Senate
5 June 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2271

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I seek leave to make a short statement relating to ministerial arrangements.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, is visiting China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea and will return to Australia on 26 June. During his absence the Prime Minister will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will represent the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs in this chamber as well as those Ministers who are represented by Senator Willesee. Additionally, Senator Cavanagh is in Adelaide today on ministerial business. I will answer questions today relating to portfolios normally represented by Senator Cavanagh.

page 2271

PETITIONS

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 160 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.

That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Senator CARRICK:

– I would like the petition to be read but as it exceeds 250 words in length I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalisation of the insurance industry.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry in Australia.

Provide no better plan for the establishment of a national disaster fund than that provided by the insurance industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1 974.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry in Australia.
  2. Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.
  3. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.

Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Provide no better plan for the establishment of a national disaster fund than that provided by the insurance industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1 974.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  2. Add to the taxpayers burden.
  3. Trade unfairly.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia. 2 Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  2. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Eliminate private insurance for Australians.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry in Australia.
  3. Lead to nationalisation of the private insurance industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.
  2. Lead to nationalisation of the private insurance industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.
  3. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.
  4. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry in Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Weaken private enterprise.
  2. Increase taxes to cover AGIO losses and expenses.
  3. Cause unemployment.
  4. Unfair competition against private enterprise leading to their liquidation.
  5. Restrict our freedom of choice.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.

Provide no better plan for the establishment of a national disaster fund than provided by the insurance industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1974.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.
  2. Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.
  3. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

By the ‘national interests’ provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any Government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.

Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Add to the taxpayers burden.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Increase Bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Add to the taxpayers burden.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Eliminate private insurance for Australians.
  2. Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.
  3. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  4. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton, Senator Donald Cameron, Senator Devitt, Senator Primmer, Senator Mcintosh, Senator Poyser and Senator Sheil.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise ) has been given by the Government.
  5. 5 ) That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers, Senator Sheil, and Senator Everett (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Increase bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  3. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Add to the taxpayers burden.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  2. Add to the taxpayers burden.
  3. Trade unfairly.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle and Senator McLaren.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and

Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.

  1. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  2. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  3. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Bunton and Senator Sheil.

Petitions received.

Superannuation Bill

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia, all being of or above the age of 1 8 years, respectfully showeth:

That the expressed intent of the Opposition Parties to amend the Superannuation Bill 1975 is causing and will cause widespread distress, inconvenience, confusion and loss of equitable living standard for those persons dependent on the proposed Bill for their rightful standard of living and welfare.

That whilst it is recognised that there is no certainty that all the benefits or indeed any of the benefits at all will immediately be made available to other sectors of the working community; past experience has shown that benefits given to the public sector have been taken up and spread throughout the private sector.

That the proposal to amend the retiring age provisions to revert to age 65 only is a retrograde provision certain to be detrimental to the health and general welfare of persons affected by the Bill: fails to perceive the accrued benefits to the Community at large, the Government and the Public Service by the responsible retirement of those persons, recognising that their best years have been spent in service of the community and that they should have the opportunity of moving out of the service to the wider community for leisure and or other meaningful occupations.

That the proposal to eliminate the up to 5 per cent increment in pension for over 30 years service fails to appreciate or recognise those benefits accrued to the whole Community, the Government and the Public Service by the loyal, expert and hardworking efforts of those who commit themselves to a working lifetime of career public service.

That the proposal to leave the widows pension at 62½ per cent in lieu of the proposed 67 per cent of those amounts due to their respective contributor, discriminates against people who are unable to protect and care for themselves as effectively as those dependants fortunate enough to have the support of their spouse in the latter years of their life.

That the proposal to restrict the pension updating by Consumer Price Index to be applicable to the Government share of the pension only and limited to5 per cent per annum maximum fails to recognise the detrimental effect and distress caused to people on fixed incomes who are fully subjected to the rigors and problems associated with inflation.

That the Superannuation Bill1975 offers benefits which are eminently satisfactory, wherein the provisions acknowledge the importance of the quality, dedication and real value of the work of Australian Public Servants, mirrors community requirements, secures justice for Australian Public Servants and their dependants and establishes a realistic standard of conditions suited to widespread adoption for all other sectors of the Australian Working Community at an early date.

That note be taken that the provisions objected to by the Opposition are already enjoyed by State Government Employees under non-Labor Governments.

Your petitioners therefore pray: that the Senate will endorse and support the enactment of the Superannuation Bill 1975 without amendment in the interests of the loyal and hardworking members of the Australian Public Service.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers and Senator Steele Hall.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

By the ‘National Interests’ provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled.

We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully refer to the Bill concerning the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office.

We are not necessarily against the formation of such an organisation. We do however, feel that the Bill could be rushed through Parliament without sufficient deliberation. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Bill be referred to a Senate Select Committee or Public Enquiry Committee. In this way submissions from interested parties can be called for. Recommendations from this Committee would then reflect the true wishes of the Australian electorate.

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

Petition received.

page 2276

DEFENCE PROCUREMENT

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

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

That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence-

The procurement policies of the defence forces in the context of what is publicly known as the strategic assessment.

page 2276

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2276

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICES

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Manufacturing Industry aware that industrial unrest has constantly affected shipping services to and from Tasmania? Is there at present a dispute taking place which has led to the pile up of more than 19 000 tons of cargo at northern and north-western ports in Tasmania? Will the Minister assure the Senate that when he takes over the Labor portfolio he will have more success than his predecessor in solving Tasmania’s strike problems?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I welcome the honourable senator’s sudden interest in the State of Tasmania which I assume is not unrelated to forthcoming events in that State.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Will you be there?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I certainly will be there. I will be in Tasmania doing what I can. As the honourable representative of that distinguished State, Senator Devitt, reminds me, I was in that beautiful State earlier this week. I will be returning to Tasmania to take part in a byelection which the Government undoubtedly will win because of its splendid record in relation to that State.

Senator Marriott:

– Your comrades do not believe you.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I welcome that interjection from another distinguished representative of the State of Tasmania, Senator Marriott. As to the specific points raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I was unaware that there was a crisis in transport in relation to Tasmania. If there is, I will investigate it and do what I can to help solve the problem. As to his predictions of my role in a presumptive portfolio to which he referred, if such an eventuality occurs I certainly will attempt to do my best to carry out what is a very onerous and difficult job.

page 2277

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION RADIO STATIONS

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for the Media. Did the Government last year agree to experimental music broadcasting stations being established in the frequency modulation band by the Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales and the Music Broadcasting Society of Victoria? Is it a fact that the Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales went on air in December last year and thus became the licensee of the first FM broadcasting station in Australia? Did the Minister say at that time that because of delays involved in erecting a mast in Melbourne the FM music broadcasting station in Victoria would not be going to air until April? Can the Minister say when the Melbourne FM station is likely to go to air, thus providing the people of that city with fine music broadcasting?

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

– It is a fact that last year the Government agreed to experimental music broadcasting stations being established in the frequency modulation band by the Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales and by the Music Broadcasting Society of Victoria. These 2 organisations are co-operative community groups which are interested in the promotion and playing of fine music. It is a fact also that, the decision having been made in September, the Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales went to air in December of last year. It became the first FM broadcasting station under licence in Australia.

At the time of the opening of that station I said that because of delays that were involved in erecting a mast at Melbourne the FM music broadcasting station in Victoria would not be expected to go to air until about April of this year. I have had inquiries made of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and I am now advised that the Melbourne FM station that is to be conducted by the Music Broadcasting Society of Victoria is expected to commence its test transmissions very shortly and to commence operations and to go on air later this month, thus providing the second FM music station in Australia and the first in Melbourne and Victoria.

page 2277

NATIONAL COMPENSATION AND

page 2277

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION STAFF

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Is his Department continuing to appoint staff to administer the Government’s proposed national compensation scheme? What is the present staff total in this area? Does the Government plan to appoint full time members to the board of the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation, despite deferral of the Bill until the Budget session?

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

-I shall find out for Senator Drake-Brockman how many people have been appointed to the compensation section of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation. I do not have the figures in my head. He asked me whether we are continuing to appoint people. I am not sure whether many appointments are in train at the moment. It was obviously necessary, as I think Senator DrakeBrockman would agree, that even to prepare the Bill and to engage in the sort of studies that were necessary after the report on the inquiry by Mr Justice Woodhouse and Mr Justice Meares was produced, officers other than those who had been engaged in the traditional areas of repatriation would be needed. A number have been appointed. It is not a great number. They are highly specialised people. They were necessary to study the matter, otherwise the Department would not have been able to play any useful role in preparing the Bill or giving evidence to the Senate committee which is inquiring into rehabilitation and compensation. I am a little bit puzzled by the second part of Senator DrakeBrockman ‘s question. He asked whether the Government will be appointing members to the Board of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation before the Bill is passed. Until the Bill is passed there will not be any board to which to appoint anybody.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That is what I thought, but that does not stop you.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I take it that Senator Drake-Brockman is suggesting that someone has been appointed to the Board. I do not follow what he is saying. He said: ‘That does not stop you’. I would say that it does stop me. If there is no Board of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation I cannot appoint anybody to it. If Senator Drake-Brockman cannot understand that and he will see me after question time I will try to explain it to him.

page 2278

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF FISH MEAL

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen Queensland Press reports claiming that the Prime Minister whilst in Peru made a bilateral trade deal involving milk powder from Australia in exchange for fish meal from Peru? Surely if this statement is true, the import of large quantities of fish meal would harm the domestic oil seed producers who are now facing low prices.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is not my understanding that the Prime Minister made any such arrangement whilst he was in Peru. Discussions were held about the export of certain primary products from Australia to that country. He did say that any arrangements which might be entered into would be on a private tradertotrader basis. It is up to the individual traders to negotiate any trade deals or agreements concerning the importation of fish meal into Australia. Currently, the imported price of fish meal is quite high. In view of the present domestic position in Australia regarding protein foods, it is extremely unlikely that any sizeable quantities of fish meal will be imported from Peru.

page 2278

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration: Is the Government aware that the level of industrial dislocation and strife in Australia has reached astronomical proportions? What has gone wrong with the claim made by the Australian Labor Party before the 1972 election that it knew best how to ensure industrial peace? What action does the Government propose to take with respect to the current wave of major strikes and disruptions? I instance the most significant and noteworthy of the current and planned strikes and disruptions: The strikes planned by metal workers and railway employees in Sydney and other major Australian capitals next week; the continuing threat to the lives and safety of hospital patients in Victoria and on the south coast of New South Wales; and finally the violent intimidation currently being exercised by building workers’ unions in Victoria. Is the Government able to take action? If it does not propose to take action, will the Minister explain whether this is because of lack of willingness or lack of power?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am amazed that Senator Greenwood should ask this question today after his actions last week and this week in relation to a motion of mine which sought to restore to the notice paper and to have debated in the Senate the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill which contains the Government’s policy- 3 times advanced- relating to easier amalgamations. If we look at the last mentioned and most critical attack made by the honourable senator about the violent disruptions presently going on in Victoria we find that the disruptions relate to the question of demarcation between 2 unions. If we had been able to settle this vexed question 2 years ago by taking action which was designed to allow easier amalgamations- it was once promoted by a Liberal Party Minister and later by the Labor Government- we would have one union covering the workers who are involved in the present dispute in Victoria. There would not be this violence which is currently taking place. We are against violence.

Of course, the facts are that we were prevented from implementing this solution by Senator Greenwood and others in his Party. The same thing applies to the other questions which the honourable senator has raised. If we look at the problems and disputes to which he has referred we see that all relate to inflation. The Government’s proposal is to have indexation accepted. The Opposition has done nothing to support the Government in its actions to have indexation accepted. What I am saying in a complete answer to the honourable senator is that the position is quite clear. If we had been able to proceed with our industrial reforms concerning amalgamations, agreements, and also the question of having closer relationships between labour and employers, we would not have the troubles which we have today and which have been largely caused by the Opposition.

page 2278

QUESTION

RESEARCH LABORATORY AT CLAYTON

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question which is directed to the Postmaster-General relates to a planned project for building a research laboratory at Clayton in Victoria. When will this building be commenced?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The Budget allocated money for this important project. The proposal was for a 3-stage building project over 7 years. It was estimated to cost nearly $50m. The contracts for the first stage of the project have been placed. It is expected that the first stage should be ready for occupancy in about the middle of 1976. The first stage will provide modern laboratory facilities for the physical science branch and for part of the advanced techniques branch of the laboratory, together with the administrative group.

page 2279

QUESTION

BASS: BY-ELECTION

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who I assume, like Senator Douglas McClelland, is aware that there is to be a by-election in Bass in Tasmania. I ask: Will the Government be trying to buy votes by suddenly offering support and assistance to meet the problems of Bass after Vh years of neglect? Will the Minister seek the resignation of all other Tasmanian Labor members in the House of Representatives to ensure that the island as a whole receives the benefits of the Government’s largesse?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The question, of course, is deliberately framed to obtain some comment from me that the Government will or will not do something in the next two or three weeks. I can assure Senator Chaney that the by-election in Bass will be fought on this Government’s record of achievements in the State of Tasmania.

Senator Marriott:

– That is why we will win.

Senator WRIEDT:

-We will have a good record to stand on. I would like to remind Senator Marriott, who is interjecting and who ought to remember, apropos of the question that was asked earlier of Senator James McClelland, that this Government was the first Australian Government to give substantial help to the freights shipping services to Tasmania, the most important element in the Tasmanian economy. We provided $5m subsidy to the passenger shipping services and $2m subsidy to the freight services, which our predecessors would never undertake to do.

Senator Carrick:

– You have created massive unemployment.

Senator WRIEDT:

– What is the record of this Government in respect of unemployment that Senator Carrick talks about? Was it not this Government that was prepared to help the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd in Hobart to prevent unemployment because of a downturn in the world market for the product that the company was producing? Is that not a fact? Is it not a fact that the world market for zinc almost collapsed and that company was affected accordingly? Was it not this Government that provided finance to help Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd in Burnie? I ask those honourable senators who are interjecting to give me some examples of similar things that our predecessors did to help industry in that State. Was it not this Government that gave the undertaking- not because of Bass- to finance fully the cost of restoration of the Tasman Bridge?

Senator Wright:

– After knocking it down.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I can assure Senator Chaney that the by-election, despite the very injudicious comment by Senator Wright which I hope was recorded in Hansard for everyone to read, will be fought on the issues and will be won by this Government on those issues.

page 2279

QUESTION

FISH POTENTIAL SURVEY

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Science. Is the Minister aware of the activities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which in recent months has been carrying out an intensive aerial survey of the pelagic fishing potential around the Australian coast and especially in the Bass Strait and Furneaux Island regions? Will he ensure that information gleaned from this new and most welcome extension of the survey of fish potential will be readily available to all areas of the fishing industry? Can the Minister ascertain the figures of increase in the economic importance and value to the Australian fishing industry resulting from this new Labor Government initiative?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I welcome this quite adventitious flowering of interest in the affairs of the beautiful State of Tasmania. I am not aware of the activities that were mentioned by the honourable senator but it would not surprise me if what he said were true because it would be merely another illustration of the deep abiding and expanding interest which the Australian Government has always taken in the affairs of Tasmania since we came to office. I will however make the inquiries which he suggests and let him have the figures for which he asks. I think, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate stated earlier, this would be just another example of the deep and abiding interest of the Australian Government in the affairs of that State.

page 2279

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN LAUNCESTON

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed also to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. I am most interested to see his new found fascination for the isle we have been hearing about so much. I am interested also to learn of his deep and abiding interest in the problems of that beautiful island. Perhaps the Minister could illuminate the Senate by telling us what has been done to help the 2000 unemployed in Launceston who are the product of the policies of his Government in connection with manufacturing industry.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition will have an opportunity, if not today at least later in the week, to indicate its economic rationality by opposing, if it chooses, a Bill which will come before this Parliament to authorise a grant under Section 96 of the Constitution to the firm Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd which is centred in the town of Burnie.

Senator Carrick:

-That will not help the 2000 people who are unemployed in Launceston.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Well, the economy of Tasmania is a particularly fragile one due, primarily, to the neglect of the interests of that State during 23 years of misrule by the previous Government. I do not have the exact numbers of unemployed in Tasmania but I point out that this Government has a series of programs designed to assist those who unfortunately are disemployed at the present time. They include the special assistance to nonmetropolitan areas, the Regional Employment Development scheme and various other schemes. But I should like some assistance from honourable senators opposite in telling me whether unemployment in Tasmania is a novel feature of the regime that presently is running Australia. Is it suggested that under the previous Government there was never any unemployment in the State of Tasmania? I suggest that any of the problems that confront Tasmania at the present time are due primarily to the long neglect of that State by the previous Liberal-Country Party Governments.

page 2280

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IN TASMANIA

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

-My question follows that recently asked by Senator Chaney. I ask the Leader of the Government: Has his attention been directed to a story on the front page of today’s ‘Australian’ the headline of which is Labor Wins Support in Tasmania’? Figures are included in the body of the report which show that Australian Labor Party backing increased by an extraordinary 17 per cent in March and April of this year. I ask the Minister: Does he regard that extraordinary rise in Australian Labor Party support as reflective of the appreciation in Tasmania of the policies of the Government, in particular in the field of manufacturing industry as instanced by its support for the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd and for Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and by many other measures?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have seen those figures and it is quite true, as Senator Everett has pointed out, that support for the Government in

Tasmania is very strong and obviously is much stronger that it is for our opponents.

Senator Carrick:

– What about New South Wales?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Never mind about New South Wales. The honourable senator can get up and ask a question about New South Wales if he likes.

Mr PRESIDENT:

– Order! Disregard interjections, please, Minister.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It is quite obvious that as a result of the many steps which have been taken and which have been mentioned here this morning during question time the efforts of the Federal Government have been appreciated. The Tasmanian people are fully aware of what has been done, not only in the areas that have been nominated, but in a lot of other areas. That will be reflected in the result in 3 weeks time.

page 2280

QUESTION

TELECASTING OF TEST SERIES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I should like to direct a question to the Minister for the Media. I think this comes under his responsibility, although it may have something to do with the PostmasterGeneral. I am not quite sure how many cricket enthusiasts live in Tasmania either. Is it a fact that the British Broadcasting Commission will not be telecasting the forthcoming test series in the United Kingdom because of the $ 1 35,000 fee required by the Postmaster-General’s Department or the Broadcasting Control Board for this service? Will the Minister intervene and negotiate with the BBC with a view to reducing that charge and thereby make it possible for Australian cricket enthusiasts to view this important cricketing event?

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

-The question relates to the bearer charges that are imposed by the Postmaster-General. Senator Bishop and I have conferred for some time on these charges. As a result of those conferences the matter is at present under consideration by the Postmaster-General and his Department. Other than that I can say nothing.

page 2280

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND AIRSTRIP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment. Has any interdepartmental committee visited Norfolk Island recently to examine the environmental impact of a proposal to upgrade the existing wartime airstrip for jet aircraft? If so, who were the members of the committee, which departments did each represent and which of those officers is considered to have expertise in environmental matters? Has a report been presented by that committee? If so, will the Minister table the report in advance of the public meeting that is planned to be held on the island on 7 June?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-An interdepartmental committee did not visit Norfolk Island to study this matter, but some officers of the Department of the Capital Territory visited the Island and have produced a draft environmental impact statement. A report has not been presented. Officers of the Department of the Capital Territory have visited Norfolk Island on a number of occasions and discussed this matter with the residents of the Island. I understand from the Minister for the Capital Territory that this matter will be discussed further at a public meeting to be held on Norfolk Island on 7 June. At that meeting there will be representatives of the Department of the Capital Territory, the Department of Transport, the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Environment.

page 2281

QUESTION

MEANS TEST ON THE AGE PENSION

Senator CARRICK:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the election promise of the Whitlam Government that the means test on the age pension would be phased out over 3 years with the final phasing out to persons between 65 and 70 years of age being undertaken in the year ahead- 1 975-76. 1 refer also to recent indications by the Prime Minister that that promise will not be honoured and that the final stage of the phasing out may not be completed for some yearsuntil 1977. 1 ask: Is the reason given for the deferment of this retirement benefit, which is vital to all Australians, the need to restrain government spending in the year ahead? If so, how does the Government reconcile that decision on the one hand, with the intention on the other hand to expand considerably the retirement benefits available to one section of the community?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-During the course of the debate last night on the proposed new superannuation scheme the point was made quite clearly by a number of speakers on the Government side of the chamber that no Government has done more to assist the pensioners of this country than has the present Government. The question relates basically to the abolition of the means test in respect of those people. The Government has had to alter its program for the phasing out of the means test. We do not hide that fact. We accept that we have had to make an adjustment to the program. But the program itself has been initiated much faster than any program initiated by our predecessors. At the same time we have given benefits to pensioners of a nature and of a real value that they have not experienced since the days of the Chifley Government. If in fact we had not kept our undertaking to lift the pension to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings, irrespective of the abolition of the means test, we would perhaps be remiss. But the fact is, as was indicated last night in the debate, that the pension rate is at 24’/i per cent of average weekly earnings, the highest figure that it has been for 25 years. Despite the fact that we have had to amend our phasing out program of the means test, the pensioners of this country are in a better position today than they have been since 1949.

page 2281

QUESTION

THAILAND

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I appreciate that he is not present, and therefore it will probably properly be directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of Australia’s good relations with both Thailand and the United States of America, will the Minister indicate whether any official statement has been made commenting on the recent use of United States bases in Thailand over the ‘Mayaguez’ incident against the expressed wish of the Thai Government? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government supports the territorial sovereignty of both Cambodia and Thailand and will use all diplomatic means to express the attitude of the Australian Government to the United States against the use of force between friendly nations?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The question does involve some important points and I think it is only fair to Senator Gietzelt that I should refer the matter to the Prime Minister, who is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, for a proper answer.

page 2281

QUESTION

REPATRIATION INQUIRY

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. As another session of Parliament is about to end, I ask the Minister whether he has anything to add to his recent statements about the progress of the Toose Committee report on repatriation.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am afraid I really do have nothing to add to what I said earlier on this matter. As Senator Maunsell may remember, I did announce quite some time ago -

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– In April.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I think it was before then. I did announce that the time for Mr Justice Toose to present his report had been extended to 3 1 March of this year, but apparently Mr Justice Toose has been confronted with some difficulties which have prevented him from doing so.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Has consideration of the National Compensation Bill been added to his charge?

Senator WHEELDON:

-No, we have not done that. All he is dealing with at the moment is repatriation. I do not know when that report will be produced. I have no very clear indications about that, but I hope that it will be in the near future and that during the next sessional period we will be able to debate the matter. I have given an undertaking to the various veterans’ organisations, such as the Returned Services League and the bodies affiliated with the Australian Services Council, that they will have a period of at least 6 months in which to study the report when they receive it and that Cabinet will not act on it until such time as we receive the comments of the various veterans’ organisations. Obviously whatever happens it is going to be quite a considerable period before we can act.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– We will be back in government by then.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I do not think it will take as long as that.

page 2282

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND PREMIER

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is prompted by the Opposition’s sudden and intense interest in the State of Tasmania and the announcement on this morning’s news broadcast that the Premier of Queensland is about to visit Tasmania. Does the Leader of the Government know whether Mr Bjelke-Petersen is being dispatched to Tasmania in his role as political hit man for Messrs Anthony and Fraser to liquidate the Liberal candidate for Bass, who does not reside in the electorate of Bass, or whether he is going down to explain to the people of Tasmania why he demanded on 2 occasions, both before and after Christmas, that Japan purchase Queensland beef instead of Tasmanian beef? Finally, will the Leader of the Government give an assurance that under no circumstances will the Australian Labor Government tolerate that sort of discrimination against Tasmanian exports, which has been demanded on 2 occasions by the Premier of Queensland, tacitly supported by the Leader of the Oppposition, Mr

Fraser, and the Leader of the National Country Party, Mr Anthony?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am sure there are 2 things which the Queensland Premier would love to see happen whilst he is in Tasmania and immediately afterwards. Firstly, he would like to see the defeat of the Liberal candidate, because his continuing campaign around Australia is designed to upset the Liberal Party wherever he possibly can and certainly to replace any Liberal candidates with candidates from his own Party. The other thing which I am sure that he would like to get across to the Tasmanian people is just the point made by Senator Walsh, that exports of Tasmanian beef are expendable, with preference being given to Queensland beef. I am quite sure that Mr Bjelke-Petersen will not find the reception in Tasmania that he imagines he will. On the last occasion when he was down there in an effort to get the so-called National Party operating he met with a dismal failure. His meetings were poorly attended. That has been the record ever since he made his first attempt to get the National Party operating in Tasmania. This has always been the record of any Country Party in Tasmania. Mr Bjelke-Petersen will find the same sort of sentiments expressed during this campaign.

page 2282

QUESTION

ALLEGED THEFT OF LETTER

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of allegations made this morning that, firstly, a copy of a letter which Dr Cairns had written to Mr George Harris of Melbourne was stolen from Dr Cairns’ office, secondly, that a copy of this letter was sent from the Treasury to the AttorneyGeneral’s office for investigation, and, thirdly, that the copy furnished to the Attorney-General was seriously altered by way of deletion, what investigations will the Government undertake into the extremely serious implications which arise from these claims to find out who took the letter, who altered it and who submitted it to the Attorney-General’s office for investigation?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I must confess that 1 am not aware of the reports to which Senator Hall has referred. I presume they are Press reports.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Yes.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– From the Melbourne ‘Sun’.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I have not seen them. 1 will refer the question to the appropriate Minister, presumably the Attorney-General.

page 2283

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I ask: Is it a fact that the number of unemployed in Australia fell by 17 500 in May, as reported in the ‘Australian’ today? Does this indicate that the economy is heading towards a recovery and that the measures introduced by the Government have proved to be successful?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I am advised by the Minister for Labor and Immigration that the figures shown in the Press are reasonably accurate and that he intends to issue the statistics in a few days. Yes, the unemployment figure has fallen. The number of registered unemployed has fallen by 17 500, which is an improvement, of course, on the last figure which showed a fall of a little more than 5000. Also, the new figure indicates a stabilisation in the seasonally adjusted figures. I think honourable senators will remember that in. recent months the Minister has said that he expected unemployment trends to stabilise and the position to be corrected some time during the second half of the year. As Senator James McClelland mentioned yesterday, we consider this trend is a reaction to the planned measures which have been taken by the Government. I refer particularly to the schemes which have been developed- for instance the Regional Employment Development scheme- and which have operated in all States. All States have benefited directly under those schemes. This is the first time under any government in Australia that local authorities can apply directly to the Federal Government for aid. Those schemes seem to us to be working; that has been the forecast of Mr Clyde Cameron.

page 2283

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– How does the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation reconcile his recent assertion that the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation will operate on a very modest capitalisation with his assertion that the AGIC will play an important role in the re-insurance field, which is now perforce the province of only the strongest insurance houses in the world?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am very grateful to Senator Laucke for asking me that question. I know his interest in the matter, and it gives me an opportunity to explain the position. I have no difficulty in facing the question of the modest origins of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation and I repeat that the only moneys which will be made available to it will be the initial grant of $lm, of which $200,000 will be spent on taking over the effects of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and a loan of $lm. All I can say about reinsurance is that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will endeavour to engage in reinsurance; it will offer reinsurance faculties. These at present are not offered in Australia except in very few instances by companies which are either foreign owned or are the Australian incorporated subsidiaries of foreign companies.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Every company reinsures with other companies.

Senator Wright:

– Of course.

Senator WHEELDON:

-That is a different form of reinsurance. I can explain this later to Senator Wright. I do not think he knows very much about the subject.

Senator Wright:

– You should be the pupil, not the teacher.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I really do not think that Senator Wright has a grasp of this topic, if I may say so, and, if he had, it would be one of the few that he has a grasp of. It seems to be a rather esoteric subject for Senator Wright to understand. To return to Senator Laucke, who asked the question with much greater deference and politeness than Senator Wright has shown, the position will be that if we offer reinsurance facilities it will speed the momentum of reinsurance throughout the whole of the insurance industry. In fact, if we are offering reinsurance there will be other people who will be reciprocating. It is impossible at this stage to predict what the budget would be that would be necessary for reinsurance. Clearly one would need to know what advantage would be taken by other insurers of the opportunity that was being provided by the Australian Government Insurance Corporation.

This is something which I would imagine would not in any event take place for some time into the quite far distant future. The immediate program of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation would be to go into householders and home owners insurance and to make investigations of the national interest insurance provisions. We believe reinsurance and some of the other matters which the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will be empowered to transact, such as life insurance, are highly desirable activities for an Australian Government Insurance Corporation, but certainly I would say it would have to be some time before adequate negotiations, particularly in the field of reinsurance, could be concluded with other insurers, and it would have to be a reciprocal relationship with the existing insurance offices. Obviously, if they do not wish to take up reinsurance facilities there would not be any reinsurance business transacted. What we intend to do is to offer that facility which is not at present available from Australian sources.

page 2284

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Is the Minister aware of the many complaints by Australian citizens who are fed up with the continued repeat showings- some as many as 5 times- of secondrate American-made television programs on Australian television channels? Will the Minister make inquiries as to why the repeat showings are necessary and, if possible, will he take steps to encourage the use of more of the high-class Australian made programs?

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

-The Government’s policy, of course, is to encourage the greater use of Australian productions on television, to uplift the standard of Australian productions so that they can get on to the export market, and at the same time to maintain a reasonable balance for Australian viewers between programs that come from overseas and programs produced in Australia. Indeed- if I may interpolate- since this Government came into office it has provided the Australian Broadcasting Commission with additional funds for Australian program purposes. Productions like Seven Little Australians’, ‘Marion’, ‘Rush’ and now ‘Certain Women’ have all been sold on the export market, which seems to evidence that these things can be done when shows are properly and effectively produced. I can assure the honourable senator that while certain programs have gone off commercial television, obviously because they had been shown over a period of years, certainly other programs such as the recent production of ‘Cash and Co.’ have come on. I understand that program already has been sold to British television and I am told that another 1 3 episodes are to be produced.

I can assure the honourable senator that I am not happy about the number of repeat programs that are being shown, but the honourable senator will be aware that under the existing Broadcasting and Television Act programming arrangements are matters for the Broadcasting Control Board. Senator McLaren will know that the Government now has legislation before the Senate to effect amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. Of course, television is an insatiable monster as far as the devouring of programs is concerned and naturally, of necessity, there must be a certain number of repeats. However, I believe that the number of repeat programs being shown is too great. I have mentioned it on a personal basis to the Broadcasting Control Board, and I can assure the honourable senator that at the present moment the Broadcasting Control Board is conducting a revision of its points system. I assume that matters of the type referred to by Senator McLaren will be taken into account by the Board in its revision of the points system. Certainly I will bring the honourable senator’s question to the attention of the Board.

page 2284

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator WRIGHT:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Is the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure still recorded at 4. 1 5 per cent of the work force? If the Cairns recipe for unemployment is so good, as the Minister implied in his last answer, why remove him?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The question relating to Dr Cairns has nothing to do with me. When I answered the question in relation to the unemployment figures I told Senator Cameron, I think it was, that the Minister had advised me that the indications are that the fall in the number of registered jobless would amount to 1 7 500 which is a vast improvement on last month’s figure, which represented a fall of about 5000. The figures will also indicate that the seasonally adjusted figure has stabilised. Mr Clyde Cameron intends to issue the figures in a few days. As usual, the Press has a leak of the figures. Earlier this year in a debate in this chamber I repeated what the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, the then Treasurer, and more recently I think Mr Hayden had said, that the economic position would tend to improve during the second half of the year. It seems to be evident that the economic position is improving. Also, a large part of the recovery in the employment situation is due to the sponsored schemes which are new in Australia. I refer particularly to the Regional Employment Development scheme, which I think is now accepted by everyone as being a great economic move forward. I know that councils, corporations and authorities in my own State are welcoming this new initiative by the Government, which has been introduced in Australia for the first time. If one goes around most of the States one will see little placards to the effect: ‘This is a RED project sponsored jointly by the Australian Government and the State Government’ if that be the case or by the Australian Government ‘.

Senator Wright:

- Mr President, may 1 remind the Minister that my question was: Is the seasonally adjusted figure of unemployment still recorded at 4.15 per cent of the work force? To that the Minister responded not at all. Will the Minister favour me with an answer to that question.

Senator BISHOP:

-I told the honourable senator that the figures will be released in a few days time. Then he can see for himself the trends I have spoken about. If I can get the figures to the honourable senator before they are released I will do so.

page 2285

QUESTION

PREMIER OF QUEENSLAND

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Could the Australian Government, through one of its assistance schemes, provide financial aid to the Premier of Queensland, the Honourable Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, to enable him to campaign in Bass and thus prevent the misuse of Queensland taxpayers’ funds? Is the Minister aware that the parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party in Tasmania made immediate arrangements to leave Tasmania for the duration of the by-election campaign when he was advised that the Queensland Premier was proceeding south for the express purpose of making out a case for the National Country Party candidate in opposition to the Liberal Party candidate? Will the Australian Government assist Mr Bingham with finance to enable him to remain out of the State until Holy Joh goes home?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am quite sure that the Queensland Premier would have no compunction whatsoever in using the money of the Queensland taxpayers to go to Tasmania. I have no objection to his going there; he will prove to be our trump card. I also have no doubt that Mr Bingham has left the State because the very thought of Mr Bjelke-Petersen coming down there would be enough to make any Liberal leave the State.

page 2285

QUESTION

FINANCING OF FILM

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– Does the Minister for the Media recall my asking him earlier this week a question relating to the financing of the film ‘The Adventures of Barry McKenzie’ and whether a Mr Saffron was involved in the financing? Does the Minister recall giving an undertaking to make inquiries to find out whether this in fact was so? Does the Minister have an answer to this matter yet?

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

– I recall the substance of the honourable senator’s question and I also recall that I undertook to obtain information for her. I have been in touch with the Film Development Corporation to ascertain details and the chief executive officer of the Corporation has provided information to my office in reply to the question directed to me by Senator Martin. The chief executive officer of the Corporation advises that he is aware of only one other member of the syndicate that was referred to and that was Mr Jim Barnett. Mr Stacey claims that Mr Saffron originally had said he would find a third partner for the syndicate. Mr Stacey claims that he never knew who that third party was. However, he has asked Mr Saffron to provide the information. It has not yet been provided. Mr Stacey also advises that Mr Saffron has never invested at any time in any film in which the Film Development Corporation has had interest’. The only other information that Mr Stacey could offer about the production of ‘The Adventures of Barry McKenzie’ was that apparently the promotors sought for 6 months but without success to obtain funds to produce the film. The chief executive officer of the Film Development Corporation asserts that it was only when the third party with whom Mr Saffron was hoping to come to an arrangement failed to take up his option that the matter officially came to the attention of the Corporation.

Having given that information in response to Senator Martin’s question, I emphasis again that the Film Development Corporation is a completely independent statutory body. I remind honourable senators that yesterday I made a statement on behalf of the chairman of the Film Development Corporation, Mr Darling, who said, amongst other things, that full disclosure of all propositions in detail is made to the Board and investors are disclosed. The investor who intended to participate as to 50 per cent in ‘The Adventures of Barry McKenzie’ was not Mr Abe Saffron but a corporation of substance. It appeared to me, frankly, when I received the information this morning from the Film Development Corporation that it conflicted somewhat with the information given to me yesterday and which I gave the Senate yesterday on behalf of Mr Darling. So I had my office contact Mr Darling whilst I was in the Senate this morning.

The information given to me now is that Mr Darling advises that the information in his statement, which I gave to the Senate yesterday, was accurate from his recollection of the facts. However, now that Mr Stacey has advised him that there was a syndicate prior to the corporation of substance- the corporation of substance finally invested in the film, in co-operation with the AFDC- he must accept Mr Stacey ‘s advice. I assure the honourable senator that the information which I provided to the Senate yesterday was information provided to me by Mr Darling. I certainly, as the Minister answerable to the Parliament for the Film Development Corporation, will now be asking Mr Darling to give the matter his detailed consideration. I will ask him to request the Corporation to discuss the matter again at a very early time. Honourable senators will be aware that I told the Senate on Tuesday that the Corporation had discussed the matter last Friday. After that further discussion with the Corporation, I will advise the honourable senator of the results of the deliberations. Meanwhile, I point out again that this Government decided to introduce and has introduced, legislation that will eventually disband the Australian Film Development Corporation. We have established the Australian Film Commission. The Corporation is to be disbanded on a date to be proclaimed. I can tell the honourable senator that the proclamation date for the disbandment of the Film Development Corporation to which I am working is 30 June, which is the end of this financial year.

page 2286

QUESTION

CADBURY SCHWEPPES PTY LTD

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. I point out that recently a meeting was held between certain union executives and the executive of Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd in Hobart concerning the freighting of goods from Claremont to the mainland. Is the Minister aware that unless Cad burys can be guaranteed a virtually continuous shipping service to and from Tasmania it is,’almost certain to leave Tasmania, so adding to Tasmania’s already high unemployment rate? Is the Minister able to say whether the Government has requested the unions involved with shipping and freighting to and from Tasmania to give Tasmania special consideration when any strike is contemplated?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I was unaware that another company in Tasmania was in difficulties. I would have thought that Senator Townley, as a man who has the interests of that beautiful State very close to his heart, would have approached me and informed me of the difficulties facing Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd. Now that I have become apprised of that company’s difficulties I will certainly give them my close attention. This Government has instanced on several occasions its particularly close interest in the problems of Tasmania. Examples were given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate earlier today. The problems of the Electrolytic Zinc of Australasia Ltd and Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd have received the close attention of this Government. I can assure the honourable senator that we will give equally sympathetic consideration to the problems of Cadburys.

page 2286

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GRAPE GROWERS

Senator McLAREN:

– Is the Minister for Agriculture aware that despite the problems being experienced by small South Australian grape growers in disposing of their crop many large companies are continuing planting large acreages of vines in that State? Will the Minister ascertain the names of these companies and the annual acreage being planted by them?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I will endeavour to do so. Of course, it is purely a matter within the responsibility of the State Government to control, if it wishes, such activities by any primary producer. It is certainly outside the constitutional power of the Federal Government to take any action of that nature unless there was some agreed quota arrangement with the State concerned. That certainly does not apply to the grape industry in that State. I shall endeavour to find out the information. The matter interests me and, if in fact it is correct that that is happening, it concerns me. I do not know of any expanding commercial operations going on in that area. Pilot schemes to improve the quality of grapes are being undertaken but I assume from the honourable senator’s question that he is referring to commercial plantings. If that is the case I shall endeavour to get what information I can.

page 2286

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for the Media say whether the Australian Film Development Corporation’s assessments of the film ‘The Man from Hong Kong’ recommended against the making of that film while, at the same time, ‘The Outcasts of Fullgarah’ received excellent assessments as to its being filmed? If this is so, will the Minister make inquiries as to why the Board of the Australian Film Development Corporation overrode the recommendation and proceeded with the filming of ‘The Man from Hong Kong’ rather than with ‘The Outcasts of Fullgarah’? Following the Minister’s answer to Senator Martin this morning will the Minister at the same time give further consideration to having a full inquiry made into all the activities of those associated with the board of the Australian Film Development Corporation?

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

– I remind the honourable senator that all members of the Australian Film Development Corporation, with the exception of one, were appointed by the Government of which the honourable senator was a supporter. As far as the assessments of the 2 scripts are concerned, I certainly would not know whether the assessors recommended against ‘The Man from Hong Kong’ and for ‘The Outcasts of Fullgarah’. However, I know that the film ‘The Man from Hong Kong’ has been made. From recollection I think there was an investment in it by the Australian Film Development Corporation. The film was presented at the recent Cannes film festival. I am told it was very well received. Those who have been connected with the production are convinced beyond doubt that it will be an overwhelming commercial success. I shall make inquiries of the Australian Film Development Corporation. As far as the last aspect of the honourable senator’s question is concerned, again I say that at this stage I will not order an inquiry into the matters he raised. The Australian Film Development Corporation is a completely independent statutory body. I shall ask the Chairman of the Corporation to call an early meeting to discuss the matters which have been ventilated by the Opposition in the Parliament this week.

page 2287

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-The Minister for Manufacturing Industry will recall that last week I asked him whether it was likely that legislation in regard to legal aid and particularly in regard to the Australian Legal Aid Commission and the Australian Legal Aid Office would be introduced into the Parliament so that it could be studied in the recess. The Minister expressed the hope that this would be so. May I know whether those hopes will be realised?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I recall the honourable senator’s question. After he asked it I had some informal discussions with the Attorney-General who expressed the hope that the Bill would be introduced during the present sessional period. I know that the Parliamentary Counsel has been heavily overworked due largely to the activist nature of the present Government which is ever eager to reform areas of Australian life which require reform. It may be that in the press of producing Bills to reform these areas the necessary legislation to introduce the Australian Legal Aid Office as a statutory body has been pushed down the queue. I hope not. I will take the matter up again with my colleague the Attorney-General and I shall let the honourable senator have an answer, I hope today.

page 2287

AUSTRALIAN COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the second report of the Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education on needs in technical and further education in Australia.

page 2287

BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the progress report on the bilingual education program in schools in the Northern Territory, dated December 1973.

page 2287

RECREATION MINISTERS’ COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the record of decisions of the second meeting of the Recreation Ministers’ Council held in Melbourne on 6 September, 1974.

page 2287

AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR REHABILITATION OF DISABLED

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled entitled: ‘Design for Access and Mobility’.

page 2287

QUESTION

WAR PENSION ENTITLEMENT APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)Pursuant to section 82 of the Repatriation Act 1920-1974 I present the annual reports of the War Pension Entitlement Appeal Tribunals numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the year ended 30 June, 1974. I seek leave to make a very brief statement on the report of the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal No. 4.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– In the annual report of No. 4 War Pension Entitlement Appeal Tribunal for the year ended 30 June 1974, the Tribunal dwelt at some length on legislative changes which had occurred during the year. In particular, at pages 5, 6 and 7 of the report the Tribunal mentioned a number of matters of concern to it arising out of legislation requiring Tribunals to give reasons for their decisions. The Tribunal has expressed some concern at the form and content of the legislation enacted by the Repatriation Act (No. 3) 1973, which inserted section 47a in the principal Act, and by Statutory Rules 1974 No. 57, which introduced new regulations 38, 38a and 39.

The matters raised by the Tribunal have caused me some concern and I have had my Department examine them thoroughly, in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department. This examination is continuing, and I assure honourable senators that should the examination confirm, whether in whole or in part, the substance of the comments raised by the Tribunal, legislative action will be put in train immediately to remedy the problem.

page 2288

IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT AND INTEGRATION

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled Survey of Views of Local Government Authorities Relating to Immigrant Settlement and Integration’.

page 2288

TERRITORIAL CRIMINAL LAW

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Working Party on Territorial Criminal Law together with a short ministerial statement. As will be apparent, this is a very bulky document and due to the limited number of copies presently available, reference copies of the report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. The report will be distributed to senators when additional copies become available.

page 2288

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-I bring up the report from Joint Committee on Prices on frozen and canned vegetables, and move that the report be printed.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GIETZELT:

– The report which has just been tabled is the fourth report from the present Committee and the ninth report from the Prices Committee. In addition, 2 statements on Committee inquiries have been made to the Parliament in lieu of reports. The inquiry on which this report is based was commenced by the Committee established in the Twenty-eighth Parliament. The delay in presenting this report to the Parliament was caused, among other reasons, by the time taken by major processors to provide certain information and the dissolution of the Twenty-eighth Parliament.

In this report the Committee has made 2 recommendations that would assist the consumer in the purchase of frozen and canned vegetables. The recommendations relate to regulations under section 63 of the Trade Practices Act. The Committee has recommended quality standards for frozen peas and quantity standards for frozen and canned vegetables. These standards amount to more informative labelling and would therefore assist the consumer to relate price with quality for frozen vegetables, and price with the quantity shown on the can or packet of frozen and canned vegetables. The Committee is of the opinion that such regulations would be very beneficial to consumers who shop around, and we are keen to persuade all consumers to fall into that category.

These recommendations apart, the Committee does not find, in its examination of the industry evidence that showed that the consumer was being disadvantaged by any particular practice engaged in by the processors in this industry. The industry is, like soaps and detergents, highly concentrated. But unlike the latter, the Committee has found that the frozen and canned vegetables industry is one where the competition is real and effective. The amount of advertising was low, charges of brand proliferation were not substantiated and the profits earned in the industry are not high.

Perhaps the main reason for the existence of strong competition is the importance of house brands- products made by processors for retailers or wholesalers under their own private label. There are more than a dozen house brands for frozen peas and beans and these supply more than 40 per cent of the market. The inability of the processors to get national acceptance for their own brands is probably the reason for the importance of house brands in this industry. House brand contracts are determined mainly on the basis of price, and price competition between processors has been and is strong. Thus the power of the retailers has acted as a balance against the power of processors and has brought benefits to the consumer as well.

From the commencement of the inquiry, the Committee’s attention was drawn to the position of the grower vis-a-vis the processor in this industry. While evidence that the processor has exploited the grower was not conclusive, the Committee noted comments in the Green Paper on Rural Policy in Australia which argued the case for Government involvement where there was a vast disparity in the bargaining strength of growers and processors. This is the case in the frozen and canned vegetables industry where 4 major processors deal with large numbers, literally thousands, of individual growers.

The Committee examined various proposals that would restore the competitive balance between the buyers and sellers of vegetables and has recommended that because of the relatively strong bargaining position of the processors the Minister for Agriculture establish a national panel of vegetable growers and processors of peas and beans. The Committee has further recommended that the panel should consist of an official of the Department of Agriculture and an equal number of growers and processors. A representative of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations should be invited to attend meetings of the panel. The main functions of the panel would be to discuss the long-term future of the industry and other matters of mutual interest such as prices and contracts.

To give effect to this recommendation, the Committee has also recommended that the activities of the panel be exempted from the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 2289

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

-As Chairman, I present the 156th Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator McAULIFFE:

- Mr President, I seek leave to have a short statement incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The 156th Report of the Public Accounts Committee comprises two Treasury minutes relating to previous reports of the Committee.

These reports were the 147th Report which dealt with expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for 1972-73 and the 148th Report which related to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the Appropriation Acts 1972-73. In the 147th Report the Committee made reference to the fact that it had found evidence of clerical errors, inefficient estimating procedures and delays which caused expenditure to be charged to the Advance to the Treasurer when provision should properly have been made in the additional estimates. In the 148th Report the Committee found it necessary to refer to cases of unsatisfactory estimating or administrative performances that resulted in shortfalls in expenditure. The Committee is pleased to note from the Treasury minutes that action has been taken by departments to overcome these inadequacies and that the conclusions of the Committee have been brought to the notice of the appropriate officers.

The practice of presenting Treasury minutes is the result of an arrangement made between the Committee and the Treasurer before the presentation of the Committee’s first report on 10 March 1953. The arrangement is that the Committee forwards a copy of each report to the Treasurer for consideration immediately that report is tabled. His reply, in the form of a Treasury minute is then examined by the Committee and included in a later report to the Parliament. The 156th Report is one of these later reports. Before preparing its minute, the Treasury consults the departments concerned and obtains their views on the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee. Essentially the Treasury minute system ensures that committee recommendations are acted upon and informs members of the steps taken to meet their proposals. I commend the Report to honourable senators.

page 2289

DAYS AND TIMES OF SITTING

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

– I move:

Mr President, I do not think there is any need for amplification of the motion.

Motion agreed to.

page 2289

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

One purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian income tax law so that when Papua New Guinea becomes independent it will be treated as a separate country for Australian tax purposes. The Bill will also give effect to other taxation proposals, some of which have been earlier announced. Our income tax law contains a number of special provisions relating to Papua New Guinea. These are the product of a variety of circumstances, including the longstanding policy of applying our tax laws in a limited way to Australian Territories. Some relate to an administrative position that came about in 1959 when a separate income tax was imposed in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. The provisions appropriate for a Territory are not of course appropriate for an independent country. Moreover, changes in both countries’ laws since 1959 have removed the justification for the provisions relating to the 1959 situation. Except in a few respects, the amendments proposed by this Bill will end the operation of these special provisions.

In broad terms, those provisions that provide special treatment for certain categories of income or expenditure related to activities conducted in either Australia or Papua New Guinea, but not in other countries, will be made inapplicable by the Bill so far as concerns income and expenditure related to activities conducted in an independent Papua New Guinea. Subject to some exceptions, income derived from a source in Papua New Guinea by Australian residents will be treated in the same way for Australian Tax purposes as income from a source in other places outside Australia. Residents of Papua New Guinea will be taxed like other nonresidents on income from sources in Australia.

One of the more important exceptions is a form of double tax relief to apply after independence. A tax credit system at present applies in respect of Papua New Guinea income of Australian residents and in the converse case. It is proposed to retain this system in Australia after independence but, as the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) announced recently, the salary or wages of Australians working in Papua New Guinea will be exempted from Australian tax where Papua New Guinea taxes the income. The rate of withholding tax on dividends paid to Papua New Guinea residents is half the general rate of 30 per cent. This is a concession we ordinarily make only in the context of a comprehensive double taxation agreement with other countries. We propose however to continue it in Papua New Guinea’s case after independence.

The Bill generally requires the changes I have described to be synchronised with Papua New Guinea’s independence. Transitional provisions are included to take account of commitments that may have already been undertaken by taxpayers against the background of the present law. In this connection I mention that we will be giving sympathetic consideration to a request that the Papua New Guinea Government has recently foreshadowed it will make for some extension of these transitional arrangements in relation to mineral exploration expenditure by Australian companies in Papua New Guinea.

The Bill also contains some other measures related to Papua New Guinea’s independence. One of these is that, on a basis of reciprocity, people in receipt of pensions from Australia or Papua New Guinea are to be taxed only in whichever of the 2 countries they reside. Another will confer an exemption from Australian tax on compensation and allowances paid under the employment security scheme now authorised by the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973. These amounts are paid to members of the Australian Staffing Assistance Group and other former expatriate officers of the Public Service of Papua New Guinea on termination of their services there.

An altogether different provision of the Bill will facilitate the raising of loans overseas by the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It will provide an exemption from withholding tax for interest paid by the Corporation on such loans. The Bill provides also for the accelerated income tax deductions for depreciation announced on 9 December 1974 to stimulate investment in manufacturing and primary production plant. Taxpayers will be entitled to claim depreciation deductions on eligible plant calculated at twice the rates normally applied for income tax purposes. The increased rates will continue to apply in succeeding years until the cost of the eligible plant has been written off. Plant that would have qualified for the now abolished investment allowances, and is first used or installed ready for use during the 12 months period ending 30 June 1975, will be eligible for the concession. In broad terms, this is new plant acquired for use in a manufacturing or associated process and plant to be used wholly and exclusively in primary production activities.

Taxpayers may elect to forgo the accelerated depreciation allowances if they so wish.

The Bill will also implement 2 earlier announced decisions designed to give relief in the private sector of the economy. The first of these- to dispense with the collection of an instalment of tax from companies in February 1975- was announced late last year. The second- the repeal of provisions enacted in the 1974-75 Budget to ascribe minimum values for income tax purposes to cars available for private use of employees- is one of a package of measures that the Treasurer announced on 28 January to assist the motor vehicle industry.

The law will also be amended by the Bill so as to remove any possible doubt that allowances paid under the National Employment and Training system are liable to income tax and subject to tax instalment deductions. The various amendments are explained in detail in the memorandum being circulated to honourable senators, and I need not elaborate on them further in this introductory speech. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2291

STATES GRANTS (BEEF INDUSTRY) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to a decision by the Government to join with the States in the provision of carry-on loan funds for beef producers. The Bill provides for an amount of $ 1 9.6m to match State allocations for carry-on funds which comprise: Queensland, $10m; New South Wales, $5m; Victoria, $2m; South Australia, $ 1.5m; Western Australia, $0.8m; and Tasmania, $0.3m. The terms and conditions under which these funds are being made available by the Australian Government will be formalised by an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the respective Premiers. The terms and conditions which have been agreed by Ministers are:

  1. Initially the interest rate on the loans to producers will be 4 per cent per annum in all States except Queensland. In Queensland, the interest rate will be 3Va per cent based on 4 per cent for Australian Government funds and Vh per cent for Queensland funds;
  2. The maximum term of the loan will be 7 years;
  3. No repayments of principal will be due in the first year and during the first 12 months interest will be capitalised and repayable over the term of the loan;
  4. The interest rate and repayment terms will be subject to review after the first year with a view to commencement of normal debt servicing requirements. After that there will be an annual review with the aim of liquidating the debt as soon as possible within the maximum term of 7 years;
  5. There will be a limit of $10,000 on each individual loan except in Queensland where an upper limit has yet to be decided.

The arrangements between the Australian and State governments will provide for equal sharing of loan administration costs and of any shortfall of either principal or interest repayments by producers. Honourable senators will be aware that this is a very difficult time for the beef industry. Despite a slight improvement in the position over the last two or three months and the significant increase in domestic consumption of beef in Australia the Government believes that such action taken in conjunction with the States is fully justified. It was in recognition of this that the Government proposed to the States a joint lending operation. The proposal was to provide carry-on funds to beef producers who, while viable under more normal market conditions, were unable at present to obtain carry-on funds through normal sources. The result is that the States have made decisions on the amounts which they will provide. The total amount of $ 19.6 m mentioned in the Bill equates to the total of the amounts announced by the State governments. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Maunsell) adjourned.

WOOL TAX BILLS (Nos Ito 5) 1975

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages Tor the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Wool Tax Bills (Nos 1 to 5) 1975 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Maunsell) adjourned.

page 2292

DAIRY PRODUCE BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT (Tasmania- Minister for

Agriculture) ( 1 1.33)- I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-1973 to change the powers and membership of the Australian Dairy Produce Board as part of the Government’s programme to provide progressively more effective regulatory and marketing services to Australian primary industries. The changes proposed follow a review of the present legislation in the course of which representative organisations of producers and manufacturers have been consulted at every stage. The changes have been agreed at meetings with the major dairy industry organisations.

Since the Board was last reconstituted in 1947 there have been many changes in the structure of the dairy industry at the farm and the factory level. The industry is also presently faced with a number of unresolved issues which will influence its future. These include developments in relation to the dairy industry equalisation arrangements and the potential consequences of the recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission which is inquiring into the type of assistance required for the industry after I July 1976. The Government considers that it will be a useful move to strengthen the capability of the Australian Dairy Produce Board to accord more closely with the circumstances of 1975 and beyond. The circumstances facing the Australian dairy industry are now very different since the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community in February 1973. Prior to this the United Kingdom was the principal market for the disposal of surplus Australian dairy production. The effects have been twofold. First the EEC which has formed itself into a powerful bloc is virtually closed as a market for our dairy products and is strongly competitive in other markets. Second, to dispose of product at premium prices the Corporation must be able to find new markets and be competitive in existing markets. Greater accent will need to be placed on collective action to co-ordinate marketing activities and improve marketing efficiency in order to achieve the maximum benefits for dairy farmers, manufacturers and distributors and exporters. The additional powers proposed will strengthen the Corporation’s regulatory responsibilities and provide it with more flexibility in its financial and trading operations to permit this.

I now turn to the details of the Bill. The Australian Dairy Produce Board will be renamed the Australian Dairy Corporation and will consist of 11 members, namely, an independent Chairman, 3 members to represent dairy farmers, 3 members to represent manufacturers, 2 members with special qualifications, one employee representative and one Government representative. All the members of the Corporation will be appointed by the Minister for Agriculture. The members to represent dairy farmers and manufacturers will be selected from panels of names submitted by the appropriate dairy industry bodies. The 2 members with special qualifications will be appointed after consultation with the appropriate industry bodies. These members will be people specially qualified for appointment by reason of their experience and expertise in marketing generally, or in the marketing of dairy produce, or by reason of other experience in commerce, finance, economics, science or industry matters. The position of Chairman will be of major importance to the operation of the Corporation. The qualities demanded will be a capacity for leadership and broad commercial experience consistent with the range of functions the corporation has to perform including the guidance and determination of marketing policy.

The Bill provides that the 3 dairy farmer representatives, the 3 manufacturer representatives and the 2 members with special qualifications will retire by rotation. This will be achieved by making one of the initial appointments in each category for a term of 2 years and the other appointments for a term of 3 years. In this way retirement will be staggered and will thus ensure a nucleus of experienced members at all times. All subsequent appointments will be for a period of 3 years. Other part-time members will hold office for 3 years. The changes proposed are designed to achieve a balanced membership which will enhance the Corporation’s ability to perform its functions in a modern marketing environment. At meetings with industry representatives there has been general agreement that the new membership structure meets this objective and that there is satisfactory scope for bringing to the Corporation representation of all important industry interests.

The opportunity has been taken to set out the functions of the Corporation in clause 6 ( 13) of the Bill on the lines followed in legislation for other comparable statutory bodies. The existing powers are to be assumed by the Corporation with additions in 3 main areas where it is considered that a change would benefit the industry and improve the Corporation’s operations. First the Corporation’s regulatory functions will be strengthened by providing it with specific power after consultation with appropriate industry bodies to determine the quantity of dairy produce which will be exported to a particular country or countries in the course of the season. The purpose of this provision- clause 6 ( 13B) of the Bill- is to help ensure that adequate supplies are maintained for domestic consumption and to enable the Corporation to meet specific overseas obligations particularly by way of long term supply arrangements which could become an increasingly important element in the industry’s export marketing arrangements. Second, under clause 7 the Corporation will have monopoly trading power for specific export markets by regulation after consultation with the industry. Currently the Board has this power for the United Kingdom and by voluntary industry arrangement for cheese to Japan. The purpose of the provision which has wide industry support, would be to meet special circumstances where for example, development of a fragmented marketing approach would be harmful to the Australian industry or where new market development was not attractive to private traders because of special commercial difficulties.

The third area relates to the borrowing powers of the Corporation which presently restrict advances under Australian Government guarantee to dairy produce intended for export. The principal purpose of the advance arrangements is to facilitate payments to producers pending the sale of their produce. Over the years they have formed an integral part of the industry’s arrangements to maintain price stability. Clauses 8 and 10 (23) extend the present borrowing powers to permit advances to be used to finance winter stocks by allowing product subject to Corporation advances to be withdrawn for the local market. This provision will assist the industry with its special seasonal production problems where the burden of maintaining substantial domestic stocks is falling increasingly on a small number of manufacturers in Victoria and Tasmania. In addition clause 10 (23) will enable the Corporation to borrow with the approval of the Treasurer from commercial lending institutions against secured assets. This will enable the Corporation to finance sales or stock holdings beyond the seasonal limit applying to the advances made by the Corporation from Reserve Bank funds.

The main source of finance for the operation of the present Board is obtained from a levy on butter fat used in the production of relevant dairy produce. However, the maximum levy rate for the last 2 years has been insufficient to cover the Board ‘s costs and it has relied on commission from sales to cover its expenditure. At the request of the industry a review was undertaken of” the basis and amount of levy to provide a more equitable and effective form of financing. I intend to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide for changes agreed with the industry which will enable the Corporation to obtain the necessary finance for its operations without relying on other measures.

I believe that the proposals embodied in this Bill will give the Australian Dairy Corporation more flexibility in its financial arrangements and trading operations and place greater emphasis on the experience and skills needed by Corporation members to carry out their functions than was possible under the structure of the present Board. 1 commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Maunsell) adjourned.

page 2294

DAIRY PRODUCE SALES PROMOTION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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 PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill is to make consequential technical amendments to the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958-1973 that have been made necessary by the amendments to the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-1973 as announced in my second reading speech on the Dairy Produce Bill 1975. The Bill provides that moneys in the Sales Promotion Fund are moneys of the Australian Dairy Corporation and also lays down the purpose for which the moneys may be expended from the Fund. There are no other changes. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Maunsell) adjourned.

page 2294

SUPERIOR COURT OF AUSTRALIA BILL 1974 [No. 3] (1975)

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

A Bill for this purpose was introduced by the then Attorney-General in the Senate in December 1973. It lapsed when Parliament was prorogued on the occasion of the Queen’s visit. It was reintroduced in March 1974 and was defeated by the Senate the following month. Another Bill was then introduced into the House of Representatives and was passed by that House in July last year. That Bill failed on 26 February this year, on a tied vote, to receive a second reading in the Senate. The Senate is thoroughly familiar with the terms and arguments in favour of this Bill and I accordingly ask for leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill is to establish the Superior Court of Australia. A Bill for this purpose was introduced by the then Attorney-General in the Senate in December 1973. It lapsed when Parliament was prorogued on the occasion of the Queen’s visit. It was reintroduced again in March 1974 and was defeated by the Senate the following month. Another Bill was then introduced in the House of Representatives and was passed by that House in July last year. That Bill failed on 26 February this year, on a tied vote, to receive a second reading in the Senate. To meet the requirement of section 57 of the Constitution, the Bill was re-presented in the House of Representatives on 28 May in the form in which it was previously passed by the House. Had it not been for those requirements, some changes would have been made now to the Bill, to take account of the creation of the Family Court of Australia under the Family Law Bill.

I do not propose to repeat all that has been said before about the long history of this project. I invite the attention of honourable senators to the former Attorney-General’s second reading speeches at pages 2724-2729 of Hansard of 12 December 1973 and pages 548-550 of Hansard of 30 July 1974. The provisions of the Bill also have been described before. I do not think it necessary to go again in detail through them. The High Court and the other Federal courts deal at present with a considerable range of federal matters. Industrial matters, trade practice matters, some appeals from administrative decisions of Australian Government Ministers and officials and some other matters are dealt with by the Industrial Court. This jurisdiction is exclusive of that of State courts. Developments in the past decade have seen the Industrial Court invested with an increasing load of jurisdiction for which it was not designed. The content of federal jurisdiction of a specialised character will continue to increase.

New areas of Federal Law are rapidly developing and the Parliament must concern itself with how these laws are to be administered in the courts. In family law there will be the choice between establishing special procedures, with judges specially selected for their aptitude for and interest in this field of law, or of leaving the administration of the new family law to the vagaries of 8 different systems of courts, only some of which have begun to move towards specialised family law procedures. Parliament has already recognised this by agreeing to the establishment of the Family Court under the Family Law Bill. In entering the important field of regulating the securities and exchange industry nationally, Parliament must ensure that there is a court adequately staffed and equipped with whatever resources are required for the effective administration of that Law throughout Australia. The Parliament has no constitutional responsibility for State courts and cannot, under the Constitution, intervene in the organisation of these courts. The High Court has made it clear that, in investing State courts with federal jurisdiction, the Parliament must take those courts as it finds them. In the past, opponents of the Bill have made much of jurisdictional difficulties, and have alleged uncertainty of knowing whether certain matters may be dealt with at all in a Federal court. It is significant that always the same three or four examples are brought up. The difficulties would not affect the great bulk of jurisdiction the new court would be called on to exercise.

On the last occasion this Bill was before the Senate, much was made by the Opposition of the United States experience as a reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with. The point was made that, in the United States, a person losing a case in State jurisdiction could then go to the Federal jurisdiction and have the result reversed on a point of federal law. I need hardly say that this situation could not arise under the Superior Court Bill. It could arise in the United States, because there the State courts do not have, and cannot be invested with, any federal jurisdiction. Therefore, a point of federal law could not be raised in a proceeding in a State court. These difficulties have been avoided in Australia by investing State courts with federal jurisdiction. The Bill does not attempt to deprive State courts of federal jurisdiction where the need might arise to have part of a case dealt with in State jurisdiction and part of it in federal jurisdiction. The way will be open to a claimant, therefore, to institute such proceedings in a court in which every aspect of the dispute can be litigated in the same proceeding. For example, a person claiming a payment under a contract as well as under a dishonoured cheque need not go to the federal court. But there is no reason why all jurisdiction in bankruptcy matters, in federal industrial matters, in income tax matters, in restrictive trade practices matters, to mention only a part of a large body of federal jurisdicton, could not be confined to Federal courts, because the kind of problem to which I have referred could not arise in such matters. Federal courts have exercised this jurisdiction satisfactorily in the past. In industrial jurisdiction they have done so for more than 70 years, in bankruptcy jurisdiction for more than 50 years.

There have been assertions that the new court will be costly to establish and administer. On this I make 2 points. First, the growing body of federal law in new areas, such as consumer protection, administrative law and the regulation of the securities and exchange industry, would, if administered by State courts, place an added burden on courts where there are already delays due to the volume of litigation. The appointment of Federal judges to administer this new jurisdiction would relieve the strain on State courts. There are already 18 judges in the Federal and Territory courts, and the consolidation of these courts into one court would enable a more rational use of the judicial resources we already have. Secondly, the Bill provides a structure which can develop as the work of the Court develops and as the need for specialist jurisdictions within the Court emerges. Thus it is contemplated that the Court can be built up over a period of time, according to the manner in which its jurisdiction develops. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 2295

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill proposes three important amendments to the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act. The first provides for the Supreme Court to be constituted by a bench of not less than three judges when dealing with matters relating to the professional behaviour or conduct of a legal practitioner. The second amendment will enable the Court to be similarly constituted where a single Judge considers that the proceedings before the Court are of sufficient importance to warrant this action. The third amendment inserts a specific provision for a change of venue in criminal proceedings before the Court.

In 1974 the former Legislative Council of the Northern Territory passed the Legal Practitioners Ordinance of the Northern Territory. Section 5 1 of the Ordinance defines the Supreme Court when dealing with disciplinary proceedings against a member of the profession, as meaning the Court comprising three Judges sitting together. Proposed new section 13a of the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act will give effect to this section of the Ordinance. New section 13B will enable a judge to order that the jurisdiction of the Court in a particular matter be exercised by not fewer than three judges when he considers that such a procedure is desirable. This procedure may be invoked where important points of law are involved or where a question of law has been the subject of differing opinions expressed by two or more Judges at different times. Proposed new section 13D of the Act prescribes the means of arriving at the decision of the Court in cases presided over by 3 or more judges if the judges are equally divided in opinion as to the decision. In such cases the opinion of the senior resident judge is to prevail. If there is no resident judge on the bench, the opinion of the senior additional judge is to prevail. Provisions similar to those contained in proposed new sections 13a, 13Band 1 3D already exist in the Australian Capital Territory Superme Court Act.

The amendment proposed by clause 9 will ensure an appeal lies to the High Court against sentence where an accused is committed for sentence to the Supreme Court and is sentenced by that court. A similar provision was inserted in section 52 (2) of the Australian Capital Territory Superme Court Act following the decision of the High Court in Jackson v The Queen (1964) A.L.J.R. 37. The High Court in this case held that the expression ‘convicted on indictment before the Supreme Court’ in section 52 of the Act did not cover the case where a person was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence by a lower court. The present amendment is necessary because the same words appear in sub-section ( 1 ) of section 47 of the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act; proposed clause 9 will remove the difficulty caused by the decision in Jackson v The Queen. Recently, doubts have been expressed as to the power of the Supreme Court to order a change of venue in criminal proceedings before it due to the absence of a provision in the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act expressly conferring such a power. While there are grounds for arguing that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction in this area, proposed new sub-sections (8) and (9) of section 5 1 of the Act will put the position beyond doubt.

The other amendments are of a minor nature or are merely consequential on those I have outlined. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 2296

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill provides for the validation until 31 December 1 975 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariffproposals Nos 13 to 17 ( 1974) and 1 to 19 (1975) introduced into the Parliament 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.; reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on-

Apparel Sections 1 and 2; Certain Textile Floorcoverings Diesel Engines exceeding 1500 kW; Food Processing Machinery; Foundation Garments; Glass and Glassware: Gloves, Mittens or Mitts; Industrial Tractors; Mushrooms;

Passenger Motor Vehicles; Polyamide and Polyester Yarns; Steam, Gas and Water Fittings; Textile and Apparel Machinery; Tyre Cord and Tyre Cord Fabric; Woodworking and Metalworking Machinery; Woven Man-made Fibre Fabrics and Yarns, Knitted Fabrics and Towelling; and reports by the Temporary Assistance Authority on-

Ball Bearings; Consumer Electronics; Domestic Refrigerators; Washing Machines; Clothes Dryers; Injection Moulding Machines and Motor Vehicle Tyres.

I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 2297

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 4 June.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:
QUEENSLAND

– The Committee is considering clause 3, to which Senator Cotton has moved the amendment shown as No. 1 on the Opposition’s list of proposed amendments. The amendment seeks to leave out ‘ 60 years ‘ and insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– At this stage I should like to take up the time of the Committee to refer first, to what I call some administrative observations made last night, because I do not think any one of us wants to see our life diminishing at a rate faster than normal by putting 95 amendments. It was my suggestion that we should group together the various amendments under the principal headings of amendment, of which there are four in substance and a possibility of one which lies under the first one, and try to dispose of the issues involved in four or perhaps five simple voting procedures. I am indeed indebted to the Clerks at the table for producing a proposed method of procedure for handling this and on which I, with due deference, Mr Temporary Chairman, thought you might like to advise the Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Thank you, Senator Cotton. I have before me the proposed procedure regarding consideration of the Superannuation Bill 1975 in the Committee stages. Copies have been distributed to all senators, and if senators feel they have had sufficient time to peruse them I would put it to the Committee seeking agreement that this procedure be adopted. Is there any objection to that procedure being adopted? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator COTTON:

-We are now dealing, as you are so properly observe, Mr Temporary

Chairman, with a motion for an amendment to clause 3 put by the Opposition, which last evening we were looking at in detail. Can the Minister advise me whether the accuracy of the figures he produced for us last night rather late in the evening and which he had incorporated by leave in Hansard can be personally vouched for by him?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The figures which were provided last night, as I indicated when I circulated them, were calculated by the Treasurer based on the amendment being put forward by the Opposition. I cannot personally vouch for them, of course. I did not do the calculations, but I would think that the accuracy of them would be accepted because, in an exercise of that nature- I am sure Senator Cotton would be the first to agree- the officers responsible for making the calculations would do so with the utmost care. On that basis I would believe them to be quite accurate.

Reference was made in the debate last night to the fact that they were 1972 figures. That is true, and it was possible that figures could have been supplied for 1973, but there would have been only a marginal difference in the effect of those figures. As we know, statistical information is normally lagging, but the figures that were shown there would give- I believe do give- a proper picture of the comparisons between the Government’s calculations and those of the Opposition. The date 30 June 1972 has been used for costing purposes because that was the date when full actuarial statistical data was available for the purposes of a quinquennial investigation into the scheme. If the present scheme were to continue the next quinquennial investigation would be as at 30 June 1977. Data as at 30 June 1974 on which revised cost estimates could be made will become available about mid August 1975. The Actuary would then require up to 6 months to investigate the up to date mortality, and so on, experience to revise valuation factors as necessary and to perform the calculations.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I thank the Minister for his observations because it will be necessary for me and my colleague Senator Wright, who have been looking at these figures overnight and who are rather concerned about some of the assumptions and their general accuracy, to put them under test. I take it from the Minister that it is not possible to have later figures than the 1972 figures because of statistical time lag, and the Commonwealth Actuary’s needs to be able to update the information. Flowing from that, I think it is therefore proper comment that we are being asked to make a decision in 1975 on 1972 information. We have not been told yet whether the inflation assumptions of 3.9 per cent are continuously assumed through time, and we are not told what wage rate increases are contemplated although we know from our own observations that between 1972 and 1974 the wage rate increase was 39 per cent. We do not know the total possible expansion limit of the fund, but it looks to us as though it could be up to 300 000 people. As far as we can detect from the figures provided, the relative situation would appear to be that the cost of all the additional benefits proposed by the Government is $ 1 3m to $ 1 6m, a 23.7 per cent increase. If the Opposition’s amendments were adopted the increased benefits it proposes would cost $743m, a 12.2 per cent increase. Flowing out of that, it is our calculation that the amendment proposed by the Opposition would save the Australian taxpayer $5 73m. As I said earlier, my colleague Senator Wright has done a great deal of work on this and I am going to defer to him in this instance so that the matter can be further illuminated.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I do not rise in any spirit of shedding elucidation on this matter but I do rise in an attempt to coordinate some of the figures. Dealing in the first place with any necessary adjustment from 1972 to 1975, we know that the number of contributors has increased from 196 000 to 224 000 and we know that about 60 000 new employees will become eligible to join the scheme. So if one takes the figures in the Treasury explanatory memorandum as the cost of retaining age 65 retirement as standard and not increasing the percentage for widows and so on, there is a total saving of $1,1 60m. If that is adjusted by reference to the increased number of contributors and new employees eligible and the rise of 39 per cent that has taken place in Public Service wages, on that basis it would not be unreasonable to expect the saving arising from adoption of the Opposition’s amendments to be $2,000m in capitalised terms over a period which we have not had stated and on a rate of capitalisation that has not been revealed to us. So that is the order of the impost on government that the Committee is considering.

Taking another aspect, the statement that Mr Garland incorporated in Hansard at page 2940 is a Treasury document explaining what the increased cost would be. On the assumptions of Mr Melville and Professor Pollard, and on the assumption that, on average, there will be certain retirement ages, it has been estimated that if the government-financed element of benefits payable under the new scheme were to be funded by the private sector method, a contribution equal to 23 per cent of the salary of each member would be payable during the period of his contributory membership of the scheme. That is to say, on the present basis it is contemplated that 23 per cent would have to be provided by private funds to obtain benefits equal to those in the proposed government scheme. If it were calculated on the basis of the Opposition’s amendments, the private sector would have to add to its salary bill, according to the next paragraph of the report, 22 per cent per year during the contributory period of their members to get equal benefits.

This morning I have obtained from the Statistician figures relating to national wage and salary earners, and if these could be distributed I would be obliged. I am informed that wages and salaries paid in Australia in 1972 were $22,443m-$22 billion. In the next year, 1973-74, they rose to $27,455-$27 billion. I have the figures for the first 3 months of this year and for the first 3 months of last year and, by comparison, there is indicated a 30 per cent rise in this year alone. These are the Statistician’s figures, and so the 1975 bill for wages and salaries goes up to $36,69 lm. If one takes 23 per cent of the Treasury’s estimate that I have read from Hansard and if one gives the private sector a funded scheme, which is the only method by which they can obtain benefits equal to this proposed scheme, there will be an annual impost on the salaries and wages bill of Australia of $8,438m, which is unconscionable in the present situation.

Coming to the specific item under debate, it was established last night that, according to the table that was provided by the Treasury at that late hour, the cost of adjusting this item of 65 years of age retirement would be $70 lm, and that is on 1972 figures. If that is adjusted- and there may be some actuarial error in this because I do not pretend to have any capacity for figures- by what would be assumed in the market- place to be an increment in salaries of 40 per cent to 50 per cent from 1972 to 1975, one gets a total figure of at least $850m as the cost of making the adjustment from the normal retiring age of 65 to 60. It bears in on me, Mr Temporary Chairman, that bringing this scheme down to retirement at 60 is an attempt to unload on the Treasury the liability that it has been necessary for contributors to meet in the past and it will result in Treasury’s taking over these heavy percentages that are a burden to contributors in relation to salaries. Individual employees have found that the tax and superannuation payments being absorbed from their salaries can amount to 50 per cent, and this is an attempt by the Government to unload on the Treasury that individual liability to purchase benefits for retirement at 60 years of age. There are other considerations that I will commence to unravel only if any other member of the Committee does not take the opportunity to intervene. I do not want to monopolise the time available, Mr Temporary Chairman.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Much of the latter part of Senator Wright’s comments repeated what he said last night, and I will deal with those first. They related to the question of alleged savings to the Treasury. Senator Wright referred to figures of $700m and $800m by which he claimed the Treasury would benefit, on the assumptions made in the calculations circulated last night relating to an age 60 retirement. I am not going to claim that I am an actuary, and I think at the very beginning of this debate the complexity of the matters with which the Committee would be dealing was acknowledged. I think it is very dangerous for anyone in this Committee to become involved in arguing about these figures. The Committee is looking at projections over 80 years and it is quite nonsensical for anyone to make any assumptions on which we could rely over such a lengthy period. Even for an actuary it would have been an extremely difficult task.

All of these calculations are based on assumptions, and the actuaries themselves admit that they can do no more than that. It is logical that that is the only basis on which it can be done. We are arguing in terms of an amount involving some hundreds of millions of dollars over an enormous period of time. If one’s mind could comprehend the magnitude of, say, the national income over 80 years, the figures that we are talking about here today as alleged savings to the Treasury become infinitesimal. What is not infinitesimal are the benefits which accrue to the recipients of this superannuation scheme in the immediate years ahead. It seems to me an illogical approach to the argument to suggest that because of what appear to be large figures to us here today we are going to prejudice this scheme without even being able to reliably predict, as no one can predict, the development of inflation rates, etc., over the next 80 years.

In any costing of a superannuation scheme or welfare measure the use of capitalised costs permits the comparison of one or more alternatives with the costs of existing arrangements. The absolute levels of capitalised costs being outgoings over 80 years are difficult of comprehension, to say the least. The most meaningful measure is the percentage change from the present arrangements. This is the case with the present Bill and it is the point that it is important for us to realise. This percentage change will not be materially different whether it is computed on 1972 or 1975 data unless there has been a change in one of two particular factors. One would be the age distribution of contributors and the other would be the proportion of persons contributing for age 60 retirement as against age 65 retirement. This has not happened to any measurable or marked degree. The overall percentage changes in capitalised cost as computed at 1972 remain a valid measure of the prospective changes in Government liabilities.

This illustrates the fallacy of saying that because the inflation assumptions have been 3.9 per cent the whole concept or the whole list of calculations collapses because of a higher inflation rate. All the factors are affected according to what the inflation rate happens to be. There were discussions with the Office of the Australian Government Actuary and Life Insurance Commissioner and I am advised that the costs supplied, and which were provided in the explanatory memorandum, rely to a large degree on the differences between the assumed rates which are used- that is the interest rate assumption, the salary increase assumption and the consumer price index assumption. In those cases respectively they were 5.5 per cent for the first two and 3.9 per cent for the consumer price index. For example, the costs would have been approximately the same as those published if the following assumptions had been made instead of the ones that I have just quoted; namely, an interest rate assumption of 10 per cent, a salary increase assumption of 10 per cent and a consumer price index of 8.4 per cent.

I also am advised that the office of the Actuary stresses that whatever assumptions are adopted they must be considered reasonable over the period when the outgoings are to occur, in this case 80 years. That brings me back to the point that I was making earlier: They are assumptions, and this is the only way in which the persons concerned can arrive at figures which can be provided for the lifetime of the scheme. I believe it is quite erroneous and misleading to juggle with figures which we in this chamber, in my belief, are unable to say can be argued with. Senator Cotton or Senator Wright, I am not sure who it was, referred to the costs per annum to the private sector.

Senator Cotton:

– It was Senator Wright.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It was Senator Wright who said it would cost the private sector $8m a year. I stress again that we are not talking about the private sector introducing a superannuation scheme of this type. I thought we went through all that last night in the debate. This is a different scheme altogether. It is improving the basis of the scheme which existed under the previous Government. I do not believe it is even relevant to talk about equal benefits for the private sector in the context of this debate. If we want to have a debate on the benefits or otherwise of a national superannuation scheme that is a different matter. However, those points were touched on last night. I suggest that for the Committee now to follow a course of attempting to set itself up as a group of actuaries and to produce arguments for the purpose of carrying the amendment is to me a futile exercise and one in which we would get completely out of our depth.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– We have now become increasingly concerned with the whole ambit of what we are dealing with because what we are still living with is a proposal to deal with a matter of great importance on 1972 information and upon assumptions which clearly are by no means the same as we live with at the present time. According to the best information we can get, with limited time and limited access to outside people with whom we can consult, our conclusion is that the Government has understated to the Senate the real cost of the scheme. However, as I have said, we have been limited quite heavily in respect of time. As far as we can determine, the difference in cost is between $1,3 16m at 23.7 per cent and $743m at 12.2 per cent, which of itself is massive. On the basis that our amendment were carried there would be a saving of $573m.

I take up the observation of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) that it is no part of the purpose of this chamber to consider itself as a body of actuaries or superannuation fund experts. That certainly is not the intention of the Opposition. It is no way for us to behave, and we have not behaved in that way. But we are entitled to put under examination, to the best of our ability, proposals for Government expenditure which on the best evidence we can get appear to us to be of severe consequence to the Australian community and the Australian taxpayers. That is what we have done. No one in the Opposition wants to be placed in the position of being a paid attendant to the Public Service iron lung located in Canberra. We have a responsibility and we have endeavoured to discharge it.

It is my view, on the material now coming forward and on the information that is being made available, that the scene is getting increasingly confused. It is very hard to see true accuracy. The best assumptions we can make are ones which lead us to believe that the scheme will cost a lot more than is said. This can go on for ever. There is no doubt about that. Clearly it would have been far better if this matter had been brought up earlier and put under the scrutiny of a Senate committee of some kind, or some similar exercise, but that is not possible at the moment. I think that the only course of action open to the Opposition, having notified our great concern about this matter, is to at least dispose of amendment No. 1, which refers to the retiring age. That really is the underlying point of amendment No. 1.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I would like to say a word on this matter. Originally I had some concern with the proposal to introduce the 65 years retiring limit into this Bill. I suppose I was influenced quite a lot by the large number of telegrams and representations that I have received from members of the Public Service. Most of these people have some selfinterest, of course. I can understand their attitude, because no doubt I would adopt a similar attitude. I have had many talks with younger members of the Public Service who will have to pay more, and I have had talks with people who have opted to retire at 60 years of age under the existing scheme. The people in the latter group are quite confused because they believe that they will be unable to continue with that objective. I have been able to assure them that they will be able to do so. I spoke only a few moments ago on the telephone to a friend of mine in the Commonwealth Public Service in South Australia who is paying $79.57 a fortnight for superannuation. He is a Class 8 public servant on a salary of $13,590. His take home pay is about half his gross salary. I can see the problem facing that class of public servant.

Strangely enough, he recognises the responsibility of the Opposition in this matter and appreciates that our action is in the best interests of the community at large. I assured him that if he wished he would be able to come into the new scheme, under our amendment, and would receive a lump sum repayment of the excess amount that he has been contributing, provided he has been in the service for 20 years. If he retired at the earlier retiring age of 60, his Government financed pension would be 40 per cent, not the 50 per cent that he would receive if he went on to 65. I understand that under our scheme, for each year of service after 60 years, this figure of 40 per cent increases by 2 per cent. When I explained the position to this friend of mine he thought the proposition was fair. Several of his friends have been involved in the discussion as well. He has an ambition to go overseas. He would find this lump sum repayment very useful. He would have no difficulty investing it at 12 per cent. In his case, that has some attraction.

I would like to think that a future LiberalNational Country Party Government would look at this clause. I am quite sure that the time for us to occupy the Treasury bench is not far off. I believe that under the management of a LiberalNational Country Party Government the inflationary problem will eventually be brought under control. When the economic climate is such that we can look at this clause again, I believe we ought to reconsider this amendment. I believe also that the Liberal-National Country Party Government ought to be looking at the question of a national superannuation scheme so that we can offer to the private sector something that is as good as or almost as good as the scheme which is being offered to the Public Service. I think that is an area of responsibility in which insurance companies might take up the challenge. I would like to think that when the time comes for our Government to take over from the socialists we will be able to offer to private enterprise a national superannuation scheme, based on private enterprise and something which will bring some equity back into this area of superannuation. For that reason I support the amendment at this stage, although initially I had my doubts about it. I have had an opportunity to discuss it with people concerned and to examine our responsibilities in the private sector. Bearing in mind what I have said about our responsibility to do something positive in future with respect to national superannuation, I support the amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I listened to the reply of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) to my submisions. I made it quite clear that I do not pretend to be an actuary. I listened to the Minister trying to refute my figures by asserting that when the 1975 salary comes to be the basis of consideration mortality rates will be adjusted by experience, the number of people who have opted to take lump sum benefits will be considered as new experience, and the number and salary bases will be important bases for the Government Actuary’s consideration. All those things are essential ingredients in the computation which was put before the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns). If those matters cannot reasonably be projected by us on the figures which we have had in the interval, it is purely an irresponsible endeavour by the Government to put forward a scheme to operate from July 1975 on the basis of 1972 figures. That is the result of any logic in the Minister’s reference to these essential actuarial factors, but we are dealing with this matter on the basis that the Government asks- 1972- because there are important incongruities in the operation of the present scheme which should be corrected. Therefore we are making our best translation of the 1972 figures to 1975. The repetition by the Minister of some accountant’s notes would be all too obvious even to an ordinary member of this Committee. If they are a refutation of our proposition applied to 1975 figures, they are a complete subversion of the 1972 figures upon which the Minister is attempting to construct a scheme applicable to 1975 on a 1972 basis.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Once again Senator Wright has fallen into the old trap of being an authority on every subject that comes before the Senate. Again we heard him setting himself up as an authority, this time on the superannuation scheme. The fact that he writes these notes off as an accountant’s notes does not impress me. If he knows more about these matters of actuarial calculation than the people who are employed by the Treasury and people outside the Treasury and if he would like to take on these people in public debate about these matters, he is at liberty to do so. The fact is that these calculations have been made by competent people. I certainly would not consider myself competent to debate these matters with such people.

Reference was made earlier to the access to expert knowledge. I wish to put on record that every facility was given to the Opposition, both in the Senate and in the House of Represenatives, by the Government to discuss with the officers concerned all matters pertaining to this legislation. I understand that there were 2 periods of discussion extending over about 12 hours in all. The first was with a small group led by Mr Garland. Later there was another meeting at which apparently about 30 Opposition members and senators were present. An actuary from Campbell Cook and Graham and an officer from the National Mutual Life Association of Australia Limited were at that meeting. Every facility was provided to the Opposition to ensure that it would be given the fullest access to the complicated matters involved in this legislation.

I accept the point made by Senator Cotton that we should put this amendment to the vote. Before doing so I want to restate the Government’s position and to refer to a comment made by Senator Hall during the second reading debate yesterday. If this amendment is adopted it will undoubtedly make the new scheme unacceptable to a large body of the present membership of the Public Service. The Opposition has recognised this fact by providing an option for present members to remain in the present scheme and contribute on a basis of a retiring age of 60 years. The Opposition has acknowledged the deficiencies in the administrative complexities of the present scheme, yet it wants to maintain the present scheme for many years and to have it run in parallel with the new scheme.

The Bill does not change the retiring age for public servants. They have always been able to be retired or to retire at 60. The maximum retiring age for public servants remains at 65. Ever since 1924 members of the superannuation scheme have been able to contribute to units on the basis of retirement on full pension at age 60. In fact, 40 per cent of the present membership is doing this. Since 1922 age 65 contributors have been able to retire on full pension at any time after reaching age 60 by paying up their contributions in a lump sum. For the bulk of members a 70 per cent of final salary pension- of course 50 per cent being the government element- has been obtained on retirement at age 60 since 1954 when the scheme was improved by the Liberal-Country Party Government of the day.

Changes to the scheme in 1969 made it easier to achieve the 50 per cent of salary government element of pension on retirement at 60. The penalty proposed by the Opposition for retirement at age 60 would reduce the maximum government financed pension available at that age to 40 per cent of final salary against the present 50 per cent, which would be a reduction of one-fifth. This is a serious erosion of a benefit which has been long standing. Of course, there has been some adverse reaction. A significant number of members of the superannuation scheme, such as police, are compelled to retire at 60. The Opposition’s amendment would impose a severe penalty on them. It would provide a benefit at age 60 which would be below that available under every State scheme. The option which the Opposition offers to present scheme members to continue in that scheme would have serious implications administratively and certainly would increase the cost of administration. The Treasury Committee, which was appointed to look into superannuation under the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1971, in its report which came to the Parliament in March 1 973 stated:

To run a new scheme, at the same time keeping alive the existing pension scheme and Provident Account, would be a situation fraught with administrative and other problems that would exist for many years into the future and be a continuing source of dissatisfaction. It was not successful in the DFRB context … in the Committee’s view a situation involving two schemes for (Australian Government) employees, namely an old scheme and a new -

That is in effect what we are debating- each applying to many thousands of persons, should be avoided.

Even Melville and Pollard in their June 1974 report stated:

Members of the existing scheme may be dealt with in two ways. They may remain in the existing scheme, which is closed to new entrants and run off as a closed fund. This involves administering two schemes with different terms and conditions resulting in higher costs, greater complexity and dissatisfaction among members receiving inferior benefits. We do not recommend this alternative.

Those comments by persons on whom the Government, and the Parliament to a very large degree, have relied in drawing up this legislation should be borne in mind before we vote on this issue. Senator Hall seemed to link his acceptance of the Opposition’s age 65 amendment to the option which will be provided to present scheme members to remain in the present scheme. He may have been led to believe that it is a fair and reasonable option. But older contributors will not have much of a choice. For example, the choice for the older age 60 contributor will be either to accept the lower overall benefits of the new scheme or to condemn himself to penury by remaining in the present scheme and trying to meet rapidly escalating contributions in his last years of service. The older age 65 contributor will be faced with an immediate substantial increase in his contributions up to the age of 60 if he elects to remain. In most cases it will be far beyond his capacity to pay.

The situation for individual contributors will vary from case to case. Information provided by the Australian Government Retirements Benefits Office in respect of an age 65 contributor on a salary of $7,559, now aged 51 with 23 years service, is that his contributions will be increased immediately from 7.6 per cent of salary to 16.2 per cent. The increase for older age 65 contributors will be even more steep. Therefore, older contributors will have little alternative but to accept transfer to the new scheme. To them the option is largely worthless. Perhaps that is the real intention. I do not know. I hope it is not.

Younger contributors, particularly age 60 contributors, faced with immediate higher contributions under the new scheme and not attracted by the lower overall benefits of the new scheme are most likely to elect to remain in the present scheme. This will ensure the need to keep the present scheme running for many years into the future with all the attendant administrative problems and complexities.

Senator Jessop raised the point of increased contributions under the new scheme. Apparently young people had said to him that they were reluctant to pay this increase to 5 per cent of salary. I cannot understand the logic of that because it is my impression that the Government is being accused of being too generous. I would have thought that would have been the basis of the argument used by people who complain about paying the increase to 5 per cent. I say to Senator Jessop that younger people who have the opportunity to take part in the new scheme which is being proposed by the Government will be well advised to take that opportunity because it is undoubtedly a very good scheme. It has been a good scheme over the years but this makes it a better scheme. It surprises me that any younger person would query the fact that they may have to pay that much more. In relation to the benefits which they receive I think it is an extremely good investment. I agree that it will be necessary for us to vote on this amendment, and presumably, to divide. But I say again that whenever that vote is taken it would be very unfortunate if this provision which has been written into the Bill by the Government is rejected. I hope that Senator Bunton and Senator Hall who perhaps have yet to make a decision on this matter will very seriously consider the points which have been put by the Government.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– The Minister’s remarks, given to him by his advisers who, I must say, were available at some points of time to members of the Opposition to talk to in company with other people, serve to illustrate once again the complexity and intricacy of this maze, to which it appears from what the Minister says, that only the Government’s advisers have the solution to the entry and exit points. This is the concern which I have but it does not depart from the principal area of the Opposition’s concern, which is that at a time of massively escalating Australian public expenditure and the conferring of increasing benefits on public servants in so many ways, this is the time to call a halt until the economy settles down and things begin to reassert themselves in a form of stability. At that time these considerations of increased payments and benefits could properly be taken up. No answer has been given at any time to the Opposition’s claim that there was a lot of money to be saved. Equally, in the year 1975, we are still dealing with a proposition which is based upon 1972 figures. We are concerned. We believe the matter should be put to a vote.

Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales

– It would appear that the die is cast but I would like to make my final comment on this matter. In my opinion the effort of the Opposition to reduce the cost of this scheme is taking place in the wrong field. When the superannuation scheme was introduced emphasis was placed on the optional position in relation to retirement at 60 or 65 years of age. It was at that time evidently thought that this option should be given. Some 50 years later when we are working at an all-time high level of pressure and when people desire a longer retirement than was desired previously, a move now is taking place whereby the relief from the overall expenditure, which I think has some merit, is taking place in the wrong field. I will be presumptious enough to be somewhat biblically poetic and to say:

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be four-score years.

It would appear that there is a necessity for people in the last 20 years of their normal life span to be able to live in retirement with a security for which they have justly paid.

I would have far preferred to have seen not such a liberal arrangement in connection with contributions than to take away what I maintain is a necessary component of any superannuation or insurance scheme. As I see it, we must endeavour to retain equity between the subscribers. In all the hundreds of representations that have been made to me by organisations and individuals not only by correspondence but also verbally, it would appear that the main concern is that retirement at 60 years of age should remain in this Bill. Those people are part of an agreement. It is an agreement between 2 parties each of which has his rights because each is subscribing to it. In view of that I think we should take cognisance of what those people have had to say in this connection. The scheme is a generous one. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think it needs to be a generous scheme. Any pruning of it should not take place in the field that is now proposed in this amendment. Therefore on this particular amendment I intend to vote with the Government.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– Having hopefully made my views fairly clear last night, I do not feel that I need to speak for long to any amendment. Surely the Government is really responsible for the moving of the amendments. The scheme is obviously an untidy arrangement if one considers the total equity of all of the community in relation to this legislation. One thing which immediately raises great disquiet is that under this scheme apparently the taxpayer in the factory, who pays, as I said last night, 44c in his marginal taxation dollar, will not only pay for this scheme but also have to make his own arrangements. The result of this will be that he will receive a pension and the people about whom we are now talking will receive a pension in addition to all the benefits of this scheme. This is the totally irrational approach that this Government presents to this chamber at a time when the burden for the accelerating programs of government is to be felt by everyone.

Senator Wriedt:

– Would not that have applied to South Australia with the South Australian Public Service when you were Premier of that State?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-If the Minister says that the States are now the pace setters and have taken over the role of the Commonwealth which has traditionally been the pace setter, it means that the Commonwealth has abdicated. This scheme has no influence on the States. That is the Government’s failure. We are not dealing with a State proposition when we deal with this scheme. I cannot understand how I, in a truly representative role, could say to my electors- not to the tall poppies of North Terrace or the so-called establishment but to the worker in the factory with his 44c marginal taxation rate- ‘You, the electors, are to pay the increased costs of this scheme so that the recipients of it can receive, in addition to your pension, 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 70 per cent of their final salary’. There will be an increase in costs, but we cannot argue as to how much it will be. I cannot in all justice say to those people that I can agree to the increase in the cost of this scheme.

If there are to be administrative changes I believe it is up to the Government to bring in a scheme which does not increase the cost at this time. That is a possibility; that can be done. The Government cannot say to the Opposition: ‘This is what you are offered and that is the end of it. Therefore your amendments are unacceptable and you cannot stand in the way of administrative change’. That is not so. The Government can say to its experts: ‘We want a better scheme which is more equitable to the members of the Public Service and we do not want to increase the costs at this time’. The experts would bring in a scheme, which, I feel sure, would meet many of the factors which the Government desires and which would meet the approval of the Opposition. I will not accept blame on this side of the chamber. The blame rests squarely with the Government. I intend to support all the amendments of the Opposition except the one concerning widows’ pensions. I do not see any need further to debate the issue.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cotton’s amendment No.1 ) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary ChairmanSenator R. E. McAuliffe)

AYES: 26

NOES: 24

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Cotton’s amendment No.1 ) be so inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R. E. McAuliffe)

AYES: 26

NOES: 24

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Consequential upon the passing of our principal amendment, I move:

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Amendment No. (2)- In sub-clause ( 1 ), in the definition of ‘period of prospective service’, leave out ‘60 years’, insert 65 years’.

Amendment No. (3)- In sub-clause (I), in the definition of ‘period of prospective service’, leave out ‘60 years’, insert 65 years’.

Amendment No. (4)-In sub-clause (1), in the definition of ‘period of prospective service’, leave out ‘60 years’, insert 65 years’.

Amendment No. (5)- In sub-clause ( 1), in the definition of ‘ retiring age ‘, lea ve out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Amendment No. (6)- In sub-clause ( 1), in the definition of ‘spouse’, leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. (7)- In sub-clause (1), in the definition of ‘ spouse ‘, leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 7.

  1. 1 ) A reference in this Act to the retirement of an eligible employee on the ground of invalidity shall be read as a reference to his having been retired, or his services having been otherwise terminated, on the ground of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties.
  2. Where a person has, before attaining the age of 60 years, ceased to be an eligible employee otherwise than by reason of death or his having been retired, or his services having been otherwise terminated, on the ground of physical or mental incapacity, but the Commissioner is satisfied that, at the time he ceased to be an eligible employee, he was suffering from a physical or mental incapacity by reason of which he was unfit to perform his duties, the Commissioner may direct, in writing, that the person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been retired on the ground of that physical or mental incapacity.

Amendment No. (8)- In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 9.

  1. 1 ) A person who is the child of a marriage of a deceased retirement pensioner that took place after the pensioner became a pensioner and after the pensioner had attained the age of 60 years, or a person who became the step-child of a deceased retirement pensioner by reason of such a marriage, shall be deemed not to be an eligible child of the deceased pensioner for the purposes of this Act unless-

  2. A person who is an ex-nuptial child of a deceased retirement pensioner and who was born-

    1. where the pensioner had commenced so living with the other person after the pensioner had become a pensioner and after the pensioner had attained the age of 60 years- a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the pensioner’s death.
  3. A person who became the adopted child, foster child or ward of a deceased retirement pensioner after the pensioner became a pensioner and after the pensioner had attained the age of 60 years shall be deemed not to be an eligible child of the deceased pensioner for the purposes of this Act unless the person became the adopted child, foster child or ward, as the case may be, of the pensioner not less than 5 years before the pensioner’s death.

  4. A person who is the child of a deceased retirement pensioner by reason only of being a child of a surviving spouse of the pensioner shall be deemed not to be an eligible child of the pensioner for the purposes of this Act unless the person is the child of a person with whom the pensioner lived on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis for-

    1. except in a case where paragraph (b) applies- a continuous period of not less than 3 years immediately preceding the pensioner’s death or, if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the person was wholly or substantially dependent upon the pensioner at the time of the pensioner’s death, a continuous period (whether or not the period was a continuous period of less than 3 years) immediately preceding the pensioner’s death; or
    2. where the pensioner had commenced so living with the other person after the pensioner had become a pensioner and after the pensioner had attained the age of 60 years- a continuous period of not less than 3 years immediately preceding the pensioner’s death.

  5. A person who is the child of a deceased retirement pensioner by reason only of being a child of a spouse of the pensioner (other than a spouse who survives him) shall be deemed not to be an eligible child of the pensioner for the purposes of this Act unless the person is the child of a person with whom the pensioner lived on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis for-

    1. except in a case where paragraph (b) applies- a continuous period of not less than 3 years immediately preceding the spouse’s death or, if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the spouse was wholly or substantially dependent upon the pensioner at the time of the spouse’s death, a continuous period (whether or not the period was a continuous period of less than 3 years) immediately preceding the spouse’s death; or
    2. where the pensioner had commenced so living with the other person after the pensioner had become a pensioner and after the pensioner had attained the age of 60 years- a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the spouse’s death.

Amendment No. (9)- In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. ( 10)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (d), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. (11)- In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

Amendment No. ( 12)- In sub-clause (4), paragraph (b), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. ( 13)- In sub-clause (5), paragraph (b), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 56.

  1. Where a person ceases to be an eligible employee, otherwise than by reason of death, after attaining the age of 60 years, then, subject to sub-section (2) of this section, the person is entitled to-

    1. standard age retirement pension in accordance with section 57;
    2. subject to paragraph 65 (6) (b) and sub-paragraph 66 (2) (a) (i)> additional age retirement pension in accordance with sub-section 58(1); and
    3. lump sum benefit, if any, in accordance with subsection 58 (2).

  2. Sub-section ( I ) of this section does not apply to a person whose period of contributory service is less than 1 year.

Amendment No. (14)- In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 59.

  1. 1 ) For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to have ceased to be an eligible employee by reason of early retirement if the person is deemed by sub-section (2) to have retired voluntarily, or by sub-section (3) to have retired involuntarily.

  2. Where-

    1. the retiring age of a person who is an eligible employee is less than 60 years; and
    2. b) after the person attains his retiring age but before he attains the age of 60 years, he ceases to be an eligible employee by reason that he is retired at his own request or he resigns, the person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have retired voluntarily.

  3. Where, before a person who is an eligible employee attains the age of 60 years, he ceases to be an eligible employee by reason that-

    1. if his retiring age is less than 60 years and he has attained that retiring age- he is retired, otherwise than at his own request;
    2. he is retrenched, he is retired under section 20 of the Public Service Act or he is retired otherwise than under that Act on a ground similar to the ground on which persons may be retired under section 20 of the Public Service Act;
    3. in the case of the holder of a statutory office- the term of his appointment to that office has expired and, notwithstanding that he was eligible for re-appointment to that office and desired to be so re-appointed, he was not re-appointed;
    4. except in the case of a temporary employee- his position or office ceases to exist, whether by reason of its being abolished or otherwise; or
    5. he is retired under section 67 of the Public Service Act or his employment or appointment is terminated otherwise than under that Act on a ground similar to a ground specified in that section, the person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have retired involuntarily.

  4. Sub-sections (2) and (3) do not apply to a person-

    1. who ceases to be an eligible employee by reason of retirement on the ground of invalidity; or
    2. whose period of contributory, service is less than 1 year.

Amendment No. (16)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Amendment No. ( 17)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (b), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Amendment No. (18)- In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Amendment No. (19)- In sub-clause (3), paragraph (a), lea ve out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 6 5 years ‘.

Clause 61.

Where a person is entitled to standard early retirement pension by virtue of section 60, the annual rate of that pension is the amount per annum that would be payable to him in accordance with section 57 if pension were payable under Division I of this Part to persons who cease to be eligible employees before attaining the age of 60 years reduced by 4 per centum of that amount for each year, or part of a year, included in the period commencing on the day immediately following his last day of service and ending on the day immediately preceding the day on which the 60th anniversary of his birth will occur.

Amendment No. (20)- Leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. (21)- Leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert ‘65th anniversary ‘.

Clause 62.

  1. Where a person is entitled to additional early retirement pension by virtue of section 60, then, subject to paragraphs 65 (5) (b) and 65 (6) (c) and sub-paragraph 66 (2) (b) (i), the annual rate of that pension is-

    1. an amount per annum equal to the amount (in this section referred to as the ‘base amount’) per annum that would be payable to him in accordance with subsection 58 ( 1 ) if pension were payable under Division I to a person who ceased to be an eligible employee before attaining the age of 60 years and the factor applicable in relation to the person in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 58 ( 1 ) (a) were the notional factor as defined in subsection (3) of this section reduced by 4 per centum for each year, or part of a year, included in the period commencing on the day immediately following his last day of service and ending on the day immediately preceding the day on which the 60th anniversary of his birth will occur; or
    2. if the rate ascertained in accordance with paragraph (a) is greater than 20 per centum of the notional final annual rate of salary of the person- 20 per centum of his notional final annual rate of salary.
  2. Where the base amount is greater than an amount (in this sub-section referred to as the ‘maximum amount’) equal to 20 per centum of the amount per annum that is the notional final annual rate of salary of the person, there shall be paid to him a lump sum benefit equal to the amount by which his accumulated contributions exceed an amount ascertained by dividing his maximum amount by the factor referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (a).
  3. In this section- notional final annual rate of salary’, in relation to a person, means the person’s final annual rate of salary reduced by 4 per centum for each year, or a pan of a year, included in the period commencing on the day immediately following his last day of service and ending on the day immediately preceding the day on which the 60th anniversary of his birth will occur; notional factor’, in relation to a person, means the factor that would be applicable to him in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 58 (1) (a) if his age on his last day of service had been 60 years.

Amendment No. (22)- In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years’.

Amendment No. (23)- In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert ‘65th anniversary’.

Amendment No. (24)- In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert’65th anniversary’.

Amendment No. (25)- In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 67.

  1. 1 ) Subject to sub-sections (3) and (4) of this section and section 80, where a person ceases to be an eligible employee by reason of retirement on the ground of invalidity before attaining the age of 60 years, then, except in a case where sub-section (2) of this section applies, the person is entitled-

  2. Subject to sub-sections (3) and (4) of this section and section 80, where-

    1. a person ceases to be an eligible employee by reason of retirement on the ground of invalidity before attaining the age of 60 years;
    2. there was in force in respect of the person, immediately before the person’s retirement, a benefit classification certificate; and
    3. the Commissioner is of the opinion that the incapacity which was the ground for his retirement was caused, or was substantially contributed to, by a physical or mental condition or conditions specified in the certificate or by a physical or mental condition connected with such a condition or such conditions,
  3. Where a person to whom invalidity pension had been payable in accordance with section 69 or 72 again became an eligible employee and later ceases to be an eligible employee by reason of retirement on the ground of invalidity before attaining the age of 60 years, he is not entitled to invalidity benefit in accordance with section 68 or 7 1 , but he is entitled to invalidity benefit in accordance with section 69 or 72, as the case may be.
  4. Sub-sections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person whose period of prospective service is less than1 year.

Amendment No. (26)- In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. (27)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. (28)- In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 75.

  1. 1 ) The Commissioner may, by notice in writing given to a person to whom invalidity pension is payable but who has not attained the age of 60 years, require the person-

    1. to submit himself for medical examination by a medical practitioner at a time and place specified in the notice; or
    2. to furnish in writing to the Commissioner, within such a period as is specified in the notice, such information as is required by the notice with respect to any employment (whether as an employee or on his own account) in which he has been engaged during such period as is specified in the notice.

Amendment No. (33)- In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Clause 77.

  1. 1 ) Upon a person to whom invalidity pension is payable again becoming an eligible employee, his entitlement to that pension is, by force of this sub-section, cancelled.

  2. Where-

    1. a person, upon having ceased to be an eligible employee, became entitled to invalidity pension;
    2. his entitlement to that pension was cancelled under sub-section (1) upon his again having become an eligible employee; and
    3. he again ceases to be an eligible employee before attaining the age of 60 years by reason of death or retirement on the ground of invalidity. the annual rate of any pension that becomes payable under this Act to or in respect of him after he again ceases to be an eligible employee shall not be less than-
    4. the rate at which that pension would have been payable if he had not again become an eligible employee; or
    5. if a lesser rate is applicable in respect of him under the regulations- that lesser rate.

Amendment No. (34)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (c), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Clause 79.

  1. 1 ) Where the annual rate of salary of an eligible employee who has not attained the age of 60 years and is not entitled to partial invalidity pension in accordance with section 78 decreases under such circumstances that the Commissioner is satisfied that the decrease can properly be regarded as attributable to physical or mental incapacity and-

    1. the number of complete years included in the period that would have been his period of contributory service if he had ceased to be an eligible employee on the day immediately preceding the day on which that rate decreases is not less than 8 years; or

Amendment No. (35)- In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

Clause 82.

  1. I ) Where an eligible employee who dies after attaining the age of 60 years is survived by a spouse, the spouse is entitled to-

    1. spouse’s standard pension in accordance with section 83;
    2. subject to sub-paragraph 85 (2) (a) (i), spouse’s additional pension in accordance with sub-section 84 (1); and
    3. lump sum benefit, if any, in accordance with subsection 84(2).

Amendment No. (36)- In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

Clause 86.

  1. 1 ) Where an eligible employee who dies before attaining the age of 60 years is survived by a spouse, then, except in a case where sub-section (2) of this section applies, the spouse is entitled-

    1. a ) if the spouse does not make an election under section 88 or 89- to spouse’s pension in accordance with section 87 and, where the eligible employee had paid supplementary contributions, a lump sum benefit in accordance with that section;
    2. if the spouse makes an election under section 88- to spouse’s pension, and a lump sum benefit, in accordance with that section; or
    3. if the spouse is entitled to make an election under section 89 and makes such an election- to a lump sum benefit in accordance with sub-section 89 (2) and, where the eligible employee had paid supplementary contributions, an additional lump sum benefit in accordance with sub-section 89 (3).

  2. Where-

    1. an eligible employee who dies before attaining the age of 60 years is survived by a spouse;

Amendment No. (42)- In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Amendment No. (43)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 98.

    1. a) an eligible employee dies after attaining the age of 60 years;
    2. his period of contributory service is not less than 1 year; and
    3. he is not survived by a spouse but is survived by a person or persons who is or are his child or children. then-
    4. at any time after his death when the surviving child or 1 or more of the surviving children is an eligible child or are eligible children- orphan pension is payable in respect of the eligible child or eligible children in accordance with sub-section (2 ); and
    5. if the surviving child or 1 or more of the surviving children is or are, immediately after his death, an eligible child or eligible children or, in the opinion of the

Commissioner, is or are likely to become an eligible child or eligible children- lump sum benefit is payable in respect of that child or those children in accordance with sub-section (3).

Amendment No. (74)- In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Clause 99. (1)Where-

  1. an eligible employee dies before attaining the age of 60 years;
  2. his period of prospective service is not less than 1 year; and
  3. he is not survived by a spouse but is survived by a person or persons who is or are his child or children, then, except in a case where section 100, 101 or 102 applies

Amendment No. (75)- In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 100.

    1. an eligible employee dies before attaining the age of 60 years;
    2. his period of prospective service is less than 8 years but not less than 1 year,
    3. there was not in force in respect of him immediately before his death a benefit classification certificate or, if such a certificate was in force in respect of him immediately before his death, the Commisioner is of the opinion that his death was not caused, and was not substantially contributed to, by a physical or mental condition or conditions specified in the certificate or by a physical or mental condition connected with such a condition or such conditions;

Amendment No. (76)- In sub-clause ( I ), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Clause 101.

    1. an eligible employee dies before attaining the age of 60 years;
    2. his period of contributory service was not less than 8 years;
    3. there was in force in respect of him immediately before his death a benefit classification certificate and the Commissioner is of the opinion that his death was caused, or was substantially contributed to, by a physical or mental condition or conditions specified in the certificate or by a physical or mental condition connected with such a condition or such conditions; and
    4. he is not survived by a spouse but is survived by a person or persons who is or are his child or children.

Amendment No. (77)- In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 102.

    1. an eligible employee dies before attaining the age of 60 years;
    2. his period of contributory service was less than 8 years;
    3. his period of prospective service is not less than 1 year;

Amendment No. (78)- In sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years’.

Clause 103.

  1. Where-

    1. spouse’s pension is payable to the spouse of a person who ceased to be an eligible employee by reason of the death of the eligible employee after attaining the age of 60 years; and
    2. b) the spouse dies but is survived by a person or persons who is or are the child or children of the deceased eligible employee, then, at any time after the spouse’s death when the surviving child or1 or more of the surviving children, is an eligible child or are eligible children, orphan pension is payable in respect of the eligible child or eligible children in accordance with sub-section (3).

  2. Where-

    1. a ) spouse ‘s pension is payable to the spouse of a person who ceased to be an eligible employee by reason of the death of the eligible employee after attaining the age of 60 years;
    2. the spouse marries (or is deemed by section 1 12 to have married) and, by reason thereof, the spouse’s entitlement to pension ceases by virtue of section111; and

Amendment No. (79)- In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. (80)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years ‘.

Clause 104.

  1. Where-

    1. spouse’s pension is payable in accordance with section 87 or 88 to the spouse of a person who ceased to be an eligible employee by reason of the death of the eligible employee before attaining the age of 60 years; and
    2. the spouse dies but is survived by a person or persons who is or are the child or children of the deceased eligible employee, then, at any time after the spouse’s death when the surviving child or 1 or more of the surviving children is an eligible child or are eligible children, orphan pension is payable in respect of the eligible child or eligible children in accordance with sub-section (3) of this section.

  2. Where-

    1. spouse’s pension is payable in accordance with section 87 or 88 to the spouse of a person who ceased to be an eligible employee by reason of the death of the eligible employee before attaining the age of 60 years;

Amendment No. (81)- In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years’.

Amendment No. (82)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Clause 105.

  1. 1 ) Where-

    1. spouse’s pension is payable in accordance with section 90 or 9 1 to the spouse of a person who ceased to be an eligible employee by reason of the death of the eligible employee before attaining the age of 60 years;
    2. the spouse dies but is survived by a person or persons who is or are the child or children of the deceased eligible employee, then, at any time after the spouse’s death when the surviving child or1 or more of the surviving children, is an eligible child or are eligible children, orphan pension is payable in respect of the eligible child or eligible children in accordance with sub-section (3) of this section. (2)Where-
    3. spouse’s pension is payable in accordance with section 90 or 91 to the spouse of a person who ceased to be an eligible employee by reason of the death of the eligible employee before attaining the age of 60 years;

Amendment No. (83)- In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Amendment No. (84)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Clause 143.

  1. 1 ) Where a person makes an election under section 1 4 1 and-

    1. he becomes employed in public employment within the period that is the prescribed period in relation to him but a transfer value is not payable in respect of him under section 142; or
    2. he does not become employed in public employment within that period but at the time when he ceased to be an eligible employee he had completed 10 years’ eligible employment, deferred benefits are, subject to this Division, applicable in respect of the person.

  2. Subject to section 148, deferred benefits that are applicable in respect of a person become payable on the day immediately following the earliest of the following dates-

    1. where the Commissioner is satisfied that the person has, by reason of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity, become incapable (otherwise than temporarily) of performing duties of a kind suitable to be performed by him (having regard to the duties performed by him in the employment in which he was employed immediately before he ceased to be an eligible employee, the duties performed by him in employment (if any) in which he was employed after he ceased to be an eligible employee and such other matters (if any) as the Commissioner considers relevant)-
    1. if, at the date that the Commissioner is satisfied was the date on which he became so incapable, he was not employed in public employmentthat date; or
    2. if, at that date, he was employed in public employment- the date on which that public employment terminates;

Amendment No. (85)- In sub-clause (2), paragraph (d). leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

Amendment No. (86)- In sub-clause (6), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.

Clause 144.

  1. 1 ) Subject to paragraph 143(6)(b), where section 142 or 143 applies in relation to a person, any benefit that, but for this Division, would be payable to or in respect of the person under this Act upon him ceasing to be an eligible employee. before attaining the age of 60 years, otherwise than by reason of retirement on the ground of invalidity or death is not payable except where that benefit is payable by virtue of the operation of this Division.

Amendment No. (87)- In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

Clause 145.

  1. 1 ) Where a person (other than a person who, at the time when he ceased to be an eligible employee had completed 10 years’ eligible employment) who has made an election under section 14 1 is not employed in public employment at the expiration of the period that is the prescribed period in relation to him then, unless-

    1. the sum of the periods of eligible employment in which he has been employed and the period of public employment (if any) in which he was employed during that prescribed period was not less than 10 years;
    2. he died or attained the age of 60 years within that prescribed period at a time when he was employed in public employment; or

Amendment No. (88)-ln sub-clause (1), paragraph (b), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Clause 149.

  1. Where the person attains the age of 60 years while he is an eligible employee or ceases to be such an eligible employee before he attains that age, and neither sub-section (7) nor sub-section (8) applies in relation to him, then, if the election made by the person under sub-section (2) has not been revoked in accordance with sub-section ( 10)-

  2. 10) A person who has made an election under subsection (2) may, if-

    1. a ) he has not attained the age of 60 years;

Amendment No. (89)- In sub-clause (9), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.

Amendment No. (90)- In sub-clause (10), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.

Amendments Nos (2) to (14), (16) to (28), (33) to (36), (42), (43) and (74) to (90) agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

– We now proceed to the amendments in Group 2 relating to the deletion of the extra 5 percent for more than 30 years of service. I call upon Senator Cotton to move formally the relevant amendments, Nos (15), (29), (30), (31) and (32).

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I should like to follow the procedures we adopted earlier and to formally move the amendments contained in group 2. Amendments Nos (15), (29), (30), (3 1 ) and (32) of that group principally relate to clause 57 and Amendments

Nos (94) and (95) relate to Schedules to be opposed. I should like firstly to deal with clause 57 and then with the other clauses affected by group 2 of the amendments, that is, clauses 68, 69, 71 and 72.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

– So you are going to deal with clause 57?

Senator COTTON:

-Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman, with your permission. But firstly I move the following amendments:

Clause 57.

  1. Where-

    1. a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. his period of contributory service is not less than 30 years, then, subject to sub-section (2) of this section, the annual rate of that pension is 50 per centum of his final annual rate of salary.

  2. Where-

    1. a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. his period of contributory service before attaining the age of 60 years was not less than 3 1 years, the annual rate of that pension is such percentage of his final annual rate of salary as, having regard to the number of complete years included in that period of contributory service, is applicable in accordance with Schedule 1.

Amendment No. ( 15)- Leave out the sub-clauses ( I ) and (2), insert the following sub-clause:

    1. a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. his period of contributory service is not less than 30 years, then the annual rate of that pension is 50 per centum of his final annual rate of salary. ‘.

Clause 68.

  1. 1 ) This section applies to a person who-

    1. is entitled to invalidity benefit by virtue of sub-section 67(1); and
    2. b) does not make an election under section 69 or 70.

  2. Where the period of prospective service of a person to whom this section applies is not less than 30 years, then, subject to sub-section (3) of this section, the annual rate of the pension to which the person is entitled is 70 per centum of that person’s final annual rate of salary.

Amendment No. (29)- In sub-clause (2), leave out the sub-clause.

Clause 69.

  1. Where a person makes an election under sub-section ( 1 ) and the period of contributory service of the person is not less than 3 1 years, the annual rate of the pension to which the person is entitled is such percentage of the person’s final annua] rate of salary as, having regard to the number of complete years included in that period of contributory service, is applicable in accordance with columns 1 and 3 of Schedule 3.

Amendment No. (30)- In sub-clause (3), leave out the sub-clause.

Clause 71.

  1. 1 ) This section applies to a person-

    1. who is entitled to invalidity benefit by virtue of subsection 67 (2);
    2. whose period of contributory service is not less than 8 years; and
    3. who has not made an election under section 72 or 73.

  2. Where the period of prospective service of a person to whom this section applies is not less than 30 years, the annual rate of the pension to which the person is entitled is such percentage of the person ‘s final annual rate of salary as, having regard to the number of complete years included in the person’s period of contributory service, is applicable in accordance with columns 1 and 2 of Schedule S.

Amendment No. (31)- In sub-clause (2), leave out the sub-clause.

Clause 72.

  1. Where a person makes an election under sub-section ( 1 ) and the period of prospective service of the person is not less than 30 years, the annual rate of the pension to which the person is entitled is such percentage of the person’s final annual rate of salary as, having regard to the number of complete years included in the person’s period of contributory service, is applicable in accordance with columns 1 and 3 of Schedule 5.

Amendment No. (32)- Leave out the sub-clause (2).

Clause 57 states:

  1. Where-

    1. a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. his period of contributory service is not less than 30 years, then, subject to sub-section (2) of this section, the annual rate of that pension is 50 per centum of his final annual rate of salary.

  2. Where-

    1. a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. b) his period of contributory service before attaining the age of 60 years was not less than 3 1 years, the annual rate of that pension is such percentage of his final annual rate of salary as, having regard to the number of complete years included in that period of contributory service, is applicable in accordance with Schedule 1 .

The matter might be broadly carried on to subclause (3) of the same clause, which reads:

Where-

a person is entitled to a standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and

his period of contributory service is less than 30 years, the annual rate of that pension is such percentage of his final annual rate of salary as, having regard to the number of complete years included in that period of contributory service, is applicable in accordance with Schedule 2.

An amendment was moved by the Opposition in the House of Representatives and has been moved by the Opposition in this chamber in these terms:

Leave out sub-clauses (1) and (2), insert the following sub-clause:

a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and

his period of contributory service is not less than 30 years, then the annual rate of that pension is 50 per centum of his final annual rate of salary. ‘.

That allows us to deal with the question of the deletion of the extra 5 per cent for more than 30 years service. This matter relates, as I have said briefly, to a proposal to provide an additional maximum 5 per cent to the future members who have more than 30 years of service and to the existing members who have more than 20 years of service. For new members an additional government pension is proposed of 1/2 per cent per annum for each year over 30 years. The Opposition’s view is that a 50 per cent pension in this case is an adequate pension.

The Commissioner of Taxation has laid down guidelines for assessing the deductibility of contributions to private pension schemes by companies. The basis is the provision of a pension of 70 per cent of the average income of the 3 previous years. That is less generous than the provisions contained in this Bill. The suggestion that the guidelines laid down by the Commissioner of Taxation, which produce a less generous situation, may be revised later is really not revelant to the purposes of our discussion. As far as we can tell from our investigations, which have been based on 1972 figures, the additional provision by the Government that we have suggested should be removed would cost $338m. It is a straightforward proposal. We think that 50 per cent is enough. We think that once again the figures of excess expenditure should be trimmed down. We think that the present scheme is a better scheme than that which is normally allowed. We suggest that this is the time to have regard to the overall impact of the cost on the Australian community of the total financing of these schemes by the Government.

I think it should also be borne in mind that it has been accepted in statements by the Government that it regards itself as being a pacesetter. It has been a pacesetter in the field of inflation in this country. It has been a pacesetter in the field of unemployment. It has been a pacesetter in causing uncertainty. It has been a pacesetter in causing massive concern to the Australian people. It is high time that the Government stopped being a pacesetter and settled down to seeing that everybody in this country gets a fair go and that should extend, first of all, to the taxpayers, who should be treated in some consideration of equality. We are concerned about the massively increasing costs of providing benefits in Australia. We believe that the time has come to call a halt. That is why we have put forward this proposition.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The Government will oppose the amendment. I want to point out to Senator Cotton initially that, according to the list of amendments, the amendments numbered 31 and 32 refer to clauses 7 1 and 72. 1 understand that they should not be included in the group involved in the amendment with which we are now dealing as they do not deal with the 5 per cent supplementary pension proposal. I understand that acceptance of those amendments in this respect would have the effect of making no provision for an invalidity pension for a person whose prospective service was 30 years or more. I am not sure whether that is the intention of the Opposition. I assume that it is not. If it is not, the amendments numbered 3 1 and 32 should not be applied in the case of this amendment. Could that be clarified? Perhaps I should leave that until after the suspension of the sitting for lunch.

Senator Cotton:

– I think that it might be very helpful if the Minister were to do that.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Insofar as the amendment is concerned, the main purpose of this provision is to allow public servants with very long standing service to reap a benefit that would not otherwise accrue to them. I will not respond to the arguments about the Government being a pacesetter in other fields. I believe that that simply detracts from the matters that are before the Committee. I think it is fair and reasonable that a person who has served the very long period that would be required to be served before he would be eligible for this benefit ought to be able to acquire a benefit for which, as I have said earlier, he would not otherwise be eligible.

The supplementary pension provision is designed to have only limited application and would apply only where there has been a long period of contributory service. That point has to be emphasised. It is not something that is just being given away to anybody who happened to join the Public Service for a short number of years. He would not be able to receive that benefit on retirement. It could benefit only those whose contributory service commenced before the age of 29 years. For the maximum supplementary pension to be obtained the contributory service- that is, 40 years- would need to have commenced before the age of 20 years. Of course, service after the age of 60 years is reached does not count. The provision is designed to place much greater emphasis on the length of membership than does the present scheme. For those who would be able to qualify it would lift the maximum pension available from the scheme closer to the maximum pension available under the defence forces retirement benefits scheme of 76.5 per cent of the final salary after 40 years of contributory service. The best of the State schemes- the South Australian one- provides a maximum pension of 73.3 per cent of the final salary at the age of 65 years after 30 years of service. So I assume that on this aspect we will have the support of Senator Hall. I think that the issue is a quite simple one. Senator Cotton has put the Opposition’s position quite clearly. It is just a matter of whether we consider that a man who has given very long service, as is required under this provision, ought to be entitled to some benefit. That is really what we are talking about. The Government believes that he should be entitled to that benefit.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– The purpose of my rising again is really to state that, as a result of the intervention of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), I think that it would be wise to sort out during the suspension of the sitting for lunch the consideration of the amendments numbered 3 1 and 32 and to make sure that they lie in their proper place. Once again we are back to where we have always been. The Opposition’s view is that the Australian Public Service has been treated extremely generously with regard to rates of pay, security of employment and benefits and that the position of its members is in great contradiction to that of the large number of people who are in other areas of employment, such as farmers, people engaged in industrial pursuits and people who work in the trade union movement. What we are seeing here is an expansion of the generosity of the Government. We think that that is unwarranted at this stage of Australia’s economic life. It would increase further and further the differences within the Australian community and create 2 classes of citizens- those who are secure, privileged and well looked after, many of whom live in the city of Canberra, and those who are less secure, less well paid and less well looked after as to retirement for the very simple reason that the whole body of the Australian taxpayer is not able to afford for everybody the particular benefits, conditions and rates of pay that the Austraiian Government is gradually bestowing upon its own employees. It is that that concerns us broadly-

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator COTTON:

-Just prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch the Minister for Agriculture offered the observation that amendments Nos 3 1 and 32, in the Opposition’s second group of amendments, were not really well placed in and were irrelevant to that group and would be better left out of it. I took that advice from the Treasury officers just a little while ago, and they made a point which seemed to me to need to be further checked. I am sympathetic to the view that they expressed. 1 have just asked for another opinion. If I receive that opinion in sufficient time I will be able to take up a position on this matter prior to the conclusion of consideration of this group of amendments. If it does not come in time, I may have to seek your permission, Mr Temporary Chairman, to leave amendments Nos 3 1 and 32 out of consideration at the present time and deal with them later. I am sympathetic to the view that has been expressed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

- Senator Cotton, are you suggesting that the amendments that should be considered at this stage are amendments Nos 15,29 and 30?

Senator COTTON:

-Yes. Depending on the advice that I get, I may be able to accede to the view that amendments Nos 31 and 32 be forgotten entirely. Otherwise they will be brought in at a later time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It will be remembered that the item to which the amendments are directed is the item appearing in the Treasurer’s schedule introducing the 5 per cent supplement which he costed at $338m on a capitalised basis. The point should be made that that item was introduced originally in the proposals of the Treasurer’s Committee. When the proposals were submitted to Mr Melville and Professor Pollard the item was dealt with specifically. Their recommendation was that no supplementary pension be provided for service exceeding 30 years. So that proposition has no support from any actuary who has considered the scheme. It is purely an excresence on the scheme recommended by Treasury officers. It has been subjected to the criticism of Mr Melville and Professor Pollard, and they have explicitly recommended against that proposal. It involves a capitalised sum of $3 3 8m as a supplement over and above the general pension provided.

Senator Cotton:

– Based on 1972 figures.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Yes, based on 1972 figures. If dated capitalised cost could be reasonably and cautiously estimated to be at least 40 per cent above that figure. It is a gratuitous item which has no support from any of the experts who have considered the matter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I shall put the amendments to the Committee. Originally Senator Cotton moved amendment Nos 1 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32. Have you had your advice, Senator Cotton?

Senator Cotton:

– No, it has not yet arrived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– So should I put only amendments Nos 15, 29 and 30?

Senator Cotton:

– I suggest that you take that course of action, Mr Temporary Chairman. I suggest that you put amendments Nos 15,29 and 30 to deal with the general amendment moved by me which sought to leave out sub-clauses ( 1 ) and (2) of clause 57 and insert the following subclause:

    1. a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. his period of contributory service is not less than 30 years, then the annual rate of that pension is 50 per centum of his final annual rate of salary.

That was the general amendment I moved to clause 57. 1 have moved amendments Nos 15, 29 and 30, together with amendments Nos 94 and 95 which deal with the Schedules. Amendments Nos 3 1 and 32 will wait to be dealt with at a later period.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: ‘That amendments Nos 15, 29 and 30 be agreed to ‘. Those of that opinion say ‘ aye ‘, to the contrary ‘no’. I think the noes have it. Is a division required? Ring the bells. (The bells having been rung.)

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have been asked by an honourable senator why it is that we are not following the usual procedure of putting the question: ‘That the words proposed to be left out, be left out’ and the question: ‘That the words proposed to be inserted, be inserted ‘. That is the normal procedure followed in the Senate but we are not following that procedure because at the commencement of the Committee consideration of the Bill a certain procedure was submitted to the Committee for consideration and was unanimously adopted. We shall follow that course of action. I put the question: ‘That amendments Nos 15, 29 and 30 be agreed to’.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R.E.McAuliffe)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments 15,29 and 30 agreed to.

Further consideration of amendments 3 1 and 32 postponed.

Schedule 1 (Age Retirement Pension).

Schedule 3 (Invalidity Pension).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that Schedules Nos 1 and 3 be agreed to.

Schedules negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

– We now proceed to the amendments in group 3 relating to widows benefits and children’s benefits. I call upon Senator Cotton to formally move amendments Nos (37) to (41) and (44) to (73).

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

Clause 83.

  1. 1 ) Where the spouse of a deceased eligible employee is entitled to spouse’s standard pension by virtue of section 82, the annual rate of that pension is, subject to sub-section (2) of this section, 67 per centum of the annual rate of the standard age retirement pension to which the deceased eligible employee would have been entitled if he had not died but had, on the day immediately following the date of his death, become entitled to standard age retirement pension in accordance with section 57.

  2. If, at any time when spouse’s standard pension is payable by virtue of section 82 to the spouse of a deceased eligible employee, there are children of the eligible employee who are eligible children, then, in the application of subsection ( 1 ) of this section at that time to the spouse, the reference in that sub-section to 67 per centum shall be read as a reference to-

    1. where there is 1 eligible child- 78 per centum;
    2. where there are 2 eligible children- 89 per centum; or
    3. where there are 3 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.

Amendment No. (37)-

In sub-clause ( 1 ), line 5, leave out67 per centum’, insert 62½ per centum’.

Amendment No. (38)-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62½ per centum’.

Amendment No. (39)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘78 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 73½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (40)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (b), leave out ‘89 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 84½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (41)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs:

where there are 3 eligible children- 95½ per centum; or

where there are 4 or more eligible children- 100 per centum. ‘.

Clause 87.

  1. The annual rate of spouse’s pension of a spouse to whom this section applies is 67 per centum of the annual rate of the invalidity pension to which the deceased eligible employee would have been entitled under section 68 if he had not died, but had, on the day immediately following the date of his death, become entitled to invalidity benefit in accordance with that section.

  2. If, at any time when spouse’s pension is payable to a spouse to whom this section applies, there are children of the deceased eligible employee who are eligible children, then, in the application of sub-section (2) at that time to the spouse, the reference in sub-section (2) to 67 per centum shall be read as a reference to-

    1. where there is 1 eligible child- 78 per centum;
    2. where the are 2 eligible children- 89 per centum: or
    3. where there are 3 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.

Amendment No. (44)-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62½ per centum’.

Amendment No. (45)-

In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (46)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (a), leave out ‘78 per centum’, insert’73½ per centum’.

Amendment No. ( 47 )-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘89 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 84½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (48)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs:

where there are 3 eligible children- 95½ per centum; or

where there are 4 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.’.

Clause 88.

  1. 1 ) The spouse of a deceased eligible employee who becomes entitled to spouse’s benefit by virtue of sub-section 86 ( 1 ) may, not later than 1 month after becoming so entitled, elect, by notice in writing to the Commissioner, that, in lieu of benefit being payable in accordance with section 87, pension and lump sum benefit be paid in accordance with this section.
  2. Where a spouse makes an election under sub-section (1 ) of this section, the annual rate of pension to which the spouse is entitled is 67 per centum of the annual rate of the pension to which the deceased eligible employee would have been entitled under section 69 if he had not died, but had, on the day immediately following the date of his death, become entitled to invalidity benefit and had made an election under that section.

  3. If, at any time when spouse’s pension is payable to a spouse who makes an election under sub-section (1 ), there are children of the deceased eligible employee who are eligible children, then, in the application of sub-section (2) at that time to the spouse, the reference in sub-section (2) to 67 per centum shall be read as a reference to-

    1. where there is 1 eligible child- 78 per centum;
    2. where there are 2 eligible children- 89 per centum; or
    3. where there are 3 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.

Amendment No. (49)-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (50)-

In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (51)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (a), leave out ‘78 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 73½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (52)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘89 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 84½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (53)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs:

where there are 3 eligible children- 95½ per centum: or

where there are 4 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.’.

Clause 90.

  1. 1 ) This section applies to the spouse of a deceased eligible employee (being an eligible employee whose period of contributory service was not less than 8 years) who-

    1. is entitled to spouse’s benefit by virtue of sub-section 86 (2); and
    2. b ) does not make an election under section 9 1 or 92 .
  2. The annual rate of spouse’s pension of a spouse to whom this section applies is 67 per centum of the annual rate of invalidity pension to which the deceased eligible employee would have been entitled under section 71 if he had not died, but had, on the day immediately following the date of his death, become entitled to invalidity pension in accordance with that section.

  3. If, at any time when spouse’s pension is payable to a spouse to whom this section applies there are children of the deceased eligible employee who are eligible’ children then, in the application of sub-section (2) at that time to the spouse, the reference in sub-section (2) to 67 per centum shall be read as a reference to-

    1. where there is 1 eligible child- 78 per centum;
    2. where there are 2 eligible children- 89 per centum; or
    3. where there are 3 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.
  4. Where a spouse to whom this section applies is the spouse of a deceased eligible employee who had paid supplementary contributions, the lump sum benefit to which the spouse is entitled is an amount, payable out of the Fund, equal to the accumulated supplementary contributions of the deceased eligible employee.

Amendment No. (54)-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62½ per centum’.

Amendment No. (55)-

In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62½ per centum’.

Amendment No. ( 56 )-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (a), leave out ‘78 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 73½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (57)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘89 per centum ‘, insert ‘84½ per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (58)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs:

where there are 3 eligibile children- 95½ per centum; or

where there are 4 or more eligible children- 100 per centum. ‘.

Clause 91.

  1. If, at any time when spouse’s pension is payable to a spouse who makes an election under sub-section (1 ), there are children of the deceased eligible employee who are eligible children, then, in the application of sub-section (2) at that time to the spouse, the reference in sub-section (2) to 67 per centum shall be read as a reference to-

    1. a ) where there is 1 eligible child- 78 per centum;
    2. where there are 2 eligible children- 89 per centum; or
    3. where there are 3 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.

Amendment No. (59)-

In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62 Vi per centum’.

Amendment No. (60)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (a), leave out ‘78 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 73 ‘A per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (61)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘89 per centum ‘, insert ‘84Vi per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (62)-

In sub-clause (3), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs:

where there are 3 eligible children- 95Vi per centum; or

where there are 4 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.’.

Clause 95.

  1. 1 ) Where the spouse of a deceased pensioner is entitled to spouse’s standard pension by virtue of sub-section 94(1), the annual rate of that pension is, subject to sub-section (2) of this section, 67 per centum of the annual rate at which standard age retirement pension or standard early retirement pension, as the case may be, was payable to the deceased pensioner immediately before his death.

  2. If, at any time when spouse’s standard pension is payable by virtue of section 94 to the spouse of a deceased pensioner, there are children of the pensioner who are eligible children, then, in the application of sub-section (1) of this section at that dme to the spouse, the reference in that subsection to 67 per centum shall be read as a reference to-

    1. where there is 1 eligible child- 78 per centum;
    2. where there are 2 eligible children- 89 per centum; or
    3. where there are 3 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.

Amendment No. (63)-

In sub-clause ( 1 ), leave out ‘67 per centum ‘, insert ‘62 Vi per centum’.

Amendment No. (64)-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62 Vi per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (65)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘78 per centum’, insert ‘ 73 Vi per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (66)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (b), leave out ‘89 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 8414 per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (67)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs:

where there are 3 eligible children- 9516 per centum; or

where there are 4 or more eligible children- 100 per centum. ‘.

Clause 96.

Where the spouse of a deceased pensioner is entitled to spouse’s additional pension by virtue of sub-section 94 ( 1 ), the annual rate of that pension is, subject to sections 65 and 66,67 per centum of-

Amendment No. (68)-

Leave out ‘67 per centum ‘, insert ‘62 Vi per centum ‘.

Clause 97.

  1. 1 ) Where the spouse of a deceased pensioner is entitled to spouse’s pension by virtue of sub-section 94 (2), the annual rate of that pension is 67 per centum of the annual rate at which invalidity pension was payable to the deceased pensioner immediately before the pensioner’s death.

  2. If, at any time when spouse’s pension is payable to the spouse under sub-section (1), there are children of the deceased contributor who are eligible children, then, in the application of sub-section ( 1 ) at that time to the spouse, the reference in sub-section ( 1 ) to 67 per centum shall be read as a reference to-

    1. where there is 1 eligible child- 78 per centum;
    2. where there are 2 eligible children- 89 per centum; or
    3. where there are 3 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.

Amendment No. (69)-

In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62Vi per centum’.

Amendment No. (70)-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘67 per centum’, insert ‘62Vi per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (71)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘78 per centum’, insert ‘73 1/2 per centum’.

Amendment No. (72)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (b), leave out ‘89 per centum ‘, insert ‘ 84Vi per centum ‘.

Amendment No. (73)-

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs:

where there are 3 eligible children- 95 Vi per centum; or

where there are 4 or more eligible children- 100 per centum.’.

Senator COTTON:

– I shall comment briefly on these amendments. As I have stated, the amendments relate to the widows pension formula and the children’s benefit formula. The first amendment, amendment No. (37) substitutes 62vi per cent for 67 per cent. The present 62Vi per cent relates to the pension paid to widows. Widows of some members who were in the scheme prior to that percentage being set receive 50 per cent of the member’s pension. The flat rate addition is for children. For a widow with 3 dependent children the payment equals 100 per cent. In the private sector a common basis is 60 per cent of a member’s pension. In some cases it is 50 per cent and in others it is nothing unless the member’s own pension is reduced to provide for the widows pension.

The Government’s proposal, in the Opposition view, is over-generous. It was estimated on the 1972 membership which is 3 years out of date and on the 1972 cost which, of course, has changed very considerably since. The proposal involves $138m which must come out of Consolidated Revenue and will add to an already alarming Budget deficit. The amendment does reduce widows pensions but if there are 4 dependent children the pension amounts to 100 per cent. We believe there is no point in isolating various aspects in various State schemes which might make things look a bit better. It is our view that the State schemes in many cases have been introduced in anticipation of this scheme coming forward. We do not believe you can pick the best points of State schemes and leave out the worst and get a fair comparison. I do not need to say any more. It is a straightforward matter and it might well be put to the test if nobody else wants to get involved.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I am interested to hear Senator Cotton say that the private sector has this as an established basis in its superannuation policies. That is the point I query. The fact that the basis is there does not mean it is right. It simply means more money is left with the private insurance companies. At the moment they are utilising it very well. They are using it to campaign against the Government’s entry into the insurance field. We have to take into consideration the schemes in other States. Four States already have introduced schemes with a provision that 67 per cent of the amount that the contributor himself would have received should be received by the widow of that person. I queried in my speech on the second reading of the Bill in this House last night whether some concerted effort should not have been made by widows in the community, and by the contributors to superannuation schemes, to ensure that a more equitable portion is paid to the widow of a superannuitant.

I was pleased to hear Senator Hall say earlier, when speaking to previous amendments, that the States looked to the Commonwealth to set the pace. In this instance the Commonwealth is not setting the pace. Purely and simply the Commonwealth is bringing itself up to the level accepted by major States throughout Australia. Honourable senators should look at some of the rising costs. I dispute some of the reports I have read concerning the Superannuation Bill. It is said that there are fixed costs and that there are variable costs. I dispute that a widow pays any less than a contributor for her bread, for her communications, for her transport, for her clothing. I dispute that she has to pay less for her rent. I refuse to accept that she should accept a lesser life style than that which she had been accustomed to as a partner of the contributor. If by some unfortunate means the contributor happens to die, should the widow accept that she is entitled only to such meagre portion of what he would have been receiving? If perhaps we reverse the situation and look at what he would receive if she died, there is no equity and there is no justice in the argument that this should remain at 62.5 per cent and not be increased to 67 per cent. I remind honourable senators that according to statistics there are many more widows in the community than there are widowers. We should be looking for maximum protection and maximum coverage for the majority of people in the community. It seems rather ludicrous to me that we have to debate this. I should imagine it would be something that would be automatically accepted. I am surprised at the Opposition’s attitude.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The Government will oppose the amendment principally for the reasons which have been outlined already by Senator Coleman. It amazes me too that this advantage or benefit should be opposed because it is giving the widow an increased protection in line with the general trend in all of these schemes to give better protection. The argument that in the event of the death of a contributor who has 4 children a 100 per cent benefit would be paid out, of course is quite true. The same thing applies under the proposal being put by the Government. Increasing the initial payment to 67 per cent and adding 1 1 per cent for each of the 3 children makes a 100 per cent payment. The fact is, of course, that only a small minority of families in Australia now have 4 children. The great majority of widows would have 3 children or fewer. By holding the benefit down in the way suggested by the Opposition in its amendment means that a great majority of widows would be denied the opportunity to get this increase which, as Senator Coleman and I have indicated, is becoming the norm throughout Australia.

Four States already have this provision in their State schemes. I am, like Senator Coleman, surprised and disappointed that the Opposition sees fit to amend the Bill in the form it intends. Again

I would appeal to Senator Bunton and Senator Hall on this occasion to support the Government jointly in order to at least ensure the defeat of these amendments.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I do not intend to support the Opposition amendments in this case, but in taking that action I do not intend to criticise the Opposition for moving them. Probably the Opposition is right in equity if one looks at the total community. Certainly the majority of Australians cannot get this prospective cover for their wives for the payment for which members of the Public Service can get it. I do not think that is disputed. We are talking of a smaller group in the community, and I do not think it is a very good argument to introduce the word ‘equity’, as Senator Coleman did. That is exactly the word for and the basis of the Opposition’s view about this matter. It seems to me there will be some confrontation out of the action the Opposition is taking, and if present indications are any guide it will be something of long standing. I assume- I do not know, I can only assume from the Minister’s attitude- that the Government will not proceed with this Bill with the present amendments being effected to it.

Senator Poyser:

– The unions have said they do not want it.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It is a matter of whether the Government is governing or the unions are governing in that case, I suppose. That must be the case if Senator Poyser ‘s comment is to be taken at face value. However, I do not want to develop that as an argument. I am saying that it would seem from present attitudes that the Government will not proceed, and if it does not proceed this matter will be something of long-standing contention. I would not like to see the general Opposition attitude, which I think in this case is reasonably responsible, misdirected or sidetracked on the basis of what is quite an emotional argument about not such a great figure in relation to the total action the Opposition is taking. In not supporting the amendments, I want to tell Senator Cotton that I do not criticise his Party for moving them, but I believe it is a confusing issue to the major proposition the Opposition is putting. Certainly the increase of 67 per cent cannot be argued in any equity form, considering the total Australian population.

Question put:

That the amendments numbers 37 to 41 and 44 to 73 (Senator Cotton’s amendments) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R. E. McAuliffe

AYES: 25

NOES: 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

– We now proceed to group 4 of the amendments relating to the limitation of indexation, and I ask Senator Cotton to move the relevant amendment, number 9 1 .

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Once again, we are dealing with a broad amendment group listed on our table in group 4, relating to limitation of indexation. I will formally move amendments numbers 91 and 92 relating to clauses 151 and 153, which are to be opposed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-With respect, would you be good enough to move the relevant amendment, No. 91.

Senator COTTON:

-Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman. I move:

Clause 151.

  1. I ) In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- pension ‘ does not include partial invalidity pension; prescribed year’ means the year commencing on the commencing day, or a subsequent year.

In sub-clause (I), after ‘pension’ (second occurring), insert ‘, additional age retirement pension by virtue of section 58, additional early retirement pension by virtue of section 62, or spouse’s additional pension by virtue of section 84’.

This amendment relates to the general question of limitation of indexation. It is the fourth principal matter to which the Opposition wishes to direct its attention. It relates to the updating of the pension in accordance with the cost of living. The present Act provides for the Government portion of the pension to be increased by 1.4 times the increase in the consumer price index, or the actual change in average weekly earnings, if that is lower, but it provides for no increase in the members’ portion of the pension. The Bill which the Committee is discussing proposes that the Government portion of the pension of 50 per cent for a full period of service be increased annually according to the CPI increase and that a member who exchanges his accumulated contributions for a pension of not more than 20 per cent of his final salary should have that pension varied in accordance with the CPI. In effect, the total pension would be increased constantly according to the CPI, which we all know has been increasing at a dramatically fast rate for quite a while. The private sector practice is that automatic adjustments in accordance with the CPI are rare, but there are schemes- not manywhere there are limits of 3 per cent to 5 per cent on CPI increases.

Recommendation No. 5 in the PollardMelville report, which has been used from time to time by the Government where it suits its own case and never where it does not, suggested that only the Government portion of the pension that we are now discussing should be linked to the CPI. It is very hard to compare 2 superannuation schemes, but in general the Opposition disapproves of this provision on a cost basis, particularly in times of high inflation. As has been stated on many occasions in this debate, the Opposition’s aim is to reduce the cost of the new scheme and to try to reduce the disparity between this scheme and private schemes. There is really no way in which private schemes can compete when the Government scheme has unrestricted access to the total pool of Government revenue, without any discipline upon it. Various estimates have been made of the additional cost; I have seen one estimate of 23.7 per cent. I cannot say that I can back up that statement statistically at the moment, so I just refer to it in passing.

The Opposition is concerned basically to simplify the scheme. Those who take their contributions in a lump sum will not receive the benefits of indexation; only the Government portion of the pension will be indexed. We are looking at the broad argument that to update the total pension in accordance with the CPI would place a cost burden on the system of Government revenue and increase further the disparity and unfairness between 2 classes of Australian people- those who are employed by the Australian Government and those who are selfemployed or are employed by other people in the community.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-This is an important item with regard to the superannuation scheme. I begin by asking the Committee to note that in the Treasurer’s statement it is claimed that a mere change in relation to the consumer price index from 1.4 to 1.0 would be such as to entitle a credit to be given for a reduction in expenditure of $ 1,204m. Not on an actuarial basis but on a basis of business assumption, confirmed by actuaries, I put forward the proposition that for the Government to claim that reduction misses a substantial consideration. We all know that five-seventh of the pension times 1.4 equals one times the CPI for the whole pension. That is to say, if 1 .0 is applied to the pension that is equivalent to 50 per cent, and if 1.0 is applied to the 70 per cent pension, the CPI factor is 1.4. So 1.4 on the five-sevenths pension is equal to one times the CPI on the whole pension.

The figure of $ 1,204m put forward by the Treasury can be correct only if all employees elect to take cash. So the Treasury has taken a credit for this reduction of 0.4 of the CPI in respect of all beneficiaries. But it has then given credit for a mere $200m against the deduction of $ 1,204m, which assumes that approximately one-sixth of the beneficiaries will take cash. After taking off the $ 1,204m and saying that that is reduced expenditure, the Treasury adds back $200m for those beneficiaries who it is assumed will take cash. But under this scheme, when anybody takes cash he is paid that cash out of the fund and he is given the option immediately to pay it into Consolidated Revenue and get a pension for the rest of his life. That is a pension calculated on a basis of 8 per cent and over, plus a factor for inflation. On a Government investment a person can readily get 8 per cent, plus a factor for inflation, and get a pension for the equivalent amount. If there is anybody in the Public Service who would be so mute as not to take up that option I should be very surprised. Therefore, to assume that only one-sixth of the beneficiaries will take it up is a complete misassessment of the situation. In all probability two-thirds, but let us say one-half, of the beneficiaries will take up the option, and therefore the credit of $ 1,204m is reduced by $602m.

If one approaches this matter in another way and looks at the figures that are set forth in the Treasurer’s statement, it will be seen that the Treasurer starts off by indicating that the capital value of benefits under the present scheme is $6,553m. He then subtracts $ 1,204m from that and then adds back $200m, and on that basis the figure of $5,549m is obtained. That means that the cost of all additional benefits proposed by the Government is $ 1 ,3 1 6m, which is equivalent to a 23.7 per cent increase on total overall benefits. The basis for that figure of $1,3 16m is those figures enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (i) on page 33 of the Treasurer’s statement. They add up to $1,3 16m. The percentage increase therefore, properly calculated, is obtained if the figure of $ 1,204m is properly adjusted so as to allow only those sections of the Public Service who will take up the cash option and immediately invest it in Consolidated Revenue and get a pension the equivalent of 8 per cent plus cost of inflation. If you divide that by half you get the adjusted figure. So, far from the Government’s proposal representing an increase in the cost to the Treasury of 4.8 per cent as shown in the memorandum, it really represents a cost increase of 23.7 per cent.

Now, on the basis of the figure put in last night, adjusted according to the same considerations, the cost of the Opposition’s increased benefits, after allowing those amendments, is $743m. So after all our amendments are allowed, if the figure for the pension is properly evaluated on the basis of one times the increase in the consumer price index, instead of giving a credit for the whole $ 1,204m but to give a credit on a proper business basis- a business judgment confirmed by actuaries who advised us overnightthen you get a proper assessment that the scheme as amended by our proposals would represent an improvement of no less than $743m, or an improvement of 12.2 per cent.

Having said that in explanation of the figures on a basis not of my judgment but judgment expertly instructed, just consider whether all these beneficiaries will refrain from taking the Fund’s share of the benefit in cash if they are given the option at 65 years of age of immediately depositing it in the Treasury at 8 per cent and getting a pension accordingly valued at 8 per cent and above, plus inflation. Quite obviously nobody in the market place could invest his money in any sort of property to equal that return. Business judgment applied therefore means that instead of allowing for a factor of one-sixth taking up that option we should allow for a factor of at least a half, probably more. Then the figures of the Treasury, instead of representing the meagre increase of 4.8 per cent, will represent an increase of 23.7 per cent. Our amendments, as they stand on that assumption, even if they had included the excision of the widows pension- this will have to be adjusted a little in view of the late vote- would still have left an improvement in this scheme which would cost $743m or 12.2 per cent. I will not take the time of the Committee to outline the detailed components of that $743m but I would like to incorporate the details in Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

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

Senator WRIGHT:

-Thank you. Therefore I submit that to give a scheme in which the Government-financed pension will be adjusted by the whole of the increase in the consumer price index in this respect is uniquely generous to the beneficiaries under this scheme. I would say, if I were not influenced by others who persuade me, that they should have the consumer price index increase but limited in any one year to not more than 5 per cent, because these outrageous increases that occur now of 17 per cent operate immediately to a flash advantage for those who get them but they are self defeating and people on superannuation, if we go on generating those consumer price index increases, have to take their share of the sacrifice in the general interest in order to keep a stability in the economy so that the economy will represent units of some reality and not flimsy valueless paper money. I suggest that the amendment moved by the representative of the Opposition, Senator Cotton, should be agreed to.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I will deal with the matters raised by Senator Wright. The first relates to the assumption of approximately how many people would take up cash options. I am advised that the $225m referred to is not based on 20 per cent, as Senator Wright claims, but on approximately 60 per cent. The $225m relates to the additional pension, not the Government financed element as the $ 1,204m does which, of course, is a much larger figure. I rely on the advice of the officers who are much more knowledgeable in the details of this matter than I am and, I would think, much more knowledgeable than anybody else in the chamber. That makes Senator Wright’s argument unsustainable.

Senator Wright:

– You have to -

Senator WRIEDT:

– The honourable senator had his say. We listened to him, in agony I know, but at least we did so in silence. I turn now to the 1 . 4 times increase under the present scheme. This refers to the Government financed element. Under the new scheme the Government is proposing that it be one times the increase of the consumer price index in both the Government financed section and also in the other section financed by the contributors’ funds. Again it is said that that is an unfair advantage and an imposition on the rest of the community and so on. The fact is that it is a new arrangement and a new idea. One would expect it to be introduced in a scheme of this nature. At present the Opposition ‘s amendment in effect would take away that one times the increase in the consumer price index as it applied to the contributors ‘ fund.

Of course it can be said that the Government is being too generous with the unions or with the Public Service. If that argument can be levelled against this Government it can be levelled against every other Government in the past on exactly the same basis- that is, its Commonwealth superannuation scheme. The Commonwealth at all times has been a forerunner in benefits provided to public servants. It is quite ridiculous to argue that this is another one of those over generous parts of the scheme which this Government is initiating. We may be initiating this particular benefit but we are not breaking new ground and being an initiator. That is the important point. All the things that can be said and can be levelled against this Government would apply to past governments. I repeat, in view of the comments made by Senator Wright, that we have endeavoured to make this scheme an example and a model for other sections of the community. It is a scheme that has been worked out with the actuaries and the people involved. Again I say to the Committee that the proposal being put for the application of one times the increase in the CPI to both sectors of the pension ought to be supported by the Senate.

Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales

– I intend to support this Opposition amendment. I think there is a vast difference between this amendment and the first and third amendments. The first and third amendments, which I did not support, concerned the rights of contributors. I support this amendment because I consider it to be fair and reasonable. It does not create inequality among contributors and is most desirable in the light of the present economic climate.

Question put:

That amendment No. 91 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R.E. McAuliffe)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in theaffirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put:

That clause 153 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary ChairmanSenator R. E. Mcauliffe)

AYES: 23

NOES: 27

Majority…….. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause 1 85 A.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– This proposed new clause deals with people involved electing to remain in the present scheme. I move:

After clause 185, insert the following new clause: 1 85 A. ( I ) Any eligible employee referred to in the last preceding section who immediately preceding the commencement day would have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon his retirement on attaining the age of either 60 or 65 years may elect to continue his contributions under that Act and to receive benefits in accordance with the provisions thereof.

The contributions of any eligible employee making an election under sub-section ( 1 ) who would have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon attaining the age of 65 years shall be increased to the level of contributions applicable to persons who have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon attaining the age of 60 years.

An election under sub-section (1) shall be made by notice in writing served on the Commissioner within such period as is prescribed.

An eligible employee who makes an election pursuant to this section and who complies with the requirements of that Act shall be entitled to receive benefits under the superseded Act and the superseded Act shall continue in force and apply in relation to such requirements and entitlement as if this Act and the Superannuation Act Amendment Act 1975 had not been passed. ‘.

I observe briefly that we are moving amendments which propose that age 65 be the standard age for retirement under the new scheme. Under the present scheme over 60 per cent of contributors are paying for retirement at age 65 and the remainder are paying the significantly higher contribution necessary for retirement at age 60. So that no member of the existing scheme will be disadvantaged we propose that any member currently contributing for age-60 units should have the option of remaining in the existing scheme on the present basis or of switching to the new scheme for retirement at age 65 and receiving a cash refund of the excess contribution previously paid. We also propose that members currently contributing for age 65 retirement should have a once only option to elect to switch to age-60 units. This will involve the higher contributions required for age-60 units and the members will remain in the existing scheme. It seems to us that that is a fair way to behave towards the people who will be involved.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The Government will oppose the amendment. I gave details of its reasons earlier in the debate and I made specific reference to comments passed by Senator Hall. I do not think it is necessary to go through them again.

Question put:

That the proposed new clause be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R. E. McAuliffe)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Postponed amendments Nos 3 1 and 32.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– During the luncheon interval I was able to talk to advisers from the Department of the Treasury. Their recommendation to the Opposition was that these proposed amendments were irrelevant and that if proceeded with they would take away entitlements which are now available to people. That was no part of the Opposition’s purpose. Other people with whom I have been able to consult agree with that view. Accordingly, the Opposition feels it is quite sensible to pick up the recommendation that amendments Nos 3 1 and 32 be withdrawn.

Amendments withdrawn.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

– The question now is:

That the Bill as amended and the remainder of the Bill be agreed to.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Mr Temporary Chairman, I shall take a brief moment of your time. I thank the Chair for the orderly and very fair conduct of a very difficult debate. I also thank the Clerks at the table for the help they gave in constructing an orderly pattern of work through a difficult area of 94 amendments and the way in which they constructively put together a mechanism for handling this difficult exercise. I commend to the Committee that this is a process which we might use later in debates of this character where a number of amendments are involved and where there are lots of problems. It was a great help to me and I am sure it was a great help to other people. I also thank the advisers who not only helped the Government with advice but also have been helpful to myself and my colleagues. I thank the Senate for a very constructive debate in which the Opposition can say that it believes it has saved the Australian taxpayers over $ 1,022m.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2323

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives Message No. 312 acquainting the Senate that the House had disagreed to the Senator’s amendment.

Clause 3.

Section 3 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted:

Senate’s amendment-

At the end of proposed section 3 of the Principal Act, add the following new sub-section:

In discharging the functions of the office a section of not less than two of the professional staff shall be seconded to draft proposed laws, amendments and instruments at the request of Members of the Parliament in priority to services for Ministers.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

As honourable senators will recall, the amendment which was moved by the Opposition proposed that a section of not less than two of the staff of the Parliamentary Counsel should be seconded to draft proposed laws, amendments and instruments at the request of members of Parliament in priority to services for Ministers. As has previously been indicated both in the Senate and in another place, the amendment is unacceptable to the Government for 2 reasons. Firstly, in the opinion of the Government the needs of private members of Parliament, both senators and members of the House of Representatives, would be less adequately met under the amendment than under the present arrangements. Secondly, the amendment would seriously prejudice the legislative program of the Government which we claim should be paramount.

Under the arrangements that have existed for many years the services of the official draftsmen are available to private members with one qualification, namely that the Attorney-General may decline to provide those services in circumstances that would substantially prejudice the legislative program of the Government. As I pointed out when the Bill was being considered by the Senate previously, this qualification has not in practice, under the present Government at any rate, prevented the reasonable requirements of private members being met expeditiously and efficiently. Assistance has been given to members of both Houses on numerous occasions and in many instances very substantial drafting work has been done.

The most common need of private members and in particular of official Opposition spokesmen is for assistance with amendments to current Bills. This is often required at very short notice and under the present system the First Parliamentary Counsel is usually able to make available the services of the draftsman responsible for the Bill itself. The obvious advantage of that is that he is the man who is most familiar with the philosophy, intent and detail of the particular Bill and he is able to deal with the matter quickly. As we all know, speed is the essence in most of these cases. Moreover, with the consent of the member concerned the draftsman may be able to assist in reaching a form of amendment which may be acceptable to the Government, thereby expediting the whole process.

If this Bill is amended as proposed it could hardly be expected that the services of a draftsman, other than the two specifically allotted, would be available. Even if those draftsmen were competent and experienced they would scarcely be able to prepare satisfactory amendments in the time usually required because of the need to familiarise themselves with the details of a Bill. Moreover, acute problems of priorities might arise among private members themselves. For example, if 2 private members each asked for assistance in the drafting of a major Bill the 2 draftsmen might be fully occupied for months. How would questions of priority be decided? A private member could ask for the drafting of an elaborate Bill that would have no chance of becoming law because it did not have the support of the Government. In the meantime legitimate requests by other members for assistance with amendments would not be fulfilled.

Any difficulties that arise under the present system- they are rare and certainly less than they could be under the system envisaged by the amendment- would be attributable to a shortage of skilled staff in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to cope with the enormous workload that now exists. The First Parliamentary Counsel is making constant efforts to increase his staff and, as Senator Greenwood would appreciate from his recollection of his days as AttorneyGeneral, parliamentary draftsmen do not grow on every rose bush. I believe it is a mistake to think that if this amendment were passed a couple of experienced and competent draftsmen would immediately become available to provide the services contemplated by the amendment. The search for competent parliamentary draftsmen would be as difficult as ever. Frankly, we believe that if the amendment were carried it would be more or less a pious amendment because it would not result in any solution of the problem- we acknowledge that it is a problemwhich the amendment seeks to solve. For that reason we oppose the amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The Opposition will oppose the motion of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland). The Parliamentary Counsel Bill 1975 provides for Parliamentary Counsel and not Crown counsel. This Bill is simply one small step towards achieving recognition within the Office of Parliamentary Counsel of the rights of members of Parliament other than Ministers. When the Minister puts forward his second argument, that this proposal would seriously prejudice the program of the Government, one can see the monstrous dimensions to which his claims upon the parliamentary counsel staff go.

In the last 18 months we have had an avalanche of legislation, ill considered but prepared with the utmost endeavour, and exertion on the part of the parliamentary counsel, to a degree that excites my amazement. If a little of that effort were able to be directed by the intelligence of the Opposition, I think it would be a better use of the facilities of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. All I am opposing is the claim to monopolise the parliamentary counsel with the Government’s programs. One of the great deficiencies of private members during the last half century has been the absence of private member’s Bills and the absence of private member’s amendments. Who of us is competent to draft without the assistance of those who are skilled in the type of drafting that is appropriate in this forum? For the efficiency of Parliament, we ask for a little consideration. We are not impinging to any significant degree upon the Government’s acknowledged priority in respect of all staff of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, other than two who should recognise that their priority, but not their exclusive duty, should be for the members of parliament who do not sit on the ministerial benches.

The other point that the Minister made is that it would not facilitate the needs of private members. I will not engender a spirit of contention into this debate because I do not want the reaction on the part of the professional office to be one of adversity due to anything that has been said during the course of this debate. I have no doubt that the Office will be only too willing to be obedient to the expressed will of the Parliament. If there are any more difficulties in sorting out the priorities of private members between themselves after this Bill is passed- at the present time we have no acknowledged right to serviceswe will see an amazing reaction on the part of the professional staff of whom I do not consider the submission is worthy. I suggest that the Opposition should adhere to this amendment and reject the motion of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I join with Senator Wright in opposing the motion which has been put forward by the Government. I wish to draw attention to the message received from the House of Representatives. It states:

Because the present arrangements for assistance to private members by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel are more satisfactory both to private members and to the Government than the arrangements proposed by the amendment.

That, solely, is the reason. It is, I think, one of the most arrogant statements that I have read since I have been in this Parliament. The Government can say that the arrangements are more satisfactory to private members, but what particular right has the Government to say that? Private members are able to express their views. They express their views by voting in the Senate. I will hope that they will indicate that they do not agree with that particular reason.

Insofar as it is said by the Government that the legislative program might be prejudiced, I support what has been said by Senator Wright. In the last week or two an enormous number of Bills has been flowing into this chamber. These Bills have been undigested by the House of Representatives so they need further study in this chamber. To suggest that the great size of the Government’s legislative program is somehow a reason why legislation should not be carefully amended is nonsense. If these Bills are guillotined through the House of Representatives it seems to me all the more reason why the amendments should be properly considered here and why all advice that can be obtained in the drafting of those amendments should be used . That is not an argument for the Government, it is an argument against the Government so far as the size of its legislative program is concerned.

The argument was put forward that all that could be expected, if this amendment were accepted, is, firstly, that it will be a pious amendmentnamely, there is a suggestion that the Government will ignore the operation of it. Secondly, there is a suggestion that there would be only 2 draftsmen whose priority job it would be to look after amendments proposed by back benchers. I suggest that that does not follow from the amendment. One would expect that it would be convenient, in most cases, to have the particular draftsman who drafted the Bill doing the job. I do not see any reason why this amendment would stop that sensible course from being continued. It would mean at least this: Two of the draftsmen in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel would have a priority job. It may only take up a small part of their work, that would not matter. It would mean that, at least in regard to those two people, there would be work that could be done in a hurry.

I suggest that this amendment which was put forward by the Senate, is and remains a desirable amendment. No sensible argument has yet been advanced against the inclusion of this amendment. I trust that the Senate will stand firm on its resolution in this regard. It is one of those important aspects whereby the back bench members of the Parliament have to remain, they have to improve their position and they have to be in a position where they can stand up against the overwhelming power of the Government with the facilities that it has and with the office staff that it has.

There has to be some redress of the balance if parliamentary government is going to be effective and if we are going to be regarded as serious legislators in this community. I hope the Committee will stand by its amendment.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the abstract, the argument advanced by Senator Missen is cogent and persuasive, but in practical terms, I suggest that the back bencher in this place really has little about which to complain. I can recall that even before I entered the Senate I was approached, in my capacity as a solicitor with some experience of workers’ compensation matters, to assist the then shadow Minister for Labor- this was before the present Government came to office- in advising about the drafting of a model workers’ compensation Bill for Government employees. I came to Canberra on several occasions. I engaged in discussions.

Available to the shadow Minister were the services of a parliamentary draftsman in the person of Mr Koltz, who is here advising me today. He must have given, just in these discussions about the general philosophy about the proposed Bill, many hours of his time being briefed as to what was to go into the Bill- not to mention the time that he must have spent in drafting it. It was a most elaborate detailed code. I can recall- this was my first direct experience with the parliamentary process- being enormously impressed by the fact that these services were freely available to a member of the Opposition. A Bill emerged as detailed and as finely tuned as a Bill that would be presented to this Parliament. I know that recently Senator Wright had an experience of being refused the assistance of parliamentary counsel. But, with respect, I would suggest that his request was not a reasonable one. What he was proposing was a measure of assistance that would have tied up the services of a skilled parliamentary counsel for what I believe would have been an unreasonable period of time.

Senator Wright:

– I do not think that the Minister should refer to new matter like that unless I am given the right to comment on it.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would certainly not oppose the granting of leave to the honourable senator to do so. I am not saying this by way of criticism of him. He is one of the most responsible senators in this chamber. He takes his duties so seriously that he probably does require the assistance of parliamentary counsel more than most. I would say that ordinarily that would not be refused to him. But there have to be some limits. I am not suggesting that the parliamentary counsel belong only to the government of the day and that their services should be denied to back bench members of the Parliament. I believe that within reason they should be available to all members of the Parliament. But can anybody in conscience say that that has not been the case? I suggest that the case that I have instanced is a characteristic case. I suggest that that is what is available in the way of service from the Parliamentary Counsel.

I seriously suggest to honourable senators opposite that the service that would be available to them, if the amendment were carried, would not be as good as the service that is available to them now. The main point that I was attempting to make was that, in considering amendments to the legislation that is before the Parliament, which after all is the main call upon the services of parliamentary counsel by back bench members of the Parliament or by members of the Opposition, the service provided is really at its best when it comes from the counsel who has been responsible for drafting the Bill which is sought to be amended. If we were to have a couple of people who were not drafting Bills but who were available purely to do the sort of service for which honourable senators opposite are asking the service that would be available would be diminished. It would not be as good as the service that honourable senators opposite are getting now.

I seriously put to honourable senators opposite that the notion that we can just go out, advertise for parliamentary counsel and get competent counsel who will be available to perform the services requested by honourable senators opposite is an unrealistic notion. Senator Greenwood would know as well as anybody that the search for people who are competent to perform this highly skilled task is an almost hopeless one. I can remember that when we were in Opposition I constantly asked questions of Senator Greenwood as to the expansion of the service of the Parliamentary Counsel and that he constantly replied, I believe truthfully, that he was trying as hard as he could but he just could not get parliamentary counsel. I did not mean to convey, as was suggested by Senator Missen, that if this amendment were carried the Government would not make a serious attempt to get the 2 extra parliamentary counsel referred to. That is not an attitude to which I would subscribe. I should think that we would try as hard as we could to get them, but I really cannot hold out much hope of being able to get them. So I say seriously to the Opposition that in its own interests it should not insist upon this amendment because it will not serve its purpose.

Question put:

That the Senate does not insist on the amendment of the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator N. T. Bonner)

AYES: 23

NOES: 27

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2327

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1 975 is a very short Bill and it was introduced by a very short second reading speech. But it ought not be supposed that the implications of the matter can be so shortly stated. The Bill has enormous implications, not simply for the position on the waterfront but also for the Australian economy because what is being sought by this Bill, very shortly expressed, is the authority to increase the charges, which are levied by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority on the employers of waterside labour, by 67 per cent in the Class A ports, 100 per cent in the Class B ports and 108 per cent in the Class C ports. That increase is sought in a context in which the costs of waterside labour have increased over the 5-year period from 1970 to 1975 by 257.5 per cent. I shall specify that in a little more detail.

In 1970 the wages of waterside workers were $57.10; in 1975 they currently run at $142.70, an increase of 149.9 per cent in 5 years. The cost of waterside labour, which includes wages, the payment of levies and workers compensation insurance, was $2.41 per hour in 1970. In 1975 the cost is $8.90 per hour, an increase in that same 5-year period of 269.3 per cent. In that same period stevedoring costs, which include things other than wages which have to be paid by the stevedoring companies, have increased by approximately 1 90 per cent.

I mention those matters because they represent the context in which an increase in stevedoring costs is being authorised by the Government and by the Parliament. There must therefore be increases in freight costs, and there must therefore be increases in prices of commodities imported into this country and there must be, of course, so much more diminution in the value of our exports. The impact which these costs on the waterfront must have had and must be continuing to have on the whole of the Australian economy cannot be underestimated. It is a matter which is not greatly publicised and I suppose there is not a great number of people who are particularly knowledgeable about the subject. But the more one looks into it, as perforce my obligations in this debate have compelled me to look into it, the more one becomes alarmed at the seemingly endless consequences which must be produced by the pattern which has now been developing over five or six years.

The Bill proposes increases in the statutory maximum rate of charge that may be prescribed in respect of the 3 classes of waterside ports. The charges are payable by the employers of waterside labour. They are part of the employer’s overall costs. The employer pays a wage, he incurs other costs and, of course, he must also pay the charge. The charge is payable to the Stevedoring Industry Authority, and out of the revenues which the Stevedoring Industry Authority receives various facilities must be provided and other payments must be made. One of the major expenditures- I think in the context in which this charge is to be examined it is the predominant responsibility- is the cost of the idle time which is a consequence of the permanency of employment which was instituted in 1 967.

The rates of charge which were enabled to be imposed by the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act have increased over the years.

The Act permits a maximum charge to be prescribed, and regulations made under the legislation fix a rate of charge which is currently less than the amount which is fixed by the Act. The rates at present are as follows: For Class A ports, $1.50 per man hour; for Class B ports, $ 1.75 per man hour; for Class C ports, $ 1.20 per man hour. The regulations make the actual rates for each of the 3 classes of ports $ 1 .40, $ 1 .75 and $1.15 respectively.

I have stated that the Authority is required to pay the cost of idle time on the waterfront. Mr Street, the Opposition’s spokesman on labour and industrial matters in the other place, indicated in the debate in the other place that idle time was recently running at the rate of 10 000 man days per week at a cost of approximately $28 per man. That works out at an annual cost of approximately $ 1 5m. Mr Street passed on to the Parliament and to the public his information, which was not subsequently challenged- it certainly is the information which he believes to be true- that approximately a fortnight ago, the week before last, idle time was running at approximately 14 000 man days per week, costing approximately $420,000 per week. As an annual cost, that works out to something more than $20m. It is incredible that that sort of money is being paid and that charges have to be levied to enable the money to be paid in relation to people who essentially are doing nothing. Their idleness, of course, is not their wish.

When the current scheme was instituted following the report of Mr Justice Woodward in 1966 it was believed that it would bring in a new era on the waterfront which would ease the dislocation which previously had occurred. I suppose for a few short years there were achievements according with the objective, but certainly that has not been the pattern in recent years. It is obviously a system which must be changed. At the time that payments of this sort are being made for idle time other ports around the Commonwealth have insufficient labour to turn the ships around. All in all it is a crazy system but it is a crazy system which is enormously expensive and tremendously harmful to the nation’s economy. It is not only the cost of the idle time which has to be met, for that is the principal cost, but also other costs have to be taken into account in the assessment of what the charge should be. I shall suggest some of these items in the remarks I now make.

The Opposition accepts that there is a clear need in the present circumstances for the Authority to have greater funds and therefore it is necessary to increase the charge. We lament what the increase in the charge actually involves, but there is a current problem and it is just not possible to overcome that problem without increasing the charge. It is interesting to examine some of the circumstances in which this has come about. The Australian Stevedoring Industry report of 1973-74 indicates certain changes which took place in that year altering a trend which had occurred in previous years. Part of the report which deals with the year in outline starts with these words:

The number of registered waterside workers continued to decline during 1973-74 but at a lower rate than in previous years.

The reduction over the years, of course, was consistent with the program and plan which had been instituted in 1967. The pattern of the registered waterside workers year by year over the period from 1966-67 through to 1973 shows this consistent pattern of decline. That pattern of decline was also shown in the year ended 30 June 1974 but, as the report said, at a lower rate. The report continues:

The reduced rate of decline was due to an increase in activity on the waterfront which led to the resumption of recruitment at the major ports of Sydney, Melbourne, Port Kembla and Newcastle, and a marked decrease in the number leaving the industry.

Shortly thereafter in the same report this passage appears which explains both of those occurrences which were contrary to the pattern of preceding years:

The aggregate of port quotas of waterside workers at the end of the year was 1 3 425, which was 386 more than that at 30 June 1973. The most significant variations were increases in the quotas for the permanent ports of Sydney, Melbourne, Port Kembla, Newcastle and Whyalla. These were the first increases in quotas at any permanent ports since introduction of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference scheme of permanent employment. The main reason for the need for additional labour at Sydney and Melbourne was the heavy increase in imports following currency revaluations and tariff reductions.

I think one of the consequences of the acrosstheboard tariff cuts in 1973 was that imports increased as intended and changes took place, as have been indicated, on the waterfront. I do not think sufficient attention had been given to the likely consequence in this area. If attention had been given steps could have been taken to vary the requirements and the obligations which then prevailed. I think steps in some way could have been taken; certainly the matter could have been examined with a view to action being taken which would have avoided the consequent increase. Because there was a lessening in the reduction of the number of waterside workers and recruitment undertaken we now have a significant contributing factor to the increase in idle time. Whilst it may seem unnecessarily carping to go back to an event in 1973 which is past history and to comment about the inadvisability of the tariff cuts in the way they were done, it ought to be instructive that bold and sometimes imaginative gestures can be more harmful in their consequences than is thought at the time the boldness is applauded. I think we have found that that has been one of the consequences of that act of 18 July 1973. Increased imports have contributed to the problems. Now that the imports are lessening we are left with additional problems on the waterfront.

The second matter to which I refer is the Minister’s own statement as to why this has occurred. The Minister’s speech, as I said, was short, pithy and did all it had to do, but on this aspect it simply said that the charges were due to the movement in wages and the low level of activity on the waterfront. Certainly I have touched upon the low level of activity and have explained possibly one reason why it has a heightened effect at present. Certainly in terms of movement in wages we have seen a very significant increase in the past 2 years. I instanced in the figures which I gave earlier to the Senate an increase of approximately 150 per cent in wages over a 5-year period. In the period since May 1974 the increase has totalled approximately 50 per cent. As I read and understand the agreement which was made to come into effect in May 1974 there was a general increase of 26 per cent in the wage structure. That had the inbuilt provision that there was to be another increase, which I think is approximately 30 per cent and which has come into force within the last month. That agreement of May 1974 also provided for a 25 per cent loading for long service leave. I think it increased it from the 22 & per cent which previously had prevailed. These factors of course represent the movement in wages to which the Minister refers and they have their part to play in the $28 a day which is the basic computation upon which the idle time is assessed.

One might ask: Why did the wage increases take place? I suppose the obvious answer is that the people who were working on the waterfront wanted a wage increase. They were certainly entitled to some wage increase and they got their wage increase. One wonders whether or not the power which was able to be exercised by a very significant and powerful union on the waterfront played a far greater role in securing increases at the level which was able to be obtained than the public interest properly justified. As I understand the situation, it was entirely a negotiated wage increase in which the stevedoring companies had little or no alternative but to accept the demands made, because the prime consideration was that the ships should be turned around, that the cargoes should be loaded or unloaded, and that the shipowners should be able to maintain their turnaround. Those in the Opposition parties who are far more experienced than I and who addressed themselves to this matter in the House of Representatives highlighted the problems which these sweetheart agreements can create. But it is a significant factor at which we have to look in this general area.

I think it is important, too, to assess the consequences of these wage movements and this reduction in activity over the past year, because in 1973-74 the cost of idle time apparently was $3.6m, and currently the figure is running at $ 1 5m and it may be as high as $20m for the year. This is a situation which has got to be looked at because of the seriousness of a continuing position where the cost of imports, which have ramifications right throughout the production area in which the imports play their part, will undoubtedly increase costs and consequently prices throughout the economy. This is not a new situation. I suppose in its way it was, shortly expressed, the reason for the Woodward Commission and report in 1966; it has been the reason why we have had temporary legislation, 4 times renewed, in the intervening 6 years; it is the reason why a previous government delayed and was unable to come to a final conclusion; and it is the reason why a new government, despite all the assurances and promises that the matter could be dealt with in double quick time, has been unable to come forward with its proposals. I think that we are all indebted to the Minister for tabling the report prepared by the gentleman whom he commissioned to investigate this question. It was presented, I gather, without being tabled in the Parliament, because I have no recollection of its having been tabled.

Senator Bishop:

– It has been tabled.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It has. I was looking to see whether there was a statement accompanying the tabling. The document is headed Some Aspects of the Stevedoring Industry in Australia ‘, and I understand that it was compiled by Mr Foster, whom the Minister had appointed. It is a readable and informative document and it at least comes forward with some alternative proposals which ought to be considered. I note that two of the proposals are discarded for reasons which the author of the report sets out. He indicates a third alternative. I am not sure- I do not profess to have the knowledge to be able to pass judgment- whether or not the proposal he recommends is one which will solve the basic problems. It certainly would change the position and help to eradicate some of the difficulties which the author pinpoints in his report.

I fail to see why a national body, even if operated by government or under the authority of government, is going to be in any stronger position to resist the squeezing which can be engaged in by a union and by a shipowner, each of whom has his own interests to serve, which could be mutually achieved at the expense of the third party, whether that third party be a group of private companies operating in their own interests or whether it be one nationalised company. These are initial problems which can and ought to be examined, and this is what we hope the Government will do in the immediate future. The Opposition proposes to support the second reading of this Bill and at the Committee stage to move 2 amendments.

The first amendment- a set of 3 changes is involved- seeks to reduce the amount by which the charges may be increased. The information available to the Opposition is that the level to which we would reduce the charges is in fact the level which would be prescribed, assuming that the Government were able to carry its proposal. The second amendment is designed to ensure that the temporary situation is brought to an end as soon as possible and that in this legislation there should be a provision stating that the authority given by the Act shall cease on 1 July 1976 or at such earlier time as legislation is passed providing permanent arrangements for the stevedoring industry in substitution for the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.

This second proposal accords with the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. We believe that what was stated by the Minister in 1973, that he expected that within the year he would have his permanent proposals brought forward, should be able to be achieved by July 1976. The Minister was not able to achieve it in his first year, as he anticipated; he was not able to achieve it in 1975, even though last year we attempted in the Senate to impose an amendment which would have required him to come back to the Parliament either to renew the legislation or to produce his proposals by 1 April 1975. In its place the requirement is for the Act to be renewed no later than 1 July 1 976. The document to which I have referred, which was prepared by Mr Foster, I imagine must have been submitted to the Minister at some stage before 30 June 1 974, or even earlier, because it seems to take all its statistics and authority up to only 30 June 1 973. 1 suspect that the Minister has been sitting on the report for more than 12 months or that, putting it charitably, in that period he has been conducting his inquiries. We believe there is point in this debate in highlighting the immensity of the problems and the consequences if positive action is not taken. We hope by the amendments we are proposing that we not only express our concern but also put the pressure upon the Government to act more speedily in accordance with the promises which it made earlier.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I support the Bill. As I listened to Senator Greenwood I could not help but attempt to draw an analogy between the legal profession and the Waterside Workers Federation. In the business world, if one has a top class legal adviser one must make some arrangement so that he is more or less paid a fee to be on tap when some legal problem arises. If one wants to maintain an experienced stevedoring force one must provide some incentive to ensure that the men are on tap. That is the way in which I approach this Bill. Anyone who studies manpower patterns throughout the world, not merely on the waterfront but also in the mining industry and in one or two other areas, finds the need for some incentive to be provided to maintain and keep experienced operatives. When one looks at the work pattern revolution that has occurred over the last 10 years, or even over the last 5 years, with the introduction of containerisation and kindred innovations, it must be conceded that the work force is entitled to additional monetary incentives. We all remember the Alice in Wonderland concept that was spread throughout the community about containerisation. In Queensland the waterside workers acquiesced in a manpower reduction at the sugar port of Mackay because of the introduction of the mechanised system but there was no corresponding reduction in the retail price of sugar. I know that all honourable senators from Queensland could debate the sugar industry with me, and assert that it is well run and that the production of sugar is efficient. Yet the waterside workers did not benefit from the saving that was effected at the port of Mackay. Who got the rake-off? The waterside workers did not get it. Was it the sugar owners? Was it the sugar producers? I think it was the shipping companies.

Senator Greenwood ‘s prime theme today was feather-bedding in the work force. 1 would take that point a little further. The whole economies of the Australian martime industry show that no government- neither a Labor Party government nor a Liberal-Country Party government- can control the cost factor when the industry is in bondage to foreign shipping lines. It has always amazed me that whenever the Conference lines decided in concert to upgrade freight rates there was never a squeal about it, even from the Country Party. Undoubtedly there is a challenge to everybody in the stevedoring field now that this Government insists that ultimately 40 per cent of Australia’s exports will be carried in ships sailing under the Australian flag, and that will create many problems. I have discussed this matter with officials of the Waterside Workers Federation, the Seamen’s Union and the Maritime Services Guild. As a backstop to that a permanent work force will be needed at the various ports.

The old idea that somebody with a trolley wheeled a couple of bags of potatoes or some other commodity has gone. I am sure that even Senator Greenwood does not believe in the bull system that operated prior to World War II, particularly in the port of Sydney. Every reform that has been brought about has been agreed upon by the Waterside Workers Federation. The Luddite concept about England being the workshop of the world and people resisting changes in the textile industry was never adopted by the Australian trade union movement. Senator Greenwood did not actually say that but he did by implication. As a matter of fact, I waited in vain for him to argue that there had been a large number of political strikes. They have not occurred either. But it is reasonable to say that because of the competition for experienced operatives there is a need to have people on tap. There is no question of somebody walking in off the street and wanting to work on the Sydney waterfront. I have had dealings with the officers advising the Minister and I have sent people along for a medical examination and a general aptitude test. The fact is that today a man operating any form of lifting appliance has to be alert and his reflexes have to be above average. I think Senator Greenwood would agree with me that many ship owners would not care two hoots if a worker on the waterfront sustained a crushed foot or lost a few fingers, but they would be concerned if the fork lift operator caused production delays or damaged equipment.

Fundamentally, if the work force is maintained there will be an efficient army of workers who will be able to maintain a reasonable turnabout rate. I know that it is common for people like Senator Greenwood who have legal training to be critical of a group of men working on the highway, with 3 men standing around waiting for somebody with an excavator or a rock buggy to come along. In answer to that I would say that I could visit any court in Sydney or any other city and be critical of the people there because of the rubbish and ritual that goes on in the legal system. If the legal profession is entitled to preserve that system then the waterside workers are entitled to have their job safety rules. I do not say that provocatively. It would be very wrong for me to suggest reforms in the legal system, and I have no hangups about that because I have never had to appear before a judge for sentence and I hope I never will. If the legal profession can cling to the old shibboleths that it has about legal procedures, long and drawn out as they are, and say that justice has to be done, then on the other side of the coin the waterside worker is entitled at times to be a bit wary during inclement weather about performing certain duties because it is his arm or his leg that is on the block.

Let us get away from this desire to move the workforce somewhere else, and this concern about a waterside worker having a cup of tea or a cup of coffee at 9. 1 5 in the morning. Let us be realistic about it. In looking for a Utopian effort from the workforce on the waterfront we should not confine ourselves to Australia; we should also consider the port of London or we could go to Belgium or Poland or anywhere else, if we are concerned about an ideological concept. Waterside workers are a breed of people who are aggressive, and they have got to be aggressive to maintain the conditions that they have achieved. I do not deny that there have been times when the illustrious Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, with all his ability to conciliate, has had differences with the Waterside Workers Federation, in the same way as previous Ministers have. But let us be realistic about it. Charlie Fitzgibbons, Tassie Bull and others like them are men who keep any agreement they make. If Opposition senators want to hedge on the concept of permanency they should look at the other side of the coin. There is no monopoly in the recruitment of labour on the waterfront. A tripartite arrangement exists between the ship owners, an independent chairman and a Waterside Workers Federation representative. If the flotsam and jetsam of the workforce are recruited into the Waterside Workers Federation it will be found that they are not in reasonable physical condition and they will not measure up to the standard required. Such people will not merely be accident prone but could be a menace to their workmates because of dizziness and other physical limitations. These are the prime problems that beset the industry. Reference has been made to the report by Mr

Justice Woodward, to the Bastyn report and to other reports, and they indicate that there are unique circumstances in the industry.

I want to refer again to the question of work patterns. In our current education system everybody has the idea that their sons should have a university education, and that is a good thing. But even in this society there still have to be people in the basic industries. Opposition senators can talk until they are blue in the face, but unless we have a police state and regiment people, added incentives have to be given to workers to induce them to do the work we are talking about. The Foster report to which Senator Greenwood made a passing reference endeavoured to list all the components of the industry and the difficulties that exist. I know that, away from this field, Senator Greenwood is a keen student of foreign affairs and he would know that there are many maritime disputes in all sorts of countries, even on the east and west coasts of our powerful neighbour, the United States. I know of one official there- I think his name is Mr Gleeson- who agreed with Senator Greenwood on Vietnam, but he did not lack the guts to pull out his men at the port of New York when he thought that they were suffering an injustice. The moral of that story is that even waterside workers, who may agree with the Opposition on foreign policy, are jealous of the conditions of their members.

The situation on the waterfront is as close to industrial tranquility as it can be at the various ports in Australia. In talking about a reasonable life, we must remember that a waterside worker may get appearance money one day but the next day he may be handling noxious cargoes. It is a dirtier and more unpleasant occupation than many other occupations, quite apart from our own- I can assure honourable senators of that. The other point I make is that the medical records of most members of the Waterside Workers Federation show that at various times a large number of them have had an ailment that has not been enough to put them out of the industry. A person could be minus a finger, he could have a crushed toe or it could be something like that.

I want to pay tribute to those elements in the industry for their attempts to maximise safe working precautions. This should apply even if it increases production costs not only to waterside workers but to anybody in an outdoor occupationmeat workers, timber getters. You can never get a perfect system. If there is any attempt to pad what is called the hourly rate it is only to compensate for these hazards. I leave the Senate with one other small matter. We are talking all the time about the recruitment of labour. At various times in this country we have been short of coal miners. As a matter of fact, we are short of a certain other category of miner, the metalliferous miner, at the moment. Not many Australians will go underground. Mr Clyde Cameron, with his great foresight, believes that we have to look elsewhere for them and possibly offer incentives.

However, to get back to the waterfront workforce, recently I attended a Portuguese function in Sydney. There are not a lot of Portuguese, compared with other groups, in Australia. I think that on the latest figures there are about 10 000 for the entire continent. I was talking to some of these boys who work on the waterfront in Sydney. Many of them worked in Lisbon and other places prior to coming to Australia; it is a way of life. One or two said to me that they were pleased to be in Australia, they were not asking for very much, and although they had to put up with the hazards of the waterfront they believed at least they were making a contribution to Australia’s trade and exports generally. That is only a simple observation. What I am saying is that I regard the money spent for the purposes envisaged in this reform as money well spent. When we finally come down to the nitty gritty, we have to consider the man who has to operate a locomotive on the waterfront and the people who have to go into the mines and the pits to produce coal. They have to get up in the morning at 6 o ‘clock and there is not one honourable senator here who cannot sleep until at least 8 o’clock in the morning. It is not a question of money. We are here because we have realised our ambitions but there are a lot of people on the waterfront who were denied opportunities. I know, and the Minister knows, that they would not regard their occupations as being inferior to others but let us be realistic about these things. If we want people to perform these hazardous occupations we should not whine and squeal about what is involved in these charges. To me this is money well spent because the waterfront industry is an essential component of the Australian work force.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It is sad to think that the Senate can listen to such a speech as Senator Mulvihill has treated us to without being stimulated, a speech which I was sad to hear fall from his lips. It seemed to have been buried in impenetrable experience, something from which he sees no hope. He just attributed to the waterside workers a purpose to make the best of their monopoly. The fact is that this Bill is of the greatest importance to the nation because it affects the systems under which the port operations of our country are maintained. At the present time it is a government protected system of corruption, inefficiency, waste and destruction of our whole effort. There are so many interests involved in the waterfront that control is completely impossible. The Waterside Workers Federation is making whoopee under the encouragement that is it getting from men like Senator Mulvihill, Mr Foster and the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) as well as the Labor Government.

Nine months ago this Government was faced with a predicament whereby our shipping was boycotted by the other union operating in this field, the Seamen’s Union. That union would not allow foreign ships to trade interstate, even though they had the licence of the responsible Minister to do so, except upon payment of a lump sum of thousands of dollars said to represent an equalisation between foreign pay and Australian pay. The Government has appointed a judge to inquire into the matter. If a police officer were given the job of inquiring into the matter and did not have a report for his inspector to prosecute within a month, he would be questioned as to his suitability for the job. There is a judicial inquiry into the matter and it seems to have gone underground.

Anybody who hears me refer to the interests of Tasmania will not accuse me of gathering an interest for the purpose of the Bass by-election, especially when the matter relates to the waterfront. May I remind the Senate that this week Tasmanian shipping was held up because the arbitration processes had not readily agreed to a demand by ship employees, members of the Seamen’s Union, for an increase of $60 a week. So they went on strike for a couple of days. Even today a ship in Geelong is held up due to some union dispute about increased wages. The whole operation of Tasmanian shipping is interrupted, and Tasmania is an island State dependent upon seagoing services. That is the lamentable situation that this Bill represents.

This Bill asks the Parliament to impose a tax on the employers of waterside workers to the extent of $2.50 per man hour of waterside labour employees. The legal limit for that tax at the moment is $ 1 .50 and the tax being levied is $ 1 .40. If legal authorisation is given to lift the limit to $2.50, it is expected that a regulation will be put through immediately to increase the charge per man hour of employment on the waterfront to $2.20 per hour. How much is that for an 8-hour day? Then compute what is involved in the charge.

The mere mention of these figures should excite the shame of any member of a government that puts forward the proposal. I instance the reaction on the apple industry. Honourable senators will know that the apple industry is to Tasmania what the sugar industry is to Queensland. We in Tasmania being a small community are justifiably proud of a relatively small industry, the apple industry, but we pioneered it in a period of great adversity and through skill, ingenuity and enterprise it was built up to an important unit of Tasmania’s economics. Under this Government with the melancholy, the mildew, the waste, the go-slow attitude and the supporters of idleness and opponents of work, the apple industry has been cut in half. Do honourable senators know that the cost for waterside workers to lift one bushel of apples from the shed to the ship on ordinary days is 60c, and that on Sundays it costs $1.20? That is for one bushel. That illustrates the degree to which the monopoly position of the waterside workers sitting at the portside has a stranglehold on shipping and a stranglehold on the apple industry. If the producer of the apples were to get that amount by way of profit for his land, his investment, and his labour in producing the goods, he would be happy; not so happy as the Public Service superannuitant.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Ha!

Senator WRIGHT:

– Not so happy as Senator Mulvihill is on his parliamentary salary which he says is the acme of his ambition. No. An orchardist on the Huon would be content to live on the exaction that is pressurised out of him just for lifting a case of apples from the waterside shed to the hold of the ship. Is it any wonder that I rise, for about the twentieth time in the 25 years that I have been a senator, to protest with all the spirit of which I am capable at the imposition which the monopoly of this union represents upon the trade of Australia?

These gentry contrive to operate the fruit industry so that half their working time is paid for at overtime rates or at weekend rates, including Sunday rates. Only 50 per cent of their wages is paid at ordinary rates. Is it any wonder that the apple industry finds itself placed in this situation by a government that has no solution for the industry other than to offer an inducement to the owners to grub out the trees- trees which were planted by the growers as, I suppose, they were planted long ago by Adam? They were fruitful for 50 years and more. A beggarly government that is spreading social services all around the country cannot see the way to give to the orchardists the incentives about which Senator Mulvihill spoke. The Government gives them incentives only to grub out the trees. I never thought I would live in a country that would not create a revolution against such a policy.

We have been favoured belatedly in recent months with the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year 1973-74. Senator Greenwood referred to part of it, but he stopped short of reminding the Senate that of the present numerical strength on the waterfront, 13 375, 83 per cent no less are employed on weekly luring. When Mr Justice Woodward was parading the waterfront everybody put up his hands and said: ‘Bring in weekly hiring. All that these poor darlings on the waterfront want is security, even though they get it at the risk of a bit of skin off their ankles caused by a vagrant sling. All they want is security. Give them weekly work and they will work. ‘ Let us see what happened. They now work, on an average, 33 hours a week at the main ports and 32.7 hours a week at the special ports, for which they get a remuneration- the hourly rate of which I think we should have some interest in computing- in one case $134.28 and in the other case $134.14. That is not a bad wage, on an ordinary basis, for this type of labour, ‘specialist and expert’ though it is.

Then one notices that this sort of thing operates: We bring these specialists to Hobart, where our fruit exporting season operates for about 13 weeks of the year so that, with that perception which has pioneered the trade, we can take advantage of the 3 months off-season in Europe. So 124 waterside workers are transferred to Hobart, irrespective of whether it is from Cairns, Perth or perhaps Darwin. If a waterside worker wants to motor down with his wife and make a bit of a jaunt of it, he gets the equivalent of the first class air fares to and fro. For the last fruit shipping season it cost $41,069 to transfer those 124 visitors. They receive a subsistence allowance whilst sojourning in Hobart the capital of that beautiful State to which Senator James McClelland, with his exuberance, I imagine, made his first visit last weekend. These gentlemen are paid subsistence for subsisting in Hobart. Soon God will pay us a premium to go to heaven.

The next thing I would ask the Senate to observe is the cost of idle time. Approximately 2 years before the year to which the report refers it cost about $8m, in 1972-73 about $6m, for the year 1973-74, which is dealt with in the report, down to $3. 6m, but for this year it is running at a rate of $ 15m. After stating that in the report this gentleman Mr O’Connor, from whose valued report I read, said also:

No improvement was noted in industrial relations.

He referred to undisciplined behaviour, unauthorised stoppages and a loss of 754 347 man hours which was 3.6 times the loss for the previous year. The loss represented 4 per cent of the total man hours worked by waterside workers. It was the highest percentage for 1 6 years.

Senator Mulvihill referred to increased wages. I make selective excerpts from the report which is couched in such terms that it galvanises one’s interest. Once one picks it up, it grips one, so candid and frank are the considerations which Mr O’Connor brings -before the reader. I read from the report:

A new national agreement covering wages and conditions of employment of waterside workers, to operate for a period of 2 years from May 1974, was negotiated by the Federation and the employers. The Agreement provided, inter alia, for a 26.3 per cent increase in the minimum weekly rate of pay at permanent ports and a 29.9 per cent increase in the hourly rate at non-permanent ports. A unique feature of the Agreement was the new concept. . . . These rates are to be determined on the basis of relating the weekly rate of pay to either 93.75 per cent of the average weekly earnings or the CP1, . . . whichever is the greater. In either case, increases resulting from any 1975 national wage case decision before 6 May of that year, or from a quarterly adjustment based on the March quarter if granted, are also to apply.

Unlike the 1972 Agreement which was reached without any strike … the course of the negotiations on this occasion was marked by a nationwide 3-day strike and numerous other unauthorised stoppages. . . . These resulted in a total loss of 310 988 man hours, or 4 1. 2 percent of the total time lost through stoppages in 1973-74.

That is the degree of pressure and monopoly blackmail that was brought to bear to squeeze money out of those who do not pay the freightthey charge it to others- so that these rates of pay on the waterfront were increased by 29 per cent in one hit. The annual report states:

The very substantial gains made by the Federation, which considerably increased stevedoring costs and resulted in higher freight rates, were again not accompanied by any change in conditions of employment designed to achieve greater productivity or otherwise improve efficiency in the industry.

The Agreement contained provisions, similar to those in the previous one, for the handling of industrial disputes without stoppages of work. However, in the short period between 6 May 1974, when it came into operation, and the end of June, there were 255 unauthorised stoppages which resulted in a total loss of 90 846 man hours.

If we look at page 55 and the following pages in the report, under the heading ‘Permanent Employment’ we see a situation of which you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I as fellow legislators, ought to be downright ashamed, even as members of the Opposition. I say that with great respect to the Chair. I was perhaps hazarding a remark to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, in a capacity not simply as the Acting Deputy President. But I say to Senator Mulvihill and those who sit on the Government side that this deplorable, inefficient and corrosive situation is inexcusable. The author of the report points out that in one company 5000 man hour days were lost through men being idle. Men who were on the payroll were doing nothing, but on another section of the wharf a stevedore wanted 5000 man hours and no labour was available. These people operate an equalisation scheme so that the idle time will be shared among them. One paragraph on page 56 of the report states:

In one particular week at Melbourne, one employer had surplus labour ranging from 435 to 716 men on each of the normal working days- a total of 2954 man days which cost the Authority $50,908 for idle time reimbursement. During the same week, other employers were unable to supply fully the labour requirements of the vessels they were stevedoring, the shortage ranging from 225 to 509 men, a total of 1877 for the week. This meant that, in that week alone, some $32,000 was paid in wages for 1877 wasted man days of ‘locked-up’ idle time . . .

They call it ‘locked-up idle time’. These people operate that system so that they will equalise the idle time. Let there be none of this ‘ bull ‘ to which Senator Mulvihill referred- the old bull days which used to exist on the waterfront. The report continues:

At Port Adelaide, because of an inter-union dispute, the labour force of one employer was idle on pay for the last 10 weeks of the year, incurring a wastage of some 2884 man days of employment at cost of over $68,000.

The report then goes on to refer to drunkenness and absence which employers do not detect. Of course, they get the blame. We have a situation like that which not a newspaper in the country thinks is of sufficient worth to supply a gallery any larger than the one we have at the present time. This is a despicable, corrosive situation which goes to the very heart of Australia’s trade. While ever this monopoly is maintained in this form the trade of Australia will continually deteriorate. Under great compulsion, as a practical man, I shall support the amendments which will be proposed by the Opposition. My disposition is to oppose the Bill. I do not announce my support for lt. I simply join with the Opposition in not opposing it.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– The debate on the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill seems to be very wide ranging. I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Wright. I share his extreme concern for the movement of goods across our wharves. However, we do not stand alone as a country with that problem. I am sure that he knows, as do others, of the problem which exists sometimes in greater measure, although many shipowners will say that Australia ranks with the leaders in the field of problems and trouble through and across our wharves.

However, I come back to the Bill. It seems to me that there is something in the disciplines of the second amendment suggested by the Opposition, in the sense that it sets an arbitrary timetable for the completion of permanent arrangements. While that may seem arbitrary, I guess the time can be extended. If the Minister of the day, before the expiry of the time set, came to Parliament and said that he wanted another 3 months or 6 months for the completion of the scheme, I guess that the Parliament would be reasonable enough to give it to him. At least this is an attempt to finalise the matters which have been fairly eloquently referred to by members of the Opposition.

Senator Greenwood:

– It is already in the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act. It has to come back by 1 July 1976.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I accept that statement by Senator Greenwood. In relation to the charges, I am somewhat concerned that the Opposition seems to be simply making a point and doing nothing more than that. It is said that the regulations are likely to fix the charges at $2.20 an hour for class A charge. If that is so the Opposition is fixing a fine leeway of 5c in its proposed amendment. It seems to me that that is a rather ineffective approach to this matter. Despite the major problems with which I agree and from which I do not detract- I could add some substance to them with various other examples- that is the general basis of the philosophy of how the arrangements should be arrived at. What we seem to be considering in the exact alterations to the charges per man hour is whether we will support the already established statutory arrangements. Certainly, the representatives of the Associated Employers of Waterside Labour do not want these amendments to go into this Bill. I have been contacted by representatives of the employers who have stated that they want the Bill to go through unamended.

Senator Wright:

– They have been yielding all through.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-That may be. That is a fairly relevant criticism of employers in many fields of industry in Australia. I agree with Senator Wright’s interjection. Nevertheless, to me that seems to be a tedious way of getting at the problem in general. Surely this has opened up the debate. That has been a fair enough exercise here today. But let us get to the amendments which require a reduction of 25c in the first part, 30c in the second and 25c in the third. That seems to me to be simply emphasising a debating point. Surely the present statutory arrangements must be met. I am told that the fund which stands behind the payments which have been the subject of debate is deficient, or if not deficient, at least under-funded. If that is the case it seems to me somewhat arbitrary for the Senate to say: We will put at some risk the ability of the Authority to properly fund its obligations’. That seems to me to be taking the problem from completely the wrong end.

One cannot expect to starve the fund which is needed to support still accepted arrangements which have been entered into. For that reason I must agree with the representations that have been made to me by the employer representatives in this case, that the Bill should not be touched. It seemed to me that they too were perhaps over emphasising their point in saying that if the regulations cannot be framed now the charges which will be made in several months time will be all the higher because of the loss of revenue from the failure to charge now. In fairness to the Opposition it must be said that its amendments would allow an increase slightly in excess of what it is assumed the regulations will be in any case. I guess the Opposition can claim in response to representations made by the employers on this matter that it is not depressing the rates below the rates which are expected to be fixed.

In introducing this Bill the Government appears to be setting a safety margin which it does not expect to require and the Opposition has been fairly judicious in including in its amendments the figure at which it has arrived. I believe that is all too fine a judgment. It is an unnecessary and somewhat arbitrary way of trying to fix a great organisational and somewhat philosophical problem from the bottom up by squeezing the fund of its needs to meet its statutory obligations. I do not feel that the amendments to the charges should be supported. However, I will listen to further arguments on the last time table amendment which seems to me to have some disciplinary effect. I would like some further explanation which I hope will not be at great length. The amendment does seem to be to be worthwhile in the sense that it exerts desirable pressure to give effect to what most people say must be finally achieved.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. Perhaps I should start where Senator Steele Hall left off by supporting his statement that in another place and in this place the Opposition is using the amendment to force the Government to bring back what could be called a ‘positive scheme’ before the end of June next year. As Senator Greenwood interjected earlier, under the temporary provisions legislation the Minister is forced to bring back by that time a proposition concerning the scheme. Honourable senators will agree that most of the argument is not about whether the proposed levy is necessary but about the scheme as a whole.

Let me very quickly and briefly remind honourable senators what it is all about- most can remember- because I have been taking part in debates concerning this scheme ever since it came into effect. The scheme took many years to come into operation. It resulted from national agreements and protracted negotiations which started in 1963 and continued until 1967. One of the most important issues raised at that time is the matter about which Senator Wright is now complaining- the mobility of labour. In the old days there was always a fight between the Liberal Minister concerned and the Waterside Workers Federation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions about shifting the waterside workers from one port to another.

One of the most important gains from this scheme is the ability to be able to transfer waterside workers from one point where there was too much idle time to another point where activity was required for important reasons. Is it to be expected that this gain, this very important achievement of mobility of labour which previous governments wanted and we want also, should now be denied because to shift waterside workers from one port to another involves too great a cost? The waterside workers are receiving travelling allowances. They do not receive first class fares, but they are required to go to certain ports. They do not decide to go to certain ports; the authorities decide to send them.

All the other arguments which were raised, and on which I shall comment briefly, related to the system. It is true that although I applauded the meetings which took place between the employers, the Government and the unions, the tripartite agreements have not achieved all that everybody wants, but this system is better, in my opinion, than the old system. It is true that in Australia for the first time the waterfront was able to follow the European pattern of guaranteed wages. That is the real theme of this debate.

Senator Greenwood has talked about the Foster report which was handed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) last year. The report talks about a number of matters which do not necessarily have to be implemented. The Minister has stated quite clearly in the other place that he would welcome advice from the Opposition from now until the end of June next year, when he must report on the temporary provisions legislation as to what sort of authority might be set up and made permanent to correct the mistakes of the present authority. Last year the Minister said:

While recommending an extension of the temporary legislation for a further 2 years it would be my intention to indicate to the Parliament the Government’s proposals for the industry well before the expiry of that period. Extending the life of the Act will not of course preclude the introduction of permanent legislation at an earlier date if this proves feasible. Indeed an earlier date for permanent legislation is desirable.

That has been said not only by Mr Clyde Cameron but also on at least 2 occasions by the previous Liberal Minister for Labour and National Service. Previous Liberal governments were in the same position as we are in of not having formed an initial agreement which provided a guarantee of incidental advantages such as mobility of labour and so on, and they were not in a position to move in new directions.

Mr Foster’s report contains some of the information that he has received from looking at all the sides to this question and from talking to the employers, the shippers and other people. In addition, the Minister for Labor and Immigration has invited opinions and propositions from the Opposition as to what it thinks should be done to set up a new authority which no doubt must be done. We want to continue for the time being a situation that was agreed to not by a Labor government but by a Liberal government. If the amendments are carried the scheme that we have today will be stopped dead in its tracks and we would return to chaos. Even if we were to agree to amendment No. 4, 1 would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that the House of Representatives will be rising soon and the Government has said that it cannot -

Senator Wright:

– They should wait -

Senator BISHOP:

– The honourable senator is jumping in too early. In addition the Government does not think that it is practicable at this stage to place an imposition upon the Government and it is saying, as Senator Greenwood said by way of interjection, that by the end of June next year it must bring in a recommendation under another Act. So the obligation is there. If the obligation is there why impede the passage of this necessary legislation at this stage by accepting any of the amendments? I reiterate what Senator Steele Hall said: All Parties want what is presently proposed by the Government. We could give an opinion as to why they want it. We have discussed this matter from year to year. As Senator Mulvihill has said, it is a peculiar industry with lots of unusual characteristics. If the owners want this scheme, in my opinion that supports what the Government is trying to do.

We admit that the amount of idle time is very high at present due mainly to a fall in imports. However regulations have been drafted to introduce new early retirement provisions for older and unfit men. This should have the effect of reducing the numbers of surplus men at the ports. Whilst it is true that there is idle time and that the quotas have been increased, the quotas have never been increased to the extent required by the employers. The employers have always said to the Authority: ‘We want more men’. They have said that they want more men than they have finally been able to get. In some cases this has been said not only by the employers but also by the State governments. I am told that the New South Wales Minister for Labour is highly critical of the quota at Sydney. As I have stated, quotas are about to be reviewed. Some corrections will be made. Generally, the employers almost always want more people than the Authority is prepared to give them.

We spoke about idle time earlier and it is referred to in the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority’s annual report for 1973-74 which I have in front of me. There is always a great advance not only in technology and containerisation but also in the cargoes which are handled. If honourable senators examine the annual report for 1973-74 they will see the figures for cargo handled. On page 1 7 of the report it is stated:

As shown in the table below, cargo handled by waterside workers at Australian pom during the year totalled 49 295 896 tonnes, an increase of 15.3 per cent on the 42 750 147 tonnes handled in the previous year.

Pargraph 4 on page 1 8 states:

Non bulk cargo handled at both conventional berths and terminals taking all trades into account, increased by 4 568 472 tonnes (17.4 per cent) from 26 251066 to 30 819 538.

It goes on to mention the increases in imports. It is true, of course, as Senator Wright pointed out, that there has been a downturn in shipping activity and because of that idle time has increased.

We are hoping that that situation will not obtain for too long. If it does obtain, corrections are in the system; the system is there to correct those sorts of problems. As I have said, where there have been quotas they have not always been agreed to. There has been pruning by the Authority and it has not always given the employers the quotas they wanted.

Senator Wright referred to page 27 of the report and the fact that there is additional labour in many places. It is true, of course, that there have been cases in which more labour has been available than is required. That, in my opinion, is a matter for correction and the new system will correct it. We have got to have a new system. Whilst the Foster report has not been strengthened by a report from the Minister, the Minister has said that he has considered what should be done about the observations made by Mr Foster. He said that what he wants is the Opposition’s views. I believe the Opposition will give him those views. In addition, I think that what the Opposition is trying to do, as everybody would agree, is to bring to a head that consideration of the scheme which it set up. We did not set up the review but we went along with it. I think that in view of the current stage of the parliamentary session it would be unrealistic to amend the Bill in any way for the reasons I have given. It would create difficulties and, in addition, the requirement is contained in the Bill anyway. I hope that the Senate will be good enough to leave the Bill as is proposed by the Government so that we can proceed with the matter as quickly as we can.

I should like to refer to one or two points raised by Senator Wright. He spoke about the cost of handling a case of apples. He failed to say, of course, that that cost is not simply the cost of labour. It encompasses also a stevedoring cost. This is a composite cost, not simply a cost of paying the waterside workers. This is the cost of the system. I referred, in the absence of Senator Wright, to the advantage flowing from mobility of labour and the fact that no first class fares had to be paid. A worker employed by the Department of Civil Aviation or the Post Office, for instance, cannot be expected to pay his own fares if he is transferred. Honourable senators are paid a travelling allowance when they are travelling. It would seem to me that the system is not as good as the Government at the time forecast it might have been. At least it forms a basis on which this Government or any other government for that matter ought to be able to introduce a more satisfactory scheme of permanent employment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:
TASMANIA

– I suggest it would be appropriate for the Committee not to take the Bill as a whole but to take the clauses separately. Is there any objection?

Senator Bishop:

– If Senator Greenwood agrees, perhaps we could take the 3 levy questions in clause 3 together. Does Senator Greenwood agree to that?

Senator Greenwood:

– Yes.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3

Section 5 of the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1973 is amended-

  1. by omitting from paragraph (a) the words ‘One dollar fifty cents’ and substituting the figures ‘$2.50’;
  2. by omitting from paragraph (b) the words ‘One dollar seventy-five cents’ and substituting the figures $3.50’; and
  3. by omitting from paragraph (c) the words ‘One dollar twenty cents ‘ and substituting the figures ‘$2.50 ‘.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

The Opposition is moving that clause 3 be amended in 3 parts. I think leave has been granted by the Committee so that these 3 requests can be dealt with in one motion. That is the way in which I address myself. Section 5 of the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-73 permits a rate of charge to be prescribed at such amounts not exceeding specified particular sums with regard to particular types of ports. The Opposition ‘s amendment simply is to change the maximum charge which may be imposed. In paragraph (a) instead of $2.50 we wish to substitute $2.25; in paragraph (b) instead of $3.50 we wish to substitute $3.20; and in paragraph (c) instead of $2.50 we wish to substitute $2.25. The information available to the Opposition is that if the figures are fixed at that rate then it is a maximum still in excess of the amount which it is intended regulations fixing the actual charge would make payable. The information obtained by the Opposition was in response to inquiries directed to the relevant authorities as to what was necessary to meet the idle time and the other costs involved for which currently this charge is being imposed.

We believe that this is the approach which ought to be adopted. In the first place, as I said in the second reading debate, it indicates our concern and the concern of the Parliament that we do not go higher than is necessary and, by going higher, indicate a lack of concern or a sense of indifference as to what the actual rates of charge might be. Secondly, we indicate to the Authority and to those who have responsibilities that the amount which is to be charged ought to be reckoned in accordance with the concern of the Parliament and not to be given to this Authority easily. I can only say, so far as the Opposition parties are concerned, that this Bill incited a great deal of controversy and concern. We recognised the practical necessity of not acting impossibly and in fact authorising the increased charges to be made but not to go further than was necessary. The problems that are embodied in the whole proposition were canvassed in the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. 1 think I have indicated why in this instance we are proposing the amendment I have just moved.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I understand that the charges which are fixed will be brought in by regulation. I take it that the regulations made under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act would have to pass through this House. Therefore the Senate would have the final surveillance in that respect. I know that is not as satisfactory as direct legislation- it never is. Nevertheless a legitimate claim can be made that the regulations will once again present the matter before the Parliament and any honourable senator who has a seconder can ventilate his views on them at any time during the required number of sitting days that they are before the Parliament.

I suppose the justification for moving the amendment will only be known in the future if the charges made are beyond those which are anticipated up to the limit that is contained in the original Bill. I think it is somewhat demeaning for the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to have to be so closely in line with the stipulated charge when it is in fact subject to the discipline of regulations. I think that the amendment is unnecessary, although I can fully understand the motives behind it. I do not think that we can expect to have the regulations as a means of surveillance if we are going to have the charges set in another way in the first place. I just do not think that the amendment is necessary.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I would like to make a brief observation on this matter. This system has been operating as a temporary system since 1967. Under the LiberalCountry Party Government its tentative life was lengthened on two occasions. The whole purpose of limiting the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to a not unreasonable limit in this respect is so that it will realise the concern that the Parliament has that a new system must be brought before it that will prevent waste occurring. I have pointed out that the margin of increase permitted is quite liberal. Permitting of the limit of $1.50 per man hour to increase to $2.25 per man hour is very liberal. No responsibility will be shown by such government authorities unless they are under the financial necessity to bring legislation before us that will prevent waste, which is inexcusable by any consideration.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmaster General · ALP

– I wish to add to what Senator Hall has said. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority does not set the charge. The Authority recommends what the charge should be under a system which, as has now been agreed, was set up by a Liberal-Country Party Government after many years of disputation between the employers and the unions. The setting up of the system was considered to be a good thing. That charge takes into account a multiplicity of costs and charges. It takes into account not only labour costs and stevedoring costs but also harbour charges, shipping charges and so on. If the guaranteed system is to remain effective it is necessary to levy a certain amount. It has been the custom since the establishment of the system to do what has been proposed today, that is, to set what is in fact a ceiling level and to state by regulation what the charges should be. If that is not done the Authority and the whole system might pack up. For example, if wage indexation is established throughout the country it may be necessary to adjust the waterside workers agreement to cope with the new situation concerning wages, long service leave levels and so on. The amount of idle time might also increase. So, unless we want to throw away the whole system, we must have some position to which to move. That is the whole sense in doing what is being done. I think that what Senator Hall has said is right. The intention of the amendment is really to force the Government to bring down a conclusive and final determination on the issue by the end of June next year. In our opinion that has been provided for already in another Act.

Question put:

That the requests (Senator Greenwood’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J. E. Marriott)

AYES: 25

NOES: 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition has a second amendment to clause 3 of which it has given notice. I move:

As was indicated in the second reading debate, the Opposition is moving that amendment to ensure that the Government honours its promise and brings in within a requisite time a firm proposal as to what it intends to do with regard to the situation on the waterfront. We would have liked the Senate to indicate its concern by giving no greater authority than was necessary to impose the stevedoring industry charge. This particular provision does, I believe, formally indicate the concern that the Opposition has that the ultimate and final proposal should be introduced.

I wish to refer the Committee to the short history of this matter. When the Minister for Labour, as he then was, introduced the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill in 1973, he indicated that he believed that the new proposals could be introduced within the year. He said:

I believe that it will be possible during the next 12 months for this Government to determine permanent legislation arrangements for the industry.

That was stated in May 1 973. When the Minister introduced legislation in 1974 he was unable to produce the permanent arrangements, and he indicated, in the language that he then used, that the final solution was not far off. Senator Bishop used the same words as those used by Mr Cameron in the House of Representatives when he introduced the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1974 into the Senate on 23 July 1974. He said:

On the last occasion that the legislation was extended I indicated that this Government hoped to be in a position to introduce permanent legislation for the industry prior to 30 June this year. While this was not possible a great deal has been done in the interim to examine possible forms of organisation which might be adopted for the industry, and to obtain the views of the parties concerned. This, in turn, has required an extensive study of the legal and administrative problems which, while at an advanced stage, has not yet been completed. It is therefore proposed that the present temporary legislation be extended for a further period of 2 years. While recommending an extension of the temporary legislation for a further 2 years, it would be my intention to indicate to the Parliament the Government’s proposals for the industry well before the expiry of that period.

I think that is the aspect to which the Minister himself referred earlier. The Opposition at that stage sought to have some permanent arrangements introduced by 1 April this year, but on a tied vote the Senate decided not to include that particular amendment. Mr Foster’s report has been in the hands of the Minister for, it seems, well over 12 months. Mr Foster’s proposals, I would have thought, could have been advanced to the stage where the Minister had a proposal to present to the Parliament. The Opposition takes the stand that it is not for the Opposition to suggest to the Government what form the Government’s proposals in this area should take. The Opposition will certainly respond to any suggestion, where it is invited, that it should indicate its concurrence to any suggestion that the Government believes that the Opposition might constructively and usefully advance amendments. In this area I think that that would be a highly desirable course to follow. But the Labor Party chose to become the Government of this country and it became the Government of this country. The Opposition parties would have been quite happy to carry on but the Labor Party wanted to take over the responsibilities. I think it is one of its responsibilities to come forward with a proposal. I hope that the Senate will agree that, as there is already legislation which requires that the permanent proposals should be brought forward before 1 July 1974, this particular provision is linked with that requirement under the temporary provisions legislation. It is for that purpose that I have moved my amendment. I am quite sure that the logic of what we are doing is not lost on the Minister.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– Apart from wishing to emphasise the need for the bringing in of a permanent scheme, I would like to ask Senator Greenwood whether his amendment really does anything. I am quite sure that this Bill is needed. Whilst I get very cross about the fact of the lower House not sitting, the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) could argue that we have taken a fair time to pass this Bill this afternoon. That is no criticism, but the Minister could argue in that way. In the current situation, I believe that the Senate will be a very useless organisation next week, hamstrung by the fact-

Senator Greenwood:

– The House of Representatives is sitting on tonight to receive this Bill.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– In that case, that !>art of my argument is gone. However, I would ike to ask Senator Greenwood, apart from wishing to emphasise the point of the legislation to which he has referred, whether he can tell us what his amendment adds to the existing legislation.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– The position is not as Senator Greenwood puts it. His Government was in the same sort of position on 2 occasions, in 1969 and 1971, as that in which we find ourselves at the present time. At that time I think that he or Senator Wright was Acting Minister for Labour. His Government said to the Parliament: ‘Yes, we are looking at a permanent scheme to take over from the national agreement but we are not in a position yet to propose it’. Unfortunately, we are in almost a similar position, except that in the meantime Mr Foster has been around to meet all of the people interested. In addition, the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has invited the Opposition to make a contribution as to what it thinks should be done in the way of a new authority. So the Bill proposes only to keep in operation for the time being the authority which was set up by the Liberal Government. By the end of June next year under the provisions of another Act- the

Stevedoring (Temporary Provisions) Act- the Minister has got to make a proposal, anyway. So that position is covered.

I indicate that it would be wrong at this stage to accept the amendment because all the parties want what the Government is proposing. Honourable senators already have heard that not only the Authority, the Government and the union but also the employers want what is proposed in the Bill. Mr Clyde Cameron has said that the Government will go ahead and attempt to devise a system within 12 months. If this amendment were carried and the Government accepted it and it was not possible to have the new authority set up by the Parliament, the whole scheme would fold up. It would be a mistake to accept the amendment. It would mean chaos. I think it is unnecessary. I think that the Opposition’s purpose in applying pressure has been achieved in the debate. The Opposition has done what it intended to do. I hope that the Committee will support the Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– 1 rise simply to respond to the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop). If there is logic in what the Minister says there ought to be no objection whatsoever to this proposal because it identifies this Bill with the earlier Bill. In response to what Senator Hall says the amendments could be brought forward in some form to the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act which would continue in force the Stevedoring Industry Act. It could be that if no change is made and the Government wanted to extend for the fifth time the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act we would be faced with a fait accompli, that we either agreed to it or let the whole thing fall to the ground. Who knows, that might be the position.

The important point about this amendment is that the Government would have to come back to the Parliament to give further authority for the raising of greater charges or even to continue the existing charges at a particular time, and that particular time would be 1 July next year. We believe that the greater the pressure that can be brought to bear in all the areas in which the stevedoring provisions operate the sounder is the case we are making. It is a mark, I believe, of the importance which the chamber attaches to the issue that we should carry this amendment.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– There is one factor, of course, about which Senator Greenwood probably has thought but has not mentioned. That is the one to which Senator Hall referred.

The fact is that, after all, this Bill could have been dealt with before the other place rises for the parliamentary recess. I understand it will be rising soon. If the Committee accepts the amendment the Bill has to go back to the other place. In my opinion the Government will not accept the amendment. It will adopt the same attitude that I am adopting. We would have a situation in which the Authority is not only embarrassed but also cannot operate. I ask the Committee not to agree to the amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The Government has no justification whatever for not accepting this amendment. The whole argument of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) has been that the Government is under an obligation to bring in this system by 1 July 1977. This amendment simply expresses the opinion of the chamber today. There will be yet another time when that obligation has to be adhered to. What justification has the Government for rejecting this amendment? I hope those who will act urgently in getting this system removed will not stamp the Committee’s irresolution today as such that it will not mark again our requirement that this new system should be implemented by legislation by June of next year. I rise because the Minister must have lapsed into temporary inattention to the proprieties of the situation when he forecast that it would be so irresponsible to reject this amendment.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I will be brief; I think the issues are clear. It took well over 10 years to get the agreement settled. As a matter of fact I was on the Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions when Albert Monk, the shipowners, the Government and Harry Bland were trying to get a system established. Negotiations started in 1963 and agreement was reached in 1967. As I have said, from 1967 until the Labor Government came to office the scheme was not introduced. At that time Senator Wright might have been responsible for bringing that type of legislation into this place. But his Party was not able to bring in a scheme because the matters which are involved are very complex. So far neither the employers nor ourselves- or anybody else- have said what should be substituted for the present scheme. It will take a long time. If the prohibition is put into the Bill by the Opposition’s amendment and the House of Representatives cannot deal with it, the simple facts are that the scheme which the Opposition set up and which we support and continue could easily collapse and there would be a state of chaos. A study will be made. We would like the Opposition to think about the position and tell us in what way the new authority ought to be constituted.

Question put:

That the request (Senator Greenwood’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J. E. Marriott)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with a request; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m.

page 2342

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Pig Slaughter Levy Bill 1975

Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1 975

Pig Industry Research Bill 1975

Pig Meat Promotion Bill 1975

Homes Savings Grant Bill 1975

page 2343

QUESTION

PROPOSED JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have received message No. 323 from the House of Representatives in the following terms:

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

1 ) That a Joint Standing Committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new and permanent Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto.

That the Committee shall reconsider and, as necessary, amend the recommendations of the former Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House contained in its report dated March 1970, which when revised shall be used as the basis of the construction of the new and permanent Parliament House.

That the Committee shall also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1 974 as may be referred to it-

by the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1973; or

ii ) by resolution of either House of Parliament.

That the Committee consist of:

The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

The Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1973;

Six members of the House of Representatives, three of whom shall be nominated by the Prime Minister and three by the Leader of the Opposition; and

Six senators, three of whom shall be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and three by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

That the President ofthe Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be Joint Chairmen of the Committee.

That every nomination of a member ofthe Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker ofthe House of Representatives.

That the members of the Committee hold office as a Joint Standing Committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the Committee is empowered to inquire into.

That the Committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That seven members of the Committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the

Committee and a majority of the members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That in matters of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman occupying the Chair has a casting vote.

That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, has a deliberative vote.

That the Committee and sub-committees be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the Committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it.

That the Committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new and permanent Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the National Capital Development Commission as the authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader ofthe Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 323 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

The speech I am about to make is identical to that delivered to the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) today. Where the first person personal pronoun appears it should be taken as meaning the Prime Minister.

I seek to have this Joint Standing Committee appointed to give effect to the intentions expressed in the Parliament Act 1974. Honourable members will recall that the Parliament Bill passed late last year contained two important sections which, when implemented, will fulfil a long-held intention of the Parliament. In brief, these are to build a new and permanent Parliament House and to ensure parliamentary control of the environment surrounding it. I do not want to rehearse here the arguments for a new Parliament House. It is sufficient to say that the consensus of honourable members is that the present building can no longer support the needs of the Parliament and those who work within it.

The Act provides that the new and permanent Parliament House shall be constructed on the site on Capital Hill. It is necessary that a Joint Committee be established to act for the Parliament in constructing the building envisaged in the legislation. The Committee will take up the task commenced by the previous Joint Select Committee which submitted its report in March 1970. Clauses 1 and 2 of the resolution I have moved set down the terms of reference for the proposed Joint Committee. I have proposed that the Joint Committee be a standing committee since the design and construction of the building will clearly take many years.

Section 5 ( 1 ) of the Parliament Act provides 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 work to be laid before each House of the Parliament and the proposal has been approved with resolution of each House of Parliament’. Clause 3 of the resolution, the third term of reference for the Committee, provides machinery for establishing the Parliament’s responsibility in accordance with that section. Since the concept of a parliamentary zone controlled by Parliament has been linked in the legislation with the construction of the new ParLament House, I consider it is proper that one committee deal with this matter.

Clause 3 gives each House the opportunity to refer proposals concerning the parliamentary zone to the Standing Committee for detailed consideration. I propose that this should be the case with the complex proposals likely to arise under section 5 of the Act. In the first instance the onus would be on the Minister responsible for the National Capital Development Commission Act to propose such a referral because of his responsibility for obtaining funds and Government approval for development works in Canberra and in the national area particularly. The resolution would make referral to the proposed Joint Standing Committee discretionary, since I hope that questions concerning straightforward and simple works would be resolved directly by each House on the resolution of the responsible Minister.

I will now briefly expand on some of the more important clauses in the resolution. Clause 4 sets down the membership of the Committee. I consider its make-up provides an equitable distribution of representation between House and Senate and Government and Opposition. The President and Speaker and the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act are included because of their importance in the management of the Parliament and their direct responsibility for its development.

Clause 5 provides for the President and the Speaker to be joint chairmen of the Committee. This reflects the essential need for a close working relationship between the 2 Houses. It would be for the Presiding Officers to determine the occupancy of the Chair at any meeting.

Clauses 8 and 9, providing for the establishment of sub-committees, are most important. Since there will be a great deal of complex and technical work in determining the requirements of a parliament house and in supervising its design and construction, small groups of members and senators will need to become closely involved in this task. I expect that much reliance would be placed on the advice of experts in many fields in the design and construction stages. Of particular importance will be the role of the National Capital Development Commission, whose responsibility is to plan, design and construct Canberra as the national capital. Undoubtedly this would give them a strong and legitimate interest in the new and permanent parliament house.

When the detailed work of establishing the new parliament house gets under way, there will be a need for a continual liaison between the Joint Standing Committee and the Commission. Clause 16 is designed to ensure that this liaison is carried out effectively and efficiently, given that the Commission and the Committee form a sound working relationship from the beginning.

This Joint Standing Committee will guide the establishment of the most important building work in Australia. It should be given every support. The advice it receives must be of the highest technical standard. The people appointed to it must be prepared to work hard and long to ensure that the impetus gained in establishing the site for the new house is not lost, and that the Austraiian nation can look forward to a building which reflects its national pride and the paramount importance we attach to the role and traditions of parliamentary democracy.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

  1. I ) At end of paragraph ( 1 ) add ‘subject to the following modifications: (a) paragraph (1), after ‘appointed’, insert (a)’;

    1. Paragraph ( 1 ), at end of paragraph add the following new sub-paragraph:
    2. to investigate and recommend what Departments and persons be removed from the Parliament to provide each and every Senator and Member with
    3. an office for his sole use and occupation; and
    4. office space for a secretarial /legislative assistant. ‘;
    5. Paragraph ( 10), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph:

    1. That the Committee have power-

    2. in respect of the matter referred to in sub-paragraph ( 1 ) (a), to report from time to time; and
    3. b) in respect of the matter referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b), to report on or before the 1st day of November 1975, and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report’ “.
    1. At end of paragraph (3) add “, with a request for the concurrence of that House in the Senate’s modifications of the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by that House”.

The Opposition does not intend to oppose the message and the motion put by Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but I have circulated this amendment on behalf of the Opposition. Before coming to the burden of the amendment I want to make a few initial comments. I know that this Parliament House has been here for almost 50 years. I suppose it has been a long time to wait for a new and permanent parliament house but I think this whole business has not been gone about in the proper manner. As I understand it, notice of this motion was put down in the House of Representatives yesterday. It was brought on for debate and put through that House. Now it has come to this place tonight. I do not blame the Leader of the Government in the Senate but normally copies of such speeches are circulated. This matter has come in here with such a rush that even copies of the message were not distributed around the chamber before honourable senators were called upon to listen to the speech by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and to try to make a decision. We have waited 48 years for a new and permanent parliament house. One would have thought that we could have waited another month or two to do this thing properly and have people look at it properly.

I know that the Government is anxious to have this matter dealt with tonight. I hope that the Opposition ‘s amendment will be carried but the matter will need to go back to the House of Representatives as that House wishes to conclude its sittings this night for the winter recess. Are we in this place, are the members of the Parliament, to be dragged into committees merely because the Government wants to suspend the sittings of the other chamber and get its members out of this Parliament? We know why the Government wants to get them out. The Government is in disarray and the Caucus is in disarray. The whole sorry mess of this Government is such that it no longer wants to be exposed to the parliamentary process. There is hardly much point in trying to rush these sorts of things through the

Senate at this time, in the dying hours of the House of Representatives, and to talk about building a magnificent edifice on Capital Hill over there- I think I am pointing in the right direction- at enormous cost to the taxpayers if the parliametary process is to be as denigrated there as it is in this building. I see no point in shifting into a more luxurious building where we will have better standards of personal comfort if the procedures and practices that have applied in this Parliament House for far too long, under all sorts of governments, are going to continue in the future. I think that is a totally phoney operation for politicians to indulge in.

Senator Georges:

– What are you suggesting?

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator, one would have thought that there was no need to rush into this matter. We have been rushing into it for 48 years. Really, all that the Government is doing about this matter is to fiddle about with Parliament. What this Parliament really needs- or perhaps I should confine myself to what this chamber needs- is to reform all its procedures. There is a need for the Executive to treat the Parliament with respect. I see no point in rushing headlong into the formation of a committee, and that is what is being sought. A motion was moved yesterday and it is being put through both Houses of the Parliament today. The motion refers to a committee being appointed forthwith. And for what purpose? Merely because some Minister or some Prime Minister wishes to lay a foundation stone or because some architect has an idea burning in his skull. I do not believe it is sufficient merely to appoint a committee to design this edifice.

Senator Wright:

– Has the Government got a bag full of Arabian money?

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not know about that. There are many things in this Parliament that need fixing and they ought to be fixed long before we shift up on to the hill. I will not be here when the Parliament does move- that is quite obvious- because the National Capital Development Commission says that it will take 1 5 years to complete the building. I have no desire to hang around for another 15 years listening to the same boring speeches year in year out that I get from the opposite side. That this motion is before us at present is typical of the Government. It wants to deal with the airy-fairy future but does not deal with the problems of the present. That goes for all the national problems.

Therefore, while the Opposition believes that this committee can be set up, and we take no objection to its being set up in spite of the criticisms I have made as to the haste, the Committee also ought to have the task of looking at the present deplorable standards of accommodation that private members of Parliament have to suffer in this building. Mr President, you are well accommodated and so am I but I wish to make a plea for the backbenchers in this Parliament. The private member in this Parliament has been treated deplorably for far too long.

Senator McLaren:

– Yes, and for 23 years you did nothing about it.

Senator WITHERS:

-In my book he has been treated like that since 1927 or 1928. He always has been treated badly in this place. His conditions have been improved enormously under the present Government. I think that is recognised all round the Parliament, Senator McLaren, and I would be the last to deny it. That did not happen just because of the Government. I know that under the presidency of my friend and colleague, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, for the first time the Leader of the Opposition in this place was decently accommodated. How my predecessor, the former Senator Murphy, operated in the accommodation he had I do not know. I am reasonably well accommodated and I think I operate reasonably well. But the conditions under which my predecessors suffered were disgraceful.

Senator Devitt:

– You would be quite happy to stay there.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, I intended to move next door but one where the view is better. What have the private members got out of this? A new wing designed by the NCDC but it is such that no respectable greyhound owner would keep his valuable dogs in the rooms in it. They are so small that you cannot receive more than one or two visitors and you cannot use a decent sized desk. I think that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) has done the right thing. He has provided extra assistance to backbenchers by way of research assistants but can we have them accommodated in this place? Of course not, because there is insufficient accommodation. I put it to the Senate that most honourable senators would prefer to have their assistants working in this place rather than marooned back in capital cities. I know that, irrespective of which government is in power, the Parliament will sit longer. It will sit on more days and more weeks each year. Members will be in this place more often than they have been in the past, irrespective of which party is in government. It becomes more and more urgent that private members particularly should have some assistance here, not just access to the typing pool where the girls do an enormous amount of work under very difficult conditions.

It is all right to look to the future, for the next 15 years, but are we to suffer the conditions in this Parliament for the next 15 years also? We will be sitting, I hope, not for so long each day but certainly on more days. We will be here for more weeks without any assistance at all, with the mass of legislation that comes before us. There is not just the legislation but the work that all of us have to do in our various party committees. I put it to the Senate that the burden upon private members is intolerable. The whole purpose of the Opposition’s amendment is to ease that burden. Go ahead and plan for the future, but for goodness sake do something about the present. I am old fashioned enough to believe that there is plenty of room in this building for senators and members to be properly accommodated. They should be accommodated first What is left over can be spread around amongst anybody else who wants to work in this building. I think that for far too long the members have been a damn nuisance around this place; we clutter it up; we make it untidy; the sooner we get out of the place and let the inhabitants get on with occupying their quarters which are better than ours, the better. Members of Parliament should resolve to have the control of this Parliament in their hands, for the benefit of those who are sent here by the electors. If we do not do so, it serves us right for putting up with the accommodation which we have.

I think the last rebellion in Australia was the Eureka Stockade. I think it is about time that there was a rebellion among members of Parliament. It is high time that there was a rebellion of the private members in this place. They should insist that they get a fair go as to accommodation in this place. I know that the Presiding Officers, Ministers and office bearers such as myself are fairly well looked after. I must say that the suite which the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) occupies and which the Leader of the Government previously occupied is of very low standard for Ministers of the Crown to occupy. They do not have sufficient space for themselves or their staff. I think it is time that there was a clean-out here, that the priorities were set properly and that the members and senators were given a fair go

Senator Wriedt:

– We will start by cleaning out the Opposition members.

Senator WITHERS:

– You will be the Opposition members. We will clean you out in Bass, then we will clean you out at the double dissolution if you are game to have one.

Senator McLaren:

– You said that in April last year, and you were wrong.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, but I am never wrong twice, whereas Senator McLaren is wrong all the time. I have put my proposition to the Senate. If the Senate is not prepared to accept my amendment do not blame me, do not cry on my shoulder complaining about the lack of accommodation in this place. I believe that the task is one at which the proposed committee can look. It can decide on the basis of what members ought to have, and do it. It can plan for it within the next 15 years. It can plan properly for when we go up on the hill, or when my predecessors go up on the hill.

Senator Poyser:

– You mean your successors.

Senator WITHERS:

– I mean my successors. My predecessors have gone elsewhere. Most of them are in heaven, because we belong to that sort of Party. I think it is time that we were a little practical about this new and permanent Parliament House business. I can well remember the previous Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. It sat for a long time. It went round the world. It looked at lots of things. We often thought that it was led by the nose by the Secretary and by the National Capital Development Commission. It came up with some very interesting documents, which I doubt whether many people have read. They were promptly put into the pigeon-holes. It is all very well worrying about future posterity. Let us give a little consideration to the present. For those reasons I commend to honourable senators the amendment moved by me on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

-As the person who steered through the Senate the Bill to set up a new and permanent Parliament House, I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) in relation to the message from the House of Representatives. I cannot support the amendment.

Senator Sim:
Senator POYSER:

– Because it is not a practical amendment at this point of time. I agree with many of the things that Senator Withers has said. While in government his Party had control of both Houses. The President and the Speaker were from his Party. Yet that Party allowed a substantial amount of the accommodation in this House to be let to the Press free of charge. It has taken no action since to force the Press out of this building. It has let members double up and treble up in offices. At present each senator has at least a cubbyhole. Some of the accommodation is no more than a cubbyhole. At least each senator has his own office. I accept that the progress started when Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was President, and it has developed further. No real action has been taken to carry out the things about which Senator Withers now speaks and about which he should have been speaking four or five years ago. He should have been taking a more active interest in these matters. We should not adopt a hole in the corner attitude about this matter. The motion is a reasonably fair one because there has been no attempt by the Government to establish any kind of control over the committee. The Government’s proposition provides for equal numbers from both sides of the Parliament, to make absolutely certain that proper decisions are made on a basis of the need of all members of Parliament and of the Parliament itself, not on the basis of any political arguments at a committee level. I think that it is absolutely foolish to stack to the motion some kind of conditions which are not associated with the building of a new and permanent Parliament House.

I agree that the accommodation aspect has been neglected since 1927 when this Parliament was opened. I would suggest that if we tag these words on to the motion and refer this matter to the Committee we will spend millions of dollars on this place to get the standards that Senator Withers has suggested before we lay the foundations of the building that I will probably never see. I will certainly never sit in it because I have only 12 months to go before I retire. To tag this kind of amendment to the motion would destroy the purpose behind the setting up of the committee because it would be adding to the work of that committee something extra that should not be tolerated in the circumstances surrounding the building of a new and permanent Parliament House.

Today I have examined a document that came with a report of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It horrifies me to see how much the Department of Foreign Affairs is spending overseas annually on accommodation for embassies, chanceries and even what we term houses for staff. Today I read and examined that document. It referred to extensions to the chancery in Japan. The quote for the extensions is $15m. The total cost of the present operations overseas- not all this work was approved by this Government, it goes back over a period of many years- at this point of time is $86m. Some of this work was commenced as the result of the previous Government’s desire to spend money on prestige buildings overesas.

At this time 3 houses are to be built for staff in Vienna at a cost of $300,000-that is about $ 100,000 each. At this time $86m could build the Parliament House which we believe we should have in this country. I am obsessed with getting what members really need. I hope the new Parliament House will be started before I leave this Parliament in 12 months time. I do not want this motion to be cluttered up with stupid amendments which will make the Committee’s work harder in assessing the situation. Not only will we spend $100m or more over perhaps eight or ten years for the Parliament House which we all believe we should have but also we are expending great amounts of money on extending this building. I believe the most minimal amount should be spent on it. I agree with Senator Withers that there are people occupying this place who should not be here.

Senator Young:

– There are 20-odd on the other side.

Senator POYSER:

-I am not talking about members. If the right of some to be here was judged on the quality of their contributions they would be out at Lyneham. That applies to members of the Opposition. That is the nearest they would get to this House. I am trying to make a serious contribution to assist Senator Withers. I believe the Joint House Department has far too much of the accommodation in this place. I think it is far bigger than it should be. It has been allowed to grow too much. I believe that the basis on which the Department was set up should never have existed in the first place. If we analyse what is happening in this place we will find that permanent statutory committee officers who need contact with members of their committees were relegated to West Block and now to the former Hotel Canberra from where they cannot contact the members. They have to run backwards and forwards. I am talking about joint statutory committees such as the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Public Works. They have been emptied out of this place although they need permanent contact with the officers and chairmen of their committees. They have been emptied out to give more space to people who I do not believe should be in this building at all. I do not believe it is helpful for you, Mr President, to be making decisions on expansions to this place and to be spending a lot of money because, in effect, what the bureacracy will do is exactly what you are asking for. It will spend more money if we do not prevent it from doing so. What we have to examine is who occupies this place and who should not occupy it. Firstly I name the Press. It should have access to the galleries of this place and nothing more.

Senator Wright:

– On certain conditions.

Senator POYSER:

– The honourable senator may have been misquoted on some occasion but the Press should have access to the galleries of this building and nothing more. Secondly, I name the Joint House Department. It should not swallow up great floor space in this building at the expense of members and of important committees which should have ready and complete access not only to the chairmen of the committees but also to members who may be sitting on them. I agree with many of the sentiments.

Senator Georges:

– How about the kitchen?

Senator POYSER:

– The kitchen? We would have to spend $2m to get the kitchen even up to hotel standard. I believe the situation is that this proposed Committee should be established as suggested in the message that came to the Senate. It is a fair Committee. I hope the members of the Committee will not change, irrespective of which party is in government. It should be a sincere committee which wants to look at real provisions. It should not be cluttered up by an amendment which will make its work much more difficult. I hope the amendment is defeated.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise to say a few words about the message relating to the proposed appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. It was delivered here tonight and it set the scene for an outburst of rage from the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers. He reminded the Senate of the hastiness of the message. What I am concerned about is that before the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) had read the second page of his statement we had delivered to our desks an amendment proposed by the Opposition. Senator Withers complained about the hastiness with which the message came to this chamber and he said that nobody had time to examine it. Yet he had plenty of time to examine it, to draw up amendments and to place them on the desks of honourable senators before they had heard one page of the statement read by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Where did the Leader of the Opposition get hold of the motion? He came in here and told us that nobody had seen it. Yet he had it in his possession all the time. Senator Withers complains about the size of the offices for members in Parliament House. I interjected and asked him what his Party had done in the 23 years it was in Government. In the dying stages of the last Liberal-Country Party Government it got an architect, under the guidance of some person in this place, and built a new wing on either side of the building. What is the size of offices in which members are now? One has to go outside the door to turn around if someone is in the office being interviewed. Who was responsible for that? It was the previous Government. The most elaborate addition to the Parliament building in recent years was built in the corner to house the past President. He set himself up in a castle with a kitchen, a bathroom and everything imaginable. He neglected the needs of the members who do the work in this place.

I am not concerned so much about the conditions under which I live. What I am concerned about are the conditions under which the staff of this Parliament has to work. I suggest to honourable senators that they have a look on the ground floor of this place where officers of this Parliament work such as in the Journals, Records, and Bills Office. They are couped up. They cannot open a window. They cannot put a fan on because of all the paper work. Yet we get a proposition put to us today from somebody on the Opposition side who wants rooms in the vicinity of the chamber air conditioned at a cost of $180,000. There was not a word about what to do for the people who do the work in this Parliament. Let us not forget that members of the Parliament are in this place for only 3 days a week and for 3 weeks out of every 4 weeks when Parliament is sitting. Officers of the Parliament are here for 52 weeks of the year. Why do we not give some consideration to the people who do the real work? Senator Withers growls about the hastiness of this motion.

As Senator Poyser pointed out, one of the past Presidents of this place, Senator Sir Alister McMullin, led a delegation around the world to have a look at parliament houses in order to see what could be done to build a new Parliament House in Canberra. What has become of the recommendations of that New and Permanent Parliament House Committee which was set up under a previous government? Absolutely nothing. I have a large pile of reports in my office with recommendations which the Committee made. Did the Liberal-Country Party coalition ever do anything to rectify the problems about which we are talking tonight? It did not do a damned thing.

When we became the Government we had to go around and rectify everything which had been neglected in this Parliament over the years. The past President and the Speaker had to go down to the kitchen and throw out all the rusty kitchen equipment. The previous Liberal-Country Party Government did nothing to obtain decent cooking equipment. Yet Senator Withers comes in here tonight and says that we are too hasty. Are we too hasty? Not on your life. We are too slow in doing something to rectify the mistakes.

The Leader of the Opposition comes here with an amendment. I agree with some of the things he has said in the amendment. He talks about the need to investigate and to recommend what departments and persons be removed from the Parliament to provide each and every senator and member with certain things. I am pleased Senator Poyser raised this matter and named some of the departments which ought to be taken away from this place. I agree with him entirely that the Joint House Department ought to be taken out. If honourable senators walked around to the far end of the building they would see the space which is occupied by people who have very little to do, in my opinion. This space is taken up at the expense of Ministers. We can look at the office of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) and see that his staff have to work in an alley way which is about 8 feet wide. How can they do the work that they ought to be doing? Yet on one corner of this building there is a place in which 50 people could be housed. The accommodation occupied by the Joint House Department could provide plenty of office space for other people. Our priorities are all wrong. I support this measure and I do not think it has been introduced too hastily. I think it has been far too long before someone in government has been prepared to make a decision. Let us not fool about. Let us make the decision, because as Senator Withers said, it will be 1 5 years before the new Parliament House is built. Every day we delay is a day longer that people who come into this Parliament after us will have to put up with the conditions that members have had to put up with in years gone by.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader ofthe Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I must indicate to the Opposition that the Government will oppose this amendment. There is very little to be said and I am quite sure that no one would want any more to be said. We all recognise the deficiencies of accommodation in the House, probably for everybody. But the motion that has been moved by the Government, I believe, is adequate to meet the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The history of this matter is long and most of us have been through it. We saw the unfortunate events of 6 years ago when it was impossible for everybody to agree on some rational approach to building a new Parliament House which we all recognised we badly needed. Had we been deciding to build a block of flats or office blocks we would have had them in 12 months; but there had to be something special about Parliament House. I believe the motion which the Government is putting to the Senate is essential. The formation of the Committee will meet the needs for liaison between the National Capital Development Commission and the Parliament. I recommend the motion to the Senate.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Withers’) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 2350

GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives message.

Clause 3.

Senate ‘s amendment-

In paragraph (b) of proposed sub-section (6a), leave out designation’.

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

– I move:

The objection to the Chairman of the Grants Commission having the designation of a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was said to be based upon some matter of principle and presumably that the function of the Grants Commission is not judicial in character.

In the strict sense the Commission does not exercise ‘federal judicial power’ as that term is used in the Constitution. But neither does the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Prices Justification Tribunal or the Flight Crew Officers Tribunal- yet members of each of those bodies are designated as ‘Justices’.

This comment, of course, relates to the Opposition amendment when the Bill was before the Senate recently, when the word ‘designation’ was omitted from the text. It is in explanation of why the Government moves that the Committee does not insist on the amendment of the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, that I make these comments.

The functions of bodies like those mentioned do not substantially differ from those of the Grants Commission so far as concerns the nature of the responsibility committed to them and the manner in which their functions are carried out. When the Grants Commission Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in 1933 by Mr Lyons, the then Prime Minister, the Commission was described by him in the course of debate as ‘a body which is not prejudiced … a sort of semi judicial body’.

That appears on page 1572 of Hansard No. 24 of 25 May 1933. The Leader of the Opposition summarised the objectives of the Bill by saying that:

It was desired to make the Commission as nearly as possible a judicial body which would be independent of Parliament and political influence.

That appears on page 1 734 of Hansard No. 24 of 25 May 1933.

The Commission saw the Act as requiring it to exercise powers of a judicial character and in its First Report made in 1933 said that it regarded its work as ‘judicial in character and method ‘. It added in explanation:

We were ‘directed’ to take evidence on oath, and public sittings were held at which evidence was given by witnesses who were subject to cross-examination by members of the Commission and by representatives of the Commonwealth and the claimant States. The report of the Commission is based upon the evidence so taken.

In the 40 years from its creation until 1973 the Commission had five Chairmen of whom three were lawyers and no doubt their wise guidance and understanding of the judicial character of the Commission’s functions were responsible for the fact that the conclusions of the Commission as set out in its Reports were objectively framed and in consequence were always accepted by Parliament.

In the exercise of the wider functions the Commission now performs of inquiring into applications by local governing bodies for financial assistance there is probably a greater need for the impartiality and objectivity which accompanied the investigation into applications by claimant States. The extremes in diversity between local governing bodies, their vastly different financial circumstances and the elements of suspicion which seem from time to time to creep into local government administration would appear to require, more than ever before, the application of judicial expertise.

The amendment which proposed the deletion of the word ‘designation’ is misconceived in its application to a person having former judicial status as a Judge of a Supreme Court. Such persons, after relinquishing judicial office, provided that this has not been for misconduct, are entitled by Royal Warrant to be designated as ‘The Honourable’ and by custom, if not as a matter of law, are addressed as ‘Justice’ or ‘Judge’. The title will of course follow from rank or status as a Judge. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage that a person having the ‘rank and status’ of a Judge should not be entitled to be addressed as such, especially whilst he is performing functions which are judicial or semi-judicial in character.

The assignment of a judicial designation to the Chairman of a Commission, the duties of which entail the conduct of inquiries, is an established practice with Commissions of Inquiry when they are presided over by a person of judicial status whether a judge presently acting as such or a retired judge. There have been many instances of such appointments in recent times and in addition to the large number of Royal Commissions several recent inquiries have been conducted by retired judges, namely the Barrier Reef inquiry by Mr Justice Wallace, the Western Australian inquiries into Aborigines by His Honour Judge Furnell and the inquiry into airlines by His Honour Mr Justice Sholl. The general powers of the Grants Commission to undertake inquiries as they are set out in sections 16 and 1 8, put it in much the same role as a permanently constituted commission of inquiry presided over by a person of judicial status. On this basis also, the suggested designation is justified and proper. It is for those reasons that I have moved this proposition on behalf of the Government.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– Because the Opposition does not wish to delay the passage of the Bill it will not persist with the amendment. However, I should like to make some brief comments. First, I wish to say that the Opposition when in government proposes to pursue the principle because it does not believe that we should perpetuate unnecessarily the illusion of a judicial atmosphere when, in fact, a body is not a judicial body. I may say, with respect to the Minister, that the arguments prepared for him and read out by him are totally unconvincing and self contradictory. He built up an argument that the Grants Commission was held to be judicial and then proceeded to show us that at no time in its career did it ever have a judge. That may have been entertaining to the speech writer but scarcely a logical component of the situation. The Minister’s explanation then proceeds to one of the most remarkable passages I have ever heard. It stated:

In the exercise of the wider functions the Commission now performs of inquiring into applications by local governing bodies for financial assistance there is probably a greater need for the impartiality and objectivity which accompanied the investigation into applications by claimant States.

Is it suggested really that we need more objectivity and impartiality than previously held by the Grants Commission? If, indeed, we needed this, why did we not have written into the law before the prescription of a judge. If there is this need for the judicial mind, why is there not by statute a provision for a judge? I merely say that I have never heard an explanation that is so unconvincing, and contradictory. Nevertheless, we will not impede the passage of this Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I merely want to add that whatever may have been the genuine purpose of those who created this Grants Commission to approximate it to a judicial body, the expansion and extension of this body’s functions from the States to about 900 local governing bodies, presents the Tribunal with an impossible situation in which it is a complete pretence for any judge to act judicially. I want that on record. For any judge to think that he annually can take evidence upon which to make a judicial conclusion or anything representing a judicial conclusion as to the 900 local governing bodies, is a complete pretence and prostitution of the judicial function.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2352

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives message.

Senate’s Amendment-

After clause 6 insert the following clause: (6a) Each new proposal for the collection and compilation by the Bureau of Statistics in relation to information shall be laid before each House of Parliament before its implementation.

Clause 6

House of Representatives amendment to Senate’s amendment-

That the Senate’s amendment be disagreed to and that in place thereof the following amendment be made:

In clause 6 after sub-clause (2) insert the following subclauses: (2a) Subject to sub-section (2b), each new proposal for the collection of information for statistical purposes by the Bureau shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament before its implementation, unless the proposal is for the collection of information on a voluntary basis. (2b) Where, in relation to a proposal to which subsection (2a) is applicable, being a proposal for the collection of information relating to businesses, the Minister considers it necessary to commence implementation of the proposal at a time when it is not practicable to comply with sub- section (2a) he may authorize the implementation of the proposal without compliance with that subsection but in such a case particulars of the nature of the information to which the authorization relates shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within S sitting days of that House after the giving of the authorization. ‘.

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) proposed:

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

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The Committee will recall that when this Bill was before it I moved, on behalf of the Opposition, an amendment for the insertion of a new clause. If I recall it correctly the Opposition ‘s amendment was that there should be inserted a new clause 6a, which, amongst other things, said in effect that each new proposal put forward by the Bureau of Statistics should be laid before the Parliament before its implementation. In seeking support for the inclusion of that provision in the Bill the Opposition emphasised the enormous powers that were contained in the Bill which was then before the Senate and recounted the relationship between those powers and the total life of the private citizen. Those were powers that would alter and affect the life of the private citizen insofar as they were related to the whole aspect of information which the private citizen may be asked to give, which the private citizen may be expected to supply and, if I may say so, which the private citizen may be compelled to provide. The Opposition felt very strongly about that. It felt that the Parliament ought to have knowledge of each new proposal. The details of that knowledge were spelt out in the amendment which the Opposition put before the Committee.

The point is that members of the Senate in Committee and ultimately as a House agreed to that proposition. In the process of the parliamentary procedure that matter went to the House of

Representatives, which sent back to the Senate a message indicating that the House of Representatives disagrees with the Senate’s amendment and seeks the inclusion in the Bill of a new subclause to clause 6. The details of that sub-clause have been made known to the Committee. If I may say so, the Government has agreed that each new proposal for the collection of information, with certain qualifications, shall come before the Parliament. Those qualifications relate to the collection of information on a voluntary basis and to the fact that during periods when the Parliament is in recess and the Minister believes that a program relating to the collection of information concerning businesses as distinct from social issues should commence without delay, he may authorise the implementation of the program; but in such cases the particulars of the programs shall be laid before each House within 5 sitting days of that House after the giving of the authorisation by the Minister. I have spelt that out in some detail because I am about to say on behalf of the Opposition that the amendment proposed is acceptable to the Opposition. I wish to express my appreciation of the courtesy and co-operation of the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) for presenting a solution which I believe to be a satisfactory one.

Having said that, I want to refer to the value of the kind of discussion and the kind of procedure whereby an amendment which is put down and accepted by the Senate is not in the fullness of time acceptable to the Government and, by reason of the bicameral system of government, the Government is able to look at an alternative amendment and agree with the amendment with qualifications. The Government has come up with a solution which, if I may put it in this way, is to obtain the agreement of the Opposition.

Senator Wright:

– In one of its more lucid intervals.

Senator DAVIDSON:

-Senator Wright interjected that the Government has come up with an agreement in what he has described as one of its more lucid intervals. I put it to the Committee this evening that the appreciation of the Committee is being extended to the Government simply because the Government has taken on board the representations, the arguments and the advocacy put forward in the Committee stage of the debate on an earlier occasion. The important thing to be observed here is this: The role of the Senate as a House of review is more than justified. The Minister will have room to move in relation to the proposed sub-clause that has been put before the Committee tonight. The Minister will have a flexibility of operation with the inclusion in the Bill of the proposed subclause which has been put forward. More importantly as far as I am concerned as a member of the Opposition, bearing in mind the arguments which I put forward in the previous debate, the Parliament will have its own supervision ensured, which is the point that we made with emphasis and with underlining. Most importantly, the citizens of the nation are protected.

I think I should point out again to the Committee and to the Minister that the measure which is before us tonight bestows upon the Government of the day enormous powers and an enormous opportunity for moving into the total area of privacy as far as the citizens of this nation are concerned. The Australian community at large should know that the Senate has once more played its part and, in this case, as the second chamber, has provided an opportunity for it to be heard and to be represented by this Bureau of Statistics in respect of each new situation in which it proposes to indulge. Therefore, I take the opportunity to say that the bicameral system has proved its worth. I express my appreciation to the Government and to the Minister. The Opposition accepts the motion which the Minister has put to the Committee tonight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2353

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking on behalf of the Opposition to the Australian Heritage Commission Bill 1975. 1 do so because I have had a great personal interest in matters of this nature for many years. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that I first developed that interest when I was a member of the State Parliament of Western Australia. The Opposition unreservedly supports the concept behind this Bill, and it is our intention to give the Bill a speedy passage. However, there are some aspects of the Bill on which I believe we should comment, because naturally we are not necessarily in agreement with every part of the legislation and with every procedure that is contained in it.

Before moving on to a detailed consideration of the Bill I would like to make some general remarks about the claims which the Government makes for its role in regard to the identification and protection of the National Estate. It is true, and the Government must be given full credit for the fact, that soon after it was elected to office in 1972 it established a committee, which is now known as the Hope Committee, to inquire into and report upon the National Estate. The expression ‘National Estate’ has become quite fashionable in recent years. It was taken up by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) as a convenient expression to cover a very great variety of important matters of interest to various sections of the community. There are those who are particularly interested in wildlife and the conservation of flora and fauna. There are others who are more particularly concerned with the preservation of historic buildings or buildings which could have a historic interest. There are others who are interested in archeological sites and so forth. These groups of people who have been interested in these matters for many years have probably discovered that they all have a common interest, and it is that particular common interest which has given rise to this generic expression ‘National Estate’. But I cannot accept the claims made by this Government that somehow or other it has discovered the National Estate because, as I have already said, many people in the community have for a great many years had a very great and close interest in various aspects of these matters which are now comprehended by the term ‘National Estate’. As I have said, I can recall at least 10 years ago having been involved as a member of Parliament in issues which would be regarded as environmental issues or matters concerned with the preservation of the National Estate.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) makes this claim:

The Bill gives legislative substance to the National Estate, a noble concept which has been identified by the Australian Government . . .

I believe that to be a wildly exaggerated claim and one which does not really do justice to the very fair and important role which this Government has played in promoting the Hope Commute report and this Bill which gives expression to the recommendations of that report. As I have said, many groups in the community whose activities extend back for many years have very much more right to claim the credit, if any one body, one person or one group can claim the credit, for having identified any such concept as the National Estate. For instance, I think that the national trusts which have been very strong bodies in Australia for many years should be given the credit by this Parliament for the most important role that they have played in this regard. The first national trust was established in New South Wales in 1945.

Senator Button:

– Come on!

Senator DURACK:

– That was not quite before Senator Button was born, but it was before he was born politically, anyway, national trusts have been developed in all States.

Senator Button:

– They are powerful bodies, too!

Senator DURACK:

- Senator Button makes some caustic comment about national trusts being powerful bodies. The reason why they have not been powerful bodies in the past is that they have not been given sufficient support by governments in Australia, and I think that they would have been entitled to have expected that support. Even then the position has been steadily rectified and legislation has been passed in various States in recent years which has given some teeth to the work of the national trusts. In regard to the national trusts I think it is worth noting, as the Hope Committee report itself notes, that in 1972- at the end of which year the present Government was elected- there were no fewer than 37 000 members of national trusts in various parts of Australia. Some of these national trusts have been established by State legislation and all of them have been given financial support by State governments and State parliaments. In addition to national trusts other bodies have been established, and many of them are referred to in the Hope Committee report. There are a great variety of bodies, such as tree societies and keep Australia beautiful societies. All those bodies comprise a great many people with special interests in the whole area which we are discussing in the Bill this evening.

I believe that it is a gratuitous insult to a great many people throughout Australia for this Government to try to claim all credit to itself as being the one that has in some way identified the National Estate. As I say, I find it a gratuitous insult to many people with whom I have come into contact in my own State of Western Australia. Issues were raised in Western Australia which were clearly identified as long as 10 years ago and which were the subject of very live and vigorous debate in the State Parliament when I was a member of it. I have 2 issues in mind. One involved the conservation of the Swan River, which undoubtedly is the most priceless asset of the city of Perth, if not of Western Australia. The issue raised of how and by what authority governments would be able to reclaim portions of that river was one of the most alive and controversial political issues in that State. It arose in 1964-65. Another issue which I can remember very well, and which was raised in the State Parliament 10 years or so ago concerned the preservation by the -

Senator Mulvihill:

– The Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution played a role in that one, including Senator Davidson.

Senator DURACK:

-Senator Mulvihill can have his say about matters in his experience. I just want to identify and record the fact that years before this Government came into office issues of this character were greatly agitating many sections of the community and there was political response to them in my own experience in the State Parliament. I have no doubt that many other members of the Senate and of the Parliament would be able to look back 10 years or more and find that such issues were agitating the community and were giving expression to political debate in our community.

It is absurd for this Government to try to make the claims which it does in the second reading speech on this Bill. Another claim contained in the Hope Committee report I believe is a most unfortunate one. A quote from the Hope Committee concerning this matter is contained in the second reading speech. It states:

The Australian Government has inherited a National Estate which has been downgraded, disregarded and neglected. All previous priorities accepted at various levels of government and authority have been directed by a concept that uncontrolled development, economic growth, and progress’, and the encouragement of private as against public interest in land use, use of waters, and indeed in every part of the National Estate, was paramount.

That is another absurdly exaggerated claim. It even goes to the extent of indicating that the overwhelming priority has been progress in relation to land use, use of waters and indeed, as the Hope Committee report states, every part of the National Estate. That claim seems to completely ignore the legislation in regard to town planning which has been a feature ofthe laws of all States for decades. People may now say: ‘Those laws have been defective in this respect or that respect’, but the fact is that it is quite untrue to say that the one total priority of governments and parliaments of Australia in the past has been concerned purely with the concept of economic progress. However I think that claim comes rather ill from this Government which has had such an appalling record in the regression of economic development in this country. It may well be that this Government will find that there are other responsibilities of government than simply promoting legislation of this kind. No matter how much we all may welcome it and how much we all may wish to give priorities and even absolute priorities to the preservation ofthe National Estate, the fact remains that the record of any government will be judged on the way in which it solves economic problems. Certainly this Government is being and will be very severely judged by the electorate because of its total and abysmal failure in any way to solve economic problems and provide for a proper level of economic progress in this nation.

I do not wish to get sidetracked or to digress on to other matters because I have a very great interest in the subject matter of this legislation. As I have said the Opposition fully supports it and indeed welcomes it. I believe it will have some very salutary role to play in this whole question of identifying- in the first placepreserving and, as the Bill says, presenting matters comprehended by the expression ‘National Estate’. It is true that, although as I have said progress has been made in the past by State parliaments, by voluntary organisations and by local authorities in regard to these matters, effective legislation has been lagging behind the level of public interest and public activity in this area. I think it is only fair to recognise, as I have endeavoured to do, that State parliaments have introduced pioneering legislation in this matter. Nevertheless there has been an important gap in that no legislation coming at a national level from this Parliament which can give national leadership has existed in this important sphere.

The essential effect and purpose of this Bill is that there should be a national register of items of concern and interest for preservation as part of the National Estate. The Bill defines ‘National Estate’ in broad terms and ones which I think are desirable, but I would like to refer to it to give the Senate a clear indication of the ambit of the legislation. The Bill dennes ‘National Estate’ as consisting of: . . those places, being components of the natural environment of Australia or the cultural environment of Australia, that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community.

The Bill casts its net in a very wide way- rightly so- and provides machinery for establishing a register of places, as so denned. Its prime purpose is to have the National Register. It is undoubtedly true that the National Register which will come into being as a result of this Bill will be largely contributed to by the work of national trusts and other bodies over the years. These bodies have been working over the years in establishing their own registers in the various

States and now we will be able to have that work incorporated into this National Register, and no doubt other matters of interest also which will be identified by the work of the Commission and the staff and experts employed by it.

The other important aspect will be the establishment of the Commission itself and the expert role it will be able to perform in creating and administering the Register, and even perhaps more importantly, in the advice it will be giving the Government on the whole question of preservation and presentation of the National Estate. One of the most important matters in this regard will be the provision of finance, and that also is an area where the States and the State governments have not been able to make the necessary provisions, and it is hoped that with the involvement of the Commonwealth Government in these areas there will be a much more ready flow of financial assistance. There is no question that although all the expert advice in the world may be available in identifying these places, and with all the goodwill in the world regarding their preservation, very little in this regard can be done effectively without the necessary finance. That is why I congratulate the Government for having already given an earnest of its good intentions in this area and providing in grants to the States this year $6m for assistance in these matters. There is also, I think a grant for nature conservation this year totalling $9m. That is a very good start but it will have to continue if any effective work is to be done in the future in preserving the National Estate.

Senator Mulvihill:

– We adopted that principle, Senator.

Senator DURACK:

– I agree that it is a good principle. It is all the better because it is not just the adoption of a principle but that principle is backed by financial resources. The Opposition is very concerned about another aspect of this question. I have indicated that the great pioneering work done in this matter has been done by voluntary organisations, by local authorities, by State governments and by State parliaments. I am very pleased that the Bill and the second reading speech recognise the need to give proper attention to this concept. In his second reading speech the Minister stated:

We need the generous co-operation of State and local governments in pressing on with our National Estate policies. We would hope that the State governments will enact legislation that will supplement our national initiative.

Although there has been legislation in the States it is true that, to fully achieve the purposes of this legislation, complementary legislation should be passed by the States. I hope that the Commonwealth Government will have meaningful and effective discussions with the State governments and with the authorities in the States, either local authorities or voluntary organisations, to give full effect to the objects of this legislation.

I believe that the Government will find the States co-operative in passing complementary legislation which will give proper teeth to this measure. The Bill, apart from the establishment of the Commission and the provisions for the creation of the National Register of the National Estate, contemplates the immediate effect of that Register on the Ministers of the Commonwealth Government and on authorities of the Commonwealth Parliament. It is a most important area in itself that the preservation of the National Estate should be accepted in this way by the national Government. It is done in terms to provide that all Ministers or authorities of the Commonwealth shall have regard to any buildings or properties registered as part of the National Estate, and that he or it will so administer the relevant responsibilities and policies that no action will be taken which adversely affects the National Estate. Here again, the Bill provides:

  1. . unless he is satisfied that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the taking of that action . . .

I think this underscores a very vital approach to these questions. It is a sensible and practical approach. It is not saying absolutely that the national areas incorporated as part of the National Estate must be preserved at all costs and without regard to other necessities of government, but it is saying that in the first place we must have the right attitude of mind to the preservation of the National Estate. We must exhaust all other alternatives before any action is taken which would perhaps detract from or destroy something recorded as part of the National Estate.

That is a great advance by the Government and certainly, going back again to my own experience, it has been the actions in many cases of government which have been despoiling and indeed destroying objects which were clearly part of the national heritage. Governments have a responsibility to give a lead and, particularly in their own activities, to adopt this attitude of mind which is here clearly enshrined as an item of basic policy in this legislation. I should imagine that there will be some items on the register which, I hope, would in no circumstances ever be destroyed by a government, either national or State. On the other hand, as I said before, one has to recognise that everything cannot be preserved, that there are other demands on government. Therefore one has to make this nice judgment or balance between the demands of progress and the demands of preservation. I think that this BUI in its approach represents a very sensible and judicious balance. I only hope that the Government itself in administering the legislation will be able always or as often as possible to exercise that same balance and judgement in these matters.

The Opposition in another place expressed concern about the degree and manner and policy of co-operation with the States in regard to the administration of this Act. We are pleased to find that in clause 8 of the Bill as it now comes before the Senate there is a general provision that in the performance of its functions the Commission will consult with the departments and authorities of the States, local government authorities and community and other organisations. As I said, the Opposition took steps in the other place which led to the inclusion in the Bill of that principle and we are pleased to see it there. The Opposition also has expressed criticism of the composition of the Commission because it felt and still feels that the composition ofthe Commission does not give full and proper representations to State governments or to authorities within the States. As provided in clause 12, the Commission will consist of a chairman, not more than 6 commissioners, each of whom will be permanent heads of Commonwealth Government departments or chairmen of an authority of Australia, and not more than 12 other commissioners.

In the selection of the 12 other commissioners the Bill provides that the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of the membership of the Commission including persons resident in the several States and in the Northern Territory. However, the Opposition would like the Bill to contain a provision that, in addition to the 6 commissioners representing government departments the Commission would have six or seven other commissioners, each of whom would represent specifically a State interest. It is certainly going to be vital that the Minister ensure that each State and the Northern Territory will have a representative on this Commission.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They are not barred under this section.

Senator DURACK:

– They are not barred, no, but the Opposition would like to have seen a specific provision there. We do not intend to move an amendment to require that, but it is certainly the Opposition’s policy that there should be such representation and we hope that the Government will accept that. We will certainly be watching very carefully the composition of this Commission and we will be watching very carefully how it represents the States and the Northern Territory and the interests of each State and Territory.

I have already noted that it is recognised that this Bill can have really full effect only if there is complementary State legislation to give it proper teeth, to give those items which are included in the register a much stronger form of protection than is constitutionally possible by legislation of this Parliament. As I have said, I applaud the fact that this Bill is now going to bind the Commonwealth; nevertheless, there are many other areas which will require enforcement if full protection is to be given to items included in the register. It is a matter of disappointment that this Bill is not being complemented here and now by legislation or ordinances for the Territories of the Commonwealth. 1 hope that the Minister will be able to give an indication to the Senate that it is intended to follow up this Bill with complementary legislation to take effect in the territories under the control of the Commonwealth, thereby giving a lead on the type of complementary legislation that might be passed by State parliaments.

There is only one other matter to which I would like to refer and which is giving the Opposition considerable concern, as indeed I know it has given concern to everybody who has taken an interest in this matter. That is the question of adequate compensation for people who are affected by decisions to preserve as part of the National Estate areas of property which are privately owned. This is a very delicate and a very vexed problem and one which I do not expect could be solved in the course of this debate tonight. Indeed, the Opposition does not pretend to have any ready made solution which could be put forward tonight, but we do believe that it is an important matter of principle which should be recognised in any legislation of this character.

Therefore the Opposition has circulated an amendment to the clause setting out the functions of the Commission which will impose on the Commission a duty to consider and report to the Minister on the circumstances in which compensation should be payable to persons affected by action to conserve the National Estate, the nature of the compensation and the method of determining the compensation; and, I might add, the means by which compensation can be paid. As I have said, one of the major problems which has bedevilled the State governments and the State parliaments in doing anything very effective to preserve the National Estate has been the problem they would have in finding the necessary funds to meet the requirements of compensation.

There is some very interesting discussion on this whole problem in the report of the Hope Committee. Pages 157 and 158 of that report detail the State legislation which has been cast in regard to this matter, and the report finds that the problem with all this legislation has been that where compensation has been required it has always been a very inhibiting factor. Naturally enough, where a State government is obliged to provide compensation if it takes action in this area, it will always be very circumspect and no doubt rather parsimonious in making these decisions. So the question of compensation is a very important one in this area.

The Hope Committee has said that, in principle, it does not believe that there ought to be compensation where these restrictions are placed upon properties except in those cases where the restriction reserves the property for public use, whether as open space or otherwise. The Opposition cannot accept that principle. It is true that in town planning legislation there is perhaps not a general recognition of the fact that if a person’s property is zoned in such a way that it cannot be developed in exactly the way that the owner would like, but only in accordance with the townplan, compensation is not payable. But the problem that one finds in this kind of legislation is that sometimes there is a property in an area zoned for development when the property concerned has been identified as being required as part of the National Estate. So although the neighbouring property is to be available for development that particular property cannot be developed.

That is a clear injustice and it is a problem which has to be solved if governments are going to do anything effective about preserving the national estate. There have been efforts to do this. The Victorian Parliament made some efforts in its legislation on the subject to provide methods of compensation in various forms to such an owner. That is a good starting point. I do not want to get bogged down in this debate in a discussion of this particular problem at any length but the Opposition wishes to identify it clearly as a problem. We do not accept the solution to it that was propounded by the Hope Committee and therefore we believe it must be identified as a continuing problem. We propose to move an amendment which I hope will be acceptable to the Government and will be included in the Bill as part of the functions of this Commission.

In conclusion I would like to say once again how much the Opposition welcomes this legislation. I believe the Government is to be congratulated for bringing it forward. I think that many other people, members of the Hope Committee and members of the interim committee who worked on the Bill, are also to be congratulated. We express our highest goodwill for the noble purposes of the legislation and have confidence that it will be effective. I hope that when the Opposition parties are returned to government we also will be able to make a contribution to this very important matter.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I wish to deal with the general principles of this Australian Heritage Commission Bill and not follow my colleague Senator Durack into a discursive analysis of various points which arose in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate. I think the essential principles are set out in clause 4 of the Bill where the National Estate is defined as follows: the national estate consists of those places, being components of the natural environment of Australia or the cultural environment of Australia, that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community.

I do not think there is much difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition in relation to the importance of this Bill. Senator Durack dealt at some length with the functions of the proposed Australian Heritage Commission. Indeed, in the closing part of his speech he applauded the Government’s initiative in this regard. I did find part of his speech somewhat churlish for this reason: He spoke very much, on behalf of the Opposition, in the tone of somebody who really was just beginning to understand what an idea was all about.

Senator Durack:

– I was trying to make out that I understood it 10 years ago.

Senator BUTTON:

-As Senator Durack says, he tried to explain that he understood it 10 years ago, but in trying to explain what he understood 10 years ago he devoted much of his time to telling us that national trusts existed in the various States in those days and that he was interested in some of the issues which they pursued at that time. He said that he knew of other people who were interested, and so on. That was not the point. We all know that what he said is perfectly true. We all know that the national trusts have been active in Australia for a long time, and their activities are to be applauded. But we all know they were starved of funds, that they were singularly unsuccessful in carrying out their activities and that they were crying poverty all the time because of the utter disinterest of government and the utter failure of government to appreciate what they were all about.

This legislation is part of the broad thrust of the Government’s program which has been expressed in many ways- in terms of conservation policy, in terms of a new approach to Australia’s national identity, and in terms of preservation in all respects of things that are unique in our landscape, history and culture. It is consistent with the program that the Government has adopted for the arts, which was the subject of some criticism a year or two ago. It is consistent with the National Gallery legislation which will be brought before the Senate soon. It is consistent with a new approach to foreign policy and it is even consistent, although in a much more minor way, with the new system of honours that has been introduced in this country. All of these things are a recognition of the unique nature of this country, of its own identity, and of its growing maturity as a nation. Even in a small way one could refer also to another piece of legislation passed by this Parliament recently, namely, the Glebe Lands Appropriation BUI. The point I make in referring to these things is that none of them happened in Australia at a national level before December 1972, and that is nowhere better recognised than in the report of the Hope Commission itself, where it stated that recognition quite explicitly in these words:

The Australian Government has inherited a national estate which has been downgraded, disregarded and neglected. All previous priorities accepted at various levels of government and authority have been directed by a concept that uncontrolled development, economic growth and progress’, and the encouragement of private as against public interest in land use, use of waters, and, indeed, in every part ofthe National Estate, was paramount.

That is what the Government inherited in December 1972. Is it not true that, if one looks back to the years before December 1972 to the Australian national heritage, one finds that the music that one heard was the music of the cash registers of mining companies? The poetry was the poetry of motion on the share market and nowhere else. That was because none of these things was heard about as subjects for national debate, national political debate, in those years, and I have only to remind the Senate of the great voices of those years, the great voices of people like Jock Marshall, Robyn Boyd, Judith Wright and various other people of that kind. They were voices crying in the wilderness in Australia about the very things that this legislation is about. That is why I say that it is important that we recognise that this piece of legislation represents part of the broad thrust of the Government’s program and is a great change in attitude towards these problems, because prior to this Government there was a very depressed spirit abroad about these types of problems in Australia, and the cultural symbol of this country was usually considered to be nothing more than the meat pie.

As I have said, Senator Durack has gone to great lengths to say: ‘Look, we really thought of this, but we did not do anything about it. We were sort of working on it and that kind of thing, in Western Australia, and it is not the Government’s idea.’ His whole speech reminded me of somebody who had been caught stealing clothes and who said: ‘Really, I am only borrowing them’. That is the broad thrust of the Opposition ‘s approach in this debate.

The only other point I wanted to make in that regard was that this Government acted very quickly. In May 1973 the Hope Committee was appointed. Last year it produced a magnificent report which has been the subject of much discussion in the Australian community. I want to say a brief word about the personnel of the Interim Committee on the National Estatepeople such as Mr David Yencken, a man who as interim chairman has shown himself to be a person of great wisdom, experience and enthusiasm in trying to see that future generations of Australians enjoy the heritage which only a few years ago was being swept away by our obsession with growth in terms of growth of the economy, growth of cities and so on; and Judith Wright, who for many years was once a voice crying in the wilderness but who is now a voice of significance in the community on this issue because of this legislation and because ofthe establishment of the Interim Committee.

I agree with Senator Durack that the world will not change overnight because of the passing of this Bill by the Senate. Nothing very dramatic will happen. I believe it is symbolic legislation in a way, in that it is a recognition by the Parliament of a change in community attitudes and in government attitudes to this very important problem. All of us have various views about the significance of our relationship, as members of the human species, with our environment. It is a subject which we do not debate perhaps enough. I believe this legislation is a recognition that our values on this matter have not been subject to the scrutiny which they ought to have received in the past. From now on, with this legislation and the other legislation to which I have referred as a basis, we can proceed in this country with guidelines which will provide perhaps a better environment for future generations of Australians than that which has existed in the past.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I take great pleasure in supporting the motion for the second reading of the Australian Heritage Commission Bill. I wish to make some remarks about it and about the report on which it is based. Before I do I must comment very briefly on the speech which we have just heard from Senator Button. Before I was elected a senator I sometimes thought, when I listened on the radio to speeches in Parliament, that people so often proceeded to find their government white and every other government black; they discovered that everything has started from the moment their government came into office; they could see nothing wrong with anything that had been done since. I will not fall into this mistake tonight. It seems to me that Senator Button spent a great deal of time blackening those who had gone before and ignoring and trying to downplay the efforts which had been made in this area.

Senator Button:

– What efforts had been made by a previous national government?

Senator MISSEN:

– There were many efforts. I will not be led astray by going into a great deal of detail. There were many efforts. The concept of and the achievements in the city of Canberra, such as the creation of buildings in the city alone, to take one example, were very much the work of Sir Robert Menzies and previous governments. They showed great vision. These things are part of our Australian heritage. I give that as one example. I thought Senator Button was a bit churlish tonight when he spoke of the contribution which Senator Durack made to this debate. He even seemed to suggest that before 1972, to use his throwaway line, the music was the cash registers of mining companies. I will concede that the music is certainly still today; there is no such music. That line and other throwaway lines do not detract from the situation. A great deal of work was done. Senator Durack referred to the type of work which was done by organistions throughout this country in achieving part of that Australian heritage which we have today- by organisations which worked to retain it, often under difficult circumstances and with a lack of public recognition.

Senator Button:

– Or money.

Senator MISSEN:

– And money. Yes, money is important in this area. That is one of the things which must be recognised. More money will be involved if we are to retain the heritage which we presently enjoy. I return to the Bill and to the report. I will not in the short time tonight do justice to what I think is an extremely fine report of the investigation of the Hope Committee. I think that report will remain a landmark and an important and valuable guide to those who proceed to operate under this Bill. The Bill itself is very much guided and created in the light of its recommendations. In saying that it does not mean that one has to swallow all that is in the report. Senator Durack has referred to some of the more extreme statements which I think are hard to justify. But taken overall the report points out a great many of the areas in which this heritage of ours exists. One appreciates that not only is there a definition in the Bill but also we have to look at our heritage from different angles. On page 334 of the report it states:

The three components of the cultural and natural environment forming the National Estate are those which are:

of such outstanding world significance that they need to be conserved, managed and presented as part of the heritage of the world.

of such outstanding national value that they need to be conserved, managed and presented as part of the heritage of the nation as a whole.

of such aesthetic, historical, scientific, social, cultural, ecological or other special value to the nation or any part of it, including a regional locality, that they should be conserved, managed and presented for the benefit of the community as a whole.

In that definition the Committee also pointed out that these things fall into many categories, some of them matters of natural environment, some of them man-made and part of our cultural environment, others archeological and others cultural. Therefore there is one thing that comes from the report and the creation of this Commission and that is that we are recognising at last the wide range, the very much wider view that we have now of the heritage which should be preserved. It is not just the buildings. It is not just the books and the actual close physical items. Of course it is also areas of our country and the appearances, the coastline and these other aspects which can easily be destroyed. To illustrate some of these things I shall read a few of the major recommended areas mentioned in the report. They include land use, wildlife, parks, coastlines, built environment, Aboriginal sites and special areas, historic sites, geological sites, caves, museums, historic shipwrecks, archives, export of cultural property and education. As a result of the report many aspects of these now are easier to appreciate and because of the establishment of the Commission these objectives will be carried forward. It is indeed welcome that the Government has accepted some amendments to this Bill. It is indeed welcome that there are such provisions in the Bill as those contained in clause 9 which provides that all departments and all authorities of

Australia shall give to the Commission such assistance in the carrying out of its functions as is reasonable and practical. Clause 9 (2) states:

All Departments and all authorities of Australia shall comply with all reasonable requests for information made to them by the Commission in the performance of its functions.

Therefore the Government can give a practical lead through the departments of Government to ensure that the heritage is maintained by the de- partments of government. I think we ought to look somewhat distantly at other countries when we consider what is needed to preserve our heritage, such as it is, and to build it up. A few years ago when travelling in England and in Europe I spent some considerable time looking at the various historic sites and observing above all things the character which the Government and the people of Great Britain were preserving in their national monuments, as they describe them. The Ministry of Public Works obviously went to great care and the people of the communities in which those great historic sites exist were extremely vigilant and proud of the contribution which they were able to make. They had pride in their localities as well.

When I came back from observing this I must say what struck me so forcibly in the first few months after my return was the state of country towns in particular in Australia, the state of dilapidation, the unsightliness of iron sheds in a state of rust, the shops in disuse. I do not confine my remarks to the country but this situation struck me immediately because of the comparison with the countryside of England and Europe. I appreciate that we have not had the long historical experience of those countries and perhaps we do not yet have the same pride in locality as they have. But I believe this will come and it will be assisted by the provisions of this Bill. People of a later generation will either bemoan the fact that we have destroyed things which should have been preserved, or they will be grateful to us for those things which we have retained.

Like Senator Durack, I too pay tribute to what has been done by national trusts throughout this country working under difficulties, with slow recognition and with shortage of money. Also in this tribute I add those local bodies, whether they be historical societies or progress associations, which have preserved local items which they believe are important to the history of this country. Those organisations need encouragement and I am sure they will get it through the help of the Australian Heritage Commission. The need to work with the States has been stressed. Of course, the Commission needs to work not only through the States but also through the local organisations. The Commission needs to encourage them in their work. With the Bill as it is, with the proposed Register of National Estate items, with the inventory and with the opportunity to accept gifts and bequests, I believe a better appreciation will develop of what there is in this country.

I see this Bill as a somewhat inchoate Bill. It starts by registering the various properties and items of interest. It is probably not absolutely clear now how far the Commission will be able to go in protecting them. I think it must be recognised that this Bill will have a continuing and growing importance in this country. I join with Senator Durack in being somewhat concerned at the lack of recognition of compensation which I think must be available to some reasonable degree. If people find they have a property or some piece of real estate which is of great interest, then they may be greatly prejudiced if they are denied an opportunity of building or developing. The community may require that they undergo that difficulty. I think that where this happens there must be some reasonable compensation for people so that we ensure that the protection of the national heritage is not a burden around the necks of people but is something in which they can have pride and in regard to which they do not lose overmuch. It has been recognised in this Bill that the part which the Australian Heritage Commission is to play is supplementary. It is not the role of taking over the existing work which has been done. Senator Cavanagh, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs- I do not know whether he is still the Minister- who in this chamber represented the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) stated in his second reading speech:

Grants made under the National Estate program must be seen as a supplement to the resources of the States, State bodies such as the National Trust, local government bodies and voluntary organisations. We do not want to supplant private effort or the work of other levels of government; we want to supplement them.

I think we need to emphasise that fact. It is quite correct. It would be a mistake if we see some effort being made to centralise the work and thereby deny the value of local effort in preserving our heritage. As far as this aspect is concerned, I have noted the growing interest over many years in a small field which is referred to in the Report of the National Estate. It is the field of libraries and archives. In Victoria some years ago I did a survey of what was happening to the great State Library of Victoria which late last century was one of the great libraries of the world. It is not one of the great libraries of the world now.

Shortage of money, poor conditions and a decline in the ability to buy books has made it less successful. Then there were patent and obvious needs. Money was called for to improve both the housing and the circumstances under which that great library was performing its job.

One of the jobs found probably in all other States is the important job of preserving the archives of the community. These are often kept in conditions of great danger from fire and decay. If this were to happen, part of our history would disappear because we were not farsighted. In that one area in which I was doing some work, I believe that the position has not improved greatly. There is obviously a great need for the restoration and preservation of this part of our National Estate.

I say, in conclusion, that I believe that this Bill will help Australia to develop a national pride in that part of its history, small though it may be compared with that of other countries. If we, who are still in the early stages of the history of this country, do not preserve those items of interest and do not keep them for future generations, we will not see the development of a national spirit and interest. No government should claim or can claim that it alone is interested in this area. I warmly commend the Government for having appointed the Committee and for having brought forward this Bill. I think it is substantially a good Bill. I believe that, on whatever side of this Parliament we may be, we see this as a good step forward in developing and maintaining the heritage of this country.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I enter this debate in order, in the first instance, to congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill which seeks to preserve the National Estate. Having recently had the opportunity to visit the United Kingdom and to see what is being done there to preserve the National Estate, I believe that it is high time that Australia looked to this area to do something more constructive than has been done in the past. By the same token, I hope that we will not forget that the National Estate of this nation did not start in the year 1788. We have much to preserve in that which has developed in Australia since the advent of the white man in 1788; but there are many other areas that need to be looked at very closely.

Whilst I am conscious of what has been done by both Federal and State governments in relation to the Aboriginal heritage of this nation, we must not forget that anthropologists and other learned people have shown that we, the Aboriginal people, have been here for some 50 000 years. Whilst we are looking at the preservation of the national heritage of Australia, we must not forget that there are many things which need to be preserved and which were here long before 1788. I hope that the Aboriginal people- the indigenous people of this nation- will have the opportunity to be represented and to put forward their point of view in relation to what should be preserved in this nation as the national heritage of the Australian Aborigines. Whilst I congratulate the Government on its initiative on this issue, I point out that the national heritage of Australia did not start in 1788; it started long before that. We want to preserve buildings and other aspects of the history of this nation for future generations of Australians; but let us not forget that there are many other things which need to be preserved and which had their origin long before the advent of the white man to Australia.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise because of some comments that were made during this debate by Senator Button. For the information of all the Johnny-come-latelies- not only Senator John Button- I point out that the national conscience was first focussed on this problem by Sir Denham Henty, a former Leader of the Government in the Senate, when he moved for the establishment of 2 Senate select committees, one to inquire into water pollution and the other to inquire into air pollution. They were the first positive steps in the national sphere to protect the environment.

For the information of Senator Button, let him be reminded that in the government of which I was a member the Australian Tourist Commission under my control bent every effort to seek out and identify places of unique national interest for preservation for the purpose of the tourist industry. Some people think that we are apathetic. Our attitude was that we were there in support of preservation. We had a plan for the environment of Ayers Rock and we were the government that established a royal commission on a national basis for an examination of all the superlative values of the Great Barrier Reef. In the Department of Works over which I presided in the latter years there was a standing instruction that no work was to be submitted to Cabinet unless an environmental impact study was undertaken on an interdepartmental basis. These things should be known by the Johnniescomelately. We appreciate the fact that the Government is to continue the work, but to think that it is the progenitor of this work is a complete impertinance as it was not to pay fitting tribute to the work of Senator Durack in all the years of his public life in this cause.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its indication that it will not oppose this Bill. In the main, I would thank speakers for their speeches during the second reading debate on the Bill. During those speeches, with the possible exception of the last one, there was more commendation than condemnation. Of course the last speech was no condemnation of the Bill or of the Government’s action but was only to rectify assertions of a Johnnie-come-lately who did not know that someone had acted in this field previously. I think that what Senator Wright did was to support what Senator Button said. While Senator Button acknowledged the various trusts that were operating in the States, he said that such action had never been undertaken by a national body. Senator Wright thinks that he has a point because Denham Henty set up 2 committees on pollution but he has considered isolated areas of great historical value such as Ayers Rock and the Great Barrier Reef.

I would not say that this was an investigation into our historical and cultural structures and environmental questions because, as Senator Bonner will know, no one yet appreciates the whole of the Australian heritage, its history or how it should be preserved. We have acknowledged that there were State bodies. I do not wish to denigrate those bodies and neither this Bill nor the second reading speech denigrates them. It is possible for there to be criticism because we do not acknowledge what they have done but there is no denigration of them in the second reading speech or in the Bill. Those bodies could never function effectively because of the limitation of finance. Last week I tabled a report on Hallett Cove because a grant has been made to South Australia because one of the places of most historical interest in that State could not be preserved by State finances. Whilst the State had handed Hallett Cove over to a trust it could not buy the approaches to the Cove in order to protect the Cove and the Cove was simply eroding because of lack of protection until the Commonwealth stepped in. Possibly the Commonwealth would not have known about the situation in relation to Hallett Cove if the State had not brought the matter to the attention of the Commonwealth. Senator Jessop will remember the architectural achievements embodied in a King William Street bank which had to be demolished for a high rise building because it was uneconomical as a letting proposition. The building could only be saved by the efforts of many hundreds of people who had to take up collections to preserve the building which everyone agrees should be saved because of its value in the history of South Australia. For the first time we have a national commission to find, report on and preserve the various projects. It might be said that there were State bodies and there were trusts, but although Senator Henty established an environmental committee we did not have a national committee with the responsibility of acknowledging and pinpointing the National Estate until after 1972. We did not have a committee with such wide ranging powers as the Hope Committee which presented such an effective report.

I can assure Senator Bonner that the Commission will not be limited to that period of our history which began when the white man came to Australia. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies is still making discoveries and pursuing the preservation of Aboriginal arts and sacred sites and other matters and the work of the Commission will be done in conjunction with the work of that Institute. Senator Durack indicated that the Opposition would move an amendment to this Bill. I think it is understood now that the Government would have accepted this amendment provided it did not hold up the establishment of the Commission. When the bells were ringing in the other place we were hoping that this Bill would be passed but debate on it has taken so long that the other place, with the usual congratulations and goodwill that are expressed at the end of a session, has now broken up and its members have returned to their homes.

Senator Wright:

– Why do you not condemn it now as you used to do when you were in Opposition?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am telling the Senate what the situation is. If delay would achieve anything the Bill could be delayed until Parliament reassembled. Delay is not the only factor. The question of compensation presents a major drafting task. It was dealt with in the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the National Estate which was tabled in the Senate and more recently in the report of the Interim Committee of the National Estate which was tabled on 22 May. The Historic Buildings Act of Victoria shows how some of these techniques can be used. The Act gives no automatic right to compensation. There is also the question whether we pay rates and land taxes. The form of compensation for private owners cannot be dealt with comprehensively in legislation of this Parliament because it is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the States. So, apart from the fact that the other House has gone home, there will be a delay because there will have to be some conference with the States.

In relation to the Opposition’s proposed amendment, I give an undertaking from both Ministers involved with this Bill that they will at the earliest possible time introduce an amendment to the Bill in the terms of the amendment proposed to be moved by Senator Durack which sought to add the following paragraph to clause 6 of the Bill: to consider and report to the Minister on the circumstances in which compensation should be payable to persons affected by action to conserve the national estate, the nature of the compensation and the method of determining the compensation.

Again I thank the Opposition for its support of this legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I should like to raise one matter with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). He has given a clear undertaking which the Opposition fully accepts, that legislation will be introduced by the Government at the earliest opportunity to incorporate into the Bill the proposed amendment to clause 7 which, in other circumstances, I would have moved during the Committee stage of this Bill. I want to add nothing further in regard to that question.

However, in the debate on the second reading of the Bill I raised the question of complementary legislation to be promoted by the Government in regard to the territories under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. I hoped that the Minister might have been able to give some undertaking in regard to that matter as well. I think this may be an appropriate time to raise the matter while we are speaking generally about the Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

-The Ministers have agreed that the Government should give an undertaking in the Senate that the report of the Australian Heritage Commission will cover the question of compensation for owners of heritage property in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Durack:

– And the Northern Territory?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes, and the Northern Territory.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2364

HEALTH INSURANCE BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-The Bill before the Senate seeks to amend the Health Insurance Act of 1 973. This is the culmination of many years of effort on the part of Australian optometrists for the inclusion of benefits for their patients under the national health scheme. The original national health scheme, of course, was conceived by Dr Earle Page and when it was drafted in the early 1 950s an anomaly existed because a benefit for a refractive examination was to be paid only to the patient of a medical practitioner. This clearly discriminated against the patients of a thousand registered optometrists in Australia who were performing almost 90 per cent of the refractive examinations in this country at this time.

The Menzies Government wisely recognised this inequity and this resulted in an alteration of the Act, thereby preventing a benefit from being paid as a result of a consultation for the prescription of spectacles. From that time onwards, the Australian Optometrical Association has striven for a universal optometric benefit to be included in the Act. The Liberal-Country Party Government took the first step in this direction when the Gorton Government recognised the right of optometrists to refer their patients directly to an ophthalmologist, a medical practitioner, and allowed a full specialist benefit to be paid for such a visit. Since then members of the health committee of the Liberal and Country Parties have worked towards the inclusion of optometric benefits in the health scheme, and last May it formulated a policy to enable this to happen. So I believe the stage was set for the Opposition to welcome this Bill, and of course we support the measure before the Senate.

The Australian optometric profession can claim a number of firsts in its history. The first statutory registration of optometrists in the British Commonwealth occurred in Tasmania in 1913. The first professor of optometry in the British Commonwealth was Professor Joseph Lederer of Sydney, and his Department of Optometry in the University of New South Wales was the first university school of optometry in the British Commonwealth. Since those earlier days many Australian optometrists have attracted overseas recognition in the scientific field. Men such as Dr Barry Cole and Dr Barry Collins, who are principal lecturers in the Victorian College of Optometry, are among these prominent optometrists. As a result of the work done by Professor Lederer, the Lederer lens for people with partial sight received world recognition. I should mention a South Australian who is distinguished in the optometric field, particularly in the field of scientific instrumentation. He is Mr Don Schulz, who is a very prominent optometrist. I mention also Mr G. Henry of Melbourne, who was one of the first Churchill Fellows to return from Cambridge University to join a team led by Professor Peter Bishop of the Australian National University. Currently this team leads the world in electro-physiology ofthe visual cortex. I could highlight many more examples of Australian optometrical achievement if time permitted. Suffice it to say that the profession is one of high ethical and academic standards, world recognised and well equipped to deal with its special role in the field of health care.

I believe it is of interest to the Senate to know something more of the training of optometrists in Australia. I shall refer to aspects of the syllabus at the University of New South Wales, which is characteristic of the other 2 optometric training colleges in Melbourne and Brisbane, although the emphasis on some aspects of the course might vary slightly in each of these institutions. Optometry students receive part of their training from medical teachers. The amount of this varies among the different optometry schools, and it has not changed during the past 10 years or so.

It is quite interesting to note who among the medical specialists deal with this type of optometric instruction. I shall refer by way of example to the University of New South Wales. There are 2 subjects in which these people participate. One is the indications for medical referral, and the other is physiology. Among the doctors and medical professors who deal with these subjects are men from the disciplines of pharmacology, dermatology, neurology, physiology, psychiatry, genetics and many others. It is interesting to note that prominent among these doctors is Professor Walsh, the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of New South Wales, who will personally organise a course for medical referral beginning in July 1975. In New South Wales, excluding those subjects properly taught by other schools, namely, general biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, physiology and general studies, the professional core of the optometry degree course comprises 120 semester hours. Of these, 1 3 semester hours or about 1 1 per cent, are taught by medical teachers. In Victoria a little more time is spent on that subject. Ninety-five semester hours ofthe professional core comprise optometrical subjects and clinical optometry, which undoubtedly are best taught by optometrical teachers. The remaining 12 semester hours of the professional core, which comprise ocular anatomy and ocular disease, could well be taught by ophthalmological teachers. However, the Australian ophthalmologists have been reluctant to participate in this area.

I hope that from now on the ophthalmologists will take more interest in this aspect of optometrical training because I understand that according to the by-laws of their society no member of that profession shall undertake to address optometrical organisations or undertake the teaching or instruction of optometrists, undergraduates or students in optometry without the express permission of the council of that college. I believe that the ophthalmologists are sympathetic or becoming sympathetic in this area. I suggest that it would be a good thing for the 2 professions if they were to co-operate in this important area.

Optometrists, of course, are controlled under the State health Acts and there is a specific definition of the practice of optometry in the legislation of the States and, of course, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Again I refer to the New South Wales Act. It defines optometry as the means of doing or performing one or more of the following acts, matters or things, that is to say, the examination of the eyes, the measurement of their functions and powers with the object of determining whether there is any and if so the nature or degree of any abnormality or defect of sight, the correction, remedying and relieving of any abnormality or defect of sight by means of an optical appliance or orthoptic treatment and optical dispensing. It goes on to define other things, such as visual screening. It also provides for professional misconduct to be dealt with by a special board. I think that is an important aspect of the optometric profession.

The optometric profession has also fulfilled a role of community service. Recognising that there was a need in Australia to provide a more adequate eye care service to the needy in our community, the Australian Optometrical Association in 1958 began the pensioner optometric service, which was a voluntary scheme by which optometrists gave their professional services at no cost in order to provide eye care to the group of people in our community who most need that service and who are least able to afford it. I should mention- I think it is quite important for the Minister to realise this-that estimates have been made that through the voluntary pensioner optometric service over 4 million members of our disadvantaged geriatric community have received eye care.

In 1972 an appeal was launched among Australian optometrists for donations towards the establishment of a national centre for research into clinical aspects of visual science. Australian optometrists responded to this appeal to which they each donated about $150, and the National Vision Research Institute is now in existence. I should like to suggest to the Minister that he ought to transmit this message to his colleagueand I should like to emphasise this- because the Australian Government has not yet seen fit to make funds available for the technical equipment and research staff that the Institute requires to achieve its full potential. I think, now that the profession has come of age- I believe that is the correct term to use- and is blossoming as a profession in its own right quite properly in Australia, the Government ought to support that Institute.

I just want to mention one or two other aspects, and I realise that time is rather short. The optometric profession is the only profession working in the field of health care which overlaps the medical profession in the services provided. Although refraction is the fundamental specialty of the optometrist, the ophthalmologist or oculist, the medical and surgical eye specialist, conducts refractive examination as a substantial section of the service he provides to his patients. For this reason there has been some antagonism between the 2 professions with respect to the inclusion of a non-medical optometrical benefit in the national health scheme. Since I have been an elected member of Parliament I have never promoted optometry in isolation. On the contrary, whenever this subject has arisen I have tried to demonstrate as clearly and as fairly as I can the role of ophthamology and optometry in health care. I have always pointed out that although the optometrist has the prime function to correct vision by means of spectacles, contact lenses or by orthoptic methods, he is trained to recognise departures from the normal that could originate from other causes, and in such instances a medical opinion is always recommended to the patient, the interest of the patient being of paramount concern to the optometrist.

The medically trained oculist, of course, has the capacity to diagnose and treat ocular disease by medical and surgical means. Australian ophthamologists have an international reputation of being among the best in the world. It is my opinion that the 2 professions are now working closely together politically as the majority of their members have been, over many years, clinically. I trust that this will continue in the interest of providing the highest possible standards of treatment for the people of Australia who require eye care.

I want to refer now to some aspects of the Bill that we are considering. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) to one or two points that were made in his second reading speech. It is well to remind the Senate that this Bill provides for a benefit to be paid in respect of professional attendance only and it is not a benefit, of course, for the provison of spectacles. I was rather anxious for the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation who is in charge of the Bill in the Senate to inform me of the role of the Minister who will be administering the legislation, in respect to proposed new section 23A.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Which clause is this?

Senator JESSOP:

– It is clause 8 which seeks to insert a new section 23A in Part II of the principal Act. Proposed new section 23A (2) reads:

The common form of undertaking shall provide for the following matters, as well as any other matters that the Minister considers appropriate:

a specification of such of the premises owned by, or in the possession of, the optometrist at which he provides services of a kind to which the undertaking relates as are covered by the undertaking;

I ask the Minister whether this means that the Minister can determine the plan of consulting rooms and facilities that should be provided. I also ask whether the provision applies similarly to doctors’ rooms.

In his second reading speech the Minister says:

Participating optometrists will undertake to accept the assignment of benefits for most consultations with persons with pensioner medical service entitlement, any other low income groups . . .

I would be grateful if the Minister could define more precisely the term ‘any other low income groups’.

Senator Wright:

– Anything under a ministerial salary.

Senator JESSOP:

-Senator Wright draws my attention to another aspect of the matter. Further on in his second reading speech the Minister refers to another matter which gives people some concern, and that is the matter of the number of consultations that a patient ought to have. The Bill recognises that, generally speaking, a patient who wants optometric treatment would require only 2 consultations a year. However, the second reading speech does mention that 9 per cent of optometric patients may require more than 2 consultations and that the optometrist has to certify that in his professional opinion further examinations are necessary. I believe that is quite a proper provision. I am quite certain that the Australian Optometrical Association is very concerned that the profession does not over utilise this scheme. I have the assurance of the President of the Australian Optometrical Association, Mr Ley, and his colleagues on the executive that they are anxious to ensure this does not occur.

Another aspect of the Bill about which the Opposition is concerned relates to the categories, which have been described, under which contact lenses will be approved. The Opposition believes that this sort of restriction should not apply. We believe that the additional cost of contact lenses would be sufficient deterrent to over-utilisation of that service and that this in itself would be sufficient to protect the interests of the taxpayer as regards benefits of that nature. I am a little worried about the type of patient, for example, who is described as having myopia greater than 4.0 diopters in the dominant eye. A young girl of, say, 1 8 years of age who requires a myopic correction of 3.0 diopters could find this restriction somewhat of a psychological disadvantage. In my opinion, this could well be allied to a medical surgical operation, for example, cosmetic breast surgery. This can be a psychological problem. In my view, that type of case ought to be included. I suppose that it could well be allied- perhaps my medical friend on my left can help me with the technical term- to the operation which reduces one ‘s abdominal girth.

Senator Baume:

– -Panniculectomy.

Senator JESSOP:

– In my view and in the view of the Opposition, these things are important and perhaps in future they might be the subject of reconsideration by the Government. I would like some advice on another part of the Bill. The Minister said in his second reading speech:

The common form of undertaking will also state the amount that a participating optometrist may charge, in addition to the normal consultation fee, for a domiciliary visit made at the request of the patient.

Of course, this also applies where the optometrist conducts an examination away from his surgery. The Minister goes on to state:

In a situation where an optometrist with a principal practice in one town visits outlying areas periodically, higher charges are necessarily made to offset the additional costs involved.

I had personal experience of this situation in my own case years ago when I lived in Port Augusta and serviced a large part of northern South Australia. I want to ask the Minister whether any formula has been considered for additional charges in these particular cases. I would appreciate it if he could give me some information on that subject. I was also concerned that mention has not been made specifically of a review of fees for optometric services, although I notice that the Minister in his second reading speech says:

The Bill also provides for the establishment of Optometrical Services Committees of Inquiry and Optometrical Services Review Tribunals.

Apparently, they function in a similar way to the committees of inquiry of the medical profession. So I ask the Minister in addition whether this particular committee will be working in a similar way to the committees of the medical profession and whether there will be a review- I think it is an annual review in the medical profession- in line with the medical fee reviews. Mr President, I have one or two other matters with which I wish to deal. I am afraid that they will take me beyond

I I o’clock. I suggest that I may be permitted to continue my remarks.

Senator Poyser:

- Mr President, I rise to order. Senator Jessop has no right to make this request at this stage. There are still 2 minutes left. Let him talk it out.

Senator JESSOP:

-Mr President, I am very pleased that -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Jessop, do you wish to continue your remarks? Do you ask for leave to continue your remarks?

Senator JESSOP:

- Mr President, I would like to ask for leave to continue my remarks and I hope that you, the President, will recognise that I have a right to continue a little further because I have not had the opportunity to complete my speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– That right will be preserved. Senator Jessop has asked for leave to continue his remarks. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Debate adjourned.

page 2368

ADJOURNMENT

Removal of Official Letters from Treasurer’s Office- Senator Cavanagh: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs

The PRESIDENT:

– In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) tonight has ended speculation about the formation of the Cabinet and Ministry subsequent to the rumours and changes which have been pending, but one factor, of course, was not included in the Prime Minister’s statement this evening. There was no mention of the allegations which were made this morning concerning thefts of letters from the previous Treasurer s office and the transfer of portion of that letter from the Treasury to the Attorney-General’s Department. A great deal of disquiet has been caused in the community as to the propriety of that action and of the people involved. Without developing the matter at any length tonight, I ask the Ministers who are present in the chamber to assure the Senate at some time in the future, hopefully by Tuesday, that the Government will take all necessary action to ascertain whether any improprieties were committed, and if they were to give an assurance that the matter will be publicly dealt with so that the public can be satisfied with the administration which is carried on in their behalf.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I will comment briefly on Senator Hall’s remarks. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) this evening announced that an inquiry will be held into this matter. I am quite sure that every member of the Parliament naturally would be concerned if matters have taken place which in fact should not have taken place. I am quite certain, and Senator Hall may be assured, that the Government will conduct a proper inquiry to ascertain exactly the facts of the matter.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I want to take up a few minutes of the time of the Senate to say how disappointed I am- as I am quite sure are many Aborigines throughout the length and breadth of Australia- at what appears to be our loss of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh. Senator Cavanagh has held the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs for a considerable time. I congratulate him for his achievements in that period and express my deep concern at the transfer of Senator Cavanagh from that portfolio.

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

– We will see some good pictures.

Senator BONNER:

– I would appreciate the indulgence of the Senate and particularly of Government members because I am giving great credit to the man who has held this portfolio for some time. I believe that many Aborigines throughout Australia will be conscious of the loss of a very fine Minister from this portfolio, a Minister who has done a remarkable job for the Aboriginal people.

Senator Poyser:

– Obviously you would vote for him at the next election if you lived in South Australia.

Senator BONNER:

- Senator Poyser should be quiet for a moment while I am giving some credit to a man who has done a great job for the Aboriginal people of this nation. Mr President, I am very concerned at the loss to the Aboriginal people.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I think I should reply, because this will be the last speech I will make as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I thank Senator Bonner for what he has said. I know that a number of Aborigines will regret the move that has been made, but one or two will not. There has been a change since the time, 18 months ago, when a demonstration was held outside Parliament House with placards saying: Cavanagh Out Now’. I think that the attitude has changed today and that during those 18 months there has been an appreciation by the Aboriginal communities of what the Australian Labor Party Government has done in Aboriginal affairs. Some of it was done before my time as Minister. What has been done is now beginning to show results, and there is appreciation for what has been done. Some Aborigines will resent my moving and I am not happy about it. In this portfolio I was dealing with people and I gained some satisfaction from the achievements that were made. When the Government had a success it made certain people happy and I felt that I was achieving something.

This will be my third portfolio. I think I must be the most shifted man in the Ministry. I have always set out to do the best I could in the particular portfolio. I shall try just as hard in my new portfolio to carry out that ideal. I regret that honourable senators do not know of the cooperation there has been between Senator Bonner and me on the many occasions on which he has come to me representing Aborigines, particularly in Queensland. They know him only as never missing an opportunity in this forum to criticise me. They think that that is Senator Bonner; that is Liberal politics, which could corrupt anyone. Nevertheless, he has the interests of his people at heart and he was very helpful to me during my term of office. I thank him for his remarks tonight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.8 p.m.

page 2370

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Medibank (Question No. 438)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Have claim forms been designed and prepared for use in the Medibank health insurance scheme.
  2. Has a decision been taken that 59 million of the forms should be printed.
  3. Do these forms include a space for the number of the cheque issued in payment for the service.
  4. Do the claim forms used by the present health insurance funds include a space for such information.
  5. Is such information important in the reconciliation of accounts following payment for benefits.
  6. How is it intended to reconcile payments by Medibank if the cheque number is not shown on the form.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 33 million have been ordered.
  3. No such provision is necessary: Cheque issue information will be available from computer produced payment schedules.
  4. The claim forms used by a considerable number of registered medical benefits organisations have provision for the entry of the cheque number on the form. The office procedures of most medical funds provide for the cheque number to be entered on the claim form whether or not there is specific provision on the form.
  5. No- not for Commission issued cheques where the Treasury Reconciliation System will be used and details of cheque issues will be provided in magnetic tape form as a byproduct of a computer process.
  6. Reconciliation between presented cheques and cheques issued will be handled automatically by the Treasury Reconciliation System.

Environment: Mercury and Mercurials Levels (Question No. 502)

Senator Jessop:

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

  1. 1 ) Has a survey been made of the natural levels of mercury and mercurials in the Australian environment.
  2. Has a survey been made of the use of mercury and mercurials in Australia.
  3. What, and where, are the losses of mercury and mercurials to the environment in Australia.
  4. Is there any evidence of mercury accumulation in the Australian environment.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)1 am not aware of any large scale surveys into the natural levels of mercury and mercurials in the total Australian environment. Individual projects have been carried out but these have been directed to specific areas of priority such as foodstuffs.

  1. To my knowledge no surveys have been undertaken into the use of mercury and mercurials in Australia. However, mercury has a wide range of applications including use in control instruments, such as thermometers, electric cells, mercury vapour lamps, amalgums for extracting gold and silver from ores, in explosive manufacture, agricultural chemicals such as fungicides and pesticides, in paper manufacture, in dentistry and scientific research.
  2. No figures are available on the losses of mercury and mercurials to the local environment.
  3. In order to determine mercury accumulation in the Australian environment, a continuous monitoring program would be required to examine mercury levels in sediment and in organisms. Natural accumulation of mercury occurs in fish, and considerable research is being undertaken to determine levels of mercury in other foods. However, a continuous monitoring program for the total environment is not being carried out at this time.

Fish: Selenium Levels (Question No. 504)

Senator Jessop:

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

  1. 1 ) Have any measurements been made of selenium levels in Australian fish.
  2. What attempts have been made in Australia to standardise methods used by laboratories testing for mercury.
  3. Do present or proposed regulations include standardisation of analytical methods and require consistent analytical results from independent laboratories.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. Measurements of the selenium levels in Australian fish are being conducted on a routine basis by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories and, to some extent, by the New South Wales Government Analytical Laboratories. Selenium is a difficult metal to detect accurately in foods, as the analytical method commonly used is long and arduous. However, because of a suspected link between selenium content and mercury toxicity, these investigations are regarded as important and will not be restricted to the selenium content of fish only but also to most foods in the Australian diet.
  2. The Food Analysts Sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council has assessed a number of methods for the determination of mercury in fish and has recommended that the method used by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories should be used as the standard method.
  3. Present and proposed regulations do include standardisation of analytical methods for a range of foods and the purpose in setting a standard method is to ensure that independent laboratories using the method as standardised will obtain consistent analytical results. For example, the proposed standard method for the determination of mercury in fish has been selected because of its accuracy and reproducibility.

Medibank (Question No. 509)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Will patients in standard ward beds in public psychiatric hospitals not attract benefits under arrangements being proposed for that part of the Medibank Scheme affecting hospital care.
  2. Do such patients constitute 26 per cent of all those in public beds in Australia; if not, what percentage do they represent,
  3. Will the Minister confirm that there was an undertaking to these patients given in the White Paper produced by the Government prior to the introduction of the Scheme, promising that they would not be discriminated against in relation to access to medical benefits.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Section 24 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 specifically excludes premises which are used, or are to be used, exclusively or principally for the care or treatment of mental illness or mentally defective persons and are under the control of, or the subject of a grant for maintenance from, either the Australian Government or a State government. It should be explained that Medibank was designed basically to replace the existing inadequate health insurance scheme with a more equitable and effective system. In view of the enormity of the task the Government decided not to extend the program initially into wider fields of health care. Consequently, as insurance cover for State mental hospital patients was excluded under the existing National Health’ Act provisions, it was also excluded from Medibank.
  2. As at 30 June 1972, beds in State psychiatric hospitals represented approximately 27 per cent of all beds in general and psychiatric public hospitals in Australia. Comparable information relating to number of patients is not available.
  3. Finally, I am not clear what the honourable senator has in mind when he suggests psychiatric patients are discriminated’ against. From July 1 there will be no patient charges levied against psychiatric hospital patients in South Australia. This will mean New South Wales will be the only State charging psychiatric patients. If this is the discrimination the senator refers to then I must point out the remedy rests solely with the New South Wales Government.

There was no undertaking contained in the White Paper “The Australian Health Insurance Program’ as inferred by the honourable senator. Perhaps the honourable senator was referring to paragraph 4.3: ‘The program will cover all public general hospitals, but not mental hospitals or nursing homes, which are the subject of Australian Government assistance in other ways. There will, however, be no discrimination according to nature of illness, so that the treatment of mental illness in general hospitals will be automatically covered. Incidentally, it should be noted that in all States except New South Wales and South Australia treatment at separate psychiatric hospitals is generally provided free of charge to patients.’

It is emphasised that patients in the psychiatric wards of public general hospitals or in private psychiatric hospitals will be covered by hospital payments under Medibank. However, Australians Governments in the past have regarded the care of patients in State mental institutions as being a State government responsibility. Extension of hospital payments to State psychiatric hospitals under the present circumstances would have the character of financial grants to the States, and would not necessarily benefit the patients concerned. At the same time, in response to approaches by State Health Ministers I wrote to them with certain proposals designed to eliminate the existing charges being raised against these patients. At this stage I am not in a position to advise on the outcome of these initiatives. However, I draw your attention to a Press statement issued by the Australian Ministers for Health following their annual conference in Perth on 8-9 May 197S. It was announced that a working party, comprising representatives from each State as well as from the Australian Departments of Health and Social Security and the Hospitals and Health Services Commission would be formed. The working party would review the present system of financing psychiatric hospitals and consider the closer co-ordination of psychiatric services with the general hospital system. I indicated that I would want the matter of financial offsets considered by the working party.

Imports Statistics (Question No. 512)

Senator Bessell:
TASMANIA

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

As it appears that on imports of products like processed potatoes, statistical information of amounts are not available for some 6 to 7 weeks, by which time, in a sensitive situation, irrevocable damage may well have occurred before either the Minister or the people involved in such an industry can take any action or control measures, will the Minister endeavour to have such figures available on a weekly basis and the release time be made more pertinent to the period under scrutiny.

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

– This question has been taken up with the Commonwealth Statistician and he has supplied advice in the following terms:

The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes monthly imports statistics as follows: total value of imports about 7 days after the end of the month; the value of broad commodity groupings about 1 week later; and statistics of imports of some 900 selected commodities or commodity groupings 6-7 weeks after the end of the month. In addition, a regular reporting service is available which provides to some 2000 subscribers detailed commodity information which may not be published elsewhere, usually about 4-5 weeks after the end of the month.

However, there are over 6200 commodities identified in import statistics and the Bureau ‘s resources would not permit it to provide information for all these commodities on a weekly basis.

National Acoustic Laboratories (Question No. 526)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Ray Piesse, Director of the National Acoustic Laboratories, address a meeting of the Forum for Deaf Education and Welfare held in Sydney on Tuesday, 8 April 1 975.
  2. At that meeting, did Mr Piesse state in a paper which he delivered thtat there were grave deficiencies in the service presently offered by the National Acoustic Laboratories for children with hearing problems.
  3. Did the areas of concern include testing of hearing, the working relationship between audiologists and teachers, training programs for audiologists and teachers, parent education, the selection and fitting of suitable aids, the need for improved ear mould making techniques, the need for more effective checking and maintenance of children’s aids.
  4. Did Mr Piesse state that at least 2 years would be required to remedy these deficiencies in the Acoustic Laboratory services.
  5. Does this indicate the urgent need for available resources to be concentrated in up-grading and improving the standard of child hearing care in Australia.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. In referring to developments in audiology services provided in a school in California visited by a member of his staff Mr Piesse said that certain factors observed in the school program might afford opportunity to provide further additional benefits for Australian children. Following the Laboratories’ aim of keeping in touch with world developments and effecting improvements wherever possible, the factors observe were being carefully evaluated and would be adopted wherever likely to improve the service rendered.
  3. In referring to the ever present concern of the Laboratories to evaluate and improve the service provided, the factors referred to in the question were specifically mentioned by Mr Piesse as areas worthy of study.
  4. No. The reference was to the program to provide high powered behind-the-ear hearing aids to all severely and profoundly deaf children who might benefit as part of the continuing program for the development and provision of an expanded range of aids. Mr Piesse said that this particular part of the program would be completed in 2 years.
  5. No. The Laboratories’ unique system for the selection of the most suitable hearing aid characteristics for the individual child which has been evolved after years of research is considered to be in advance of techniques in use elsewhere in the world. The Laboratories’ method of evaluation of a hearing aid fitting which can be used with children only 9 months of age is thought to be ahead of techniques used elsewhere. As far as is known there are very few countries in the world where binaural fitting of hearing aids is the general practice as it has been in Australia for four years. The Laboratories’ work in these areas has received much overseas interest and commendation.

Medical Insurance (Question No. 530)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Have voluntary health insurance funds proposed a new benefits scale of medical insurance which would cover the gap between doctors’ actual fees and the rebate to be paid under the Government’s health insurance program.
  2. Has the Government refused to approve such proposals; if so, why.
  3. If the Government has not approved proposals to insure against the entire gap between benefit level and actual fees, what has been the reason.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) All medical benefit organisations registered under the National Health Act who wish to provide insurance as from I July 1975 in respect of those portions of medical fees that are in excess of Medibank medical benefits are required under that Act to submit their rules covering such insurance for approval by the Minister for Social Security before they are operative. All such organisations were advised that approval would not be given for insurance proposals which, with Medibank benefits, offered benefits higher than the schedule fee for medical services.

To 22 May 1975 proposals have been received from 15 medical benefit organisations and of these three have been approved. The three that have been approved include one from a major fund in New South Wales which had submitted a proposal, before receiving advice of the basis on which proposals would be approved, to pay benefits for the difference between Medibank benefits and the level of fees recommended by the Australian Medical Association. The fund later amended the proposal to comply with the requirement that fund medical benefits be limited to the difference between Medibank benefits and the schedule fee for medical services.

All but one of the 12 proposals currently being examined contain proposed medical benefits based on the schedule fee and rates of Medibank benefit. The Hospital Benefits Association of Victoria has submitted a proposal to pay medical benefits to cover the ‘gap’ between Medibank benefits and the doctor’s actual charges with a limit equal to 25 per cent of the Medibank benefit. That organisation will be advised that the proposal is not acceptable and will be invited to submit an amended proposal based on the schedule fee.

  1. Proposals based on doctors’ actual charges are unacceptable as they would condone those doctors who charge more than the fees determined by an independent Medical Fees Tribunal established for the purpose of determining appropriate medical fees, and would encourage those who do charge the schedule fee to increase their charges at least up to the level of the sum of Medibank benefits and fund benefits which are available.

Recreation Projects (Question No. 541)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 360 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Senator McClelland:

– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

My answer to Question No. 360 appeared in Hansard (page 2 160) on 3 June 1975.

VIP Aircraft (Question No. 547)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) What are the guidelines laid down for Ministers when they use VIP aircraft on routes also serviced by commercial aircraft.
  2. When were the guidelines last determined.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The guidelines are incorporated in Rules for the Use of VIP Aircraft and VIP Party Travel as tabled in the

Senate by the Minister for Repatriation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence on 6 March 1973. (Hansard pages 154-155 refer.)

VIP Aircraft (Question No. 548)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Defence depart from Launceston Airport on the morning of 30 April 1 975 in a BAC (111) VIP aircraft.
  2. At what time did the aircraft depart.
  3. What was the nearest time an Ansett Airlines of Australia jet aircraft departed what same morning.
  4. What was the nearest time a Trans-Australia Airlines jet aircraft departed that same morning.
  5. What passengers were on board the VIP aircraft.
  6. What was the destination of the VIP aircraft.
  7. What was the cost of the VIP flight.
  8. 8 ) Did that aircraft depart within a few minutes of Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines jet aircraft bound for Melbourne, and was it actually on the runway in between the two commercial jets.
  9. What precluded the Minister from using commercial aircraft on this occasion.
  10. 10) If the Minister was travelling to a destination not served by a convenient commercial service would any public moneys have been saved by his being picked up by VIP aircraft at Melbourne rather than at Launceston.
  11. 1 1 ) If the answer to ( 10) is in the affirmative, what flying time would have been saved.
  12. How much money would have been saved.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  5. Mr Barnard; Mrs Barnard; Mr E. Dwyer; Major General Whitelaw; plus 2 members of the Minister’s staff.
  6. Darwin.
  7. $3,717.34.
  8. Yes, but Transport Department regulations do not permit three aircraft on the runway at the same time. The aircraft were, however, on the taxiway in the order stated.
  9. The Minister would have been unable to meet his commitments by using commercial aircraft.
  10. No.
  11. Not applicable.
  12. Not applicable.

Medibank (Question No. 554)

Senator Baume:

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

How is it intended to identify all children entitled to health insurance cover so that health insurance cards for them can be prepared.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

Family Health Insurance cards have been prepared by Medibank from records supplied by the Department of Social Security, relating to all children for whom Child Endowment is currently being paid to a parent or guardian. These records contain the latest information given to the Department by the parent or guardian.

Changes made to names of children by adoptive parents but which have not been notified to the Department can be corrected by informing Medibank. The Department should, of course, also be notified.

Children who are not living in a family, or who in the opinion of their parent or guardian should have a personal card, may have an application for a card completed on their behalf by the parent, guardian, person or authority responsible for them.

Medical Insurance (Question No. 556)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Have some voluntary health insurance funds sought permission to insure for the actual gap between the real fee charged by doctors and the Medibank benefit payable under the new health insurance proposals.
  2. Has such permission been granted; if not, why has permission been refused.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) All medical benefit organisations registered under the National Health Act who wish to provide insurance as from 1 July 1975 in respect of those portions of medical fees that are in excess of Medibank medical benefits are required under that Act to submit their rules covering such insurance for approval by the Minister for Social Security before they are operative. All such organisations were advised that approval would not be given for insurance proposals which, with Medibank benefits, offered benefits higher than the schedule fee for medical services.

To 22 May 1975 proposals had been received from 15 medical benefit organisations and of these, three had been approved. The three that had been approved included one from a major fund in New South Wales which had at an earlier date submitted a proposal, before receiving advice of the basis on which proposals would be approved, to pay benefits for the difference between Medibank benefits and the level of fees recommended by the Australian Medical Association. The fund amended its proposal to comply with the requirement that fund medical benefits be limited to the difference between Medibank benefits and the schedule fee for medical services and this proposal was approved.

All but one of the 12 proposals currently being examined contain proposed medical benefits based on the schedule fee and rates of Medibank benefit. The Hospital Benefits Association of Victoria has submitted a proposal to pay medical benefits to cover the gap between Medibank benefits and the doctor’s actual charges, with a limit equal to 25 per cent of the Medibank benefit. That organisation will be advised that the proposal is not acceptable and will be invited to submit an amended proposal based on the schedule fee.

Medibank (Question No. 557)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) How is a patient permanently institutionalised in a New South Wales public psychiatric hospital able to benefit under the Medibank scheme.
  2. If such patients on present plans are not to have entitlements to Medibank benefits, is not the booklet misleading in making these particular claims for all Australians.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 would explain to the honourable senator that when the present health insurance scheme was framed, generally State psychiatric or mental institutions did not raise charges. There were no grounds, therefore, for providing benefits to patients accommodated in these institutions free of charge. The subsequent decision to levy charges for such treatment in these institutions was made by the State Governments concerned. It should be noted that notwithstanding the fact all States have the legislative power to charge patients treated in these institutions, only South Australia and New South Wales actually exercise this authority. It is proposed that patients in South Australian mental institutions will not be charged for the first 28 days of their treatment. This means that New South Wales will be the only State charging psychiatric patients for the whole time of their treatment.

It should also be noted that despite repeated requests to the previous government to provide cover for these patients, no action was taken.

Under Medibank the major objective is to provide comprehensive cover against medical and general hospital services to everyone in the community, in contrast to the present inadequate health insurance scheme. It is not misleading to state, as the booklet does, that each Australian can expect to use Medibank at some time during his or her life since it should be obvious that most Australians will receive medical or hospital care at some point in their lives.

Under Medibank patients in psychiatric wards of public general hospitals or in approved private psychiatric hospitals will be covered by hospital payments. In addition any patients permanently institutionalised in a State psychiatric institution in New South Wales who receives treatment outside the institution, will benefit from Medibank. For example a patient transferred to a public general hospital for specialised treatment will receive the same benefits under Medibank as any other person. lam sympathetic towards the plight of psychiatric patients. However, the provision of hospital benefits to include patients in mental institutions would have the character of financial grants to the States and there could be no guarantee that it would be of financial assistance to the patients concerned.

I would like it made known through that the Australian Government has been active in the area of mental health. Over recent years the capital assistance provided by the Australian Government has been responsible for a considerable improvement in the standards of accommodation provided. This assistance is not only restricted to the construction of mental hospitals for the provision of mainly custodial care but has been used for community mental health services such as day hospitals and early treatment centres.

I would again like to draw the honourable senator’s attention to a press statement issued by the Australian Ministers for Health following their annual conference in Perth on 8-9

May 1975, when it was announced that a Working Party, comprising representatives from each State as well as from the Australian Departments of Health and Social Security and the Hospitals and Health Services Commission, would be formed. The Working Party would review the present system of financing psychiatric hospitals and consider the closer co-ordination of psychiatric services with the general hospital system. Included in this review would be the possibility of off-setting general revenue grants to the States for psychiatric institutions.

Medibank (Question No. 560)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Does the booklet ‘Medibank and you’ indicate on page 1 1 that extra hospital charges will be payable for treatment as a private patient.
  2. Is such treatment defined as ‘that is, in other than a standard ward’.
  3. Will those persons who opt for private treatment in hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory be charged $20 extra per day, even if they are in standard wards; if so, does this indicate that extra charges for private patients in the Australian Capital Territory will apply even if patients are treated in a standard ward.
  4. To what extent, is the booklet misleading.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) The relevant paragraphs in the booklet Medibank and you ‘ are as follows:

If you live in a State which is co-operating in the Medibank program (or in the Australian Capital Territory or Northern Territory) and you choose to be treated as a private patient (that is, in other than a standard ward), whether in a public or a private hospital, you will be charged by the hospital for the optional accommodation you have chosen and your doctor may charge you for the medical treatment provided. Of course, if you intend to be treated in a hospital as a private patient, you will need to continue contributing (or begin contributing) to a private hospital insurance fund to qualify for full coverage against hospital accommodation fees.

Medibank subsidies in the co-operating States (and the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory) will reduce by $18 a day the amount against which you will need to take out private hospital insurance for accommodation as a private patient.

The present Australian Government hospital benefit of $2 a day for privately insured patients and 80 cents a day for uninsured patients will continue. Private patients, in States co-operating in the Medibank program and in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, who have taken out private insurance for optional accommodation will therefore receive a total Australian Government benefit of $18 a day. Uninsured private patients in those States (and in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory) will receive a total Australian Government benefit of $ 16.80 a day.

Private patients will also, of course, be able to claim medical benefits from Medibank for the fees charged by their doctors for the treatment provided in hospital. ‘

There are only two standards of accommodation available in public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory; multiple bed wards and single rooms. In practice the multiple bed ward corresponds with intermediate wards in New South Wales and Victoria as regards the access of the medical profession to patients occupying beds in those wards. Over past years medical practitioners in private practice have had unrestricted access to both the multiple bed wards and single rooms for their private patients in Australian Capital Territory hospitals and with the exception of pensioners have usually charged their patients on the usual feeforservice basis.

As from 1 July 197S the charge to patients in multiple bed wards who wish to be treated by their own doctor will be reduced from $30 a day to $20 a day as the result of higher Medibank subsidies. The new charges, of course, will be substantially subsidised by the Government and will not reflect the true cost to the hospital of providing the accommodation and associated hospital services.

Under the new arrangements patients may also choose to be treated as hospital patients free of charge by doctors who are remunerated by the hospital. Such patients, of course, will also be accommodated in beds in the multiple bed wards unless their medical condition is such as to require a single room or they wish to pay to have preferred accommodation.

The only difference between the Australian Capital Territory and States hospitals arrangements for Medibank is that in the States it is usual for standard ward and intermediate ward accommodation to be physically separated whereas in the Australian Capital Territory they may be adjacent.

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 577)

Senator Jessop:

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

Will the Minister provide details of the total grants made by the present Government to all South Australian Electorates under the Australian Assistance Plan.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

Since the inception of the Australian Assistance Plan a total of $327,930 has been provided under the Plan to Regional Councils for Social Development established in South Australian electorates. Funds have been provided under the following grants in the full 1973-74 financial year and to 3 1 May 1 975 in the present financial year.

Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 578)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

Will the Minister provide details of the total grants made by the present Government to all South Australian Electorates through the Department of Tourism and Recreation.

Senator McClelland:

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

The following grants have been made by the present Government to all South Australian Electorates through the Department of Tourism and Recreation:

An Australian Government grant of $3,196,000 will help provide a comprehensive, modern community centre at Angle Park (Electorate of Port Adelaide). {:#subdebate-59-14} #### Medibank (Question No. 589) {: #subdebate-59-14-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are the costs of the medical portion of the Medibank program which have been given by the Minister's Department worked out on an accrual, or a cash pay-out basis. 1. If these are on an actual cash pay-out basis, what is the average time expected to elapse between the date of service and the date the Medibank benefit will be paid. 2. What is the estimated cost of paying Medibank medical benefits in the six months from 1 July 1975 to 31 December 1975, split by the ten parts of the medical benefits schedule. 3. What is the estimated increase in utilisation of services per head of population for each part of the medical benefits schedule in the first six months. 4. What allowance has been made for the difference in consulting time scales recommended by the Australian Medical Association and allowed for benefit in the medical benefits schedule. 5. Specifically, what allowance in cost has been made for general practitioners who charge for a long consultation (Items 25 and 26) when a consultation has in fact lasted between 15 and 20 minutes. 6. What is the estimated cost of paying Medibank benefits in the six months from 1 January 1976 to 30 June 1 976, split by the ten parts of the medical benefits schedule. 7. What increase in utilisation per head of population is used in the costings from 1 January 1976 to 30 June 1976, split by each part of the medical benefits schedule. {: #subdebate-59-14-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The estimates issued by the Minister for Social Security on 1 6 March 1 975 were on an ' accrual ' basis. Estimates that will be prepared for the 1975-76 Budget will be on a 'cash payout' basis. It is anticipated that there will be an average lapse of time between date of service and date Medibank medical benefit is paid of one month for claims lodged direct on the Commission by practitioners, and two months in respect of persons incurring expenses who seek reimbursement of paid accounts or pay doctor cheques for unpaid accounts. 1. and (7) The cost of Medibank medical benefits is affected by which States enter into hospital agreements and when. The estimates issued by the Minister for Social Security on 16 March 1975 were on the basis that South Australia and Tasmania, and possibly Queensland, would enter the Medibank Hospital Plan on 1 July 1975. However, there is still some uncertainty as to when the States of New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia will also be in the Medibank Hospital Plan. When this is known, it will be possible to make estimates of the cost of total Medibank medical benefits. Estimates are normally prepared for financial year period and not dissected by parts of the medical benefits schedule. 2. and (8) An overall allowance of 5 per cent estimated increase in basic utilisation of medical services per head of population as between 1974-75 and 1975-76 was used in estimates issued on 16 March 1975. 3. and (6) Allowance is made only for the services that are listed in the medical benefits schedule. Items 3 to 66 specify the durations of time relevant for medical benefit purposes.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 June 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750605_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant