View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
10 September 1975

29^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
- Pensions and Pensioner Telephone Concessions
- Baltic States
- Fraser Island
- Australian Government Insurance Corporation
- Australian Government Insurance Corporation
- Australian Government Insurance Corporation
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- FERTILISER BOUNTY
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE
QUESTION
- TAX REFUNDS
QUESTION
- DRUG CARRIERS
QUESTION
- ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER
QUESTION
- NOMAD AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- A.C.T. CRIMINAL CODE
QUESTION
- BEEF INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- RECORDING OF POLICE TELEPHONE CALLS
QUESTION
- INTENSIVE CARE SUBSIDY
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE
QUESTION
- OVERSEAS POSTING OF MAIL
QUESTION
- SALARIES OF HEALTH INSURANCE EXECUTIVES
QUESTION
- PAPER MANUFACTURE
QUESTION
- ROCHE PRODUCTS, SWITZERLAND
QUESTION
- SUPERPHOSPHATE
QUESTION
- WAGE INDEXATION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION SERVICE
QUESTION
- MITERS SCHEME
QUESTION
- RELATIONS BETWEEN ABORIGINES AND POLICE
QUESTION
- ABORIGINAL HEALTH: TRACHOMA
QUESTION
- HOUSING
QUESTION
- EXHIBITION OF ANCHOR OF THE ENDEAVOUR
QUESTION
- SCHOOL LEAVERS
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
QUESTION
- TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES
QUESTION
- ETHNIC RADIO
DAIRYING RESEARCH COMMITTEE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE
TASMAN BRIDGE RESTORATION BILL (No. 2) 1975
- Second Reading
DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING
SITTING OF THE SENATE
QUESTION
- BUDGET 1975-76
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
QUESTION
- BUDGET 1975-76
UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION AGREEMENT BILL 1975
LOAN BILL 1975
- Second Reading
ASSENT TO BILLS
STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1975
- Third Reading
LAND ACQUISITION ORDINANCE: TERRITORY OF COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS
- Ministerial Statement
EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1975
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Newspaper Reports
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Price of Aviation Fuel (Question No. 341)
- Repatriation Hospitals (Question No. 454)
- Rehabilitation Services (Question No. 517)
- First Class Air Travel (Question No. 729)
- First Class Air Travel (Question No. 730)
- Departmental Journalist (Question No. 732)
- Departmental Journalists (Question No. 754)
- Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 789)

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

page 661

PETITIONS

Pensions and Pensioner Telephone Concessions

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 8 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That the decisions of the Australian Government-

To depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and

To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decisions (a) and (b), and to determine

That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1 972 policy speech, and

That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a P.M.S. card.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following pet ition from 256 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

On the day of remembrance of the deportations without trial of the inhabitants of the Baltic countries, we, the undersigned ask the Senate to request the Government to revoke de jure recognition of the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania by the Soviet Union.

According to the Charter of the United Nations the Baltic peoples are entitled to self-determination and any foreign occupation of these countries is unlawful and thus should not be recognised in law.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Fraser Island

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 53 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:

That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

that the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and

that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

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:

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
1. a ) 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.
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 Chaney.

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:

Add to the taxpayers burden.
Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
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 Chaney.

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 ) That Parliament should pass the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.
That an Australian Government Insurance Corporation will benefit all Australian women and men by offering equal opportunity for employment and insurance cover.
That there is a need to establish in Australia National Interest Insurance so that cover is available against natural disasters.
That the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will fairly compete with the general and life insurance companies thereby benefiting the industry and the policy holders.

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

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

Petition received.

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. I understand that a special meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council was held last week to discuss the problems of the beef industry. Can the Minister outline the outcome of the meeting?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Such a meeting was held last Friday- actually in this chamberspecifically for the purpose of considering the beef crisis in Australia. A proposal was put forward by the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, Mr Crawford, for a floor price scheme for beef. That was quite widely reported in the press. An alternative proposal was also put forward by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries. It was not possible at the meeting to reach unanimity and such schemes would require the co-operation of all States. One State in particular was quite adamantly opposed to any floor price scheme being introduced for beef. The result has been that the Council will await the outcome of the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on the beef industry, which I currently expect my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland to have in his hands within a fortnight.

Senator Wright:

– Which State was opposed?

Senator WRIEDT:

page 664

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration and refers to the statement of the Minister yesterday that unemployment ‘could approach 400 000 members of the labour force in 1976’. I ask: When was that departmental estimate made available to the Minister and to the Government? Was the information available to the Government prior to the preparation of the Budget? If so, why was it not incorporated in the Budget? Does the Minister intend to rest upon the expenditures and initiatives of the Budget? Alternatively, does the Minister intend to introduce supplementary measures? Are the basis and strategy of the Budget not now, on the Minister’s figures, in ruins only 3 weeks after the introduction of the Budget?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The answer to the last part of the honourable senator’s question is no. The information on which I answered a.question yesterday became available to me yesterday. If the honourable senator were to read the Budget, and its accompanying papers carefully he would see that the. prognostications contained in my answer to the question yesterday are not necessarily inconsistent with the forecasts in the Budget. The Treasurer’s speech on the Budget, in effect, predicted that there would be a gradual reduction in the unemployment figures over the first 6 months of next year, culminating in a figure of some 225 000 unemployed at the end of the current financial year.

It does not take much of an examination of the figures to ascertain that implicit in that figure is a figure something like the one that I announced yesterday for unemployment in January because it was well known to the Treasurer and it was well known to anybody who gave any thought to these matters that there would be a record number of school leavers coming onto the labour market in January and February. The figure of 400 000 that I quoted yesterday, which I admitted was only an estimate, is not a figure that will last for any great length of time. After all, the figures relating to the unemployed go up temporarily every January. We hope that there will be a rapid absorption of large numbers of unemployed into the work force over the first few months of next year. I repeat that there was no contradiction- a minor disparity only- between the figures that I gave yesterday and the figures that are implicit in the Budget.

In any event, if the country were to be favoured with a Fraser budget instead of a Hayden budget the unemployment figure of 400 000 almost certainly would be doubled because Mr Fraser has announced that he would propose to cut an extra $1 billion off Government expenditure. If honourable senators opposite were to do their sums they must understand the implications for unemployment in such a drastic cut. The Budget attempted to draw some sort of a balance between getting the economy back on the road and making some attack on inflation. It was a responsible effort to achieve both of those aims. The alternative proposed by the Opposition would produce a much worse result. So we see no need to recast the Budget. Far from the Budget being in tatters, we believe that time has proved that it is a responsible Budget and that time will prove that it is the best Budget possible in the present economic circumstances.

page 665

QUESTION

RECORDING OF POLICE TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. Is he aware that several days ago I rang Superintendent Daniels at the Western Australian police headquarters in Perth and found that at 1 5 second intervals there was a beep tone which, according to the Postal Department’s manual, indicates that the conversation is being recorded? Is it a fact that telephones used by Western Australian police officers are subject to interception and, if so, how many, at whose request and on whose authority?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I can answer only in respect of those provisions of the Telecommunications Act and of the general by-laws which refer to approved connector recorders, and this answer relates also to questions which have been put by the honourable senator to my colleague, Senator James McClelland, who drew my attention to this matter yesterday. I have seen the Press comments about it. Included in the Acts and by-laws of the Commission are provisions in similar terms to those which existed in the previous legislation, including authorisation to lease approved connector recorders to any subscribers. By-law 19 and by-law 216 particularly refer to these devices. The policy that this Government is applying in respect of the matter originated as far back as 1964, when the legislation was introduced by the then Government. It provided that an approved recording device could be leased to any subscriber but that there had to be a distinctive recording tone or a beep.

Honourable senators may have seen in their telephone directories instructions relating to the use of a telephone. Under the heading ‘Learn to recognise these tones ‘ it is stated:

Recording tone: a short ‘beep’ tone heard on your telephone line about every IS seconds means that the person with whom you are speaking is recording the conversation. If you do not want a record made of what you are saying, ask the person with whom you are talking to disconnect the recording machine. When he disconnects, the signal will no longer be heard.

In respect of the latter part of the honourable senator’s question, any department is dealt with on the same basis as an ordinary subscriber. 1 am informed that applications have been made by the Western Australian Police Force and approval has been given to install these devices. The only authority which can approve their installation is now the Australian Telecommunications Commission, which was formerly the Australian Post Office. At the present time the police department has a number of these devices installed and I understand that one of them is connected to the telephone of the inspector concerned.

Senator McINTOSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that police officers in Western Australia have recording devices attached to their telephones by the order of their superior officers, the permission of the superior officers would be required to remove those devices. What protection is afforded to the ordinary person who telephones such an officer?

Senator BISHOP:

– That question is one that I cannot answer. It may be one that should be directed to Senator James McClelland, who represents the Attorney-General. Under the Australian Telecommunications Commission Act and by-laws, which are the same as those which applied under the old Act and regulations relating to the Postal Department, there is power to grant approval for the use of various connector recorders. There are other powers which may be administered by the Attorney-General under another Act, and I think that the question the honourable senator asks me covers an area into which I cannot intrude. It might be better for him to discuss the matter with the appropriate Minister.

page 666

QUESTION

INTENSIVE CARE SUBSIDY

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the hardship which will be felt by patients in Victorian nursing homes arising from the decision to peg the maximum intensive care subsidy at $109.90 from 1 November 1975? Does the Minister understand that the Commonwealth-approved fees for Victorian nursing homes which provide the required standard of care have resulted in an average weekly fee of $171? Is the Minister able to offer any review of this decision? What is the Government ‘s policy with regard to the recommendations made in the report of the Hospital and Allied Services Advisory Council?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am aware that there is hardship in this area. I am aware that there is hardship in a great many areas. I do not think the social welfare which is provided in this country, not only in this regard but also in a great many other regards, is anything like what ought to be provided in a country as rich as Australia. I think Senator Guilfoyle knows why we pegged this figure. We pegged it because we have been cutting back on public spending to the best of our ability and this is unfortunately one of the areas which have been affected. Particular hardships are constantly being reviewed by me and by officers of both the departments which I administer. If Senator Guilfoyle can provide me with some specific instances which she thinks should warrant my personal ministerial intervention, I will so intervene. All I can undertake to do in the meantime is to tell her that I am aware of the hardship, that I am watching what is happening in this area, as is my Department, and that as soon as we possibly can we will do something to improve the situation.

page 666

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to the Budget Speech statement by the Leader of the Opposition that he would abolish the Australian Legal Office in the event of the Opposition becoming the government. I ask the Minister whether he can tell the Senate about the survey conducted by Australian Nationwide Opinion Poll and whether that survey indicates widespread community support for the Australian Legal Aid Office? Will the survey results be made available to the Senate?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Knowing the interest which the Opposition and especially some of its legal members take in all the activities of the Australian Legal Aid Office, I had prepared some figures on the survey which has been referred to by the honourable senator. This was a survey conducted by the Australian Nationwide Opinion Poll- a poll which sometimes comes up with results adverse to the present governmentcovering a wide range of matters. The poll indicated that 94 per cent of Australians consider that there is a need for the Australian Legal Aid Office. On a party basis- I think this is particularly interesting to the gentlemen opposite who are so eagerly watching public opinion at the moment- the figures are 95 per cent Labour Party supporters and 94 per cent LiberalCountry Party supporters. Those who saw no disadvantages at all in the Australian Legal Aid Office scheme were 7 1 per cent, whilst only 3 per cent of all people opposed the office for what might be called Party philosophical reasons. The ANOP described these figures as quite extraordinary and stated that seldom do research figures show such massive convergence on an issue. Other figures in the survey are highly significant. Just over one in three people- 36 per cent- see themselves as likely, or quite likely, to seek the help of the ALAO. A further 40 per cent see themselves as possibly seeking the help of the ALAO. These figures hold throughout the range of economic circumstances. Thus almost 2 persons in every five in households whose incomes exceed $10,000 per annum say they would be likely or quite likely to use the services of the ALAO. Only 2 persons in every eleven say that they are not at all likely to do so. The point is of course that the Australian people across economic and party boundaries not only recognise the need in an abstract way for the ALAO-

Senator Wright:

– It is very extraordinary with a question without notice to have a written answer.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I acknowledge that I prepared myself expecting a question from somebody such as yourself, senator. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have been very curious about a survey which is favourable to the ALAO. One-third of those polled see themselves as actually or potentially seeking its help. That confirms the expert advice which the Government obtained from the Australian Legal Aid Review Committee and the Commissioner on Law and Poverty. Currently the office is handling inquiries at the rate of 1 4 000 per month and that figure is still growing. As to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, the report of the Australian Nationwide Opinion Poll will be made available to honourable senators immediately following the recess.

– I hope that my comments this morning will get wide publicity. I will try to get the Commission to define it. Maybe wide publicity might be given to the Opposition’s viewpoint about the extent to which it would subsidise the operations of the 2 commissions. I have probed this matter and I have run it in this place. Nobody has yet said: ‘Yes, we will put in $100m’. All that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack said the other night was that he might consider re-imposing the television and broadcast listeners’ licences to get some of the money to reduce the tariffs; $67m. We have not done it.

page 668

QUESTION

SALARIES OF HEALTH INSURANCE EXECUTIVES

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation: In view of the current interest, both in top level salaries and in the cost of health insurance programs, can the Minister confirm that the Director of the Hospital Contribution Fund of Australia in New South Wales, Mr Turner, and the General Manager of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd in New South Wales, Mr Cade, have recently had salary increases raising their annual earnings from $3 1 ,500 to $50,000? Can the Minister present the Senate with a run down of the salaries and allowances of executives of all or any of the major private health insurance funds?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, Mr President, I have in fact noticed that these gentlemen are now receiving salaries of $50,000 a year. I have noticed also that those newspapers which, whenever a rise in parliamentary salaries takes place, refer to a pay grab have not referred to any pay grab by these gentlemen; nor, indeed, when they refer to a pay grab by coal miners or members of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union have they ever felt prompted to remind their readers of the salaries which are being received by these individuals in hospital or medical benefits funds. The funds are not obliged under the National Health Act to give me that information but I think that this is a matter of public interest and I intend to write to the funds and ask them for details of the salaries and allowances which their executives receive and of any recent changes in the salaries and allowances.

I think these are matters that ought to be known publicly. Our salaries are known publicly and I think these executives’ salaries ought to be known publicly as well. They are functioning under the National Health Act and I believe that the people are entitled to know what they are getting when they pay their money. I have noted also how the officials of these funds have said that they have a very keen sense of public responsibility. I am sure that with such a keen sense of public responsibility they will feel a responsibility to the public to make this information available.

page 668

QUESTION

PAPER MANUFACTURE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Postmaster-General whether it is a fact that Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd of Burnie recently have had to lay off considerable numbers of employees as a result of production cuts caused by overseas competition. Is it a fact that contracts were let recently by the former Postal Department for the purchase of $2m worth of paper for use in new telephone books? Is it a fact that of those contracts $1.5m relates to a Canadian multinational, MacMillan Bloedel Pty Ltd, and only $278,000 to Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd? Why could all of the paper not have been purchased in Australia, thereby preserving Australian employment opportunities?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen reports which purport to claim that a committee of the ACTU has made a decision which will be put to the full meeting of the ACTU next week and which it is alleged amounts to a rejection of the Government’s wage indexation scheme, but I do not accept that such a construction can be put on what I have seen reported in the Press about this matter. I do not claim to have seen the full text of the alleged resolution, but nothing that I have seen supports the proposition that the Executive of the ACTU is refusing to co-operate with the Government’s wage indexation policy. The tax changes introduced by the Government in the Budget were very considerable and constituted a major social reform. The full implementation of the recommendations of the Mathews Committee may have been desirable but would have been, from the point of view of the management of the economy, totally irresponsible. In the circumstances, the major reform of the tax scales has been welcomed by the ACTU. The submission of its advocate in the national wage case only last Friday was quite unequivocal. At the hearing the advocate for the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Jolly, stated:

The trade union movement hence understands and accepts the decision of the Australian Government to radically reform the personal tax schedule rather than introduce tax indexation this year, both reforms being out of the question financially. We accept the lack of tax indexation this year after noting that Mr Hayden has referred to the fact that indexing of the new scale will thus be available as an option next year’.

Mr Jolly also stated:

So far as this year is concerned, I mention that the new scale will actually reduce marginal tax rates of taxpayers on average weekly earnings by more than would be the case if the present scale were indexed. That is, what we propose will produce a better result than tax indexation so far as the ‘ marginal tax bite ‘ is concerned.

page 670

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION SERVICE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Media whether he has seen an article in today’s Daily Telegraph in which it is stated that the journalists employed by the Australian Information Service are to concentrate on publicising the Government and its policies within Australia at a cost of at least $6m to the Australian taxpayers. Are the matters stated correct? If not, will the Minister state the facts in relation to the directive given to the journalists and to the committee now looking at an internal role for the Australian Information Service, and also the estimated cost of this sneaky Government propaganda exercise?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen the article to which the honourable senator refers. I do not know whether the details set out in the article are correct. I understand that my colleague, Dr Cass, was asked a question in another place in relation to this matter at question time this morning. Dr Cass has said that he will be making a statement on the matter in the near future. I therefore suggest that we await Dr Cass ‘s reply on the matter.

page 670

QUESTION

MITERS SCHEME

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport:

Can he say whether the program under the MITERS scheme has been approved for South Australia? Will he inform honourable senators what amounts were allocated for 1974-75 and for the current financial year?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The MITERS scheme is, of course, the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements scheme, funds for which have been provided to most of the States. In 1974-75 a total of $1.5m was allocated to South Australia out of a total of $8m which was distributed through the various States. This financial year another $ 1.5m has been allocated to South Australia. However, additional funds might be forthcoming as a result of the extra $64m provided for roads in this year’s Budget. Discussions on the division of the amount as between categories are still proceeding.

page 670

QUESTION

RELATIONS BETWEEN ABORIGINES AND POLICE

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs sighted Press releases in which solicitors involved with the Aboriginal Legal Service have called for a royal commission into relationships between the Aboriginal community and the police forces? Will the Minister inform the Senate what action he intends to take through his Government to institute a nationwide royal commission into the alleged discrimination by law enforcement agencies against Aboriginal people?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-I have seen Press reports. I have also seen a copy of the report by 18 lawyers from New South Wales on allegations about police relations with Aborigines. I have also seen a Press statement by the Minister in which he supports the appointment of a royal commission. He is looking at the matter of a royal commission at the present time. I have also made a statement that while I would not be opposed to a royal commission I have some doubts as to its value in relation to the general, overall accusations against the police. I do not accept, from my experience, that policemen simply go out to end boredom at weekends by bashing up Aborigines. I do not think the accusations can be substantiated. When I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I found it more suitable to set up inquiries into particular incidents which occurred. A royal commission was set up to inquire into the incident which occurred at Laverton in Western Australia. We hope that the results of that inquiry will be fruitful and that better relations will be established between the police and the Aborigines. This is one of the big problems. We also face the constitutional problem of whether the Commonwealth has the right to establish an inquiry into the behaviour of State police. Whilst the Commonwealth has a right to look after the interests of the Aborigines, some restrictions are placed on it so far as making inquiries into the actions of State police is concerned. It would be far better to hold such an inquiry with the co-operation of the States, but the responsible Ministers in the 2 States concerned, Queensland and New South Wales, are opposed to the holding of such an inquiry.

page 671

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HEALTH: TRACHOMA

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: Can he advise the Senate of any initiatives or proposals that are currently being considered for the treatment of the disastrous effects of trachoma amongst Aborigines?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The Minister for Health recently gave me some information relating to efforts to eradicate trachoma which, as Senator Keeffe has said, is a disastrous disease. It is predominantly found in the arid areas of Australia. Its incidence is much higher amongst Aborigines than it is amongst white Australians. The Department of Health did draw attention to the problem of trachoma in a statement which it made to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. At that time discussions were already in progress between the Department of Health and the College of Ophthalmologists, the purpose of which was to develop some proposal aimed at minimising the effects of this disease. I understand that only yesterday discussions were held with a representative of the College of Ophthalmologists for this purpose.

Any proposal that the Australian Government decides on in this matter can be developed only in consultation with the State health authorities. We hope that constructive suggestions on this matter can be put to the States in the near future. In the meantime, as far as the development of means for the eradication of the effects of trachoma is concerned, it is hoped to involve as many Aboriginal organisations as possible, including the National Aboriginal Congress and the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, to ensure that as far as possible there is a 100 per cent coverage of all the people who are concerned. We feel that this is something in which the Aboriginal organisations themselves not only could but should play a role as this is a disease which primarily affects their people- at least, much more than it does any other section of the Australian people.

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Special Minister of State: Has it been the practice of the Industries Assistance Commission to release draft reports in respect of some of the inquiries that it has undertaken? Will the Minister agree that the release of these draft reports enables all sections of the industry involved, including the trade union movement, to comment on its findings before final reports are presented to the Minister by the Industries Assistance Commission? Will the Minister consider asking the Industries Assistance Commission to look at this matter to see whether the principles of releasing draft reports can be further extended?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Industries Assistance Commission’s practice of releasing draft reports is a comparatively recent innovation. The first draft report released by the

Commission for public comment was in connection with the aluminium industry. To date the Commission has released only certain draft reports, in the generality involving the larger inquiries it has undertaken, and has used the release of those draft reports as a trial of its new system. From the comments that have come to me from a number of quarters, particularly from industry quarters, I believe that this development by the IAC has proved very successful. It has been well received by witnesses who have appeared before the IAC at its inquiries, as well as by other parties who may be interested in a particular report. For those reasons I have asked Mr Rattigan, the Chairman of the Commission, to consider adopting this practice generally because I consider that the advantages apply to all reports.

I can tell the honourable senator that I have recently also had general discussions with members of the Temporary Assistance Authority. Whilst there is no provision in the Act at present for the Temporary Assistance Authority to present a report to the Parliament on its activities, I have suggested to it that it should present a report. I have suggested that it should do so by about the middle of November of this year so that the report will be available to the Parliament and be able to be considered by the Parliament before the end of this sessional period. Henceforth I hope the Authority will see its way clear to present an annual report as at 30 June of each financial year.

page 672

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-On 3 September, Senator

Marriott asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, 3 questions concerning the carriage by Trans-Australia Airlines of passengers free of charge. In respect to the first 2 questions I inform the honourable senator that this information is considered by TAA to be commercially confidential because of its possible value to competitors. However, I can advise him that most free of charge travel is on a space available’ basis. Also, in the minority of cases, where firm bookings are required these are directed to those services which are not at peak times so that paying passengers will not be turned away.

I might add that free of charge travel on TAA is strictly controlled and is authorised only by senior TAA executives after a careful evaluation of each particular case. Examples of the free of charge travel that may be authorised are:

Staff of travel agents on familiarisation tours for promotional reasons involving TAA.
Gift tickets to charities.
Consultants and other persons travelling on matters which are directly associated with TAA activities.

The third question asked on what basis is free travel available to TAA employees and their families. I am able to inform the Senate that after 10, 20 and 25 years of service TAA employees are entitled to 2 free travel tickets for return flights of 800 kilometres, or to the nearest capital city from which they are based, and there are also related family concessions. I am also advised that employees of Ansett Airlines of Australia are entitled to comparable free travel benefits.

page 673

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On 27 August Senator Davidson directed a question to me in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for the Media in relation to the subject of ethnic radio. Senator Davidson’s question and my reply to that question appear at page 277 of Hansard of 27 August 1975. I undertook in my response to Senator Davidson at that time to obtain additional information from my colleague the Minister for the Media. I am now further advised as follows: The honourable senator will recall that I stressed in my original reply to his question that it was necessary to consider the personnel of new advisory committees and to organise staffing, programs, etc. in order to keep station 2EA and 3EA on the air. Since then the personnel of the national committee and of management committees for the Sydney and Melbourne stations have been announced. The National Director is Mr Brian White, a consultant to the Department of the Media, and a small group of people have been seconded from the Department to provide administrative support. The hours of broadcasting and the program content of both stations are being extended considerably.

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Wheeldon requesting his discharge from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating Senator Gietzelt to be a member of the Committee.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland)- by leave- agreed to:

That Senator Wheeldon be discharged from attendance on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and that Senator Gietzelt be appointed a member of that Committee.

page 673

TASMAN BRIDGE RESTORATION BILL (No. 2) 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:

Honourable senators will recall that on 1 7 April 1975 I introduced a Bill to provide for the restoration of the Tasman Bridge following its collapse into the Derwent River after the S.S. ‘Lake

Illawarra’ had collided with it. The Bill was passed by both Houses of the Parliament and received the Royal Assent on 19 May 1975. The Tasman Bridge Restoration Act 1975 provided for the establishment of a joint Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission to superintend and direct the combined salvage and rebuilding operations.

Honourable senators will also recall that shortly after the disaster, the Australian and Tasmanian Governments agreed to establish a joint expert advisory committee on a second Derwent crossing. This committee recommended, inter alia, that concurrently with repairs to the Tasman Bridge, provision could be made for it to be widened to provide a fifth traffic lane. Acceptance of this and other recommendations of the committee was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Premier in a joint statement on 20 June. It is proposed to make use of the roadway both on the eastern and western side of the gap in the Bridge for fabrication of some elements of the new superstructure and for erection work. It is therefore necessary for the widening and reconstruction work to be closely co-ordinated and it is considered essential for both projects to be under the control of the one authority in order to avoid difficulties which could arise if 2 authorities were to be operating in the same area at the same time.

Accordingly, the Prime Minister agreed with the Premier of Tasmania that the work involved in widening the Bridge should be undertaken by the Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission and that the Government of Australia would meet the cost of this work estimated to be $3m. The Australian Government, at the time of the Bridge disaster, undertook to reimburse the State of Tasmania for the full amounts of expenditure incurred by it and its authorities which are accepted as attributable to the Bridge collapse and reasonable. The Government has already provided significant assistance to Tasmania for a wide variety of emergency measures which have alleviated the hardship being experienced by the residents of Hobart, has provided materials necessary for a temporary crossing of the Derwent, and has agreed to meet the cost of constructing a second Hobart Bridge. The Government believes that the expenditure proposed in the Bill now before the Senate is in keeping with the spirit of its commitment to Tasmania.

The Bill now before the Senate provides for approval of a supplementary agreement between Australia and Tasmania to structurally modify the Tasman Bridge to accommodate 5 lanes of traffic concurrently with the restoration of the

Bridge to full operational condition. The agreement empowers the Commission to perform any functions additional to its present role to enable it to complete its task, subject to the same conditions and powers it exercises under the Tasman Bridge Restoration Act 1975. 1 should point out to honourable senators that funds for this work are provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 under division 964 item 03. The works proposed will greatly enhance the carrying capacity of the Tasman Bridge when reconstruction is completed and will do much to reduce traffic congestion in the period between reconstruction of the Tasman Bridge and completion of construction of a second crossing. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 674

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Consideration resumed from 9 September, on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That, unless otherwise ordered, on Thursdays when Estimates Committees are programmed to meet, the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 12 noon.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 674

SITTING OF THE SENATE

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, in view of the fact that there is a luncheon at 12.30 p.m. for Mrs Suzman of South Africa and that Senator Sheil is about to resume his remarks in the Budget debate, I suggest the sitting of the Senate be suspended until the ringing of the bells.

The PRESIDENT:

– The sitting of the Senate is suspended until the ringing of the bells.

Sitting suspended from 12.20p.m. to 3p.m.

page 674

QUESTION

BUDGET 1975-76

Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Senate take note of the Papers.

Upon which Senator Withers had moved by way of amendment-

At the end of motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Budget fails to tackle Australia’s economic crisis because:

1 ) it does not provide an adequate program to defeat inflation;

) it does not relieve unemployment;

it does not restore confidence in the private sector of the economy;

it does not provide real tax relief to provide a proper basis for wage and salary restraint; and

5 ) it fails to restrain Government spending ‘.

I do not think the honourable senator was reading his speech in the strict sense of the word. I did not see him hold the speech up in his hands to read it. He was glancing down at his desk and then looking at the Chair and to other senators. I would like the Senate to be tolerant on this matter. A senator may like to refresh his memory on points and carry notes with him. On the other hand, every senator has the right to draw attention to this standing order if he feels that it has been transgressed. I will rule in that way.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

-Thank you, Mr President. Before continuing my remarks I would like to thank the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) for the courtesy he showed me before lunch in granting the lifting of the Senate so that my speech would not be interrupted again. For the benefit of Senator Cavanagh, I should like to tell him that all the notes I have here are my own work and if he calls them copious notes he has a different idea of notes from mine. After the very nice lunch we had for Mrs Suzman I perhaps feel a bit more kindly disposed towards the world and maybe we will treat the Budget a little more kindly, too.

As I was saying last night, Mr President, this Budget can be nothing more than a crude hoax. Undoubtedly it has taken a lot of preparation and it has cost a lot, too. It is a very clever political document, but certainly it bears no relation to reality. For example, the Government was granted money last July to carry it through till November. It has already spent all that money and more, and right now many Commonwealth departments are in debt and asking for time to pay. So how can the Budget relate to anything? I say the Budget is a cruel, costly and useless hoax. Far from relieving inflation, this Budget is likely to make it worse. Taxes have been increased, no matter what the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has said. After all, he is only the newest Treasurer. This is the third Budget presented by this Government and by many different Treasurers. Indeed, one Treasurer did not even present a Budget. But the lessons from the first 2 Budgets have not been learned.

As shown by the figures in the Budget, the situation with regard to the taxes received has been reversed from that in previous years. The taxes received from companies and self-employed people have been constantly reduced over the last 3 years, and the taxes received from wage earners have gone up and up and up until now 3 times more tax paid by wage earners is being received by this Government than before. This means that an opposite situation obtains at the moment: Wages and taxes have gone up but the profits of business have come down. The reversal is indicative of the massive fall in profits of the private enterprise taxpaying section of the community. The profits have been transferred into wages and the Government has made a tax grab of those wages while crumpling the business that earns the profits. When profits fall, taxes fall, and the sooner that this Government learns this the better, if it wishes to pursue the withering policies it has.

If the Government thinks that it can feed and grow on inflation it is living in a fool’s paradise. The Government has used inflation as a weapon- a very effective one too- to destroy our means of exchange- our money. It is a weapon which disrupts families initially by forcing mothers out to work for money and eventually by undermining the basic security of the home. Inflation has been a devastating weapon cruelling the business community. How can anyone budget to develop a business when there can be no accurate forecasting of future costs? On the other hand, because of competition private enterprise operates on a very small margin of profit but not a large one, as the deceitful argument of socialists supposes. When the massive armament of government is turned against the delicate flower of private enterprise, then it rapidly wilts and this is what has happened in Australia. Our private enterprise is struggling to survive. Governments do not create wealth; they consume it. This Government is consuming the people’s wealth and it is consuming it for no useful purpose. We are being researched, investigated, controlled, planned for and directed beyond all bounds of reason. This Government has abrogated its duty to govern to this plethora of commissions. The administration of the country is constipated with the impaction of nearly 50 costly commissions, nearly all of which are unnecessary and, as I said last night, the pipeline could do with a good enema.

Mining men have been the front row men in the development of every country. They were the front row men in the development of our country. But look at mining now, and drilling for oil and gas. These industries are recoiling and punch drunk from the belting that this Government has given them. On top of this no new ventures have been started in the country. We have reserves of fuel in the country for barely a week or two. We could be immobilised in a few weeks.

Debate interrupted.

page 676

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of the Swedish Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour and Regional Policy led by the Chairman, Mr Karl Erik Eriksson. On behalf of honourable senators I extend to them a warm welcome to the Australian Senate and hope that their visit to this country will be both rewarding and enjoyable.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 676

QUESTION

BUDGET 1975-76

Debate resumed.

Senator SHEIL:

– On top of there being no new ventures in the country, a country which, as I said last night, is an Aladdin’s cave of resources, we are in a desperate position for fuel. But I ask: What chance would a country like Australia, a big country, with few people and huge resources, have if it were challenged in the World Court by a small country with a huge population and no resources?

Senator McLaren:

– You said that last night.

Senator SHEIL:

The Government’s standstill in university financing will scrap many of the existing projects in this respect.

Senator SHEIL:

-Thank you, Mr President. I have had to repeat a few of the points that I made last night in order to put the right construction into the speech and get the message across to Government supporters. 1 think it seems to be succeeding because they are listening very carefully to every word I say. If they do not believe they have created a handout mentality in this country, they should have a look around the Gold Coast in Queensland to see the hundreds of people who are collecting unemployment benefits and who are banding together to rent houses. They are living on the dole. There are people in North Queensland living on the dole in communes. There are people on the island of Bali living on unemployment benefits on the Government handouts.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I move:

I do that because of the continual interruptions to which Senator Sheil has been subjected. I do not say that the period of 1 5 minutes is accurate because I am not sure what the time was. I put a limitation on the extension of time. That is why I have moved that Senator Sheil be granted an extension of time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I propose to move an amendment to Senator Greenwood ‘s motion. I move:

I do so because I feel that Senator Sheil has recapitulated- to say the least- a great amount of that to which he alluded yesterday. The sitting of the Senate was suspended at 12.20 p.m. in order that Senator Sheil would be given uninterrupted time -

Senator Wright:

– Yes, uninterrupted time.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Wright has interrupted as much as any other honourable senator if I might interpolate. I suggest that 5 minutes extension of time would be more than adequate to compensate Senator Sheil for any extravagance on the part of honourable senators.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I suggest that if the Government is willing to allow Senator Sheil an extension of time for a further 5 minutes- uninterrupted- we need not have a debate about the matter. I will concur with the amendment moved by the Special Minister of State (Senator Douglas McClelland) and withdraw my motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question is that Senator Sheil’s time be extended for a further 5 minutes. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

-I thank the Senate. I will see whether I can finish my remarks in that time. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has now recognised that he is suffering from this commission constipation. He proposes to shelve reports from the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, the Social Welfare Commission, the Hancock Commission, the Toose Commission, the Priorities Review Staff and probably many others. He seeks to gain a spending pause by referring all these reports of various committees to an interdepartmental committee- that is yet another committeeheaven relieve us from committees, and a bureaucratic one at that- with no reference to the desires of the people.

The Regional Employment Development scheme is now in its death throws but it has been a costly illness. The National Employment Training scheme survived its birth pangs with a massive transfusion of taxpayers’ money. It is now going downhill fast. School cadets corps have been disbanded, which is a retrograde step, on the grounds that only 16 per cent of schools have them and that they do not result in the production of a highly trained military machine. This seems to me to be a complete reversal of socialist philosophy. In other words, school cadets corps would be retained if 90 per cent of the schools had them and they resulted in a military machine. In socialist countries, 100 per cent of schools have military training for boys and girls and they do result in the production of a formidable fighting machine.

The socialists running our outfit must be the real armchair variety. In the last 2 years this Government’s spending has gone up by twice the rate at which the people themselves have been spending. I ask honourable senators to note that I say it has gone up; it was already high but it has gone up by twice the amount which the people themselves have spent. Government employment has gone up at a huge rate while private employment has fallen. I repeat: Government produces nothing but it can consume everything. This Government is on the way to doing that while we teeter on the brink of disaster with the gaping jaws of Medibank yawning beneath us. We do not know yet what a voracious appetite Medibank will have.

The home building business in Australia has been reduced by about one-third. It is plagued by shortages, expensive tradesmen, inflation and high interest rates. People are unable to borrow sufficient money. They cannot pay back from their pay packets enough to pay off their loans, and the Government is taking bigger and bigger bites out of their wages. The only thing we have not got a shortage of is government. Old bureaucrats never die, they simply spend away. The abolition of private property is also a socialist policy. One only has to go to a socialist state to see the end results of this blistering policy. There are no private cars, no private land, no private business, no private homes, no holidays, no dances, no parties, no wedding parties, and there is complete censorship of books, operas and plays. These are replaced by a short list of revolutionary material. Decadent Western music and literature are forbidden by law. All religion is forbidden by law. God is forbidden, Buddha is forbidden, and Mohammed is forbidden. They are not only forbidden but also they are ridiculed.

– I did not suggest either of those things.

Senator GRIMES:

-I said that I would not suggest that Senator Wright would suggest that, but I think the problem is a difficult one. I think Senator Wright knows that it is a difficult problem. I am sure he does. I think that we will have to look at the problem bilaterally and together and see what we have to do about it because the inequities are there and they are very bad.

I found Senator Sheil’s speech to be very interesting. I have often criticised Senator Sheil for being the representative of the ultraconservative group in this House and, indeed, in this Parliament. I think his speech was very interesting for some of the things that he said in view of the fact that we now have in this country a new Party, an ultra-conservative party, called the Workers Party. The Workers Party grew out of the General Practitioners Society, of which Senator Sheil is an honoured member. The Workers Party has put out a manifesto which in all ways is really no different from the sort of stuff that Senator Sheill turned out last night and repeated today. For instance, on page 653 of yesterday’s Hansard Senator Sheil is reported as having remarked:

The huge tax rip-off that the Government has literally stolen from the people has been frittered away in the pursuit of social reform, which I submit is not a proper role of government.

I emphasise the words ‘social reform … is not a proper role of government’. By way of interjection Senator McLaren said:

What is the proper role of government?

Senator Sheil said that it was defence and law. That hardly seems to me to be the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia and I doubt very much whether it is the policy of the National Country Party of Australia. I would like to quote from page 4 of Volume 1 No. 1 of the Workers Party’s manifesto. These words appear:

The Workers Party advocates that Government power should be gradually reduced till the Government is responsible only for the defence of Australia (non-existent at present), for the protection of honest Australians against criminals (at present the police are handicapped by unnecessary laws which restrict individual freedom), and the maintenance of a legal system to protect individual liberty and the rights of individuals. Individuals have no rights to own anything at the present time . . .

That sort of back to Adam Smith, back to the law of the jungle, philosophy is obviously the philosophy of Senator Sheil. It is the philosophy he has expounded before in this place, and I think that if Senator Sheil were at all honest with us all he would join the Workers Party and become its first representative in the Parliament, at least for a short time.

I found some of the language and some of the metaphors used by Senator Sheil also potentially revealing. Words like ‘fungating plethora of commissions’, ‘constipation’, ‘enema’, ‘fornicating on the foreshores’, and ‘brooding impotence’ may be very revealing to some people and perhaps would be more appropriate on the pages of Psychopathia Sexualis than on the pages of Hansard. However, I have no desire to go into the tirade of Senator Sheil. He is typical of the free market men who demand sternly that the free market place is the place where wages and prices are best fixed, but at the same time demand protection, bounties, subsidies and cheap public utilities for their own supporters. They tend to proclaim individual freedoms, that freedom of the individual means all, but then they bay for harsh censorship laws, conscription, restricted immigration based on racial grounds, and the flogging and gaoling of people like homosexuals.

I think the most significant thing about them is that they demand freedom of choice, but it is always freedom of choice for those who can afford it and they deny freedom of choice or even freedom of opportunity to the poor and to those who cannot afford it. These people are found mostly in the National Country Party, and I recall the description in John Heller’s book Catch 22 which summed them up very well when Major Major’s father was described as a typical mid-west farmer who believed that all government aid is socialist, except that which is given to the farmers, which is just. I do not believe that anyone who thinks wants to turn the clock back so that we have a philosophy of a political future in which Adam Smith is the god and it seems that Ayn Rand is the new messiah. The LiberalCountry Party coalition before this Government came into office did not want that sort of philosophy, but it is obvious that Senator Sheil and some of his colleagues in the National Country Party- certainly all his colleagues in the General Practitioners Society and in the Workers Party- wish to foist on us that sort of policy.

This Budget had to be framed in circumstances of economic difficulty, both here and abroad, and no one on this side of the Senate denies that. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) and the Cabinet had to work within constraints to present a Budget which would not reduce the money supply in a severe, drastic or sudden way, causing severe recession; nor could they attempt to buy their way out of this, as is being done in some countries, thereby causing intolerable inflation.

Government spending in this country had to increase in the last 3 years. It had to increase in order to bring our social welfare payments up to somewhere near the level of comparable countries. In 1971 and 1972 we were below even countries like the United States, and far below Canada, which is usually considered by many honourable senators opposite to be one of the greatest free enterprise countries in the world. The percentage of gross domestic product Australia spent on welfare was far below those countries and people were not getting a fair go. Education was the Cinderella of public spending in this country, and drastically increased expenditure was needed merely to create a base on which we could form a decent education system and give everybody equality of opportunity. Health expenditure and health delivery services were not good, despite the proclamation made by some members of the medical profession that we have the greatest health service in the world. Our infant mortality rate was far below that of countries comparable to Australia. Our longevity rate was too low and our morbidity rate was too high. What was worse, in the early 1 930s and the preceding years Australia, together with New Zealand, was amongst the top two or three countries in the world when parameters like this were considered. We were always amongst the top two or three countries in things like infant mortality. Now we have dropped to fourteenth or fifteenth. Our infant mortality rate is not only worse than that of Sweden, which we expect to be high, but it is worse than the rate of Japan,

Greece, and Great Britain, whose health scheme is so often condemned in this country.

The Government apologises for none of this expenditure because its philosophy is that people in a society like ours should have as equal as possible an opportunity to lead a satisfactory and satisfying life. The concept that people should live in the straits in which Professor Henderson’s Commission of Inquiry into Poverty demonstrated they do live should be abhorrent to all of us and we should do something about correcting it. Mr Fraser, in his philosophical discourse to the National Press Club, informed us that freedom to spend one’s income is just as important as freedom of speech, of religion and of association. But the people described by Professor Henderson in his report, the people described for years by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, and more recently by the Social Welfare Commission and other organisations, have no freedom to spend their income because it is so low they have only sufficient or less than sufficient for their most rudimentary needs. I think the reply by Mr Fraser in February to a question in the Financial Review: ‘Who do you see as the group most in needs of Government help in Australia today?’ is most enlightening. His reply was: ‘Private enterprise’. To hell with the people the Poverty Commission talks about. To hell with the people the social security people are trying to do something about. Help the insurance companies and other people, who can spend vast sums upon political campaigns, and do not worry about those people who live in this poverty-stricken state.

I should point out that the Henderson Commission was set up by the previous Government and some of the statistics it used precede this Government. There is no suggestion in the Henderson report, as was suggested by one Opposition senator, that things have become drastically worse in the last 3 years. The Melbourne University social welfare unit reported back in 1965 and 1966 the sorts of things that Professor Henderson has reported and it had been going on for years. When we come to consider the Opposition’s attitude to this Budget and the attitudes put by Opposition senators in this debate, I find it very difficult to follow their arguments. As I said before, some of the good free market men like Senator Marriott demand higher and higher subsidies on all sorts of goods and services. They then complain that the free enterprise Press- and Senator Wright joined in this- had been too kind to the Government over the Budget. Then, of all things, Senator Marriott resorted for his quotes to that journalistic garbagecan, the Melbourne Sunday Observer, which I must admit he carefully denied buying. He said he found it on an aeroplane, I believe. Senator after senator complained bitterly about the increased levy on oil and every one of them did this in the certain knowledge that in May last year the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) advocated the doubling of the price of oil per barrel. Apparently, this was to be done not to help the people in the community, but to help the oil companies. Apparently when this was suggested it was said it would not have had any effect on the community, it would not have flowed through the community, but of course any levy put on by the Government does.

Another honourable senator complained bitterly that the education lobby, as it is called, was too quiet after the Budget, that it should have howled the Government down, that it should have demanded more money. I suggest the reason is that they recognise that some constraint was necessary in the community and that the cut is a cut in the increase in expenditure, not in last year’s expenditure. They also realise that the onset of a conservative government in this country will result not only in an actual cut in expenditure but also in a reallocation of the funds available to some of those schools which need it least.

I think one of the most surprising statements was Mr Fraser’s statement announcing the impending dissolution of the Australian Legal Aid Office. Over 100 000 people who have benefited from it have demonstrated the need for that office in the community and have demonstrated that there was a great gap in that area. Just blandly to announce that it would be wiped out if this Government were defeated was, I think, an extraordinary statement. The war lobby which is led by some people in this place demands increased defence expenditure, the rural lobby demands subsidies and bounties, and in the same breath people are demanding cuts in Government expenditure.

I think the most ironical thing is the report, which is not denied anywhere that I can find, that Mr Fraser is contemplating a levy to finance Medibank, the very levy that his colleagues in this place refused to pass when we tried to pass it. I suggest that there is no coherence in these contradictory claims. But that is not enough; the extra-parliamentary Liberals are joining in, giving advice and handing out advice on how to do things. People such as Michael Baume and John Valdar have weighed in over the months giving advice all over the place and telling the Government what to do. I need not tell anyone that the former was a partner in a business that could not manage its own affairs. He seems to have gone quiet. The latter was once a great proponent of self-regulatory stock exchanges in this country and a great enemy and attacker of Senator Rae and his committee on the securities and exchange industry. He now advocates the gaoling of some of Mr Baume ‘s partners for insider trading. One wonders whether he does that from principle or whether he just wants to protect his job.

If we listen to all those people, social welfare and educational expenditure would be nil, subsidies to primary and secondary industry would be enormous, and the unemployed, in the words of Dr Yuill, one of the founders of the Workers’ Party, would be given a few vegetables and left to fend for themselves. Many people question the priorities of various aspects of social welfare in this country. I think Senator Baume made a particular point of this. I agree with some of his queries about priorities but I think we must point out that while we have our present social welfare system priorities in this field remain a matter of individual judgment and the final result must come from compromise, no matter who is in Government. It must come from compromise between people with differing views. I agree with some of Senator Baume ‘s priorities; others I do not agree with. He rates the expenditure of $ 10m for a cadet corps, which is of nil military value according to the report and which applies only to a minority of students, as a higher priority than the spending of a similar amount on hearing aids for the deaf in this country. I just do not understand that system of priorities.

I think I should point out to Senator Baume and others that this Government is not satisfied with the priorities and is not satisfied with the system of social welfare in this country. I do not think any of us are. I hope both sides take note of the views given by Professor Henderson and his Commission, by the Priorities Review Staff, by the Social Welfare Commission, by people such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence and by others who are working in this field and have been pointing out the inadequacies and the fallacies of the present piecemeal system which leaves great gaps and which results in social welfare funds going to those who need them least rather than those who need them most. Until we get a better system it is important to deal with the present system. We must modify it.

If Senator Baume ‘s priorities are different from mine or from those of this Government, that is a cross we will have to bear; it is also a cross that any alternative government of which he is a member will have to bear. Whether his priorities are different from conviction, as I am sure most of them are, or whether other people’s priorities are different because various groups have their ear at a particular time, we will all have different ideas on what should be done. We must all look at the social welfare system. For instance, I make no bones about the fact that I disagree with some of the ideas and some of the priorities of both parties. I think both parties should look very carefully at the policy which we have in common- the policy that we should abolish the means test for receipt of the old age pension for those above 70 years of age. Both parties seem to have that as a top priority. It seems to be an election gimmick; we seem to have put it above the needs of all sorts of other groups in the community. I think we must be honest with ourselves and look at the policy. This Government has had to delay the implementation of that policy. I know that people on both sides frequently disagree with it.

I think we must look at the possibility of setting up an income support system so that there will be no need for the various categories of pensions and no need to put people in little groups, to give them pensions without any co-ordination and to give them bits of extra subsides to make up for the inadequate pensions. If we do not look at the whole system and get it changed we will continue in the piecemeal gimmicky way we have gone for years and years. By setting up the Henderson Commission the previous Government started the inquiry; the present Government has continued it by setting up the Priorities Review Staff, to look at this system and the Social Welfare Commission. Although Senator Sheil thinks all this is too much investigation and too much prying into our affairs, it is not so. We must look at the results and get a proper coherent plan out of them.

Perhaps the most difficult thing has been to draw up this Budget under the constraints of inflation, economic slow-down and wage increases which provide insufficient return to those who need them and get them. Because of these constraints we had to slow down in many fields, but Mr Hayden and the Cabinet, I think to their credit, and in contra-distinction to Senator Wright’s views, started a reform in the tax system which I think is most important. I think it is a long awaited reform. I think the advantages of the new tax system are firstly its simplicity compared with the old. It is interesting to remember that when the system of tax rebates was changed in 1951 or 1952 to the system of tax deductions, it was claimed that that new system would be more simple. Now apparently those people who know have changed their views. I think it is demonstrable that the new system is more simple to carry out. It is more simple for those who have to fill out their forms, lt is more simple for those who have to collect the tax.

I think the second important part about the new tax system is that it does remove the necessity for some half a million people to pay tax. I think the effective increases in family allowances which aid the large family are very important, because it has been demonstrated by every inquiry in this country that in this area lies the greatest need. I think the change from deductions to rebates for families is more meaningful for the low income earners. Of course it means that some high income earners may pay more tax. I doubt whether any of us- certainly none of us on this side- will not agree that the system had become lopsided and should be changed. Oneparent families are helped. That is the second group of families in which Professor Henderson points out that there is great need to overcome poverty; it is the forgotten group in our society. Nobody- least of all Mr Hayden- is suggesting that these reforms are the ultimate or that new reforms will not be necessary. Of course he was limited by the constraints under which he had to plan this Budget. Any of us can do what Senator Wright did, pick out an odd example here and there and go chasing hares all over the place. Certainly some people, particularly the better-off single people who at present have deductions not for dependants but for other things will pay more tax. Certainly those people without dependants will pay some more. Very few will pay very much more. Some 2-income families will pay more but 2-income families still will be better off. They still will have a considerable advantage over the single income family at the same level of income. There will be cries of anguish from people like Senator Martin who want to protect the same old vested interests, especially the insurance companies.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-Mr President, like the previous speaker, Senator Grimes, I do not intend to take up a great deal of the Senate’s time this afternoon, but I want to say that I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by my Leader, Senator Withers. At the same time I feel I would be rather remiss if I did not make some brief comments on the Budget. The present Budget, for which we, the Opposition, and the people of Australia waited so eagerly, was heralded as being a concerned Government’s attempt to come to very real grips with our flagging economy. The brainchild of a fearless Minister who bulldozed Medibank through against the overwhelming weight of public opinion, the man whom the Government lauded as the economic saviour of our nation, has arrived with all the impact of what one can only term a lead balloon. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) delivered this abortive attempt in the other place with tongue in cheek, I am sure, as his voice rang with a promissory note. With such short-sighted measures he has placed our great nation further in hock and sought to obscure the Budget’s shortcomings with bland promises of a much sought tax relief.

Since delivering this epic the Treasurer has retired, one can only say, to lick his wounds after being harassed by Mr Hawke and castigated by Dr J. F. Cairns. No doubt he is bewildered by these attacks from his colleagues. He no doubt is also reflecting on his own precarious position as Treasurer No. 3 of Australia, a position which seems to rest on the whim of the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam. He no doubt is bemused by this great economic brainchild, which has been exploded by every well-known economist and exposed in this chamber and in the other place by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as a shoddy attempt to stabilise our economy. That in reality is not the situation as we see it. I and, I am sure, many other Australians are wondering where was all the fire and zeal which the Minister called upon to force Medibank upon the unreceptive Australian public. It certainly was not evident in this Budget that he has brought down.

This Budget, at best, could be described as a political compromise, and a very weak one at that, by a Government which, due to its waning popularity, is loath to take the necessary and somewhat unpopular measures to combat the very real problems of inflation and unemployment. I am sure many Australians will agree with me, when I categorically state that these ills which presently beset our economy have been created by this Government’s lavish and reckless spending. Might I further emphasise that remark by stating that I was most disappointed with the Treasurer’s performance in the Budget. 1, like many Australians, have always held the Treasurer in the highest regard as a man of principle, a man above political compromise, a man of integrity and a man who would place the nation’s need above and beyond any party loyalty. I also have the greatest regard for Mr Hayden ‘s economic ability and I am quite confident that he was aware of the remedies needed to stabilise our economy. But much to my surprise and, I think, Australia’s disappointment, Mr Hayden chose the course of compromise and showed that he placed this above statesmanship. It was a sad day indeed for Australia. May I commend the following quotation to the Treasurer and all members of the Government for their honest and sincere consideration. It is by that well-known American poet, essayist and diplomat of the 19th century, James Russell Lowell. I quote:

Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is a temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.

The Budget is a mere stop-gap measure and is nothing more than the old sugar and castor oil ploy by which the Government is once more attempting to dope or to dupe the Australian people. The Prime Minister and his advisers underestimate the people of Australia. I know, and I am sure you would know, Sir, that there is a present awareness in all walks of life that there is something drastically wrong with our economy. I am certainly no economist. However, one does not have to be a Rhodes Scholar, like Mr Hawke, to work out that even with an increased pay packet the purchasing power of the dollar has greatly diminished. One only has to look around to see the vast number of people unemployedthe highest since the great Depression of the 1 930s. No one has to tell me much about those days because 1 was a young lad during the depression years. I know what it felt like to be one of those living under the conditions of that era. One looks around today and is reminded of the worst industrial unrest in the history of this grand nation. The workers, God help them, are at the mercy of this Government which proposes to represent them. To me and to many workers today that representation appears to be a joke. This Government is at present fully committed to policies which are designed completely to erode all those democratic rights which we as a nation fought two major conflicts to preserve. This Budget promises the people the world and gives them nothing. Almost before they get anything the Government takes it away. The Labor Party is suitably named as it labours to give birth to the embryo of socialism.

All this talk about reduced taxation is grossly misleading in my opinion, as pay as you earn taxation for the average Australian will rise by some $ 1 86 this year. I will concede that there is relief for those people on incomes of less than $5,000 a year, but in the light of spiralling incomes this relief is limited to but a few. I sincerely state that any person expected to exist on this wage in the present economic situation should have this relief as of right and not as a concession of a government using their plight as a political gambit. I do not need to read any lengthy treatise on the social and economic plight, which is that of the worker today. I would remind honourable senators on both sides of this House that until 4’/2 years ago I was a bridge carpenter- and proudly one- bringing home a pay packet from which I provided the then accepted every day necessities of life, admittedly with a few luxuries for a family that I had to rear. I was by no stretch of the imagination wealthy. But under a coalition government and the stable economy which it engendered I provided- and, I submit, provided adequately- for my family.

What about today under this Government? To retain some form of decent living would require a second pay packet. Today it is becoming a very essential factor in our society that the wife has to work to provide those every day accepted luxuries which the working man could once enjoy under the stable government that we enjoyed for some 23 years. It is a case of the old adage of the dog chasing its tail because the great tax reform greatly reduces any advantage even of 2 incomes. This economic evil which forces both parents to work to make ends meet is one of the main causes of the breakdown of the family unit as we once knew it and it throws open the doors to those numerous social evils which beset our present day society. Where are the increases in child endowment which are long overdue- those benefits which would ensure that the woman who wishes to stay at home and raise her family in the age old tradition is not disadvantaged. Every step the Government takes seems to me to encourage the working mother and completely destroy the home unit. This happens in communist countries to create a community where people are completely dependent upon the Big Brother state to provide. I and many Australians rue the day that this ideology should ever manifest itself in this our beloved Australia.

Let me return to the other grossly unjust aspect of this Budget- the indirect taxes, once again designed to unfairly affect the wage earner. If by chance the wage earner is in the tax bracket in which he receives some tax relief, it is quickly ripped off him by other snide means. How many average workers smoke? If the worker does smoke, his cigarettes are up in price by 6c to 9c. If he drinks, his beer is up and if he drives a motor car his petrol is going up. These are not luxuries at all as we understand the word in Australia, but are the basic entitlements of the wage earner. The tax on beer, wines, spirits and cigarettes is estimated to take $600m from the taxpayer- the average worker- the man who has contributed through a long life of hard work to rear a family. It seems to me that the warning on the cigarette packet could easily be changed to ‘Smoking is a wealth hazard ‘, rather than a health hazard.

So let us once and for all explode the myth that the Budget will give any relief whatsoever to the wage earner. The Government has not only discriminated against the wage earner. It has also plundered the private sector. It has shaken to the very roots the confidence of the private sector and has so systematically and callously destroyed this confidence that it will take even a responsible government some time to regenerate it. What steps did the Budget take to adopt the measures proposed by the Mathews Committee which would have brought $ 1,200m relief? It rejected the findings of the Committee and instead reduced company tax by a mere 2Vi per cent from 45 per cent- a relief of some $120m. Even to the elementary student this is only 10 per cent of the amount proposed under this Committee’s report. This is trifling relief even in view of the fall of $ 1 .3 billion in company income last year. So, Sir, I ask you: Does this display responsible government or any genuine attempt to inject confidence into the private sector?

If this is not enough, consider the crude oil levy which is estimated to cost some $ 100m to the private industry. The Budget, in my opinion, has failed miserably to help to stabilise the economy of this country. There is only one way to bring back some sanity to this nation’s economics and to the things that are important to the people of Australia and that will be by a change of Government, which we will see in the very near future.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I rise conscious of the fact that some 50 or more speakers have spoken already on the Budget debate and it is indeed hard for the Senate to maintain any sense of sparkle while 50 of its number deliver themselves of their wisdom on the economic management of the country. For all that, I welcome the opportunity to take part in what is a very important debate. If there is one thing in Australia that is of general interest at the moment it is the state of the economy and I think the great and besetting interest in politics which we see in Australia at the moment is a function of the uncertainty that people feel in the economic sphere. 1 suppose that every Budget has to be looked at in its economic context, and the economic context of this Budget is very clear. It is a context of very high inflation, a rate at which this Government ought to be, and I suspect is, ashamed, and it is in the context of a level of unemployment of which this Government is, I am sure, ashamed. When one looks at those 2 factorsthe factors of inflation and unemployment -one can see that this Budget is critically important to all Australians.

The damaging effects of inflation are now acknowledged even by this Government. I think it is generally conceded that those who tried to put together some assets, to have some savings, have been severely damaged. People who might wish to own their home have been severely damaged, and we find that Senator Wheeldon, the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, even says that at the present rate of inflation you cannot plan social welfare. So we are in a situation where all sorts of people are under stress and are being damaged by the fact that our currency is simply losing its value.

Unemployment is something of which this Government ought to be aware because so many of its representatives have come from the union movement, and the Government ought to know that to the individual unemployed person there is a loss of dignity, to the unemployed person’s dependants there is a loss of dignity, and there is often real physical hardship. These are things which we in Opposition are entitled to be angry about, the people of Australia are entitled to be angry about, and honourable senators opposite, the representatives and supporters of a Labor government, ought to be ashamed about. I suppose one of the features of the economic debate in Australia for some time now has been the whinging attitude of Government supporters that of course it is not their fault. It is all the fault of external circumstances. Australia is in exactly the same condition as are comparable countries.

I would like very briefly to refer to some of the things this Government has done which in my view, Mr Acting Deputy President, have substantially contributed to the unfortunate situation that we are in at the moment. I would like to suggest that if you look at just 3 areas most people who are not forced to support this Government would agree that things could have been much better. The areas I would ask honourable senators to consider are the areas of wages policy, of minerals policy and of Government expenditure and the limits on Government expenditure.

Early in the life of this Government which now admits, of course, that excessive wage increases are at the heart of its economic problems and at the heart of the inflationary problem, we had the very strong assertion that there should be an increase in the share of the national economic cake being taken home by wage earners. In the field of the Public Service where, of course, the Government has the greatest influence there was the proud adoption of the pacesetter principle, principally by Mr Cameron but he, of course, was merely acting as a spokesman for the Government. I believe a great deal of the runaway wage inflation we have seen in Australia over the last few years can be attributed to the quite unreal wage expectations which this Government fostered early in its life and particularly through the pacesetter principle.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Do you not think that the labourer is worthy of his hire?

Senator CHANEY:

– I think the labourer is worthy of his hire, but like your Treasurer now, I believe that when the labourer gets more than he is producing then, in fact, we are headed for economic disaster. A little later in my speech, for the benefit of Labor members opposite, I intend to cite with very great approval some of the more recent statements of the Treasurer which indicate a very great conversion to a point of view that I and many other Liberals have been putting forward for some time. I will refer to my maiden speech last year- I am sure no one else has ever bothered to do the same since it was made- and honourable senators will find a surprising parallel between what I said then and what Mr Hayden is saying today. If Mr Hayden takes a year to catch up with me, one who is unlettered in economics, then God help the country. In the field of wages, I say that the Government bears a large share of the blame. It established the pacesetter principle of ‘Let us go; let us all get more’ and wages outstripped the ability of the economy to pay. The Government concedes that, so Labor members opposite should not interject when I merely underline it now.

In the field of mineral development, we in Western Australia saw for many years the benefits of an expanding mineral production. Australia as a country is, of course, resource rich and it is a country in which the problems of development are not so much the problems of the Government having to do too much but the problems of ensuring that the Government does not interfere too much. When one thinks of the possible developments that were on foot in 1972 in Australia and what has happened to them, then I think one can again sheet home to this Government a lot of the blame for the flaccid economy that exists in this country today. Look at the oil and gas prospects off the North-West Cape or north-west shelf of Western Australia. That was a great prospect for the prosperity of the whole of Australia. It was a marvellous opportunity to increase our independence in the field of energy and to lift the standard of living and hence the standard of welfare of all Australians. That project is moribund. Its capital costs are increasing by leaps and bounds, and nothing is happening. I suppose I am a little more conscious of this than most because one member of my family was a geologist working on that field but he has been sent to America because the company said to him: ‘We have no use for you here, boy’. If the damage that is done to the country is not underlined when the young people who are involved in its development are forced to go overseas, then nothing will underline it.

I point to the possibilities we had for uranium development in the Northern Territorydevelopments that by now could have been brought to fruition. Where are they? They are still locked up, and this Government, despite its brave words and the plans and half-starts that it has announced, has done nothing. Those developments by themselves would have put a completely different complexion on the Australian economy today.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about conservation, senator?

Senator CHANEY:

– I do not believe that conservation should be ignored. I point to the possible nickel developments in Western Australia which, again, are lying locked under the ground because inflation and the whole attitude of this Government have made development uncertain and unlikely to occur. So, in that field I would suggest to honourable senators opposite that the productive ability of the Australian economy has in fact been cut back. Whereas Labor came so proudly into government with these great social experiments promised to us all, it came on the basis that those experiments would be paid for by increasing productivity. Had it allowed productivity to increase perhaps it could have done it. As it is, Labor has sought to have the gravy without the meat that produces the juice for the gravy.

Let me look at the field of excessive Government expenditure. We are again dealing here with an area in which the Government itself concedes that a balance between Government expenditure and private expenditure must be retained. Quite clearly, the reckless attitude of this Government towards increasing Government expenditure over the last 3 years has been a substantial contributing factor to the mess we are in today. So I point to these 3 things, not because

I suggest they tell the whole story, but because I think they are clear examples of areas in which alternative policies were available, in which alternative policies were advocated by the Opposition, and in which the Government ploughed ahead and made disastrous mistakes for Australia. So I am contemptuous of efforts simply to say that it is not Labor’s fault. I believe it is a cowardly bleat. I welcome the greater courage which is being shown by some members of the Government now in facing up to economic reality, and in particular to the sort of efforts which are being made by Senator James McClelland to introduce some rational views into the area of wages. If those men are not supported by their own Party- I sometimes wonder whether they will be- then of course this Government will become an even more hopeless proposition than it has been to date.

I do think there is a beginning of rationality in this Government. I do not wish to praise it too much, but I do think some of the things that we, as Liberals, have been saying for some time have at last come home. Our quarrel with this Budget, of course, is that this Government has not gone far enough along the road to ensure that it will succeed in reversing the position. I rather see it as a man who has decided to jump across a chasm, runs forward, takes a flying leap and then half way across changes his mind and says: ‘No, it is too far, I should go back’. I am afraid that that is what has happened to this Government. It has stopped; it is in mid-air, and I suspect it is about to plummet out of sight into the chasm. I do not think there will be many mourners at the funeral. The Budget Speech is interesting for a number of reasons, one of which is that it contains a statement that confidence in the private sector is essential. This is the first of the passages that I would like to quote from the Treasurer’s Speech. He said:

This Government is committed to the present ‘mixed economy’ framework. We want to strengthen that framework. To reduce unemployment lastingly, recovery in the private sector is essential.

I am quoting the Treasurer’s words. He says: Recovery in the private sector is essential’. A little later in the Speech, of course, he talks about the dramatic need for confidence. He says that there will be recovery in the private sector only if there is confidence in the private sector.

Senator Sim:

-Who said that?

Senator CHANEY:

-That is the Treasurer. We get this proposition being put forward by the Government and I am very glad that it has put it forward. It is the private sector which needs to be strengthened if unemployment is to be beaten and if the economy is to be put in better shape. The private sector requires a return of confidence. There, I suppose, lies one of the tragedies of the story because in the Age of last Tuesday- a paper which is often cited with approval in this chamber by honourable senators opposite- we find the results of a poll. Only a quarter of the Australian electorate thinks the Hayden Budget will have a favourable effect on the nation as a whole. The article states:

The latest Age poll has found that 43 per cent of voters believe that when the provisions of the Budget are put into effect, the country will be worse off. Twenty-eight per cent think the Budget will not significantly alter the country’s economic condition.

So we find that some 71 per cent of the population believes that this is at best a neutral Budget and it is more likely a damaging Budget. If that is the view which is held in the community, then how in the world does the Government expect to find a return of private confidence? It seems to me to be quite impossible. It is just not going to happen. That is one of the reasons why I have very serious reservations about the Budget and why I wonder whether for Australia ‘s sake this Budget ought to be allowed to be put into operation. We have a situation where the Government acknowledges that tax is too high. The public sector has taken too much. Yet we find, when we look at the pay-as-you-earn statistics which have been referred to on a number of occasions in this debate, that notwithstanding the taxation changes which have been made, in fact pay-as-you-earn taxation will rise by, I think, $2,700m. This is in an economy where the Government is trying to restore confidence to the private sector. Quite honestly, I cannot see how rational men can arrive at that sort of reasoning in company with that sort of arithmetic.

I say, therefore, that the rather more daring alternative Budget in which the proposals for greater cuts were put forward by Mr Fraser, represents a minimum approach to this problem. It represents not an extreme approach but a minimum approach to doing what the Government says needs to be done, namely, restoring private confidence. There is no basis for confidence under this Government. We know that it has changed direction too often. It has changed course; it has changed Treasurers; it has done things which I believe destroy the ability of the community to respond with confidence in it. Although of course a little heat develops in these debates, I say that with some sorrow because I think Australia deserves better than to be governed by a Government in which its people have no confidence.

I remember that when I applied for endorsement with the Liberal Party I listed one of my interests as mining. That is an interest which seems to have become rather submerged here. But I thought that in a sense that interest showed itself when I managed to go through the Budget and extract some gold out of the dross. It shows really what is my interest in mining- simply the fact that you go through an awful lot of rubbish and every now and then come across something valuable. I would like to cite some of these things which are valuable purely because I think it is important that, since the attitude of the community is so important in the economic recovery of Australia, we should make it clear where we as an Opposition do not differ from the Government. It is not our job to confuse the public mind. If the Government is putting a correct proposition which we would have to support if we were in Government our job is to support it, even though we may be in Opposition. I read from the Budget Speech where the Treasurer stated:

Some sacrifice and patient restraint is called for from all of us in our demands for more resources, whether it is additional public services that are wanted or higher personal incomes.

That is a statement from which I do not believe any government of ours could escape, any more than the Government which we have at present can escape. We find that the Treasurer goes on to say:

We expect that as the expansion of public sector activity is restrained, the opportunities for private sector expansion will improve, though full responses to greater room for growth may take time to develop.

That statement again is valuable because it contains the realisation that it is the restraint of public sector expansion which is essential to a restoration of opportunity for private sector expansion. Therefore, I adopt that statement. I congratulate the Treasurer for making it. I merely regret that he has not followed through the logic in the figures that follow. We find later in the statement reference to wages and salaries. The Treasurer said:

If wages and salaries continue to outstrip productivity increases, the productive capacity of the economy will decline and we shall all eventually be worse off.

I suppose that statement could have drawn a jibe or an interjection from Senator McLaren if it had been made this time last year. That is why I am particularly pleased that, on this occasion, I can quote to honourable senators opposite the words of their own Treasurer because they are words that I am sure we would be using were we sitting on the benches opposite. We find that the Treasurer goes on to say:

. it is clear that some wage and salary pressures are unrealistic and, when successful, harmful. It does employees generally no good to get higher and higher money incomes if the results are just higher prices, a severe squeeze on profits, a slump in new investment and a contraction of job opportunities.

Again, that is a frank statement and a description of what has occurred in Australia. Of course it is a guide to all of us in deciding what remedial action ought to be taken. I suggest again to the Senate and to the odd commercial traveller who may have his car radio on that it is this sort of principle with which we should all be agreeing, and the logic of which we should be applying to the economic situation.

The other very valuable thing that is contained both in the Budget Speech and in some of the statements that have been made in the Senate, particularly by Senator James McClelland, relates to the whole problem of increasing public expenditure without people realising that that public expenditure comes out of their pockets. I think there has been a degree of political courage, if not the same degree of political wisdom, shown by the Government in the proposition which has been put forward in the Budget Speech and elsewhere that for the purpose of wage indexation increases in prices resulting from tax measures should be discounted. In other words, the Government is saying: ‘We admit that our tax measures are a factor in forcing up the cost of living. But we are saying to you that what we want to do is take your spending power from you to spend on your behalf because we can do it better, more equitably and in a way that is more socially desirable. ‘

I do not believe the Government has a prospect of enforcing wage indexation on a basis that discounts cost of living increases due to tax rises. That is why I doubt its political wisdom. The importance of the situation is this: It underlines the fact that it is the taxpayer, the individual worker who is paying for what the Government is offering. This time last year I remember saying to the Senate that I thought the central dishonesty of a bad Budget was that there was still the impression that people were getting something for nothing. I welcome the Government’s withdrawal from that proposition and its frank statement that it is the taxpayers of Australia who are paying for all the goodies. That will make the taxpayers of Australia, I am sure, a good deal more cautious about the goodies that are offered. Quite clearly they will exercise a far more vigilant eye on Government expenditure than they might have done a year or two ago.

There are two other aspects of the Budget which I would like to touch upon briefly in the time I have left. The first is that I think there is a very dishonest feature of this Government in some of its postponements of programs which have been accompanied by a firm commitment to action in the next Budget. The reason why I suggest that that is dishonest is because I do not believe that one in ten of honourable senators opposite believe that they will be sitting opposite when the next Budget is brought down.

Senator Button:

– We will rely on your integrity.

Senator CHANEY:

– With or without integrity, as Senator Button calls it, I do not believe that this Government is showing any of the features of a government that is able to survive. I do not wish to go into the general question, but I do wish to say that I believe that portions of this Budget have been based on the proposition that we shall probably have to face the music next year, so the Government has said: ‘Let us make it as difficult as possible’.

The 2 areas to which I refer are, firstly, the field of education and, secondly, the field of the abolition of the means test. In the field of education, I refer to page 8 of the printed Budget Speech for those who wish to check. We find that the Government steps back from the principle of triennial financing and it says that notwithstanding that that is a very good principle, the Government cannot afford to do it now. But we find that the Government will go back to triennial financing in January 1977. That is very handy. Even if this Government lasts the longest that it can possibly last, we find that it will be responsible only for a few months of the next period of triennial financing. The Government does not say: Well, we cannot afford it so we will put it aside and reconsider it next year’. It undertakes in this Budget a firm commitment to resume triennial financing in a way which I think indicates that it expects to lumber us with it. My personal view, I must say, is that we should retain triennial financing. The difference is that we have got to ensure a far greater input from government into the commissions which do the triennial planning to ensure that they are given very clear indications of what the budgetary possibilities are before they draw up their final plans.

The other area to which I wish to refer was touched upon by Senator Grimes. I agree with a good deal of what was said by him about the abolition of the means test. I think that both the Government and the Opposition have got themselves into a rather difficult situation over this area, which is of considerable electoral significance. The situation really is that we now have various expert groups in the social welfare field advising us that it is simply not possible to have all the desirable assistance that there is for the really poor in Australia and at the same time to have universal social services. That problem, I think, has to be faced by both the Government and the Opposition. This Government has carefully duck-shoved the issue by simply saying: Well, we cannot afford it now but we will certainly do it in 1976, the next time round’. That is fine, but I believe that if the Government was being honest it would simply say: ‘ We will examine the position in 1976; we certainly would like to do it in principle but whether or not we can do it will depend on the budgetary circumstances of that time’. That, I think, would be the least the Government could say, to be honest in that particular area.

Another matter upon which I wish to touch was also mentioned by Senator Grimes. I refer to the field of legal aid. I welcome the opportunity to speak about this matter, because it is something in which I have a considerable interest, and I would very much dislike the statement of Mr Fraser to be misinterpreted. Mr Fraser listed the Australian Legal Aid Office as one of those areas in which a saving could be made. He referred to the abolition of that Office. I think it is very important to stress that what we are talking about here is not the abolition of legal aid but the abolition of the Australian Legal Aid Office.

The ways of providing legal aid in Australia are many and varied, but what this Government is clearly demonstrating is a preference for providing legal aid through a Commonwealth bureaucracy. That is the fundamental point of difference between the Government and the Opposition on this issue. The Opposition is committed to providing legal aid. Very often the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) carries into this chamber the Liberal platform and ‘The Way Ahead’. They contain clear commitments in the field of legal aid. The Opposition believes that, as much as possible, legal aid must be insulated and removed from government.

Even former Senator Murphy acknowledged in his early speeches in the field of legal aid that it is fundamental to the freedom of the individual and it is fundamental to the democratic system in Australia that people should have access to legal services which are quite independent of government. It is no good this Government saying: Well, of course that is all right because we can ensure that the service is independent by putting a bit in an Act of Parliament which says that it is independent and that professional rules apply’.

But of course the budgetary power of government and the general influence of government over a statutory body is well known to honourable senators. The complaints of Professor Sackville about the contents of the Legal Aid Bill are an indication that the points I am making are not points of a tory or a conservative in this field. There is a very real concern on the part of people who are anxious to see that the community is given an adequate legal aid service that that service should be much more independent of government than this Government seems to be prepared to make it.

I point to the fact, as a sign of bad faith on the part of the Government, that whereas 2 Budgets ago it made an allocation of $2m to supplement the private legal aid schemes in the States, in the last Budget it reduced the allocation to $1.3m although ultimately it was increased to $1.5m. We find that in this Budget the allocation is to be Sim. So the hard-pressed private legal aid schemes in Australia are in fact being diminished by the Government as it tends to expand its Government service. That is a tendency about which, as a lawyer and as a Liberal, I am seriously concerned. Therefore I hope that the Government, even while it remains in office, might take a second look at its approach to legal aid and put more emphasis on ensuring that independent legal services are available generally to the public.

The debate has been long. As I said earlier, I welcome the opportunity to have participated in it. I think that the very sad thing about this Budget is that if the sentiments contained in it had been in the hearts and minds of the Government supporters when they were elected in 1 972, they may well have gone down in history as a great reformist and most successful government. The terribly sad fact of the matter is that they will go out of government sooner or later as a rather unfortunate joke. This Government will be remembered for its promises which never came to fruitition. I believe that it is a great shame that there was not a little more common sense in the Government and a little less brilliance.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- I am the 48th speaker, I think, in the Budget debate this year. It has been the longest Budget debate that we have witnessed in the Parliament for at least 10 years. The significance of that, of course, does not escape the Government. It is literally impossible at this stage for new material to be introduced. I was pleased with one of the final comments of Senator Chaney before he resumed his seat, when he paid a very nice backhanded compliment to the Government by saying that had this Budget been brought down in 1972 we would have gone down as one of the greatest Governments in Australian history. Perhaps we can apply it to this Budget and the same prediction can be made.

After listening to the various contributions which have been made in this debate and also to the comments which have been made outside this Parliament, I think the essential feature of the Budget is the fact that the Budget shocked the Opposition. It was not believed possible in the economic circumstances prevailing in Australia that such a Budget could in fact be brought down. There were 2 basic assumptions made by the Opposition and, I think, by much of the Press at large before this Budget was presented. It was expected that in every possible area the Government would slash expenditure; that it would cut everything to the bone; that it would magnify many of the problems which we have experienced over the last 12 months or so; and that much of the Government’s activities would be discontinued. Alternatively, it was expected that the Government would not have the courage to take the steps that it has and in fact that it would go on increasing the deficit in order to maintain its levels of expenditure.

Of course, the Budget turned out to be neither of those 2 things. Instead of the horror Budget which some anticipated we have a heartening Budget. I was interested to note this morning, in one of the editorials of the daily Press, that very term being used- a heartening Budget. I will come back to that later. Instead of increased taxes we have reduced taxes. Instead of retreating from the great initiatives that we have taken in a whole range of areas- in education, in social security, in Medibank and so on- we have continued our advance in those areas. Instead of increasing the deficit to $5,000m, as we were told by some people would happen, we have actually reduced the deficit- and by about $2,000m at that. The Opposition found itself robbed of what it thought would be a trump card. Thus we had the horrid, badly researched response in the House of Representatives by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Of course, that was the reason why we found that there was great concern in the Opposition’s ranks when the Government decided not only to wipe off the collection of $200m in personal income tax from the taxpayers of Australia but also to wipe off any requirement for 500 000 Australians who previously had to pay income tax to pay that tax.

Senator Jessop:

– But what did you take from them in other directions?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I know that honourable senators opposite hate to hear those things said and repeated, particularly when the proceedings of this chamber are being broadcast, because they are trying to sell the false story that we have in fact increased taxation whereas in fact we have reduced personal income tax- for the second time since we have been in office- by a total of $700m and we have reduced company tax twice by an amount twice as much as honourable senators opposite increased it; yet honourable senators opposite have had the temerity to sit in this chamber and talk about being the friends of the private sector. I will deal with the private sector in a moment.

Senator Jessop:

– You are the biggest rip-off merchants in the world.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- Order!

Senator WRIEDT:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I knew that an effort would be made to drown me out when I said those things. 1 will say them again. We have taken $700m off personal income tax in this country and we have twice reduced the rate of company tax.

What was the position leading up to the Budget? In 1974 we found ourselves in a state of monetary restraint. It was essential that we did that. We had too large a money supply in Australia. Even though all governments depend upon their economic advisers, particularly the Reserve Bank of Australia in this area, it may be said that the monetary restraint was held on for too long. In March of 1974 it was increasing by no less than 24 per cent. Six months later it had a negative growth rate of 9 per cent. It is quite true to say that that did affect the Australian economy. It was intended and necessary to dry up some of the liquidity that was in the Australian monetary system at the time. But at the same time there was a world-wide economic downturn. It would be idle to suggest that as a result of that downturn we also suffered a downturn. There was world-wide unemployment and world-wide inflation. As Senator Chaney has just said, it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that what has happened in Australia has been the result solely of that factor; but it would be equally idle to suggest that it did not affect our economy. For example, in 1974 alone we imported $8 billion worth of goods. The net price index increase in that year alone was 30 per cent. Does anyone suggest that that would not affect inflation in this country? Of course it would.

The Government was faced with the choice of either continuing to contract expenditure or to expand it. By expanding it, of course, we created a deficit. We were not the only country to do that. All the comparable countries of the world did it. The United States of America did it to the extent of a deficit of $80,000m in order to re-stimulate its economy. Britain did it, Germany did it, France did it and Italy did it. It was necessary for them all to do it. We were caught in exactly the same position.

No government likes to have a budget deficit -of course not. What a government has to do is to ensure that there is sufficient economic activity to employ the resources of the nation. For some reason or other the Australian Government has been the subject of condemnation because it has allowed a deficit to appear, but it was necessary to do so. We took stimulatory action by supporting the States with the provision of additional money for the budgetary problems which they had. Additional hundreds of millions of dollars were made available to the States. We supported the wool industry. We reduced taxation, as 1 have just mentioned. All of those measures were taken to ensure that the Australian economy would come back to a state of economic growth. No government has an easy task to perform in doing that.

There is no doubt that we were in a serious position in the latter part of 1974. We noticed that there had been an increase in unemployment in this country combined with a high inflation rate. This Budget is an attempt to overcome the problems that occurred in Australia in 1 974. The degree of restraint is reflected in the increase in domestic outlays of 23 per cent, which is half the rate of increase in the last Budget. No clearer example could be given of this Government ‘s acceptance of its responsibility to reduce the amount of expenditure. Despite that reduction in the increase in domestic outlays the payments to the States and to local government are up by 32 per cent and the cash benefits to the Australian citizen are also up by 32 per cent. Why should any government be the subject of the criticism that we have heard during the course of this debate when it has taken the steps that are necessary to overcome the problems?

I want to deal now as briefly as I possibly can with the individual items that have been included in the Opposition’s amendment. The first point raised is that this Budget does not provide an adequate program to defeat inflation. The first and most important step that was taken by the Government was to reduce its own expenditure. We have just been told by a previous speaker that the Government is to be condemned because it has retracted to some degree some of the undertakings that it gave 2 years ago. Of course we have had to reduce the rate at which we have been trying to achieve the things that we set out to achieve- the abolition of the means test, for example. If we were to maintain these programs at the rate at which we initiated them obviously we would have had to have maintained the higher rate of Government spending. It has been accepted by all speakers in this debate and by outside economic commentators as well that constraint in Government spending is central to an anti-inflationary Budget at this time.

We have been told also that the Budget does not relieve the unemployment situation. In this area I would agree that the Government does have a very real problem. Inflation is now showing signs of easing- the rate of increase is not as great as it was- whereas in the area of unemployment we have a continuing problem. The Government, of course, is taking all steps possible to ensure that we can stimulate employment, especially in the private sector. Retail sales, for example, have grown very strongly in the last 6 months and consumer demand is increasing at a very significant rate. That will help to run down the stocks of industry in order to create opportunities for greater production at the factory level.

I want to deal now with what seems to me to be the most important aspect of the amendment, that is, paragraph (3), which says that this Budget does not restore confidence in the private sector of the economy. I suppose, as I mentioned earlier, that no government will be able to restimulate the private sector overnight. But, in view of the efforts that have been made by this Government in the last 12 months, we are seeing very definite signs of the private sector coming back very strongly. In fact, I was very interested to read only today that the gross operating profits of companies in Australia have increased in the last 12 months by no less than 26 per cent. That is not an unreasonable level of profit. That is not the point that is being made, but it is hardly a figure which would suggest that the private sector is in a state of decline. In fact, its profit margins improved much more dramatically in the first 6 months of 1975 than they did in the past 3 years. The Government has taken action through the Prices Justification Tribunal to ensure that the Tribunal takes into account the profitability of the companies that place submissions before it, and the effect of that action is now being felt. The June quarter of this year showed an increase of 37 per cent in the gross operating surplus of companies in Australia. I do not think it is logical for that to be ignored. The Government has endeavoured to bring the private sector back to a state of reasonable profitability, and it is doing so. The company tax reductions which were initiated last year and continued in this Budget mean savings of at least $ 1 50m to companies.

It is interesting also to consider the effect of the Government’s activities in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and in other fields to bring down the rate of increase in incomes in this country. Whereas the actual increase in wages and salaries in the September quarter of last year was 10.8 per cent, which was a very large increase, in each subsequent quarter the figure has come down to 4.9 per cent, 3.2 per cent, and 1.1 per cent in the June quarter. A dramatic increase has taken place in consumer spending. There was a decline in the September 1974 quarter and in the December 1974 quarter, but in the March quarter the fruits of the Government’s activities started to become apparent and there was an 8 per cent increase in that quarter, followed by a 9 per cent increase in the June quarter. All of these things suggest that the series of actions taken by the Government is allowing the private sector to move back into a state of confidence.

The question of new capital expenditure by industry should also be borne in mind. Again, we have been told that industry will not invest, it has no confidence in the future. But what are the latest figures available and what do they indicate? In the June quarter of this year, net capital expenditure by the total manufacturing sector in Australia was up by no less than 27 per cent. I will run down the list of individual industries and indicate their position, which the Government’s opponents have said is so parlous. In the textile, clothing and footwear industries there was an increase of 1 8 per cent, in the paper and printing industries an increase of 73 per cent, in the chemicals, petroleum and coal industries an increase of 28 per cent, and in the basic metals industry an increase of 97 per cent. I do not wish to labour the Senate by reading all the figures, but those are sufficient to show that the effect of the Government’s activities over the past 12 months is now being felt, and felt quite clearly. Despite the criticisms that have been made of the fact that the Government has found it necessary to slow down the rate of activity in some areas, the Government has not lost sight of its eventual goals, of the need to achieve the initiatives which it originally set out to achieve.

The whole thrust of the Budget, as the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has pointed out, is to nurture the Australian economy through what is now a gathering momentum. The Government would not wish to see a repetition of an accelerated recovery, which in all probability would create greater problems in the future. But given the attitude of the Government, given the assistance it has made available to industry and to the general redistribution of resources in this country, I believe that the Government can say confidently that the economy is moving back into a state of growth which will utilise to the full the resources of this country. We have all heard before the confident statements from the Opposition benches: ‘ We will do this to you; we will do that to you.’ History will tell us what will be done, and I suggest to the Opposition that overconfidence at this stage is not of great help to it. I can recall the over-confident stories of early last year, and we know what became of them.

The important point on which I will close is that without doubt the Budget which has been brought down by this Government is the most responsible Budget for many years, as Senator Chaney, the Liberal senator for Western Australia, said before he sat down. He complimented the Government on this Budget, and I think that probably his words would carry more weight than mine. Certainly I believe this to be a good Budget, but it is interesting to hear a Liberal senator make the same comment about it. I am sure that time will reveal the strengthening of the economy under the policies of this Budget. I ask the Senate to reject the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 29

NOES: 26

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 30

NOES: 26

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 697

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION AGREEMENT BILL 1975

Assent reported.

page 697

LOAN BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 September on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– As most honourable senators know, Bills similar to this Bill have come in at varying times in past years. A similar Bill has not come in every year, nor has one come in at the same time in various years. I draw to the attention of honourable senators who have an interest in this matter the attachment to an answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) to a series of questions in which he indicates the range of dates on which this type of legislation came in. A Bill of this type was introduced in March 1962. In other years such a Bill came in in November or September and not at all in the years 1964-65, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, and apparently 1973-74. Therefore, one can see that this type of legislation is irregular both as to amount and timing.

As I have mentioned previously, the second reading speech was not terribly satisfactory. It is a very short Bill; it contains only 5 clauses, two of which are of any consequence, the others being of little consequence. As far as I can see, both the Bill and the second reading speech were treated by the Government with a mechanical approach. I do not think that was satisfactory from the point of view of both the Senate and the amount of money that is involved. Nowhere in the second reading speech was any case made out for urgency in financing the size of deficit in respect of which this Bill is part of the general program. Perhaps these matters are not so momentous when the amounts involved are small, such as in 1961-62 when the amount was $47m and in some years when no such Bill was introduced.

Last year the amount involved was $956m and this year the amount, as transferred, is estimated at $1,1 52m. The amounts are beginning to become quite large. Therefore more time is necessary and more attention is to be given to this matter.

Senator Devitt:

– Would not the underlying principle be the same?

Senator COTTON:

-If the underlying principle is the same you would not have the variation as to time and amount throughout the years, nor would you have some years with no Bill such as this. I do not think it is strictly correct to say that the principle is the same. What is of concern here is the massive size of the deficit last year, the potential deficit this year, the method of financing that deficit, and the apprehension that the Opposition had, as did many other people, about all this. That apprehension was heightened by the very strange behaviour in regard to the overseas loan raising affair which I said then, and say now, in my view was part of the general problem or general approach of trying to fund and finance deficits. If we look at the total deficits program, firstly, last year finished with a deficit of $2,567m and the estimated deficit for this year is $2,800m. We are looking at a total deficit of $5,367m. I am referring to round figures only for the sake of speed and the convenience of my honourable colleagues. I am leaving out all the noughts and millions involved.

When you look, therefore, at a program for which the current year’s deficit is estimated to be $2,800m and you know that last year the estimate in effect was magnified 5 times in error, from $570m to about $2,600m, you have apprehensions at the beginning of the financial year about the value and accuracy of the estimating. Therefore the Senate ought to be concerned about the whole level of the financial approach to this underlying problem of how to handle this magnitude of over-expenditure. When you think about the fact that 2 months of the year have now run, you can look at the table, issued I think yesterday, which sets out the Government’s financial transactions for the first 2 months of the current financial year. Bearing in mind that it is estimated that there will be a total deficit of $2,800m for the year, a year of 12 months ending next June, we find that the figures now available, under Government print, show at the end of August a figure of $ 1 ,0 7 1 m.

Honourable senators will appreciate that this relates to only part of the year and other things have yet to happen. The situation may improve but, on the other hand, it may worsen. There are some calculations available which show that the deficit will be something in the order of over $4,000m by the end of December but will then gradually rectify itself. But at the end of 2 months there is a deficit of $1,07 1 m as against the full year’s program of $2,800m. That deficit has been financed by running down the available cash, again very heavily, and at the same time using a certain amount of loan proceeds in Australia, and by paying back a little bit of the Treasury notes that are outstanding. I will refer to those later. Therefore, I think underlying this again is the massive size of the deficit last year and the pending deficit this year. How is this to be financed overall? Let us consider the strains this may put on the system and the dangers it may place on the financial solvency of Australia. All of us should be concerned and apprehensive about this situation.

Therefore J hold the view that Parliament in these circumstances ought to be apprehensive. The Senate should be careful and watchful and it is time for it to use its inspectorial powers, if that is the best way to describe them. That was the reason, as I said earlier, for our questions on 29 August which were dealt with on that day. As I said then, the Government would appear to me to be out of cash. I think that statement has proven to be substantially true by the end of August. However, it is not out of credit. No government is out of cash. The Government itself can create credit; it does create credit. But 1 believe it should not do so in massive amounts without some understanding by the Parliament and some oversight by the Parliament. If we look at the Australian scene and at the national securities on issue, the Government securities on issue, we find that of the Australian total debt at June 1975 the Commonwealth or Australian Government debt is $5,956,152,000, of which $3,086,216,000 is made up of Treasury bills or short term debt. This seems to me to be a rather strange way to go on. At the same time, the debts of the Australian States are nearly twice as large at $1 1,813,759,000. 1 have this table which also indicates the debt per head of population, and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard because it may make it easier for those who wish to follow this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

-On 2 September the Leader of the Government in the Senate was good enough to bring back some answers to the questions asked on 29 August and they were satisfactory to some extent, and helpful, to some extent, but they were not wholly informative. They did not cover the full situation. In some particular areas one began to develop some further apprehension and concern about, for instance, what was the truly liquid position of Australia at the end of August. What was the accurate position about the Commonwealth loan? Was it the success it was claimed to be? How much money went into the long end of the market and how much into the short end of the market? Who put the money in? In effect, how much new money turned up and how much was what I call ‘switching around’? There was some concern about the general problem of the relationship to the Loan Council and the loan and financial agreements which, from my point of view, are still not entirely satisfied.

Senator Devitt:

- Senator, do you say that you have not got the answers? You asked a series of questions. Are you claiming that you have not got precise answers to the questions that you asked?

Senator COTTON:

- Senator, I appreciate very much your continuous interest and your wish to help, but if you will let me proceed the whole scene will become clear. To repeat, what I am saying now is that on 29 August 10 questions were asked. On 2 September we received answers to those 10 questions. Following on from that we held the view that there was a need for more information, more specific detail, and some clarity in some of these areas which are still of concern. Accordingly, the Minister arranged for some senior Treasury officials to have a conference with a few of us on the morning of 3 September. We had a long discussion and indicated the areas of our concern and apprehension. We indicated our wish to have more information and we roughed out a series of questions which we have been since polishing up. We thank those officers and the Minister for making their services available to us.

We have drafted an additional series of questions which we believe would help to clarify this matter for us all. I have them available and they can be circulated in order that my honourable colleagues will have access to them. At this point of time I will read them because I think it may help people to realise some of the problems we see. These are the additional questions.

What is the reason for the urgency of the Bill. (Why should it be passed before the Appropriation Acts for 1975-76? Is it needed urgently because the Government is running out of cash balances and needs to borrow to finance expenditures?)
How much Defence expenditure is authorised in Supply Act (No. 1) 1975-76?
Could a table be prepared for the years 1969-70 to 1975-76 showing Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures, Consolidated Revenue Fund receipts, the amount of Defence expenditure transferred from CRF to Loan Fund, other net transactions of the Loan Fund and net transactions of the Trust Fund.
What are the specific authorities under which expenditures have been charged to the Loan Fund from 1 974-75?
Under what authorities can Trust Fund moneys be used in the Loan Fund?
Can moneys currently in the Loan Fund and which were raised for other purposes bc drawn on to meet Defence expenditures?

What is the Loan Council program for 1975-76?
Arc there any resolutions of the Loan Council relating to Defence loans?
What credits are, or would be, available in the Loan Fund which can be used for Defence purposes?

Does the ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ require consultation with the States concerning borrowing for Defence purposes?
b ) What are the precedents?
Does the consultative process still have application?
1. In what years did the CRF have a surplus and what amount?
2. To what extent do the August loan proceeds relate to long term borrowings and short term moneys? How much long and short term moneys were obtained from banks and other institutions?
3. 1 . Does the Government have some overall target for the rate of growth in the volume of money (M3) during 1975-76?
4. If the answer to question 1 1 is yes, what is the level of the rate of growth referred to in that question?
5. In reference to the answer to question 7 (f) given previously, can the Government give some quantitative indication on what might be regarded as excessive reliance on the use of cash balances in financing the deficit?
6. What would happen if the domestic market cannot finance the $2,800m deficit?
7. What Acts authorise Re-issue of Treasury Bills mentioned in Clause 3 of the Loan Bill?
8. What is the amount borrowed under this Section 3 since 1969-70?
9. Has any previous Loan Bill been unlimited in amount (save to the extent of appropriations for defence expenditure)?
10. What are the possible amounts which could be considered by the Treasurer at the time of borrowing
moneys lawfully available for expenditure from the CRF in financial year ending 30/6/76
expenditure authorised to be made from CRF in that year
consequent deficit between (b)-(a).

Those are the extra questions to which it would help us greatly to have answers. I imagine it is possible that the Treasury officials are a long way towards having them ready. It is stated in the previous series of answers that the Government intends to have practically no overseas borrowing and it is noted also by the Opposition that since the overseas loan transaction- that strange one- there has been laid down a series of very distinct, definite and positive rules about the raising of overseas loans by Australia. They seem to me to be very good rules. They ought to clear up any problems in the future. They are now established as rules, whereas apparently previously they were not.

The position of the States vis a vis the Commonwealth is concerned in this whole matterwhether the States in effect are being treated fairly by the Commonwealth or vice versa. That needs further elucidation. There is the matter of the loan agreement, the Australian Loan Council and the national debt sinking fund. It is worthy of recollection that a consolidation of the national debt sinking fund, the national debt and the National Debt Commission was the product of what used to be described as a profligacy in the States in the 1920s. It was necessary for the Commonwealth to move in and pick up the total debt, co-ordinate the borrowing, control it, create a sinking fund and repay it regularly to establish national credit. That is what happened, hence the loan agreement, the Loan Council, the consolidation and the sinking fund. It might be fairly said by the States at the present time, with the deficit the Commonwealth is now mounting, that their financial futures may be placed in hazard under the loan agreement and the sinking fund if the Commonwealth itself is profligate, as the State may say they are not. I am not saying this is the case. I am saying these are points that are being raised and thought about and that are of concern to those who are looking at this prediction.

When one talks about financing these deficits one is talking about- as the answers illuminateeither using domestic borrowing, not overseas borrowings, or having access to the credit pool created by the Government itself. Therefore, it is essential I believe for there to be a great degree of confidence in the Australian community if the people who have savings are to take those savings out of one place and put them in domestic loans in another place. Otherwise we will be back to where we started, where these deficits will have to be financed by the printing press- by the expansion of credit by the person who has access to that credit- and this has very great dangers if not regulated. So I believe the loan result does stand some challenge. I believe it is not as satisfactory as it has been stated to be. The amount of money involved looks good. But when one looks at the amount of actual money that went into the short end of the market and the money that came from the traditionally genuine lender, exclusive of government institutions and banks, the result is not as encouraging as one would like. If these deficits are to be financed by long-term domestic borrowings there has to be confidence in the lenders, who are voluntary lenders, and we have to play a part in making sure that confidence is justified.

If honourable senators have looked at some of the indicators of availability of funds they will all realise that the savings bank deposits of $ 13,000m at the latest recording have grown from about $ 11,000m in 12 months. Obviously people still have a high saving habit and the money is available for people to lend if they are satisfied that the loan is justified and that the Australian Government is running things properly. That is a matter about which the Government has to satisfy the people. In going through this I have been doing quite a lot of work and I have looked at a lot of documents. One document that interested me greatly for later discussion concerned the national debt, which is in the hands of the National Debt Commission. This Commission is responsible for sinking fund repayments and its Commissioners are the Treasurer of the Austraiian Government, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Secretary to the Treasury, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Secretary of the Attorney-General ‘s Department, a representative of the States and the Secretary of the Auditor-General’s Department. In my innocent fashion I look at those people and I say to myself, in the context of the national debt now existing, that they would appear to be trustees on behalf of the States, the Commonwealth and the people and therefore will be looking at the debt structure on the basis that perhaps they are not responsible for raising this large debt but that clearly they have responsibility for seeing that it is properly paid off under sinking fund arrangements. I should think the representative of the States ought to be looking at this pretty critically in the light of the size of the deficits that require financing as time passes.

I have looked also at the report of a series of eminent senators, two now deceased and two with us- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, Senator Wright, the late Dame Ivy Wedgwood and the late Honourable Colin McKellar- in which they consider dealing with Appropriation Bills. This matter will come up later on. I note from their report that they recommended that defence expenditures should be excluded from what might be called ‘capital works and services’ and should be treated as ordinary annual services of the Government. I think one would have to study this fairly carefully because when one looks at Appropriation Bills Nos 1 and 2 and studies the Defence Department’s own estimates one finds all sorts of strange items that appear to be ordinary annual services. One finds things like buildings $75m, housing $40m, acquisitition of sites $2m and equipment, etc. $38 1 m. If a lot of that is not capital works I am mystified. I am sure there are good reasons why it was done like this. However, the total defence expenditure appears in Appropriation Bill No. 1 and is therefore not subject to amendment by the Senate. But without any doubt at all that expenditure includes a huge amount of capital works. I believe this aspect needs to be clarified later, perhaps in other debates, by those honourable senators who have studied it more intimately. I think there is some confusion between those 2 areas. I have always believed that this was a serious matter and should be debated seriously.

I believe that generation of credit without limit by an Australian Government ought not to be allowed by the Parliament without some scrutiny and the Senate has a responsibility here. I also believe that if the Australian people have money in savings banks, which they want to invest voluntarily in domestic loans, that is without exception. It is their privilege and their responsibility to do so but in no way should they be compelled to do so. They should be satisfied it is what they want to do. So I have a clear view that the generation of excess credit, which is not satisfied in the end by proper borrowings, is full of the greatest dangers to the currency’s stability and the long term security of the country. It ought to be put under a check situation. The money supply figures need further clarification and examination. I say to my honourable colleagues that that is as brief as I can be. I am hoping that the Minister will be able to let me have some answers to the further series of questions, either now or later. I would then be quite content to be very brief indeed, Senator Devitt could have his dinner whenever he likes and other colleagues could take an interest in this matter. I feel I can add very little more except perhaps to comment on further questions when they become available.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– It was my understanding when the second set of answers to questions were sought by the Opposition that, after I had obtained the answers, and given a copy to Senator Cotton, that information would be tabled and incorporated in Hansard. It seems to be rather pointless to debate this Bill now because I understand that Senator Cotton has indicated that the Opposition wants time to consider these answers, as they did in respect of the first lot of answers. So I think that perhaps the best thing we can do is for me to seek leave to have these answers incorporated in Hansard, to move that the debate be adjourned and to seek leave to continue my remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted to incorporate the answers in Hansard? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

ANNEXURE 1

Additional questions raised by Opposition Senators on Loan Bill 1975

What is the reason for the urgency of the Bill? (Why should it be passed before the Appropriation Acts for 1975-76? Is it needed urgently because the Government is running out of cash balances and needs to borrow to finance expenditures?)

How much Defence expenditure is authorised in Supply Act(No. 1) 1975-76?

Could a table be prepared for the years 1969-70 to 1975-76 showing Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures, Consolidated Revenue Fund receipts, the amount of Defence expenditure transferred from CRF to Loan Fund, other net transactions of the Loan Fund and net transactions of the Trust Fund.

What are the specific authorities under which expenditures have been charged to the Loan Fund from 1974-75?

Under what authorities can Trust Fund moneys be used in the Loan Fund?

Can moneys currently in the Loan Fund and which were raised for other purposes be drawn on to meet Defence expenditures?

–

What is the Loan Council program for 1975-76?

Are there any resolutions of the Loan Council relating to Defence loans?

. What credits are, or would be, available in the Loan .

Fund which can be used for Defence purposes?

–

Does the ‘Gentlemens Agreement’ require consultation with the States concerning borrowing for Defence purposes?

b ) What are the precedents?

Does that consultative process still have application?

In what years did the CRF have a surplus and what amount?

To what extent do the August loan proceeds relate to long term borrowings and short term moneys? How much long and short term moneys were obtained from banks and other institutions?

1 . Does the Government have some overall target for the rate of growth in the volume of money (M3) during 1975-76?

If the answer to question 1 1 is yes, what is the level of the rate of growth referred to in that question?

In reference to the answer to question 7 (f) given previously, can the Government give some quantitative indication on what might be regarded as excessive reliance on the use of cash balances in financing the deficit?

What would happen if the domestic market cannot finance the $2,800 million deficit?

What Acts authorize re-issue of Treasury Bills mentioned in Clause 3 of the Loan Bill?

What is the amount borrowed under this section 3 since 1969-70?

Have any previous Loan Bills been unlimited in amount (save to the extent of appropriations for Defence expenditure)?

What are the possible amounts which could be considered by the Treasurer at the time of borrowing:

moneys lawfully available for expenditure from the CRF in financial year ending 30 June 1 976;

b ) expenditure authorized to be made from CRF in that year

consequent deficit between (b)-(a)?

Question 1. What is the reason for the urgency of the Bill? (Why should it be passed before the Appropriation Acts for 1975-76? Is it needed urgently because the Government is running out of cash balances and needs to borrow to finance expenditures?)

Answer. A Loan Act of the type proposed cannot be retrospective in its effect; it can only apply to Defence spending from the date on which the Act receives Royal Assent. The Bill aims to meet a prospective deficit in the CRF by transferring Defence expenditures from that Fund to the Loan Fund. On the basis of the estimates shown in Table 3 on page 10 of Budget Document No. 4, the currently estimated CRF deficit, in the absence of the proposed Act, is $1,1 52m. This compares with total proposed appropriations for 1975-76 under the heading Department of Defence of $1,71 lm. A large proportion of Defence expenditure will, therefore, need to be charged to Loan Fund. Given that the effect of the Act cannot be retrospective it needs to be enacted at an early date to permit charging of Defence expenditure to Loan Fund to commence.

Early introduction of a Loan Act is not unusual where a need to charge a substantial proportion of Defence expenditure to Loan Fund is anticipated. For example, the Loan Act 1967 was introduced on 6 September 1 967.

The Bill should be passed before the Appropriation Bills 1975-76 for two reasons:

The figures set put above imply that a proportion of Defence expenditure authorized in Supply Act (No. 1) 1975-76 will need to be charged to Loan Fund; and
1. as stated in my Second Reading Speech it will be necessary to amend Appropriation Act (No.1) 1975-76 to make it subject to the provisions of this Act.

The technical reasons for the Loan Bill 1975 to be enacted as quickly as possible are the only reasons for its early introduction. Early enactment of the Bill is not required to avoid a shortage of cash balances. There are standing authorities that can be used for borrowings in the financing of temporary shortages of cash within the financial year.

Question 2. How much Defence expenditure is authorized in Supply Act (No. 1) 1975-76?

Answer. Under the heading ‘Department of Defence’ Supply Act (No. 1) 1975-76 appropriates a total of $660,691,000.

Question 3. Could a table be prepared for the years 1969-70 to 1975-76 showing Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures, Consolidated Revenue Fund receipts, the amount of Defence expenditure transferred from CRF to Loan Fund, other net transactions of the Loan Fund and net transactions of the Trust Fund? Question 4. What are the specific authorities under which expenditures have been charged to the Loan Fund from 1974-75? Answer- Question 5. Under what authorities can Trust Fund moneys be used in the Loan Fund? Answer. Moneys standing to the credit of the Trust Fund may be invested in Australian Government Securities and in that sense become available for use in the Loan Fund. The more important authorities are: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Audit Act 190 1-1975- Section 62 b provides that moneys standing to the credit of the Trust Fund may be invested by the Treasurer. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Act 1955-1973- Section 4 establishes the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve as a Trust Account for the purposes of Section 62a of the Audit Act 1 90 1- 1 975. Section 6(3) provides that moneys standing to the credit of the Reserve may be invested in accordance with Section 62b of the Audit Act 190 1- 1 975. There are other authorities of lesser importance including investment provisions under the Wool Industry Act 1 972- 1 974 and the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1 974. In addition, the transactions of the National Debt Sinking Fund and the Superannuation Fund are recorded, for accounting purposes, in the Trust Fund. These accounts or Funds do not, however, form part of the Treasurer's accounts. The investment powers of these accounts are controlled by the National Debt Commission and the Superannuation Board. Question 6. Can moneys currently in the Loan Fund and which were raised for other purposes be drawn on to meet Defence expenditures? Answer. No, unless legislation were enacted to authorise such drawings. Also, regard would need to be had to any terms, in the arrangements for the borrowing of the moneys, limiting the purposes for which the moneys are to be expended. Question 7.- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. What is the Loan Council program for 1975-76? 1. Are there any resolutions of the Loan Council relating to Defence Loans? 2. What credits are, or would be, available in the Loan Fund which can be used for Defence purposes? Answer 7.- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Except to the extent that the Australian Loan Council agrees otherwise, its decisions are confidential. However, following the June 1 975 meeting of the Council, it was announced that the Council had approved a borrowing program for the financing of State Government borrowing programs and capital grants to the States of $l,291m for 1975-76. All borrowings by the Australian Government which come within the ambit of Clause 3 ( 8) of the Financial Agreement do, of course, require prior approval by the Loan Council and must be within previously approved program limits. 1. No. 2. See the answer to question 6. No funds are available, under existing legislation, for expenditure from the Loan Fund for defence purposes. Question 8.- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Does the 'Gentlemen's Agreement' require consultation with the States concerning borrowing for Defence purposes? 1. b) What are the precedents? 2. Does that consultative process still have application? Answer 8.- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. No. The Gentlemen 's Agreement relates only to borrowings by semi-government and local authorities. 1. See answer to (a). 2. See answer to (a). Question 9. In what years did the Consolidated Revenue Fund have a surplus and what amount? Answer. There has not been a surplus in a technical sense in the Consolidated Revenue Fund since 1907-08. Since that time all revenues credited to the CRF have been appropriated by Parliament for some specific purpose. The Honourable **Senator may** be alluding to the procedure whereby certain moneys, which would otherwise rest in the CRF, have been transferred to various Trust Accounts under appropriations of the Parliament. Since 1955-56 such moneys have been paid to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve (part of the Trust Fund). The moneys appropriated to that Reserve are applied to repurchasing or redeeming securities which represent portion of the public debt of the Commonwealth. Pending the application of the moneys for that purpose they may be invested. Transfers from the CRF to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve in recent years are shown in the answer to question 3. Question 10. To what extent do the August loan proceeds relate to long term borrowings and short term moneys? How much long and short term moneys were obtained from banks and other institutions? Answer. In announcing on 26 August 1 975 the result of the recent August loan, the Treasurer stated that cash subscriptions totalled $68 1 . 7m, comprising $354.0m of subscriptions to the 18-month (February 1977) stock, $292.2m to the 51/4 year (November 1980) stock and $34.7m to the 91/2 year (February 1985) stock. In response to an earlier question (No. 6) by **Senator Cotton** (see Senate Hansard of 2 September page 419), it was stated that almost 50 per cent of total cash subscriptions in the August loan came from trading banks. Nearly all of these were directed to the 18-month and 514 year stocks. In response to that earlier question, it was also stated that about one sixth of the total subscriptions were from institutions subject to 30/20. Pension and provident funds were the largest subscribers to the February 1 985 stock. Questions 1 1 and 12. Does the Government have some overall target for the rate of growth of the volume of money (M3) during 1975-76? If so, what is that rate of growth? Answer. The Government does not have any precise, quantative target as such for the rate of growth for the volume of money (M3) during 1975-76. Rather, as the Treasurer indicated in his Budget Speech, it is the Government's objective to maintain a monetary policy during 1 975-76 which is consistent with a gradual recovery in output and employment without being fully accommodating to inflation. The Reserve Bank estimates that the underlying annual rate of growth in M3 at present is probably in excess of 20 per cent. As well as can be forecast, the Budget is consistent with an increase in M3 of about 20 per cent between June 1975 and June 1976. Some slowing in the rate as the year progresses would be consistent with this yearly figure. Even these broad statements need to be heavily qualified, however, because quite small changes in underlying factors can produce marked swings in the monetary aggregates. The more important assumptions which underlie the above statements on the rate of growth in M3 in 1975-76 were mentioned in Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech, namely: The general stance of monetary policy will remain such that the liquidity of the banking system is sufficient to meet the basic immediate needs of the economy for finance without being fully accommodating to inflationary demands. Apart from the Budget proposals themselves, there will be no new fiscal measures during 1975-76. During that period, there will be no significant change in Australia 's external economic policies; meanwhile, the recovery just beginning in the economies of several of our major trading partners will progress at a moderate pace. (Developments on external account are of course particularly difficult to predict). Question 13. In reference to the answer to question 7(f) given previously, can the Government give some quantitative indication of what might be regarded as excessive reliance on the use of cash balances in financing the deficit? Answer. As stated in answer to question 7 ( f), the use of cash balances with the Reserve Bank is a residual financing transaction; the call on cash balances depends, therefore, on the outcome of other financing transactions. The active or policy element in the financing of the deficit is the sale of government securities (bonds and Treasury Notes), especially to the non-bank public. The broad objective of the Government's monetary policy at present is to maintain a level of liquidity sufficient to meet the basic immediate needs of the economy without being fully accommodating to inflation. Consistent with this objective the Government is endeavouring to increase the sale of government securities, especially to the non-bank public. The record August loan was an encouraging response in this regard. However, for reasons indicated in answer to the earlier question 7, forecasts of net sales of government securities are notoriously difficult to make and no such forecasts have been published for almost a decade. The Government would be aiming however to finance most of the deficit by means of sales of government securities but it is impossible to be more precise than that. As circumstances are foreseen at present (and they could change, in either direction) there would be excess reliance on cash balances in financing the deficit if, over the year as a whole, that aim were not achieved. Question 14. What would happen if the domestic market cannot finance the $2, 800m deficit? Answer. As indicated in answers to previous questions, the extent to which the domestic market will be called upon to finance the deficit will be determined largely by general monetary conditions, which are not entirely predictable, and by the stance of monetary policy, which may need to be changed in response to changes in monetary conditions and ' economic conditions generally. However, no Government can be expected to indicate what, if any, those changes in . policy might be. As mentioned previously, the Government will be striving to increase net sales of government securities in 1 975-76, especially to the non-bank private sector, and the record August loan result was very encouraging from this point of view. It was also indicated in the answers to questions 7(a) and (b) that overseas loan raisings were expected- to play very little part in financing the 1975-76 deficit. To the extent that insufficient funds are available from these sources the Government will, as in past years, resort to residual financing- i.e. use of cash balancesand/or other residual financing arrangements with the Reserve Bank. Question 15. What Acts authorise reissue of Treasury Bills mentioned in Clause 3 of the Loan Bill? Answer. The Acts authorising the issue of Treasury Bills mentioned in Clause 3 are: The Treasury Bills Act 1914-1973 and the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 191 1-1973. Question 1 6. What is the amount borrowed under this Section 3 since 1969-70? Answer. I take it that what is required is information on the amounts borrowed under previous Loan Acts since 1969-70. The amounts borrowed under Loan Acts since 1969-70 are: 1972-73- $ 189m 1974-75-$956m Question 1 7. Have any previous Loan Bills been unlimited in amount (save to the extent of appropriations for Defence expenditure)? Answer. There have been previous Loan Acts which express limitations in similar terms to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Loan Bill 1975. These are: LoanAct(No.2) 1968(ActNo. 135of 1968) Loan Act 1 970 ( Act No. 3 1 of 1 970 ) Loan Act 1971 (Act No. 36 of 1971) Loan Act 1974 (Act No. 144 of 1974) Although no specific amounts are mentioned, the limitations imposed in the Loan Bill 1 975 are real in two senses: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The amounts borrowed will be applied to expenditures specified under the heading 'Department of Defence' in other Acts appropriating funds for that purpose. In other words, the total to be charged to Loan Fund cannot exceed the total expenditures of the Department of Defence to be incurred during 1975-76 after the enactment of this Bill and which have received Parliamentary authorization in 1975-76 Supply and Appropriation Acts; and 1. there is a further limitation in that authority to borrow is limited to the extent of the anticipated deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Question 1 8. What are the possible amounts which could be considered by the Treasurer at the time of borrowing: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. moneys lawfully available for expenditure from the CRFin financial year ending 30 June 1976; 1. b) expenditure authorized to be made from CRF in that year; 2. consequent deficit between (b)- (a)? Answer. As stated in the Second Reading Speech on this Bill, it is not possible to be completely precise as to the amount of Defence expenditure which it is proposed be charged to the Loan Fund. With three quarters of the financial year yet to come obviously there can be changes either up or down in estimated receipts and estimated expenditurethat is, in the very nature of estimates. At the current time the latest available estimates are those set out in Table 3 of Budget Paper No. 4 'Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure'. Those figures are: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. $19,051,313,000. 1. $20,203,436,000. 2. $ 1,152,123,000. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Leave has been sought by **Senator Wriedt** to continue his remarks. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: **- Mr President,** I seek some clarification in relation to this matter. I understand that **Senator Cotton** has now concluded his speech in relation to this Bill. He did not seek leave to continue his remarks. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- Would you like me to reply? I am happy to answer this, if you like. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- No, I am asking **Mr President** for a ruling on where you stand in this debate. This is the second time this has happened and I just want clarification of the position. I want to know whether I have to find speakers to follow in this debate immediately because I understand that **Senator Cotton** has concluded his remarks by not seeking leave to continue them. I want clarification to assist me in my job as Government Whip in arranging a speakers' list. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I would indicate that at the moment **Senator Cotton** has completed his remarks. If he wishes to speak again he would have to seek the leave of the Senate. The question now is: >That the debate be now adjourned and the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. *Sitting suspended from 5.51 to 8 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 705 {:#debate-41} ### ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported: >Defence Force Reorganisation Bill 1975 Papua New Guinea Bill 1975 Papua New Guinea Independence Bill 1975 Papua New Guinea Loans Guarantee Bill 1 975 Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Bill 1975 Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1975 {: .page-start } page 705 {:#debate-42} ### STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1975 Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it has agreed to the Senate's request to the Bill with modifications, and has made amendments to clause 3 of the Bill. They deal simply with the verbiage of our amendment. Modification (a) suggests that we omit 'at such earlier time as legislation is passed' and substitute the words 'on such earlier date as legislation comes into operation'. Modification (b) suggests that at the end of the requested amendment we add a following sub-clause which preserves the existing charges. That is ancillary and reasonably relevant to the clause. Then a schedule of amendments has been added. For simplicity I shall refer to one only. It purports to substitute in the original Bill figures which are much higher than those contained in the original Bill and in respect of which we made no amendment. **Mr President,** you will remember that the charge authorised by law up to the date when we considered the Bill in June was $1.50. After a division we accepted the Bill which proposed that that charge should be lifted to $2.50. Now, in the form of a schedule of amendments, without any explanation, we receive a calm proposal that we lift the charge not to the original ceiling of $2.50 set out in the Bill but to $4. That converts the Bill into an entirely new proposition which I state briefly this way: The Bill was dealing with the stevedoring industry charges. For certain purposes associated with the industry the charge is levied on the basis of man hours of waterfront labour employed. {: #debate-42-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ask the honourable senator to bear with me for a moment. I would like to have the matter clarified. We cannot debate the Bill on a point of order. I feel that we should properly bring this matter before the chamber in the form of a motion. The honourable senator then would be able to debate the matter. But to debate the matter on a point of order would be departing from the normal procedures so I cannot allow the debate to develop. **Senator Wright,** are you prepared to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow this matter properly to come before the Senate? You can then debate it. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I submit that the honourable senator is attempting to prevent the consideration of this Bill on a mere procedural quibble. I am prepared to answer all the objections which he has raised. I propose to move that the Bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole of the Senate. In order to have the matters which the honourable senator has raised properly considered, I move: I also move: >That message No. 352 of the House of Representatives be considered in the Committee of the Whole forthwith. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- We will have to take those motions separately. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **- Mr President,** would you consider a request from me that the Senate give leave to the Minister for Labour and Immigration to move the 2 motions together? This would more adequately cover the point 1 want to present. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I will put the motions consecutively. The first motion relates to the suspension of Standing Orders. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- The Minister has moved that Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Senate to consider the schedule of amendments. That is directed to the point of procedure which I was taking. If that motion is passed the Minister proposes to move that the amendments proposed be referred to a Committee of the Whole. I would be opposed to both motions. I seek to avoid duplication of any argument and therefore 1 ask that the procedure be adopted that the 2 motions be taken together by leave. One argument then would suffice for the points. If that is not done I shall address myself to the argument on the first motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Wright** seeks leave for the motions to be taken together. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. **Senator Wright,** do you wish to speak to the motions {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- The point is that the Minister, by moving the suspension of Standing Orders so as to enable the Senate to consider the schedule, has, in effect, conceded the point that I make. If Standing Orders were not suspended I submit it would be quite clear that the Senate would not substitute at this stage, in the guise of an amendment, what is in effect a new Bill. May I put it this way: The original Bill was a Bill to authorise the increase of stevedoring tax on waterfront labour from the then existing limit of $1.50 or $1.60 to $2.50 per man hour. After debate and a division in this chamber, that provision of the Bill was agreed to. That is to say, the substantive part of the Bill was designed to increase the charge from $1.50 per man hour of waterfront labour employed to $2.50 an hour. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I rise on a point of order. The course that is being taken by the honourable senator will, I suggest with respect, unduly prolong this debate. What I have suggested is a suspension of Standing Orders in order to make it possible for the Senate to consider the amendments to clause 3 of the Bill. Whether or not in so moving I have conceded that there is some procedural flaw in what has been done here tonight is surely irrelevant to the main task of this chamber, which is to consider the substantive merits of what is before us. For the sake of simplification, I combined with that motion a motion that the message of the House of Representatives be considered in the Committee of the Whole forthwith. I suggest that the purposes of this debate will best be served if that composite motion were voted on or agreed upon now. Then I would be able to make the point that I have to make in support of what is being proposed here tonight. The debate which **Senator Wright** proposes to launch could be launched on the basis of what the Government proposes in the matter, rather than have a long and tedious debate on the preliminary threshhold point which gets the matter before the Senate. I suggest that it is not appropriate, at this stage, for **Senator Wright** to put the submissions that he is putting. I believe that we should have either a vote or a consensus of the Senate that the matter should be considered in the Committee of the Whole forthwith. **Senator Wright** will then have the opportunity, after I have spoken in support of the substantive motion that I will be moving, to put all the points he wishes to make. I suggest that that will abbreviate the debate. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I should like to reply to that, **Mr President.** I was speaking when the Minister intervened. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I realise that. I should like to say that **Senator James** McClelland spoke to a point of order. I was not quite certain what the point of order was. I think he indicated his reason for intervening. I think that the debate that we have before us now is on the suspension of Standing Orders. Rather than introduce the substance of the Bill into the debate, I think we should keep the debate to the motion before the Chair, which is a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I intend to do that. **Senator James** McClelland must be very jittery and apprehensive when he predicts that I will engage in a long and tedious debate. I shall speak with my accustomed brevity, provided I am not interrupted. When interrupted, of course, I have a tendency to continue. I was only seeking to explain the substance of the procedural point that I am putting. The original Bill contained a proposal by the Government to get legal authority, by legislation, to increase the amount of the charge from $1.50 to $2.50 per man hour of waterfront labour employed. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- That is not procedural. It is standard; not procedural. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Thank you. I am going to point out that it is of substance to those who wish to consider the legislation properly. That is the proposition in the Bill. I remind the Senate that we debated whether or not the limit should be lifted to $2.25 or $2.50. On a division, the Government - {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I rise on a point of order. This is surely an absurdly obstructive attitude being taken by the honourable senator. There is no intention on the part of the Government to prevent him from putting, at tedious length, every point that he may wish to make. Let him speak as often as he likes. Let us first clear the deck and get this matter before the Committee of the Whole. Then **Senator Wright** can make all of these points as theatrically as he likes but for God's sake only once. I suggest that **Senator Wright** is not debating a procedural matter, he is debating a substantive matter, and that this should not be allowed on a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow the matter to come before the proper forum of the Senate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The question is that Standing Orders be suspended. I think that we should consider and finalise that motion. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I hope that none other than **Senator James** McClelland will wish to treat it in such a nonsensical way as to consider it without understanding the substance of it. My point is that the substantive provision of the Bill was designed to increase the amount of levy that was allowed as a tax. This matter has been debated and has been the subject of a division in the Senate. The Government Bill was sent unamended in this respect to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives cannot take another amendment, simply in point of time, as a vehicle to cast back to the Senate a new Bill. If it comes before us as an amendment by the House of Representatives we have no second reading speech. We have no interval for deliberation and ascertainment of the facts. If there are in this place people like **Senator James** McClelland, who is inclined to bully union meetings wherever he goes and to arrogantly perform as Diamond Jim, I suggest there are others who will wish, if there is to be a new proposal, that this tax should be $4 - {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP **- Mr President,** I must insist on the simple point of order that I took earlier, and that is that the substantive debate on this matter should be considered when we have taken the proper procedures to refer the matter to the Committee of the Whole of the Senate. We are used, in this place, to **Senator Wright's** histrionics. I must say, as an ardent fan of his histrionics, that I much prefer his matinees to the late late show. If possible, cannot we get this simple matter, which has not been opposed in the other place by members of **Senator Wright's** party, disposed of, without being subjected to an absurd overacting performance from **Senator Wright?** Let us clear the decks and have a substantive debate on the matter. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The interpretation that I put on this is that **Senator Wright** is debating the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. He has a right to debate that matter, and so he shall continue. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- The point I was making at the last interruption was simply this: There was no amendment from the Senate to the House of Representatives regarding the amount of this levy. After debate and division, this Senate agreed to the only proposal that was then before us, which was an amount of $2.50 as the limit of the levy. Therefore, the Bill in that respect was submitted to the House of Representatives with our amendments. Insofar as the House of Representatives wishes to deal with our amendments, it is entitled to return the Bill with any modification of those amendments. But by adding a schedule of modification to an amendment whereby the House of Representatives institutes a substantial provision, making the charge $4 per man hour and not the original $2.50 per man hour, it is, in effect, producing a new Bill which we are expected to debate without a second reading speech, and without proper information being placed before us in the proper manner. **Mr President,** those are the bases upon which I ask the Senate not to agree to suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent this unauthorised Schedule from being taken into consideration by way of this abbreviated procedure. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I shall be brief in my reply, **Mr President.** I do concede, if it gives any comfort to **Senator Wright,** that the procedure adopted here is not completely in accordance with the usual practice. It is for that purpose - {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Why did you not say that before? {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- What was that muttering, **Senator Webster?** {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Why did you not say that before? {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I did say it before. If **Senator Webster** had been present and had been listening he would have known that. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- I do not think you did. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am suggesting that when we are gathered in this Senate we are a bunch of serious people who want to get on with the business and that we are not going to be bogged down in tiny, trivial point-taking. In the other place- the House of Representatives- the serious people in **Senator Wright's** Party did not object to the passage of this Bill, even though it does depart in some minute way from the accepted procedures of the Parliament. It is for that reason and in order that we may dispose of a matter about which there is a consensus between the Parties that I have moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the matter might be proceeded with despite the trivial, minute problems that confront **Senator Wright** as major matters. What does he want to do? Does he want to turn this place into a pettifogging, little Hobart lawyer's playground or does he want to get on with the business of the Parliament? It is to remove any little objections that he wants to turn into a major contest that I have moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders. I understand that **Senator Wright's** Party does not object to this Bill. So let us get on with the business. Let us vote on the suspension of the Standing Orders and deal with the merits of the Bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The question is: That the motions be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- The noes have it. A division is required. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There has to be more than one voice calling for a division. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- There is that second one here. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- A division is required. Ring the bells. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O 'Byrne) AYES: 49 NOES: 6 Majority....... 43 AYES NOES Questions so resolved in the affirmative. *In Committee* Clause 3. Section 5 of the *Stevedoring Industry Charge Act* 1947- 1973 is amended- Senate's request- >After clause 3 add the following new clause: > >The operation of this 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.'. House of Representatives modifications to Senate's request- >omit 'at such earlier time as legislation is passed', substitute 'on such earlier date as legislation comes into operation'; > >at the end of the requested amendment add the following sub-clause: > >Sub-section ( 1 ) does not affect a liability to pay, or the recovery of, any amount of charge in respect of employment that occurs while this Act is in operation and any such amount shall be paid and may be recovered as if sub-section ( 1 ) has not been enacted. '. House of Representatives amendments to clause 3- >No.1 -In paragraph (a) omit '$2.50 ',substitute '$4.00'. ' > >No. 2- In paragraph (b) omit '$3.50', substitute '$5.00'. > >No. 3-In paragraph (c) omit '$2.50', substitute '$3.00'. {: #debate-42-s1 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I move: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That the modifications made by the House of Representatives to the amendment requested by the Senate be agreed to. 1. That the amendments made by the House of Representatives to clause 3 be agreed to. As honourable senators will recall, the former Minister for Labor and Immigration, **Mr Clyde** Cameron, introduced the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill into the House of Representatives during the autumn sittings. The Bill proposed increases in the maximum rates of charge that could be prescribed in respect of waterside workers. For those who do not understand the meaning of the word 'charge', I might offer a brief word of explanation. Every registered employer of waterside workers has to submit a monthly return of hours worked by waterside workers employed by him. He pays a charge fixed by regulations under this Act which the Government is seeking to amend. The purpose of the charge is to pay various matters connected with waterside labour such as long service leave, pensions, idle time, attendance money, annual leave pay, sick pay, public holiday pay, etc. In other words, it is a sort of levy on the waterfront employers to pay for matters attendant on waterside labour. It also meets the expenditure incurred in training waterside workers and the administrative expenses of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. The Authority is in some financial straits at the moment, and it is for that reason that this Bill has some urgency. The actual rates of the charge are fixed by regulation within the limits imposed by the Act and are collected on the hours worked by waterside workers. The Bill which sought to increase the maximum rates of charge to $2.50, $3.50 and $2.50 for classes A, B and C waterside workers respectively was subjected to a number of amendments moved by the Opposition when it was in this place previously. Ultimately, after a quite extensive debate, only the amendment intended to place a cessation date of 1 July 1976 on the Act was successful in the Senate. That is, the Opposition in this place considered that the Act should be brought to an end by 1 July next and other arrangements made for the regulation of waterfront labour. That was the only amendment, amongst several that were moved, which actually commended itself to the Senate and was carried. The Bill was returned to the House of Representatives with the request that the House so amend the Bill. That amendment has now been agreed to by the House, with certain modifications. The House now has asked the Senate to consider further amendments to the Bill. With regard to the Senate's request for a cessation date of 1 July 1976, the Government did not agree philosophically with that proposition, but it has indicated in the House of Representatives that it is prepared to accept the amendment, with the modifications that I will refer to, in view of the urgent and pressing need by the Authority for the income which will result from the successful passage of this Bill. The modifications moved by the Government in the House were of a technical nature only and will ensure appropriate legal authority to collect after 1 July 1976 the charge in respect of work performed before the cessation date. In other words, there is no sleight of hand involved. There is no attempt to get around the intention of the amendment moved by the Opposition that there be a cessation date of 1 July 1976. But there are technical matters involved, and they are covered by the modifications to the amendment moved in this place which has been sent back to the Senate from the House of Representatives. These will be in accord with normal arrangements in this regard in the stevedoring industry when the charge moneys may not be accounted for until several weeks after the work has been performed. It is necessary for me only to mention that matter for it to be obvious that this would be the case in an industry like the stevedoring industry. The Government was granted leave by the House of Representatives to propose a number of amendments in respect of the maximum rates of charge provided for by the Bill. It proposed to increase the maximum charge for class A, class B and class C waterside workers to $4, $5 and $3 respectively. Those amendments were successful and are now before the Senate for its consideration. They were not contested in the other place, despite the artificial indignation that **Senator Wright** whipped himself into tonight. The Committee will recall that when this Bill was introduced in the autumn sittings it was indicated that the increases in the charge then proposed were in response to a loss of revenue to the Authority resulting from the low level of stevedoring activity and the rise in expediture following significant wage increases for waterside workers. In support of the recommendations to amend the maximum rates of charge, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority considered the following factors: The further decrease in the level of stevedoring activity, with a consequent further decline in revenue and a parallel increase in so-called idle time payments; increased redundancy expenditure which will result ultimately in improved industry efficiency and long term savings; the need to protect the long service leave interests of waterside, workers. The long service leave fund is near exhaustion through its use to meet on-going expenses. This is a matter that makes it necessary to consider this Bill immediately. The Stevedoring Industry Authority has kept going by drawing on the long service leave fund, which is a rather extraordinary procedure, but it had to do it in order to keep in business. It has also considered the loss of revenue attributable to the fact that the Bill was not passed during the autumn sittings. The Authority had indicated that as a result of the continued low level of stevedoring activity and an increase in redundancy payments, the maxima previously set in the Bill will be inadequate for the purpose of meeting current expenses. The Government has received the very strongest representations from the industry and from the Stevedoring Industry Council, which is representative of all sides in the stevedoring industry, that urgent action be taken- it is not some socialist plot, it is something that has the agreement of the whole industry- to ensure a proper rate for the charge and the continuing financial stability of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- This sounds like **Senator Bishop** and the Post Office. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The analogy is not immediately apparent. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- What is involved quantitatively in this? Let us hear that. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The analogy is not immediately apparent. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- What is the quantitative sum involved in this? Let us hear that. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- If you had passed it before it would have been less now. {: #debate-42-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The Minister has the floor. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I trust that we will hear from **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack his deep-seated philosophical objections to this Bill, objections that were not shared by his fellows in the other place. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- I am not interested in what happened in the other place, I am interested in the Senate. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -That too was an interesting interjection. We are interested to find out that **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack is not interested in what his fellows do in the other place. However, I might be permitted to proceed with what I was saying about this Bill. When the Bill was before the House earlier this year members of the Opposition expressed concern as to future arrangements for the stevedoring industry and sought the Government's views on that. That is a perfectly permissible and understandable interest and it is a matter in which, in the small time that I have been in this portfolio, I have also gathered an interest. I am by no means satisfied with the arrangements in this industry, and I agree with those on the other side of politics that there are needs for changes in these arrangements. However, that is not a reason for rejecting this Bill. I have had under consideration various reports and submissions made by industry interests over the years on future arrangements for the industry. I am of the view that because of the far-reaching social, industrial and economic implications of this whole question it is proper and necessary that I should satisfy myself personally of the issues of concern by hearing the views of those directly involved with the industry. I have already met in my office several partiesthe major parties on the union side, the management side and the authority side- and I have had lengthy discussions with them on the long-term future of this industry. I know that the Opposition also has been examining aspects of the industry and has expressed concern about its future. I am aware that the Opposition would like to see established arrangements whereby the Government and the Opposition would jointly examine the industry's problems and its future. While I see considerable difficulties in pursuing a further formal inquiry in respect of an industry which over the years has been subject to so many inquiries, I will of course welcome views and any constructive proposals from the Opposition. I will certainly be prepared to consult with the shadow Minister- I have already indicated that to him- and other members of the Opposition on this most important and complex question. I submit that as an immediate response to the immediate demands and needs of this industry the Bill in the form in which it has come back from the House of Representatives is one which no reasonable senator concerned with this industry could possibly reject. {: #debate-42-s3 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I indicate at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the proposed amendments which have been made by the House of Representatives. In expressing that attitude the Opposition has in the forefront of its consideration 2 major matters. The first matter is that the House of Representatives has accepted substantially the amendments which were made by the Senate last June and, therefore, there is no sound reason why the Senate should not accept the amendment which has been made by the House of Representatives. The second major factor in that whilst the stevedoring industry charge has been increased above an amount which we sought to reduce when the Bill was last before us, we recognise that there is an extremely damaging and dangerous situation in the waterfront. We in the Opposition are not in a position to alter the existing structure. The Government has the carriage of the management of affairs on the waterfront and, whilst that situation pertains and the Senate is asked to increase the charge, it appears to the Opposition that if that be the Government's wish we should not oppose the matter. That is not to say that we regard the present situation as offering any real hope for the future because the consequence of increasing the charge in the way in which it is being increased is to add to the costs of employment on the waterfront. It will add to the costs of all goods which are imported into this country and which are sold in this country, and because it adds to the costs of those who export it will diminish the return they receive upon their exports. It is squeezing the employers and all this is adding to the immense cost structure in the country. So much is self-evident. We know it is there; we are concerned about it. But we are not in a position, much as we would like to be, to take some action to retrieve the situation. I think **Senator James** McClelland has stated some basic facts and I will not take exception to what he has said, but I think he has gilded over some matters upon which comment should be made. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- That is the quantitative factor. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- Let me come to these points. I am not sure whether I accept what **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack says is the quantitative aspect; nevertheless, he can make his judgment after he has heard what I have to say. The first point I make is that the present position on the waterfront has been regarded as a temporary situation for, I think, the last 6 years. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- Since Billy Hughes started it. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I think we all accept that a change was made following the Woodward report in the late 1960s which would represent a temporary situation pending a permanent solution. Since this Government was elected in late 1972 it has been responsible for 2 proposals, each of which has been introduced by words to the effect that a permanent solution was about to be introduced. I recall that in 1 973 **Mr Clyde** Cameron, when he introduced the first Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill, said: >I believe that it will be possible during the next 12 months for this Government to determine permanent legislation arrangements for the industry. He was not able to do so. Then in 1974 he introduced his second Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill. After an explanation as to why he had not been able to keep his first promise he 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. We are more than 12 months past that date and we have heard from the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** today a willingness on his part to consult with the major parties in the industry. We in the Opposition would have welcomed a Government acceptance of an Opposition initiative to have a formal select committee of the Parliament to examine this matter. It would be in earnest of the consideration and concern which each side of the Parliament has. The Minister sees difficulties in that formal approach and has proposed instead that his door will be open to those who wish to talk with him. I know that the Opposition shadow Minister will be more than willing to co-operate with the Minister in that regard because we are reaching an enormously dangerous situation. As I think we all appreciate, the basic proposition is that we have a permanent work force on the waterfront with a diminishing level of activity, and someone has to pay that permanent work force. Who is to pay that work force? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- The exporter. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- Essentially it is the employer who pays and it is the exporter and the importer who in their varying degrees may contribute to that cost. What is the alternative? I expect that some would say: 'That should be a cost which is borne by the community at large from Consolidated Revenue'. I do not know whether that is anything more than another temporary way out of the situation. What is needed is a thorough look at the situation and a solution which is going to prevent the stifling which occurs on the waterfront at present. This is a problem which the Opposition recognises as much as the Government, but I feel that the Minister offers little comfort in the increases in the charges which he proposes. I note that when the Bill was before the Senate earlier this year it proposed to increase the charges levied on the employers of waterside labour in the case of regular and permanent ports- A class ports- from $1.50 per man hour, which is the existing rate, to $2.50 per man hour, in the case of B class ports from $1.75 per man hour to $3.50 per man hour; and in the case of C class ports from $1.20 to $2.50. In the A class ports that was an increase of 67 per cent, in the B class ports it was an increase of 100 per cent and in the C class ports it was a further increase of 108 per cent. In the amendment which the Government is proposing now the percentage increases, as I work them out, are for the A class ports 166 per cent, for the B class ports 185 per cent and for the C class ports 1 50 per cent. I mention those figures not because there is anything we can do about them. Last time the Bill was before us we asked the Senate to reduce the amount but the Senate was not prepared to agree to our proposal; and we see no particular point in seeking to move a similar type of amendment on this occasion. We equally appreciate that the actual charge is that imposed by the regulations made under the legislation. But the significant fact which ought not be forgotten is that the percentage increases represent the enormous increases in costs which employers have to meet and that expands, of course, throughout the community. 1 do not know, because the Minister has not been clear, and I hope that what **Senator Bishop** says is not the fact, that these increases are solely due to the fact that - {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- No. They are partly caused - {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I accept that they are partly caused because of the delay in the passage of this Bill. Failure to pass this Bill was not the responsibility of the Opposition; it was the responsibility of the Government. I remind the Senate that when this Bill left the Senate on 5 June last year, after speedy debate in this place, it went down to the House of Representatives. I think it was introduced into the Senate on the Tuesday and debated on the Thursday in order to enable any amendments that the Senate made to be considered by the House of Representatives. We knew from discussion around the chambers that the Government would accept the amendment in the House of Representatives and the Bill would have come back to the Senate that night or the following week as the Senate was sitting. It was the Government's desire to raise the House of Representatives to avoid the consequences of one of its perennial crises which prevented this Bill from being debated. Now, on 10 September, the Bill has come back into the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time since 5 June. Therefore the Government bears the responsibility for any failure to have this Bill before the Parliament and passed by the Parliament at an earlier date. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Earlier on you said 5 June of last year. I think you meant 5 June this year. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I meant 5 June 1975. I accept the correction. The point I was making was aimed simply at illustrating some of the matters which were not raised by the Minister in the explanation and also to indicate some of the problems for which I think we all have a responsibility and about which we should be doing what we can in order to reach a solution. The other point I wish to make, simply to indicate the gravity of the situation and to make what is occurring a little more understandable to anyone concerned, relates to some tables introduced into the House of Representatives this morning by **Mr Street,** the Opposition spokesman on these matters. He indicated that in the quarter from April to June 1975 there were 22.7 hours worked- that was the average working week in the port of Melbourne- for which the wage was $109. As a result of the idle time there was paid $41.25, and this provided a wage of $157, the current gross earnings in that quarter. The basic problem is that someone has to pay for that idle time. Only 22 hours were worked and for the balance of the time it was simply a case of money for nothing; not because the waterside workers do not want to work the extra time but because there was no work for them. This is a basic problem. One of the reasons why there is no work for them relates to the downturn in activity which is a consequence of the on and off policy which this Government has followed with regard to imports ever since that disastrous 25 per cent across the board tariff cut in 1 973. 1 think the situation we have now heightens the need for a solution. We wish the Minister well in his endeavours. I am quite sure that he is determined to do what he can. I have expressed regrets that he cannot accept the proposal which the Opposition has put forward but, as I have said, the Opposition is prepared to co-operate in any and every feasible way to try to get some solution to a problem which I think threatens every Australian. {: #debate-42-s4 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -The speech just delivered by **Senator Greenwood** indicates that there is a point of view in the Opposition different from his. I would have thought that even the figures that he presented would have impelled every purposeful member of the Opposition to defeat the proposal before us. For the last 4 weeks we have been debating the Budget proposals of the Government. Those proposals include certain taxation provisions, one of them being a company tax which has been reduced for the relief of trade. The charge which we are considering now is in the form of a payroll tax peculiar to the waterfront. The Government's proposition in June was to increase the tax from $2.50 to $4 per man hour in one grade, from $3.50 to $5 per man hour in another grade, and from $1.75 to $2.50 in another grade, but it now proposes to increase that last figure I mentioned to $3. That charge in relation to a waterside worker in the second grade, where a charge of up to $5 per man hour is attracted to his employer, on the 33 hours a week worked last year would be the equivalent of a tax of $ 1 65 per man per week on the waterfront. I am a member of a party which is determined to relieve the trade of this country of excessive costs that inflate prices and impede trade. I make no apology for my steadfast opposition to this Bill. I went along with the Bill in June, expressing only my opposition but not putting the matter to a vote, but when the Government gets to the stage of taxing waterfront labour in the four or five Tasmanian ports at rates ranging from $4 to $5 per man hour and we realise that the money goes into the cost of Tasmanian exports and imports, I am bound, unless I am sent here to misrepresent Tasmanian exporters and importers, to cast my vote against this Bill. It is quite obvious that this is one of the crippling charges in the ports of Australia. In Tasmania its effect can be illustrated by reference to the apple industry. Under previous rates it cost 60c to get a case of apples from the wharf shed to the ship under ordinary daily conditions. The waterside workers so arranged the loading of ships that 49 per cent of their work was done on Saturdays and Sundays, and on Sundays the cost was $1.20 per bushel. Under these proposed rates the cost of loading a case of apples from the wharf to the ship on week days would be about $1.20 and on Sundays, when half the work is done, it would be of the order of $2.20. The grower could survive if he could get a profit of $ 1 .20. This impost will be the annihilation of the remaining half of the apple industry of which we are so proud in southern Tasmania. This charge has increased from 5c when it was originally imposed in 1956. Today the proposal that the Senate is asked to accept is $5. The increase is from 5c per man hour to $5 per man hour. Taking the official statement of the performance of this industry from the annual report of the Stevedoring Industry Authority, the government authority, up until June 1974- there is not a later report- it can be seen that the average working hours per week were 33 hours. According to the figures that **Mr Street** gave us for the last quarter in Melbourne, the hours being worked there per week are 22.7. That, **Mr President,** attracts a total payment of $157. To that $157, it is proposed that a tax which will provide the equivalent of between $110 and $165 per week should be added. That would be crippling to all industry and does not reflect a responsible attitude for any Party to adopt, even if it had no capacity in this chamber to cast an effective vote. It is not a responsible attitude for any Opposition to take to acquiesce in this crucifying of our overseas trade. The official report of the industry points out that there has been no improvement in industrial relations. Unauthorised stoppages in the year ended 30 June 1974 were 3.6 times the loss of the previous year. That is to say there was the highest number of stoppages for the last 16 years. Reference is made to what, in other circumstances, **Senator James** McClelland is inclined to call 'sweetheart agreements'. **Senator James** McClelland says that the waterside workers and all members of the stevedoring industry are in favour of this proposal. Of course they will be if they can get the Parliament to tax the exporter and thereby relieve members of the stevedoring industry from making these huge payments to waterside workers. What are these payments to be paid for? Not for work, but for idle time. We were told in June that idle time which in recent years had been running at a cost of from about $8m down to $6m and then $4m a year was now running at a cost of about $ 15m a year. Tonight the Opposition proposes to let a Bill go through without even asking the Minister the cost of idle time as assessed today. The Minister did not make a second reading speech and it is significant that the cost of idle time was avoided by the Minister in the statement he delivered to us. In those circumstances, the situation is preposterous. It is an exceptional instance in this industry of those wage pressures which are assisted by stevedores, aided by the Government industry authority and now abetted by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, who was supposed to have tried to moderate this waste. We are asked to pass a Bill authorising the levying of a tax on exporters in addition to paying these extravagant wages of $ 1 57.20 for 22 hours work in Melbourne. We are asked to approve of a tax which will yield between $ 1 00 and $ 1 65 a week for every waterside worker employed in that port. I believe that it is my responsibility to oppose this measure and I feel confident I will not be alone in opposing it. **Senator Sir MAGNUS** CORMACK (Victoria) (9.3)- I asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** by way of interjection, which was highly disorderly, I suppose, whether he would indicate to the Senate the quantitative cost that is involved in this proposal. I have been long enough in the Parliament to look with a suspicious eye on every action of a Minister- whether of my Party on previous occasions or a Minister representing another Minister in this Ministry- when he makes proposals such as 'substitute $2.50 for $4' and so on. The facts are these, **Mr Chairman:** The Senate is entitled to know, in fact, the Senate has a right to know, it should know and the Minister should divulge the quantitative cost that is going to be borne by the Australian exporter. It is the Austraiian exporter in the end who has to pay the money and the Senate should know what is involved in these suggested rates of remuneration. I have been in your position, **Mr Chairman,** and I know that everything that is said during the Committee stage in the Senate must be relevant. So I am not going to go back into the philosophy that lies behind these amendments. Australian exports face great problems at the present moment which affect the iron export trade, the copper trade, the aluminium trade, the wool trade, the butter trade, the beef trade, the mutton trade and the lamb trade. The Government must consider the burden that will be imposed on Australian primary industry by these extra imposts. **Senator Wright** has addressed himself to the problem of an industry peculiar to Tasmaniathe apple industry. He has given the facts of what is involved in the actual costs that this measure will impose upon an industry which is very dear to him. I have known his interest in this industry since I first met the honourable senator 30 years ago. I think the primary industries of Australia are distinct from every element of the tertiary and secondary industries in that they have used every device to reduce their costs and increase their productivity. They are now on the breadline. We go on saying that they have to continue to exist on the breadline. No one is going to tell me that there has been any real increase in productivity in the handling of general cargoes on Australian waterfronts. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- Would you not say that lifting appliances have speeded up handling? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -There has been no increase in productivity in the general cargo area and the apple industry of Australia is in the general cargo area. **Senator Mulvihill** does not even understand the difference between container cargo handling, bulk carrying and general cargo handling. He does not know what he is talking about. What I want to know, **Mr Chairman,** is: What is the quantitative cost that is going to be imposed on Australian export industries as a result of these charges? Where is **Senator James** McClelland? Gone? {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Are you not seeing well, senator? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -Oh, there he is. The Standing Orders state that an honourable senator should sit in his place. **Senator James** McClelland can either sit at the table or he can sit in his place. That is according to Standing Orders. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- He sits next to his advisers. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- Where is the reference in the Standing Orders to that, **Senator Cavanagh?** {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I think it is common custom. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -I see. **Senator Cavanagh** is an upholder of the Standing Orders yet he adopts custom. I just want **Senator James** McClelland to advise the Committee, **Mr Chairman,** of the quantitative cost that is involved in the impositions which his Government proposes to make upon the Australian transport industry on the waterfront. I have further remarks to address to you, **Mr Chairman,** when **Senator James** McClelland answers my question. {: #debate-42-s5 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- In order to give **Senator James** McClelland some time to obtain that information- if it is possible to obtain it at such short notice- I should like to come to the defence of the waterside workers in Australia against the attacks made by **Senator Greenwood** and **Senator Wright.** The industry has an entitlement- I should say an obligation rather than an entitlement- to provide 40 hours of work a week for each waterside worker. It is quite unjust for **Senator Wright** or **Senator Greenwood** to start talking about idle time which is forced upon the waterside worker. Even if the stevedoring industry is not sufficiently efficient to provide 40 hours of work a week for these men, these men still have a right to receive a living wage. A wage of $157 compared with many of the other wages which are being paid for less responsible - {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- Pay it from Consolidated Revenue Fund then. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -The argument that 1 am putting is that idle time ought not to be considered as lazy time. That is exactly what **Senator Wright** and **Senator Greenwood** have been putting, but it is not really correct. I know the problems that the apple industry faces in Tasmania and the problems which many other industries face because of increasing costs especially in freight charges. We are facing a problem, as I think I said in my speech on the Budget, that involves the spread of production into low cost countries. For instance, South Africa is now producing large quantities of apples and large quantities of canning fruits. Many of the goods upon which Tasmania is dependent are now being produced in South Africa by extremely cheap labour. Our problems arise because we are being beaten by the low wages which are paid in the under-developed countries and until such time as an international attitude is taken to wages which are being paid to people like waterside workers, producers and farm workers throughout the world and unless producing countries come together and reach agreement to protect the price of their products we will always have these problems which have been raised here tonight. **Senator Wright** has attacked the Waterside Workers Federation. He has a record of attacking this union, but he ought not to attack the waterside workers right to have a living wage. It is not their responsibility. They are available to work for 40 hours. They are available to work at weekends if necessary. If they have to work more weekends than weekdays, as **Senator Wright** has suggested, then again the responsibility goes back to the stevedoring industry and also to the ship owners. I think they take their slab out of the increased costs which are imposed upon the industry by weekend work and idle time. Place the responsibility where it belongs, but do not attack the worker when he seeks to get what one would consider to be an average living wage of $157 and that is what the average weekly wage now is. {: #debate-42-s6 .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania -- I rise to speak extremely briefly in this debate for 2 main reasons. Firstly, I wish to express amazement that a Bill in relation to which all the major parties in this Parliament are agreed, with the exception of individuals who may dissent from the Party view, should have taken well over one hour to debate tonight and it is not finished yet. It amazes one. A good deal of the first half an hour was taken up with pettifogging procedure which got nobody anywhere but at last we have got on to the substance of this matter. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- After all, you have only the standing of a Hobart lawyer. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I heard some reference to Hobart lawyers, but I did not hear the whole of the remark. The second reason why I wish to speak briefly is to correct the impression that any person listening to this debate must have got from Opposition speeches that the Bill before the Committee imposes charges. It does nothing of the sort. All it does is impose, in relation to each of the 3 categories, a ceiling beyond which regulations may not be made in respect of the actual charge. As the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** explained earlier tonight- no one seems to have taken any notice of what he said- the actual charges in relation to stevedoring industry matters are fixed by regulation. The clause that the Committee is considering simply imposes limits in relation to the 3 categories and the effect of the legislation is that charges which go beyond the limits fixed may not be made. No person of ordinary intelligence listening to the Opposition speeches would have got the impression that that is what the Committee is considering. Very obviously in that legislative set-up anyone who wants to challenge a charge under this legislation as being excessive ought to do it by moving to disallow the regulation when it is made. It ought to be done when the actual merits of the charge which the Government decides is proper are known to the Committee. They are not known now. We are debating *in vacuo* a matter which has been contentious over many years, but let us not deceive the people as to what the legislation is doing. It will be interesting to see whether **Senator Wright** moves to disallow the first regulations that are made under this Bill, assuming it becomes law. I refer very briefly to Tasmania because I would not have thought that a debate on this Bill which simply imposes ceilings beyond which charges may not be made would have been the proper occasion for a denigration of waterfront labour in Tasmania and a general indictment of the Government in relation to the position of shipping services in Tasmania. Let this simple fact never be forgotten. In less than 3 years 2 significant things have been done by this Government in relation to shipping services and no amount of abusive criticism by the Opposition can obliterate them. The first is that as a result of initiatives taken by this Government between $6m and $7m is being granted by way of subsidy, in effect, to the users of Tasmanian shipping. That was an initiative begun by this Government, extended by this Government and continued by this Government. The second thing was that after 23 years during which time **Senator Wright** was a member of the Government Parties, no positive step was taken to seek a long term solution to the shipping problems of Tasmania which are very great, I admit. It was left to this Government to initiate the Nimmo report. I know it is criticised on the basis that it should have been available before now. **Mr Nimmo,** according to the latest statement I read from him, said that it would be available by about the end of this year. We ought to wait before we indulge in more strictures to see what the solution proposed by **Mr Nimmo** is and how the Government reacts to that. Meanwhile the present Government, completely unlike its predecessor, is honouring its undertaking in respect of holding northbound freights and it continues to pour more than $6m to $7m of taxpayers' money, in effect, into bolstering up the position in relation to Tasmania's shipping services. Let those truthful facts be understood in the context of this Bill. {: #debate-42-s7 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania **-Mr Chairman,** if you are permitting a debate on Tasmanian shipping I will content myself with only 2 sentences in reply to the irrelevant remarks made by **Senator Everett.** During the term of the Liberal-Country Party Government it constituted the Australian National Line which is the line that gives cheap shipping services to Tasmania. Secondly, the Tasmanian community is groaning under the huge increases in freight charges that this Government authorised to the extent of 40 per cent within the last 2 months. **Senator Everett** apparently acquiesces in that decision. Turning to the Bill and the finance involved, if **Senator James** McClelland is not going to give to this Committee any indication of the costs that are involved in this proposal then I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard* a summary of income and expenditure as set out at page 75 of the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. {: #debate-42-s8 .speaker-KAS} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- I grant leave only if it has not already appeared in a copy of *Hansard.* I suspect that it is a copy of *Hansard* which is being held by **Senator Wright.** {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -No, it has not already appeared in *Hansard.* I chose a summary to minimise the printing. So that the Committee will see the intendment of what I am doing I point out, for **Senator Everett's** information, that the revenue from the charge, according to the last annual report, is $20m, to the nearest million. The expenditure that absorbs that amount, which is what we call shifts not worked, which is commonly referred to in the annual report and elsewhere as idle time- that is not my expression- in this year amounted to $3. 6m; attendance money was $850,000; annual leave was $ 1 .2m; holiday pay was $304,000; sick leave and compassionate leave was $ 1 . 1 89m; long service leave was $5. 8m; and redundancy cost $560,000. Those are the main items as summarised in the annual report and they occupy half a page. I offer that information to the Committee by way of explanation. **Senator Everett** made the point about the Bill authorising a limited charge. That is precisely what I said in my speech. But to draw a distinction between the limit of the charge and the degree to which it is exercised is a rather fine point from the point of view of substance because tonight the Senate is considering what is the limit of the charge which the Senate will authorise the Executive to impose by way of special waterfront payroll tax on the exports of the country. I offer those remarks in support of my opposition to the Bill. **Senator Sir MAGNUS** CORMACK (Victoria) (9.22)- I asked earlier in my intervention during the Committee stage whether the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** who is in charge of the Bill could inform the Senate of the quantitive cost involved? {: #debate-42-s9 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I noticed that **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack, after showing such a profound interest in the details of the Bill, disappeared from the chamber. I had not noticed that he had returned. The figure he asks for is as follows: In 1975-76 the increase in the expenses of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority will amount to $13m. **Senator Sir MAGNUS** CORMACK (Victoria) (9.24)- I did not ask that question. I asked what quantitive cost would be involved in the Australian trade because of these increased charges. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- If the honourable senator had been here when **Senator Everett** was on his feet he would know. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -I went out to look at some figures. I am entitled to do that. I take the greatest objection to the lawyer's trick used by **Senator James** McClelland of making some observations when I had left the chamber. That is not in accordance with the normal proprieties with which honourable senators behave. I have returned to the chamber. I repeat the question. I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** who is in charge of the Bill in the Senate: What is the anticipated, quantitive cost which will be involved in the Australian export trade as a result of these proposed charges? I would like that question answered. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I take it **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack means quantitative cost. That is not ascertainable. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -I am not prepared to countenance an amendment which is before the Committee in which the Committee is charged with a constitutional responsibility to vote on matters which relate to public revenues. This is a question of public revenues. The Committee is entitled to know the anticipated charge which will descend upon the Austraiian taxpayer quantitatively as a result of these proposed charges. That is all I am asking. It is a simple matter. It is no good trying to dodge this matter. There must have been a calculation. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- There is no calculation. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -Senator Georges, there must have been a calculation as to how these costs would be achieved. What is the $2.50 mentioned in the schedule as being on page 1, clause 3, line 12? What is the relationship to $3.50 which is mentioned as being on page 1, clause 3, line 14 and for which $5 is to be substituted. There must have been a calculation. If there was not a calculation then I suggest that the Minister who is responsible for this Bill is not doing his job. Surely to goodness no honourable senator in the Committee will tell me that there has not been an assessment of the final cost which will descend on the Australian economy as a result of these charges. Is that so? If it is the case that a calculation has not been made then there is a fundamental reason why the Senate should not even consider these charges. I would like to know the answer. {: #debate-42-s10 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Unfortunately tonight **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack has not applied his mind with great particularity to the details of the debate. I do not know whether he was in here when I spoke originally during the Committee stage. I believe he was. I set out the nature of the matters which were covered by these charges. I now tell him that they add up to an extra $ 13m per year. But he has asked me, insofar as I am able to follow his question, what is the precise effect of these charges on the Australian export trade. That is a matter which has not been examined in detail. I am unable to give him those precise details. I am able to tell him that the extra amount of expenses to be met from this charge by the Australian Stevedoring Industry is $ 13m. I am not pleased with that figure. I do not applaud it. I wish it were less. But these are the facts of industrial life. His colleagues in another place, and most of his colleagues here, while lamenting these additions to the charges of the Authority are prepared to vote for them. **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack is perfectly entitled to his moral indignation. He is perfectly entitled to expostulate. Of course, he is entitled to exert his ultimate right and vote against the Bill. But I have told him everything that I am able to tell him about the matter. {: #debate-42-s11 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- I intervene at this late stage. I do not think that answer is good enough for the Committee either. While it may be true that it is the considered opinion of all parties that this Bill ought to pass, the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** need not think for one moment that we are not prepared to postpone it until we come back after the 2 weeks recess if we cannot get information which honourable senators are entitled to seek. I think that is the rub of the question at the moment. As I understand it, **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack is asking for certain information. The Minister airily says that it is not available. I put this to him: If it is not available we are in no rush for the Bill. The Government can have its Bill in about 16 days time when it provides the information. {: #debate-42-s12 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- With respect, I ask the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Withers)** to consult with **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack. Better still, I ask him to listen closely to the debate and to tell me the exact terms of the request put to me by **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack. If the honourable senator was listening he would know that **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack 's request was couched in the most vague terms. Let me have the question exactly. If it is in terms which I can answer I shall answer. But the terms in which **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack has put his question are vague, imprecise and incapable of identification. If **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack can put the question in terms which enable me to answer it, I will give him an answer. {: #debate-42-s13 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -If I may intervene- not wishing to precede **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack but with his agreement- I would like to bring the debate to a realm of quietude. I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** whether he would be so good as to look at those figures which I quoted from page 75 of the last annual report. The revenue from the charge is stated as $20m. That was at a time when the expenditure amounted to $ 16.8m. I suggest that there has been a disastrous change since then. In June the Minister, when representing the former Minister for Labor and Immigration, admitted that idle time had escalated out of all recognition. The annual cost for idle time alone was about $50m. In order that the Minister's reply to the inquiry of **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack can become meaningful, it is necessary to take this figure relating to the escalation of idle time to the end of June 1974- and then give a responsible estimate of what the total yield from the charge will be under these new terms, having regard to the Minister's estimate of the chief wasteful factor this year- idle time. Having stated the charge on the industry, the Minister should consider the collateral costs and give to the chamber a meaningful estimate of what this represents as a charge on the trade of Australia. Maybe some honourable senator's time is so precious in this place that they cannot wait for an answer. I see some honourable senators frowning. I rise, at the invitation of **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack, to put this point of view. I take a little time in order to give the Minister an opportunity, if he is so minded, to give a reply. I content myself with those remarks. I know that whatever the information is, the charge is sufficiently huge on the industry- even on the charges that we authorised in June, when we authorised a charge of $3.50 per man hour, which is now to go to $5.00- to indicate to me that it is a completely unjustifiable charge and exaction to be imposed on the trade. I see that the Minister is ready to reply. I yield to him. {: #debate-42-s14 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- This is a more precise request than the vague, almost inarticulate request that fell from **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack. I shall respond to it accordingly. I sought further and better particulars of the request that was directed to me. The request that was directed by **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack was so inarticulate as not to be worthy of an answer. Now that **Senator Wright** has made his request more particular, I take it that the document from which he is quoting is the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority annual report of 1973-74. Is that so, **Senator Wright?** {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Yes. You know that is the last annual that was published. That is what I said. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -Do you want me to respond or do you not? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Yes. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- All right. Let us try to clear up this matter. The figures which **Senator Wright** quoted appear on page 78. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I quoted from page 75- the figures in summarised form. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Well, it amounts to the same thing. If honourable senators look at page 78 - {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Yes, but I quoted the summarised form for brevity. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -Let us try to reach some agreement on this. The figure that **Senator Wright** quoted, as I understand it, was $20,203, 104. Is that correct? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Yes. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -Very well. They are the figures for 1973-74. The figures for 1974- 75 are not available, but I understand that they amounted to about $22m. The figures for 1975- 76, as I indicated, are roughly $35m. Do you want those exact figures. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- They are nearly double. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- Now we are getting somewhere {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -You are genuinely interested? You want to know, do you? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- Yes, of course we do. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The figures for 1975-76 are $35,268,400, comprised as follows: Attendance money, $1,140,000; idle time, $ 10,360,000; guaranteed wages, $780,000; retainer, $41,000; redundancy, $4,880,000; resettlement allowance, $60,000; section 7b refunds, $2,100,000; payment to aged and disabled waterside workers, $1,800,000; pension fund and capital administration, $4,700,000; amenities, services and so on, $3,980,000; long service leave, current, $3m; annual leave, $1,650,000; sick pay and payment in lieu, $337,000; holiday pay, $435,000; and compassionate leave, $5,000. That makes a total of $35,268,400. {: #debate-42-s15 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I express gratification to the Minister for the particularity with which he has given those figures. I rise not to examine them at the moment but to point out one glaring feature of them. Whereas the total expenditure on all those items in the figures that I gave for the year ending 30 June 1974 was $ 14.7m, with administrative costs of $2. 1 m- a total of $ 1 6.8m- the 2 figures in the list given by the Minister tonight, which I consider of importance, are $ 10.1m for idle time and $4.8m for redundancy. Those 2 items total $14m as compared with the total expenditure of under $ 1 7m less than 1 8 months ago. If that is not an excellent illustration of where the bubbles are coming into work production in the form of inflation I do not know what is. If one takes a single industry, one can see this. I rise to point out the significance of those 2 figures- $ 10.1m for idle time and $4.8m for redundancy. Redundancy in the year that I quoted cost $568,000, and idle time cost $3.6m. So, the cost of idle dme has trebled and the cost of redundancy has multiplied 8 times. That is what we call a factor fomenting inflation. It is due to the continuance of a situation on the waterfront that this Government is completely incompetent and incapable of solving. {: #debate-42-s16 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I indicated in my opening remarks that the Government is prepared to discuss with the shadow Minister of the Opposition dealing with these matters, with the employers, with the unions and with anybody connected with the waterfront, methods for improving the way in which affairs are conducted on the waterfront which, I freely concede, are not ideal and which call for a great deal of improvement. Of course, when one abstracts the rhetoric, the indignation and the histrionics that we have had from **Senator Wright,** I think we are cast back finally on this proposition: In this, as in so many matters to which it claims to have all the answers, the Opposition, if it has the nerve, will soon have the opportunity to introduce its panacea on the waterfront. **Senator Sir MAGNUS** CORMACK (Victoria) (9.40)- I do not intend to intrude any further during the consideration in the Committee stage of this Bill into the matter that is presently before the Committee. What I wish to point out to you, **Mr Chairman,** if I may be permitted to do so, is that we began the consideration of the Committee stage of this Bill with a total reluctance by the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** to divulge any information to the Committee and that over the last 40 minutes we have managed to force him to disgorge information that he did not have in his skull when he introduced with great forsenic ability, rhetorical flourishes and all the court manners with which he is so used - {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- He would not be permitted to go on like that in a court. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -Of course he would not be permitted by any judge to do that in a court. We have finally managed to get **Senator James** McClelland to admit to the Committee that he put down- I will not put it in stronger terms than this- a whole set. of false figures. **Senator Wright** has finally managed to extract from him what the revenues are going to bear. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I raise a point of order, **Mr Chairman.** I think that that is a remark that should be withdrawn. On what basis can **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack, if he had listened to my answer, say that my figures are false? I think that that is a totally unwarranted assertion and I believe that it should be withdrawn. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster: -Under which standing order have you raised that point of order, **Senator James** McClelland? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -I will save you the trouble with this matter^ **Mr Chairman.** If the Minister is offended by any observation I have made I shall withdraw it, but I did not raise any indignation towards any of the insulting remarks that he passed against me. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator James** McClelland) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 721 {:#debate-43} ### LAND ACQUISITION ORDINANCE: TERRITORY OF COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- by leave- I wish to inform the Senate of the situation in Australia's Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and to outline decisions the Government has taken on certain future arrangements in the Territory. There has been some conjecture and public comment concerning Cocos during the past week. On Wednesday, 3 September, I informed the Senate that I had intended to make a statement at that time but that an ordinance which I had expected to be available was not then available. That ordinance was made today and I am now able to carry out that undertaking. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands consist of 27 small coral islands in 2 atolls, situated about 2800 kilometres north-west of Perth and some 3700 kilometres almost due west of Darwin. The Islands have a total land area of 14 square kilometres. Only two of the Islands are inhabited: Home Island by the Clunies Ross family and 500 Cocos Malays; and West Island by the Australian Administration employees and their families- about 130 people. The Cocos Islands were settled in 1 827 by the Clunies Ross family, which imported labour, mainly from North Borneo, to improve the coconut trees already growing there. In 1857, following a number of representations from the Clunies Ross family, the Islands were formally declared part of the British Dominions. In 1886 Queen Victoria granted a freehold title to all lands on the Islands above high water mark to George Clunies Ross. The period of Australia's administration of this Island Territory has been relatively brief. Our direct interest began in 1 95 1 when the Australian Government discussed with the British Government its interest in acquiring control of the airstrip on West Island to serve the South African-Australian air link as a refuelling point. As a result, the Australian and British governments agreed that sovereignty over the Islands, which were then a part of the colony of Singapore, should be transferred to the Australian Government. Agreement for the purchase of the airfield land was reached between **Mr Clunies** Ross and Australia in 1951. The transfer of sovereignty of the Islands from Britain to Australia was effected by an Order-in-council made under the Cocos Islands Act 1955 of the United Kingdom and by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 of Australia. As honourable senators will be aware the Government has been conscious of the need for changes in the management of the affairs of the Cocos community for some time and has been moving towards their implementation. Interest has also been shown in the matter by the United Nations, and this culminated in the Government's invitation to the United Nations to send to Cocos a Visiting Mission from the Committee of Twenty-Four- the 'Decolonisation' Committee. This Mission visited Cocos in August 1974 and presented its report to the United Nations in Novermber 1974. While not unfavourable to Australia in tone, the report nonetheless drew attention to some unsatisfactory features in the situation on Cocos. In particular, the Mission strongly recommended that steps be taken as soon as possible to disengage the links between the Cocos community and the Clunies Ross estate, and to permit the community to establish its own identity and interests separate from those of the Clunies Ross estate. The Mission expressed concern about the respective roles of the Australian Administration and **Mr Clunies** Ross. It also expressed concern with the control by the estate of the economic life of the Cocos community through the use of plastic tokens as currency. Australia's representative in the Committee of Twenty-Four, **Mr Duncan** Campbell, made a statement at that time, November 1974, which welcomed the Visiting Mission's report. He indicated that the Australian Government endorsed the broad approach recommended by the Committee and listed the following principal changes which the Government was seeking: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Ownership of a suitably agreed area of land on Home Island to be vested in the Home Island community, as a corporate entity. This would help to establish the community's own identity, separate from that of the Clunies Ross estate; 1. a local government type authority to be established, with legal and formal status, to manage and control the affairs of the community. This authority would comprise only members elected for a specific period, and would have powers which reflected the wishes of the Community; 2. all future Australian Government contracts involving the Clunies Ross estate to provide for direct payment of appropriate sums in Australian currency to the Cocos community; a separate Cocos community fund to be established for this purpose, to be administered by, and for the sole benefit of, the community; 3. the use of token money eventually to be discontinued and replaced by Australian currency, taking into account the complexities involved; 4. provision to be made to issue local ordinances and establish better facilities for the administration of justice; 5. health and education services to be extended; 6. rates of pay and employment conditions on Cocos to be aligned progressively with Australian practice and International Labour Organisation conventions; 7. provisions to be introduced to permit freedom of movement for members of the Cocos community; and 8. provision for granting Australian citizenship to Cocos Islanders born there before 1955 and who did not apply for citizenship in the prescribed time, to be reviewed with a view to making it easier for the citizens of Cocos to take out such citizenship, if they wished to do so. I point out that all members of the Cocos community who have been born since Australia assumed sovereignty in 1955 are in fact Australian Citizens. Prior to the statement being made in the United Nations, and in keeping with our desire to implement our objectives in co-operation with **Mr Clunies** Ross, the Australian Government invited him to visit Canberra for discussions in October 1974. **Mr Clunies** Ross visited Canberra for 2 days and, in that time, had discussions with the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam),** my predecessor the then Special Minister of State **(Mr Lionel Bowen),** and senior Government officials. At the conclusion of those discussions my colleague, the then Special Minister, and **Mr Clunies** Ross agreed on a number of changes which should take place on Cocos. These changes covered some of those which Australia advised the United Nations it was seeking. They included: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The degree of control over its own affairs which the community already possessed to be extended into a system of local government and given a formal and legal status; as part of this development attention to be given to securing for the Cocos community as a corporate entity the exercise of control within a suitably agreed area of land, to help establish the community's own identity, separate from that of the Clunies Ross estate. 1. All future Australian Government contracts involving the Clunies Ross estate to provide for direct payment of appropriate sums in Australian currency to the Cocos community; a Cocos community fund, under the control of and for the sole benefit of the community, to be established for this purpose. **Mr Clunies** Ross returned to Cocos and, in an exchange of messages with my predecessor, suggested the community and particularly the Headmen's Council, which in effect he appoints, did not agree with the proposed changes. Protracted negotiations ensued and I am advised by my predecessor that by December 1974 it was evident that **Mr Clunies** Ross was reluctant to implement any changes. My predecessor persisted and, after some time, and in the face of opposition by **Mr Clunies** Ross, a Cocos community fund was established and contract payments have been put on a more reasonable basis in that a small part of each contract sum is now paid, in Australian currency, directly into the community fund. The community fund is administered by 4 trustees; one is the Administrator and the other three are members of the Cocos community. The trustees are operating the account and, consequently, using Australian currency. The funds available to the community now stand at about $16,000. Apart from some minor improvements in education made earlier, this is the only significant change which Australia has achieved in the Cocos community in Australia's 20 years of administration of the Territory. **Mr Clunies** Ross now appears to remain steadfastly opposed to any further change, and in particular to any change which would break the extraordinary degree of interdependence between the Cocos community and his estate. So that the present situation can be considered in its proper perspective, I wish to inform the Senate of some recent events. In May 1975 the Government decided to strengthen its administrative presence on Cocos. Amongst other changes a new position of Administrator replaced the former post of Official Representative. **Mr R.** J. Linford, a senior officer of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, was appointed Administrator. In June of this year my predecessor as Special Minister of State announced that he hoped to visit the Islands in July to have discussions with the community and with **Mr Clunies** Ross to implement the changes that had been agreed to in the previous October. Shortly after that I was appointed Special Minister. At **Mr Clunies** Ross' behest the manager of his estate, **Mr Dixon,** came to Canberra for discussions with me. I had 2 long discussions with **Mr Dixon,** and senior officers of my Department also spent a great deal of time in discussions with him. **Mr Dixon** advised me and my officers that he was acting for and on behalf of **Mr Clunies** Ross and that he had his full authority so to do. In the course of these discussions **Mr Dixon** informed me of recent statements **Mr Clunies** Ross had made to members of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence who had just visited Cocos. I list for the information of honourable senators some of the principal statements which, as explained by **Mr Dixon, Mr Clunies** Ross made to the members of that Committee-- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government's continued pursuit of its policies would make his position untenable. He would not be prepared to continue to live on Cocos and work- his business interests there if these policies continued. 1. His presence on the Islands has in fact caused the Islanders some difficulties. 2. **His** departure from the Islands scene would remove some of the islanders' reluctance to accept changes- a reluctance, he said, caused by loyalty to himself and his family's long involvement in Island affairs. 3. A form of local government should be established for the Cocos community. 4. The Government should finance the acquisition, for fair compensation, of all his Cocos assets and operations on behalf of the Cocos community. 5. The Government should underwrite the economic well-being of the Cocos community. 6. He and **Mr Dixon** would be willing to stay on for a short period to assist the Government and the Cocos community to implement the new arrangements. They would then withdraw to live in England. I should point out that this report of the evidence given was consistent with, although an amplification of, intimations given to my predecessor as Special Minister of State by **Mr Clunies** Ross in the earlier exchange of messages. At the end of these discussions, acting as he claimed on **Mr Clunies** Ross' behalf, **Mr Dixon** suggested that implementation of the proposed changes should proceed as soon as possible. Preliminary steps to facilitate some changes were agreed with **Mr Dixon.** Indeed, **Mr Dixon,** who was then on his way to visit England, decided that, in view of the progress which had been made in our discussions, he would return forthwith to Cocos to convey this to **Mr Clunies** Ross. I agreed that the Government should meet the costs of **Mr Dixon's** travel to and from Cocos and of his stay in Canberra, and I made special arrangements for him to travel in a Royal Australian Air Force plane when he returned to Cocos for his further discussions with **Mr Clunies** Ross. After **Mr Dixon** returned to Cocos 1 learned that **Mr Clunies** Ross had informed the Cocos community of the statements he had made to the Senate Committee. I was informed that **Mr Clunies** Ross had told the islanders that he would be leaving the Islands and that, as a result, an expectation of imminent change had built up within the community. I therefore went to Cocos on 7 August. On Friday, 8 August, after an inspection of the Home Island school, after visiting the homes of many of the Cocos community, after discussions with a number of people on Home Island, I had discussions with **Mr Clunies** Ross at his residence. Present at those discussions were the Secretary of my Department and the Administrator. During the course of those discussions it became obvious to me that **Mr Clunies** Ross was unwilling to move in the matters agreed with my predecessor. It was also evident to me that he had changed his mind about the proposals he had given shortly before to the Senate Committee. The situation on Home Island today is that, despite some minor changes, the basic position of the Clunies Ross estate is much as it has been in earlier times. **Mr Clunies** Ross dominates the 9 member Council of Headmen, referred to as the Imarat, which is effectively appointed by him. Through the council and the estate, he wields decisive influence on community affairs. For example, there is no real freedom of movement to and from Home Island- the Island on which he and the Cocos community live. **Mr Clunies** Ross controls the token system which is used exclusively on Home Island. He determines its rate of exchange with Australian currency. He controls the single trade store on Home Island and the prices his store receives for goods provided. He determines and controls the rates of payment for all members of the Cocos community. He determines their conditions of employment. He determines their living standards. In effect he controls most aspects of their lives. The Australian Government cannot allow this state of affairs to continue. As I have indicated, real and genuine efforts were made by my predecessor to reach agreement with **Mr Clunies** Ross about the nature and timing of changes which must be made, having in mind the welfare of the Cocos community. The record of **Mr Clunies** Ross' dealings with the Government is not satisfactory. Despite his earlier undertakings and the proposals put on his behalf by **Mr Dixon** only 2 months ago, **Mr Clunies** Ross made it clear to me during our discussions on Home Island last month that he will not co-operate with the Government, that he will oppose and seek to frustrate any changes we propose to make. In contradiction of his earlier intimations he has indicated to me that he does not wish to tranfer either part of all of the Estate- except at a quite unrealistic figure. In my discussions with members of the Cocos community in August it became evident that a significant proportion of them is dissatisfied with **Mr Clunies** Ross and the present position and look to the Australian Government to effect early changes. True it is that some are said to join with **Mr Clunies** Ross in opposing any Government intervention. Others again, including some of the Headmen, are cautiously waiting to see how matters develop. Each of these groups appears to me to represent about a third of the total community. There is also an influence from former residents of Home Island now living on Christmas Island or in Western Australia- this influence being strongly in favour of change. The situation prevailing in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands involves a denial of human rights to the indigenous people. The Australian Government is resolved that it must act firmly to introduce changes without further delay. Five hundred Island people are involved on this remote Australian Territory but it is far from a simple matter to effect changes. **Mr Clunies** Ross has his property rights and, as the fifth generation of a long dynastic line, his influence with the community naturally remains considerable. But the Government considers this should not deter it from effecting the changes that it believes are essential to the welfare and betterment of the Cocos Community. After careful consideration, the Government has decided that the best course of action in the circumstances would comprise: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The enactment of a Cocos Islands ordinance to establish for the Islands a basis for the acquisition of land in line as far as practicable with the procedures of the Lands Acquisition Act which applies on the Australian mainland. Although the Constitution does not require it, I point out that the new ordinance will provide for the acquisition of land on just terms; 1. that this ordinance should be made and tabled in the Parliament as soon as possible; 2. the appointment by me, as the responsible Minister, of an interim advisory council comprising the administrator as chairman, three members of the existing council of headmen, three other members drawn from the Cocos community and one member drawn from the West Island European community. The Interim council to be replaced by a fully elected council as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. The purpose of the advisory council is to serve as a point of consultation with the community and as a source of general advice to the administrator on Cocos matters; 3. **Mr Clunies** Ross to be informed that the use of token money by the estate is to cease. 4. the existing law relating to any aspect of the Estate's activities or community affairs on Home Island will from now on be enforced, having regard to the traditions of the Cocos community and in a manner consistent with their best interests. There are, of course, other matters which need attention- for example, aspects of education, labour conditions, citizenship, and so on. In consultation with other Ministers as necessary, I shall pursue these matters. However, the steps I have mentioned earlier are essential first steps to break the present inappropriate nexus between the Clunies Ross estate and the Cocos community. The Government believes that the decisions which have now been taken will provide the basis for developments which will bring the Cocos community to the stage where they will be able to comprehend and enjoy the rights normally enjoyed by Australian citizens. I seek leave to table the Lands Acquisition Ordinance 1975 for the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)-** Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: -- I invite the Special Minister of State to move that the Senate take note of the statement. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- It gives me pleasure to move: >That the Senate take note of the statement. **Senator Sir MAGNUS** CORMACK (Victoria) (10.4)- **Mr Acting Deputy President,** I seek your indulgence to rise to my feet because the essence of the paper which has been presented to the Senate by the Special Minister of State **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** deals with a matter which has been referred by the Senate to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, namely, 'The role and involvement of Australia and the United Nations in the affairs of sovereign Australian Territories' which was set down on 3 December 1974.I am fortified in seeking your indulgence in this matter, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** because the Special Minister of State, who has just resumed his seat, referred to matters that have engaged the attention of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I have sought the agreement of my colleagues **Senator Primmer,** as the Chairman of that Committee, and **Senator Mcintosh** that I should address myself to the observations made by the Special Minister of State. You will readily understand, **Sir, that** there is a reluctance on the part of a member of the Committee to make observations relating to matters which are within the purview of that Committee. As the Committee has not reported to the Senate I find it extremely difficult to make any real response to the matters raised by the Minister. However, I am bound to say that my personal opinion is not totally in accord with some of the observations which have been made by the Minister. That may be a personal disagreement as a result of different impressions which have been obtained by me as a member of the committee and by **Senator Douglas** McClelland who visited the Islands as the Special Minister of State. However, my concern has been relieved because the Minister has said in the statement that it is. proposed' to make acquisitions by the normally accepted methods of acquisitioning land on the mainland of Australia. I had been left with the distinct impression that if the matter of acquisition had to be determined it might be determined on the basis that no rights exist in Australian Territories. By his statement the Minister has signified that the Government recognises- I think this is very important- that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are sovereign territories of the Australian people and are a sovereign part of the Australian mainland in exactly the same way, I suggest- whatever is the constitutional difference between Queensland and the Australian Government- as islands in the Torres Strait are an integral part of the Australian mainland. In his statement the Minister recognises that there is an obligation to assist the people of Cocos (Keeling) Islands in exactly the same terms as we are prepared to assist other people in Australia, that is to say the Australian Aborigines who migrated to Australia and occupied land here long before the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders landed in that territory. We acknowledge that it is quite proper that we should set up enterprises of one sort or another for the Australian Aborigines, the most recent being that of the Gurindji people in northern Australia. I feel that it would be most improper for me to make any further observations on this matter because a committee of the Senate is dealing with it. **Senator Primmer** has mentioned to me that the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is going to report on this matter. I am advised by the secretariat that the Committee's report should be available for presentation to the Senate when we resume after the recess. I suggest to the Special Minister of State, who is at the table, that no further debate should take place on this matter until the ordinance is brought down *pari passu* with the Committee 's report. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Why not seek leave to continue your remarks? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 725 {:#debate-44} ### EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1975 {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 4 September on motion by **Senator Cavanagh:** > That the Bill be now read a secondtime. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)-** There being no objection, it is so ordered. {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria -The Senate now is debating the Excise Tariff Bill 1975, the Customs Tariff(Coal Export Duty) Bill 1975 and the Customs Bill (No. 2) 1975. Two of these Bills have the force of levying a duty, and the third sets out how the paper work in relation to the excise duty will be handled. This evening we heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, **Senator Wriedt,** respond to the Budget debate. It was interesting to note that he was quite proud of the Government's achievement in relation to the allocation of funds and to the raising of funds as set out in that Budget. These Bills flow from the Government's desires in relation to the Budget. It appears to me that in many areas the Government has been remiss in respect of its promises to the people and in the way in which it has led the Australian economy over the past 3 years. These 3 Bills are indicative of the Government's attitude towards taxation. Whilst not opposing these 3 Bills the Opposition by no means supports them. Those people in the community who are not aware of the activity of Government or of Opposition should well note that course. The Opposition does not support the Government's action in this matter but it will allow these 3 Bills to be passed. The Opposition is sufficiently realistic to understand the enormous financial dilemma into which this country has been projected. The Labor Government has plunged this nation into an economic morass. There is some difficulty facing individuals who formerly were Labor voters in trying to understand the plea of the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** at the last election when he said: 'Give us a chance '. The promises of the Prime Minister, certainly those in relation to the matters now before us, have not been kept. There are individuals, labourers, whom I see regularly who thought that a vote for Labor would bring about a just society. They say to me, with good reason: Why has Labor diverted from its promises?' Of course, being a member of the Opposition I had no doubt that the Labor Government would depart from its promises because it could not uphold them. It appeared to many in the community that when an upstanding Prime Minister confidently gave his assurance about what would occur in relation to income tax and the allocation of funds in the community he would hold his Government to those promises. Former Labor voters say to me: 'Why are we taxed in this way? It is very definitely against the promises of the Government'. I refer, for instance, to the Prime Minister's statements in 1972 and 1974 when the Opposition advocated reductions in taxation as the way in those 2 years the economy of the community could be made more attractive and more stable. **Mr Whitlam** at that stage accused the Opposition of attempting to delude the people. Reference to his statements will reveal that he claimed that if income tax were reduced it would but bring about an overall revenue gain by increasing indirect taxation. He made the statement that Labor would never do such a thing. The Excise Tariff Bill 1975 will do just the opposite of what **Mr Whitlam** promised the people. This first Bill with which the Senate is dealing will increase duties on beer, potable spirits and manufactured tobacco products. There is to be a new excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil, including petroleum obtained from naturally occurring petroleum gas and liquefied petroleum gas obtained from unstabilised crude petroleum oil. It is difficult for anyone in this community to rely on the Prime Minister or on this Government which says to people, on the one hand, that it stands for a lesser impact of taxation on the working man and that those who are able to pay should pay. That is a criterion which influenced many people to think that the Labor Party means what it says. Now we find that whether one is a poor man, a pensioner or an ordinary working man who at the end of the day seeks to have the benefit of a glass of beer, as many Australians do, or whether one is a person on a fixed income, which is rapidly being depreciated in these times of inflation - {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- You have to be joking. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -We find that all the people whom I have mentioned equally will have to pay this tax along with the wealthy men in the community. This is what the Labor Party has done. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- That is what your Government did for 3 years. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -Senator Poyser is attempting to interrupt, as he always does. He should listen because he and the Government are hoodwinking the people. If **Senator Poyser** continues to interrupt by making his inane comments he will only direct attention to himself. Whilst he proclaims to be a good Labor man he is nothing but a man who is hoodwinking the public. He cannot but agree with what I say because the Prime Minister stated that the Labor Government would never do such a thing as increase indirect taxation. On a dozen occasions over the years, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** you have heard the Leader of the Labor Party in this chamber direct the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Labor Party disliked indirect taxation. I heard members of the Labor Party castigate the former Government and say that indirect taxation was an unfair impost on the working man. But what do we find before us in this instance? We find the complete opposite to what was promised. I am disappointed, as undoubtedly members of the Labor Party are, that this impost is necessary. I suppose they regret that it must happen. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have said that the greatest thing arising out of this Budget is the re-scheduling of income tax rates. I think the most significant thing to have come out of this Budget is the fact that the Government wishes to raise such an enormous amount of money by means of increased indirect charges and indirect taxation. We must have some sympathy for members of the Labor Party at this time. The general debate in the media tonight and in another place relates to the absurd financial situation into which this Labor Government has plunged the Australian community, and the impact has not found its mark as yet on the Australian public. It is beginning to find its mark on the current news. How are we to survive economically as a community when we have a Government which a year ago put down a program and said: 'We will overspend our income by $500m'? This Government's economic management is such that by the end of the year it had overexpended its income by $2,500m. That is a desperate strait. We have a situation where the Government with some hoodwinking of the people said: 'This year we will start with an accepted excess of expenditure over income of some $2,700m'. The publicity at the moment and the response to queries in the other place today are beginning to indicate that the Government has not truthfully put before the people what the excess expenditure will be. I feel confident that by the end of this year, unless something drastic happens, the Government will have overspent its income by some $5,000 billion. Even my figures could be remiss because Treasury *Round-up of Economic Statistics No. 32* of September 1975 was placed on my desk today and on page 3 of that document the following is stated: >Australian Government Budget outlays totalled $3,284 million in the first two months ofl 975-76, an increase of 48 per cent on outlays in the same period of 1 974-75. Our financial affairs will certainly be seen to be going into deeper trouble when that figure becomes impressed upon the economic wizards in the community. We have a Government which is totally incapable of managing the economy. One of the measures it has used in attempting to alleviate that problem- indirect taxation- is completely opposite to what it has promised the people. I believe that the public has certainly been misled by this particular Bill. It has always seemed to me that we should have a society in which those who are capable of paying should pay and I have some agreement generally with the principle disclosed previously by Labor- that they disagreed with increases in indirect taxation. But here we have it today. I noted that in 1971 the present Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** bitterly criticised increases in indirect taxes and charges which had been brought about in that year. In looking at the indirect income that will come to the Government by way of postal charges and petrol increases which will result from other measures we find that the impact of these charges will be borne by those people who are less able to pay them. But **Mr Whitlam** said at that time: >There will be immediate rises in costs to all consumers, and there will be the inevitable flow-through as these charges are passed on later in the year . . . and to the man in the street- not learned in the jargon of economicsthat is what inflation means: it costs him more for everythingand that is precisely the result this Budget will inflict. In the same speech **Mr Whitlam** said: >This Budget is full of examples of how government savings increase private and community costs- how false economies for the Government increase the burden to the consumer, the taxpayer, the Australian citizen. It is interesting to note that Labor's then shadow Treasurer, later Treasurer and still later the sacked Treasurer, **Mr Crean,** said in the debate on the Excise Tariff Bill in November 1 97 1 : >There cannot be any doubt that charging those who use motor vehicles for business purposes more for petrol must add to the cost of the distribution of goods and services. Out of the mouths of the two chief economic men in the Government we there have confirmation that these indirect charges are not only inflationary but they also impose a heavy burden upon individuals. I see Labor's aims a little differently from the way in which they are seen by most people. I have said in this place on a number of occasions over the past 3 years that Labor is particularly successful in its aims in government. Generally on such occasions the members of the backbench of the Labor Party have said: 'Hear, hear'. Of course, Labor's success has been in the introduction of a socialist program for this country. It has created a section of the community which is becoming completely dependent upon this Government for all its aid and its services. It is impossible for the average pensioner to consider paying 18c for a stamp to post a letter, which is generally the only means of communication that age pensioners have. That proposal is not part of this measure but it is one of the other imposts that the Government has introduced. There is no alleviation for citizens in that economic state. They are dependent upon a socialist government for more assistance to help them overcome these imposts. To have industry and production and the community dependent upon a certain class of government which is meant to be paternalistic is something which Labor is achieving. We see the Government making irrational handouts of a couple of thousand dollars to a particular industry which appears to be in trouble and of a couple of thousand dollars to some other industry. The Government is completely illogical in what it does. But it certainly must encourage some industries to think that it is a government which is willing to hand out the public cash to them in times of crisis. The fact is that that Government has brought about the crisis and it is now hoping that industry will push it back into office so it can be rescued from the problems which it has created. It has been successful in socialising the community but it has robbed Australia of an industrial base and in its attempt to rationalise industry has created the thousands of unemployed in the community at the present time. It has lowered the value of our dollar, taken away incentive from the ordinary person to work and certainly has created a society which will be dependent upon government. There are many ways in which this Government has broken its promises. It has certainly done so in the present Budget. Government members even make statements in this place indicating that promises relating to social welfare will not be continued. We have seen them instruct the arbitration court that the measures contained in the Bills which we are debating should not be taken into account when contemplating whether there should be rises in wages determined by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Regional Employment Development scheme has broken down. It is ridiculous that the scheme was ever introduced but a community certainly becomes dependent upon such a scheme, with people working all the time in no productive capacity whatsoever. Promises that were made by the Government of financial assistance for homes for the aged are not being kept. Social welfare schemes are being placed in jeopardy. Grants to municipalities are being withdrawn and in many instances those municipal councils are committed to continuing certain building projects and paying certain benefits that they have undertaken to provide within their municipal area. An honourable senator reminds me of research grants. They are being robbed in the most stupid way because this is one area that cannot be rebuilt within a year or two, once the research grants are broken down. These are areas in respect of which the Government has said: 'Look, we have no money. We must have these indirect taxes to be able to supplement what we are doing in other fields'. What is the biggest of these other fields in which this Government is dealing? It is Medibank, a scheme which started within the last two or three months and one which will cost the community at least $ 1,500m for the balance of this year. The taxes being authorised by these Bills, and particularly the Bill relating to excise duties, will mean that the community will pay by indirect methods an amount of $ 700m. The Government cannot continue its expenditure at the rate which I have outlined, as is demonstrated by the latest Treasury economic statistics bulletin. We will find ourselves in a bankrupt situation within some months if Labor continues to operate in this way. This Government has abandoned its principles. It has abandoned its policies by acting in such a way as to create the necessity for these indirect taxes. What will be the effect of these indirect taxes? I would imagine that the average worker who now has to pay an extra 4c for his glass of beer will probably remind himself on every occasion he buys a beer that, when he voted for the Labor Party, he thought it had made a promise that there would be no increases in indirect taxation. I imagine that the person who smokes cigarettes and uses manufactured tobacco products will say to himself that the 6c extra tax on a packet of cigarettes is an indirect tax which he thought this Government had a mandate not to introduce. The new tax on oil, which perhaps is one of the gravest moves which this Government has made, again raises the price of petrol. We have in prospect, because of various methods employed by this Government, that before the end of this year petrol will be approaching $ 1 a gallon. It will not be on the basis of the community paying so that the industry itself can expand or that there can be additional oil exploration or exploitation for the benefit of the community. It will be purely on the basis of taxation and the money will go to this Government, a Government which has already brought about a situation in which it will have a monstrous $5,000m deficit in its ordinary workings. No private organisation could continue for many years if its own economic affairs were in that state and this Government certainly will not. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- I raise a point of order. I was under the impression that the Budget debate had finished this afternoon. I would ask you, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** to ask **Senator Webster** to refer to the Bills that are now before the Senate and not to make generalisations as he has been doing for the last half an hour. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)-** I ask **Senator Webster** to relate his remarks to the Bills before the Senate. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- All my remarks have been directed to the Bills because I have been discussing the effects of indirect taxation, as the Leader of the Government well knows, but I note that the suggestions - {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- I must take a further point of order. I suggest that **Senator Webster** is questioning your ruling, **Mr Acting Deputy President.** Your ruling was the correct one, if I may say so with great respect. I suggest that **Senator Webster** be kept to the ruling which you have given. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I ask **Senator Webster** to relate his remarks more directly to the Bills than he has been doing. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -Mr Acting Deputy President, I accept your comments. The Government now attempts to get out of its own mess by slugging the people who put their trust and faith in Labor in 1972 and in 1974, including its traditional supporters, the low income earners. The effect of these 3 Bills will be to collect in excise an extra $234m on beer, $12m on potable spirits, $12m on tobacco products and $75m on crude petroleum, a total of some $280m. Coupled with the absurdly high increases in other areas the consumer will now pay enormously for goods he buys as a result of these massive slugs on the taxpayers. There has been criticism by big unions of the actions of the Government. I believe they did not realise this action would be taken. In one area we have great concern and that is in the area of coal export duty. The Government is always reluctant to help industries. When it does it gives assistance very grudgingly but when conditions favour an industry in this country, such as happened with the coal industry with its new found contracts overseas, this Government is intent on getting its hands on some of the money. There will not now be within the coal industry in your own State of Queensland, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** and in New South Wales the same desire that previously existed to exploit new areas and the millions of dollars that must be found in order to bring new coal fields into operation will not be available because the Government now proposes to take at least 50 per cent of the profit that would have gone to some producers. This duty will greatly disadvantage decentralisation in Australia. It will greatly disadvantage Australia in its attempts to hold up its head and keep those promises which **Mr Connor** has given to some of our better export markets throughout the world that our coal exports would increase. Before very long it will be necessary for this Government to give handouts to coal producers to encourage them in their exploitation of coal fields. It is stupid in the economic sense to take from the producers $2 or $6 a tonne for the coal they are likely to send overseas and to demand that this be not handed on to those with whom they have contracts. It is a tax on profits. In actual fact it is a duty on exports which will remain even when prices are low. The effect of this duty will be to cut by at least 50 per cent the profit on all premium grade coking coal and this will be greatly to the disadvantage of this community. No other Bills introduced during the term of office of this Government demonstrate the Government's dishonesty and the Labor Party's hypocrisy more than do two of these Bills. I do not think that the Australian electorate has forgotten the hue and cry raised by Labor members and senators when **Mr Anthony** pointed out that the price of Australian crude oil was too low by world standards. It was unthinkable for members of the Government at that stage to support his contention that it was necessary for additional funds to be placed in the hands of those who wished to seek oil around the Australian coast. But we now find that the Government by a sweep of its hand increases by nearly 100 per cent the cost per barrel of oil produced in Australia. Again that proposition is ridiculous, because, with the big field and the small fields alike, no regard is taken of the cost of production. This Government in its quick shoot from the hip method has decided that all producers of oil will pay this duty. This is a policy which will not continue. It cannot continue in this community. It will only, as I suggested earlier, bring success to a socialist government which wishes to chase away from our shores and indeed internally any private enterprise, any entrepreneurial action by Australian citizens, and instead to bring about a situation in which there is a demand such as we see currently in England that the Government do everything. That is the basis of what is being put forward in these Bills. The community is being taxed indirectly. Industry in coal and oilproducing areas is being denuded of the profitability which it may have had. I suggest that we will hear very shortly from Ministers that there is a demand that the Labor Government commence exploration for oil, that it set up its own coal company, that it set up it? own industry in so many areas. In the minerals field the Government is obviously condemned by its own minerals and energy policy. By bad luck, every Australian must feel ashamed and disgraced by what the Government has done. These Bills do not give credit to the Labor Government for the actions which it has taken over the past years. I am disappointed to be even associated with these measures. {: #subdebate-44-0-s1 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- We are dealing with a series of tariff Bills the prime purpose of which is to obtain revenue for the Government. In saying that, it is necessary to refute the assertions made by **Senator Webster** about the Government's Budget. We could go into a long discourse on the merits or demerits of indirect taxation as against direct taxation. I venture to say that quite a number of the social innovations which the Labor Government has introduced will be treated like measures which were introduced by the Attlee post-war Labour Government in Britain. At that time the blueprint of the Beveridge plan was introduced to Britain and no succeeding Conservative Government has attempted to change it. The honourable senator made a fleeting reference to Medibank. I suggest to him that the analogy I have cited is the answer to the point he raised. One of our dilemmas in introducing Medibank has resulted from obstruction. We do not deny that Medibank is a major Budget component. As honourable senators well know, when we introduced Medibank we favoured a levy of 1 .35 per cent in relation to taxable income to help finance the scheme, but the Opposition thwarted our attitude. We were not able to impose that levy and we had to find the amount elsewhere, so it is no use the Opposition criticising the cost of Medibank. Today **Senator Ruth** Coleman raised the matter of the bureaucracy of the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia and the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and talked about private enterprise extravagance. But I return to the subject which is germane to the debate, that is, revenue. The plain fact of the matter is that we believe in community projects. I do not apologise for the imposition of this excise duty. Shortly I shall deal in detail with the coal industry. If we are going to talk about sound financial principles I should point out that the previous Liberal-Country Party Government was supposed to have the know-how in relation to successful private enterprises. I refer particularly to the negotiations of the Minister for Defence, **Mr Morrison.** This Government was not conned like the Liberal-Country Party Government was in relation to General Dynamics Corporation. That was a bottomless pit into which we put millions of dollars to procure the Fill aircraft. It was a British Labour Government which had escape clauses inserted into contracts when it bought such equipment from the United States of America. But the socalled Liberal private enterprise government of the past was well and truly conned by General Dynamics. That was its first mistake. When we consider some of the millions of dollars we need I remind honourable senators opposite that not one of them now, or when they were in government, would ever give us figures to show how many millions of dollars we put into that misadventure in the jungles of South Vietnam. Honourable members opposite are silent because they cannot deny that. The millions of dollars which that government pumped into South Vietnam caused the greatest erosion of our economy. What do we have to show for it? There are 2 areas in which the Liberal-Country Party Government made king-size economic mistakes. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- When is the honourable senator getting onto the Bill? {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -I knew I would get a bite when I raised that matter. It is the Opposition's soft underbelly. I shall deal now with our attitude to minerals generally. I suppose there is no industry with such a disreputable past as the coalmining industry. We could talk about John Brown, the coal baron of Newcastle. When we wander around Cessnock and look at the fields of Rothbury, what do we see? It is one of the few places where in the history of Australia trade unionists have been gunned down. They were gunned down by the same coal owners who in the 1970s come here pleading to Rex Connor. They will continue to plead about what is a fair profit. We know the history of mine mechanisation. The Miners Federation agreed to the mechanisation of mines, with its attendant safety problems. But the owners still squeal. Honourable senators talk about the virtues of private enterprise. We had New South Wales private enterprise coal owners competing with their counterparts in Queensland on the Japanese market, letting the Japanese drive a wedge between the two of them. Consider how differently the socialist Minister for Minerals and Energy negotiated when he went to Tokyo. He did not grovel like previous Liberal-Country Party Ministers. He went there and sat up. He demanded a fair crack of the whip as far as trade, commerce and prices were concerned. As a result of his statesmanlike activity Australia got a fair price for its coal. We have every right to demand that a part of that profit be used for the common good. If honourable senators are going to talk about the coalmining industry and about our concept of taxation I suggest that they have a look at the United States where probably the coalmining industry had less controls than we had here. This is what **Senator Webster** was advocating. He said: 'Give them their heads and they will do the right thing'. Safety conditions are still bad in some mines in Australia but they do not approach the accident frequency which occurred in Kentucky and other States of America. If we look at mining bureau records in Washington we see that the argument which **Senator Webster** always advances- let the state vacate the field completely so that industry can find its own level and so all will be well- is just not on. It did not work out that way in the United States and it will not happen here. Look at Clutha Development Pty Ltd and at its record in relation to the pollution of the environment. Mark you, I suppose that all governments- that is my government and nonLabor governments- for the sake of employment often bend a little bit. I say that as a conservationist. We do bend a little. But the more we do for the mining companies the more they want. These people put up the banner of private enterprise. If each mining company sends a representative abroad to try to sell its product, of course the Japanese and people in other countries will play one company against another. Honourable senators know that in the future it will be the pattern set by a Labor government which will result in the Australian Government taking over the overall negotiations. We make no apology about the role of the state or the Australian Government. In relation to coalmining I am sure that some honourable senators opposite know that there are distinctions and differences between coals from the western, southern and northern coalfields of New South Wales. I think there are variations in the quality of coal in various parts of Queensland. I know enough about **Mr Connor** to appriciate what he is doing. I know about the situation at Lithgow. I have never mined coal but I have shovelled it into a locomotive firebox. I have an appreciation of its uses. I repeat that there are certain economic variations in the different areas of New South Wales. I know that the Minister, in his wisdom, is looking at these differences now. His door is open to the western coal owners. There are in Australia boom areas where there is good coal which is reasonably easy to extract and for which there is a suitable market. The day has gone when private enterprise, particularly in mining, can move in, shovel up the profits and get out. We talk about how good private mining companies are. I know that my colleague **Senator Keeffe** would confirm what I am about to say. Appearing before a Senate Committee we had that famous body, the Mining Industry Council. Its members were talking about how their hearts bled because of pollution. I asked about Lake George and the pollution of the Molonglo River. I pointed out that one could not get trout in the river. Members of the Council put up their hands like Pontius Pilate and said that that pollution happened in the 1950s and it would never happen now. But we still find prosecutions because of unsafe practices. Mining companies have a host of things which need correction. So let us knock over once and for all the idea that mining board management and the mine managers bleed for the people. They do not. When questioned in relation to the Mining Council they themselves admitted that their prime job was to get the particular minerals out of the ground quickly. I was in the Ranger mine area in the Northern Territory with Representative Lamb from the other place. The people to whom we spoke were reasonable to a point. They assured me that they would not pollute the Alligator River system. When I asked who would monitor the level of pollution they said that they would. I said: 'But surely you should have a third party to watch the control of this river system '. They were very concerned about that. I do not care whether it is a State mining complex or private enterprise, common regulations have to be enforced. This is a matter about which I am particularly concerned. I should like to speak now about the capacity of the industry to pay. I heard **Senator Wright** yesterday or the day before refer to the coal industry in the 1950s. The plain fact of the matter is that traditional instincts are inherent in coalminers, whether they are in Australia, Britain or the United States. They are the people who go into the bowels of the earth and they feel, with the introduction of new techniques, that if some of the theories are not correct they may suffer loss of life or their limbs may be mangled. It is in that context, as **Senator Wright** and other honourable senators would know, that the Miners Federation made to governments in the 1950s some concessions which they had been reluctant to give earlier. Incentives and inducements were given. The amazing point is that in the face of the trade unions conceding things to employers we have never had any indication from the mining companies of the reduced costs being reflected. They have played their role in increasing costs and making larger profits. The point that I am trying to get across to the Senate is that even when the trade unions made concessions, the mining companies- like Oliver Twist- all wanted more. We all can argue about industries living off their economic fat. All honourable senators are aware of the Prime Minister's attitude in relation to this matter. I am prepared to say to **Senator Webster** that there could be industries, such as the textile industry, which are facing all sorts of problems. Australia, with the idea of being internationalists and of assisting under-developed countries can, at times, be over generous in its intake of imports, and the balance in the textile industry, for example, can be upset. However, in the coal industry it is a different ball game. In the coal industry both the internal and external markets should be able to bear this imposition. **Senator Webster** and other honourable senators have referred to the incentives given for the exploration of our minerals. It is amazing that in all the discussions about mineral exploration no honourable senator has referred to the Bureau of Mineral Resources and to the role that it has played behind the scenes. The Bureau has passed on to private enterprise, virtually for nothing, any know-how that it has gained. If honourable senators were to read some of the staff journals of the mining industry and oil companies, they would find that they are trying to admit that the old buccaneer approach has gone. Maybe it has. I assure honourable senators opposite that if they put themselves into bondage with private mining companies, they will not know where to stop. **Senator Webster** has implied that a certain amount of industrial turbulence has frightened those who are interested in mineral exploration. If **Senator Webster** and I were to go, for example, to various countries in Latin America and look at the frequency with which revolutions occur in those countries- I have in mind countries like Bolivia which has experienced a lot of revolutions- we would find that Americans and the British capital has not been frightened away, because there are large quantities of minerals in those countries and the minerals are of a high quality. Using the same principle here, I do not think that honourable senators opposite can tell me that Evan Phillips and other people in the Mining Federation are virtually emulating, say, the miners in Chile. Perhaps sometimes they might do so in relation to safety issues, and they have every reason to do it. But I do not want to go further into the matter of safety. **Senator Webster** spoke a lot of nonsense about overseas capital being frightened away from Australia. British and American capital is still available for investment in Latin American countries. The economic climate in relation to the mining industry is such that overseas investors want to be involved in it. While **Mr Connor** is the Minister for Minerals and Energy we will see that Australian resources are not sold for a song. Another aspect of this legislation concerns conflicts within the oil companies. Ampol, for example, is always wrapping the Australian flag around itself and saying that it is more patriotic than the other oil companies. I just wonder sometimes whether it is. At times, Ampol makes common cause with overseas companies in standing over governments. I think that one of Bob Hawke 's finest hours was when he appeared on a television program in which he tangled with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Lynch)** and one or two other spokesmen for the Liberal Country Party. They were attempting to defend the multinationals in the oil field. He plainly stated the capacity of the oil companies to negotiate a new award for workers in the oil industry. What I am simply saying is that the industries on which we are imposing indirect taxation are pretty viable, honourable senators should have no doubts about exploration in Australia. It may well be that there are desolate parts of this continent which should be explored, rather than prime areas where the earth could be despoiled. I have spoken to officers of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, to **Mr Connor** and to people from the Mining Council. I should like now to turn to the ethics of the mining industry. I want to refer to a couple of maverick mining companies. I wish that **Senator Durack** was present in the chamber. Perhaps **Senator Chaney** might take up this cause for me. I refer to the VC Mining Company in Western Australia. What happened with this company? It swindled 20 people who had been working in a mine. I rang the managing-director and he told me a terrible story of how the sub-contractor had swindled him. I said: 'Have you gone back working on a jackhammer in a mine?' He said: 'No'. I said: 'Where do you live?' He said: 'Near Scarborough Beach'. I know enough about Western Australia to know that Scarborough Beach is not exactly a slum area. If he had been honest and if he had had any morals he would have sold his home, he would have paid those men the wages that he owed them and he would have gone back into the mineshaft and worked. These are the people who are directors of mining companies. On the television program 'This Day Tonight' recently Lang Hancock's daughter made an appearance. She is a girl who will inherit millions of dollars. She will be in the big league so far as influence is concerned. She made some stupid remarks about Medibank. She did not know what it was all about. Yet, she will inherit wealth. These are the people in private enterprise mining groups who are trying to tell this Government what it should do. I believe that some honourable senators opposite will agree with me when I say that never again will the mining companies squeeze Australia, as they have done in the past. One of the most recent converts to the Australian Government's way of thinking- I am not referring to **Senator Wood-** is the Queensland Minister for Mines. He has followed **Mr Connor's** actions. He has agreed that Queensland ought to renegotiate a lot of its agreements with mining companies. If ever there was a vindication of the Labor Party's policy about private enterprise, multinational mining companies, this was it. I repeat that I have never seen a mining company yet which has not had a great deal of bargaining power. It is like a log of claims that is served in the trade union field- there is a fair area in which to bargain. I say without any hesitation that I believe the mining industry is a section of the community that can well afford to pay. I simply conclude on this theme: Whatever nostalgic feelings the Opposition might have about being in government, it cannot turn back the clock. If the Opposition is returned to government it will have to control these big mining enterprises. We have charted the course; we have produced the blueprint. The Opposition- even if it struggles back into office in 10 years' time- will not stray far from that blueprint. Debate (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 733 {:#debate-45} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-45-0} #### Newspaper Reports Motion ( by **Senator Cavanagh)** proposed: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-45-0-s0 .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia -- I feel constrained to rise to speak tonight to the motion that the Senate do now adjourn. I think that this is the third time in 12 months that I have taken this opportunity of airing my grievances. My grievance tonight is in regard to the responsibility or perhaps irresponsibility of the Press, which graces the Press Gallery here on odd occasions. I want to stress that in my opinion the Press has a great community responsibility. It is unfortunate that the Press barons do not see that they have that responsibility and that they are not prepared to accept it. I want to draw the attention of the House to a report in the *Sunday Mirror* on 7 September. It appeared in a quite prominent position, of course, as do most of the rather sensational items that appear in the *Sunday Mirror,* that is, on page 3 next to a photograph of a nude woman. The article is entitled 'Jail for drinking with her husband'. It is a report about a woman who was prepared to go to gaol rather than pay a fine. The article relates to the case of **Mrs Janina** Anstee, whom the article said had pleaded guilty in the Liverpool court that week to a charge of refusing to leave licensed premises. The story, incidentally, is incorrect in that she did not plead guilty that week but pleaded guilty the week before. Of course the story was not written until it was sensational. It was written after she had actually served a 6-day sentence on principle rather than pay $30 fine because she did not believe that she was guilty. **Mrs Anstee** 's only crime was that she went to a hotel- I understand that it is called the Stop and Rest'- in Mount Pritchard in New South Wales. Unfortunately the 'Stop and Rest' did not live up to its name as far as **Mrs Anstee** was concerned. She went into the hotel to join a group of her husband's friends and, inadvertently or otherwise, found her way into what is quaintly called a saloon bar'. She was allowed to buy her first drink in the saloon bar and, as she was served by a female bar attendant, she was told that she could have that drink but any further drinks would need to be purchased in the lounge; that she was in a men's domain and her presence was not required. The people with whom she was drinking did not see that she had any reason to be transferred to another section of the hotel where she would have been forced to sit alone and, furthermore, forced to pay more for her drinks. Subsequently they bought her drinks. The management were the ones which complained about her presence there. I do not know whether the objection to her presence was taken because she wore her hair in a particular way or because she was wearing an outfit that the management did not particularly like, but the Liquor Act is fairly wide and it does give very broad powers in the enlightened State of New South Wales to licensees. For instance, section 1 56 of the Act states: >Any licensee under this Act may refuse to admit into, and may turn out of his licensed premises, any person who is then drunk, violent, quarrelsome, disorderly, or who is using disgusting, profane, or foul language, or any person whose presence on his premises would subject him to a penalty under this Act. As far as I can ascertain the only crime that **Mrs Anstee** had committed was that she was a female and that she was drinking in a male domain. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: -- Have you asked the publican? {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- I have not asked the publican. When I rang he was not available. But I have spoken to the person concerned and I have spoken to a number of the people who were with her in the hotel. I have also spoken to a reputable member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, who has already referred to this matter in that other place. Nevertheless, let us look at what the Act in actual fact does allow. The Act, of course, was drawn up in 1912 and there have been only minor amendments to it subsequently. It does go on further to refer to any person who hawks, peddles, sells or offers for sale any goods and so on. **Mrs Anstee** was not doing any of those things. But the Act was amended to provide, in effect, that where a licensee has turned a person out or caused a person to be turned out of his premises or refused to admit to his premises a particular person he may subsequently at any time and from time to time continue to refuse to admit that person or ask that person to leave. I fail to understand just what the publican's complaint could have been. But ultimately she did become disorderly, and I believe she was within her rights to do so. If I had been there I would probably have been a little more disorderly than she was because all she said was that the only way they would remove her from the bar was to carry her out. Section 1 56 of the Act goes on to state: >And all constables arc hereby required, and enjoined, on the demand of such licensee, agent or servant, to expel or assist in expelling every such person from such premises and may use any reasonable degree of force required for that purpose. Just imagine the scene. The publican rings the local police station and 3 big burly policemen arrive on the scene to escort one fragile little woman from licensed premises. I put it to the Senate that the law of New South Wales is a most repressive and oppressive one. It is solely at the whim of the licensee, it would appear, as to who can drink in his premises and where in those premises a person can drink. A person may wear a particular shirt and the licensee may not approve of the colour. It may be a full moon, and perhaps it was a full moon, though I think that came a week later. We cannot blame the moon for the actions of the licensee at that particular time. But any of those are reasons, sufficient reasons, for him to ask a person to leave. Let us have a look at what happened to **Mrs Anstee** when she decided that she would go ahead with the case and appeared before a magistrate. The magistrate determined that she would pay a fine of $30 or go to gaol for 6 days. Section 156 of the New South Wales Liquor Act- and admittedly this is an amendmentstates that the penalty will be $40, not $30. I question the right of any magistrate to reduce the fine to $30 for any reason if it is by law the amount that is to be paid when a section of an Act of Parliament is breached. **Mrs Anstee** decided that on principle she would go to gaol rather than pay the fine. Let us have a look at the irresponsibility of the Press in this matter. Nary a word did I see about **Mrs Anstee.** I saw nothing about the fact that her case was being heard. I saw nothing about her decision to go to gaol on principle rather than pay a $30 fine for failing to leave licensed premises, and that was her only charge. It was the first offence that she had committed, and that is perhaps the reason the fine was reduced to $30. 1 do not know the reason for the reduction. There is no determination in the newspapers because they did not see that they had a responsibility to tell the public what happens in these cases, as they did not see that they had a responsibility to draw the attention of the public to this case. Perhaps they were concerned that women in New South Wales might be enlightened enough to take some action against the publican. They might have thought that the following Saturday afternoon women would go to the saloon bar of the Stop and Rest Hotel; decide to stay there; refuse to leave and not go into the lounge where they would be required to pay more; and have a sit down strike especially as the female bar attendant who would serve them had had the audacity under instructions, presumably from the licensee, to request that another member of her sex leave the house or that part of the house. Let us see what happened when **Mrs Anstee** decided that she would go to gaol. She asked to make a phone call in the office of the police station where she was being booked. She wanted to contact her husband and let him know what the outcome of the case was. She wanted to phone her employer to tell him that she would be unable to report for work but she was denied even that right. Let us consider what happened to her in Silverwater. On the Thursday, 4 days after she was admitted and 4 days into her sentence, a letter written by her father was taken to her in the gaol by her husband. The letter probably related to an overseas trip that the father and daughter intend taking and it was written in Polish. That was audacious enough, but then a security officer or a superintendent or whatever they call those people at Silverwater said that the letter had to go through the normal channels. That was on Thursday of last week and that was the last she saw of the letter. The authorities have not been able to locate it. Perhaps they are having difficulty in having it translated, although why it should have to be translated when she was there for a 6-day period and it could quite easily have been handed to her on her release I do, not know. But that is what happened to her. I make a further point in relation to the irresponsibility of the Press, and I refer the Senate to page 4 of today's *Sun.* This article reveals the great minds of the people who write the words of wisdom that are read each day in so many houses throughout Australia. The article appears on page 4, immediately under the editorial, because everyone reads the editorial, which in popularity follows closely after the comic strips. The comic strips are more popular, but the editorial comes in between the comics and the sporting pages. The article is headed: 'How Your MP Beats The Tax Man ', and it is written by a **Mr Jack** Allsopp who I presume at some stage graces our Press gallery in this chamber. If he does not, how the hell does he come in contact with this information? If he does come in contact with it, why does he not write it as it is and not as he thinks it is? In the article Federal politicians are referred to as being among the world 's most pampered politicians. Let me tell the Senate that I do not consider myself to be a pampered politician. I find it extremely difficult to travel 5000 miles a week just to get to my place of employment, and that is something members of the Press do not have to do. I do not consider that my accommodation in Parliament House could in any circumstances lead me to be called pampered. I do not consider that being without a research officer or secretarial staff in Parliament House makes me a pampered politician, nor do I believe that the fact that I have a rent-free furnished electorate office and full secretarial assistance makes me a pampered politician. {: .speaker-KUJ} ##### Senator Melzer: -- How about the 12-hour day you put in? {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- I work a 15-hour day on most days that I am here. But there is a rather delightful comment here that I must admit did tickle my fancy. It states that we have meals at reduced prices at Parliament House. I am sure that the very man who wrote this article has taken advantage at some time of the meals at reduced prices available to him in the nonmember's dining room at Parliament House. Yet he has the audacity to say that I pay $1.50 in the dining room for a piece of steak. And he calls that a reduced price meal. He then went on to say that I have free tennis courts. I should love to know when I could get out to use them, and I should love to know when I could go down to use the sauna. But these are free; these are some of the perks of the Federal politicians- the MPs' perks in Canberra. The article states that we are entitled to payment for use of private cars to and from Canberra. What does the writer of the article think we are going to travel on? A camel? Does not the Public Service and private industry pay a mileage rate to its employees who travel to and from work in their own vehicles? Of course they do. I get a travelling allowance of $37 a day when I am away from my home base, states the article. I get a travelling allowance of $37 a day when I am in Canberra and not when I am away from home base, not when I have to go to Port Hedland or Broome or Derby or Albany or anywhere else. I get my $37 a day when I am on the job here in Canberra; and I use it. I have to justify the spending of that $37 to my tax man. He wants to know how I have spent it and whether I have spent all of it, and if I have not he is likely to charge me a little bit more. The hour is late and I appreciate that honourable senators are tired. Some of us have been here since 8.30 this morning, which is more than most members of the Press gallery could say. Most of us will be here again at 8.30 tomorrow morning, working through until at least 10.30 tomorrow night. Perhaps **Mr Allsopp** might like to spend a typical day in Canberra with me and I will teach him how to write a Press article which shows a sense of responsibility, not only towards Parliament but also towards the rest of the community throughout Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.15 p.m. {: .page-start } page 736 {:#debate-46} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-46-0} #### Price of Aviation Fuel (Question No. 341) {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has Qantas Airways Ltd been advised of the changed policy relating to the price of aviation fuel to be charged to international airlines. 1. When was Qantas Airways Ltd advised and what was the method of advice. 2. When will the changed policy apply to Qantas Airways Ltd. {: #subdebate-46-0-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The Government's policy relating to the price of aviation fuel supplied in Australia to international airlines was advised to Qantas Airways Ltd by written and oral advice following Cabinet's decisions on the matter in April 1975. 1. The procedures necessary to give full effect to the Government 's policy, are in the course of being settled. {:#subdebate-46-1} #### Repatriation Hospitals (Question No. 454) {: #subdebate-46-1-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the average bed capacity in each of the major repatriation general hospitals in Australia for each of the past five years. 1. What has been the average daily bed occupancy in each of the major repatriation general hospitals in Australia for each of the past five years. 2. What is the potential unused bed capacity available in repatriation general hospitals. {: #subdebate-46-1-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Although the figures of potential unused capacity may appear high, the honourable senator will appreciate that, largely because of the practice in modern hospitals of operating wards on a functional basis, it is virtually impossible to achieve 100 per cent occupancy. This applies as much to Repatriation hospitals as it does to other major hospitals. Another factor, particularly at R.G.H.'s Concord and Heidelberg, has been the extreme difficulty in recent years in attracting sufficient nursing staff to staff all available wards. Nevertheless, it will be seen that the trend has been for the numbers of unused beds to fall since April 1973 when the Government introduced its policy for admission of nonentitled patients to Repatriation hospitals. It is expected that measures now in progress, such as the establishment of the Emergency /Accident Centre at Concord, will ensure a continuation of this trend. The reduction in average available bed capacities at R.G.H.'s Concord and Heidelberg over the five year period resulted from the conversion of some general ward space to specialised treatment units, e.g. renal dialysis, respiratory functions, coronary care, etc. {:#subdebate-46-2} #### Rehabilitation Services (Question No. 517) {: #subdebate-46-2-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice: >What evaluation procedures are carried out to determine in social as well as vocational terms the efficacy of rehabilitation services provided by the Department of Repatriation and Compensation. {: #subdebate-46-2-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The Department of Repatriation and Compensation has, at present, no specific procedures for evaluating its rehabilitation services. > >Rehabilitation is seen as part of the total treatment pattern. lt is a continuing process, the quality of which is controlled by a team, skilled in assessing the individual need of the patient. Although the Department believes effectiveness can only be determined in relation to the degree of independence, socially, medically and financially, which the patient achieves, it is looking at methods by which it can develop research into, and evaluation of, rehabilitation procedures. > >Taking into consideration the median age of the veteran, which is 56 years, the great weight of the Repatriation rehabilitation effort is directed towards social and medical aspects rather than the vocational aspects of rehabilitation. {:#subdebate-46-3} #### First Class Air Travel (Question No. 729) {: #subdebate-46-3-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice: >What percentage of traffic carried by Ansett Airlines of Australia travelled first-class in: > >1972-73 > >1973-74 > >1974-75. {: #subdebate-46-3-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 27.4 percent. 1. 24.3 per cent. 2. 2 1.5 per cent. The above statistics do not include passengers carried on the Australia-Papua New Guinea services. {:#subdebate-46-4} #### First Class Air Travel (Question No. 730) {: #subdebate-46-4-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice: >What percentage of traffic carried by Trans-Australia Airlines travelled first-class in: > >1972-73 > >1973-74 > >1974-75. {: #subdebate-46-4-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 26.3 percent. 1. 23.3 percent. 2. 22.5 percent. The above statistics do not include passengers carried on the Australia-Papua New Guinea services. {:#subdebate-46-5} #### Departmental Journalist (Question No. 732) {: #subdebate-46-5-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many journalists are employed in the Department and in commissions and statutory authorities under the Prime Minister's control. 1. What position does each journalist fill and what is his or her salary. {: #subdebate-46-5-s1 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt:
ALP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. One person is employed in a position designated journalist. 1. Journalist Grade B, Australian Film Commission, on a salary of $11,1 69 p.a. {:#subdebate-46-6} #### Departmental Journalists (Question No. 754) {: #subdebate-46-6-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many journalists are employed in the Department and in commissions and statutory authorities under the Minister's control. 1. What position does each journalist fill and what is his or her salary. {: #subdebate-46-6-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Two journalists are employed by the Department. 1. Director Public Relations salary $16,537. Journalist Grade A salary range $12,565-12,862-13,159. {:#subdebate-46-7} #### Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 789) {: #subdebate-46-7-s0 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) What are the categories of students' allowances met in 1974-75 by the TEAS. 1. What are the numbers of recipients in each category. 2. What are the amounts of allowance in each category, broken down into $ 1 00 units. {: #subdebate-46-7-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for Education has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I have provided the honourable senator with a set of statistics relating to the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme as at 30 June 1974 which were incorporated in Hansard of Thursday 4 September 1975, pages 560-561. Figures for the period to 30 June 1 975 should be available shortly and I will arrange to provide the honourable senator with a copy.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 September 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750910_senate_29_s65/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate10 September 1975

PETITIONS

Pensions and Pensioner Telephone Concessions

Senator GIETZELT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:NEW SOUTH WALES

Fraser Island

Senator BUTTON:VICTORIA

The Clerk:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QUESTION

FERTILISER BOUNTY

Senator WITHERS:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CAVANAGH:Minister for Police and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator POYSER:VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

TAX REFUNDS

Senator WEBSTER:VICTORIA

Senator WRIEDT:Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

QUESTION

DRUG CARRIERS

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CAVANAGH:ALP

QUESTION

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER

Senator COTTON:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIEDT:ALP

QUESTION

NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Senator DRURY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

A.C.T. CRIMINAL CODE

Senator GREENWOOD:VICTORIA

Senator James McClelland:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Senator PRIMMER:VICTORIA

Senator WRIEDT:ALP

Senator Wright:

Senator WRIEDT:

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator CARRICK:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator James McClelland:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

RECORDING OF POLICE TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator McINTOSH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:ALP

Senator McINTOSH:

Senator BISHOP:

QUESTION

INTENSIVE CARE SUBSIDY

Senator GUILFOYLE:VICTORIA

Senator WHEELDON:ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator BUTTON:

Senator James McClelland:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Wright:

Senator WHEELDON:ALP

QUESTION

OVERSEAS POSTING OF MAIL

Senator DURACK:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:ALP

Senator Durack:

Senator BISHOP:

Senator Jessop:

Senator BISHOP:

Senator Wright:

Senator BISHOP:

Senator Wright:

Senator BISHOP:

Senate
10 September 1975

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Police and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

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

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP