this Government came to office. I cannot remember the precise figures but the amount currently coming in is so minimal as to have no impact whatsoever on the local supply of mutton and lamb which are the meats primarily concerned. As to any alteration to the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, I would have to refer that matter to my colleague the Minister for Overseas Trade.

page 3258

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL CO-OPERATIVE ON PALM ISLAND

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to a statement he made last Thursday that he had approved a grant of $6,000 to the Palm Island Co-operative for the establishment of a fruit and vegetable agricultural project. Has he seen a statement in the Brisbane ‘Courier-Mail’ by a Mr J. V. Dillon, a District Officer of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs, in which he was reported as declaring that the Palm Island Cooperative could not accept the funds because a co-operative did not exist? Is there any truth in this statement or in Mr Dillon’s claim that the Co-operative failed to attract any interest among the Palm Island community?

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

-Yes, I saw the article. I think it was released just prior to the Queensland election. I am led to believe that Mr

Dillon is the manager for the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in relation to Palm Island. I believe that the release would suggest that the Government was not generous to Palm Island in that it was making a grant which could not be used. This grant was a normal establishment allowance for a co-operative. We find that we have to give to a greater degree in Queensland than in other States in order to overcome the lack of activity to assist Aborigines in that State.

As for this particular grant, on 27 November officers of my Department attended a meeting of the directors of the co-operative and their solicitor for the purpose of forming a co-operative on Palm Island. They had 49 shareholders in the cooperative and they assured my Department that by Christmas they could raise the number to 100 shareholders. So the co-operative does really exist. I believe that, as result of the false information, the solicitor is now giving the shareholders advice as to whether that statement is having any detrimental effect on the co-operative, which is a very active one. Payment of the money has been approved. The co-operative does exist. This statement is one of the many false statements that emanate from the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs.

page 3259

QUESTION

MISS JUNIE MOROSI

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question, addressed to the Attorney-General, follows that asked of him by Senator Carrick. The AttorneyGeneral omitted to answer the real nub of Senator Carrick ‘s question. Is the position of private secretary to the Treasurer the most sensitive job amongst private secretaries? Was the AttorneyGeneral aware of the judgments against Miss Morosi before Dr Cairns was contemplating appointing her as his secretary? Was he aware of any other judgments against Miss Morosi? Did he inform Dr Cairns of those judgments?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The answer to the first part of the question is no. I do not recall knowledge of any judgments against Miss Morosi in relation to these money matters of which the honourable senator speaks. It has not even been indicated whether the judgments have been satisfied. That was the point I raised with Senator Carrick. Therefore I do not know what is the purpose of Senator Greenwood’s question. I suppose that if we were to go through all the court records that show what judgments have been obtained against various persons we would find, especially if we went back for some years, that judgments had been obtained against all sorts of people. I seem to recall that some of the most prominent people in Australia have had judgments recorded against them in recent times. I would be astonished if some of the members of this Parliament did not have judgments recorded against them. After all, in claims for the payment of money, sometimes the claims are disputed; sometimes they are not. I repeat that it is not a proper use of this forum to start to raise into the public arena the affairs of persons involved in such matters. The mere fact that some judgment has been recorded against a person, as such, ought not to be raised in this chamber.

page 3259

QUESTION

STATEMENTS BY PARLIAMENTARIANS WHILE OVERSEAS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen reports of statements by a senior Opposition parliamentarian on a visit to the United States of America denigrating Australia and its economic situation? Does the Minister agree that it is inappropriate for any politician to make such comment while absent from Australia, particularly when the comment is wrong?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Yes, I did hear the report on an Australian Broadcasting Commission program this morning of a statement apparently made by Mr Snedden in New York yesterday in which he committed the sin which any member of a parliament who is overseas should not commit; that is, he took the opportunity in another country to denigrate, in fact to bucket, his own country. One of the things one does not do overseas as a Minister or as any personality, much less the Leader of the Opposition in a national parliament, is to try to make some political capital by knocking one’s own country. This is the type of tactic which was used by Mr Snedden. I do not think it would have been appreciated by his American audience, because Americans are very careful when they are overseas about making any criticism of their own country- and rightly so. I think it is a very poor reflection on Mr Snedden. If that is the standard of tactics he would use on behalf of his own country overseas if ever he became Prime Minister of Australiaheaven forbid- let us hope he stays where he is.

page 3259

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND ELECTION RESULTS: STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– Despite the unusual questioning in this chamber today I ask the Leader of the Government: Can he remember that there was an election in Queensland on Saturday? Does he also remember that on that occasion the Australian Labor Party was just about decimated? Has he also seen a statement from our conceited, vain, arrogant Prime Minister to the effect that the people of Queensland are apparently living in dark areas, reflecting upon their judgment?

Senator Wheeldon:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Your practice the other evening, if I recollect it, was to enforce strictly the Standing Orders with regard to reflections on members of other Houses of Parliament. Senator Wood has just described the Prime Minister of Australia as conceited, vain and arrogant. I would like to know whether this is not to be regarded as a reflection, in which case such terminology may be used in any event about members of another House, or whether you will ask Senator Wood to withdraw what he said of the Prime Minister.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- I think Senator Wood’s remarks were made more in the nature of political comment. Senator Wood might moderate his language regarding the Prime Minister and perhaps rephrase his question.

Senator WOOD:

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has he seen a statement from the Prime Minister that the people of Queensland live in dark areas, indicating that they cannot think clearly, which is an insult to the people of Queensland? It is not an insult, of course, according to honourable senators on the other side. Will he convey to the Prime Minister the feeling that it is an insult. Will he also convey to the Prime Minister -

Senator Milliner:

– Ask your question.

Senator WOOD:

-Would the honourable senator like me to go back to the Morosi matter? Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate also convey to the Prime Minister that the people of Queensland live in stronger, brighter sunshine, which no doubt accounts for the fact that they can think more clearly than other people- hence their decision on Saturday?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I think probably it is better to pass over the remarks which were made by the honourable senator about the Prime Minister. They serve no useful purpose. We know that Senator Wood is no admirer of the Prime Minister of this country, but he is Prime Minister because of the votes of the people of Australia, twice. Whatever may be the views of the people of Queensland, the people of Australia have elected Mr Whitlam twice. The honourable senator and his Party take great comfort from the result of the Queensland election. But should they take such comfort, and should the people of

Australia or even of Queensland take such comfort, from a situation where a coalition with S8.7 per cent of the votes gets 69 seats and the Australian Labor Party with 36.3 per cent of the votes gets only 1 1 seats? Had these electorates been distributed in a way which was compatible with democracy- honourable senators will recall the great declarations by the Supreme Court of the United States of America that an election by the people means that there must be equal electoratesthe coalition would have gained 52 seats and the Australian Labor Party 30 seats.

That is not a comforting thought for the ALP, but I think it is an even more distressing thought for Australia and Queensland that we should have existing in Australia a State in which there is no democracy. If there was democracy there it is clear that the ALP would have lost- we face that- but it is not satisfactory that we allow to persist in our community an undemocratic system, a gerrymander of the worst type, which results in ALP members being put out in droves, in a manner quite unrepresentative of what occurred in the voting. I concede that there is no doubt that it would have been a severe loss for the ALP, but these results cannot be satisfactory to anyone. I do not think we should allow to persist any longer in any part of Australia a system which is so undemocratic.

Senator Wood:

– I rise to order. The AttorneyGeneral did not answer the key point of my question which was that the Prime Minister stated that the people of Queensland were living in dark areas, suggesting that they are unable to think correctly. This is an insult to the people of Queensland. Will he convey that to the Prime Minister?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There is no point of order. That point of the question was answered by the Minister.

page 3260

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT’S ECONOMIC POLICIES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the new Government of Queensland committed by election promises to abolish several forms of State taxation and to pay consumer subsidies? Were these economic policies borrowed from the Australian Country Party’s or National Party’s fraternal organisation in Queensland, the Australian League of Rights? Is it true that peanuts are to be proclaimed legal tender in Queensland? If not, can he assure the Senate that the Queensland Government will not be permitted to print its own currency in order to fulfil its promises?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I understand that the general statements made by Senator Walsh are correct- that a lot of outlandish promises were made. Whether or not the Queensland Government will be capable of financing them is another matter. But it does bring to mind that if it does it will be able to do so with the assistance of the Australian Government which in the last financial year appropriated $760m to Queensland- the largest payment ever made to that State by an Australian government. That, of course, was completely overlooked during the whole of the campaign. I agree with the points that Senator Murphy has just made about the manner in which the electorates have been gerrymandered for the purpose of maintaining in power a man who does not understand the essence of democracy. Instead of having 1 1 seats in that Parliament the Australian Labor Party should have 30 seats; instead of the coalition parties having 69 seats they should have 52 seats. This illustrates the mentality of the Queensland Premier. We will see whether he is capable of putting into effect, even with the assistance of the Australian Government, all the measures that he claims he can implement.

page 3261

QUESTION

MOORABBIN HEALTH CENTRE

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the Minister’s decision to establish, without proper local consultation, a community health centre in Centre Road, East Bentleigh in Victoria, at the extravagant cost of approximately $650,000. I ask: Is the Minister aware that a representative public meeting of more than 200 local citizens on 18 November 1974 expressed grave concern and condemned the creation of the proposed centre as an unnecessary duplication of services? Is not the area already adequately covered by general practitioners? Is the centre to be placed opposite the Morrabbin Community Hospital which already has planned facilities for all ancillliary medical services? Is the Minister prepared to review his decision so that scarce funds can be used for other pressing health needs in the district as already sought by the Moorabbin Council, and not for duplicated services?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I know nothing of these matters which have taken place in Moorabbin and which have so agitated Senator Missen. I find it difficult to believe that the Minister for Health has not engaged in proper consultation before he has established a hospital or before he has done anything else. I do find it very interestingand a matter from which the Government should take great heart- that a Liberal senator, Senator Missen, is not complaining about a shortage of medical services but a superabundance of medical services. I think it is an indication of the kinds of actions which have been taken by this Government that the Opposition cannot complain about a shortage of medical services; all it can say is that there are too many hospitals under a Labor government. I would certainly far rather be accused of having too many hospitals than of having too few hospitals which was the case under our miserable predecessors. As for the remainder of these matters, I shall put them to the Minister. If he lets me have a reply before the Senate rises I shall see that Senator Missen gets it.

page 3261

QUESTION

USE OF COMPUTERS IN HOSPITAL SERVICES

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation: In the light of the extensive use now being made of computers in the health and social welfare fields, does the Department of Repatriation and Compensation make use of computers in its hospital service? If so, are the costs justified by the results obtained?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The Department of Repatriation and Compensation and its predecessor the Department of Repatriation, have been using computers in their medical services now for more than 3 years. A national computer centre for the Department has been set up in Sydney. It is used both for the branch office of the Department and also for the services related to hospital patients in that State. As far as the hospitals are concerned, computers are used in a number of ways, but particularly in the pathology department, to assess automatically and to print out the results of various tests. There are a number of other purposes for which they are used in addition to those I have mentioned. So far, the results which have been obtained from the use of these computers have been very encouraging. The computer system of the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord, New South Wales, which is one of the largest hospitals in Australia, is in the forefront, I am informed, of medical computing in Australia.

Mr DITCHBURN

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which I direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, relates to the appointment of Mr David Ditchburn to the Films Board of Review. I ask: Will the Minister table the file concerning this appointment of Mr David Ditchburn to the Films Board of Review?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Yes. I have the papers here. I will table them now.

page 3262

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DIGEST

Senator MILLINER:

– I ask my question of the Minister for the Media. One of the initiatives of his Department is the ‘Australian Government Digest’. Is it a fact that this reference work is fast gaining a fine reputation in literary circles? Does the Minister have any plans for producing this Digest’ more frequently in the future?

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

– I can tell Senator Milliner, who has always had a great interest in the printing industry, he having been I think for some 20 years the Secretary of the Queensland Branch of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union, that the highly regarded journal, the ‘Australian Library Journal’, recently devoted considerable space to a review of the Australian Government Digest’, which is a production of the Australian Government Publishing Service. At present, this ‘Digest’ comes out quarterly, but it has proved so successful that discussions are now taking place concerning the feasibility of producing it on a weekly basis. There is no doubt that the ‘Digest’ has made a definite place for itself as an invaluable reference work. It is highly regarded by all sections of the printing industry. Certainly we are looking at bringing it out not on a quarterly basis but now on a weekly basis.

page 3262

QUESTION

MISS JUNIE MOROSI

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which I direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, relates to answers given by him to questions asked by Senators Carrick and Greenwood. I ask him: Is a person’s commercial and business history a relevant consideration in assessing suitability for appointment to the staff of a Minister and, in particular, to the staff of the Treasurer?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I suppose one could say that it is. I would think that would be taken into account by a Minister who was making an appointment. I suppose that the particular reason I had for opposing the proposal by Dr Cairns- this is, if th~ honourable member is referring to Miss Morosi, as evidently he is- is that she had recently been appointed to a post with Mr Grassby. It was a short term post and at Mr Grassby ‘s request. She was extemely important to him and to that office in establishing it, as the honourable senator probably has heard him say on television. No doubt the considerations to which he adverts are important.

page 3262

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. Has the Minister seen reports of Mr Henry Ford’s annual statement to the motor vehicle industry in the United States of America in which he has commented on the downturn in that industry? How does the Australian situation compare with the position of the motor vehicle industry elsewhere in the world?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I did hear the statement by Mr Ford, as broadcast on the ‘AM’ program this morning, in which he indicated that American production of motor vehicles is down quite dramatically on last year’s production. This of course is a world wide trend. Currently registrations in Japan are running at only 50 per cent of the level at which they ran this time last year. I think that some 100,000 workers in the United States have been laid off in the motor vehicle industry. This is a world wide situation at present, in which the motor vehicle trade is depressed. I suppose that if there is one country which currently has escaped the brunt of that downturn it is Australia where, as late as October, motor vehicle registrations were still running at record levels.

page 3262

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT EMERGENCY RELIEF

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security: Does the Government have any specific plans to implement emergency relief to the thousands of Australian workers at present unemployed and those who will be retrenched before Christmas? I understand that the Brotherhood of St Laurence in Victoria submitted to the Social Welfare Commission a working paper on emergency relief 12 months ago. I now ask: When will the Minister table this report? Will the Minister consider the Opposition’s policy of eliminating the 7-day waiting period for emergency relief?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I shall refer to the Minister for Social Security that part of the honourable senator’s question regarding the tabling of the report, and I hope to let Senator Guilfoyle have an answer as soon as possible. I find it interesting that people who speak on behalf of the Opposition should be talking about the provision which is made for unemployed people when in fact the provision which is made by this Government for unemployed people far exceeds any provision which has been made for unemployed people in the history of Australia. If one compares the present situation in relation to the retraining of unemployed people and the social security provisions for unemployed people with that which applied under the Menzies Government when there was a higher rate of unemployment than there is at the present time under this Government, one can see the very strong differences which have occurred. As for the Opposition’s policy in relation to the 7-day waiting period, the Opposition had 23 years in which to abolish the 7-day waiting period but did nothing about it. We are faced with an economic crisis. There is no question about that. We are faced with a world wide economic crisis, and there is no point in denying it.

Senator Greenwood:

– Oh!

Senator WHEELDON:

– I know that Senator Greenwood, with his masterly erudition in Keynesian economics and latest theories of von Hayek, would have these matters at his fingertips, but unfortunately he has kept his solutions to these economic problems a secret. He will not tell us yet how he is going to solve the problems of inflation and unemployment. We are all waiting for the great day of revelation to come, but so far he has played his cards so close to his chest that they have disappeared inside his singlet. I shall refer the question to the relevant Minister, but in the meantime 1 assure the Parliament that we shall continue to make every adequate provision for social security payments to and retraining and relocation of any unemployed persons in Australia.

page 3263

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs deals with an international matter. I will leave the dirty questions to a handful of Opposition senators. Has the Minister seen reports of talks between the black African leaders from Rhodesia and representatives of the Smith regime about a possible settlement of the Rhodesian problem? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether any progress has been made in the efforts to establish majority rule in that region?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The situation at the moment is that the 2 detained African nationalist leaders, Joshua Nkomo of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union and the Reverend Sithole of the Zimbabwe African National Union, were released by Rhodesia to attend talks in Lusaka with President Kaunda of Zambia, President Nyerere of Tanzania, President Seretse Khama of Botswana and Samora Machel, President of Frelimo. It is believed that Bishop Muzorewa, of the African National Council, also went to the talks. The Smith regime was represented by Cabinet Secretary Gaylord

The leaders of Rhodesia’s four nationalist organisations- Zanu, Zapu, Frolizi and the African National Council; the only one not mentioned is the Front for the Liberation of Zimbabwehave signed an accord which unites them under the African National Council. Joshua Nkomo and the Reverend Sithole signed the accord on behalf of Zapu and Zanu respectively.

The initial round of talks in Lusaka failed to produce a formula acceptable to the Smith regime but we understand that talks have continued. Australia has consistently supported the British Government’s Five Principles as the basis for a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia, especially the fifth principle that any basis proposed for independence must be acceptable to the black majority of Rhodesia. The Government regrets that an agreement acceptable to both sides could not be produced, but welcomes the news that the Rhodesian nationalist organisations have united under the leadership of the African National Council. The Government hopes that the current talks will pave the way for a peaceful solution in Rhodesia.

Mr LIONEL HART

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is he an acquaintance of Mr Lionel Hart who was a secretary of the company Tacitair Pty Ltd of which Miss Morosi and her husband were directors, and which was wound up by an order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales with liabilities of nearly $40,000? Was the Minister aware of the company’s financial position and the involvement of Miss Morosi and Mr Ditchburn as directors at the time of Mr Ditchburn’s appointment to the Films Board of Review?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator asks me: Am I an acquaintance of Mr Lionel Hart? Not as far as I can recall, senator. I suppose it is possible- I do not know- because one meets a great number of people, but frankly I do not recall having known the man or being an acquaintance of him. That is as far as I can take it. As to what has happened to that company, if that is the company in question, I think this ought to be dealt with rather on the basis of inquiry being made by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission into certain companies. I do not know whether information on this has been properly tabled in the Senate. Some questions were asked about the telegram or telex which had been sent by Sir Robert Askin to the Prime Minister of Australia. I have a copy of that telex. I think that the telex should be put on the record: therefore I table it.

I understand that some further inquiry is being made into this matter by the New South Wales Government, so I think it is not desirable that I should say anything more except that it seems that here is a matter in respect of a company that has failed, as I suppose many companies fail. I seem to recall reading once that of all companies which were commenced some 90 per cent failed. Here is a company that has failed. Apparently some look at it was taken some time ago by the Corporate Affairs Commission. No charge was laid against anyone. The statement was made here that Miss Morosi was never even questioned about the matter by the Corporate Affairs Commission and so on. I think it would be best if the honourable senator left this matter until the New South Wales Government said any more that it had to say about it.

page 3264

QUESTION

PROFESSOR MESSEL: APPOINTMENT TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S STAFF

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Mr Deputy President, I was asked a question earlier by Senator Townley about Professor Messel. The message I have had sent into me is that the payment in respect of his position on my staff amounts to $7,500.

page 3264

LAW REFORM COMMISSION: REPORT ON LAW RELATING TO COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 13 of the Law Reform Commission Ordinance I present a report on the Law Relating to Commercial Arbitration by the Law Reform Commission of the Australian Capital Territory.

page 3264

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the resolutions of the ninetieth meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council.

page 3264

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962-1973 I present the eleventh annual report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral ‘s report on those statements.

page 3264

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the activities of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs from its creation on 19 December 1972 to 30 June 1974.

Motion (by Senator Rae) agreed to:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3264

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Senator GIETZELT (New South Wales)For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the transcript of evidence placed before the Joint Committee on Prices relating to its inquiry into the consumer price index. I ask leave of the Senate to have the statement relating to the inquiry incorporated in Hansard.

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR A. T. GIETZELT, MEMBER OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES, ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

The causes and consequences of and the cures for inflation are subjects of continuing debate in the Parliament.

Most speakers use changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a measure of the rate of inflation, yet few people appear to be aware of the way in which the CPI is compiled or what it seeks to measure.

In October of this year the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices invited three senior officers of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to brief it on the CPI. The Hansard of this briefing session has been tabled today and the Committee hopes that honourable members, journalists and others will take the opportunity to read this document. Before presenting the recommendations of the Committee I would like to highlight a number of salient points regarding the CPI.

First, the CPI measures the degree of change over time in prices for a selected group of goods and services which represent the consumption patterns within the economy. The whole idea of measuring price change is to keep constant all variables (e.g. quality) except the price itself.

Secondly, the CPI is compiled by selecting a fixed combination of goods and services which are of constant quality, and then determining the aggregate cost of that combination or basket of goods and services. The CPI does not immediately reflect the substitution that consumers might make between individual items as a reaction, for example, to changes in relative prices. If the price of potatoes trebles, as it has in recent times in Australia, then consumers could reduce consumption of this item by increasing their consumption of rice, for example. Similarly the housewife may substitute chicken for beef or lamb for beef when the relative prices of these commodities change. Neither does the CPI promptly reflect changes in life style or consumer tastes. For example, if consumers suddenly double their consumption of ice cream the CPI would not register this change promptly.

Thirdly, prices are regularly collected by officer of the ABS for a specified basket of goods and services which arc weighted’ according to their relative importance. Items within the basket are selected by using statistics of estimates of average consumption, statistics of imports, exports, primary and secondary production and censuses and surveys of retail sales. Every four to five years the group of items within the Index is reviewed to update the weighting pattern and list of items. This is called re-basing. In Great Britain this is done every year but less frequently in many other countries. The Australian CPI was last re-based in December 1 973.

The specified basket of goods and services used to compile the CPI is derived mostly from estimates of average consumption. In most developed countries the weighting pattern is derived from the findings of household expenditure surveys but in Australia the basket is obtained from indirect sources such as production and imports. The ABS is now engaged on Australia’s first official comprehensive household expenditure survey. The ABS considered that the weighting pattern devised had been reasonably adequate for the purpose of the CPI. However, since the CPI is likely to become more complicated, it is desirable to complete a household expenditure survey, which will of course supply data for other important uses.

The first household expenditure survey will be followed immediately by a smaller survey. During the conduct of that smaller survey the ABS will consider the future frequency and scope of each survey.

The Committee recommends that resources be made available to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to carry out further expenditure surveys as soon as the frequency is determined from work being carried out at the present time.

Fourthly, at present the CPI is published quarterly. I might add here, however, that the food group of the CPI is published monthly. Most developed countries publish their CPI on a monthly basis and the Committee considers it would be appropriate for the Australian CPI to be published also on a monthly basis. This would allow more frequent assessment of anti-inflationary policies. The Committee was informed that preparation of a monthly CPI would require the equivalent of a further 25 full-time staff.

Fifthly, the Committee also recognises that as the CPI is the only compiled for the State capital cities and Canberra it would seem appropriate to include some other large centres and rural cities such as Broken Hill and Bendigo. The Committee recommends that the priority to be given to this work should be referred to the proposed Australian Statistics Advisory Council ( ASAC) when it is established.

The Committee also sees merit in the preparation and publication of half-yearly intervals of an expenmental index of food prices for country towns. An index of this type is presently prepared annually for about 200 country towns and is available on request. The Committee also recommends that this matter should be referred to the ASAC.

The Committee therefore recommends that:

) resources be made available to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to carry out further expenditure surveys as soon as the frequency is determined from work being carried out at the present time;

the Australian Bureau of Statistics be allocated the necessary resources to enable preparation and publication of the Consumer Price Index on a monthly basis;

the following be referred to the proposed Australian Statistics Advisory Council when it is established:

the widening of the Consumer Price Index to reflect price changes in other major cities and representative country towns; and

the publication of the experimental index of food prices for country towns at half-yearly intervals.

page 3265

QUESTION

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

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

– I move:

I point out that because the Senate proceedings are being broadcast, the normal time of adjournment this evening will not be 10.30 p.m. but 1 1 p.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3265

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT (Tasmania-Minister for

Agriculture) ( 12.13)- I move:

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a new export incentive scheme- the Export Market Development Grants Scheme- to replace the export incentive arrangements which expired on 30 June 1974. Shortly after coming to office the Government announced that the existing export incentive arrangements- the Export Incentive Grants Scheme and Export Market Development Allowance Scheme- which had operated virtually unchanged since 1961 and were due to expire on 30 June 1973, would be continued for a further 12 months until 30 June 1974. In the meantime the Government undertook to have a thorough review made of the operations of the incentive arrangements. In the light of this review the Government concluded that there was a need for a continued export incentive but that the schemes which had operated since 1961 and were running at an annual cost of some $100m were unsatisfactory and should be replaced. Furthermore the Government decided that the emphasis in a new export incentive scheme should be on market development rather than on perpetuating payments on exports. Under the previous export incentive arrangements the bulk of the benefits went to a few large companies. Moreover, because the benefits under the schemes took the form of rebates of income tax and payroll tax liability, many small exporting firms and other bodies engaged in export such as statutory marketing authorities and co-operatives were disadvantaged.

Against this background the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) announced on 1 8 December 1 973 the details of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme to operate from 1 July 1974. The scheme was developed on the basis of the following principles and criteria: the scheme should not involve rebates of tax and benefits should be in the form of grants; particular encouragement should be given to small and medium sized firms to become involved in exporting; there should be a ceiling limit on the benefits received by any one firm or groups of firms; and there should be a better balance established between the costs to revenue and benefits to the exporting sector.

Following the announcement of 1 8 December 1973, Dr J. F. Cairns requested the Department of Overseas Trade to conduct seminars in all States to acquaint exporters with the Government’s intentions with regard to the new scheme and to comprehend difficulties that exporters might have with the proposed operation of the scheme. As a result of submissions made at these seminars and in representations from export industry organisations and individual exporters, a number of aspects of the original proposals were modified. The modifications were announced in a detailed statement on 2 July 1974.

In order to enable long term planning by exporters, the Export Market Development Grants Scheme will operate for a period of 5 years as from 1 July 1974, but will be reviewed after 3 years to permit any changes considered desirable to be made. The Export Market Development Grants Bill provides that grants will be payable to claimants on eligible export market development expenditure in respect of any goods, services, property rights or knowhow which are substantially of Australian origin. The eligibility criteria to be applied to export promotion expenditure will be generally the same as under the previous Export Market Development Allowance Scheme provided for in section 160AC of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The scheme will be administered by an independent Export Development Grants Board, responsible to the

Minister for Overseas Trade. Any individual, partnership, company or association carrying on business in Australia and incurring eligible expenditure will be entitled to apply for grants. Some statutory marketing authorities, cooperatives and associations previously excluded from export incentive benefits will be eligible under the new scheme. However, in view of the diversity of the functions and powers of the many authorities and associations operating in Australia, and also the need to ensure that the provisions of the scheme are applied equitably to all claimants, the Bill provides that each authority and association will be required to seek approval for claimant status and be prescribed by regulation.

As a general rule, a claimant must be a principal in an export transaction and must not incur promotional expenditure on behalf of or as an agent for someone else, for which he is being reimbursed or paid. The grants will be available at two rates: a premium rate of 85 per cent for eligible expenditure incurred by new exporters, or by established exporters in trying to develop new markets, and by participants in Australian Government sponsored trade promotions; and a standard rate of 60 per cent for all other eligible expenditure.

There will be a ceiling on annual payments to any one claimant of $100,000 or 10 per cent of export earnings, whichever is the lower, plus an additional amount of up to $25,000 in respect of eligible expenditure on Australian Government sponsored trade promotions. Within the $100,000 ceiling, the 10 per cent limitation will not apply to new claimants, certain prescribed marketing authorities or associations, or eligible expenditure incurred on Australian Government sponsored trade promotions. A new claimant will be regarded as one who has not incurred eligible expenditure in the first five of the 7 years immediately preceding a grant year. Whollyowned subsidiaries and their parent corporation will be treated as a group of corporations and considered as a single entity for the purpose of applying the absolute grant ceiling. However, for all other purposes, including the 10 per cent limitation, each individual corporation within a group will be considered separately.

For the purpose of the premium rate, a new market will be a market in which the claimant has not incurred more than $5,000 of eligible expenditure over the whole of the 3-year period immediately preceding the year to which the claim relates. Having satisfied this test, the claimant will be entitled to grants at the premium rate for 3 consecutive years in relation to eligible expenditure in that market. A market is denned as a particular country or external Territory. Australian Government sponsored trade promotions will include all overseas trade promotion activities such as trade missions, displays, exhibitions, store promotions, advertising and publicity organised or sponsored by the Department of Overseas Trade. In addition, the Department of Overseas Trade may approve as Australian Government sponsored certain overseas promotional activities organised by State governments, industry groups or firms.

The export incentive scheme provided for under this Bill gives clear evidence of the Government’s constructive approach to export policy balanced with its objectives and priorities for the economy as a whole. The cost to revenue of the scheme in its first year of operation is estimated at $27.Sm. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 3267

PARLIAMENT BILL 1974 [No. 2]

Message received from the House of Representatives in the following terms:

The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled A Bill for an Act to determine the site of the New and Permanent Parliament House, and for other purposes, and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to Amendment No. 3 made by the Senate, and has agreed to Amendments Nos 1 and 2 with the amendments indicated by the annexed Schedule.

The House of Representatives desires the concurrence of the Senate in the Amendments made on Amendments Nos 1 and 2 of the Senate.

Motion (by Senator Poyser) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration by the Committee of the Whole forthwith.

In Committee

Senate’s amendments-

. Leave out clause 3, insert the following clause:

In this Act “Parliamentary zone” means the area of land bounded by the lines commencing at a point where Commonwealth Avenue intersects State Circle marked A, and thence in a northerly direction along Commonwealth Avenue to Lake Burly Griffin at a point marked B, and thence extending in an easterly direction along the shore of Lake Burley Griffin to a point where Kings Avenue intersects with the said Lake shore marked C, and thence in a southwesterly direction along Kings Avenue to State Circle at a point marked D, and thence in a westerly direction along

State Circle to the point of commencement excepting therefrom the Parliamentary grounds. ‘.

Leave out clause 4, insert the following clauses:

The new permanent Parliament House proposed to be constructed after the commencement of this Act shall bc constructed upon the site on Capital Hill marked “Site of Parliament House” on the plan set out in the Schedule.

Except in accordance with a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament, no building or other work shall be erected within the Parliamentary grounds or within the Parliamentary zone.’.

House of Representatives amendments to Senate ‘s amendments.

That Senate Amendment No. 1 be amended by omitting all words from and including ‘in a westerly direction’ and substituting the following words: ‘in a straight line, being an extension of Kings Avenue, to its intersection with Capital Circle and thence clockwise around Capital Circle to a point where it intersects with a straight line extending Commonwealth Avenue from the point marked A and thence along that line to the point of commencement, being the area delineated by hatching on the plan set out in the Schedule’.

That Senate Amendment No. 2 be amended by omitting clause 5 and substituting the following clause: 5 ( 1 ) No building or other work is to be erected on land within the Parliamentary zone unless the Minister has caused a proposal for the erection of the building or work to be laid before each House of the Parliament and the proposal has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

Motion (by Senator Poyser) proposed:

That the Committee does not insist on the amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives and agrees to the amendments made in place thereof.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I shall be very brief. Honourable senators will know that the last time the Bill was before us, as it came from the House of Representatives, I moved certain amendments which Senator Wright had had included in his Bill of the previous session. Those amendments were duly carried, I think by a fairly large majority in the Senate. When that Bill, as amended, went down to the House of Representatives I think it is fair to say that Mr Powell of the National Capital Development Commission saw me and pointed out that the wording of the amendments was not as good as it ought to have been. The first amendment, as I recall those moved by Senator Poyser, is a more accurate description of the parliamentary triangle. The previous description referred to a line running down Kings Avenue and also points A and B. The amendment was purely a drafting amendment and I think an enormous improvement on the Bill.

The second major amendment is to clause 5. In the original Bill clause 5 stated that no building or other work should be erected within the parliamentary zone without the approval of Parliament. It is all very well to have the clause in those terms but it was not of sufficient standard really to carry out the purpose. Honourable senators will note that the proposed new clause states that no building or other work is to be erected on land within the parliamentary zone unless the Minister has caused a proposal for the erection of the building or the work to be laid before each House of Parliament and the proposal has been approved by a resolution of each House. The amendment is far tidier than the original clause. Sub-clause (2) and sub-clause (3) are quite necessary. Sub-clause (2 ) states:

Sub-section (1 ) does not prevent the carrying out of work by way of maintenance or repair-

I do not think anybody would expect approval to be obtained for that from Parliament. The clause also does not prevent the carrying out of work by way of internal alterations. I do not think the Parliament is concerned whether over in the Treasury building or in East Block or West Block internal walls are knocked down or partitions are erected. Sub-clause (3) states:

Sub-section (3) does not apply to buildings and works which have reached the documentation stage by 1 December 1974.

As honourable senators know, at the moment foundations and all sorts of things have been started on the High Court building. It would be rather ridiculous where tenders have been let and contracts started for the Parliament to go through the process.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– They might be inconsistent with the other one.

Senator WITHERS:

-The Parliamentary Counsel and the NCDC assure me this amendment will get them out of their problems and that it will allow the High Court and the associated works for which contracts have been let and which are in being to be proceeded with but in future any other proposal will have to come back to the Parliament. As I said I spent some time with Mr Powell, the Commissioner of the NCDC. Administratively the NCDC can live with these proposals, and at the same time all the rights of Parliament are protected. My recommendation to the Committee is that it ought to accept the amendments as put down by Mr Uren. In fact, they were drafted in conjunction with Mr Powell and me.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:
TASMANIA

– The question now is: That the resolution be reported.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr Temporary Chairman, may I speak briefly to that? Senator Wright still has not returned from the United Nations. Now we see basically what he started as a Bill pass. I just thought that it is the appropriate day for it to pass in his absence because as I understand it, it is 25 years today since he was elected to the Senate. He was elected on 10 December 1949. Perhaps it is a nice silver anniversary present for him in his absence.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– ( New

South Wales) (12.22)- Mr Temporary Chairman, could I have the Bill re-committed? We have only just received it. I think that we all are grateful for the explanation given by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers), but I raise a question concerning clause 5(1). It says, in effect, that no building is to be erected on land within the parliamentary zone unless the Minister has caused a proposal to be laid before both Houses and approval has been given by both Houses. Clauses 5(3) says that clause 5(1) does not apply to buildings and works which have reached the documentation stage by 1 December 1974. There is an inconsistency in that because it could be- we are talking about the documentation stage- that under sub-clause (3), as I read it, a building could be in the documentation stage without approval for it having been given by the 2 Houses of the Parliament. That is the point on which I want to be precisely clear. On the one hand, clause 5(1) says that a building has to have the approval of both Houses of the Parliament, and on the other hand an outlet is provided in clause 5 (3) which says that if the building is in the documentation stage it does not need approval. I suggest that words such as ‘consistent with clause 5(1)’ should be included in clause 5 (3).

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

-As I understand the position- and I am trying to get a copy of the Bill because it is not in my folderclause 5 was drafted in this way purely on the basis that the buildings that will come within the Parliamentary Triangle are only those that have got to the stage of documentation.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I am not complaining about that.

Senator POYSER:

-I understand that these are the only buildings that can be covered by this

Bill. Perhaps Senator Withers may have additional information on the matter, as a result of his discussions with Mr Powell.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I share Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s concern about this matter. Can Senator Withers or Senator Poyser tell us what other buildings, apart from the High Court, have reached the documentation stage? Are there buildings about which we do not know that are in the documentation stage and which will mushroom up around us without either House of the Parliament being a bie to do anything a bout it?

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I was assured by the Chairman of the National Capital Development Commission- I take his word for it- that clause 5 applies only to the High Court. Every documentation stage has a technical meaning for architects, builders and engineers. Evidently the documentation stage means the stage at which all the preliminary plans have been done, the working drawings have been completed, the quantity surveyor’s report has been obtained, the project has gone to tender, the tender has been accepted and the successful tenderer has signed the contract. I understand that the moment that happens that is the documentation stage.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That is not my complete understanding of documentation. But if they say that, I will accept it.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is what I understood the Chairman of the NCDC to mean by the documentation stage. It is when all the documents which are required to commence a building have been completed; not the preparation of the documents.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– No, but approval is the thing I am talking about.

Senator WITHERS:

-As I read the clauses of the Bill now, anything that has been documented up to the signing of a contract to 1 December 1 974 does not come to Parliament, but anything that is done within the Parliamentary Triangle after 1 December 1974, for which no documents have been signed, will come to the Parliament. As I understand Mr Powell, at present the only building affected is the High Court building. I do not know how far advanced it is. It certainly has its foundations down, I understand. Has it not? I think it has its foundations down. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh), who in this chamber represents the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson), may have better knowledge of that than I have. As I understand the position, that is the only building over which Parliament will not have authority.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Which relates to this clause?

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes, which relates to this clause.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

-! have now some additional information on this matter. The building of the National Gallery has commenced and the building of the High Court will commence in February. They are the only 2 buildings involved in the matter.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3269

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT (LOAN GUARANTEES) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

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

This Bill seeks Parliament’s approval for the first legislative expression of the Government’s intention, announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 23 April this year, to provide structural adjustment assistance to assist changes in Australian industry. Virtually all features of the Government’s program for structural adjustment assistance are already in operation, including the recently announced measures in relation to non-metropolitan areas which have particular difficulties in adjusting to structural change. There is a need to give the whole program a more defined and permanent form through legislation to establish the Structural Adjustment Board. This will take some time to prepare, but there is, in the meantime, a particular requirement for legislative authority within which loan guarantees may be provided as part of the program. It is for that reason that this Bill is being introduced.

To help progress towards the community’s social and economic goals, the Government sees it as desirable in appropriate cases to promote and make easier the process of structural change in industry. There can be particular times when growth, and even strong growth, of the more viable sectors of industry may not be enough to offset weaknesses that develop in other sectors. There are undoubtedly rigidities in the structure of industry which it takes time to overcome. The change from existing investments and existing employment patterns to others which would be more productive must be a gradual process. At the same time, there are very great gains to be made from shifting industrial activity at a manageable pace from areas and forms which involve high costs to the community to others where industry needs less support or can stand on its own feet. Greater net value accrues to the community.

The costs of inadequate ability to make these changes can be very high. Estimates have been made- and I stress that the precise figures are very much a matter of debate- which suggest that the total cost of support of Australian industry in its present form may run into hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The encouragement of structural adjustments which will reduce this cost has been one of the central aims of this Government. Over a period, if movement into more viable industries and particular sectors of industries can be encouraged, or indeed even if their growth can be fostered while investment in other less attractive sectors is not encouraged, steady and worthwhile progress can be made towards a more soundly based industrial structure.

It must be remembered that we are not talking about wholesale or overnight changes to industry structure. The larger part of the assistance I have mentioned goes to relatively few industry sectors, and within those areas there is a wide variation in the degree of dependence on that support of particular activities and particular firms. Indeed, in most cases, structural adjustment can be left to occur naturally as a continuing process of adaptation by individual firms.

However, where the Government judges it necessary to facilitate a structural change arising from a decision in the broad national interest, but beyond the normal adaptive capacity of the economy, there is another reason for providing assistance to changes of this sort, and one that is particularly important to this Government. Such a structural change is clearly likely to involve some degree of upset to the lives of particular people and the business operations of particular companies. The industrial structure that we have is partly a product of past policies- perhaps not always policies that have been in the best interests of the community, but nevertheless policies to which business and in turn employment have simply responded as being the policies of the government of the day. In the circumstances I have described the Government recognises that it is for the community generally, through the Australian Government, to bear the burden that these changes involve, and not for those particular businesses and employees which may be more seriously affected.

I have given this background to the Bill to show the general basis for the Government’s structural adjustment programs. Those programs provide for assistance in a number of ways. The Government has made generous arrangements to assist individual employees who may suffer as a result of these changes. It has also provided for assistance in a number of ways to businesses which are affected; through arrangements which the Department of Manufacturing Industry is already operating pending the establishment of the Structural Adjustment Board. Firms which have to cease operation or close a substantial part of their operations, in circumstances where the Government has decided the structural change involved should be assisted, can receive substantial compensation for the loss or realisation of their assets. This compensation can assist the firm, if it chooses, to start a new business with better long-term prospects. Firms can also obtain grants for consultancy studies to provide them with advice on restructuring of their activities.

There is, however, an understandable reluctance on the part of many firms- and also of employees- to leave areas of activity with which they are familiar, even if those activities may be costly to the community or may not be contributing fully to national welfare. Encouragement may be needed to induce these firms to reorient their activities in more productive directions. If their choice of a new activity is wisely made, there is no reason why, in a country with Australia’s undoubted potential for growth, they should not enjoy a prosperous future. If this can be done then the community generally will benefit. Loan guarantees can be particularly effective in encouraging firms to adopt such a course, since they assist firms to finance the initial cost of a significant transformation of their activities.

Both the firm and the lender will have, of course, a strong interest in ensuring that the restructured operation will in fact be sufficiently productive to meet the costs of its establishment and to show adequate profits. The loan guarantee essentially primes the pump- to start the process of restructuring which, once it is established, can be self-sustaining. The objective of the legislation providing for loan guarantee for structural adjustment proposals is set out in clause 4 of the Bill and is consistent with the objective of the structural adjustment program generally.

Since decisions on the provision of structural adjustment assistance will need to take account of the circumstances of particular cases, the Bill provides in clause 5 for the prescription of particular adjustment situations by regulations under the Act. There is also provision in clauses 5 and 14 for details concerning particular decisions, including the class of firms to receive assistance and the period for which assistance will be available, to be determined by regulation. Clause 6 authorises the provision of loan guarantees, and is subject to clause 7 which sets out the broad criteria under which a firm may receive a loan guarantee. These criteria are broadly affected by a prescribed adjustment situation to such an extent as to render a significant and distinct part of its assets incapable of ‘economic use; that the firm itself has taken all reasonable steps to adjust to the situation; and that the loan moneys are to be used in a way consistent with the intention of the Government in taking the decision which gave rise to the need for the particular structural change. Clause 7 also provides, in effect, that a firm may not receive both a loan guarantee and closure compensation.

Cases might arise where the Government’s intention is to encourage a particular structural change which would not, without assistance, be likely to occur at a reasonable speed and at a reasonable economic cost to the community. In these cases the Government may wish to assist and not have the test of adverse effects on the firm applied. It would normally be the case that only one guarantee would be provided to any firm or group of associated firms. However, there is provision for this requirement to be waived where it would have unreasonable effects. This might be the case, for example, if 2 members of a diversified group of firms were affected by reason of adjustment situations affecting entirely different areas of industry.

A further provision is that guarantees may apply to as much as 90 per cent of the loan guarantee, but not more. This provision is intended to ensure that the lender exercises his own responsibility for assessing the viability of the proposal. Further clauses of the Bill provide for the application of conditions to guarantees, both to meet normal financial and administrative requirements in relation to the provision of loan guarantees and to ensure that the conditions under which the assistance is provided are complied with.

Other clauses of the Bill provide that payments under guarantees are to be met out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament and available for the purpose, and provide for machinery matters in relation to the operation of the Act. Penalties are provided for misrepresentation in relation to matters concerning the provision of guarantees, and for breach of the secrecy provisions of the legislation.

The introduction of the legislation provides clear evidence that the Government intends that desirable structural changes in Australian industry should not be impeded by lack of adequate measures. In the past structural change in industry has been largely a matter of a chance. This is not good enough. Structural change effects us all for good and bad and there should be the opportunity for Government to influence change for the good and not the bad. This Bill will assist in that regard. It will enable steady progress to be made towards achieving an industrial structure more attuned to the Australian environment and contributing more fully to the effective use of our human and physical resources. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 3271

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator Wriedt:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

( 12.29)- I move:

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

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

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to borrowings overseas by the Australian Government, as required for the purpose of assisting the Australian Industry Development Corporation to carry out the functions prescribed in section 6 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970-1973. The Bill will enable industry developments approved by the AIDC to be assisted with funds not ordinarily available except through borrowings by the Government itself. The structure of the Bill is similar to legislation approved by Parliament on numerous occasions for the raising of loans by Australia for the financing of capital expenditures by the Government owned airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans-Australia Airlines. The Australian Government will be the borrower and the proceeds of the loans will be made available to the AIDC on terms and conditions to be determined by the Treasurer pursuant to clause 7 of the Bill.

The terms and conditions to be determined by the Treasurer will ensure that there is no unfair advantage for the Corporation in the onlending arrangements, between the Government and the Corporation, in relation to the proceeds of loans raised under this legislation. As far as is reasonably practicable, the financial terms of the onlending arrangements will be no less favourable to the Government than the terms under which the loans are raised. The Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970-1973 limits the total amount of borrowings by the Corporation, other than borrowings for temporary purposes, to the equivalent of 5 times the sum of the paid in capital of the Corporation and the amount set aside by it as reserves. This legislation does not alter the total amount that the Corporation can borrow under this formula. The Act also requires that the Corporation, in exercising its powers to borrow moneys, seek to borrow moneys principally outside Australia.

The limitation in the AIDC Act on the amount the Corporation may borrow would not be affected in any way by the provisions in the present Bill. Insofar as the Government borrowed and on-lent the proceeds to the AIDC the latter transaction would be a borrowing by AIDC and would reduce the legal scope available to it for undertaking other borrowings. The Bill provides that loans made to AIDC from the proceeds of borrowings made in currencies other than Australian currency shall, for the purposes of sub-section 7 (4) of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970-1973, be deemed to be borrowings by the Corporation outside Australia. This is fully consistent with the intention of the 1970 Act that funds for the AiDC’s operations should be obtained principally from abroad. If some of the funds available to AIDC are obtained by the Government borrowing these funds abroad and on-lending them to AIDC, this will not alter the proportion of its total borrowings that could be raised from local sources from what it would be if the Corporation itself directly borrowed those funds overseas.

Conditions now facing us in the international capital markets are in many ways very different from those that existed when the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 was enacted. In particular, while there are potentially large amounts of money that will be available for lending, there are not many lenders prepared to provide funds other than on a relatively short term basis and the ones who have the most substantial amounts of funds at their disposal have a definite preference for making loans to Governments or under government guarantee. There are advantages to be gained by having such overseas borrowings as it is appropriate to have undertaken on public account arranged and undertaken by the Australian Government itself. The Australian Government, with its high credit rating and prestige in international capital markets, is better placed to tap overseas sources of funds in a way most advantageous for Australia than is any other Australian borrower, be it a public authority or not. On the other hand it would be undesirable if AIDC, set up to operate independently of government direction, were to become dependent on borrowings undertaken by the Government and on-lent to the corporation.

There is no requirement or intention, however, that all overseas borrowings for the purposes of the AIDC should be undertaken by the Government. The AIDC was set up to be, and has become established as, a prime borrower in international capital markets for Australian industry. To illustrate, AIDC has just announced a United States dollar public issue of 7-year AIDC notes in the European capital market. The amount is US$25m- approximately A$ 19m- which makes it one of the largest United States dollar issues on the market in the conditions of today. The interest coupon of 10.25 per cent is equal to that of international issuers guaranteed by national governments. The AIDC notes are the first of any recent United States dollar issue in Europe to be priced at par rather than at a discount. It is not proposed that AIDC be relieved of the responsibility for arranging its own borrowings in those markets or from those sources that are open to it to approach direct in the ordinary course of its operations. However there are today major and growing sources of overseas funds, particularly sources of a governmental nature, where by reasons of law or established rules or policies it could be difficult if not impossible for AIDC, acting alone, to gain access.

Countries around the world are taking steps to tap these sources for their industries. It is important that Australian industry should also have access to them. The Bill will enable the Government to work with the AIDC by raising funds from such sources and making them available for industry development of importance to Australia. The proposed legislation includes a limit of $250m to the total amount of borrowings that might be undertaken by the Government under it. It will be noted that no time limit for the borrowings is specified. The timing and magnitude of particular borrowings will, of course, have to be related both to prospective requirements of AIDC in respect of planned programmes of investment by it and to the particular borrowing opportunities available from time to time. It is expected that the proposed total borrowing authority of $250m would be only partly utilised in the current financial year, but the existence of this authority will make it possible for the Government to act quickly to take advantage of emergent borrowing opportunities when it judges this appropriate, and will facilitate forward programming by AIDC for its investments.

With legislation for certain borrowings from the United States Export-Import Bank and with guarantees to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for borrowings by Papua New Guinea, it has been possible to schedule to the legislation the agreements for the loans. This is because these lending institutions have been prepared to approve the loans and sign the loan agreements prior to the legislation authorising them being introduced into the Parliament, with the loans being drawn when the necessary legislation is enacted. However, with loans in the international capital market, a loan must be drawn as soon as it is negotiated and the agreement signed, so legislation must be enacted prior to the negotiation of the loans, which means that it is not possible to present the text of the agreements to Parliament for approval. Any borrowings that are undertaken by the Government under the proposed legislation will, of course, require the prior approval of the Australian Loan Council. The Bill contains provisions which would allow the customary undertakings to be given to lenders that payments under the loans will be free from Australian taxation and from foreign exchange restrictions. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 3273

STATES GRANTS (FRUIT-GROWING RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

The purpose of this short Bill is to obtain Parliamentary approval for the agreement entered into by the Australian and State Governments on 2 December 1974 to extend the fruit-growing reconstruction scheme to 31 December 1975. The scheme provides assistance, supplementary to the main rural reconstruction scheme, to meet some of the special needs of the horticultural industry. Orchardists who are experiencing, or are threatened by financial difficulties may receive financial assistance for the removal of surplus fruit trees. A subsidiary benefit of the scheme to the industry is that the removal of surplus trees helps to bring the industry’s productive capacity into closer alignment with the market for its products.

The scheme offers 2 forms of assistance; clear fell, for the grower who is predominantly a horticulturist, who is in severe financial difficulties, and who wishes to remove all his fruit trees and leave the horticultural industry; and partial removal, for the grower whose property would become viable if some or all of the fruit trees were removed and the land put to an alternative use, but who lacks the financial resources to withstand in the short term the effect of the removal of the trees. Assistance under the scheme is provided by way of a loan which is converted to a grant after 5 years conditional on the recipient not replanting specified fruit trees within that period. The scheme is restricted to fresh apple, fresh pear, canning peach, canning pear and canning apricot trees at present, although it is open to any State to seek approval for the extension of the scheme to other varieties of fruit.

The fruitgrowing reconstruction scheme has played an important role in assisting growers in financial difficulties, especially in Tasmania. Over two-thirds of Tasmanian apple and pear growers have applied for assistance and approvals to date for removal of trees would account for more than 20 per cent of Tasmanian apple and pear production. The scheme has played a lesser role in other States because of the availability to growers of more remunerative market outlets and more profitable alternative enterprises. There are still many fresh apple growers in Tasmania who could be in need of assistance in the next 12 months. A substantial portion of the State’s production is expected to be sold on markets which provide growers with very low returns.

Production potential of canning pears still exceeds long term assessed market requirements, although an unusually low crop in the Goulburn Valley and low current world stocks of canned fruit in general, resulted in a satisfactory market situation for canning pears in the 1974 season. It was in this context that the Australian Government accepted the view expressed by the appropriate Ministers of the Australian and State governments when they reviewed the scheme in April 1974, that there was still a need for the kind of assistance provided by the scheme.

Provision of additional funds is not required to enable the scheme to be extended. Of the original $4.6m alloted by the Australian Government, approximately $2m remains uncommitted. The amendment of the agreement also provides an opportunity to remove a restriction imposed on growers who applied for assistance before 1 July 1973 and who withdrew their applications after the first extension of the scheme was announced. Such growers will now be eligible to apply again under the scheme.

Mr Deputy President, when the scheme was introduced in July 1972 the intention was that it should operate for one year to June 1 973. As the initial response to the scheme had been slow, an extension to 3 1 June 1 974 was approved by the States Grants (Fruit-growing Reconstruction) Act 1973. This further extension to 31 December 1975 will allow orchardists in necessitous circumstances to avail themselves of the benefits of the scheme pending the outcome of the current inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission. The IAC has been asked to include the question of assistance in the reconstruction of fruitgrowing industries in its inquiries on rural reconstruction, and to provide the Prime Minister (Mr

Whitlam) with the report coverning fruit growing by 3 1 October 1 975. The provision of assistance beyond 31 December 1975 will be considered in the light of that report. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 3274

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I move:

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

Honourable senators will be aware of worldwide concern for the conservation of wildlife and of places of natural, scenic, scientific and recreational significance. The environment produced by the billions of years of evolution which has resulted in man in his present state, is being drastically altered in a few decades by man himself. Everywhere the natural systems which evolved with man and of which he is part are under threat. We must make a strong stand and determine that this generation will ensure that evolution itself will proceed as much as possible without deliberate or unthinking intervention by man. Over 100 nations have taken action for the permanent reservation of natural areas to represent the range of landscapes and ecosystems within their boundaries, and to protect their unique wildlife resources. They have assembled professional staff to ensure the effective planning and management needed to consolidate legislation and area reservation.

Despite the excellent initiatives taken in some States, our record in Australia has not been good. Since the arrival of the white man some 5 species of marsupial and several species of bird have been wiped out. Many other species have been endangered. The area of our vast continent dedicated as parks and reserves is far from sufficient. Both the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation and the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate have underlined the pressing need for action at various levels to rectify deficiencies in the system in this country.

This Government is taking action which accords with the sentiments of those reports. The Bill proposes the establishment of a professional service to enable the Australian Government, for the first time, to bring a co-ordinated approach to the management of nature conservation resources in the areas under its direct control. The Bill is the product of 18 months of careful work and thought and is a major initiative aimed at overcoming the inactivity of the past. The Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) will also soon be introducing a Bill to make finance available to the States for nature conservation purposes and a Bill creating a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. In this year’s Budget $9m has been provided for National Parks and Nature Reserves. The Council of Nature Conservation Ministers set up on this Government’s initiative will, I hope, help in the development of a national approach to the conservation of our unique fauna and flora. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will also facilitate co-operation with the States in the national nature conservation effort, and the meeting of Australia’s obligations under the increasing number of international agreements for the conservation of wildlife to which this Government has become a signatory. Its functions will include education of park rangers and the provision of assistance to other countries in nature conservation matters.

The Bill makes special provision for agreements with Aboriginal people for the cooperative conservation management of their land and its wildlife resources. In land vested in the Service, regulations will be made where necessary to meet the special needs of the Aboriginal people while ensuring that overall wildlife conservation objectives are met. In all cases, there will be consultation with the Aboriginal people and proper consideration of their traditions and culture which have so much to contribute to the heritage of this nation. The Government has dealt positively with the question of minerals in national parks. Where minerals occur in a park or reserve, no operations for their recovery may take place except in accordance with a plan of management approved by both Houses of the Parliament. We believe that Parliament itself should make the vital decision on whether operations for the recovery of minerals should take place in a park or reserve and then only in the genuine interests of the nation. Under the Bill, the Service will be able to manage parks for a variety of purposes in addition to nature conservation, such as tourism, recreation, and for scientific investigation.

With the passage of this legislation, the Government will move quickly for the proclamation of a number of outstanding areas. Foremost is the proposed Kakadu National Park, in the Northern Territory, which the then Minister for the Interior in July 1970 referred to in the following terms: . . the area’s ingredients of scenic grandeur, interesting and unique flora and fauna and cultural and historical elements, if blended and managed successfully, could produce a great park for public interest and enjoyment as well as making a major contribution to conservation.

We agree with this assessment, and will be proud to proclaim this long-promised, world class, national park. We will also proclaim Gudgenby National Park in the Australian Capital Territory, promised but not established by a former government.

In commending this Bill to honourable senators, I would like to stress that it is high time that this Parliament enacted legislation on behalf of all Australians to permit the Australian Government to play its proper part in the conservation of our natural heritage, which indeed is part of a world heritage becoming increasingly precious to mankind. I regard this Bill as a significant part of this Government’s response to the growing awareness of our fragile world. It exemplifies our willing acceptance of the obligation to set the example required of a national Government.

In conclusion I would like to say that this action accords with the sentiments of the Labor Party platform where it is recognised that ‘ man lives within and depends upon a complex natural system which must be protected and managed as a whole ‘. The platform further states:

The advance of agricultural pursuits and the expansion of cities and their industries have been the cause of much of the natural habitat of Australia’s native flora and fauna being severely reduced and in some cases lost completely. Our natural heritage should be fostered and our natural landscapes protected for the sake of social, cultural, educational and scientific purposes as well as for Australia ‘s future tourist potential.

To achieve this protection the Australian Labor Party in its platform has pledged to ‘conserve for future generations adequate samples of Australia’s unique flora and fauna by the development of a comprehensive system of national parks, nature and recreation reserves’. This Bill is a vital first step and will be complemented by further legislation. This will deal with important aspects of environmental concern, in addition to nature conservation, aimed at halting man’s unthinking degradation of the total environment, the genesis of life on this planet. Mr Deputy President, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 3276

STATES GRANTS (SOIL CONSERVATION) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I move:

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

This Bill is concerned with the provision of grants to the States over the financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76 as an interim program of financial assistance for soil conservation. The Australian Government is seeking to protect those natural resources upon which the nation’s well being is founded, in the interests of present and future generations. In particular, this Bill gives tangible expression to the importance which the Government places upon the preservation of the nation’s soil resources. This subject first attracted significant Federal attention in February 1 97 1 when the Australian Agricultural Council received a report from its Standing Committee on Soil Conservation, entitled ‘The Study of Community Benefits of and Finance for Soil Conservation’. The recommendations of this report provided a factual basis for the States to request financial assistance for their soil conservation programs.

The matter was raised at the Premiers’ conference in 1 972. However, the Government of the day preferred not to make a decision, and instead referred the question to the Interdepartmental Committee of Australian Government officers. The Interdepartmental Committee reported in July this year, after having discussions with representatives of the State soil conservation organisations, and after having examined the report of the Standing Committee. The Interdepartmental Committee agreed that soil conservation activity should be considerably increased above present levels and that it would be appropriate for the Australian Government to provide financial assistance for this purpose.

The Government has now decided in principle to assist the States with a long term program of soil conservation. At the same time it has recognised that there is an urgent need for a collaborative, nation-wide study of soil conservation in the context of land management, involving the State and Australian governments, with a view to providing a sound basis for a long term accelerated soil conservation program. This Bill provides for an interim program of financial assistance for the States to step up their soil conservation activities over the duration of the proposed joint study, in preparation for a long-term program. Participation of the States in the proposed study will be a pre-condition for the provision of financial assistance in the interim program. Agreement to participate in the study has been received from all States except New South Wales. The Bill has been amended in the House of Representatives to clarify its objectives and, to this end, during the debate the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to the Premiers which elaborated the conditions of the grants as mentioned in Clause 4 (5) of the Bill. The relevant section of the letter reads:

The main condition associated with the allocation of these funds is that the State and Australian Governments should collaborate in a study program to be completed by 30 June 1976 to establish a basis for a long-term national program of soil conservation in the context of an integrated approach to land management. Major components in the study program will be:

The development of a national approach to land resources survey and evaluation.

The drawing up of a co-ordinated research program aimed at meeting the most urgent needs associated with soil conservation.

Study of legal, administrative, financial and land tenure systems associated with soil conservation and land management, including the matter of cost allocation and reimbursement in relation to works on private property.

Requirements for the recruitment and training of all categories of staff.

Integration with other areas of Government policy including rural reconstruction, conservation and flood mitigration

Other conditions are that your Government will not reduce its planned level of expenditure on soil conservation unci that funds for the interim program will not be made available for works on private property unless the landholder undertakes responsibility for complementary land management activities. In accordance with its current practice, the Australian Government also reserves the right to consider the environmental implications of projects prior to agreeing to provide funds for those projects.

The Australian Government recognises that gearing up for a major long term program of soil conservation will take time. For this reason it regards the interim program as essential so that the results of the joint study can be applied to this most urgent problem without delay.

While the Australian Government’s proposed contribution to each State in this first instance is small in relation to the magnitude of the work which is urgently required, it is a significant first step in dealing with this national problem. With the completion of this essential first program, the Government will then assess its responsibilities in the implementation of a national plan to protect and restore Australia’s soil resources- which is perhaps, along with water, the most vital of all our natural resources. The sums to be made available were carefully determined after discussions with State officers and examination of the available human and technical resources. The total Australian Government finance to be made available to the States under this program is $0.5m to June 1975 and $2.5m to June 1976. These funds will supplement the provisions for soil conservation already committed or foreshadowed by the States for this period. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 3277

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 3) 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

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

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1975 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 13 to 17 introduced into the Parliament during this session and not enacted to date. The tariff changes validated by this Bill relate to reports by the Tariff Board on:

Fibreboard Containers, Paper and Textile Bags and Photographic and Cinematographic Apparatus, etc; and reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on:

Food Processing Machinery, etc. Gloves. Mittens or Mitts Passenger Motor Vehicles, etc. and Steam. Gas and Water Fittings.

I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Young) adjourned.

page 3277

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY ASSESSMENT BILL 1974 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

This Bill, and two others that I shall shortly introduce, came before the Senate earlier in the year when they were rejected but we have decided to again seek their passage. If passed, the Bills will impose a health insurance levy of 1.35 per cent of the taxable incomes- as determined for income tax purposes- of people residing in Australia. The Bills complement other measures designed to implement the Government’s universal health insurance scheme. Other basic features of the scheme are, of course, contained in legislation that has been before the Parliament on previous occasions. The levy proposed in the present Bills was discussed in the White Paper on the health insurance program published in November 1973, which was preceded by the report of the Health Insurance Planning Committee.

Introduction of the levy is timed to coincide with the coming into operation of the main health insurance legislation. At this stage we would hope to have that legislation effective as from 1 July 1975. However, in the event of some unforeseen administrative complexities which may require a slightly later introductory date, the Bills provide for the levy to be payable on taxable income of the 1 975-76 income year, but also make provision for the annual rate to be reduced should the scheme not become operative until a little later during that year. In that event, it is intended that the rate applied to 1975-76 taxable incomes will be a proportionate part of the annual rate of 1.35 per cent, determined on a time basis. The levy of 1.35 per cent of taxable income will not apply to all taxpayers. At the upper end of the income scale, and on the assumption that the levy will apply for the whole of 1975-76, the maximum amount of levy payable by anyone will be $150. If the commencement date for the levy were not 1 July 1975 but, say, 1 October 1975, then the maximum amount payable for that year would be $ 1 12.50. For lowincome taxpayers there are provisions to the effect that a person whose taxable income is less than the minimum subject to income tax (now $ 1 ,04 1 ) is not to be liable for the levy.

There are also relieving provisions in respect of people maintaining dependants. These will apply to anyone who is entitled for a particular year of income to concessional deductions for maintenance of dependants of an amount of $100 or more. In these cases the levy will not be payable where a person’s taxable income is not more than an amount related to the level of the minimum wage and calculated by application of the formula devised by the Planning Committee and explained in its report at pages 44 to 46. If the levy were to be imposed for 1974-75, the threshold for its imposition would in these cases be $2,575 and the legislation specifies this amount as the level below which the levy will not be payable by people with dependants. Provision is also made, however, for the amount to be increased above $2,575 in the light of changes in wage levels that occur before 1 July 1975.

Another relieving provision related to income levels of particular ‘asse: of people concerns aged people. A,, aged person exempt from income tax by reason of the special transitional tax rebate will also be exempt from health levy. The actual levy-free point for 1975-76 will depend on the amount of the age rebate allowed for income tax purposes in that year. The general principle is, however, that whatever the level of the income tax rebate in 1975-76, an aged person who is exempt from income tax on account of it will also be exempt from health levy. Provision is also being made to give relief from the levy to certain classes of repatriation beneficiaries. The broad principle is that a repatriation beneficiary who is entitled under repatriation arrangements to full medical treatment for himself for all medical conditions, whether or not war-caused, but who has no dependants, will be completely free from payment of levy. If the beneficiary is entitled to full cover for himself, but has a wife or children, he will be entitled to relief from onehalf of the levy that would otherwise be payable.

The question as to whether a case for relief may be made for other classes of people in situations broadly corresponding with those of repatriation beneficiaries is being examined. We are considering to what extent, if any, relief ought to go beyond the ranks of repatriation beneficiaries, and the legislation contains a provision authorising the making of regulations to confer such relief as it may be found appropriate to give. In this context we are giving special attention to pensioners who have an entitlement to free medical attention under the pensioner medical scheme and members of the armed forces.

A fundamental objective of the legislation is to integrate collection of the levy with the collection of income tax. This has distinct administrative advantages which I am sure I need not labour. Suffice it to say that it is the most economical and sensible course to follow. It does, however, require a number of provisions of a technical kind. Much of what is in the Bills is concerned with these technicalities and explanations of the various provisions are contained in the explanatory memorandum I have arranged for honourable senators to receive. I should mention, however, that while the levy will be administered and collected under the income tax system and payasyouearn deductions from salaries and wages will be increased in 1975-76 to take account of it, provisions in the legislation require a separate identification of the amount of a taxpayer’s liability that represents health insurance levy. Thus, for example, the amount payable as the levy will be shown separately on pay slips, group certificates and taxation notices of assessment.

The various provisions of the Bill, including the technical parts that provide for levy to be payable on certain income derived by trustees and for people living in the external territories to be exempt are, as I have already indicated, explained in a memorandum that is being made available to honourable senators. In these circumstances, I think I need say no more at this stage about particular features of the Bills. I commend this Bill- the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill- to the Senate. (Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 3279

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY BILL 1974

[No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

In introducing the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1 974 I outlined basic features of the proposed health insurance levy. These are contained partly in that Bill and partly in this Bill- the Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974. This Bill provides the rate of the levy- basically 1.35 per cent of taxable income. It also contains rules for fixing the maximum amount of levy payable and the income points below which some groups of people will not be called on to pay any amount of levy. Explanations of each clause of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 3279

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974 [No. 3]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

In speaking to the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1974 1 mentioned that the levy is to be imposed on people residing in Australia and that its collection is to be integrated with the collection of income tax. Australia’s double taxation agreements provide, among other things, that Australians who receive income from overseas that is included in their taxable income are to be entitled to a credit for foreign tax on the income. This Bill will ensure that the arrangements for relief of double taxation apply to both income tax and health insurance levy. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 3279

BANKING BILL 1974

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

page 3279

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL (No. 2) 1974

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

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 3279

PUBLIC SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1974

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That consideration of the House of Representatives amendments be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

page 3279

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Defence Service Homes Bill 1974.

Income Tax Assessment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974.

Income Tax Bill 1974.

Income Tax ( Bearer Debentures ) Bill 1 974.

Income Tax ( International Agreements) Bill 1 974.

Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1974.

page 3280

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 December on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– in reply- Mr Deputy President, when the debate on this Bill was adjourned last week I believe we had reached the stage that I was to reply to the second reading debate. I sought the adjournment of the debate at that time to get some other Bills on the record. I suppose that last week a lot may have been said that perhaps would not have been said but for the fact that there was a State election on Saturday, because many accusations were made, particularly about the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, myself as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and what operates in other States, to which one would be justified in replying. Because today is one of the last few days of the session and there is a need to clear up business on the notice paper, I do not think it is necessary to go into all those details now. I think honourable senators’ minds are made up on what is to be done. I have an idea that there is an agreement that there will simply be opposition to 2 clauses at the Committee stage -

Senator Rae:

– I shall speak very briefly and Senator Bonner wishes to speak.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That will be at the Committee stage?

Senator Rae:

– Yes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Much of what has been said about why this legislation should not apply can be dealt with at the Committee stage, therefore there is no reason to go into it now. I want to make 2 points in relation to the Bill. This Bill imposes no restriction on any person. It is not a Bill that prescribes a law which someone in Queensland has to observe as a restriction imposed upon him. It removes restrictions imposed upon Aborigines under Queensland laws. It supersedes the Queensland laws that descriminate against Aborigines. If this Bill becomes law, an Aboriginal will be able to do things that he cannot do at the present time. All we are ensuring by this Bill is that an Aboriginal on a reserve has the same rights and privileges as an Aboriginal off a reserve. The law that applies to an Aboriginal off a reserve in Queensland should apply to an Aboriginal when he is on a reserve. This Bill applies only to Aborigines. If

Les Stewart is asked by his tribal elders to impose a ban on the Minister’s going to Cherbourg, this Bill does not affect his right to do so. Only Aborigines have a right to go on a reserve. This restricts the application of the Bill. It will not be an offence if an Aboriginal is on a reserve without a permit to be there. Aborigines can be excluded from a reserve because of all sorts of conduct in breach of the law in Queensland but the position today is that they must have a permit. The Aboriginal council can issue a permit for one month. A permit for more than a month has to be issued by the council and by the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland. It is not a question of the town council’s having the right to say who shall be on a reserve. It is a question of a departmental official having the right to say who is allowed on an Aboriginal reserve. The effect of this has been that people have been prevented from going back to their tribal lands and from rejoining their families on the settlements. It has also resulted in those who are not wanted on the settlements being removed.

I am informed that on Friday and Saturday, the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland sent chartered planes to Palm Island to remove people from the reserve. I know of no reason for this other than the fact that in the Queensland elections these people would have voted for the Labor Party or perhaps assisted the Labor Party in the election. These people were transported to a place where they were amongst strangers, where they were not known. When I approached a parent of one of the respected members who was removed from the reserve, he told me that it was not the actions of the Aboriginal council but the white policemen. It was not the will of the Aboriginal council, but of the policemen who would obviously be acting on instructions from someone unrelated to the council itself. It would have to be someone who had the power to order their removal. The police would lack that power unless they could accuse a person of some form of misconduct or activity against the law. The Opposition wants to maintain the right of officials in the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs to say who shall go on to reserves.

Senator Rae:

– That is not so, senator. You know that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is so. It is the effect of your opposition. Honourable senators opposite have not suggested any alternative wording. Senator Rae justified his attitude and said, in effect: ‘Why should people who want such restrictions not have them?’ As a lawyer Senator

Rae would know there is no need for laws if everyone can do what he likes. We impose laws to put restrictions on people who do not want the restrictions although their conduct offends some one else. The whole basis of the law is to protect the majority. That is why laws are framed. Even if one accepted the phoney telegrams from the chairmen of the councils- telegrams which had as their inspiration the original false telegram from the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs- one would say: ‘No. The whole position is that we, as a community, have the responsibility to extend freedoms and human rights to everyone in Australia’. As I said, we, as members of the Parliament, have a greater responsibility. No one would suggest that, as a party to the International Labor Organisation, we should not endorse or ratify the convention concerning the protection and integration of indigenous and other tribal and semi-tribal populations in dependent countries.

I think Opposition senators will agree with me that under ILO Convention 107 we have a responsibility. However, we cannot ratify that Convention until such time as we get an overriding law in Queensland that will give freedom to the indigenous people. There should not be a separate law in Queensland applying to indigenous people as distinct from Europeans. That is the whole purpose of the legislation. We have discussed with the Attorney-General’s Department whether we could ratify this agreement if the Opposition ‘s move were successful and the right of entry was not free in reserves in Queensland. Our attention was drawn to Article 12 of the Convention, which states: ‘The populations concerned shall not be removed without their free consent from their habitual territories except in accordance with national laws and regulations for reasons relating to national security, or in the interest of national economic development or the health of the said population’. Therefore, under international law, people can be removed from a reserve if there is a question of security, if the economic well-being of the people is involved, or if someone is suffering from an infectious disease, thus protecting the rest of the community. However, an official should not have had the right to tell people they could not remain on Palm Island last Saturday. Such conditions must not prevail if we are to meet our international obligations. Despite what has been said, this is not an election issue and I hope the Opposition will reconsider its attitude and enable us to have unanimity on this legislation which is to ensure the freedom and the rights of the Aboriginal people. Why should a law apply in Queensland which does not apply in any other State? Is it suggested that Aboriginals in Queensland are more difficult to get on with than other Aboriginals? Why cannot the same freedoms apply in Queensland as apply in other parts of Australia? I ask the Senate to approve the second reading.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7- by leave- taken together.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I reiterate briefly, notwithstanding what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) has said in his second reading speech, that the Opposition believes that the people who are directly involved- the people who are the members of the communities in the reserve areas in Queensland- do not wish to have the law as proposed in clauses 6 and 7 of this Bill imposed upon them. During the debate last week on the motion for the second reading of the Bill we referred to the evidence which clearly indicates that that is the desire of those people. We believe that we will be responding to their wishes by opposing these 2 clauses. We will not oppose the remainder of the Bill.

We endeavoured last week to obtain agreement from the Government to further consideration of the Bill being deferred until 1 March next year so that a poll could be taken of the people residing in those communities to ascertain for sure their views. The Government opposed that proposal, which we thought was a democratic proposal. In the light of the Government’s opposition to that we have been left with only one course of action, that is, to act in the way in which we have been requested to act by the Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council and by the chairman of most of the Aboriginal councils in the various communities, and oppose the inclusion in the Bill of clauses 6 and 7 which relate to the rights of entry into and residence on reserves in Queensland. The people themselves and their councils wish to retain certain restrictions and do not wish this Bill to go ahead with the inclusion of those 2 provisions. Therefore the Opposition will oppose the inclusion in the Bill of clauses 6 and 7.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I agree with the remarks of my colleague Senator Rae. I will be joining him in opposing the inclusion of clauses 6 and 7 in the Bill. In my speech last week I threw down a challenge to both the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) and the Queensland Government to give the Aboriginal people who are members of the communities on reserves in Queensland the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted these clauses included in the Bill. The Minister did not accept that challenge. Despite what he has said today, I still maintain that the Aboriginal people of Queensland, mainly those who live in Aboriginal communities and who are affected by the Queensland Act, should be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want these clauses retained in this Bill.

I believe that the Aboriginal councillors should have the right to say who should enter their communities, who should live in the communities and so forth. The Minister referred to an incident that occurred on Friday of last week. I was in Townsville at about the time. I knew one of the young men who were removed from Palm Island. I spent a considerable amount of time in conversation with him. He maintains that the councillors should have the right to do what they did. Although he does not agree with the reason given by them as to why he should leave the community, he maintains that the councillors should have such a right. For the Minister to say that these men were removed because they would have worked for the Australian Labor Party in Queensland is not quite correct. This young man certainly would not have been working for the Labor Party; to the contrary, he would have been working for the Liberal Party of Australia.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator BONNER:

-Before the sitting was suspended I was speaking about a young man who was removed from the Palm Island Aboriginal settlement at the instigation of the Palm Island Council. Though he was removed he still maintained that the Aboriginal council should have this right. Though he did not completely agree with the reasons of the councillors for his removal he still maintained that they should have the right to say who should live there, who should visit and should go onto the settlement. I completely agree with him.

It is true that there are occasions on which the councillors will make mistakes. But surely to goodness this is part of the growing up process of councillors. The council has been established for only a short number of years and the councillors will make mistakes. But I believe it is their right to have the power to decide who should be allowed to visit or live on the settlement. Surely they will learn by their mistakes. There will be occasions on which they will be guided by other people, perhaps even people from the administration.

I recall an occasion recently when an Aboriginal by the name of Rossiter, who one might refer to as an importation from the southern States, went to Palm Island. This chap, who had extreme ideas, put himself on Palm Island as an adviser to the previous Council that was dissolved by the Queensland Government. I did not always agree with the advice that he was giving, nor did many of the residents of Palm Island. But he was permitted to give that Council advice, some of which was bad advice and wrong advice. I do not remember anyone kicking up any great fuss about that. It seems that it is wrong for the Council to accept advice from white people who happen to be part of the administration. I do not see is that way.

I would like to point out how out of touch the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is with the Queensland legislation. Clause 5 ( 1 ) of the Bill we are now considering states:

Subject to sub-section (2), any property in Queensland of an Aboriginal or Islander shall not be managed by another person without the consent of the Aboriginal or Islander . . .

Section 38 of the Aborigines Act 1971 of Queensland, which has been looked at very closely by Aboriginal councils in Queensland, states:

Powers and duties incidental to management of property. ( I ) Subject to sub-section (2) of this section, a district officer who is maintaining the management of the property of any person, having regard to the best interests of that person and of any member of his family who should be supported by him, may - with that person’s consent do certain things. So what is being proposed in the Bill we are now considering has already been taken care of by the Queensland Government on the advice of the Aboriginal councillors. So the facts show that the Aboriginal councillors on Palm Island are not as unintelligent or as stupid or whatever the Minister likes to refer to them as in telegrams. They have the capacity to think for themselves, to act for themselves and to advise the Government what they want to change and what they wish to retain in the Act. I think they are acting within their rights. I cannot support the Minister and I will be supporting my colleague, Senator Rae, in proposing the deletion of clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill. Again I believe it is right that the councillors, not anyone else, should decide whether they should or should not retain the power over who shall visit their communities and who shall live in them.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I want to make a brief contribution to the debate. I am not surprised at the statements made by Senator Rae because, frankly, he knows nothing about the subject. I am disappointed about some of the statements made by Senator Bonner. There are a couple that I should correct. I do not think there is any quarrel about Aborigines controlling their own areas. That is not the basis of any argument that might be put up by the Government. What we are trying to say is that there ought to be freedom for the Aborigines to do their own thing. I strongly contest the argument that there is freedom in Queensland. There is no freedom in Queensland. It does not matter how much Senator Bonner tries to apologise for the National Party Government in Queensland, and particularly the Premier -

Senator Bonner:

– I was not apologising; I was stating facts.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is not true, Senator. You know it is not true. I think the honourable senator has been bulldozed into this situation by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the Opposition side. Frankly, I would give a substantial donation to charity if the Premier of Queensland could produce in the next couple of weeks details of every free election held on a reserve in Queensland in the last 2 years. There was an election on Palm Island recently. It was an election of intimidation.

Senator Bonner:

– Do you say it was not a free election?

Senator KEEFFE:

– It was not a free election and the honourable senator knows it was not a free election. It was a rort from the start when there was a false petition. The honourable senator knows that the petition which people started taking on Saturday was another rort. It was not even circulated by a permanent resident of the Island. It was circulated by a visitor standing outside the canteen at the end of the drinking session. Those sorts of things are wrong. The election was held and the honourable senator knows how it was held. He knows that a stranger to the Island stood over the voters when they went to vote for that famous election.

Senator Bonner:

– What rot.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The honourable senator can look at the Townsville ‘Bulletin’.

Senator Bonner:

– Can you bring proof into this chamber?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The honourable senator is fond of quoting conservative newspapers in Queensland. There is a photograph showing a person actually intimidating voters as they went to that so-called free election. I want to quote two or three examples that happened in the last week. These are true cases. There was the case at Old Mapoon only a few days ago. Two police went out there and ordered away from the settlement the only person who had a vehicle. They forced him up to Batavia Landing and the police followed, coincidentally or otherwise. One of the policemen was a chap named 0 ‘Shea. He was one of those who went there 10 years ago with a gun in his holster in order to shift the remnants of the Old Mapoon people. I do not think Mr O’Shea was very happy about having to do this on this occasion. When people asked how they were to get to the voting place- the honourable senator would know that they would have to go to Weipa- they were told that they could soandso well walk. That distance was about 60 miles. I suppose that most of the people who went to Old Mapoon would be Labor Party supporters, as they were throughout the area of Cook. The Aboriginal people voted two to one for the Labor candidate.

Senator Bonner:

– Is that how Eric Deeral is going to make it?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Deeral will probably win it because of the hokey-pokey of the voting system but he did not get the majority vote. The honourable senator can read the results in the Courier-Mail’ or any other conservative newspaper that he wants to read. I want to refer to the other incident that happened at Palm Island on Friday. The house of a black resident was surrounded by 4 white policemen, all the local Aboriginal police, some 10 or 12 of them, the manager and the deputy manager, and they intimidated him. That was sheer intimidation whether Senator Bonner likes it or not.

Senator Bonner:

– Did you see it?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I have had eye witness reports of it and I believe them. The reports are from Aboriginal people and I believe them. If Senator Bonner wants to listen to the white manager’s version of it, I am sorry. The white manager in these circumstances can only be telling lies. He is in a very serious situation over this incident. Why were 16 or 18 people needed to surround one black man’s house on Friday of last week, the day before the Queensland election, in a spirit of intimidation, bulldozing them off the island? That same manager made a statement which was reported in the ‘Courier-Mail’ on Saturday, saying that there is only one financial member of the co-operative. Of course, this cooperative is one of the few viable co-operatives that could have got off the ground, and only with the help of the Australian Government. This same man said that the unions had no right to ensure that people on the island were getting proper wages. When the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association representative visited there a few weeks ago he found that black people on that island were being underpaid to the extent of $80 a week. But this same white manager, who adopted these intimidatory tactics says that it is wrong to change the situation because the people are happy getting $80 a week less than the award. What sort of poppycock are we being given?

Let us touch just briefly on these councils. I am not blaming Senator Bonner for the situation. Senator Bonner is the unfortunate victim of the white man ‘s law and the white man ‘s stand-over tactics in the Party to which he belongs. I have great sympathy for what Senator Bonner is trying to do and I feel very sorry for him when he has to mouth words of opposition in the manner he has had to under pressure from his own Party. But I am saying that these things are wrong.

Senator Bonner:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I take great exception to Senator Keeffe saying that I am under pressure from anyone. I speak Neville Bonner’s thoughts in this chamber and no one puts me under pressure. I believe that Senator Keeffe ‘s remarks should be withdrawn.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:
QUEENSLAND

– No point of order is involved.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I want to refer to something else Senator Bonner said about the councils. Since the change of council on Palm Island there have been more black people in the black hole of Calcutta gaol on Palm Island than there were in the previous 6 months. People are being sentenced to imprisonment in this black hole of Calcutta by unqualified people under the rules and regulations of the 2 Queensland Acts. Why should not this Government want to see the abolition of these 2 Acts? Every free thinking Australian, black or white, wants to see all people in this country on a single basis; not first-class citizens because they are white and second-class citizens because they are black. That is exactly the way those 2 Acts discriminate. Unqualified justices of the peace are sentencing people to up to 14 days in gaol. Sometimes there are 3 prisoners to one of those tiny cells, without blankets, without sheets of any description and with a plastic bucket for toilet purposes. It is not good enough. What we saw at Doomadgee recentlySenator Bonner would realise this- is a gaol that at least will be a little more comfortable than that shocking damned thing that is on Palm Island.

Senator Poyser:

– Is this true?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Of course it is true. Every single thing is true. It is only three or four years since seven and eight year old kids were locked up in the little black dungeons on the ends of the dormitories. This sort of system of law should have been abolished years ago. Why the Opposition should want to perpetuate this sort of thing is quite beyond my comprehension.

The final thing I want to say is that the further discrimination that has been practised in Queensland is illustrated in the figures of the Department of Health. These figures are completely unchallengeable. In 1973-74 the Australian Government allocated to the Queensland Government for Aboriginal advancement programs $9,957,000, of which $2,243,000 was for approved Aboriginal health programs. But in the following year, 1974-75, the Australian Government allocated $10,362,000. The sum of $2,439,300 was for the health program, with a further $1,664,000 for community aid projects. Actual expenditure in Queensland on Aboriginal health projects during 1973-74 from funds provided by the Australian Government was only $835,523. Had that money been allocated for white people every penny of it would have been spent and the Queensland Government would have been back here asking for more. But because it is allocated for black people it has gone into cold storage or somewhere. At the end of June 1974 almost $2. 4m of the allocations made by the Australian Government in 1972-73 and 1973-74 remained unexpended.

I do not want to say more. I think I have highlighted the sort of discrimination being practised against Aborigines by the Queensland Government and by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. It is a blot on democracy in this nation that we have people in this chamber who want to perpetuate this sort of system. The Bill as presented by the Minister ought to be passed in toto without any amendments or deletions.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I want to say a few words on this Bill. When the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) was replying in the second reading debate he mentioned something about this having been an election issue and that now that it was not an election issue we could treat it possibly in a different manner. Never at any stage was this an election issue in Queensland. This Bill has been on the notice paper for some time and the election in Queensland has not affected it at all. The Minister tried to explain the position in relation to clause 6, particularly as it applied to permits to go onto reserves. In one breath he says that he wants permits removed completely; in the next he says that the people on the reserves will still be able to control their reserves and say who comes on them. That seems haywire to me.

Senator Poyser:

– When did he say that?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– He said that this morning. The honourable senator will read it in Hansard tomorrow if he would like to check it.

Senator Milliner:

– When did he say it?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– When closing the second reading debate.

Senator Poyser:

– This is your misconception of what he said.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It might be but Senator Poyser can read it in Hansard in the morning if he wants to. The Minister said he wanted the restrictions removed but then says that the people on the reserves will be able to say who comes in. Why remove the restrictions if this sort of thing is to go on? It does not make sense to me at all.

The next matter I want to refer to is a statement, I think last week, by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) about some telegrams which were alleged by the Minister or the Postmaster-General’s Department to have been charged to the Queensland Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I have checked on the position and found that most of the outpost radios run from Thursday Island, particularly, from the Peninsula, the islands and elsewhere, are run by the State Department and the Postmaster-General’s own regulations will not permit it to accept telegrams from that radio network unless they are charged to departmental accounts. They have to be charged to the telephone number of the Queensland Department. Yet the PostmasterGeneral comes along and says that they were charged to the account of the State department when his own regulations say that they have to be charged in that way. That effectively clears up the point about them being paid for by the Queensland Department.

I had a call from Les Stewart yesterday. Les Stewart, as honourable senators probably know, is chairman of the combined councils of the various settlements and reserves in Queensland. He asked me to plead with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs not to go on with this clause on the abolition of permits to enter reserves. He said it would destroy the whole way of life on these reserves and he asked me two or three times to plead with the Minister not to go on with the clause. He said that the Minister did not understand the position fully and he asked me to pass this message on. He said to me: ‘If you cannot do that, at least throw these clauses out’. He was speaking for the combined councils in Queensland and spoke certainly with some authority. To say that he is not a duly elected representative of the Cherbourg settlement, as honourable senators opposite are trying to make out, is, I think, absolutely wrong.

I propose to support the deletion of clauses 6 and 7 in order to let the people of Queensland continue to manage their own affairs. The people elected to the councils are democratically elected, despite what Senator Keeffe says. They should continue to say who can and who cannot go on to the reserves. Mr Stewart said that no relatives of people who live on the reserves had been refused entry to the reserves. I believe that will be the position if the law is left as it is. I believe that the present position should continue to exist whereby the State Government has undertaken to listen to the representations made by the people on the reserves. The State Government has listened to all representations made to it and has given the Aborigines nearly everything they want. Most of the Bill is redundant. I think clauses 6 and 7 should be thrown out.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– The question before the Committee is that clauses 6 and 7 be adopted. The Opposition has opposed both these clauses which are being taken together. If I have not already done so in my second reading speech, I will now justify the inclusion of clauses 6 and 7 in the Bill. I do not think the Opposition has put forward appropriate reasons for the deletion of these clauses. I am somewhat indebted to Senator Keeffe for his remarks in this debate. Senator Keeffe seriously doubts whether free elections have been held on reserves. At the present time, we are coming very close to doubting whether free elections are held at all in Queensland. We saw the movement of people from Palm Island at the weekend- the day before the State general election. I gave a reason for that movement, indicating that they were Labor supporters and possibly could have some persuasive value on Palm Island. Senator Bonner indicated before lunch that an individual to whom he spoke said that he did not know why he had been shifted off Palm Island. I think that after lunch Senator Bonner indicated that the particular individual to whom he referred had not agreed with the reasons for his removal from Palm Island.

If one is moved off a town square or moved off the main street, a reason should be given. In this case no reason was given. I understand that the person was removed by a white policeman. Should anyone have the power to remove someone from the Island, for political reasons or otherwise, or perhaps because they do not like the person who is removed? As honourable senators are aware I have spent 2 weeks in Queensland and I have seen a number of Aborigines. I have visited the council of which Les Stewart is chairman. Every member of the council, after a meeting over which Les Stewart presided, expressed to me -

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– But not Les Stewart.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Of course not. Les Stewart is an agent of Bjelke-Petersen. Les Stewart is not fluent in English. Yet an editorial, written in perfect English, appears in the Press and is atributed to Les Stewart. It is beyond his capabilities to make such a statement. Every time that Bjelke-Petersen wants something said on behalf of the Aborigines he uses the signature of Les Stewart for the purpose of expressing the Aborigines ‘ viewpoint.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– You know that is not right.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know it is right. Senator Lawrie is trying to influence us because Les Stewart rang him up. There could not be a less reliable person from whom to seek advice about Aboriginal affairs than Les Stewart.

Let us look at the particular clauses now under consideration. I have told the Senate that I have seen the Aboriginal people. For Opposition senators to say that the Aboriginal people do not want anything is to attempt to find some excuse for their own attitude of not giving to Aborigines on reserves in Queensland the same freedom as they want for white people. I have been around and I have been accused of paying out big sums of money to get the Aboriginal people to come to meetings and to make decisions on this question. In the past I have done my best to get to the people. Last Friday there was a demonstration on the main reserve in Brisbane against the Queensland Act. At that demonstration 6 people were arrested, three of them Aborigines and the other three university students.

Senator Bonner knows perfectly well that Aborigines want this Bill to become law. It is said that he is under pressure from his Party. Why does he not support his people? Will he go to the Queensland Aboriginal people and say: ‘I am the person who stopped you from getting the freedom which I have got because I do not live on a reserve. I am the person who prevented you from having the rights that I enjoy as a person who does not live on a reserve. I receive an income that takes me off the reserve’? Les Stewart has said that he has never stopped people from visiting their relatives. He has said that nobody has the power to do so. But he has the very power to do it. The old question arises of whether it is right to have these powers in an Act of Parliament. Senator Bonner has accused me of not knowing the particular Act. Clause 5 of the Bill is not under challenge. As I said, it should not have been necessary to have that provision in the Bill. To say that what clause 5 seeks to rectify has been rectified by the Queensland Act of 1974 is simply not true. It is not a question of whether I know the Act; Senator Bonner does not know the Act.

The Queensland law in force on 1 November 1974 contained provisions which authorised, firstly, the continued management under the present legislation of property managed without the consent of Aborigines and Islanders under earlier Queensland legislation and, secondly, prevented an Aboriginal or Islander from terminating the management of his property if a magistrate were satisfied that termination of management would be detrimental to the best interests of the Aboriginal or Islander or any member of his family. The Queensland Parliament introduced amendments, which came into effect in 1 November 1974, in relation to the restrictions to which reference has been made. The new Queensland laws now provide that an Aboriginal or Islander may terminate the management of his property by notice in writing witnessed by a Justice of the Peace. However, the Queensland amendments left intact certain laws to which I have just referred. Those laws, which are concerned with section 4 (6) of the Aborigines Act 1971- a similar provision is contained in the Torres Strait Islanders Act- read as follows:

A management of property of an assisted Aborigine undertaken under the repealed Acts and maintained at the date of commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a management of property under section 37 of this Act and. unless it is terminated in accordance with the Act, shall be maintained in accordance with this Act.

The provisions in respect of the management of property that are discriminatory against Aborigines or Islanders are contrary to the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Therefore provisions which are contrary to the International Convention still exist.

As regards clauses 6 and 7, which are the pertinent clauses of the Bill, Senator Bonner suggests that some sort of referendum should be held. The people of Bondi in Sydney or the people in the Woden Valley in Canberra cannot be asked to decide by referendum who should go into their territory. You cannot let individual people decide who should go into any territory. The ownership of property confers that right, and it is ownership of property that we are seeking to give to the Queensland Aboriginal people. This is the thing that Senator Lawrie has great difficulty in understanding; it is very difficult to get anything through to Senator Lawrie. What I am trying to say is that the position which applies off a reserve should apply on a reserve. An Act which says that people have no right to be on a reserve stops people from visiting relatives on the reserve and whether or not the provisions are enforced is not in question. What is involved here is the honouring of our obligation under international agreement which we cannot fulfil because of the law which applies in Queensland.

We submit to the Committee a Bill with 1 1 clauses, two of which are opposed. The whole purpose of the Bill is to override some provisions in the Queensland Act. Honourable senators agree that the repressive laws of Queensland justify the introduction of legislation to override them. They have said: ‘We cannot tolerate the provisions in this Bill except in those 2 clauses ‘. Although they approve of what the Country Party Premier does in Queensland they agree that a number of the sections in the Queensland Act should be overridden as intolerable, but they say that there are 2 sections that they cannot agree to override because Les Stewart has said that he does not want them overridden. Although Les Stewart did take me on a tour of Cherbourg Mission and I went to the places which he wanted to show me- I say that it is a model settlement- it was only when I got back to Brisbane that I received a deputation of the old people who asked me to have a look at their residences at the lower end of Cherbourg Mission, residences without doors, windows and floors. This is the model settlement and the conditions under which they are living. I said to them that I had just been down there and they said, ‘But we were not allowed to talk to you. You were entertained by the Council. You went where the council took you. We were not allowed to talk to you. We had to hire cars to come to Brisbane so we could tell you this and ask you whether you can do something for the pensioners who are living in hovels at the back of the model mission at Cherbourg’. That is the mission on which Les Stewart is the authority. That is the situation in Queensland today. That is what those opposite are seeking to preserve and protect.

We have heard from Senator Bonner who came to this Parliament on the Aboriginal vote. He is one of their people. He has some desire to do something for them. He is the person today who has to go back to Queensland and say to the person he was talking to who was thrown off Palm Island: ‘You could have had freedom next week to go on to Palm Island but I stopped you ‘. That is the position that he has adopted on behalf of the people he is supposed to represent. We want people to have the right to go on to reserves. Clause 7 of the Bill permits people to stay on reserves. You can evict anyone from a reserve for unreasonable conduct, but all that this clause says is that it is not an offence to be on a reserve without a permit. We say a person must not have the dog collar. He must not be subjected to the pass system that has operated in South Africa and still applies at the present time. This system is not to apply in Australia. Senator Bonner and Senator Rae say they want that pass system because Les Stewart wants it. They say: ‘ Let us apply to Queensland the South African conditions’. There is very little difference between the forms of racial discrimination.

The purpose of clause 7 of the Bill is to supersede Regulation 14 under the Queensland Aborigines Act in its application to Aborigines which provides that a person authorised to be on a reserve shall conduct himself properly and to the satisfaction of the Aboriginal Council and management or district officer of the reserve. A person does not have to conduct himself in accordance with the accepted practice of anyone who walks in a public thoroughfare or public place. He has to conduct himself to the satisfaction of the Aboriginal council and management or district officer of the reserve. They are the people who can throw a person off a reserve. If a person’s conduct does not please the district officer he has no right of trial, no right of hearing and no right to defend himself on the question. If the district officer says that the person’s conduct is offensive to him that person cannot visit his mother on a particular reserve. That is the humanitarian approach of the Opposition and of the great Neville Bonner, the champion of the Aboriginal people of Queensland, who wants to bring the Aborigines down to the level of South African negroes and not up to the level of Australian citizens. I hope that the Committee will carry both clauses 6 and 7.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (2.50)- I intervene in the hope of attracting an unemotional answer from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). An enormous amount of heat has been injected into the debate by the Minister.

Senator Wood:

– The election is over.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I do not know what is the cause of it but an unnecessary amount of heat has been injected into this chamber where such heat should not exist. My question to the Minister is this: Only three or four weeks ago, in company with certain other honourable senators, I was in the Gove area of northern Australia. While I was there I asked by what right an individual, whether an Aborigine or an Australian citizen of European extraction, could enter the Gove area. I was told that no one could enter that area, whether he be Aboriginal or of European extraction, without a permit from the council of the Aboriginal people. I assume that Gove lies within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Aboriginal affairs and I would be grateful if he would inform me what are the control factors that exist in other areas besides those areas in Queensland.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I rise again because of some of the things that were said by the supposed Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh).

Senator Milliner:

– What do you mean?

Senator BONNER:

– I say ‘the supposed Minister for Aboriginal Affairs’ because I am an Aborigine and he has the audacity to say things about me in this chamber. He is the man who is supposed to be standing up for Aborigines. I have never been ashamed of anything I have said in this chamber. I make no apology for anything I have said. I make no apology for standing up for the Aboriginal people in the communities and for the councillors who have been duly elected by the Aboriginal people in the communities. I make no apology for saying that they should have the authority in the communities and that they should have the control, and not Senator Cavanagh. Honourable senators opposite have the audacity to say: ‘We want Aborigines to have self-determination.’ What a mob of hypocrites. The Minister himself adopts a hypocritical attitude in this chamber. I am an Aborigine. I am proud of the fact that I am an Aborigine. I will do everything in my power to assist the advancement of my race.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But you are not doing it.

Senator BONNER:

– I am doing just that because I am maintaining that they, and not Senator Cavanagh, have the right to make the decisions.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– They are living in hovels.

Senator BONNER:

– Certainly they are living in hovels. They are living in hovels in Wilcannia too. I asked the Minister some 6 months ago when he visited Queensland and when my wife and I were given a lift to Brisbane in his car, whether he would have a look at Wilcannia and at the conditions under which Aborigines are living there.

Senator Wood:

– In New South Wales.

Senator BONNER:

– In New South Wales, not in Queensland. My wife said to him: ‘Mr Minister, please remember the name Wilcannia, because my husband and I visited there and were appalled by what we saw. Would you as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs please remember the name Wilcannia?’ The Minister was not interested in that. He is not interested in the high death rate of Aboriginal children who live in hovels in the Northern Territory. It is true that we have problems in Queensland, but by the same token the Queensland Government has accepted its responsibilities. It was the lack of money that stopped the building of houses and the taking of Aboriginal people out of the hovels in Queensland. This responsibility lies with Senator Cavanagh. He and his Government can make this money available but they have cut off some $3m from the Queensland Government. Senator Gietzelt, who is interjecting, would not know anything about the matter. He has never been to Queensland to look at the situation. I am standing here and speaking of how I feel as an Aboriginal. The honourable senator would not know anything about the feelings of Aborigines. He has never lived as an Aboriginal. Has he lived in the lantana bushes? Has he had a hungry belly and walked barefoot? As an Aboriginal I have lived in hovels, but I was able to lift myself out of those hovels not through the help of the honourable senator’s Party nor with the help of the Queensland Labor Party when it was in office.

Senator Gietzelt:

– It is your Government that has been responsible.

Senator BONNER:

– The Labor Government kept us tied down on the government communities. It was a National Party-Liberal Government that lifted us out of that. It is hypocrisy on the part of the Minister and Senator Keeffe to say that the Aboriginal councils, which were duly elected by the people, should not have the right to say who enters their communities.

Senator Keeffe:

– They have not been elected for years.

Senator BONNER:

– It is no good the honourable senator saying otherwise. The councils were elected by the people. Senator Keeffe has often come into this chamber with a lot of accusations but he has never yet once, to my knowledge, been able to produce the proof of the accusations that he makes. He says he has proof. I ask him to lay the proof on the table of the Senate so that we can see it. Then we will take notice of what he has to say.

Senator Keeffe:

– How do I table last Friday’s proof?

Senator BONNER:

-You can table it here. I was in Townsville too on Friday. I looked into the situation as well. Certainly five men were removed from Palm Island. One of them happened to be my own son. He was put off the Island.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And you justify their actions in doing so?

Senator BONNER:

– Yes. My son said: ‘The councillors have the right to put me off if I am not prepared to conform to the rules of the Council on the Island. I do not agree with the reasons on this particular occasion but I agree with the Council ‘s right to do so ‘.

Senator Poyser:

– When did he say that?

Senator BONNER:

– He said that to me on Friday night and again on Saturday morning. The Minister said that the men were removed because they might influence the vote. They had every right to vote in Townville. My son voted in Townsville but he did not vote for the Labor Party. That is one of the reasons the Labor Party did not win in Queensland. Labor’s representation in the State Parliament dropped from 33 seats to 12 seats- not a bad effort for a government that allegedly has not done the right thing in Queensland. It seems strange that today the people of Queensland have almost annihilated the Labor Party there. It has only 12 members in Parliament. It cannot even form a shadow Ministry. The Queensland Government, which senators opposite say has done so many wrong things, certainly has the support of the Queensland people. I stand to be counted. I want to see clauses 6 and 7 deleted from this Bill to allow the responsibility of the communities to lie in the hands of the duly elected Aboriginal councils.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack said a lot of emotion had been brought into this debate which possibly should not have been. It is an emotional issue because we are dealing with human lives, not with material things. A lot more examination is needed when we are dealing with lives. One of the greatest treasures in life is freedom. The greatest oppressors of human dignity are those who oppose freedom. Naturally Senator Bonner had likewise to get emotional. I agree with all he said. I think he has suffered as the Aboriginal has suffered.

Senator Bonner also referred to Aborigines being entitled to a better deal. We are attempting to give them a better deal. He cannot get over this: The one who is stopping an Aboriginal who wants to go on to a reserve from having the same freedom as Senator Bonner has is Senator Bonner. He has the cheek and audacity to come here and say that it is we who are persecuting the Aboriginal, and he justifies that by saying: ‘Senator Cavanagh did nothing about Wilcannia’. Whether I did or did not is no justification why Senator Bonner should keep his people in Queensland oppressed. There is only one justification for Senator Bonner doing that and it is because he is pledged to a political party that can survive only with oppression. That is why it goes on.

Turning to Wilcannia, it is untrue that we have not looked at the position in Wilcannia. Although it has nothing to do with the Bill before us, in answer to a question recently I informed the Senate that there is money to build 14 houses at Wilcannia at the present time. The position in Wilcannia is not as bad as the position in Normanton at the present time. At least Aboriginals have freedom of entry in Wilcannia, but they have not got it in Normanton at the present time. Senator Bonner should look at his own fowlhouse when he is looking at these questions. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack linked up the position in Queensland with the position at Gove. The Northern Territory Social Welfare Ordinance states:

A person shall not enter or remain on a reserve unless he is an Aboriginal native of Australia.

Therefore, you cannot stop an Aboriginal native from entering or remaining on a reserve. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack may not have been able to go there because there was a doubt whether he was an Aboriginal native. This Bill- and it refers only to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islandersseeks to give Aboriginals the right to enter a reserve. In the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia there exists a system which gives to an Aboriginal a prima facie right to enter a reserve. Of course, he can be kicked off for any breach of the law, etc. The purpose of this Bill is to give an Aboriginal such a right in the State of Queensland.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– And be kicked off.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If it is for no other reason than that he has not got a permit to go on the reserve -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– And be kicked off.

Senator CAVANAGH:
Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is what your ordinance says; you have just said so.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The ordinance does not say that. It says:

A person shall not enter or remain on a reserve unless he is an Aboriginal native of Australia.

There are other conditions relating to a police officer, and then there is this condition ‘or has a permit ‘.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Or has a permit.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– You have to have a permit, apparently.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– You are not listening. I am reading it out.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Your last words were ‘or has a permit’.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Listen. Can you understand? The ordinance says:

A person shall not enter or remain on a reserve unless -

Then it sets out the classifications. He can enter and remain on a reserve if he is an Aboriginal native of Australia, if he is a member of the police force or if he is acting in the course of his duty of an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service. Then it sets out the classifications of those who can remain on a reserve, and of course others are subject to a permit.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You should read it out to us, for goodness sake.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– We are trying to bring the same law to Queensland so that an Aboriginal has the right to go to an area, which is his tribal country and where his relatives live, without having to ask someone whether he can go there and without having to observe a code of conduct which an officer has decided. This is the elementary basis of liberty and freedom, and you are the ones who are stopping it. Go back and tell the Aborigines in Queensland. It is obvious that we cannot get these clauses through. The Opposition, including Senator Bonner, is not prepared to support for Queensland Aborigines conditions which are as high as those relating to Aborigines in every other State of the Commonwealth. Those are the facts of the case.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Would the Minister be kind enough to allow me to look at the ordinance from which he has quoted?

Senator CAVANAGH:

Question put:

That clauses 6 and 7 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator G. Georges)

AYES: 28

NOES: 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– That is right. The question in relation to clauses 6 and 7 was put to the Committee and it was resolved in the negative.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– It has been drawn to my attention that some further sections of the Northern Territory Social Welfare Ordinance were not referred to by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) when he was talking about the Northern Territory a short time ago. They include section 1 8, which refers to the suspension of the right to enter or remain upon a reserve. It states:

  1. Where a welfare officer who is so authorised is satisfied that the behaviour of a person who has such a right and is on a reserve is such that it is desirable for the maintenance of order on the reserve that the person should not be on the reserve or a part of the reserve, he may declare to the person that the person ‘s right to enter or remain on the reserve, or on such part of the reserve as the welfare officer specifies, is suspended for such period not exceeding thirty days as the welfare officer specifies.

Section 18(1) states:

The Administrator may, by writing under his hand, authorise a welfare officer to suspend the right of a person to enter and remain on a reserve.

Section 18(5):

A power to authorise a person to enter and remain on a reserve or to declare or order that the right of a person to enter or remain on a reserve or pan of a reserve is or shall be suspended includes a power to revoke the authorisation, declaration or order:

Certain penalties are provided. It appears that the Minister did not answer the questions raised by Senator Magnus Cormack quite as fully as he might have when he was speaking a little while ago. The situation that the Queensland Government would seek to have applying in Queensland is similar to that which the Federal Government approves as applying in the Northern Territory. Of course, there is the difference in the Ordinance applying in the Northern Territoryit is called the Social Welfare Ordinancethat whether people have a right to enter a reserve is not a matter for decision by an Aboriginal council; rather it is a matter for decision by a welfare officer.

Senator RAE:

– The decision is made by a welfare officer. A ‘welfare officer’ is defined in the Ordinance as being:

The Director of Social Welfare or a person appointed under this Ordinance to be a welfare officer.

So this person is a government nominee and not a person elected by the Aboriginal people living on the reserve concerned.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– Shocking, is it not?

Senator Rae:

– It is awful.

Senator Bonner:

– It is.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– All right; I am agreeing with the honourable senator. Senator Rae says that on his interpretation it is awful. Senator Bonner agrees with him. That section should not be in the Northern Territory Ordinance- if they are right. I agree, it should never be. But leave it in Queensland law. We tried to take it out of Queensland law.

Senator Bonner:

– The Aborigines, not the white men, should have the right to say it. The Aborigines should have the right to say it, but under your regulations it is the white man that has the right.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Have you finished?

Senator Bonner:

– Yes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Just listen and you might find some grains of sense that will enter even your thick skull.

Senator Bonner:

– That will be something, coming from you.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Just listen a while. Firstly, you agree that it is wrong but you say that we will maintain it in Queensland. Secondly, it is a wrong interpretation. Under the clause that I read out, prima facie certain people have a right. Among those people who have a right is a native of Australia, an Aboriginal. He does not have to get a permit, he walks on. He has got a right to enter a reserve and no one stops him. But if because of his conduct an officer decides that he should not be there then the officer issues the order to remove him. This is the white officer, the one who has the responsibility for the upkeep of the reserve. He has the right to issue the order. It is not a discriminatory action. It is not something that can apply to an Aboriginal and not to a white man. It can apply to anyone, and it is subject to judicial review. It is not final. All we are asking for in this Bill is that there be a right of judicial review of all these things. We want to extend to the Queensland Aborigines provisions similar to those applying in the Northern Territory. We have decided on the issues now, but if you are prepared to reconsider the Bill and will put in -

Senator Rae:

- Mr Minister, this has not excused your misleading the Senate a short time ago. It has not excused it in any way at all.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have not misled the Senate at all. If you are prepared to reconsider the clauses and put in similar provisions to those in the Queensland Act we are prepared to accept them. There is nothing there that is detrimental to the Aborigines. The misleading of the Senate was in reading out the clause.

Senator Rae:

– Without reading some of the others.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– As happened in the regulations.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Cavanagh) read a third time.

page 3292

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 December on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-The States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Bill is a Bill which has followed the presentation of the report of the Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education- the Kangan Committee. The purpose of the Bill is to provide funds for post-school technical education in the States in accordance with the general program of development which was recommended by the Kangan Committee. At this stage I think it is of note to mention that the Kangan Committee report was tabled in the Parliament in April of this year but no opportunity has been taken in the Parliament to discuss it in any way or to sift many of the recommendations which were made therein. However, we now have before us the Bill and it provides the funds for the States. It is hoped that many of the concepts and goals which were the conclusions of the Kangan Committee will be able to be implemented. Some of these goals were that we hoped that we would be removing all barriers to give unrestricted access to recurrent education, that is, that entry requirements should progressively be eased, and that technical and further education should be seen as an alternative, neither inferior nor superior, to other streams of education in this country.

We have a Bill that is designed to give assistance for these proposals. It is important to remember that the proposals under review have dated from 1 July 1974 for the period that will end in June 1 975. A total of approximately $89m is proposed under these grants. It should be remembered that we are now in the month of December, that almost half of the period that is covered by these grants has already expired and that the States have had some difficulty in making progress with many of the goals that they had decided should be priorities in the field of technical and further education. It was noted when the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) made his second reading speech to this Bill that he stated that the States will be expected to continue their own support for technical education. In other words, the purpose of these grants is to be an additional source of development for this form of education and is to be regarded as additional to what would be the States’ normal programs in these matters.

When my colleague the shadow Minister for Education in the other place dealt with this matter he introduced 2 amendments from the Opposition parties. The first amendment is important, and we shall proceed with it. It seeks to insert certain words at the end of the motion that the Bill be read a second time. To put our attitude into perspective I think I should read the broad aims of the Opposition’s amendment. It states that the Senate is of the opinion that the system proposed by the Bill for the development of technical and further education imposes intolerable and unacceptable administrative burdens upon the States and their education systems. It deplores the fact that Parliament has had no opportunity to debate the Kangan Committee’s report with regard to technical and further education and notes with concern the departure by the Government from the recommendations of the Committee. It asserts that the provisions of the Bill for the extensive use of ministerial discretion will prove to be vexatious and will limit the States in their own education programs. It contends that the grants that are proposed to be made to the States for the purposes proposed by the Bill should be made without being subject to the conditions so prescribed. It calls upon the Government to implement a scheme of grants to the States for technical and further education that gives to the States the control of expenditure of such grants and requires them to report annually to the Minister for Education as to the manner in which such grants have been expended. I think in the terms of that amendment lies the philosophy of our Party towards this particular program. It will be noted that I stated that there were extensive ministerial discretions in the Bill that we are now considering. I think we have proposed a total of approximately 43 ministerial discretions that relate to the way in which the Kangan Committee report will be implemented under this Bill. Those ministerial discretions are vexatious to the States and they are an administrative burden because it is accepted that grants that are made may be subject to conditions.

I think it is time that we stressed in the Senate the duplication of administration that is being undertaken in so many areas of government responsibility. Not only are Federal grants subject to conditions but such a detail of information is required from the States that in essence 2 complete sets of accounts are being kept of many of the programs that are undertaken. It was recalled that on the roads grants bill the same detailed information was required for all the road programs throughout Australia. In the case of this technical and further education Bill there is a requirement for information with regard to all programs of technical education- not just those programs that are the subject of recurrent grants under the Bill, but all the States’ activities in this field. It would have to be accepted that there is an extreme amount of duplication of administration. It will be readily accepted that this is a financial burden which is being placed upon government and upon national economic considerations at this time, because it will be accepted that, whatever facilities there are through technological advances in developing information sources, it will still be an extremely costly process and one which is intruding upon the funds which are available for all our government services. I believe that this is another instance of the duplication of administration which should be regretted in the style of government under which we live.

The projects under the Bill we are considering are briefly major programs which total some $28. 85m, minor projects totalling $15.08m and student resident projects of $4m. These 3 categories of projects are subject to the conditions which are specified in clause 1 1 of the Bill. They should be looked at in the context of the requirements in that clause and the conditions which relate to them. I think that our attitude to that requirement has already been expressed on behalf of the Opposition. We take note of paragraph (f) in clause 11. That that requirement states:

If the Minister informs the Treasurer of the State that he is satisfied that a condition applicable under paragraph (d) or (c) in relation to the payment has not been fulfilled, the State will re-pay to Australia such sum as the Minister determines, being a sum not exceeding the amount of the payment.

It has already been expressed that we have some concern that a provision should be written into a Bill in that form and create that sort of relationship between the States and the Commonwealth on the matter of a grant. We wonder what sort of conditions would exist whereby the Minister would determine that there is an indebtedness by the State to the Commonwealth under this paragraph. We wonder where it has been shown necessary for a provision of this type to be inserted in the Bill, and we wonder what acceptance there is by the Federal Government of State accountability and of State governments and their own responsibility in the field of education, when a grant that has been approved by the Federal Minister and may be determined by him not to be fulfilled, thus placing an indebtedness on the State to the Commonwealth Government, lt seems to us to be a new relationship; we question it and its desirability. We are also interested in the fact that a clause which gives a number of ministerial discretions in relation to approval or authorisation of grants, contains a condition that the Minister may revoke or vary such approval. Again we would have to question this sort of ministerial relationship with State Ministers who have the responsibility to undertake their own programs.

Clause 13 paragraph (c) is another requirement that we regret. It was the subject of an amendment moved by the shadow Minister for Education in the other place. It is a requirement for the States to furnish information required in respect of the provision of technical and further education in the States during that financial year. I give notice that, although an amendment was moved in the House of Representatives, the opposition in the Senate has considered the position with regard to it and has decided that, because of a ministerial statement that was made by the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) last Friday, the Opposition will not proceed with the amendment in the Senate. We have the feeling that, if the amendment were carried and the terms of the Minister’s Press release of last Friday were upheld, we would be forcing the Government into a position where it could not advance to the States the funds provided for in this Bill. The Minister’s Press release of last Friday said, in effect: ‘If the Bill is amended at all by the Senate the amended Bill must be considered by the House of Representatives before it can become law and before funds can flow to the States. ‘ It further stated that a recall of the House of Representatives was extremely unlikely this year. Therefore, I indicate that with regard to the amendment which was moved in the other place to delete paragraph (c) of clause 13, the Senate will not proceed with that particular amendment at this stage.

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

– The Opposition will not proceed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Opposition will not proceed with the amendment. You may move it if you wish, Mr Minister. We consider that it would be desirable for the amendment to be carried and I think that it is important for the Senate to stress that this duplication of statistics is to be regretted. I can only state most firmly that the Victorian Government asked its senators to be very strenuous in seeking the removal of this requirement. There are other States at present which are in extreme difficulty with regard to the funding of their programs. For the beginning of the next school year there are requirements which need to be met and contracts which need to be fulfilled. For that reason we have taken seriously the Minister’s statement of last Friday and decided not to proceed with that particular amendment. An interesting thing to be noted is that the Kangan Committee report contains a recommendation with regard to the States and their relationship to those programs which were recommended by the Committee. At page 193 of the Kangan Committee report, paragraph (VII) reads:

As evidence of capacities in developing technical and further education relative to funds provided by the Australian Government, the States should be requested to report each December as to the actual distribution of the expenditure of these funds and in a form that will enable comparisons to be made of uses of the funds over a period of time.

That recommendation is in line with the sort of information that we would expect could be required and not the information which appears to be sought by the Government with regard to all programs undertaken by the States. These are all matters of concern to the Opposition in the efficiency of administration of educational programs in this country and I believe that the Senate should take an attitude that some of the requirements in the Bills which are presented to us are not in the interest of federalism and the relationship between State and Federal governments. I move, as an amendment to the motion That the Bill be now read a second time’:

That the following words be added: but the Senate-

believes that the system as proposed by the Bill for the development of technical and further education imposes intolerable and unacceptable administrative burdens upon the States and their educational systems;

deplores the fact that Parliament has had no opportunity to debate the Kangan Committee’s report with regard to technical and further education, and notes with concern the departure by the Government from the recommendations of the Committee;

asserts that the provisions of the Bill for the extensive use of Ministerial discretion will prove to be vexatious and will limit the States in their own educational programs;

contends that the grants proposed to be made to the States for the purposes proposed by the Bill should be made without being subject to the conditions as so prescribed; and

calls upon the Government to implement a scheme of grants to the States for Technical and Further Education that gives to the States control of expenditure of such grants and requires of them to report annually to the Minister as to the manner in which such grants have been expended.

I indicate that the Opposition supports the proposed Bill with that amendment.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– There are two major aspects to this Bill. One of them is clearly stated in the provisions before us, which provide assistance for technical education. This has long been desired by those in Australia who are interested in that subject. The second aspect deals with a decline in the power of the States in Australia. This is clearly indicated in the provisions of this Bill which so tie the States hand and foot as to make them subservient and completely unnecessary except for the administrative aspects of this particular assistance to education. It is the latter- the unseen factor of the decline in the power of the States- which, of course, should be noticed as the debate on this Bill passes rather swifty through the second reading stage because it is typical of recent legislation that the Commonwealth, in providing special assistance to the States, shall become the dictator as to how that resource shall be expended in every way down to the most minor type of decision. This Bill incorporates what I believe is a totally objectionable provision. In specific areas it seeks to give the Minister for Education the power to revoke already approved decisions. That, to me, is the final insult to the States, which are already rapidly becoming constitutional skeletons within the so-called Australian federation.

The one great factor which dominates the passage of this Bill mechanically through this House is that the House of Representatives is not sitting and those of us who believe in the system of federation are being held to ransom by those who so ardently want this assistance to be given to education and by the Government of the day, which has said: ‘If you touch this Bill- if you amend it- there will be no action forthcoming from it until the House of Representatives meets in the middle of February. Therefore it will be March before there can be any effective resolution of the disagreement between the 2 Houses’.

This is one of the worst features of the passage of legislation that I have ever witnessed. We in this House may as well pass all the Bills before us in the next 20 minutes and go home because we have been told that if we amend the Bills they will not be passed.

There are tens of thousands of people in the community who value the passage of” this Bill and the financial assistance its passage will provide far more highly than they do the maintenance of federation in Australia. That choice was put to me quite clearly on the weekend and this morning. Quite a number of people have been to see me personally and have telephoned me and said: ‘We believe that you are right in wanting to move amendments which will give some protection in a minor way to the States, but we will sacrifice that protection to the States to get our assistance money’. That is the attitude of the members of the Australian public who are concerned with this education procedure. The very sobering thought is that the public will sacrifice federation and the rights and powers of the States to get what it wants from the Federal Government. I predict that if this sort of legislation continues to pass through this House in numerous forms on various subjects but with a similarity of control the States will rapidly, as I have said, become constitutional skeletons. The Senate ought not to keep up the pretence that it believes in federation if the Senate allows the revocation power in this Bill to go through. If the Senate allows this Bill to go through in this fashion with these revocation clauses in it the Senate is indicating by attitude, whatever it may say in so many words, that it has given the States up as a lost cause. That will be the effect if the revocation clauses remain intact.

The intention of the Bill is to assist in very many and various ways the establishment of technical education on a level footing with other forms of education in Australia which have received assistance prior to this recognition. The causes are noble and we would expect a very great upgrading in technical education to result in Australia. But the price, as I have said, is that it will be done by Australian Government control to the ultimate in detail. The States will become the administering authorities- in fact, the servants of the Australian Government. I therefore give notice that I propose to move some amendments to this Bill. One of those amendments is to the clause to which Senator Guilfoyle referred earlier relating to the request by the Federal Minister for Education to obtain information. Senator Guilfoyle has indicated that the Opposition will not support that clause or some amendment to it. Therefore there is little purpose in my proceeding with that amendment. But I will proceed to put and call for a seconder to my amendments which request the Senate to remove the revocation power of the Minister for Education. I warn the Senate that if it turns down these amendments and approves the inclusion of revocation clauses simply because the Senate is under pressure and has been told that the education system will not get this money because the Government will not recall the House of Representatives, the States are dead and they no longer exist in the thoughts of Australians nor in the thoughts of the Senate.

I again say how disgusted I am to find that at the end of the session there are important amendments, supposedly well supported out in the community, which cannot be carried apparently by the Senate because they cannot be put to the House of Representatives which has gone home on holiday.

Senator Missen:

– It is a form of Government blackmail.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It is a form of Government blackmail. The House of Representatives is on holiday and for some unknown reason cannot deal with the most important factors in this community. There is little more I need to say. I draw up the points again. The Bill’s essential determinations to help technical education are a necessity. I regret the domination and dictatorial attitude of the Federal Government in insisting that control be exerted in the fashion set out in the Bill. I understand that those who make up the technical education profession want this Bill badly and the assistance that it will give to their profession. I also understand that they value it greater than they value the system of Australian federation. I will regret very much if the Senate allows the revocation clauses to proceed. I will still, as I have indicated, move my amendments at the required time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I cannot allow the remarks of Senator Hall to go unchallenged. He may have a case in regard to his amendment but he should not have made the statement, which I think was initiated by interjection by Senator Missen, that this was a sort of blackmail. That remark ought not be accepted. Senator Hall also made the statement that the House of Representatives is now on holiday. That is a reflection on every member of that place, who like ourselves in this place, have a considerable backlog of work to do in their electorates which will keep them going well into the Christmas period. I do not think it serves us well to reflect in this way on members of the other House.

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

-in reply- The Government asks the Senate to reject the expression of belief, deploring, assertion, contending and requesting as is set out in the Opposition’s amendment. The purpose of the Bill is to provide $ 108m to the States over 2 years from 1 July 1974 for technical and further education. These funds are being provided in accordance with the general program of development recommended in the Kangan report which is the report of the Committee on Technical and Further Education that was established by the Labor Government shortly after it was elected to office. The Kangan report has proposed a national program to substantially upgrade technical and further education with the Australian Government providing the funds additional to a maintained effort by the States.

Previous governments provided funds for the development, firstly, of universities and later of colleges of advanced education. They also provided a limited program of assistance for schools. Since the Labor Government came into office we have broadened the whole approach to the funding of education. We have made substantial amounts available to schools through the Schools Commission. We have abolished tuition fees for tertiary and post secondary courses and we now seek to give technical education access to substantially increased funds to improve its acceptibility, to make it more readily available and to enrich its quality. In short, the Bill before the Senate is aimed at meeting national needs for both an adequately educated and skilled work force and for satisfying community needs for continuing education for the adult population. The Bill is patterned on the corresponding States Grants legislation providing funds for universities, for colleges of advanced education and also for schools. It closely follows the legislative concepts set out in the State Grants (Schools) Act 1972 which was introduced by the previous government.

The justification for the requirement that the Minister is to approve building projects and particular programs of expenditure is that it is the Minister who is accountable for the funds which he authorises for payment to the States. He must ensure that there is broad comparability in the approaches adopted towards expenditure of the funds between the States and that these approaches are in accordance with the needs and with the general program developed by the Kangan report as endorsed by the Government. I would like honourable senators to know that on the Kangan committee there were, for example, 2 State Directors of Technical Education and that there was a third member who was a senior officer of a Department of Technical Education. I also stress that there is very close contact with the States in the preparation of their programs. A series of meetings, at which State and Australian Government officers and expert advisers have been present, has been held already and similar meetings will continue to be held.

The development of technical education requires a co-operative approach but the Minister responsible for making the payments to the States must be accountable for the purposes on which those funds are spent. In other words he must be accountable for approving the projects and equally for revoking such approval. Indeed, there may be times when a State requests the revocation of approval. These are substantial reasons for retaining the Bill in its present form, and there are other reasons. I have just received a telegram from Mr Ryan, the Executive Officer of the Australian Council of State School Organisations which represents over one million parents, urging the Senate to ensure prompt passage of this Bill without amendments. Mr Ryan said in his telegram that it is of the utmost importance to Australia that the long-awaited technical and further educational program be implemented without further delay.

Mention has been made by Senator Hall and, by way of interjection, Senator Missen of the fact that the House of Representatives has gone into recess and that this legislation, if amended, cannot be represented to the House of Representatives until it is recalled some time next year. The simple fact of the matter is that the Senate is not the master of the destiny of the business of the House of Representatives. Senator Missen will recall that he was one of those who, during the proceedings of this sessional period, was anxious to see the Senate spend a fair amount of its time on debating and discussing the Family Law Bill. As Manager of Government Business in the Senate I think I estimated that some 3 weeks of debate in this Senate in this sessional period were taken up discussing and debating the Family Law Bill. The fact that the House of Representatives chose to deal with matters of the nature of this legislation and not debate, in the sessional period which has concluded on its part, the Family Law Bill was a matter for its decision and not a matter for the Senate. In accordance with the Government’s requirements, and indeed in accordance with a Senate decision, that there should be discussion and debate of the Family

Law Bill, and that having been achieved, after lengthy debate proceeding over at least 2½ weeks if not 3 weeks, the Government also is determined that its legislative program should continue. As I have said in reply to what Senator Hall said, we in this Senate have no control over the sittings of the House of Representatives. The Government undertook at the last election to give technical education a proper and honoured place in a changing society and to prevent it from being the Cinderella of Australian education. That being so, having regard to the national importance of the measure before the chamber, I urge honourable senators to give the Bill a second reading and to reject the amendment proposed by the Opposition.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Guilfoyle’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 29

NOES: 27

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

For the purposes of section 6, the Minister may approve major building projects undertaken or proposed to be undertaken during the period to which this Act applies in connexion with institutions of technical and further education in a State, and may revoke or vary any such approval.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I move:

This is the first of my amendments and it is a test for the others. I hope that the Committee will agree to this amendment. The clause as amended would read:

For the purposes of section 6, the Minister may approve major building projects undertaken or proposed to be undertaken during the period to which this Act applies in connexion with institutions of technical and further education in a State, and may, with the concurrence of a State, vary any such approval.

As it reads now, the Minister may revoke or vary any such approval. That seems to me to be a totally unwarranted power to give to the Minister in addition to all his other quite complete controlling and supervisory powers in relation to approval and inquiry and all the other many-sided facets of control involved in giving his approval. It seems completely unwarranted alongside those powers for him to be given the power to revoke a decision already made.

In the passage of the Commonwealth-States roads legislation we asked why the Minister wanted a revocation power in the legislation. When it was all boiled down and the amendment was moved and discussed, we could find no reason except that he wanted it as an additional control measure. The Minister may reply that he would like to have this power and would use it sparingly and would never in any way be vindictive. But already this year 2 Federal Ministers have indicated that they will, if necessary, be vindictive. One remembers the dissension that arose in New South Wales in regard to the further construction and the demolition to make way for construction of a freeway. Without entering any part of the argument as to whether the freeway ought to have been proceeded with, I point out that the facts of life are that 2 Federal Ministers said in the media they would take away New South Wales roads money which was needed for purposes other than the specific freeway construction if the New South Wales Government did not comply with their wishes. In my view that was a most vindictive and totally subversive view taken by the Federal Ministers in relation to the New South Wales roads program. The power given in this clause gives that sort of Minister, whom 1 have clearly outlined in the example which I have just given, the ability to say to a State: ‘Not only may I not approve your future projects but I shall revoke my approval of this project you have half-completed’. It is a power that is completely unwarranted and, as I have said, it can be described only as a vindictive power. There can be no other reason for it because the Federal Minister has every other aspect of control in establishing the program in the first instance.

It is a far cry from the view of Federation which would say that a handsome and proper sum of financial assistance should be given to the States to work out a technical education program to come to this point where the Minister not only approves but also may revoke. I come from a State which has a proud record in education.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– What about technical education?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It has a proud record in much of technical education also. Senator McLaren would be aware that the Liberal Country League Government in South Australia in 1968 dramatically restored capital expenditure on education which had been reduced dramatically by his Party when it was in office from 1965-1968. They are the facts of life. No papering over of the dramatic reduction in capital expenditure on education by his Party when it was in office from 1965 to 1968 will hide that fact. We come from a State which revised education. I am pleased to say that a subsequent Labor Government followed that lead and continued to help education in South Australia. So we have nothing to fear in South Australia from our development of education.

Having said that, I return to a point which I made during my speech on the second reading of this Bill. If the Senate allows this revocation power to proceed we must forget the fiction that we believe in the existence of States as separate governing entitites. We had better forget that fiction and get on with the business of building a supreme Commonwealth Government. That is what we will be doing if we allow this clause to remain in the Bill. I do not believe that we should be sidetracked by the issue- important though it may be to those who want this assistance- that the States might not receive this money until March. The responsibility for that does not rest on those who will safeguard some small amount of State initiative. If this Bill is delayed it will be because the Australian Labor Government refuses to recall the House of Representatives before Christmas. There is no factor which prevents the recalling the House of Representatives before Christmas.

Senator Missen:

– It is a political factor.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Only a political factor is involved, as Senator Missen said. No other practical factor is involved. I repudiate any suggestion that the responsibility for delay in this measure or in relation to any other Bill this week rests with those who amend those Bills. The responsibility will sit squarely on the shoulders of the Australian Government. I put to honourable senators the very great importance of this issue. The decision that the Government makes will certainly set the course for future action or nonaction in relation to similar powers which are taken by the Australian Government in relation to expenditure of funds by the States. I remind the Senate, as I said in my speech on the second reading of this Bill, that with this sort of power being extended by Bill after Bill passed by this House, the States are rapidly becoming constitutional skeletons and ultimately will become unnecessary in the system of Australian Government.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise only to reply to a few of the remarks that Senator Hall has seen fit to make in endeavouring to denigrate the South Australian Labor Government in respect of education. Of course, Senator Hall naturally would say that education in South Australia was at its pinnacle when he was Premier. But when he mentioned that he did not tell the Senate that he had reason to sack his Minister for Education because of the mess she was making of the job, or because of her incompetence. I want to put it on record that when Mr Loveday was the Minister for Education -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Lawrie) - Senator McLaren, would you address your remarks to the Chair, please.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am doing that; I am just looking in Senator Hall’s direction. I want to put on record the wonderful job that Mr Ron Loveday did as Minister for Education in South Australia. He has been followed by Mr Hugh Hudson who is now doing a wonderful job in trying to do the work that was not done during all the years that Tom Playford was Premier and during the 2 years that Steele Hall was Premier. I also want to put on record a statement which was issued yesterday by the Australian Teachers

Federation which is in full support of the Government’s measures. The statement quite denigrates what Senator Hall is trying to do. It is quite obvious that he is playing a lone hand in moving his amendment. He does not have the support of the people who are most concerned about the education of the young people of this country and particularly the people who want a technical education and people who are more qualified than Senator Steele Hall is. The news release put out yesterday by the Australian Teachers Federation carries the heading: ‘Senator’s Amendment Threatens Technical and Further Education Program ‘.

Senator Milliner:

– Which Senator?

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Hall. The news release reads:

The Federal Government’s $115m program to upgrade Technical and Further Education over the next two years has been jeopardised by lone independent Senator Steele Hall.

Senator Hall has moved a minor amendment to the Government Bill implementing the program, which, if carried, would cause the Bill to return to the House of Representatives.

Since the House has risen and will not sit again until next year, this would delay the progam for at least six months.

The General Secretary of the Australian Teachers’ Federation, Dr George Smith, said today that delaying the Bill would adversely affect many school leavers and apprentices, and would drastically limit opportunities for adults to return to full or part-time studies.

Country students would be particularly hard-hit because of the Bill ‘s provision for hostels.

He said Senator Hall’s amendment was petty and irresponsible, and he hoped Liberal and Country Party Senators would have the good sense to defeat it.

That Press release was signed by Dr George Smith, who is the General Secretary of the Australian Teachers Federation, and Mr Bob Harris, who is the Assistant General Secretary of the same organisation. The Australian Teachers Federation, which has its headquarters at Federation House, 300 Sussex Street, Sydney, has as its affiliates the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Victorian Teaching Union, the Technical Teachers’ Association of Victoria, the Queensland Teachers Union, the South Australian Institute of Teachers, the Tasmanian Teachers Federation, the State School Teachers Union of Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory Commonwealth Teachers Federation, the Northern Territory Commonwealth Teachers Federation and the Papua New Guinea Teachers Association. The President of the organisation is Mr Eric J. Pearson.

All of those organisations and all of those people who have seen fit to oppose what Senator Hall is trying to do are telling the people who are interested in education that they want this legislation passed. They do not want it delayed by this petty amendment put up by Senator Hall who, as I said earlier, made no effort to contact the people who really matter. I am sure if he considered people, particularly those in the country areas, whose student children will be affected by this Bill, if it is amended, he would agree that he ought to be looking after the interests of these people. I know that we want to get the legislation through, but I thought it my duty to repudiate what Senator Hall said about the South Australian Labor Government’s record on education and also to read into the record this Press release which has been put out by the Australian Teachers Federation.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The viewpoint expressed by Senator Hall is a viewpoint which seeks to make our federation work. He believes and I believe, as the Opposition believes, that there is far too much centralised direction and control from Canberra, particularly in areas where the States have the expertise, the willingness and the plain competence to do the work effectively. Senator Hall has therefore moved an amendment. The Opposition, through Senator Guilfoyle, earlier indicated that it would not proceed with its amendments and that certainly no support would be given to Senator Hall for his amendment. The reason I rise is to state quite clearly that we do not intend to proceed with our amendments not because there is not a great deal which is wrong with the provisions of this Bill- the concept is admirable and warrants support but there are provisions in it we would like to amend- but because to do so would involve delaying the payment of the moneys until February or March of next year. The Government has resorted to blackmail with a view to ensuring that this Bill goes through intact. Let us make it quite clear that, if Senator Hall’s amendment were carried or if the amendments which the Opposition had proposed to put forward were carried, the Bill, as amended, would have to go back to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives has risen and in the ordinary course it will not come back until February or March next year. That situation has been used by the Labor Party and its supporters to intimidate the Opposition. Senator McLaren, very interestingly, indicated the attitude of some groups who believe this money should be forthcoming. Their attack has been upon the Opposition and upon Senator Hall. It is quite clear that no attempt is made by the group to which he has referred to criticise the

Government for sending the House of Representatives away and putting the onus on the Senate. I rose to make that clear and to read into the record what the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) said in a Press release which he issued last Friday indicating quite clearly the way he and the Government view the situation. It said:

The Australian Minister for Education, Mr Kim Beazley, said today Australian Government payments to the States Tor technical and further education would be jeopardised by amendments foreshadowed in the Senate.

About $l08m is to be made available by the legislation and would enable the States to implement the Kangan programs for technical and further education.

Mr Beazley said proposed amendments circulated by Senator Steele Hall would probably be ‘permanently unacceptable ‘ to the Australian Government.

In the final page of this Press release he went on to say:

  1. . if the legislation is amended in the Senate along the lines indicated -

I interpolate that the Opposition had given an indication of where it sought to amend the Bill and Senator Hall had given an indication of where he sought to amend it, and there were differences. I refer back to the Press statement of Mr Beazley, which reads: . . the amendment will probably be permanently unacceptable to the Government. If it is amended at all by the Senate the amended Bill must be considered by the House before it can become law and before funds can flow to the Stales. The recall of the House of Representatives is extremely unlikely.

With the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) going overseas at the end of the week there would not be any prospect of the House of Representatives being recalled.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr Snedden will be away.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-He will be back early next week, and you know it. The Press statement continues: lt will be necessary for me to warn the State Premiers that there will bc no money forthcoming for technical education at the beginning of 1975.

And I shall have to warn students there will be no Australian Government funds available to pay their tuition fees.

If the Senate amends the Bill the Government will do its best to get the legislation through when the Parliament resumes in February, but it is vital that the States should receive the money by the beginning of the year.

There is the plain intimidation of the Government. It is saying to the Senate: ‘If you dare to amend this Bill so that it does not go through today or tomorrow you will be cutting off money which the States want, you will be cutting off funds which students need, and the whole blame will be on the Opposition’. This is the tactic. We are not going to add one whit to the difficulties of Australia. This Government has done enough damage on its own without the Opposition adding any further problems. We resent the intimidation. We do not like provisions in this Bill and given the freedom to do so in differing circumstances we would have sought to have amendments of our own and we could have at least considered the amendment which Senator Hall has moved, but we do believe it is important that this money be available. We do believe it is important that some commonsense be brought back into the educational system and the economy of Australia. I have risen simply to expose the shabbiness of the Government’s action and how it is seeking to intimidate the Senate into taking no action in order to secure the passage of its legislation. It is a pity the Government was not fairer with the people of Australia by telling the whole truth.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– Of course, Senator Geenwood is exactly right. I hope that, whether I disagree or agree with any honourable senator, I will do so on the logic as I see it and as I interpret it. I agree entirely with Senator Greenwood that the Senate is being intimidated. As I said earlier, if this Bill should be amended and await the pleasure of the House of Representatives it will not be the fault of the Senate, it will be the fault of the Government’s programming of the sitting days of the 2 Houses of Parliament.

Senator McLaren has no difficulty with this Bill. He is quite right to get up and attack my amendment and to defend his situation, as he did, because this Bill falls completely in line with what he wishes for the governments of Australia. He is a centralist. He believes in centralising power here. He believes in removing power from the States. It is written in the objectives of the Australian Labor Party to which he is bound hand and foot by the pledge he has signed. So Senator McLaren does not have to argue with anyone to defend his case. Like all of his colleagues, he is committed to a centralist course of finally abolishing State governments. Of course he would therefore approve this legislation as we have it before us. Not only would he like to obtain the power of revocation over State governments; he would also like to strangle them. That is where he stands, and he is quite right in saying once again to the Australian public that he wants to strangle the State governments and to have more legislation like this. The honourable senator has pledged himself to that course. He would be yet another victim of his Party if he denied it.

That view has led to the power of revocation being written into this Bill. That is the view of the people intent on upgrading technical education in Australia who need this assistance. Many of the people whose names the honourable senator read out share his view that there should be one central government in Austalia. They would have no quarrel with that. In this issue those who speak on behalf of the States may very well be outnumbered in many quarters. I am the first to admit that. I admit the right of people to write releases as they wish about those who stand up for some remaining State powers, as indicated in this amendment. Let me say to the honourable senator and to the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) that the inclusion of this all pervading power in the Bill is one of the reasons why people in Queensland voted as they did on Saturday. Can the Labor Government not understand the reaction against this sort of attitude? I am not a supporter of the Premier of Queensland in the sense that I would not sooner see a Liberal Premier there. I am free to say that at any stage. The honourable senator cannot understand that by the inclusion of this type of power he is activating those who will destroy his Government.

Certainly the inclusion of this power to revoke will give me added impetus to fight him out in the electorate. If I needed that, I am given it by this Bill. I will go out and I will be pleased to tell the electorate that this is what Senator McLaren believes in and that any re-election of him or any election of his colleagues in the Lower House will mean a continuation of the stranglehold which the Australian Labor Party now has on the States and their governments. I am pleased that this matter has been ventilated. I am sorry that it is obvious that this amendment will not be carried. Because of the haste and the intimidation, because the 2 Houses are not sitting in conjunction, I suppose we will have to wait until we go out on the hustings to refight this issue in the electorate, as we cannot do it in this House.

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

– In the nearly 14 years that I have been in this Parliament I have not known a time when there has been complete synchronisation of the sittings of both Houses of the Parliament, particularly in the final weeks of a session. I think that honourable senators who are accusing the Government of haste and of intimidation are overlooking the chronology of events that took place, in this chamber in particularly, in the last week. The Senate received this Bill from the House of Representatives on Tuesday, 3 December. After the Bill was presented in the chamber the adjournment of” the debate was secured by the Opposition and the Bill was made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. The next day of sitting was Wednesday, 4 December. If honourable senators peruse the notice paper for Wednesday, 4 December, they will see that this Bill was one for inclusion for debate on that day in this chamber so that the Bill, if necessary, could be amended and returned to the House of Representatives for its consideration.

At the same time the Government also had to have debated 4 income tax Bills which I was assured by the Opposition would be dealt with by 8.30 that evening. It was not the second reading stage that was the subject of debate on that occasion; it was the first reading stage. The debate extended much beyond 8.30 p.m.; indeed, it extended to 11 o’clock that evening. The next day the debate continued until well into the afternoon when, because I, as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, was becoming concerned about the slowness of the way in which the Opposition was treating the passage of the first reading stage of the Bills, secured the adjournment of the debate in order to bring on other legislation. Then I was reminded by my colleague in another place, the Treasurer (Mr Crean), that he had to have those Bills by that evening in order that the Government’s monetary and fiscal policies so far as taxation were concerned could be implemented. The Bills were then brought back on for debate.

I think, from recollection, that I eventually secured the passage of those 4 items of legislation at about 8 or 9 o’clock that eveneing instead of 8.30 the previous evening. Had there not been the deliberate stonewalling by our friends opposite on the first reading stage of these Bills- Senator Greenwood, with respect, was one of the culprits involved- this legislation would have been dealt with by the Senate last Wednesday, and certainly by last Thursday, and gone back to the House of Representatives when the House of Representatives was sitting. 1 assure Senator Hall with the greatest of respect to him- I know he speaks with sincerity- that there has been no stalling on our part. There has been no intimidation on our part. There was a genuine desire on our part last week to have these Bills debated in the Senate so that they could be considered by the House of Representatives when the House of Representatives was sitting. The honourable senators will appreciate that this is the first opportunity we have had- because of the presentation of other legislation that too was essential; I refer to the Wool Industry Bill (No.

  1. 1974 and the National Health Bill (No. 2) 1 974- to bring this legislation into the chamber. Therefore on that basis I urge the Senate to reject the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Hall. The amendment does not affect the Minister’s power. Senator Hall is moving an amendment to clause 5. For the record, clause 5 of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Bill 1974 as drafted by the Government states:

For the purposes of section 6, the Minister may approve major building projects undertaken or proposed to be undertaken during the period to which this Act applies in connection with institutions of technical and further education in a State, and may revoke or vary any such approval.

Senator Hall has moved for the deletion of the words ‘revoke or’ and for the insertion of the words ‘with the concurrence of a State’. Therefore the amended clause will read:

For the purposes of section 6 the Minister may approve major building projects undertaken or proposed to be undertaken during the period to which this Act applies in connection with institutions of technical and further education in a State, and many with the concurrence of a State vary any such approval.

What the Government says is that the amendment, as proposed by Senator Hall, does not affect the Minister’s power to approve a project or a program in a State, but it withdraws his power to revoke his approval and limits his power to vary his approval except with the agreement of the State. It is difficult to understand what are the objectives of this amendment or of the series of amendments flowing from this one. If the Minister is to continue to retain the power to approve a project without the agreement of a State, we suggest that it is not logical that he is to be required to vary his approval only if the State agrees. It is less logical, we suggest, that under no circumstances can he revoke his approval, even if these circumstances be that the State has changed its mind about proceeding with a particular project and wishes to have the approval revoked.

The Minister is empowered to approve projects because he is accountable for the general manner in which the funds are used and for the standards of the projects. He must also be able to revoke his approval and be held responsible for such action. Undoubtedly these are the reasons which persuaded Ministers of previous governments when they prepared legislation providing grants for universities and for schools. The same words, I am told, are found in their legislation. I suggest that the amendments are ill-considered and are not likely to find any degree of support in the States. It is for those reasons that the Government asks the Committee to reject the amendments proposed by Senator Hall.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill taken as a whole.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I will not proceed with the other amendments because it is obviously not the Committee’s wish to do so. I believe that I would have the support of a majority of this Committee for those amendments if it were not for the intimidation which the Committee feels it is being subjected to by reason of the fact that the House of Representatives is not sitting. I think this has all been fairly expressed, and I must say that I do not proceed under protest. I give fair notice that in relation to any future Bill which has a similar provision I will move an amendment similar to the one I have done on this occasion.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) read a third time..

page 3302

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 December on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

- Mr Deputy President, may I seek the indulgence of the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) and suggest that we might deal with this Bill and the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill in a cognate debate?

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

– Certainly.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– The Senate is looking at 2 Bills, one relating to States grants for universities and one relating to States grants for advanced education. The primary purpose of the States Grants (Universities) Bill is to make adjustments to the approved triennial program of universities and, as the Minister’s second reading speech states, to take account of cost variations. Looking at the Bills one observes that they set out to provide adjustments and alterations. In the case of the States Grants ( Universities) Bill (No. 2) the Government is seeking the approval of the Senate to take account of these cost variations. Thereby it becomes a measure of convenience to preserve the existing biennium. I think it is pertinent to point out that the extra funds referred to in the Bill are not so much for an expanded program of capital expenditure but rather to meet what I will call the rapidly diminishing purchasing power of the Australian currency.

Sp taking it quite simply, this Bill and the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill recognise the fact that inflation is taking its toll in the education program as well as in all other sections of the community and that a Bill must be introduced to take care of this situation. I point out to the Senate that on the Government’s own admission the Bills are the result of the Government’s financial program. The Government’s program over a wide range of activities has been of an inflationary character which has increased during the past 12 months at a rate well in excess of every comparable country and economy. I do not think it is good enough simply to say that we in Australia have imported inflation. It is not enough to blame the Treasury for wrong statistics. The major causes of inflation are the policy matters relating to the present Government’s administration. All these matters have led to the spiralling of costs and of salaries. There has been a tremendous increase in wages and an enormous increase in costs of materials and buildings -indeed, everything pertaining to the program details which are set out in these Bills. In my view these have drastically reduced the effectiveness of additional funds for education.

In relation to the States Grants (Universities) Bill the second reading speech of the Minister points out that the Bill is designed to take account of cost variations. The cost variations are due to the total program of the Government. However it is said- I say so on behalf of the Opposition- that these measures are designed to ensure that universities are not prevented from completing their approved programs as a result of variations in costs. This is one of the occasions on which it is unfortunate that a Bill of this nature comes before us so close to the end of the session because a wide variety of matters relating to university education and the role of universities in our community would have merited an opportunity for a sound, intelligent and helpful debate. I merely make these observations because the Opposition supports the second reading speech in this instance.

In looking at the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill I observe that the Minister, in his second reading speech, pointed out that the major purpose of the Bill was to provide a program of financial assistance in a number of instances. The Minister referred to some nongovernment teachers colleges and suggested that this measure would provide for variations in both capital and recurrent costs for all colleges of advanced education which were not allowed for when the triennium program for 1973-75 was adopted. I looked at the Minister’s second reading speech for a moment where he made the claim that the Government amended the States Grants Act to give effect to a decision that as former State Government teachers colleges moved towards autonomy they would be funded by the Australian Government as colleges of advanced education. The Minister referred to the fact that the Government had relied on the report of the Commission on Advanced Education. As honourable senators will recall this report was tabled in the Senate in July this year. The recommendations had been agreed to by the Government and they involved a fairly substantial commitment of $6.5m for the years 1974 and 1975. As I said a moment ago, this is a substantial amount of money.

The Minister also referred to the undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) being met by the extension of student allowances and recurrent funds in the non-government teacher education area. Interestingly enough, the Minister’s second reading speech also goes on to state that the Bill provides for additional funds for student residences and affiliated colleges in country areas. Honourable senators will be aware that it was suggested in the second reading speech that the Government was concerned to adapt tertiary education, technical education and further education to the needs of country people. It was stated that in giving effect to this concern the cost of residential accommodation was a factor which had to be taken into account. Indeed, the Minister went on to indicate that this cost increasingly must be met by the Federal Government. This kind of move has the support of honourable senators from both sides of the chamber and, indeed, of all sections of the community.

But, whilst I applaud the idea of the extension of colleges of advanced education and facilities related thereto to country areas, the Government must take very great care that standards are maintained. It is not of much value if the standards of education within the metropolitan areas close to the centres of education, universities, libraries and all the other facilities of this kind are better than or different from the standards that are provided in country or rural areas or in areas that are further from the centres of education. I know that the Government has every intention of maintaining those standards. But the facts of life are that there are difficulties in maintaining such standards. As we give support to the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill, let us sound not only a note of warning but also a note of encouragement that the Government and the relevant department will ensure that standards are maintained so that any government’s program of education has a standard right across the board that is good and so that any program of decentralisation will not suffer because standards are different.

The Senate will recall that the establishment of colleges of advanced education was undertaken during the time the previous Government occupied the treasury bench. As I remember it, that program was designed to cater for a very special area of education. But, as I applaud the system and feel that is has met a very great need in our community, there is a growing area of concern that the system is having a tendency to get out of hand. We have a proliferation of these institutions. I am told that there are something like 50 colleges of advanced education in Victoria alone. This is more than the number of universities in Great Britain. I hope that the Government will continue to improve the educational facilities for all of the people. Indeed, it is the duty of any government to do this. However, I think that it would be wise for the Government and the Parliament in particular at some stage- maybe in the next year- to conduct a review and to watch the development of this phase of our educational system.

The rapid growth of the colleges of advanced education system is causing an enormous amount of money to be allocated to it. The system provides for facilities and professions right across the country. Of course, the system does provide a wealth of opportunity. But all of this is being provided for by the taxpayers of this country. I for one am becoming increasingly disturbed at the growing number of people who are concerned at the enormous amount of money being allocated in this area of education. They are putting forward the point of view the taxpayers are not getting value for money. This is not good for the discipline of education and certainly it is not good for the Government or the Department of Education that this kind of claim and feeling should be abroad in the community.

In closing I refer to the fact that, whilst the measures provide for the expenditure of a very large sum of money, in a sense some form of sleight of hand tactics seems to me to be apparent. For example, if one looks at the Budget Speech for 1973-74, it will be seen that the Government claimed that it was providing something like $843m for education. The further claim was made that this was an increase of some 92 per cent over the previous year. If one looks at the similar documents for 1974-75 one finds that there was a similar claim, although the percentages are different. If one looks further into the documents entitled ‘Payments to or for the States ‘ one finds this kind of quotation relating to tertiary education: . . in March 1973 the Australian Government offered to take full financial responsibility for tertiary education and to abolish fees at tertiary institutions and technical colleges from I January 1974. At the June 1973 Premiers’ Conference the States accepted this offer and it was agreed that estimates of the amounts of expenditure of which the State Governments would thereby be relieved would be deducted from the general purpose funds provided to the States- more specifically, reductions to the financial assistance grants in respect of recurrent expenditure, and reductions to the States’ Loan council programs in respect of capital expenditure were agreed on.

So, while a considerable amount of money is involved, I would make the claim that an extra amount of money which would normally be spent by the States has been deducted from the funds normally provided to the States, and it is argued that it is really not an extra amount after all. Therefore the claim of the Government in relation to the increased allocation for education is, in my view, not a totally accurate one. However, the purpose of these 2 Bills is acknowledged and, as they provide funds and as they provide for opportunities, the Opposition wishes them a speedy passage.

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

– In reply- As the Minister representing the Minister for Education, I am pleased to learn that the Opposition wishes these Bills a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3304

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 3 December on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3305

NORTHERN TERRITORY (STABILIZATION OF LAND PRICES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– This Bill is designed to institute a method of controlling or, as it is called, stabilising land prices in the Northern Territory, but it proposes to do so in a way to which the Opposition is opposed. As a consequence it is the intention of the Opposition to seek to amend the Bill, which will have the effect of defeating it. I move:

The Bill is rather complicated. I will indicate briefly the areas of it to which the Opposition is opposed in particular. The nature of the scheme for stabilisation of land prices as contained in the Bill provides that the Minister for the Northern Territory may gazette a notice in the Northern Territory Gazette under which he would declare an area of land in the Northern Territory an investigation area for the purposes of this proposed Act. That would enable certain investigations to be made and would give power to enter land and make studies of it, and so on. That is designed to enable the next step to be taken, which is that where the Minister is satisfied that some area under investigation is likely to be required for urban development, he may again publish a notice in the Northern Territory Gazette declaring it to be a development area for a period not exceeding 10 years.

The stated object of this procedure is particularly in relation to land on the outskirts of Darwin where there is apparently a considerable area of land which it is thought will be required for the expansion of Darwin during the coming 10 years, but which the Government apparently is not prepared to acquire for public purposes here and now and which it wants to freeze for the future development of that city. As I have said, the Bill itself would have application throughout the Northern Territory, but it is particularly related to the expansion of Darwin. Once an area of land has been declared under the Act by the Minister to be a development area, then the whole control of that land is vested in the Minister, who virtually has an absolute discretion.

The Bill does not place- except in circumstances which I shall mention later- any obligation upon the Minister or the Government actually to acquire that land; so it may remain for 10 years in the private ownership in which it now resides, and the Government may in fact never require it for its own urban development proposals. That means that over this whole period of 10 years a dead, cold hand is placed upon that land and the utilisation of that land by the private owners. The land to which this Bill applies is largely held in private ownership. The owners have rights which I believe this Parliament should always accord them and indeed which the Constitution itself accords to all residents of States, namely that if a government wants to acquire their land, it is to be acquired on just terms. In this case, once this dead hand is placed upon land, not only is the private owner of it not permitted to develop it except on terms laid down by the Minister, but if at some future time the Minister or the Government proposes to acquire that land, it is to be acquired at virtually the same value that it had at the time when this development order or investigation order was made.

In the circumstances of an acquisition being made during this period of 10 years, the owner is entitled to receive by way of compensation only what is called the base value, that is, the value of the land at the date that the gazettal of the land was made, plus a percentage increase or ‘decrease’, as the Bill rather quaintly puts it. In the days of inflation under this Government, there is likely to be nothing but an increase. The percentage increase that is permitted is only that applicable to land comparable with the land acquired which has not been affected by the development order. This means that land on the outskirts of Darwin after the date on which it is first declared may only increase in value by an amount related to the value of comparable land which has not been in any way affected by a declaration that it may be required for development purposes. I would think that that is a very difficult comparison to make, particularly in the Northern Territory where there is only one major city, which is Darwin, and therefore only one area where rapid growth is likely to occur.

The percentage increase which will be permitted is at the absolute discretion of the ValuerGeneral. So there is no way in which the question of what would be a fair increase in the value of land can be litigated. It will be entirely in the hands of the Valuer-General to decide what percentage increase will be allowed over the base value of the land which, as I have said, is the value placed upon it on the date of the declaration being made. Therefore, this is a situation where there is an absolute discretion, firstly, in the Minister to control development and, secondly, in the Valuer-General to indicate what increases in value there would have been in respect of that land compared with other land which had not been affected by the development area. These provisions create a fundamental erosion of the right of a private landowner to be compensated on just terms for any acquisition of land by the Government. These are the major objections which the Opposition has, in principle, to this Bill. We believe that these are not realistic methods of trying to control the price of land and that the right way to do so is to ensure that there is an adequate supply of land for urban development purposes. If the Government wants to enter into the business of providing such land then, in our opinion, it is the obligation of the Government to acquire the land there and then. It may be acquiring it for the future; nevertheless , we do not see why the private landowner should have any incremental value of his land virtually frozen because the Government may at some future time want to acquire that land for development purposes.

This situation is not comparable in any way to the development of a new city outside an existing urban area, nor is it comparable to what has happened in the Albury-Wodonga type of development. Incidentally, it is noticeable that the land required for Albury-Wodonga development has all been acquired or is being acquired by the Government by negotiation and purchase. However, this approach is not contemplated for land on the outskirts of Darwin. Where an area of land on the outskirts of a city is frozen and there is no particular intervention by the public, such as exists when a new city is planned in a rural area and new land prices are established because of public development, it is a different situation from that which exists in Darwin. There land will increase in value because of its proximity to the city of Darwin and, in our view, the owners of such land should be perfectly entitled to receive proper compensation at any future time when that land happens to be required or becomes part of the ordinary development of the city of Darwin. We believe that this should apply to any other city or town in the Northern Territory affected by this legislation.

One objection to this legislation is that the principle that private owners of land are entitled to acquisition on just terms is gravely breached. For that reason alone we would oppose the legislation. However, our major objection to this legislation is that the determination of land prices in the Northern Territory should be one of the new powers which should be transferred to the new Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. The Government has seen fit to set up a Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory. Elections were held for it recently. The recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, which is comprised of members of both Houses of the Parliament, on the development of the Northern Territory has indicated that matters of urban development and town planning should be matters for that Assembly. Therefore we do not believe that this is a matter which should be decided by this Parliament. For all those reasons, the Opposition has put down an amendment, which I have moved, which if carried will have the effect of defeating the Bill. The Opposition has expressed clearly in its amendment the reason why it has taken that course of action.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

-I rise to second the amendment moved by Senator Durack and to speak on this matter as a layman and also as a member of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, which inquired into constitutional reform of the Northern Territory. The Bill is entitled the Northern Territory (Stabilization of Land Prices) Bill 1974, but in full truth it is a Bill which is aimed at giving Canberra the power to control the acquisition without the right of appeal of, to begin with, land around the urban area of Darwin. I am very keen to take part in opposing this measure because I believe that if there is one element which should belong to the fully elected assembly or council of a self governing community it is the right to decide the use to be made of the urban lands. The urban lands are where people live or are to live- their environment for life. Surely these lands should rightly be controlled by the elected members of such a body and not by distant Canberra.

It is rather amazing that the present Government has introduced this legislation when one considers the timing of the Joint Committee’s appointment, the knowledge of when its report might come in and the lack of knowledge of what the report will recommend to the Government. It must be remembered that it was not this Parliament, not the Opposition, not any element of the Parliament other than the Government which moved in August 1973 that the Parliament should set up a joint committee which had as its special reference the responsibility of reporting on the constitutional development of self government in the Northern Territory. One of the main terms of reference relative to this legislation was as follows:

The Committee is to examine and report on measures that might bc taken in the long and short term to provide the Northern Territory with responsible self government in relation to local affairs- including appropriate divisions of legislative and executive responsibility at the national and territorial or other level- having regard to:

the Government’s -

I emphasise the words ‘the Government’s’- wish to establish a fully elected Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory by 3 1 December 1 974.

Before the Committee could report, the Government introduced this legislation in another place, which seeks to take control of land within a radius of 96.5 kilometres of Darwin. It is hard to determine how that figure was arrived at. I have been led to believe, on reliable information, that that radius takes in part of Bathurst Island, including 4 Aboriginal missions. Does the Government want to have the power to acquire that area for urban development?

The report of the Committee was presented to the Parliament after this Bill was presented in another place. Recommendation No. 10 which appears at page xii of the report states: the transfer of functions of local significance on the passage of the necessary legislation in the Australian Parliament and the resolution of arrangements for the Public Service . . . plus payroll tax and urban land.

So the Committee set up by the Government recommended in its report that there be control of urban land by the newly and fully elected Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. The Committee, when explaining why it proposed the diversion of executive responsibility, stated in paragraph 66 at page 37 of the report:

In support of the views expressed in the previous paragraph, the witnesses emphasised the inherent inefficiencies of control from Canberra and the disinterest in Territory affairs by a largely transient Public Service in the Territory. They also generally took the view that the maximum benefit for Australia and the Territory would be obtained by using local knowledge and experience in the social and economic programs to bc carried out.

I do not think that people will argue against the fact that the acquisition, provision and pricing of urban land will be done more in the interests of the people of the Territory if it is done by the elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are responsible to the electors.

I do not want to delay the Senate for long on this matter. I think the Senate will see that not only the Opposition but also the Committee have struck the right note on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory in proposing the amendment to the legislation which will have the effect of putting this matter in the hands of the Legislative Assembly for debate. I emphasise that the Committee was a joint Committee made up of members from all parties from both Houses, with the exception of Senator Steele Hall’s Party. I also emphasise that the Government has gone about this matter in a wrong way. The timing of this legislation makes me believe that the Government wanted to put something over the people of the Territory before the Committee’s report was released. The Government has failed in its timing. It has given the Senate the opportunity to say: ‘You have gone so far, but you will go no further until the Legislative Assembly which you set up and which has no members from your Party represented on it has a chance to decide the question of the stabilisation and the acquisition of land ‘.

The Government seems to be in a complete muddle. Instead of waiting on the report, considering its recommendations and then going into conference with the Legislative Assembly and making the rules, it has gone from one thing to another. The Government wants to grab land and control it from Canberra. I suppose that half of the public servants who make decisions have never seen the land or know the people or the conditions. While this matter was being debated in another place a Press statement was issued on 14 November by the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson). In that statement he said that he would refer to the full elected Legislative Assembly, a decision on a request by Darwin nudists to establish a free beach in the area, but he will not give that Assembly the power to legislate and control urban land in Darwin. We believe he should do so.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- The fundamental purpose of this legislation is to arrest the dramatic increases in the price of land which have occurred around Darwin in recent years. I have some up to date information which I think should be made available at the outset of my remarks to indicate the magnitude of the problem. The figures I am about to quote have been made available from the Valuer-General ‘s office in Darwin. A recent case is cited in which 5-acre blocks just outside the acquisition area 16 miles from Darwin were selling for $1,100 per acre in June of last year. When the acquisition was finally agreed to by the Senate they were selling at from $2,000 to $2,200 an acre. The price has doubled in the past 12 months. Honourable senators cannot deny that this has taken place.

The Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) has referred in the past to the outskirts of Darwin as being a speculator’s paradise. I want to quote another couple of examples of what has happened in recent years: I emphasise that this is not something which has happened in the last 2 years since the advent of a Labor Government. It was happening before we came to power. I will come back to that point later. I should indicate, firstly, that this Government presently is acquiring freehold land near Darwin for the city’s future expansion and is facing a monumental figure in a compensation pay-out to cater for its expansion. Land purchased in 1965 at $4.63 per acre is now being paid for at the average rate of $668 per acre, a market value created in the past by some speculative operators. One of the witnesses at the royal commission hearing into land tenures in August 1973 bought land 10 years ago for $32 an acre and freely admitted to the commission in 1973 that he wanted to sell it then for $5,000 an acre and that he had held on to the land for simple speculative investment purposes. That is the magnitude of the problem with which we are confronted.

It is not simply a matter of protecting the rights of the landowner. Of course he has rights and his rights are not being taken away by this legislation. But there are other people in the community who also have rights. Much of that land has been held for many years. Because of the expansion of Darwin and its population and the need for housing and so on, it is not right to suggest that the people who need that land for housing or other purposes should be denied it simply because of the efforts of speculators.

I made the point earlier that this is not something new that has happened just under this Government. To the best of my knowledge the old Legislative Council of the Northern Territory never attempted at any time to pass an ordinance which might have been accepted by the then Liberal-Country Party Federal Government to allow the Legislative Council to take certain action in order to arrest this upward movement in prices. Is one to assume that the members of the old Legislative Council or even the former Federal Government had no desire to arrest this movement in prices? Maybe they were not interested. The record would suggest they were not interested because no action was taken. 1 ask honourable senators opposite to consider what would be the alternatives to the methods being used under this legislation. It is a simple matter for them to say that they will pass this matter over to the new Legislative Assembly.

Nobody is questioning the desirability of the new body. It was fully supported by this Government and it was initiated by this Government. The real question is: What is the most effective way to bring about an end to this tremendous speculation that is going on around Darwin? I feel it will be a shame, a great tragedy, for the residents of the Darwin area if this legislation is to be defeated.

A point was made by Senator Durack which I believe requires specific comment, that is, the proposition that the 10-year limit would mean that the Government could hang on to the acquired land indefinitely. Really the reverse is the truth. The reason for including the 10-year limit is so that the Government cannot sit on the land forever and do nothing. If an area is declared the intention is that the required land will be acquired within 10 years. If it is not it would be necessary to redeclare the area and to reinstitute the powers to acquire. Of course should this happen the base date will be the later date, the date of the redeclaration. Without such a time limit the land could be frozen indefinitely. It is for that reason that the Government has ensured that there is a protection to anyone who owns that land; that the Government would not be in a position simply to stand by indefinitely at its pleasure to the detriment or to the possible disadvantage of the land owner. But in practical terms it is extremely unlikely this would ever arise. The Government would almost certainly move in that time for the purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired.

I turn now to the specific amendment that has been moved by Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition. A great deal has been said about the role of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in relation to this legislation. The basic reason why the legislation is before the Parliament and not being enacted as an ordinance through the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was outlined in the second reading speech. It is obvious from a study of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act, section 9 specifically, that in relation to the application of the Lands Acquisition Act in the Northern Territory the Minister for the Northern Territory administers the acquisition process. It is therefore not possible to vary the acquisition powers merely by an ordinance of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly because the powers of the Minister and the processes lie within Federal Acts. To pass an ordinance the Northern Territory (Administration) Act itself would need to be amended in Federal Parliament.

When this Government came into office it had already stated 2 policy objectives which are relevant here: Firstly, it wanted to stabilise land prices throughout Australia; and secondly, it wanted to give the Northern Territory a fully elected Assembly and then transfer certain functions to it after a joint committee of this Parliament had examined self-government measures for the Northern Territory. The then Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Enderby, made the first objective quite clear in February 1973 in a long Press statement on high land prices. These, as I indicated earlier, were a legacy from the previous Government. Mr Enderby stated that he intended to issue instructions for legislation to be drafted to enable the speculative element to be removed from land prices. This legislation was first introduced by Dr Patterson into the House of Representatives on 3 April this year but lapsed due to the double dissolution in May. It has since been introduced again. But at the time of its first introduction in April copies of the Bill were made available to members of the then Northern Territory Legislative Council to clear up any confusion they may have had about the intent of the legislation. No debate or comment on adverse aspects of the Bill was forthcoming from the Legislative Council although it met 3 times in the ensuing 7 months until the Minister for the Northern Territory re-introduced the Bill in the House of Representatives on 16 October. On the second objective of the Government the Minister has moved quickly to give effect to the first stage of constitutional reform for the Northern Territory, namely, a fully elected Assembly. No one has worked harder to give effect to this than Dr Patterson. The second stage, as to what specific powers are to go over to the new Assembly, is a matter for decision in the light of the Joint Committee ‘s recommendations. So it has been purely a matter of first things first.

The Government is attempting to deal with the urgent question of high land prices, a matter which was evident, by all accounts, before 1973. The Government is taking seriously the matter of developing Australia’s north and part of the task is to eliminate land speculation which has been rife in areas around Darwin. The claim that this legislation is rushed is ridiculous in the extreme in the light of what I have said. The claim that the local legislature is being bypassed and given no opportunity to discuss this issue is also false. In this regard 1 ask honourable senators opposite to reflect a little and to ask themselves how they would go about amending the present Federal legislation to control speculation in the Territory. The critical point is that we as a Government realised that action should have been taken on this even before we were in power. We have limited powers and limited options available to us. But this seems to the Government to be the most realistic and practical way of getting at the heart of this problem.

As has been indicated by Senator Durack, the Opposition apparently will vote against the measure. I believe that it will be extremely unfortunate if that happens because the legislation will be defeated. It will then remain the responsibility of the Opposition. If this matter of wildly escalating prices for land around Darwin is not grappled with and successfully dealt with, it will be on the heads of the members of the Opposition in this Federal Parliament. The Government is trying to protect those people in the Territory who are suffering from these speculators and the effects of their speculation. If this legislation is defeated the responsibility will lie fairly with the Opposition.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 29

NOES: 27

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The question is now:

That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

page 3310

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 November on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BESSELL:
Tasmania

-First of all I indicate that the Opposition supports this Bill. We think that in the main it is a very good Bill. It has an added advantage over the Marginal Dairy Farms Bill in that it has been widened to take in a number of other aspects that are very important. Like Senator Hall who was faced with this situation some time ago, we are very disappointed that it is now very difficult to do anything about the two or three amendments that we proposed to move and that we thought would definitely improve the Bill. While we will mention these amendments and try to point out the advantages that would have resulted had they been accepted, we will probably now not proceed with them in the committee stage.

The advantage of this Bill is that it does encompass uneconomic dairy farms, as completely opposed to the previous definition. I suppose the only thing that could be said against the inclusion of ‘uneconomic dairy farms’ is that it will have to be established what in fact is an economic dairy farm and what is an uneconomic dairy farm. By making provision for assistance to uneconomic dairy farms are we going to perpetuate something- perhaps it is not a fault but a problem associated with this type of assistancethat we would prefer not to have perpetuated? In other words, will there be an encouragement of production in uneconomic areas and in areas which are marginal in any sense of the word? I think this is a sort of two bob each way situation because we find that, irrespective of whether the area is suitable or whether the property is suitable, many people who have lived all of their lives on a dairy farm wish to continue with that type of pursuit.

I do not think that people either from this side of the Parliament or from the other side of the Parliament have ever been able to come up with a complete solution to this problem, to the satisfaction of the nation. The Bill does go quite a way towards assisting the situation. Its provisions have been broadened to cover more people than were covered under the original Act. It replaces the original Act, and now we have what is known as the Dairy Adjustment Program. The assistance which is given under this Bill and which was not given under the previous Bill, to the dairy companies will, I think, be welcomed by many of the dairy companies. But the Opposition would have liked to move an amendment to give greater assistance in this regard. We know that in many areas in Australia there are very many small dairy companies, and I think that it would have been to the common good and to the advantage of the industry in general if these small companies could have been brought together as one consolidated factory. This is what we had in mind; we wanted to consolidate these types of places. In other words, an amalgam of dairy factories could be brought under the one management. That would have a number of advantages. Obviously, as we have seen with a number of industries in Australia today, it is volume throughput that is so terribly important, and that is where you get your economies of scale.

At the present moment those people who qualify will be eligible for assistance in relation to refrigeration and storage and, in some instances, in relation to the capital necessary for the purchase of refrigerated milk collecting trucks. But it would be far better- I think the Minister may agree- if we could cut down on the number of collection areas so that fewer trucks were needed. We see the silly situation in a number of areas- I can speak specifically only of my own area- where, because of a lack of rationalisation within the industry, two or three different companies collect in the one area. I know that this Bill is not intended to cover that situation but it is a situation with which the industry itself has got to come to grips. It is ridiculous to think that 3 tankers with a capacity of 3,000 gallons each should be put on to one road to collect milk from 8 or 9 separate properties. With commonsense amalgamation and rationalisation this sort of situation could be overcome.

The Bill makes provision for assistance for the purchase of refrigerated vats for the dairy industry at the dairy farm level. I imagine that there are a number of areas in Australia in which these vats are still needed. As far as my own area in north-western Tasmania is concerned, evolution in the industry has now virtually made these vats no longer necessary because people are using the system of milk storage. One of the things that we would have liked to have seen included in clause IS- and this is not covered in clause 12 notwithstanding what Dr Patterson said in the other House- is that there are a number of people who by reason of economies of scale or because they want to take up the advantages under the dairy adjustment scheme will find that the equipment which they have is no longer big enough. They would have at the present time a good deal of difficulty in establishing a need for assistance under this type of measure. This means that a dairy farmer with a 500-gallon vat will not be eligible under this scheme to get a larger sized vat. Again this comes back to the economies of scale. If it is possible for a dairy farmer to store in a vat all the milk from one day’s milking it is much cheaper for the dairy company to do the collections. We know the cost of transport today.

We recognise the tremendous costs involved in collection and it is fairly obvious that if these 2 things I have mentioned had been encompassed within the Bill it would have made a good Bill an even better one. It is unfortunate that the other House is not sitting and we will not be able to seek to improve the Bill by amending it. I know that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) did try to have this Bill brought in on Thursday evening in time for our proposed amendments to be discussed and then for the Bill to go to the other House and to come back here, but it was not possible. So we have to accept the situation as we see it.

Coming back to the point I first raised, I think we have to ensure that we do not encourage an extension of uneconomic dairy farms in areas that are marginal or not particularly suitable. One other point to which consideration may have been given- this may still be possible- is provision of assistance to a person who wants to continue as a dairy farmer to move if necessary from an area that is marginal or is too far away from a collection area onto a property that is closer for collection purposes and is more suitable. In the past 4 years there has been a dramatic drop in the number of dairy properties throughout Australia. I think this clearly indicates one of 3 things. People are getting sick of getting up 14 times every week to milk cows, costs are too high or the unfortunate rapid increase in the price of beef has lured a few people away from the dairy industry into that industry which is now no longer lucrative. To illustrate the fall-off in the number of dairy farms I inform the Senate that over a period of 4 years from 1970 to 1974 there has been a 29.8 per cent drop in dairy properties in Australia and in the last 2 years the fall was 18 per cent. There were 48,000 dairy farms but at the present time the figure is 34, 100.

There are a number of other problems facing this industry that bear mentioning and one of course is the price of butter. The Minister will remember that just over 12 months ago he and I together with a couple of other people debated the abolition of the subsidy provided to the dairy industry. I cited some figures then but unfortunately they have changed. Let me compare the price of butter and the average weekly wage in 1964 with the price of butter and the average weekly wage in 1974, which is an easy period of a decade. The average weekly wage in 1964 was $54.10. The retail price of butter at that time was 56c or on a percentage basis 1.030 approximately. By the September quarter of 1974 the average weekly wage had risen to $138 but butter had risen to only 64c. It had dropped from its previous figure to .0046 per cent. Had the price of butter maintained its percentage of the average weekly wage- I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that in 1 964, because our consumption of butter has been fairly even over that period, it was not too dear- it should now be somewhere about $ 1.35 per lb. I do not think that anybody in the community could say that the dairy farmer has not pulled his weight in trying to keep down the costs of food to the consumers.

We often hear it said that the New Zealand dairy industry is particularly progressive, efficient and economic but it is interesting to read what the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) said when he was talking about this Bill in the other House. As reported at page 4273 of the House of Representatives Hansard, he said:

We hear so often about New Zealand being an efficient producer of dairy products. How many people know that in New Zealand last year $42.2S6m was paid in subsidy to the milk producers, who of course represent most of the production of the dairy industry. It is believed that this year the subsidy in New Zealand for milk production will climb as high as $59m

This clearly indicates that, being basically a rural economy, New Zealand recognises that there is a need for support within the industry. This Bill goes a long way towards making it easier. Unfortunately, the Government has adopted a policy of gradually phasing out the dairy subsidy and of phasing out the fertiliser subsidy at the end of this month. This will add further to the costs of the dairy industry. Notwithstanding the figures quoted a while ago of the price of a pound of butter, it will probably not become very much higher than it is at the present moment. It will probably go up by only 2c or 4c a pound, yet costs will increase very rapidly.

I want to refer to another problem confronting the dairy industry. It is one of which the Minister would be aware. It is not covered by this Bill and is probably not of tremendous concern to this Parliament. I refer to equalisation within the dairy industry. We know that four of the Australian States- namely, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australiano longer produce sufficient butter for their own needs and have to buy it from the States that produce more than they need, namely Tasmania and Victoria. This brought about a situation last year where, for fairly obvious reasons, they wished to withdraw from the dairy equalisation scheme. They were allowed to do this to the extent of 80 per cent. But this situation has not been resolved and it is a long way from being resolved. It is not a simple question of whether the equalisation should apply all over the State for butter because so many other aspects of the dairy industry are involved.

Factories in Australia are involved in the production of dairy products, not necessarily butter. I think that Kraft Foods Ltd is a classic example of a company that produces only cheese. Many other factories produce fortified milk. Some produce powdered milk and casein, both edible and the other kind. It is very difficult to get all of these people to agree particularly when one realises that the dairy factories assess that at the present moment they are probably able to pay only 48c or 50c a pound butterfat but for full cream dried milk and casein the figure could go as high as 75c or 80c a pound butterfat. Fairly obviously, the industry has some very big problems to face up to in the near future. I do not suggest that this is one of the situations covered by this Bill but it illustrates the need for careful consideration by the Government in framing this type of legislation so that the greatest possible contingencies are able to be covered. We hope that this type of Act will not be looked upon as the be-all and end-all of the problems associated with the dairy industry. If in the coming months or in the next year or so we see a need for another look at this situation we should all be prepared to look at it with a view then of trying to keep this industry on a solid and a sound footing. One of our big problems is that about 60 per cent of the total production of the dairy industry in Australia is sold overseas on a market that does not give us anything like the prices for some of the commodities we produce that our own home market gives us. I say ‘some of them’ advisedly because the prices that some of the dairy products are now commanding or attracting to themselves are considerably better than they used to be.

So we come back to deciding whether this is a good Bill. As I said before, it is a good Bill. It is designed to assist the industry in as many aspects as I think we could expect. It assists the industry both at the dairy level and at the factory level. The fact that advantages will accrue to the manufacturing side of the dairy industry, I think for the first time under such an assistance plan, will be of great benefit to the industry in general. I regret that unfortunately we will not be able to give active consideration in the Committee stage to the amendment that we would so much have liked the Minister to consider. We realise all of the problems associated with trying to do anything other than what we are doing now, that is, to accept the situation as it is. It is an inevitable situation. We do not want to delay in any way the money that this industry so rightly deserves. Somebody said recently that this Bill has a long gestation period. It may well have had but we do not want the gestation period to last any longer. We hope that this Bill, with our blessing, will soon have royal assent.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise very briefly in support of the Dairy Adjustment Bill 1974. Were we able to have accepted the amendments proposed by Senator Bessell I think that probably the Government would have agreed that the amendments could do nothing but make a good Bill just that little better. I find it easy to support a Bill which concerns itself with the adjustment of an industry such as the dairy industry, because adjustment and reconstruction in the context of industries are virtually the same thing. It has been the province and policy of my Party and of the Liberal Party to be constantly interested and concerned in the areas of reconstruction and adjustment in many industries. In fact, in my own State of New South Wales very considerable advances have been made over a number of years in the areas of reconstruction in particular in branches of primary industry.

This Bill- I believe this is a very important feature of the Bill- creates in the province of the State Ministers and State authorities a real measure of control. I compliment the Government on having produced this feature in this legislation. Very often this is not the case. It is perhaps even somewhat out of character that the Government in this case has seen fit to leave within the province of the State Ministers and their authorities a very real degree of control. This is one of the most important and encouraging features of this legislation.

The legislation basically confines itself to 2 prongs. It is concerned with adjustment insofar as it will enable the building up of efficient dairying enterprises by the purchase of additional farms or of additional parts of farms until the enterprises reach a point where they find that to a landed asset they are able to adapt elements of capital and labour which make that enterprise as totally efficient as it is possible to be. It is to that kind of adjustment that the Bill confines itself in the one instance. In the other instance, of course, the major objective of the Bill is to make it possible for those areas, which are, relatively speaking, at least uneconomic areas in the industry, to be aided to transfer to other areas of production within the primary industry structure in which they find themselves and to become economic units. In actual fact it makes it easier for the relatively economic areas of the industry to become better standing and to become better able to produce within the industry, and at the same time it makes it relatively easier for those parts of the industry that could well be adopting a different area of production, a different attitude, to move into those other fields.

I should like to refer one question to the Minister. I believe that he may give us some assurance in the form of definition. I refer to clause ll(2)(c), clause 12 (2), clause 13 (2) and clause 16 (3). Clause 1 1 (2) (c) refers to the assistance which is to be available to members of the industry. It says that assistance is to be available only when they are ‘unable to obtain a loan on reasonable terms from normal financial sources for the purposes for which the assistance is to be given ‘. I am sure that there is a proper definition of ‘reasonable terms’ and ‘normal financial sources’. I would appreciate- I am sure that the Senate and the industry would appreciatethe Minister giving us some indication of what is meant by ‘reasonable terms’ and ‘normal financial sources’, because naturally if this were to be too extravagantly extended it might mean that the actual availability of the adjustment finance would be much more difficult to come by than one would hope and believe will be the case. I am sure that the Minister can make some reference to that definition.

In closing I refer to the fact that this Bill provides for an amount of $43m to be expended over a period of 2 years in this adjustment process. It virtually replaces the former bounty and subsidy systems within the dairying industry. I believe that emphasis should be placed on the matter which has already been raised by Senator Bessell, that is, that the Australian dairying industry, from the point of view of subsidy, stands head and shoulders above equivalent industries in any other country- even in New

Zealand where approximately $60m is to be expended in subsidies. If we go beyond the Australian and New Zealand situations we find that enormous subsidies are provided to the dairying industry in the United States and in Canada and that in the European Economic Community approximately $ 1,000m to $2,000m is expended on dairying subsidies- a situation which, on occasions in the past, has enabled the dairying industry from the Community countries to compete by virtually dumping in some of the traditional markets of the Australian industry. I am sure that this Bill will create a real measure of confidence in the Australian dairying industryan industry which is faced with quite a remarkable number of potential markets; an industry which given this capacity, this aid to readjust and rebuild, will be an even more significant industry in the future. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and hopefully anticipate that the Minister in his reply will give some form of definition to the matters to which I have referred.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- I say initially that it was certainly not the Government’s intention that the amendments which had been originally proposed and moved in the House of Representatives should not be moved and debated here. It is unfortunate that we have arrived at a very late stage of the current sitting and that the House of Representatives has risen. I do not want to develop that point. I believe that earlier this afternoon an adequate explanation was given by Senator Douglas McClelland as to why we find ourselves in this position in respect of this Dairy Adjustment Bill and other measures. I am very pleased that the Opposition will support the legislation. Basically, it is designed, as I think was said by Senator Scott, to replace the old dairy bounty legislation which the Government commenced to phase out last year. The whole thrust of this legislation is towards trying to assist dairy farmers to stay in the industry and to assist them to become viable operators.

As a Government we felt that under the old system the maximum benefit was not going to the people who needed it most. This was the essence of the redirection of assistance under this legislation. Of course it involves not only the old defined marginal dairy farmer but also it extends beyond that to assist the other dairy farmers to transfer from the old delivery of butter into the whole milk refrigerated delivery system. At the same time the Bill will assist the dairy factories to rationalise their operations as a result of the changed supply which they will now experience.

Two or three points have been raised which were really the essence of the amendments which the Opposition had intended to use. The giving of assistance to factories for a rationalisation process has been looked at quite exhaustively by the Government. When we originally proposed this scheme we sought opinions from the dairy industry throughout Australia to find out exactly what it thought should be done. But when we get into the area of rationalisation of factories, we get into a very expensive area. It was never intended under this legislation or under the previous marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme introduced by the previous Government that assistance should be afforded beyond the farm level. In fact in this legislation we are doing this in respet of receival facilities and so on. But that is quite distinct from rationalisation of factories. The proper course is to go through the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The Government has endeavoured to amend legislation in relation to the AIDC to allow cooperatives to become eligible for loans under the AIDC. As we know, that legislation has been held up because it has not passed through the Senate. To try to encompass factory rationalisation in this legislation would mean that great sums of money would be required. I do not think it is reasonable to expect the Government to bring that rationalisation program under legislation of this nature.

Senator Bessell referred to the upgrading of vats which are currently installed. Again, one would have the problem of making the scheme open to an enormous range of people in the industry. As the whole purpose of the legislation is to assist the person who needs help most and who is likely to go out of dairying if he cannot get assistance, we have to direct our effort to that area. It is true that this tremendous exodus from dairying in Australia which has been going on for many years is a bad thing. The Australian consumer will find that there will be insufficient milk for the Australian domestic market if this trend is allowed to continue. Not only will it deplete our export earnings; also, quite obviously, we must provide for our domestic market first. Unless dairying is an economic proposition for the dairyman then quite obviously he will move out.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I dealt with most of the points that had been raised during the course of the debate. But there are two or three other points to which I will refer quickly. During the debate earlier this evening it was claimed that the Bill does not enable dairy farmers to relocate. Of course, there are specific relocation provisions in the Bill. They are contained in clauses 8, 9 and 12. It is important to recognise that the Bill does provide for a dairy farmer to sell an uneconomic farm and to buy into a suitable dairying area as an alternative. Of course, he can be assisted to develop a new farm. These provisions will be important to many dairy farmers. It is for those reasons that such provisions have been included in the Bill.

Another point that was referred to by Senator Scott concerned clause 1 1 (2), which refers to the need for a dairyman to attempt to obtain finance through a normal banking source on reasonable terms as an alternative or before he qualifies for assistance under this plan. Assistance for the development of an uneconomic dairy farm into an economic unit, for diversification purposes or for development after amalgamation is subject to the administering authority being satisfied that finance is not available on reasonable terms from normal commerical sources. No attempt has been made to lay down what are reasonable terms or what are normal financial sources. These are questions for the administering authority to determine in the light of the circumstances of individual cases. It is important to remember that the administering authorities will be State authorities. Under this legislation it is necessary for there to be the utmost co-operation with the States. The Government has already been advised that the State governments are fully in support of the legislation. I am quite sure that we will get the utmost co-operation from them, as we did under the old marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme.

However, insofar as finance from normal banking sources is concerned, it may be expected that, where a producer is unable to borrow from his bank or pastoral house at the going rates of interest or is unable to service the debts on terms that the bank or financial institution demands, such difficulty would be prima facie evidence that the condition laid down in clause 1 1(2) (c) had been fulfilled. Provided other requirements in the Bill are met, such an applicant farmer could be expected to be eligible for assistance. It is important to bear in mind, as I have mentioned before, that the basic idea of the Bill is to help the man in the dairy industry who is in trouble. It is a legitimate or justified case in which Government or public moneys should be used at privileged rates of interest- of course, in this case no interest is chargeable- to ensure that people can stay in the industry; otherwise we will see a continuation of this massive exodus of dairymen from the industry which is gradually bringing more and more problems to the industry. I think this point was made by Senator Bessell when he mentioned the reduction in the throughput in dairy factories and the need for further rationalisation and the maintenance of throughput in order to keep the unit cost down.

The other matter on which I will touch very quickly was also raised by Senator Bessell. I refer to the matter of equalisation. This is a very complicated area, as I am sure all of us who are interested in this subject would know. It has been the practice to try to let the industry work out its own destiny in respect of equalisation. This Government, as was the case with the previous Government, does not wish to impose any rigid rules about equalisation on the dairy industry. That is something that the industry ought to be able to sort out for itself. Currently a great deal of thought being given to equalisation because of the problems that have suddenly grown up over the changed emphasis of the market on the various products- on skim milk powder in particular, whereas at one time the emphasis was primarily on butter. But the industry can be assured that this Government will work to the maximum of its capacity in co-operation not only with the States but with the industry itself to ensure that some satisfactory solution can be found to the equalisation problem.

In closing, I wish to reiterate the intention of the Government to ensure that the moneys which are being spent under this scheme will strengthen the dairy industry. It is terribly important that we do this, and if the moneys are directed wisely to the dairymen who can become viable or who can remain viable and who would otherwise go out of the industry then I think they are moneys well spent. Not only will the industry benefit but the economy as a whole will benefit, in particular in the depressed areas in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, where a great deal could have been done in the past had there been a more intelligent- I deliberately use the word ‘intelligent’- direction of such moneys into the industry. I am glad that the Opposition is not opposing the legislation. Despite the reservations that some Opposition senators might have on specific points there seems to be a unaninimity of opinion that this legislation is good legislation that can only benefit the dairy industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3315

COMPANIES (FOREIGN TAKE-OVERS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 December on motion by Senator WRIEDT:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

- Mr Deputy President, this Bill presents no great problem to the Opposition. The original legislation was introduced in 1972 by the Liberal-Country Party Government under Mr McMahon as Prime Minister and is still being used by the current Government to handle its problem of foreign takeovers of companies. It is stated that an extensive job is being done on putting new legislation together but this is not yet ready. It has taken a long time to do, but that is a matter of the Government’s own priorities in its own house and not a matter for anybody else. The life of the Act was extended last year to give it a further 12 months operation and it is now being extended until the end of 1975. The Opposition is in accord with the wish of the Government and, in agreeing to pass the legislation, simply observes that by the time the legislation which we are going to get one day is introduced the Government will have utilised for probably 3 years the legislation that we brought in. It seems to have been effective; it seems to have achieved its purpose. Accordingly, I imagine that the Government has given the new legislation a rather lower priority than it might otherwise have done. I can see little point in becoming involved in a long debate about something on which we all agree. Therefore I support the measure.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- I thank Senator Cotton for the brevity of his contribution to the debate. For the same basic reasons that he has outlined it is unnecessary for me to speak at length in reply. The legislation that is currently on the statute book has proved to be effective. It is currently under study by the Government. Nevertheless, its extension at this time is something that I am sure the Senate should unanimously support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3316

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (FURTHER PAYMENT) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– In the sort of turbulent life that we live in this place it is very nice from time to time to enter some sheltered water of total agreement on measures that come before the Senate. This is one such measure of which I think all Australians approve. They have always approved, and I am quite sure that we all approve, the development of this further aid program. The Bill seeks parliamentary approval for Australia ‘s financial contribution to the fourth replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association. Our commitment as a nation is approximately 2 per cent of the total funding of the Association, which on last counting was US$4.5 billion, provided by the various member nations. It will be brought to that level in the triennium commencing 1 July 1974. Australia’s contribution in this measure is $A60,810,811 which is a contribution that I think everybody will welcome. The Association is a quite remarkable body. The second reading speech is very long. I do not propose to deal with all the facts of it. This Association has done a great deal of good in the time that it has been in existence. The loans that are made by the Association are non-interest bearing and are repayable over 50 years. There is a 10-year lay-off period before any repayments are due. That is extremely wise. Most people have been involved in development activities in their own life- many Government senators have, as indeed I have- and the experience is that it takes about 10 years to get something really on its feet. Very often such developments tend to lose cash for the first 5 years and after that, with a bit of good management, they can reach a position of some equilibrium. So the 10-year grace period for lay-off is a wise precaution. Many of the nations that are in receipt of aid have a very high level of external debt, and the problems of funding their development are therefore quite massive.

The IDA is affiliated with the World Bank. It has a common staff” and a common investigatory process. Despite what people might imagine, because interest rates are very low, indeed infinitesimal, there is a service charge of % per cent to 1 per cent for administration, and so on. It is a nominal fee. One might imagine therefore that the money is easily obtained, but it is not. The scrutiny process is very intense. It is done by the World Bank with the same intensity as it does all the things that it is engaged in. The exercise is of interest to Australia, because it has been an area of aid and development capital for some of the countries in our region. India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh have all had substantial help from the International Development Association. Papua New Guinea has had a US$25. 2m capital loan for various activities and it is said that more will be approved for Papua New Guinea ‘s purposes.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They will not need that when they take over the Bougainville copper mine, will they?

Senator COTTON:

-I do not really know, senator. I am not in the Treasury of Papua New Guinea. A friend of mine is, but he has not told me what his financial problems are. Australia has so many problems of its own that I tend to concentrate my attention on the Australian scene. The funding of this operation is based upon a promisory note arrangement. The promisory notes are issued at the beginning and they are called up and cashed as required.

It is said that there will be no budgetary impact in the year ending 1974-75 because of the passage of this measure. That, of course, is the Government’s responsibility, not mine. I should have imagined that, in the world liquidity position, countries such as Australia that have given promissory notes may well be called upon for cash earlier than they might have thought. That is not something that the Opposition is in charge of or in control of. The general program is one that we ourselves were engaged in when we were the Government. We then thought that it was a good plan and a good program. We supported it then and we support it now. We welcome the measure and we approve it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3316

BANKS (HOUSING LOANS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 November on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating the Banks ( Housing Loans) Bill. In brief this Bill seeks to provide a sum of $ 1 50m by way of advances to savings banks as a means of increasing the money available for housing. The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in his second reading speech stated the reason as follows:

The need for this action arises because the reduction in activity in the home building industry was in danger of becoming more extensive than the Government would have wished.

I do not wish to be provocative. I want to make some brief remarks because the state of the housing industry is so desperate that it would be utterly wrong to speak to this Bill without drawing attention to it. I do so against the background that today the Executive Director of the Master Builders Association of Australia, Mr Jorgenson, stated the alarming news that builders plan to sack more than 95,000 building workers over the next 6 weeks, because the Federal Government’s easing of the credit squeeze had not made any impact on the home building industry. He went on to say that one of Australia’s largest home builders, which normally has 2,000 homes under construction, is now down to 900 and by January expects to drop to 250 homes. He added:

We have been begging the Government for months now to pump money into new housing and to cut interest rates on home loans to 8 percent.

He pointed out that to advance $150m to the savings banks would be quite inadequate for one reason in particular, namely, that about twothirds of the money would go to the purchase of already existing homes and the remaining onethird would, of course, be insignificant in terms of the demand. He stated that in the present financial year it is expected that, compared with last year, there will be a drop of some 50,000 homes. He went on to say:

But now there are no jobs left. We expect more than 95,000 will lose their jobs in January and February unless the Government takes very swift action.

He pointed out that the industry employs nearly 400,000 people and is the key barometer to employment. The industry estimates that total home construction- public and private- will drop from 155,000 last financial year to between 100,000 and 1 10,000 this financial year. If this statement is right, it is an alarming situation. The thought that approximately 100,000 families in Australia, in addition to the present unemployed, face the prospect of almost immediate sacking is depressing and I think it is a situation which calls for the strongest immediate action.

Senator Steele Hall:

– That will have a domino effect.

Senator CARRICK:

– That will have a very strong domino effect, indeed. One of the difficulties, as the senator who interjected will appreciate, is that money put into the industry now could not be put to work for some time because the lead time for planning is 6 months to a year. I think it is sad to note that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) said 2 things quite recently. He said that the Government will not reduce interest rates until inflation is defeated. The failure of the Minister to understand 2 simple facts is inherent in this. First of all, high interest rates create inflation. That is the simple situation. The putting up of interest rates has done as much as anything else to create inflation. Whilst interest rates remain enormously high and whilst bridging finance is at 14 per cent, 15 per cent, 16 per cent or more ordinary people cannot buy homes. It is as simple as that. The Labor leader from New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran, several weeks ago said:

The housing construction industry in New South Wales is in a desperate plight.

He called upon the Federal Government to reduce interest rates by 2 to 3 per cent. Here, of course, is seen the eternal conflict between State Labor leaders and the Federal Government.

The New South Wales picture will give honourable senators some indication of the situation. In the last 4 months to November the New South Wales Housing Commission had its applications for needy homes- that is, applications from people on low incomes- increased by 25 per cent. In other words, 7,000 families on low incomes came along and put their names on the list. The list went up from 28,000 to 35,000. To get into perspective the $150m that we are talking about now I make it clear that if this amount were used entirely to build or buy new homes it would build or buy only 7,000 homes. The best it could do would be to take up the slack with the New South Wales Housing Commission alone. However, the slack is 50,000 or so now and will be 100,000 in approximately 6 months time. Apart from the fact that this Bill is too little too late, one of the basic defects is that it is wrong in its direction. It is directing the whole of its money through savings banks. The argument, as I understand it, is that savings banks are fairly evenly distributed throughout Australia. The fact is that throughout most of Australia a very significant amount of the lending of money for housing is done through the permanent building societies. In Western Austrafia, in particular, 60 per cent of all home lending is done through the permanent building societies. In my own State of New South Wales the figure is very significant indeed. I think- certainly the Federal Opposition thinks- that this Bill is defective in that it draws away from a great body, a great organisation, in the permanent building societies, which have done so much to help the people of Australia.

If I may, 1 will in perspective sum up. The normal methods of determining what kind of house a person can buy is to take his weekly income and to quarter it, to divide it by four. So a person on, say, $ 160 a week would have a quartering of $40 a week. The quartering is recognised by banks and societies as being the highest amount of money a person can afford to pay off a home. So a person on somewhat above the average weekly wage today could not, under quartering, pay more than $40 a week. But a person who today sought to buy the most modest home in Australia at a cost of, say, $22,000- by any standards that is enormously modest- would of necessity have to pay off at least $60 a week. That would predicate that the person concerned, to justify such a loan, would have to be getting $240 a week. So the quartering principle is, of course, completely out.

I simply say that it is not good enough for the Government to say: ‘We have put money into the community’. The money it has put into the community has been put in late- desperately late. It will not help most people because whilst interest rates remain appallingly high, whilst credit is so restricted and whilst bridging finance is so desperately dear, the simple fact is that most people will not be able to buy a house. It will not be at all possible to do so. So that the real tackling of the job must be done first of all by way of a lowering of the interest rates. I should point out that the Minister for Housing and Construction is himself somewhat contrite. In his speech on this Bill in the other place the Minister said:

The fact of the matter is that there will be unused capacity in the industry in the early months of the calendar year 1 97S. 1 am not pleased about that.

I pause to interpolate that neither will 95,000 building workers be pleased. The Minister went on to say:

I suppose some people here would contend that the provision of the $ 150m to the deserving section of the community whose income is less than $ 1 SO a week might have come with greater benefit a few months ago. But the feeling in the industry generally is that during 1 975 a situation could easily be reached in which the industry could come under pressure once again, that the supply of money will be such that there will not be enough tradesmen to meet the demand and that we may see a return to a shortage of building materials. So there has to be some limit. If it is a fact that the rescue, if you like, of the industry is a little later than it should have been, it ought not to cause people to feel that any volume of money can now be dumped into the industry to good advantage.

In fact what the Minister was saying was a confession of this plight. The fact is that the building industry was deliberately reduced to ruins by this Government by the record credit squeeze of all time. Having been reduced to ruins and despite our pleas, nothing has been done to revive it in the last 6 months. The thought that one can suddenly pump money into the building industry and revive it is utterly wrong. There will be massive delay. The Minister has said that there will be, in his euphemistic words, unused capacity. What a nice thought it is to think that 95,000 building workers are euphemistically ‘unused capacity’. I think they may use stronger words.

Therefore while not opposing the Bill, I repeat that we feel that the sum itself is small in terms of the objectives, that it is at least six or nine months too late, that it ought to have gone substantially to building societies and that a high percentage of it should have been directed to home building rather than just to home purchase. I make plea that the Government take immediate steps to ensure, if the report is factual, that 95,000 people will not be thrown out of work in the next few weeks. I merely add the observation that if these 95,000 people are added with the school leavers to the present unemployment rate of 3.5 per cent the unemployment rate looks like being 5 per cent. I concede that the Government does not want that as we do not want it. I invite the Minister and the Government urgently to consult with the Master Builders Association to see whether this picture is as bad as is projected and, if it is as bad, to come out as quickly as possible with a crash program for the re-employment of these people.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I support the remarks of Senator Carrick who is quite right, of course, to refer to the 95,000 people who possibly will be retrenched employees as ‘unused capacity’. I wonder what the Labor Party would have done in Opposition if the Government of the day which it opposed had this sort of unemployment in prospect. I am sure that Labor’s cries of alarm and disaster would have been much more vigorous than they are now from the present Opposition which, I believe, is at least giving the Government some understanding, if only it will listen, of the problem. As Senator Carrick rightly points out, the interest rates now charged on house mortgages in Australia prohibit so many people, who previously could have envisaged buying a home over a long period of time, entering into house contracts. So that very important part of the market which had been extending downwards when interest rates were reasonable and when people were encouraged to buy long term rather than to rent, has now been largely destroyed. The impact on the building industry in Australia has been dramatic.

While I agree with Senator Carrick that interest rates must be lowered, in my opinion it is not possible to lower interest rates while we have inflation running in excess of 20 per cent and heading next year towards 30 per cent. It is simply not realistic to expect interest rates to be reduced in the face of inflation which is of a greater nature in prospect in the future than we have had during 1974. Only a subsidy directly from the Government will reduce interest rates in the face of trends which will tend to force interest rates even higher. The basis of all of these problems of course is inflation. That is the basic cause. Inflation is growing worse, not better. Palliatives are being applied today which will not in essence be effective.

A very ominous news report which I heard over the weekend in South Australia stated that the Highways Department in South Australia had announced that its work accomplishment next year will be down 25 per cent. This reduction will not be caused by the expenditure of less money, it will be simply because inflation has destroyed one-quarter of South Australia ‘s road program next year. The real effects of inflation are only now becoming apparent. Unemployment will grow more rapidly in the new year. Programs such as construction carried out by the Highways Department in South Australia will be reduced. House building will be reduced because, as Senator Carrick rightly pointed out, the market is not available and couples cannot afford the huge sum which now has to be part of their earnings.

I want to say in very brief terms that the whole of this economy will fall to pieces unless the Government can come to grips with the rate of inflation. We can pass Bill after Bill, with palliative after palliative, and they will mean nothing if we have an inflation rate of 30 per cent by June next year, as business people in Australia tell us we are going to have.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– A rate of 35 per cent.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Senator Sir Magnus Cormack knows very well that there is no reason why it will stay at any particular inflated figure. Economists will tell any government that there is no stabilising factor in high inflation rates. They will either drop dramatically under some disastrous economic effect, or they will grow even higher. They will not be stable. It is time the Government looked at all these various things it is doing, looked at all its day-to-day announcements and started to do something about the basic cause of it all. What is the building industry? What is the basic cost factor in the building industry? What are buildings made of? What is the basic cost of raw material? It is a very small factor when you look back to the start of the manufacture of the components of a house. One sees first of all, in the most clearly evident form, in the housing industry the effects of the wage and salary explosion. Here it is affecting the greatest sector in this community, and, may I say, the most worthy sector.

Until the Government comes to grips and does something positive about the explosion in wage and salary demands all that we do here will be ineffective. So far the Government has offered nothing to attack the basic cause of our problems that will do anything for us in 1975. 1 join Senator Carrick in his remarks. I will vote for the Bill as a palliative measure but I say that the Government is doing nothing to meet the major challenge in front of it. It is making small isolated moves but they will not reduce the rate of inflation. The Government will not reduce the rate of inflation until it deals with the basic cause of it.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is considering the Banks (Housing Loans) Bill 1974 which aims to appropriate $ 1 50m to banks, mainly savings banks, for lending for housing. This is a rescue operation, as Senator Hall and Senator Carrick have stated. It is nothing more than a rescue operation in a desperate situation. Although we applaud this measure it is a disaster that it should be necessary. The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) stated in his second reading speech on this Bill: . . the reduction in activity in the home building industry was in danger of becoming more extensive than the Government would have wished.

This sounds fair enough until we consider what the Government proposed in July when this session began. In July when the Governor-General gave his Speech we learned that the Government intended that there should be a reduction in activity in the housing and home building industry. We have it on record that that was the intention of the Government. It is worth thinking about some of the speeches made during the AddressinReply debate when speaker after speaker on this side of the chamber drew attention to this part of the Government’s program and begged the Government to think again because what it was proposing was a very dangerous course, one which we thought could lead to a collapse of the home building industry. So it has proved.

We have in front of us now a situation of the utmost gravity, as previous speakers have so capably pointed out. We have a very different situation today. We do not have a government telling us that it wants to see some abatement in the home building industry; we see the reverse. We hear the Minister telling us that although housing construction was at a high level at the end of the June quarter it is down at the present time and the Government thinks that the action proposed by this Bill will help to restore the situation. We are seeing the effects of the grossest and most tragic king of Government miscalculation over the last few months. It is worth asking ourselves whether this was an act of deliberate Government policy or was it something that happened without the Government being able to control events. We could say that it was deliberate Government policy if we refer to the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. The Government at that stage was seeking ways of applying its credit squeeze, of continuing with high interest rates and of doing what it could to cut down activity in the home building industry.

If that is the case the Government must stand condemned for what we see in Australia today, where many people cannot get jobs, where the home building commencements are down and where the industry faces collapse. Alternatively, perhaps it was not planned. Perhaps things have just drifted into this situation. But if that is the case the Government is equally culpable for its responsibility is to provide the kind of conditions in which home building and other major industries can exist and can remain in some state of health. Really it does not matter which way it has gone, it is equally disastrous.

Senator McLaren:

– That is how it was in 1 96 1 , was it not?

Senator BAUME:

- Senator McLaren interjects, but this is the cry of someone in bad trouble. It is worth looking at the report put out by the Department of Housing and Construction dealing with finance for new homes. We learn from it that a survey carried out in May and June this year shows that the average Australian buying his first home is a young person under the age of 30 years. He earns only a modest income, generally less than $8,000 a year. He has a child. He has secondary education. He has extra debts. He has extra credit responsibilities. He has borrowed more than 70 per cent of the money he needs to build his home. This is the picture of the Australian who is trying to get his own home. He has got most of his money from a bank or from a building society. I shall return a bit later to that point to support what Senator Carrick said, that the Bill provides finance for only one of the institutions which is providing finance for the home building industry.

We have welcomed the allocation of funds, but we deplore the necessity for this kind of action. There will be a shortfall this year of at least 50,000 homes in Australia and by the end of this financial year fewer than 100,000 homes will have been commenced in Australia. What a tragedy this is in a country where we aim for home ownership and where we have had, until now, the highest level of home ownership in the world. This present situation has been achieved under a Labor government. We have an industry that can no longer produce the 160,000 homes wanted to give people their chance to live in their own homes. We have an industry which has employed approximately 400,000 people and, as Senator Carrick has pointed out, 95,000 of those jobs are in immediate jeopardy- almost 25 per cent of the people employed in the home building industry. What kind of situation is this into which the Government has taken us? It is not as though the Government has not been warned. If we look back into the Hansard records we can see reference after reference to what was ahead. As Senator Hall stated, uncontrolled inflation is a large part of the problem.

The President of the Master Builders Association said in a statement today that many of the builders who will close at Christmas time will not reopen in the New Year. This in itself is a disaster. We are going to have an army of unemployed, an army of people who will be made unemployed by the high interest rates and the uncontrolled inflation that has been a legacy of our Labor Government. No credit has been available. We have had a climate in which survival of the home building industry has been impossible. We have no confidence and we will have a loss of jobs.

The second big point we should mention with regard to this loan is that the appropriation is for housing loans; it is not necessarily for housing construction. There is a big difference between money put into the purchase of houses and money that is put specifically towards the building of new homes. I emphasise again what Senator Carrick said, that unless that $ 150m finds its way into the construction of new housing much of its intended effect will be dissipated. Clause 3 of the Bill provides money for the purpose of assisting men and women to purchase, erect or extend homes. It would be better if the money were to be provided specifically for the erection or extension of homes so that the money would go into the industry that provides jobs for those actually involved in building. We want to make sure that this money actually works to provide employment opportunities for those Australians who need employment. The problem is one of home construction, not just of the real estate industry. We are concerned with the home building industry itself, and this is one problem that could have been attended to in this Bill.

My next point is that the banks are getting all this money. The Department of Housing and Construction, in the document it put out to which I have referred and which all honourable senators have seen, points out in figure F2 on page 38 that if one looks at the sources of finance for first homes one finds that 27 per cent of the finance for all homes included in the survey conducted by the Department came from permanent building societies and that almost the same percentagejust marginally higher- came from the savings banks. It is very good that the savings banks are getting some financial assistance, but it seems to me iniquitous that we have a situation in which the capacity of the permanent building societies in Australia to carry on their important job has been seriously eroded. The building societies have been affected by the inflation in Australia, by the general lack of confidence among investors and by the high bond rate which has made it impossible for them to compete. The result has been a marked decrease in the number of loans given by permanent building societies for housing.

Recently I asked a question of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) and in his reply he set out the details of the job being done by the permanent building societies in Australia. The number of loans approved for houses in 1971-72 was 48,000; in 1972-73 it was 70,000; and in 1973-74 under the Labor Government it had dropped to 41,000. It had dropped in one year from 70,000 to 41,000. That is what the Labor Party has done to the capacity–

Senator Davidson:

– Just over half.

Senator BAUME:

– Just over half, as Senator Davidson said.

Senator Wriedt:

– Are you quoting Australiawide figures?

Senator BAUME:

– I am quoting the figures given to me by the Minister for Housing and Construction in response to Senate question No. 173.

Senator McLaren:

– What was the question?

Senator BAUME:

– I am not going to tell Senator McLaren what the question was. He can look it up in Hansard if he is interested. The number of approvals of loans by permanent building societies fell from 70,000 in 1972-73 to 41,000 in 1973-74, and it has fallen further since. So we have a situation in which the permanent building societies are finding it virtually impossible to lend money to do the job which they have done so well for many years.

This Bill is a salvage operation. It is designed to take care of a disaster created by the Labor Government. We know that a disaster faces the whole housing construction industry at the present time. Many people will have to leave the industry, and recovery will take many years in spite of efforts such as this to plug up some of the holes. It will not be just a question of diminished activity until the end of the March quarter. This will carry on for a long time as builders and other people go out of business and take themselves to other forms of employment. There will be no employment in the housing industry, just as there is no employment in so many other industries in Australia today.

I have a particular interest in the western suburbs of Sydney. It appalled me recently to learn that over 13,000 people are receiving welfare cheques between Parramatta and Penrith and that in the district of Mount Druitt alone in the western suburbs of Sydney- an area in which I do electoral work- over 25,000 people are receiving welfare. What kind of Christmas are they going to have? They will not have many kind words for the Labor Party which gave them this unemployment. We are seeing in this situation an albatross around the neck of the Labor Party. We welcome any measure to undo the disaster it has wrought on Australian housing. This is only one of a series of disasters. At present we seem to see the Labor Party lurching from debacle to debacle, from scandal to scandal, from disaster to disaster, from defeat to defeat and, hopefully, to its destruction as a government.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- I do not mind people arguing a case against Government policy but I cannot stand moralisers. I cannot, in particular, stand this ‘holier than thou’ attitude which seems to be the hallmark of some honourable senators on the other side- particularly Senator Baume who has just resumed his seat. Anyone would imagine that the history of Liberal Party and Country Party governments was one of perfection in which they never at any time allowed the housing building, approval or completion rate to fall below some particular average figure. The evidence over the years shows beyond doubt that that is exactly what has happened.

The history of housing construction in Australia is a series of ups and downs. It is very well nigh impossible for any government to take out completely those highs and lows in the building industry. It is always a feature of the economy. The building industry is the barometer whereby one measures the economic activity in the community at a particular time. The same applies to the motor vehicle industry. These are two of the industries which are susceptible to the movement of the economy. One would assume, listening to Senator Baume’s contribution to this debate that that had never occurred under previous governments, when in fact the evidence is there- for the whole of those 23 years- to show that the building industry suffered fluctuating fortunes.

I want to remind the Senate of what was said in the second reading speech. We ought to put this in its context. In part the second reading speech states:

  1. . dwelling completions in 1973-74 reached a record level of 1 52,700 and, at the end of the June quarter–

That is June of this year- the amount of work under construction was still at record levels. Indeed the capacity of the building industry then was undoubtedly still over-stretched.

It was over-stretched. The second reading speech continues:

Furthermore, even at the end of the September quarter the number of dwellings under construction was still 28 per cent above the level at end September 1972 -

That was under a Liberal-Country Party Government- and only slightly below the number at end September 1973.

The Government recognised the fact- there is no question of the fact- that the building industry was over-heated. The Government had to take measures- with the restricted powers that it has in the economic circumstances which have prevailed during the past few months- to try to dampen this over-heated situation.

What have we done? We will look at some of the things that have been done. The Government allocated $3 1 0m in 1 974-75 to the States for welfare housing, an increase of $91m over the amount allocated to the States in 1973-74. A proposed increase in the proportion of housing agreement funds which may be channelled through the home builders’ account will result in more funds becoming available for lending to lower income home seekers through terminating building societies. There is an additional expenditure of $ 15m in 1974-75 under the Defence Service Homes Scheme; an additional expenditure of $ 14m in 1974-75 for housing in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; an increase from $5m to $ 1 0m in the yearly expenditure under the Dwellings for Aged Pensioners Scheme; an increase in the capital subsidy under the Aged Persons’ Homes Act to $4 for $1 from the previous $2 for $1; and, of course, an additional $75m to be allocated to the States for welfare housing- $50m to be distributed through the home builders’ account and $25m for the State Housing authority building programs; and a further $8m has been allocated specifically to Queensland.

This shows beyond any measure of doubt that the Government is aware of the problems and is acting rapidly to reverse this situation. The statistics prove that this is having its effect immediately. For example, in September of this year when the industry reached its lowest level of activity, we find that the number of loans approved by the savings banks was 4,744. A month later the number of loans jumped to 7,256. The same applied with the trading banks. In September 1,634 loans were approved and in October 2,505 loans were approved. The total of all loans approved to individuals for housing purposes in September of this year was 8,700. At that time, as I say, the industry had reached the bottom of the trough. By the next month- October- the figure had jumped to 1 1,775. This evidences the fact that the measures that the Government has taken are having effect now. We will see a dramatic upturn flow from the measures which have been taken.

There is no opposition to the Bill, I know, and therefore there is not the need to speak at length on it. I hope I have answered sufficiently one or two of the points that have been made. The other matter upon which I wish to dwell, as I did last week, is that of inflation. There is always the tendency in this place at the present time to castigate the Government because of inflation. Senator Hall made the point, I believe quite correctly, that cost inflation is now the main problem in this economy, as well as the fact that we do not have control over our incomes and our prices- a control which this Government foresaw 12 months ago was a necessary ingredient of its powers if it was going to control a cost inflation situation. A cost inflation situation is what we have.

When we sought those powers we were opposed by the Opposition. It knew that by opposing our efforts to get those powers it would be deliberately robbing this Government of one of the most powerful weapons that it could have to fight inflation. The Opposition opposed us deliberately, knowing full well that the States, in which the power presently resides, could not effectively control the cost inflation problem either individually or collectively. By a deliberate act of the Liberal and Country Parties to ensure that the Government would not be able to grapple with inflation- that was the real purpose of their opposition- we have been denied those powers. I would say that the point made by Senator Hall is quite right. I also accept the fact that the other night he was prepared to admit that when the proposal in relation to the powers over prices and incomes came before the Australian people last year he did not support it, that he could not see the wisdom of it. But he can see the wisdom of it now. I hope that his argument will be sufficient to convince some members of the Opposition that those powers are indeed an effective weapon which is currently being denied the Government.

Notwithstanding all the points allegedly made by Senator Baume, in particular, the fact remains that this legislation in conjunction with so many other measures the Government has taken over the past few weeks, is designed to stimulate the housing industry. I am sure that once this legislation is through the Senate and the moneys can be disbursed we will see a continuing dramatic upturn in building activity in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3323

LOAN BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 December on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– When I listened to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, talking tonight on another matter, apologising for his Government, excusing himself and blaming everbody else I was reminded of something I heard long ago. He might find it hard to detect the connection. I heard talk about rowing and it was this: ‘It took from death most of its terror by removing from life all of its comfort. ‘ The talk was about the invention of a sliding rowing seat. I was thinking about the Labor Party taking from most of us nearly all of our comfort, most of our joys, our happiness and our well-being. One is very tempted tonight on this Loan Bill to extend the sitting of the Senate a few days and have a few things to say about some of the misapprehensions, mistakes of fact and self-delusions of the Government.

Senator McLaren:

– Why don’t you? What is stopping you?

Senator COTTON:

– You would like me to do it, would you? Good. This Bill was not opposed in the House of Representatives when it went through there and therefore it will not be opposed here. It is said to be a machinery measure. When one thinks about it as a machinery measure one realises what a broken down piece of machinery the Government’s economic, monetary and fiscal policies are. When we hear the sort of light witticisms of people like Senator McLaren we can see what little help the Government gets from its supporters. The Minister for Agriculture in the second reading speech, said this measure is one that has come into the Parliament before. That is true, but this Bill comes in three to four months earlier than any previous similar Bill has. This is really because of the tremendous size of the deficit that the Government is now facing. If honourable senators cast their minds back to the famous Budget Speech on 17 September, a Speech which has since been much affected by change, they will recall, I am sure, the Government’s undertaking to have a deficit of approximately $570m. In response to questioning, Mr Crean, the current Treasurer, has said his deficit expectation is of the order of $ 1,850m. It may well, with the tendency in the economic scene, become greater than that. However it is a rather massive change from the forecast on 1 7 September for a deficit to grow within 2 months from $570m to $l,850m. You really have to be very brave and capable of massive self-delusion to convince yourself as a government that you are not in some way responsible and that some part of this is not made by you and is not homegrown. To go around the place trying to talk yourself out of it by blaming other people around the world is to me not real and I really must say that I thought better of the Government than this.

There is a long catalogue of events and comments made by various people on the Government side. I have a summary of them here. It is just a record of futility and mistakes. The Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, had this to say on 6 May: . . we are winning the fight against inflation. Our policies are working. The latest consumer price figures have shown a dramatic and encouraging drop in the inflation rate.

Let’s keep up the good work. Let’s not undo these policies now that they are working, because the Country Party and (he Liberals would undo them. They have promised to remove our restrictions on the inflow of foreign money.

Really, what a dreadful thing to promise. He said:

They have promised all sorts of electoral bribes. They have promised to cut taxes. Imagine it. Cut taxes to fight inflation.

On 12 November the Prime Minister announced measures which would do exactly all those things; he proposed to cut taxes, and restore the flow of the overseas capital. Can the Government wonder that people like me and many people in the community are, to say the least of it, really fed up with all the excuses it is trotting out and with all the nonsense it is going on with? The Government is responsible. It must accept the responsibility. Part of its problem has been the continuous process of chop and change. I have here about 12 different announcements made by various people in the Government totally contradicting each other at about monthly intervals.

What the Government has achieved in Australia by its actions is a state of confusion and crisis and a complete lack of confidence. What people are worried about in the present situation is that the massive deficit the Government has now created has to be funded. It is in the process of funding it now, earlier than normal, and it could lead very likely to another surge of demand inflation. Nobody is pleased about that. No one takes any delight in it. Anybody who wanted to help would try to do so. Reference to the failure of the Commonwealth to have any ability to control prices and incomes ought to be set in the context that the State governments offered to refer powers in a co-operative venture, which would have been much the wisest thing to have done.

It is clear from the Government’s activities that its original economic measures produced a massive demand surge. That in turn produced an acceleration of the cost inflation with which the Government is now living and the Government is now in very great danger- so are we because we are in it with the Government- of another demand inflationary position. If the Government has in mind positive, rational, sensible steps to overcome this problem by working with the community and the State governments I wish it would say so. I do not think that the Government has made any rational attempts at all. It has tried to excuse itself. What it has failed to do is to come to grips in the total community with the demand that is being placed on the available resources. Until that is done by all governments working together to bring into balance the total demand on resources with the available resources, no measure will succeed. I do not believe that the Federal Government will succeed acting by itself. It needs the co-operation of the State governments and of its State colleagues, and it must work to achieve that.

This particular measure is a clear operation of government funding transactions. It is stated that there are 3 funds- the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust Fund. No mention is made of the National Debt Sinking Fund which would have been worth adverting to because I think that in Australia we are going back, with this sort of deficit financing in which we are involved, into an increase in our indebtedness in the National Debt Sinking Fund which has been of relatively lesser and lesser consequence in the years of Liberal-Country Party administration and it will again become some factor in our lives. It would seem after five to six months of the current transactions, that the Consolidated Revenue Fund will run out of money because of the massive increase in the expenditure which leads to the massive deficit. Normal procedures are being followed and they were followed in the past to cover deficits of much less magnitude. Some of that particular expenditure is being charged across by a switching process to another fund. This procedure is now proposed.

The Bill authorises a technique to borrow money for defence purposes so that to the extent necessary- it is not stated- defence outlays for the balance of the year can be charged to loan funds and a deficit avoided in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. No quantum of the total borrowing is stated, and the size of the deficit is not finally known but it is thought to be about $ 1,850m now. The order of borrowing may be $700m. What we need to know in due course is how the Government proposes to handle the problem because what it is really doing is expending a great deal more money than it has, and it must find the money somewhere.

Clause 3 of the Bill is quite specific. It does not seem to me that the Bill leaves any loopholes in any way. It seems quite a straightforward piece of legislative machinery and exercises the control of the situation which one would expect. It is the situation that is in trouble, not the Bill itself. The Government will have to borrow money in one way or another to make up the deficiency that is caused by the Government’s excessive expenditures which, I think, in many cases have elements of imprudence, improvidence and extravagance.

It is the Government’s job to do these things. There are 3 ways of funding the Government’s excess expenditure or deficit, call it what you will. One is by public loan raising. Of course, the Government could get the Reserve Bank to take securities for it, treasury bills and treasury notes which, in effect, will generate excess liquidity unrealised and add to inflationary problems. The Government can switch around in its funds a bit more yet. The general impression one has without being told by the Government is that the Government will have to go back into the loan market to borrow money to fund expenditures in excess of income. That final choice is yet to be made. I should imagine that that final choice will be looked at perhaps in March or April next year. That will be a better time to judge more accurately the final conseqences of the acts of this Government and the final outcome of a Budget which has turned out to be almost totally misshapen and a disaster.

What the Government is looking at in the Australian community- of which, of course, the Government is a part- is the result of improvidence, a continuing state of confusion and a state of increasing alarm and growing despondency. When one looks at all these things one has to say: Is this just from incompetence or is it by deliberate design? Whatever it is people will pay with their savings, with their jobs and with their future. It therefore gives the Opposition no pleasure at all to have to say these things but they are the truth. The Bill will be passed with our approval and our support because we want the responsibility to remain where it properly belongs, with the Government of this country currently led by the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3325

STATES GRANTS (WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I suggest, subject to the approval of the Senate, that we take this Bill and the River Murray Waters Bill 1 974 as cognate measures.

Senator Wheeldon:

– The Government has no objection.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie)- There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator CARRICK:

– I propose to be brief in dealing with both Bills. The Opposition will support the Bills. The River Murray Waters Bill is a machinery measure which amends the River Murray Waters Act 1915-73. The Bill really sets out to provide a more satisfactory basis for employment of Commonwealth employees by the River Murray Commission. It brings the staff within the scope of the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-73 and the Superannuation Act 1922-74. It permits the salaries of statutory officers to be determined under the Remunerations Act of 1973-74. Indeed, an identical Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 7 March this year but lapsed due to the double dissolution. The Opposition commends the Bill and gives it a speedy passage.

The second Bill, the States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill, amends the States Grants (Water Resources Measurement) Act 1973. The basis of this Bill is the work done arising out of various recommendations by the Australian Water Resources Council. Among the many great reforms introduced in the period of the Menzies and subsequent Liberal-Country Party governments were those relating to the measurement of water resources and to the harnessing of water in Australia. In 1964 the Australian Water Resources Council made some important recommendations as a result of which the States and the Commonwealth accelerated their investigations into water supply in Australia based on 2 factors- the rate of flow, and the quantity and changes in quantity of water. This was a particularly successful venture. I should add that no element in Australia is more important than water. I think it is known to every honourable senator and to the public that Australia is the most arid continent on earth, that our average annual rainfall is 16 inches compared with the world average of 26 inches, and that if we tipped the whole of the run-off of all our rivers and water courses into one river the flow would not–

Senator Mulvihill:

– You will see that Senator Davidson and myself are nodding. Our report on water pollution vindicated all that you are saying.

Senator CARRICK:

– It is a tribute for Senator Mulvihill to acknowledge what I am saying. I have in front of me the report from the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. I, too, acknowledge the work done by that Committee and the recommendations it made. The report is of a quality of other reports of Senate committees. It is fair to say that the run-off of the whole of the water supply in Australia, tipped into one river, would not equal one-half the run-off of one of the great rivers- the Mississippi River, the Missouri River, the Nile River, or any of the great European rivers. Against that background, the one great trace element missing in Australia for the development of Australian agriculture is water.

Senator Davidson:

– Quantity and quality.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Davidson properly reminds me that we need water not only in quantity but also in quality. We know of the existence of water in various places, and we know that water is polluted in various ways. For example, one thinks immediately of the salination of the River Murray and also of brackish water, all of which are major challenges to us. Carrying on from the major reforms of LiberalCountry Party governments, there is now being brought to fruition a second step, that is, it is believed by the Commonwealth and the States that it is important to measure concurrently the quality of water. This Bill provides a certain amount of money for each State. It is on a dollar for dollar basis with limits. Under this Bill the total amount to be provided by the Commonwealth is $446,305 for surface water quality assessment and $361,600 for underground water quality assessment, making a total of $807,905. That does not include work carried out in the 2 Territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. That is a matter of appropriation.

Let me make what I regard as some quite important comments. Whilst this is a major step forward, nevertheless in Australia we should not let up in making a major assessment of the quantity and quality of our water supply. In the past 20 years the continent of Australia has undergone major drilling, largely for minerals, particularly in the centre of Australia and in other arid parts. The Bureau of Mineral Resources has an enormous amount of information relating to minerals. Perhaps lying in each of those files there is a great volume of information regarding the existence and the nature of the water tables. Mr Acting Deputy President, I remind you that there is ample evidence that running right up through the centre the water tables are at about 68 feet for most of the time. But in flood times, as now, the water tables rise to the surface. I would like to see- I make a strong plea- in this computer age when we have the ability to sort material by machinery process, the Government giving special attention to going through the records of the past 20 years of the drilling programs of the Bureau of Mineral Resources and of private mining explorers. This information could be put together so that we could see the picture of the water tables. We may find that in Australia, particularly in the centre and in northern and southern Australia where there are real problems of arid climate, there is a substantially larger amount of water than we know of. As I understand it the water table which runs under the centre of Australia has its origin in the snow mountains of New Guinea. So in the ordinary geology of this zone there is an underflow of water. If this is so, the tapping and use of the water is of enormous importance.

Senator Davidson:

– This could be especially valuable in decentralisation.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Davidson interjects that this would be especially valuable for decentralisation. I support that concept. The limiting factor in this country to all decentralisation is primarily water. We have no navigable rivers. We have a limitation on our rivers completely. Until we learn to desalt the sea at a rate for commercial, industrial and agricultural use then we cannot look to the sea in that regard. I am not referring to town supply because we can do that now. But this is not the time to enter into a major debate. I acknowledge that in a world in which we are in peril in this coming year of some 30 million people dying of starvation and disease it is imperative for Australia to look to the whole of its natural resources and to put them to work not just for the lucky 13 million people of Australia but to help to provide for and to feed those who are less privileged than we. I hope that the Government will take up the suggestion which I make to tabulate and co-ordinate the whole of the information which is known to us. With those thoughts, I commend the 2 Bills to the Senate.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I am happy to support the States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill 1974 and the River Murray Waters Bill 1974. The River Murray Waters Agreement is something which is very important in South Australia. Our State is utterly reliant on the waters of the River Murray to which no water is contributed by the State from any subsidiary streams. We are very conscious of the operation of the River Murray Commission and the life line that the river is to South Australia. I hope that the Commission can proceed speedily with construction of the Dartmouth Dam. On its completion South Australia will be insured against the effects of drought against which it is not insured at the moment. I commend the work of the Commission and of the River Murray Waters Bill which is a small machinery measure in support of the Commission.

Despite what has been said about research and study into the control of water pollution in Australia I would not like to see the control of the River Murray system taken outside the River Murray Commission. I certainly want to see the powers of the Commission upgraded so that it can pay a great deal more effective attention to pollution and the salinity of the waters of the Murray. In my opinion it would be a very retrograde step to take the control of the system out of the hands of the 3 States which are concerned with it, and the Commonwealth, which is an equal partner in the River Murray Commission, and to make the river and the watershed subject to the control of the other States which have no interest in it. I want to say this: The River Murray Commission has proven to be one of the greatest examples of interstate cooperation that Australia has seen.

Senator Georges:

– I would not have thought that from listening to some of the debate.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Now that Senator Georges raises the matter, the system broke down temporarily in South Australia because of the actions of his parliamentary colleagues at the State level. They mercilessly and shamelessly used the need for water supplies in South Australia for their own political benefit. They put the Australian Labor Party first every time, before the good of their own State, so much so that they went to an election in 1970 promising that 2 dams would be built on the River Murray in the near future. That was their election policy. But they knew full well that their promise was utterly false and that the dams could not be provided in any way as they had promised. I repeat that they went to the public promising that 2 dams would be built. The then new South Australian Government in 1970-71 denied any dams to South Australia and stated, following that election promise, that it would re-negotiate the scheme. It left South Australia in the lurch for an additional 2 seasons. If there is any problem concerning a shortage of water in South Australia before the Dartmouth Dam is completed it will be the Dunstan Labor Government that is absolutely and only responsible for that shortage in our State.

There are many other facets to the matter. I am sure that Senator McLaren is rearing to say something in defence of his lame duck State

Government in South Australia. But nothing he can say can alter the facts which are well printed and well documented.

Senator McLaren:

– They are well documented in this document before me.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Yes, I am sure -

Senator Poyser:

– Peace and goodwill to all men.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Yes, but the facts cannot be denied, Senator Poyser. There is no doubt that the most conservative and the most reactionary political Party in Australia is the Australian Labor Party. It has never shown any propensity to be able to change its mind. It has stuck to written objectives which are unchangeable. This is illustrated in its tactical views of the economies it governs, whether they be on the State or Federal scene. It is unable to match the moving scene in front of it. But in South Australia the State Labor Government was advised before the 1968 election that it would have to change its policy on the Chowilla Dam and promote the Dartmouth Dam because of new information that was to be introduced to it very shortly. However, that Government went to an election promising the construction of the Chowilla Dam, as did the then Opposition. Shortly after the election the information that the outgoing Labor Government knew was available was presented to the new government. That information was presented to the new government from com’puters which produced 350 studies of the River Murray system whereas only 1 3 had been available on a manual basis previously. Of course, the system was entirely reversed in relation to the yield from the river system following a comparison between Dartmouth and Chowilla.

It was a very agonising time. I can tell Senator McLaren that at that time his State leader said that whatever supply point it obtained for South Australia from the Commonwealth Government, it would want 1,250,000 acre feet of water. I can also tell Senator McLaren that the LiberalCountry League Government of the day would not accept 1 ,250,000 acre feet and said that that was not good enough to guarantee South Australia’s future. We stuck to the proposal that we would not agree to the construction of Dartmouth Dam nor would we shift from our position in regard to the Chowilla Dam until we received a very substantial increase of water supply from 1,250,000 acre feet to 1,500,000 acre feet, despite the fact that the Dunstan Administration ran out from under. It was willing to settle for a figure it had obtained already. But the new . State Government in South Australia stuck out and increased South Australia’s useful water supply by 37 per cent simply by hard negotiations. Senator McLaren knows that to be true, and nothing that he can say consequent on what I have said tonight will alter those facts. Nothing will alter the fact that the final arrangement which the Dunstan Government had to agree to was worked out and signed by the representatives of the previous administration, which Mr Dunstan opposed. I will listen to the intricate argument that I am sure Senator McLaren will now put to us. I am sure that he will try to substantiate the cause of a government, of an administration that won government on a promise which it has never really tried to fulfil in any way, and knows it cannot fulfil.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am at a bit of a disadvantage in this debate because I am under some restraint from my Whip. He has threatened that if I speak for too long I will be in serious trouble. It is getting near the festive season and everybody wants to get through the business of this House. But I cannot remain seated in view of some of the remarks of Senator Steele Hall. It is not my intention to revive the Chowilla debate this evening because the Chowilla Dam has been debated on many occasions in this Parliament, but I do want to put the record straight in respect of Chowilla because Senator Hall has claimed tonight that the South Australian Labor Government sold out South Australia in respect of water supplies. I want to refresh Senator Steele Hall ‘s memory of this little pamphlet that he published at a cost to the South Australian taxpayers of £6,000. He had it printed when he was pushing the issue of Chowilla and he set out 14 facts about the Chowilla project. Throughout the pamphlet he stresses to the public of South Australia all the good features of Chowilla. I am not going to debate them tonight because Senator Steele Hall knows full well what is in the pamphlet. He also knows full well that he issued instructions to members of his Department to have all these pamphlets destroyed. Unfortunately, before he could have them all destroyed some of them got out and came into the possession of many people in the Riverland district. When Senator Steele Hall went to the people of South Australia at the 1970 elections he found that they rejected him and his promises because they had read that pamphlet. He sold out the people of South Australia to Mr Bolte, the then Premier of Victoria, because Mr Bolte wanted to build a hydro-electric scheme at Dartmouth. Senator Hall, as the then Premier of South Australia, did not tell the South Australian people that embodied in the negotiations he had with Mr Bolte was a hydro-electric scheme at Dartmouth from which the people of South Australia were not going to benefit but only the people of Victoria.

When I came into this Parliament it took me a long time, through questions in the Senate and questioning at Senate Estimates Committees to get a copy of the feasibility study which was carried out on the construction of a hydro-electric scheme at Dartmouth, but eventually it was given to me. First of all I think it was Mr Swartz, the then Minister for National Development, who denied that the document ever existed, but I eventually got it and it was a very revealing document. But Senator Steele Hall, as the Premier of South Australia, never told the electors that the whole crux of the study was the establishment of a hydro-electric scheme at Dartmouth. I am not going to develop that tonight. There might be an opportunity to develop it at some later time because I will be here for a little while longer, as will Senator Steele Hall. If Senator Steele Hall wants to go on the hustings at election time and tell the people of South Australia what a wonderful deal he negotiated I will be quite happy to take up arms with him and tell the people the real truth.

What I am happy about in this legislation is that it envisages that we are going to do something under the auspices of the federal Labor Government to ensure proper water quality in the River Murray. Living as I do at Murray Bridge, which is at the tail end of the River Murray, I, with other people, have to put up with all the residue that comes down the Murray from its source to the point where I have got to use the water, along with many thousands of other people. When it gets down to us at Murray Bridge it is not a very pure water supply. I am reminded of what Mr Freudenstein, the New South Wales Minister for Conservation, said at the opening ceremony for the Dartmouth Dam, which I attended. What did he say in the course of his remarks? Senator Jessop was there and he heard him. He said that one of the good things about the Dartmouth Dam was that it would wash all the salt down into South Australia. He is on record as saying that. Yet Senator Hall tells us what a great thing the Dartmouth Dam is. I will not say any more tonight because we wish to get the business through. I will take the matter up at some later date. I fully support the measure that is before the Senate tonight.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I regret that Senator McLaren has seen fit to make a political issue out of a very serious Bill that concerns the assessment of water resources and the quality of water. He has brought in an issue which was of deep concern to all of us in this chamber, as it was to the members of Parliament and the public of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, at the time of the debate on the Chowilla Dam and the Dartmouth Dam. In my opinion it is quite ridiculous to intrude into the discussion on a Bill such as this those issues that are now behind us. The big thing is to look at this matter nationally. For the time being there is a generating source of water being built at Dartmouth. We in South Australia need a holding basin for water that will better control the flow of water down the River Murray. Senator Hall has said quite rightly that the lifeline of South Australia is the River Murray.

The matter that is before us tonight simply seeks a better assessment of surface water, its amount and quality, and certain moneys are to be applied to that purpose. Personally I am disappointed with the amounts of money that are being allocated to the various States. The basis of these allocations is the requests by the various States for certain amounts of money on a dollar for dollar basis. South Australia is the driest State in the Commonwealth. Only 10 per cent of its land surface enjoys an annual rainfall of 10 inches or more. We are vitally concerned that every consideration be given to assessing our surface water potential and our underground water quantity and quality, always bearing in mind that the River Murray is a source of water to us. I regret that the Government of South Australia has seen fit to seek the smallest amount of money of any State in Australia.

Senator Steele Hall:

– I hope it is not wasted.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Yes. I hope that in the assessment of national requirements South Australia will be given the place in the sun it rightfully deserves, bearing in mind our reliance on the River Murray and our otherwise limited sources of water. I hope that the national Parliament will give our State amounts similar to those it has given to the State that you represent, Mr Acting Deputy President, in various schemes in recent times, which we in South Australia have not received. I mention that matter as background, in the complete realisation that we in South Australia have not been served as well as we might have been served in respect of maintaining a reasonable water supply.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

- Mr Acting Deputy President - (Government senators interjecting)

Senator DAVIDSON:

-I do not see why I should be prevented from entering this debate.

After all, the honourable senator who led for the Opposition on this matter referred at length to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Honourable senators will not need to be reminded that I had the privilege of being the Chairman of that Committee. The States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill which is before the Senate this evening, deals with water quality, water quantity and water distribution. I remind the Senate of the opening remarks of the second reading speech of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon). He said that the Bill concerned the provision of grants for the measurement of the quality of surface water and the measurement of underground water resources. As Senator Carrick said when he was speaking earlier this evening, following a recommendation by the Australian Water Resources Council there was an accelerated program of surface and underground water investigation. It became apparent to the Water Resources Council that a program would benefit greatly by an assessment of water quality. The Bill provides for the allocation of funds for this specific purpose which has already been outlined.

In order that a planned program for water quality, management, conservation and development might be developed, it is essential, as the Minister has said, that a national water quality assessment program be implemented. I would remind the Senate, and I would remind the Government particularly and the Minister especially, that if they would like to look at the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and look at the main recommendations they will see these words:

The main recommendations of the Committee are:

A National Policy. Australia should adopt a national approach to the management of its water resources which sets out acceptable standards, co-ordinates the aims and aspirations of State and local government authorities, and creates the machinery to achieve them in balance with other national goals such as those for growth and development.

A National Body. The Commonwealth should take urgent steps to establish a National Water Commission.

The functions of the Commission should include:

the formulation of a national policy on water resources management;

b ) an assessment of water resources and quality:

I would remind you, Mr Deputy President, that the Bill which is before the Senate tonight deals specifically with an assessment of water resources and quality. The report goes on:

  1. Programming for the conservation and orderly development of water resources.

In short, the Bill before the Senate tonight is an accurate and almost word by word reflection of the Water Pollution Committee’s report which was tabled in the Senate in 1970.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Who were the other members of the Committee, Senator?

Senator DAVIDSON:

– I was privileged to be the Chairman and my colleague, Senator Mulvihill, was also a member of the Water Pollution Committee. I take the opportunity to refer to the work of the River Murray Commission. I refer to a speech that I made earlier this year at the opening of the 1974 Summer School of Environmental Qualities in which I drew attention to the fact that I felt that the River Murray Commission should have a wider representation, a bigger budget and a livelier administration. In these days of decentralisation, as Senator Carrick has said, South Australia with its development of Monarto, which I believe and hope will be a great city in due course, will depend very heavily- in fact totally- on the water from the River Murray. Therefore, I believe that the Bill which is before us should provide the opportunity for the development of an assessment of water quality and water management. Australia above all other countries in the world is dependent upon an adequate supply of quality water not only for domestic and personal use, but also for growth of quality of life and industrial development. The measure that is before us points the way in which these things may be undertaken. We challenge the Government to see that the high ideals which it has been expressing in this measure will be fulfilled.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– in reply- I was told before the debate started this evening that it would be very brief, that Senator Carrick would say a few words on the subject, that the Bill would not be opposed by the Opposition and would go through without delay. I must confess that I had a rather uneasy feeling about the matter from the very start before I came into the chamber. It was only as the debate progressed that I realised what gave me this sense of diquiet. Lurking in the back of my mind were memories of the Chowilla and Dartmouth debate- an issue which has riven Australian society. Few other issues since 1788 have divided this country into such factions. There seems to be a sort of romantic quality about the River Murray that brings out the passions of those who frequent its banks. This has certainly been illustrated this evening. I would not wish to dwell on the matter because Senator Carrick has complimented the Government, Senator Davidson appears to agree with the Government, Senator Laucke was casting strictures in various directions but I took it they were not in mine -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You have not heard Senator Poyser and me in the Committee stage yet.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am looking forward to that with eager anticipation. It would be nice to go back to the Dartmouth-Chowilla debates. They had a certain soothing feeling for those of us who did not come from that part of the country. Senator Laucke, I think, has told us we should keep politics out of water. I gather that was his message to the chamber this evening, but it was a little difficult after hearing the exchanges between Senator Hall and Senator McLaren. The only issues that have been raised to which I feel I need reply- the others referred to the South Australian Government, for which I am not responsible, and to past causes which have already been fought and won or lost- were matters which were raised by Senator Hall. He asked that there should not be any change in the River Murray Commission. There is no intention that there should be any change in that Commission. No change is proposed in this Bill, nor has it been suggested, so far as I know, by anybody at all. So if Senator Hall, who looks very worried at the moment, is seriously concerned about this I should like to allay his fears; he really has nothing to worry about.

He also offered us a few other apercus during the course of his remarks on the subject. He said that the Australian Labor Party was the most conservative and reactionary Party in Australia. The only 2 things I would say about that is that it is an interesting departure to be outflanked from the left. Generally people have been telling me to go back to either Moscow or Peking, so to be outflanked from the left in this way by Senator Hall is a new experience. The other thing I would say about this is that if the Australian Labor Party is the most reactionary and conservative Party in Australia it must be a most reactionary and conservative Party indeed. Senator Hall said that the Australian Labor Party was unable to match ‘the moving scene in front of it’. The moving scene in front of it at the time I was looking seemed very passive indeed. I must say again that if I could not match the moving scene I was looking at at the time when he made these observations to me then I must be totally paralysed. All I would say on this matter in conclusion is that I am glad that, despite the sharp exchanges that have occurred- reminiscent of earlier days gone by- there is so much unanimity on this measure. I think that the Opposition has -

Senator Marriott:

– Still waters run deep.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Still waters indeed do run deep but they do not run very silently. It is to be noted that this important legislation is the product of an Australian Labor Party government. I am glad to see that for once the members of the Opposition are following a constructive course of rallying behind the Government and not pursuing their usual obstructive role. It is quite a red letter day in that sense although I suppose that, in view of what Senator Hall has said, it would be rather surprising for me to be using the word ‘red’. I thank the Opposition for its cooperation in the passage of the Bill, although in future I would suggest that when Opposition senators are supporting a Bill it might be better if they were to put in writing any other remarks they wished to make.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3331

RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 November, on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3331

NURSING HOMES ASSISTANCE BILL

1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 December, on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-Mr Deputy President, I suggest that the Nursing Homes Assistance Bill and the Homeless Persons Assistance Bill should be debated together.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is that approved by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation?

Senator Wheeldon:

– The Government has no objection to that, Mr Deputy President.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Opposition supports the measures provided for in both Bills. The Nursing Homes Assistance Bill seeks to authorise the Government to enter into agreements with charitable and other non-profit organisations conducting nursing homes. It introduces a new procedure in support of the nursing homes, that is, the establishment of a deficit financing system. The Opposition has some reservations about the introduction of this deficit funding assistance, but it has been led to understand from the terms of the Bill that it will be in the hands of the nursing homes themselves to elect whether they will take part in the new scheme which has been outlined. The scheme for deficit funding which has been arranged by the Government is one in which the proprietor of a nursing home will submit a budget, which will be examined by the Government. The Government will then make advances for support to the nursing home during the year and then at the end of the year a final annual deficit payment will be made.

We were interested to see that the arrangements will now provide for most patients to contribute $32 a week. When that is related to the pension of a single pensioner it means that some $4 a week will be left in his hands for personal expenses. We were delighted to see that this position has been again achieved. I recall that just prior to the Opposition parties going out of government the Minister for Health at that time, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, was able to come to an arrangement such as this for nursing homes assistance in relation to pensioner patients. We are delighted to see that this small measure of independence will be left to a pensioner patient in a nursing home for private expenditure. We suggest that perhaps it would have been preferable to have arranged for the contributions from patients to be a percentage or a proportion of the single pension entitlement, instead of the amount which has been stated in this instance, simply for the administrative reason that if a proportion of 95 per cent or something close to that were the amount which was required to be paid it would mean that there would be a variation according to the changes in pension entitlements. This was a suggestion that was made by the Opposition spokesman for social security in another place. We were interested to see that this new program will take effect from 1 January next year. We are hopeful that the system which has been outlined for deficit financing will enable the voluntary bodies which conduct nursing homes to achieve a better relationship between costs and support from government than has been the case in the most recent past.

There is one concern which I have in regard to this arrangement. I refer to a matter which has been raised by one of the States, namely that the Commonwealth is ignoring the views of State Ministers which were expressed at the Health

Ministers’ conference. These views were to the effect that the States were the bodies which should be funded in the deficit financing arrangements and that they in turn would negotiate with the voluntary bodies concerned. This Bill provides, however, that all the work will be done at the Commonwealth level on a direct relationship with voluntary bodies. This was a contrary view to that which was expressed at the Health Ministers conference earlier this year.

We believe that if the nursing homes do elect to become part of the deficit financing arrangement they will be placing in the hands of the Commonwealth Government their administrative decision-making. This is a matter which they may choose to do in vast numbers and perhaps that remains to be. seen, because if they do not elect to become part of the deficit financing arrangements they will then be able to continue with the present arrangements for support from the government on a subsidy basis. With those remarks I simply say that we welcome the new measures of assistance to voluntary nursing homes because they are a vital part of our community service for those people who need this sort of assistance. I hope that the direct relationship which the Federal Government will have with the voluntary nursing homes will be a workable one and one that in retrospect we will be able to say has been achieved in the bypassing of the States, which is obviously an interpretation of the Bill.

The other measure which is related to the Department of Social Security provides for assistance to homeless persons. We are delighted to see that the Government has introduced this new proposal which will provide assistance which has not previously been available. Grants totalling some $2.2 m are now paid to organisations which will be caring for homeless men and women throughout the community. These are the first funds to be allocated under the new program, which it is anticipated will be spread over 3 years, will provide for rental of premises to be covered and for subsidies towards salaries of social workers and other qualified people who assist in this field, and will in general, we believe, provide a very much needed service in the community. We welcome the opportunity to express our appreciation that assistance will be given to people who for various social reasons have found that they are homeless. The Bill fills a gap in the services which are provided in this area. For these reasons we give our support to both of the Bills which have been introduced. We desire to see that they have a speedy passage to enable this assistance to reach those in the community who need it.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I merely wish to speak on the Nursing Homes Assistance Bill which will authorise the Federal Government to enter directly into agreement with religious and charitable nursing homes to allow these nursing homes to operate at a loss with the Federal Government meeting these losses by so-called deficit financing. The Bill therefore is nothing more than an instrument for socialisation. It is a further example of the duplicity of this Government and of the fact that it is behaving in a contradictory fashion. I say it is an example of duplicity because it uses the plight of ‘those in the community, particularly the aged who are in need of specialised care and treatment’ to achieve its purpose. It is contradictory because this Bill will establish a system of openended government financing, the system which was used to vilify the voluntary health insurance funds in the Government’s fight to socialise health. In addition, this Bill proposes direct financing of nursing homes thus by-passing the State health departments. This represents another attempt to weaken the authority of State governments with the eventual goal of their total destruction.

On top of those things, the Federal Government is trying to use religious and charitable institutions as an instrument to destroy the private nursing homes. It will do so, firstly, by allowing the religious and charitable nursing homes to operate at a loss and then picking up the tab, and secondly, by subsidising the religious and charitable institutions to buying the private nursing homes. This again is achieving the Federal Government’s socialist policy by splitting the nursing home industry right up the centre. Having been in the business myself, I know that the subsidy the Government will have to provide will be an escalating subsidy. The Government eventually will squeal at the size of this subsidy and start a program of propaganda against these institutions, a program that will cause the taxpayers to kick against the churches. The people will be brainwashed to question these heavy subsidies. The churches will find that they have sold their souls and their freedom, and their nursing homes will be taken over by the Government. This is socialisation. The religious and charitable nursing homes pay no taxes, including payroll tax and sales tax, yet this Government proposes to allow them to charge no fees. Where will this leave the private nursing homes?

This is an iniquitous Bill. Its provisions will crush the private nursing homes and at the same time will swallow the religious and charitable nursing homes. The Bill ignores the views of the State Ministers for Health as expressed at their recent conference. It was their view that if any system of deficit funding was to be introduced it should be handled through the States. The Bill provides that all the work involved will be done by the Commonwealth. This will require an army of personnel, at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, to duplicate services already in existence and provided by the States. I refer to such things as inspections and licensing. Why have such an unnecessary and costly duplication started in 3 weeks? Why has this been allowed to come about when this Government already has the nation on its financial knees? Clause 12 refers to the agreement to be entered into ‘by Australia and any proprietor’, thus by-passing the States. The Bill seems to have been hastily prepared because clauses 4 and 35 appear to be contradictory. The responsibility, which includes matters relating to facilities and standards, will be transferred under this Bill from the Director-General of Health to the Permanent Head of the Department of Social Security who is not a medical officer. Clause 29 of the Bill would clearly overrule all State laws as it states:

  1. . notwithstanding anything contained in a law of a State . . .

Under deficit funding, as proposed in clause 9, religious and charitable nursing homes will find that they are under strict control as to the provision of new beds although a nursing home may consider that new beds are necessary, the decision will no longer be one for it to make.

Under clause 11 it is proposed that approvals may be varied or revoked, all at the whim of the Permanent Head of the Department of Social Security. Under clause 1 7 the religious and charitable nursing homes will be subjected to committees of inquiry. These iniquitous committees of inquiry are the very same sorts of things that initiated the revolt of the general practitioners against socialised health schemes. How can the religious and charitable institutions be so naive as even to contemplate entering into an agreement of this nature with any government, especially this avowed and pledged socialist Government? They should abandon their altruistic principles of thinking that they are helping the poor and disadvantaged by offering the sacrifice of their personnel and patients to this socialist monster. It is a misdirection of the highest human emotions to enslave others through ignorance. The fiery fangs of the Federal Government are poised above them. They should resist the golden carrots that are dangled before them, drawing them and us nearer to our own entrapment.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Who wrote this?

Senator SHEIL:

– It is all my own work senator.

Senator Georges:

– I rise on a point of order. If it is the honourable senator’s own work he surely ought to be able to refrain from reading it. It is becoming tedious. It is misrepresentation. He ought to be able to deliver his speech without continual reference to his notes. I suggest, Sir, that you advise the honourable senator that he is not supposed to read a speech in this place.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- I find that there is no point of order involved.

Senator SHEIL:

-Thank you Mr Deputy President. The Federal Government is attempting to buy votes. It has assumed financial responsibility for these people, so let the Federal Government pay the right price for their votes. I advise the religious and charitable nursing homes not to enter into any deficit funding agreements with the Federal Government. I advise them to charge their patients the right fees in order to service their capital costs, their running costs and their maintenance costs, and to update costs and the costs of future expansion. By doing this they will quickly bring the Government to heel as the electors will not stand for the Government shirking its responsibilities to the very people it has promised to support. The Government’s deal is really with the patients, not with the nursing homes. By acting as I have suggested the nursing homes will improve the services that they are able to provide and will provide them in a much more congenial atmosphere, in freedom and in control of their own destinies and in the finest religious and charitable principles and traditions.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– If I may say so, without being in any way offensive to anyone, Senator Sheil I find a very puzzling figure. When one speaks to him outside the Senate he is a very amiable fellow indeed. But once he enters the Senate chamber he seems immediately to subscribe to a most extravagant conspiracy theory of history. He sees dangers lurking where none have otherwise perceived them. In fact he told us tonight in his own, I would say, inimitable phraseology that the fiery fangs of the Federal Government have brought the nation to its financial knees. What he is telling us in order to establish this point about the fiery fangs of the Federal Government bringing the nation to its financial knees is that the Federal Government has decided to pay quite substantial subsidies to religious and charitable nursing homes. In the past- I think this is where Senator Sheil ‘s conspiracy theory comes in- he has detected a conspiracy. In the past there have been the extreme left wing parties like the Australian Labor Party. Here he differs with Senator Hall who told us earlier that we were the most conservative and reactionary Party in Australia. Senator Sheil cannot go along with that; he can see only our fiery fangs. Senator Sheil is of the opinion that there is a sinister plot and that instead of deliberately setting out to persecute the religious and charitable organisations, we are much more subtle and sinister- that what we do is to pay substantial sums of money to religious and charitable institutions in order to conduct their nursing homes and this shows how much opposed we are to religious and charitable nursing homes. Apparently the way we should show our support of religious and charitable institutions would be to pay them no money at all. The less one gives them, on Senator Sheil ‘s doctrine, the more one shows one’s sympathy for religious and charitable institutions.

I do not know whether he puts this view forward with regard to Government aid to private schools. Does he also argue that by giving state aid to church schools we are setting out to subvert the churches, because it would seem to me that if one is subverting religious and charitable institutions which conduct nursing homes by paying them these substantial sums of money, the same would apply to the schools which are conducted by religious and, if not charitable, then non-profit making organisations? However, that is what he tells us. He tells us also that we are interfering with the nursing homes industry. I must say that I was a little startled to hear, even from Senator Sheil, that the provision of nursing homes for sick and incapacitated people is an industry. I would have thought that this was a public service, and was recognised by all people as being a public service, and hardly an industry. I can only infer from this that Senator Sheil would have an ideological disagreement with religious and charitable institutions which do not conduct their nursing homes as an industry but conduct them not to make a profit. Apparently Senator Sheil would tell us that nursing homes should be an industry, a profit-making industry, and should be asking the maximum amount that the market will allow them to ask in order to extract as much as they can from the unfortunate people who have to live in them and from the relatives and friends of those unfortunate people who have to look after them.

We repudiate that proposition. We do not believe that nursing homes should be an industry. We believe that they are a social service which ought to be provided by the community to the people of Australia. We do not say that they ought to be provided solely by the State or solely by the Federal Government with or without fiery fangs. We say that if religious and charitable institutions are to provide those services to the sick, incapacitated and aged people of Australia they should be supported in doing so by the Federal Government and this is what we are proposing to do by the Bills which are before the Senate tonight.

It will be entirely open and entirely optional for the religious and charitable institutions to take the aid which is provided by the Bills. It is not in any way mandatory upon them to take it. It is entirely optional. If Senator Sheil is able to convince any religious or charitable institution that it should not offer competition to the private entrepreneurs in the nursing homes industry, that it should fear the fiery fangs of the Federal Government which has brought this country, as he puts it, to its financial knees and if he is able to convince it of these dire threats then it does not need to accept this assistance which is being offered to it by the Federal Government. It is entirely up to the institutions whether they take it or leave it. The Government does not believe that there are many religious and charitable institutions which would be so silly as to reject the assistance which is being offered to them by the Government.

With regard to the position of private nursing homes about which Senator Sheil is so agitated, I am informed that there has been a decline in the number of approved beds operated by private gain entrepreneurs over the past financial year. However, this decline has been covered by an increase in State and voluntary non-profit homes, the latter being the sort of homes which are being assisted by the Bill we are discussing, resulting in a net gain of some 1,100 nursing home beds throughout Australia in 1 973-74.

There are a number of factors involved in the decline of nursing home beds in the private sector of the nursing homes industry, as Senator Sheil would call it. In Queensland, the main reason has been the closing down of premises which have been the subject of adverse fire reports. In other cases, closure has largely been due to the dissatisfaction of individual proprietors with their profit margins- the growth of which has been limited by the controls imposed over the fees charged by the proprietors. I think that at this stage I should remind honourable senators that the supervision of fees was introduced, not by this Government, but by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government, in amendments to the National Health Act in 1972. We did not introduce these restrictions. They were introduced by the previous Federal Government which felt so embarrassed by the private nursing homes that they had to take some action to regulate their fees.

This Government, however, does recognise the role of the private gains sector in the nursing homes industry, in that it does provide care and accommodation for some sick aged people. The Government has no intention of forcing the closure of private profit nursing homes which are operating satisfactorily and which are fulfilling a need in the community by providing a good standard of nursing care and treatment for our aged people. We do not believe they are entitled- as they are in the industry for the purpose of making a profit- to the same sort of financial assistance that we are giving to religious and charitable institutions which are conducting nursing homes without any thought of private profit by way of service to the public.

Possibly it is in the spirit of Christmas, or maybe it is because of the fact that the title of the Bill- The Homeless Persons Assistance Billaroused some sympathetic spark in the breasts of honourable senators, that we are still here when everybody else has gone home. The Opposition spokesman on this matter, Senator Guilfoyle, agreed to the passage of the Bill and, in fact, supported it. Senator Guilfoyle did raise one small point and that was to the effect that it would be advantageous to provide for a percentage increase in the patient contribution rather than a flat rate fee. The view of the Government is that this would impose intolerable administrative burdens on the provision of these contributions. For that reason, as Senator Guilfoyle suggested herself, this provision has not been introduced. However, the Bill does provide for the patient contributions to be varied by regulations having regard to movements in the pension rates, which is very much the same sort of thing that Senator Guilfoyle was talking about without making provision for an actual percentage. The Opposition, I am told, is supporting these Bills. There seems to be some division in the Opposition as I take it that Senator Sheil is opposed to the Bills.

Senator Sheil:

– No. I am not opposing them.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I thought he was opposing them. When one hears the references of Senator Sheil to the fiery fangs of the Government, it sounds as though he is opposing the legislation. But I am told he is not opposing it. I can only say that if that is support, it is the strangest support of which I have heard. But we are prepared to welcome any support. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

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

page 3335

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 December on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3335

WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF MOTION

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

– In the absence of and on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Murphy, I withdraw Notice of Motion No. 1, Government Business, standing in Senator Murphy’s name.

page 3335

QUESTION

TAXATION ADMINISTRATORS

Notice of Motion

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

– I ask for leave to give a notice of motion.

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

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 the Senate expresses its confidence in the Commissioner of Taxation, Sir Edward Cain, and the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation, Mr John Curtin.

page 3335

KING ISLAND SHIPPING SERVICE AGREEMENT BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 December on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BESSELL:
Tasmania

-The Opposition does not oppose the King Island Shipping Service Agreement Bill 1974, but I think there are one or two observations that could be made beneficially at this time. During the debate on this Bill in the other House mention was made of the fact that after the reintroduction of the ‘Straitsman’ to the King Island service a freight subsidy was not paid. I think it was fairly obvious to everyone that one of the reasons for the ‘Straitsman’ being introduced to the service was basically to overcome the problems associated with the small ship that had been doing this trade for so many years, namely, the ‘King Islander’. It was decided by Captain Houfe, I believe quite wisely, that the throughput and the capacity of the service were terribly important. The same situation applies in the dairy industry. The ‘Straitsman’ was eventually put into service. Unfortunately, due to a problem of liquidity, it had to be withdrawn from the service after only 7 weeks.

There were probably a number of reasons for that. The basic reason, or one of the biggest reasons, was the cost of crewing the ship. I think we came across this very problem in a debate some weeks ago. Because of the award under which the seamen work, they work for a period of only 32 weeks in each year. This has the effect of making the cost of crewing a ship on a single man continuous complement basis about $ 1 5,000 a year. That is a pretty heavy burden for a small ship to carry, particularly when it is trading over only short distances. We know that the cost of shipping increases every time a ship is tied up and, on the triangular service upon which this ship was engaged, it was fairly obvious that a good deal of the time of the ‘Straitsman’ had to be spent tied up in one of the 3 ports that she visited.

Mention was also made in the debate of the fact that the subsidy was not granted because the previous Commonwealth Government had provided money on the basis of 50 per cent loan and 50 per cent grant for the establishment of a port at Grassy. I do not think that that has any real bearing on the matter. However, that in fact was the situation. The Bethune Liberal Government in Tasmania authorised the establishment of a roll-on roll-off terminal at Stanley, so no grant was involved in that. I think that a quote from the King Island ‘News’ is relevant at this time to show something of the problem that this island has had and is in fact unfortunately still experiencing. The King Island ‘News’ of Wednesday, 11 October 1972, carries the headline ‘Labor

Party pledge ANL to King Island trade’. It goes on to say:

The Warden, Cr. O. A. Smith was told this morning that the Australian Labor Party had pledged the Australian National Line for the King Island run if it is elected to the Government in December.

Cr. Smith said Captain R. H. Houfe ‘s legal adviser, Mr R. F. M. Hollow, had rung him this morning and said he had a telegram from the A.L.P. saying this would be Federal Policy.

Cr Smith rang the manager of the Transport Commission’s Shipping Services, Captain A. Maddock in Hobart this morning to confirm this and other information given to him by Mr Hollow that the Federal Government had said no further import licences would be issued for ships.

When we check on what the telegram said we find that referring to the House of Representatives Hansard at page 4550 of 4 December that the telegram as reported read as follows:

Federal Parliamentary Party today approved the following policy decision. A Federal Labor Government will require the Australian National Line to assume responsibility for the King Island Shipping Service and, for this purpose, to negotiate with the owners of the ship Straitsman which was specifically designed for this purpose.

The telegram dated 15 March 1973 was signed Ron Davies MHR’. Senator Cavanagh, representing the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) at that time, said:

The Australian National Line has been instructed to purchase the ‘Straitsman ‘. I believe I said yesterday that the vessel would not be suitable and would not be engaged. It is to start the service to King Island when agreement has been reached on manning conditions, about which there was some trouble previously. The ANL has been asked to maintain separate accounts for the operation of this service because it is realised that it will not be a profitable one. When the ‘ King Islander’ was in use the Government was subsidising the freight to the extent of $3.35 a ton and this cost approximately $150,000 a year. I can assure the honourable senator that the service will be operating in the future.

I think we all know what happened. Eventually the Tasmanian Government through its Transport Commission decided that it wanted to operate this service itself and sought assistance from the Federal Government by way of a loan for the purchase of this ship. In the meantime a Senate Committee was set up to investigate a shipping service to King Island and the use of the vessel the ‘Straitsman’. That Committee came up with its report.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It was not really a Senate committee; it was a Liberal Party committee.

Senator BESSELL:

– Yes, but the Government was invited to nominate members.

Senator Rae:

– They were so disinterested they would not join it.

Senator BESSELL:

– Thank you for your assistance, senator; I was just about to say what you said.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Do you mean disinterested or uninterested?

Senator BESSELL:

– I do not know whether they were interested or uninterested, but they did not appear at the hearing although they were invited to appear and to assist.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Completely disinterested.

Senator BESSELL:

-They could have been there.

Senator Wheeldon:

– We were.

Senator BESSELL:

– It may well be that they are still disinterested.

Senator Wheeldon:

– We are; entirely disinterested.

Senator BESSELL:

– You are, good.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes, but not uninterested.

Senator BESSELL:

– Well, the people of King Island would be very interested to know and hear that. The accusations against the previous government about inaction can, I think, be readily disposed of by referring to Senate Hansard of 3 May 1973 at page 1335. 1 quote a letter from the previous Minister for Snipping and Transport, the honourable Peter Nixon. He said:

The Government remains extremely concerned about the deterioration of shipping services to King Island. However, it considers the provision of these services rests essentially with the Tasmanian State Government and its Transport Commission. I have discussed the problems facing the Island with both State and company representatives and, without presuming to interfere in an area of State responsibility -

I emphasise that- have offered to consider any proposals that the State may make to the Commonwealth.

I think that this is extremely important because that statement was made 5 months after the Straitsman’ had been tied up. In all that time arguments had been going on as to who was going to conduct the service. People were urging the Australian Government to assume responsibility through the Australian National Line. The Tasmanian Government wished to assume responsibility. Unfortunately, through a tragic accident in March of this year, that vessel is no longer in service.

Whilst the Government has recognised that there is a need for it to assist Tasmania in providing a service to the Island, it also appears that action has been taken by the Government to allow the importation and the use of a new ship called the ‘Rah ‘. I understand from a visit I made to the Island a week or two ago that this in itself will create a problem. It is just one of those unfortunate things that happen.

Senator Rae:

– Is it unfortunate or is it bad management?

Senator BESSELL:

– It could be one or the other. We find that this ship is completely different in design from the ship that was operating the service before. We now have a ship that is longer and broader than the ‘Straitsman’, the result being that the rear ramp will not match up with that of the ship. The ship will protrude beyond the wharf, and if there is any breeze she will swing away. That is fairly obvious to people who are expert in this field. Whilst it will possibly assist the people of the Island in removing cargo either to the north or to the south it will not be the complete answer. On the information available it looks as though it will be about July of next year before the ‘Straitsman’ will be refitted and back in service. These are problems that the Island has had for a long time. The Minister will remember that a few days ago I asked whether consideration would be given by the Minister for Transport to the use of the ‘Argosy ‘ on a full load level for the transport to Melbourne of beef which tends to build up at this time of the year due to the drying out conditions on the Island. I have not yet had a reply to that request.

Whether the ‘Rah’ will do what is asked of it remains to be seen. For the sake of the people on the Island, it is to be hoped that it will. Last year we saw the nearly untenable situation that a lot of people on the Island had to suffer when beef and other meat was at its highest price for many years past and probably for many years to come and they were not able to shift the stock from the Island because the ships were unable to handle the tremendous backlog. This was due to the procrastination which took place when the ‘Straitsman’ was withdrawn and until it was reintroduced on the service. It was during a voyage when it was carrying stock from the Island that it tragically capsized. The people of the Island are used to adversities- they are long ranging- and we hope that this Bill will allow the Tasmanian Transport Commission to purchase this ship with all the bad fortune that has befallen it, and when it is refitted to put it back into service.

There is one question I would like the Minister to keep in mind and to answer. As I understand it, the price that was being asked for the ‘Straitsman’ from the receivers was $1,000,070. This Bill makes an appropriation of $1.4 15m. I am wondering why there is a discrepancy, whether there has been any alteration in the figures or whether the cost was, in fact, higher than the original amount mentioned. I do not wish to take any more time. I know that Senator Rae, through his involvement for many years with the King

Island shipping problems, has something more to add. I indicate again that we support the Bill.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish to add a little to what has been said. I do not wish to detain the Senate for too long knowing the anxiety which prevails to ensure that the legislation is passed and people can return to their electorates. Talking of electorates I am reminded of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), the honourable member for Newcastle, who made a famous statement which appealed to Tasmanians no end, that there were more votes in Newcastle than there were in Tasmania, so why worry about Tasmania. He endeared himself as he has in so many other statements he has made about Tasmania. I refer to the withdrawal of the air subsidy for the Bass Strait islands and all sorts of other things which have so adversely affected the interests of Tasmania and in particular the interests of the people with whom we are concerned in the Bill tonight, the people of King Island.

This same gentleman, Mr Charles Jones, the honourable member for Newcastle, made some statements which are reported on page 4557 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 4 December 1974 which are so demonstrably untrue that I wish to take a little time to demonstrate how untrue they are. I think people can gauge the veracity and the general political honesty of the Government if they note what happened in this instance. Mr Jones, the Minister for Transport, said:

When this problem first arose with the ‘Straitsman’ being taken off the King Island run he literally lived on my door step.

He’, I interpose, was Mr Davies. Mr Jones continued:

He was never out of my office- putting propositions to me about what could be done. I did not receive one word of representation from a member of the Liberal or Country parties or from one Liberal Tasmanian senator. They had no interest in this matter whatsoever. Not one of them made any representations to me. They could not give a damn what happened to the ‘Straitsman ‘ or to the King Island trade. Let us git the facts clear. These are the facts.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Shocking, is it not?

Senator RAE:

- Senator Cavanagh, the Minister at the table, knows very well that that is a total and absolute untruth.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I do not know whether you made representations to the Minister or not.

Senator RAE:

– I thank the Minister for the interjection. If I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport I expect it to get to the Minister for Transport. If I am wrong I would be glad to be notified. More important than the question, to which I shall refer in a moment, is the statement of the Minister for Transport. He said:

They had no interest in this matter whatsoever.

They had sufficient interest, as has already been referred to, to move in the Senate that a select committee- the Senate Select Committee on Shipping Services between King Island, Stanley and Melbourne- be established to investigate the matter and to report. Three Tasmanian senators were members of that Committee. Senator Wright was the Chairman. Senator Townley and I were the other 2 members. We presented a report. Whether the report was accurate and whether it was the best possible assessment of the situation does not matter for the purposes of this debate. The fact is that the Government eventually acted on the report. The fact is that the State Government responded to it, as did the Federal Government. That is how we happen to be debating this Bill tonight. The State Government decided, as recommended by that Committee, to purchase the ‘Straitsman’. The Federal Government decided- this, too, was recommended generally by that Committee- that funds should be made available for the purchase. If that, according to Mr Charles Jones, is taking no interest- bearing in mind that 2 members of the Liberal Party and one independent Liberal Senator comprised the 3 members of that Committee- it does seem somewhat extraordinary use of the English language in which Mr Jones is engaging.

I have here a stack of copies of Hansard containing questions that I have asked in relation to the King Island shipping service- apart from the questions asked by Senator Wright, Senator Marriott and former Senator Lillico- throughout the whole period to which Mr Jones was referring. I have copies of Hansard containing some of the debates that we have had in this place. On 12 April 1973 1 drew attention to the fact that we were having great difficulty in getting the Minister to give certain information to us in relation to the King Island shipping service. I then said:

We have asked him repeatedly and he has not produced them.

I was referring to the reports. I then asked:

What is he trying to hide? What is the Tasmanian Government trying to hide . . .

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Senator Cavanagh was in this too, you know. Give him a mention in despatches.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I will come to him also. I do not like lying and I do not like people who lie. I should like to categorise in that way what Mr Jones said but I am not allowed to do so by parliamentary procedure. I simply say that I will proceed to demonstrate the lack of truth in the statement that he made. On 23 August 1973 in a debate in the Senate, I said:

I have visited the Island since the decision to restore the Straitsman’ to the Island service was taken by the Tasmanian Government, following the very considerable pressure which we applied to get it to take the decision, and I have had discussions with a number of representatives of the various organisations and bodies on the Island.

I should like to pick at random a few of the questions that I have asked. On 15 March 1973 I asked this question:

I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that one or more reports have been received by the Government relating to the investigation of the suitability of the ship ‘Straitsman’ for the King Island shipping service, to the appropriate type of ship to provide for the service and to considerations relating to the viability of a shipping service to King Island? If so, will the Minister make those reports available to all interested persons, particularly the residents of King Island, by tabling them in this chamber?

The Minister, Senator Cavanagh, said, amongst other things:

The Australian National Line has been instructed to purchase the ‘Straitsman ‘.

Senator Cavanagh came to regret that statement afterwards because if I remember correctly, he was caught in a change of policy. He said in good faith- I do not for a moment impute other than good faith to Senator Cavanagh- what he believed at the time to be the fact. But the Government had changed its mind, and we have come to expect this of the Government. As fast as it makes a decision one way it changes its mind, and without telling anybody it is off in a different direction. I felt somewhat sorry for Senator Cavanagh, but I felt all the more sorry for the people of King Island who were so totally confused about this matter. But on 15 March 1973 Senator Cavanagh concluded his answer- I again say he said this in good faith because he was saying what I have no doubt the Minister for Transport had obviously told him to say was the Government’s policy, but that policy was quickly reversed- by saying:

I can assure the honourable senator that the service will be operating in the future.

What he did not say perhaps was how long the future was to take. It took a long time.

There are all sorts of other quotes to which I could refer. Perhaps I could refer to the question I asked on 14 March 1973, which was the day before the day on which I asked the previous question to which I have referred. I asked the Minister:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Bearing in mind that the ship ‘Straitsman’ was built especially for the service from King Island to Tasmania and Victoria, will the Minister lay on the table all documents relating to the negotiations between the owners of the ship ‘Straitsman’ or their representatives . . . and the Government in respect to the reintroduction of that ship into the service for which it was built at a cost of $ 1.5m?

The Minister, Senator Cavanagh, who in this chamber represents the Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones, stated:

I will refer to the Minister for Transport the matter of laying papers on the table and ascertain whether he is prepared to do so.

If the Minister in this chamber did not do that, then perhaps Mr Charles Jones could be excused. But if Senator Cavanagh, as I would expect him to do, relayed that matter to the Minister whom he represents, then Mr Jones has no basis of fact upon which he can make his statement. I cite another example. On 8 May 1973 I again asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport about the serious shipping shortage. The Minister said that he would refer my question to the Minister for Transport to see what could be done. That question was answered on 5 June by the Minister providing an answer which was supplied by the Minister for Transport. On 16 May 1973 1 asked:

Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport indicate what is happening in relation to the proposal to restore the ship ‘Straitsman’ on a temporary basis to the King Island service? Is the Minister aware that the position in relation to Bass Strait island shipping to King Island and Flinders Island is now becoming extremely serious?

Mr Deputy President, I remind you that those were my words in this chamber on 16 May 1973 when I was referring to the extremely serious nature of the situation and seeking some action by this dilatory Government. Mr Jones, on 4 December last- just a few days ago- said in the House of Representatives:

I did not receive one word of representation from a member of the Liberal or Country Parties . . . Not one of them made any representations to me. They could not give a damn what happened to the ‘Straitsman’ . . .

I could go on for a very long time through this large stack of questions which I asked in this chamber without -

Senator Milliner:

– Success.

Senator RAE:

– Without success, it has been said. That is right. The Government was not responsive to the needs of the people of King Island. It could not give a damn, to use the words of Mr Jones. Eventually the Tasmanian Government responded to pressure placed on it by Liberal Party members, both State and Federal.

Senator Devitt:

– The words ‘it could not give a damn ‘ were not the words of Mr Jones. That was said in relation to you people opposite.

Senator RAE:

– That is right. I said that ‘could not give a damn ‘ were the words which he used. I simply say that it was the Government which could not give a damn.

Senator Milliner:

– Those are your words.

Senator RAE:

– Could not give a damn’ are the words used by the Minister. On 16 May Senator Cavanagh answered my question by stating:

No definite plans have been presented to the Commonwealth in respect of any proposal to hire the ‘Straitsman’ . . .

The Minister went on with a number of other aspects of the matter. On 6 June another question was asked about the King Island shipping service when, in response, the Minister stated:

Prior to the election and since the election this Government promised to subsidise shipping services to King Island.

I wanted to refer to this aspect because I would like to know where the subsidy is. This brings me to the other point which I want to make tonight. What we have given to the people of King Island and the people of Tasmania is a pretty poor deal. The Government makes a straight out grant of $1.5m to Western Australia for its coastal shipping service, and a grant for the railway through Central Australia. I do not decry the needs or interests of the people of Western Australia, Central Australia or the Northern Teritory but I point out that for the people of Central Australia and the Northern Territory this year there is to be a subsidy of $6m. The Government is making a loan to Tasmania to enable the State to purchase the ‘Straitsman’. No grant element is involved in it at all. It is a loan which has to be repaid and upon which interest is payable. It is, in effect, nothing.

Senator Bessell:

– It is a loan at 6 per cent over 1 5 years.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you, Senator Bessell. It is a magnificent gesture on the part of this Government to help King Island, is it not, because what is directly reflected in the result of this is a much higher freight rate than would otherwise apply if the Government had carried out its promise. I refer again to Senator Cavanagh ‘s answer on 6 June in which he said:

Prior to the election and since the election this Government promised to subsidise shipping services to King Island.

He went on to state later in the same answer:

I am sure that the Commonwealth would subsidise the operation by the Tasmanian Government of any shipping service it provides to King Island.

I would like to know the details of the subsidy. All I know at the moment is that what we have got is a loan to the Tasmanian Government to enable it to buy this ship. It is loan which has to be repaid and it is a loan upon which interest is payable. This must be reflected in the cost structure of the operation of the service. All sorts of other questions have been raised over the months. I do not take up the time of the Senate further, other than to say that if anybody would like to assert that there was any vestige of truth in the statement of Mr Charles Jones that we were disinterested, that we made no representations and that we did nothing about King Island, I will refer that person in detail to all the passages recorded in Senate Hansard, in addition to the Press cuttings, correspondence and the other matters which prove that in this respect Mr Jones was behaving as so many other members of this Government have behaved. They have behaved in a way that leaves a gigantic credibility gap when their statements are examined.

While I support this Bill, I do so with regret. I do so with reservations and with an expression of concern. My concern is that this money ought to have been made available, or at least a significant part of it, by way of grant if the Government were to act in the way it has treated other parts of Australia. I support the Bill with the regret that the Government has not seen fit to honour its promise that it would either direct the Australian National Line to operate this service on a basis of picking up the cost of any loss or subsidise the service. The best it has been prepared to do is to make available a loan repayable with interest. As I said, with regret I shall support the Bill. My regret is limited to the fact that the Government has not honoured its promises and given a reasonable deal to the people of King Island and to the people of Tasmania.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– After Senator Bessell had been speaking on this Bill for a few minutes tonight I thought that the Opposition has at last realised that the people of King Island are utterly sick of the political football antics of Senator Rae and some other members of the Opposition in relation to this shipping service. Unfortunately, Senator Bessell was led astray by Senator Rae by way of an interjection. Senator Rae has indulged in personal abuse of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and has indulged in a political apologia which has become very common with him so far as Tasmanian shipping services are concerned. I had hoped that, following Senator Bessell, I could have very briefly said that as a result of this measure and as a result of other actions taken by the Australian Government shipping problems of King Island which have bedevilled it for so long appeared likely to be solved in the immediate future. Unfortunately, in view of Senator Rae’s remarks tonight, I cannot leave it like that because the Government of which he was a supporter went out of office in December 1972 with a record so far as the King Island shipping service is concerned that was one of utter disgrace. I say that for 2 reasons. There was no effective King Island service when the Liberal-Country Party Government went out of office. There had not been an effective service for some 6 months, and in the period between June 1972 and December 1972 when the ‘Straitsman’ was not operating the Australian Government -

Senator Rae:

– Waited for the Tasmanian Government to do something.

Senator EVERETT:

– Will you just leave your apologia to another day. We have had enough of it tonight. The Australian Government refused every request from the Tasmanian Government for even temporary assistance to alleviate the situation and would not even guarantee, give or lend $300,000 which the Tasmanian Government requested in that period in order to solve temporarily the liquidity problems of the owner of the ‘Straitsman’. The Minister at the time was Mr Peter Nixon. If Senator Rae wants to apologise to the people of Tasmania on the air tonight let him say, when he gets the opportunity, what he did in that 6 months in order to get a change in the attitude of the then Australian Government.

Senator Rae:

– I will table correspondence, if you like.

Senator EVERETT:

– Whatever he did, it was not effective, and the then Australian Government made it perfectly plain that it regarded the Tasmanian Government as responsible so far as government help was needed for the maintaining of an effective shipping service to King Island. The then Australian Government washed its hands of the matter. If it had still been in office its hands would still have been washed of the matter, but they would not have been very clean.

Senator Rae:

– At least there was an air passenger subsidy and an air freight subsidy.

Senator EVERETT:

– Whenever Senator Rae interjects in that characteristic manner of his we can always be sure that he has been touched on the raw. He is very good at resorting to offensive expressions such as ‘liar’ against a person who is not here- I refer to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones)- but when his own conduct is called in question one notices that he has resort to persistent interjections. They will not deter me.

The second respect in which the record of the previous Government is appalling is the conspiracy that was entered into- a political conspiracy- between the Government of which Senator Rae was a supporter and the Liberal Government of Tasmania to deprive the people of King Island of the benefit of a subsidy. This was the astute and devious way in which that was achieved. It was realised- and this was perfectly true, of course- that substantial improvements were necessary to the port facilities at King Island and it was decided while those 2 respective Liberal Governments were in power that extensive work should be done following a feasibility study. At that time there was a subsidy of $3.35 a ton which had been granted by the Australian Government in 1965 and which was worth approximately $150,000 a year. So in order to get rid of that subsidy the Tasmanian Liberal Government was bought off with a grant of $677,000 as half the cost of the construction of the new port facilities. That was done as recently as about 3 years ago and the Australian Government, of which Senator Rae was a supporter, capitalised an annual contribution of something like $ 1 50,000 over a 416-year period by making a grant of $677,000. That was done by a government which now in opposition through Senator Rae and through the spokesman for Tasmania in another place when the matter was debated there urges that subsidies be reintroduced. I say to Senator Rae in the concluding stages of this debate tonight: Let the Opposition tell us, not next week, not next year, but now, before the debate on this Bill concludes, specifically what it will promise for the King Island shipping services if it is elected to government. And let it be specific.

Debate interrupted.

page 3341

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Orde r ! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3342

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Polyvinyl Chloride Resin and Vinyl Chloride Monomer (Question No. 189)

Senator Poyser:

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

  1. 1 ) How many tonnes of polyvinyl chloride resin is used annually in Australia.
  2. When was vinyl chloride monomer first manufactured in Australia.
  3. What is the permitted level of panicles per million particles of air ( ppm ) in vinyl chloride monomer.
  4. Is the ppm level likely to be reduced in the near future.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Usage of polyvinyl chloride resin in 1974 is expected to be 90,000 to 100,000 tonnes about 80 per cent of which will be produced locally.
  2. Vinyl chloride monomer was first introduced in Australia in 1949.
  3. Legislative responsibility for the administrative control of vinyl chloride as an atmospheric contaminant outside the Territories rests with the State Governments. There is no legislation in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory for the control of vinyl chloride as a contaminant.
  4. The National Health and Medical Research Council at its 79th Session on 14-13 November 1974 recommended a ceiling value of SO parts per million and a time weighted average value of 25 parts per million and, wherever practicable, exposure be brought as near as possible to zero concentrations. These levels will be reviewed at 6 monthly intervals. All Health Ministers are advised of Council recommendations.

Victoria: Country Fire Authority (Question No. 158)

Senator Poyser:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Country Fire Authority of Victoria occupy approximately 350 acres of Australian Government land at Fiskville which is within 50 miles of Melbourne, if so, (a) what are the terms of the lease (b) what is the basis of the Authority’s requirements for the land and (c) what is the Authority’s tenure of the land.
  2. Is the Authority spending millions of dollars to establish on Australian fovernment land an exclusive type of country club under the guise of establishing a fire fighting training college.
  3. Have hundreds of thousands of dollars already been expended on the project, if so, for what reason.
  4. Is the Authority, in establishing a training college at Fiskville, duplicating a highly sophisticated full-time fire fighting training centre in Melbourne, which is available to the Authority for training purposes.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. Under a Contract of Sale dated 26 March 1971, the former Overseas Telecommunications Commission property comprising approximately 150 hectares (372 acres) was sold to the Country Fire Authority.

The terms of the Contract of Sale give the Country Fire Authority an equitable interest in the property, although the Authority would not become legal owners until the terms of the contract have been met. (i.e. 1981 for final payment).

  1. 2 ) and ( 3 ) The Training Wing of the Country Fire Authority of Victoria moved to Fiskville in August 1972 and commenced operations in mid September 1972.

Certain building works and renovations of existing buildings have been undertaken by the Country Fire Authority to establish their Training Wing at this site.

Being a Country Authority, the Training Wing had to provide live-in facilities including quarters, dining rooms and kitchens.

The cost of building works and renovations carried out by the Country Fire Authority since they purchased the property, is not readily available.

  1. The Metropolitan Fire Brigade Melbourne has established a Training College in Melbourne for the training of its officers and firemen.

The facilities provided and the courses undertaken at these two training establishments, are not known in detail, lt is expected that there could be some duplication, but as one is a Metropolitan Brigade and the other mainly rural, and composed of volunteers there will be areas where the training will be quite distinctive.

These two organisations are quite separate and each is responsible for its own training programmes.

Electoral: Alleged Offences During Federal Election Campaign (Question No. 255)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have any prosecutions occurred in respect of alleged offences committed during the election campaign preceding the double dissolution election on 1 8 May 1 974.
  2. Are any prosecutions pending in respect of any offences committed during the election campaign preceding the double dissolution election held on 1 8 May 1 974.
  3. If the answers to ( I ) and (2) are in the affirmative, who are the defendants and what are the alleged offences.
  4. What has been the outcome of any completed prosecutions.
  5. 5 ) When are any pending prosecutions to be heard.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Nol applicable.
  4. Not applicable.
  5. Not applicable.

Grants Commission: Brochure (Question No. 269)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Minister agree that there is some confusion in the brochure forwarded to local government bodies by the Grants Commission, which refers at one point to the Prime Minister’s statement that ‘applications for assistance with single purpose or specific developmental projects will not be the concern of the Grants Commission’ and the brochure’s advice that councils ‘may identify particular expenditure or revenue disabilities likely to justify their claim for financial assistance ‘
  2. ) Does he agree that, in Victoria at least, certain councils have enumerated specific projects and received grants for them while other councils have refrained from doing so, and have suffered accordingly.
  3. Is he prepared to re-examine and clarify the brochure to ensure that obscurities will be removed, so as to assist councils in the preparation of applications for the forthcoming year.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Prime Minister’s speech and the brochure make it clear that the purpose of the legislation is to provide equalisation grants of a revenue nature. The Grants Commission thus requires to be informed of the disabilities suffered by councils in raising revenue and in providing the ordinary services financed from this revenue. The Prime Minister’s statement regarding single purpose or specific development projects relates to expenditure of a capital nature and is thus entirely consistent with the advice given to councils in the brochure.
  2. The Grants Commission did not recommend grants for any specific projects which councils may have enumerated in their submissions to the Grants Commission.
  3. The Grants Commission’s brochure describes the methods and principles which it has adopted and the kind of information which should be provided by councils in their submissions for financial assistance. This material is supplemented by further elaboration in the Grants Commission’s ‘First Report 1974 on Financial Assistance for Local Government’. The Grants Commission will no doubt revise and re-issue the brochure to supplement this existing information when it considers that this is necessary.

Reserve Bank Board: Travel Costs of Members (Question No. 271)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was a meeting of the Reserve Bank Board held on Wednesday, 2 October 1974.
  2. In which city was the meeting held and was it a scheduled meeting.
  3. From which city did each member of the Board have to come for the meeting.
  4. Did the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions travel from Perth; if so, (a) by what means did he travel (b) what was the cost of the travel, and (c) did the Reserve Bank Board meet the cost of the travel.
  5. What responsibility does the Bank have to meet the travel costs of members of the Board from locations other than their home location for scheduled, as opposed to urgently convened, meetings of the Board.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

The Reserve Bank has advised as follows:

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. Sydney. It was a scheduled meeting.
  3. Subject to the answer to part (4), Board members resident outside Sydney travelled to the meeting from their home cities.
  4. The arrangements for Mr R. J. L. Hawke ‘s travel to Sydney for the meeting were not made or paid for by the Reserve Bank. The Bank met the cost of Mr Hawke ‘s journey to his home after the meeting.
  5. The Reserve Bank does not meet the travel costs of a Board member beyond the cost of the journey to and from his home.

Locust Control (Question No. 275)

Senator Martin:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Premier of Queensland request the Prime Minister, in March-April this year, to make available Commonwealth Government funds to help combat locust plagues then threatening Queensland grain crops; if so. what answer was given to this request.
  2. Has the Minister received any requests for such assistance from the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries: if so, what answer was given to those requests.
  3. What were the terms of the agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, when the decision was made to use Australian Army personnel and equipment to assist in spraying locust infestations in Queensland in mid- 1 973.
  4. For which categories of expenses did each Government agree to accept responsibility.
  5. What were the actual costs incurred in each of the categories.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

The question of Australian Government financial assistance to Queensland for locust control has been raised on a number of occasions. I refer in particular to my comments during a debate in the Senate on Tuesday 12 November 1974, which was related to requests for assistance to combat the current locust threat in Central Queensland. The answers, Senator Martin, to your specific questions which concern the outbreak occurring in the autumn of this year arc as follows:

1 ) On 18 March 1974 the Premier of Queensland asked the Prime Minister for a matching contribution from the $500,000 allocated by the Australian Government for the control of the Australian Plague Locust in the States of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia during 1973-74. A reply was forwarded to the Premier on 9 April confirming that a special purpose fund had been established to help combat this locust species and that the Minister for Agriculture had written to the Queensland Minister Tor Primary Industries regarding the details of the scheme. The letter also referred to the proposal to establish an Australian Plague Locust Commission.

On 10 April 1974 the Premier approached the Prime Minister for Australian Government assistance to help combat the outbreak of spur-throated locusts. He stated that ‘the basic requirement in locust control operations in central Queensland at present in manpower’ and ‘SO two-man teams are considered the present requirement’. The Prime Minister on 1 1 April 1974 advised the Premier that 100 men and spray equipment would be made available.

Yes. There was an exchange of correspondence which concerned the details of the assistance scheme referred to in the Prime Minister ‘s letter to the Premier of Queensland on 9 April 1974.

and (4) Australian Defence personnel and equipment were made available to assist in control of locust infestations in Queensland in April and May 1974. The Australian Government agreed to provide up to 100 men and such spray equipment as was available from defence resources, subject to the Queensland Government agreeing to meet any additional direct costs involved.

) This matter has not yet been finalised.

Australian Capital Territory: Rehabilitation Services (Question No. 276)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Minister acknowledge the views attributed to him in an article in the Canberra Advertiser of 9 October 1974.
  2. Did the article correctly state the Minister’s view on rehabilitation in the Australian Capital Territory that ‘what is done is streets ahead of anything anywhere else in Australia’.
  3. What assessments have been made of rehabilitation services in the Australian Capital Territory to justify this statement by the Minister.
  4. Are there any current objective assessments of rehabilitation services in the Australian Capital Territory; if so, will the Minister undertake to have them tabled in the Senate.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The article correctly states my views in the context of facilities and services for the early detection, treatment, rehabilitation and education of young handicapped children in the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. There is ongoing departmental monitoring of the effectiveness of the child screening and rehabilitation services, and continual team assessment of the treatment of individual cases. In addition, a Rehabilitation Advisory Committee comprising a variety of health and medical professionals from a number of Government and hospital departments reviews and makes recommendations on the adequacy of rehabilitation services in the Australian Capital Territory and co-ordinates departmental initiatives in this area.
  4. No objective assessments are currently being undertaken.

Reserve Bank and Commonwealth Banking Corporation: Appointments (Question No. 284)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) On what dates were Mr R. J. Hawke and Professor L. F. Crisp appointed to the Reserve Bank and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation respectively.
  2. ) What are the terms of their appointments.
  3. ) What salary and allowances are paid to each person.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Mr R. J. Hawke was appointed by the GovernorGeneral in Council as a member of the Reserve Bank Board for the period of five years commencing on 28 August 1973. Professor L. F. Crisp was appointed by the GovernorGeneral in Council as a member of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Board for the period of five years commencing on 19 February 1974. Professor Crisp was subsequently appointed by the Treasurer to the Executive Committee of the latter Board for the Commonwealth Savings Bank.
  2. The Governor-General in Council has determined that members of the Reserve Bank Board and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Board shall be paid remuneration at the rate of $3,200 per annum, plus, in the case of members of the latter Board appointed to an Executive Committee of the Board, an amount of $35 per day for attendance at meetings of the Committee held during a week when the full Board does not meet. Members of both Boards are also entitled to reimbursement of cost of travel and a per diem travelling allowance when engaged on the business of the respective Boards.

Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 289)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, puplicly advocated the return of the Labor Government.
  2. What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
  3. What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
  4. What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending ( a ) 30 June 1 973 and ( b ) 30 June 1 974.
  5. what is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1975.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) See the reply given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 302 Senate Hansard, 31 October 1974. page 2198.

Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 296)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of 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 1975.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. I ) to (5) I refer the honourable senator to the answer to question No. 302, provided by Senator Murphy, published in Hansard, 31 October 1974, page 2 198.

Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 298)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

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

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable senator to the information provided by the Prime Minister in reply to Question on Notice No. 302 (Senate Hansard, 31 October 1974, page 2198).

Housing: Interest Rates (Question No. 334)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What will be the amount of pay as you earn deductions during 1974-7S that will be allowed as interest deductions to those taxpayers buying a house.
  2. What would house purchasers save in 1974-75 if interest rates were reduced to those applicable in 1 972.
  3. ) Will the Treasurer increase the level of liquidity so that interest rates could be reduced for the benefit of house purchasers.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Housing loan interest payable on and after 1 July 1974 will be allowable as an income tax deduction to the extent of 100 per cent where the net income of the claimant taxpayer (joint net income where both husband and wife have separate incomes) does not exceed $4,000. That percentage will fall by one per cent for every $ 1 00 of net income ( or joint net income) in excess of $4,000. Employees who wish to take immediate advantage of the concession may opt to have it reflected in their PA YE deductions. For these taxpayers, the amount of salary and wages subject to PA YE deductions will be reduced from 1 January 1975 onwards: interest claimable in respect of the period 1 July 1974-3 1 December 1974 will show, in the normal way, in larger than usual credit assessments, or smaller than usual debit assessments, for the income year 1974-75.
  2. The data are not available that would be necessary for a reliable estimate to be made of the figure sought.
  3. Action has already been taken to increase the level of liquidity within the economy. In present circumstances, however, institutions that lend for purposes of house purchase have to pay current rates of interest to attract deposits and so are not in a position to reduce their lending rates.

Devaluation (Question No. 362)

Senator Carrick:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Does the $ 1,300m projected record Budget deficit include provision for the substantial increased costs due to devaluation.
  2. Is the Minister aware that the estimated additional costs for the Department of Foreign Affairs alone, as supplied to Estimates Committee B, are in the order of $ 1 4m.
  3. Do the latest figures for current Government expenditure, showing a 39 per cent increase over the previous year, challenge all the basic assumptions, particularly of inflation, embodied in the Budget.
  4. Will the Government submit to the Parliament by the resumption of sittings on 1 9 November 1 974 a full statement of proposed revenue and expenditure for the year 1974-75, revised to include all additional expenditure, commitments and revenue forecasts since the Budget, and indicating the specific additional costs, including those of devaluation.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. The preparation of detailed revised Budget estimates is a major task requiring the compilation of information from all departments and relevant authorities. Such a review will. as usual, be carried out in January 1 975. A summary indication of the effects of recent measures on the Budget was given by me in answer to a question without notice in the House of Representatives on 13 November. The extent to which that summary indication can be supplemented by detailed revised estimates will be considered following the January review but it is not practicable to publish a complete revision of the Budget figures at the present time. Estimates of actual Australian Government Budget outlays and receipts are, of course, published monthly.

Textiles Authority (Question No. 377)

Senator Bonner:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government extended the powers of the Textiles Authority, within the Industries Assistance Commission, to enable that Authority to recommend the restriction of textile imports to a more normal level, such as that which prevailed during 1972-73.
  2. Has the Government widened the scope of inquiry of the Textiles Authority to include all textile imports; if so, when is the inquiry to take place, and when does the Government expect to receive a report on which it can take action.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. The Government has asked the Textiles Authority within the Industries Assistance Commission to inquire into and report on a wide range of men’s, women’s, children’s and infants’ clothing, hosiery and gloves. The reference seeks the advice of the Authority on whether action should be taken in terms of the GATT Textiles Arrangement to restrain imports into Australia.

The Authority was also asked that if it is found .that restraint measures are necessary and that measures which may be recommended in accordance with the Arrangement are unlikely to overcome the market disruption, what other measures, if any, should be taken. Public hearings on this reference commenced in Sydney on 3 December 1974 and will commence in Melbourne on 11 December 1974. An interim report covering woven shirts and pyjamas is due by 30 December 1 974 while the full report is due by 29 January 1975.

  1. See(l).

Sales Tax (Question No. 383)

Senator Devitt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Is sales tax at the rate of 1 5 per cent currently applicable to all types of life-saving equipment used on small boats; if so, and in view of the growing use of small boats by inexperienced operators, will the Treasurer consider removing the tax as an incentive to small boat users to acquire such equipment.

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

Small boats used for purposes of pleasure, sport or recreation are taxable at the rate of 15 per cent. Most life-saving equipment used on them is taxable at the same rate but some is exempt under provisions in the law relating to other goods, e.g., life jackets are exempt as clothing for human wear. The removal of tax from the equipment that is not exempt will be considered when the question of granting further sales tax exemptions is next under examination.

Taxation: Private Companies

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 26 September 1974 Senator Webster asked me a question without notice concerning the taxation treatment of private companies. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I preface my reply by drawing to the honourable senator’s notice the announcement by the Prime Minister on 12 November 1 974 that the rate of tax payable by public companies on their 1973-74 incomes will be reduced from 47 Vi per cent to 45 per cent and that the rate of tax payable by private companies will remain at 45 per cent.

That said, I point out that the need to impose an undistributed profits tax on private companies stems from the fact that the owners and managers of private companies are usually one and the same persons. Unlike public companies, they do not have the same pressures on them to meet the demands of shareholders for regular returns from their investments. It would be possible, therefore, for the owners of private companies to avoid the payment of personal tax on their companies’ profits by refraining from distributing those profits. The Division 7 tax is intended to prevent avoidance of an appropriate amount of personal income tax.

By no means, however, is the tax levied to raise additional tax from private companies nor could it be said that the retention allowance provisions hinder the accumulation of funds by private companies; the fact that the companies’ shareholders and management are usually the same people suggests that they should be able to make arrangements for the reinvestment of dividends received after, of course, paying the appropriate amount of personal tax on them. I might add that, even as the law now stands, private companies are able to retain for ploughing back a percentage of their trading profits roughly comparable with the percentage retained on the average, in practice, by public companies.

In view of these considerations, I do not think a relaxation of the retention allowance is warranted.

Consumer Goods: Advertising Costs

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 17 October 1974, Senator Everett asked me several questions without notice on the cost of advertising. The Treasurer has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. It is extremely difficult to measure the overall effect of advertising upon the price of essential consumer goods.

Advertising costs, regarded as part of the costs of selling and distribution, will naturally be reflected in the final price of the product.

Some advertising could be considered unnecessary and would therefore maintain prices at higher levels than need be. However, advertising also has a legitimate function in conveying information about the product to consumers. It may also create additional demands which lead to longer production runs and a lowering of unit costs. This effect would, however, seem more likely to be substantial for new products than for most essential consumer goods. Unfortunately, no one has yet discovered a means of identifying that portion of advertising expenditure which could be considered unnecessary.

  1. I am not aware of any information which shows the extent to which the cost of advertising of essential commodities has increased in the past 10 years.
  2. The imposition of a special tax on advertising, or in particular on advertising of essential commodities, would give rise to significant administrative problems stemming in the main from the discriminatory nature of the tax. The likely effects of such a tax on the amount of advertising and consumer prices are problematical. While the amount of advertising would presumably be somewhat reduced, it could be expected that the higher costs of advertising as a result of the tax would to some extent be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Because of the definitional problems in collecting information on advertising and because of the varying interpretations which could be placed on any results obtained, I feel there could be difficulties in conducting or making effective use of the results of an investigation into the extent to which manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers of essential commodities spent money on advertising on television, radio and in the Press.

This is not to say that this Government is not concerned with matters which could be adding unnecessarily to costs and therefore to final prices.

Recently the Government invited the Prices Justification Tribunal to scrutinize with care price claims where selling costs, including advertising, appear excessive.

I would also envisage that the Government’s recent Trade Practices Act would have significant effects upon the consumer protection aspects of advertising.

Capital Gains Tax

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 22 October 1974 Senator Bessell asked me whether a liability to the proposed capital gains tax will arise when land is compulsorily resumed by a State or the Australian Government. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Where property is compulsorily acquired by a government or public authority, or is sold to such a body that has given notice of an intention to acquire the property, the disposal will not be treated as an occasion to collect the resulting capital gains tax, if the proceeds are used to acquire, within a short period of time, another property as a replacement for the original property. The deferment of tax that is to be given in respect of gains used to acquire replacement property will be achieved by deducting from the cost of the replacement property the amount of the capital gain arising from the disposal of the original property. The amount of capital gain so deducted will therefore not be taxed at that time, but the reduction in the cost of the replacement property will result in a correspondingly larger capital gain, or smaller capital loss, if and when it in turn is ultimately disposed of.

Queensland Health Services

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

-On 31 October 1974, Senator Sheil asked me a question relating to statements by the Minister for Social Security that additional money would be allocated to Queensland for health services. At the end of my statement in reply I said that I would refer the question to the Minister for Social Security for an answer. The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

Senator Sheil seems to suffer some confusion on the operation of ‘ Medibank ‘.

The fact is that the Minister for Social Security has pointed out that there would be a substantial allocation of additional money to the Queensland public hospitals system once the universal health insurance program was in operation: Senate Opposition has delayed the introduction of the program. The Senator may have forgotten that he was one of the speakers who opposed the introduction of the ‘Medibank ‘program as recently as the Joint Sitting of the House of Parliament last July. The Opposition was, of course, unsuccessful and it is expected that the ‘Medibank’ program of universal health insurance will be operating from 1 July 1973. Expenditure by the Queensland Government in respect of the running costs of public hospitals will be reduced by an estimated $30m- $40m in the first year of operation of the Program by virtue of the fact that the Australian Government will meet 50 per cent of hospital operating costs. The impact of the Government’s initiative will be more apparent in future years in view of steeply rising costs in this vital area of health care delivery.

Finance for Semi-government and Local Government Bodies

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 13 November 1974 Senator Carrick asked me a question, without notice, concerning finance for semi-government and local government bodies. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government is aware of the problems which semiand local government authorities have faced in raising loan funds to finance their work programs for the current financial year.

There has, however, been a marked improvement in the borrowing position of these authorities during October and November. Measures taken by the Australian Government and its instrumentalities which have assisted these authorities in their borrowing activities include:

In September 1974 the Government proposed to the Loan Council, and the States agreed, that the borrowing programs of the States be increased by $92. 5m. Approximately one-third of this will be made available as an interest free grant. The States are free to pass on to their local and semi-government authorities any part of these increased funds.

The Government has taken a series of steps to improve liquidity including reductions in the Statutory Reserve Deposit ratio and the creation of a Special Drawing Facility for the trading banks, the suspension of the Variable Deposit Requirement, the reduction of the prohibition on short-term borrowing from two years to six months, and reductions in the issue yields offered on Treasury Notes. In addition, the Australian Government has not undertaken any public loans on the Australian market since last July.

These measures have substantially increased the flow of funds to the private sector and to local and semi-government authorities. The lowering of Treasury Note yields, with accompanying reductions in market yields on short-term Government bonds, has increased the relative attractiveness of local and semi-government securities, the rates on which have not been changed. Following each yield reduction on

Government securities there was a marked improvement in subscriptions to local and semi-government securities.

Savings banks are major lenders to semi-government and local authorities, and there has been a substantial increase in the total volume of loans made available to these bodies from this source since the end of September.

In view of current progress being made by local and semigovernment borrowers towards filling their 1974-75 loan programs, no need for further special action by the Australian Government in respect of these programs is apparent at this time. However, the position is being watched carefully and should additional action be warranted it will be taken, in consultation as appropriate with the State Governments which, of course, have a primary responsibility for semi- and local government authorities created under their legislation.

Lack of Co-operation by Anti-Labor State Governments

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 19 November 1974 (Hansard, p. 2473) Senator Button asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, to provide a statement listing the range of measures which are being frustrated by anti-Labor State Governments. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Aboriginals

Matters raised by the Australian Government with the Premier of Queensland which remain outstanding or with which the Queensland Government has not co-operated include:

Amendments to State legislation discriminatory to Aborigines.

Transfer of responsibility for Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Land Rights.

Ratification of I.L.O. Convention 107 of 1957.

Refusal by Queensland Government to permit the

Queensland Director of Fisheries to serve on the Board of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd.

Aboriginal Health

It is understood that at 30 June 1974, the Queensland Government held $2.356m as unexpended funds for Aboriginal health projects approved in previous years.

Community Issues

The Premier of Victoria has refused to grant approval for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Human Relationships to deal directly with State officers and agencies. He has, however, offered to consider specific requests.

Australian Health Insurance Program- Public Hospital Agreements

It is the Australian Government’s intention that the Australian Health Insurance Program should come into operation on1 July 1975. Under the Program agreements are to be drawn up between each State Government and the Australian Government for the funding and provision of public hospital services, such that every Australian resident will have access to standard ward treatment in public hospitals free of charge and free of means test. In return the Australian Government will share the net operating costs of public hospitals on a 50/50 basis with the States. Offers to negotiate agreements were made in a letter dated 1 5 August 1 974 from the Prime Minister to each Premier and the Minister for Social Security followed up this initiative with a similar letter to State Health Ministers dated 5 September 1974. Negotiations have commenced with South Australia and Tasmania. Queensland is the only non-Labor State which has done more than acknowledge these letters. Discussions arc taking place with that State at officer level, although the Queensland Government has not yet indicated its attitude to the offer. New South Wales and Victoria have only acknowledged the correspondence and nothing at all has been received from Western Australia.

Family Planning

In the development of Family Planning initiatives there has been a reluctance, to date, to include Family Planning facilities in the Australian Government funded State Health facilities in Western Australia and Queensland.

Dental Health

The Victorian Health Minister has indicated that Victoria will not support the proposed Advisory Dental Council of Australia and that a representative for that State will not be nominated. This is in line with a similar Victorian stand on the Advisory Medical Council of Australia.

Hospitals

The Australian Government’s offer to assume full responsibility for the planning, construction and operation of hospitals at Westmead and Campbelltown in New South Wales, Sunshine in Victoria and Mount Gravatt in Queensland and to extend and operate the Royal Newcastle Hospital in New South Wales, were not accepted by the Governments of those States.

Sea Transport

The Australian Government has, since the election in December 1972, actively sought the Queensland Government’s approval to allow participation by the Australian National Line in Queensland general cargo intrastate trading. ANL maintains regular services to Queensland ports as part of its interstate services and regularly has up to 1 , 000 tonnes of vacant space when leaving Brisbane northbound for Queensland ports.

On 15 December 1972 the Prime Minister wrote to the Queensland Premier seeking his agreement to this proposal. Since this time there has been no formal response from the Queensland Government apart from advice from the Acting Premier on 24 May 1973 that the matter had been referred to an Interdepartmental Committee. The Prime Minister has written twice in 1974 seeking a response- on 10 April and on 5 June.

Representation supporting the move have come from Harbour Boards and north Queensland consignees as well us politicians. A specific approach was made by a motor vehicle company in 1973 to ANL to carry cars intrastate as a rail strike was causing supply problems. ANL approached the Queensland Government but permission was refused.

Rail Transport

In his election policy speech in November 1972 Mr Whitlam offered to accept responsibility for the railways of any State which was prepared to offer them subject to mutually satisfactory terms being agreed. The offer was subsequently confirmed by letter. Four States- South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Walesagreed to discussions on the matter without commitment. However Victoria and Queensland refused to even discuss the oner.

The Victorian Premier stated that his Government would not transfer its railways ‘as a matter of transport policy’. The Queensland Premier requested more information about the offer and when this was provided he indicated that the

Queensland Government was not prepared to transfer its railways.’

Discussions at official level on the transfer of the Western Australian Railways had reached an advanced stage. With the change of Government in this State in March of this year, however, the new Premier wrote to the Prime Minister breaking off the discussions and indicating that he considered the matter closed.

Air Transport

The Australian Government has supported TAA’s proposed entry to the Perth-Darwin airline route in competition with Ansett ‘s wholly owned subsidiary MacRobertson Miller Airline Services. In the latter months of 1973 the then Labor Government in Western Australia introduced the necessary associated State legislation to permit TAA to operate services within Western Australia. The legislation was, however, defeated by the Liberal-Country Party dominated Western Australian Legislative Council. This action has clearly not been in the interests of the residents of Western Australia because the TAA proposal would have meant better aircraft, lower fares and a substantially improved freight service.

The Queensland Government maintains a stand against controlling land speculation. It is known that this stand by the Queensland Government would have made it more difficult for the Department of Services and Property to acquire additional land to the north east of Brisbane Airport. It will also make it more difficult and expensive, when the Department of Transport is able to state its precise needs to acquire land for Brisbane’s second airport, as directed by the Government, in the Caboolture area. Similar difficulties could be expected in relation to the acquisition of land, as and when required, for an international terminal to the immediate north of Townsville Airport.

Land Commissions Program

The Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of Queensland on 27 December 1 972 outlining the Government ‘s proposals for the stabilisation of land prices. Following subsequent correspondence the Premier indicated, in letters dated 16 May and 3 July 1973, that the Queensland Government was not prepared to adopt the course proposed by the Australian Government, but was prepared to take action under the States Acquisition of Land Act provided finance was available from the Australian Government and acquisition was at current prices’.

Growth Centres

The Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of Queensland on 21 August 1973 indicating that the 1973-74 Budget provided $4.4m for growth centres in Queensland, viz. Townsville and the Fitzroy and Moreton Regions. The Premier has not replied to that letter. Discussions have been held between officials, however, and the Cities Commission and the Queensland Co-ordinator-General ‘s Department are cooperating in joint studies.

The former Western Australian Government was willing to co-operate with the Australian Government in developing the Salvado region north of Perth, but was unable to pass the necessary legislation through the Upper House. Negotiations with the present Government have centred on the land commission discussions.

Co-ordinated Attack on Inflation

The Australian Government has tried repeatedly to initiate a co-ordinated nation-wide attack on inflation. On each occasion these initiatives have been frustrated.

Instances of the obstruction are:

As a result of the May 1973 Premiers’ Conference an Officials’ Report was prepared on possible guidelines for co-ordinating an attack on inflation. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia did not provide substantive comments on the report.

The matter of referral of State powers was raised by the Prime Minister at the Constitutional Convention in September 1973 and has been pursued subsequently with the States but with no results, so far as the non-Labor States are concerned. After the May 1974 elections the Prime Minister wrote to the non-Labor Premiers saying that he wanted lo pursue the offer to refer power for prices regulation they made during the election campaign. Nothing eventuated.

At the 13 August Premiers’ Conference a number of working parties were established to examine areas where joint action might be taken in order to restrain inflationary pressures. The Prime Minister has sought Premiers’ reactions to the findings of the working parties. Queensland has not replied and the other non-Labor Premiers have called for another Premiers’ Conference to discuss the general economic situation.

Asprey Committee on Taxation

The Committee, set up in 1 972 under the Chairmanship of Mr Justice Asprey was charged with inquiring into the ‘structure and operation of the present Commonwealth taxation system ‘ and formulating proposals for its improvement.

In accordance with an undertaking in his 1972 election policy speech, the Prime Minister wrote to all Premiers on 25 June 1973 proposing an additional term of reference covering State and local taxes.

Victoria saw no justification for the proposed expansion of the Committee’s terms of reference.

Queensland offered only qualified support. The Premier advised that his Government would consider making available to the Committee information requested by it in writing which the Queensland authorities considered appropriate to the matters under inquiry.

The proposal was not proceeded with by the Australian Government, in the light of lack of co-operation from some State Governments.

Moore v Doyle

In the case of Moore v Doyle, it was held that registration of unions under State legislation bestowed separate legal entity and the Industrial Court suggested that Federal/State authorities examine the development of a system of trade union organisation under which one body could represent its members in both Federal and State arbitration systems.

On 24 January 1 973 the Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia asking them to consider taking legislative action along the lines proposed by South Australia to resolve the problem uniformly.

Queensland replied that it did not favour the Federal body of a union being recognised under State law.

The Premier of New South Wales said that the solution rested with the Working Party (consisting of representatives of Australian and State Government Departments, the ACTU and employers) set up to resolve the problem.

Owing to lack of progress a Committee of Inquiry was established, chaired by Mr Justice Sweeney. The Committee reported on I July 1974. Consequently, on 24 October 1974 the Australian Parliament passed the Conciliation and Arbitration (Organisations) Bill which incorporated essentially Commissioner Sweeney’s recommendations. The Prime Minister sent a telex on 25 October to the Premiers of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia requesting advice as to when their Governments would be able to pass complementary legislation.

Queensland said that it was no: possible to consider the Prime Minister’s request owing to the dissolution of the Queensland Parliament. By itself this does not provide evidence of Queensland ‘s lack of co-operation but, as indicated above, Queensland has shown no willingness to co-operate on this matter.

New South Wales is considering the matter. Western Australia has not yet replied.

Australian Government Grants to Queensland

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 2 1 November (Hansard p. 2628) Senator Keeffe asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning how many millions of dollars in Australian Government funds have been refused by the Queensland Government, and how much remains unspent of funds received from the Australian Government. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question.

See my answer to a question without notice on 4 December 1974 (House of Representatives Hansard, p. 45 1 2 ) in which I stated, inter alia-

In fact, if the Queensland Goverment had co-operated no further with the Australian Government than the other nonLabor State Governments it would be receiving more than $50m more than it is. The money is available under Acts passed by this Parliament with the support of both Liberal and Country Party members of both Houses . . . The money is available for the asking. Above that, of course, Queensland has received $70m more in grants than it would have received if it were receiving only the average per capita amounts for all the Australian States’.

Taxation: Fringe Benefits

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– On 27 November 1974 Senator Webster asked me a question regarding the taxation of benefits available to Ministers and Members of the Australian Parliament in the form of the use of Government-owned motor vehicles, aircraft and private housing and other fringe benefits. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Amendments proposed by the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974 will provide for a minimum amount to be included in the assessable income of a person for whose private use a car is made available by an employer or by a person for whom services are rendered. The proposed amendments will apply also to ministers and other members of Parliament where official cars are made available for their personal and private use.

The proposed amendments will reinforce existing provisions relating to the taxation of fringe benefits provided for employees. They will provide that where, in connection with a person ‘s office or employment a car is made available for private use, the assessable income of that person is to include a minimum amount to be determined under a formula prescribed in the legislation. Generally, the minimum value prescribed to this particular benefit will, on an annual basis, be an amount equal to 12 per cent of the first $6,000 of the purchase price of the car and 24 per cent of the balance. Where a car is available for private use for part, but not for the whole, of a year of income the minimum assessable amount will be proportionately reduced.

Members of Parliament who may be carried by cars from the Government pool in the course of the performance of their parliamentary duties, and who do not have cars made available for their private use, will not be affected by the amending legislation.

Benefits in the form of the use of Government-owned aircraft and private housing and other fringe benefits available to Ministers and Members of Parliament are assessable under long-standing provisions of the income tax law to the extent of their value to the Minister or Member as the case may be. The assessable value, if any, would, of course, be one for determination on the facts by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Commonwealth, State and Local Government Debts (Question No. 376)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the treasurer bring up to date the figures given in an answer to House of Representatives’ Question No. 5904 (Hansard, page 2352, 10 October 1972), and provide the Senate with the current figures.

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

The latest information available on Australian Government and State Government securities on issue, total debt of semi-government authorities and local governments, annual interest liabilities, capital repayments of Australian Government and State Governments and funds provided for redemption by semi-government authorities and local governments is set out in the following tables:

Australian Government: Computers (Question No. 145)

Senator Wright:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. I ) What has been the expenditure on computers over the past 10 years by the Australian Government.
  1. What was (a) the date, (b) the amount and (c) the Department for which each computer was purchased.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Total expenditure by departments over the ten years to 30 June 1974 on the purchase of component units of computer systems including peripherals and such items as data preparation and data transmission equipment was $73,185,000.
  2. Expenditure on computers includes many purchases of supplementary equipment such as extended core, mass storage, and other devices subsequent to the acquisition of a computer. For this reason it would be a very extensive task to provide an answer in the form requested. The following information indicates expenditure on significant computer purchases in each financial year since 1964-65 excluding additions to existing installations which did not involve the purchase of another central processor:

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 December 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741210_senate_29_s62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant