Senate
1 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 811

PETITIONS

Postal and Telephone Concessions for Pensioners

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 69 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

b ) 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 1972 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.

The Clerk:

– The following petition has been lodged for presentation:

Postal and Telephone Concessions for Pensioners

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-

  1. 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
  2. b) 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-

  1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech and
  2. 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. by Senator Wheeldon.

Petition received.

page 811

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I indicate to the Senate that Senator James McClelland, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, has had to go to Sydney today in relation to industrial matters involving a dispute in the oil industry. I suggest that any questions which would normally be directed to him be directed to me.

page 811

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr PETER WHITLOCK

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question about another Australian citizen who is held captive in a communist country. This is in addition to the case of Mr Marco Nazor whose plight I referred to yesterday. Is it a fact that a Mr Peter Whitlock, an Australian Broadcasting Commission employee seconded to the Department of Foreign Affairs, was seized by the Vietcong in March 1975 and held captive by them? Can the Minister assure the Senate that Mr Whitlock is still alive? Is it a fact that the Minister himself and the Australian Ambassador in North Vietnam have been rebuffed in all requests they have made for information and that the Government has accepted those rebuffs? Why does this Government regard the denial of human rights of Australian citizens held without trial and without charges being laid against them in communist countries as of secondary importance and the need to avoid giving offence to communist governments as of paramount importance?

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

-I am afraid that Senator Greenwood always blunts his case when he tries to bring political considerations into these matters and makes all sorts of quite wild allegations against the Government, saying that I and the Department always accept rebuffs from communist countries. That makes it very clear that Senator Greenwood has no regard whatever for the people who are in gaol. When he raised this matter last night he gave me 5 minutes notice, but he had the information in the afternoon. What would anybody do who had that information and was really concerned about somebody who is alleged to be in gaol? He would have given me the information- something he still has not done.

The first part of what Senator Greenwood said about Mr Whitlock is true. He has been arrested. I have written letters and done everything possible to assist. We are keeping up a dialogue with the Provisional Revolutionary Government to try to find out whether he is alive and to get him out. Extensive representations have been made to the Provisional Revolutionary Government on Mr Whitlock ‘s behalf, including a letter, about which Senator Greenwood knows, that I wrote to the Foreign Minister. We have been assured by the PRG special representative in Hanoi that Mr Whitlock is in good health but we do not yet have any clear indication of when he will be released. We have several times expressed our concern to the PRG authorities at Mr Whitlock ‘s continued detention and we will be very disappointed if he is not released in the very near future. We have also talked about the resumption of diplomatic channels in the south, which we hope will help. At the same time, we have mentioned Mr Whitlock continually. It is quite untrue to say that we have not done everything possible regarding Mr Whitlock, or anybody else who is detained in any other part of the world; whether in communist countries or not. That is in marked contrast to the way in which Senator Greenwood handled some of these cases when he was a Minister.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the efforts which the Minister has been detailing have been made for 6 months without getting anywhere? Why has not the Minister at some stage made a public protest about the conduct of the PRG?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The reason I have not made public protests about the matter is that I am concerned for Mr Whitlock. I am not concerned about making political points, as Senator Greenwood is.

page 812

QUESTION

CONCORD REPATRIATION HOSPITAL

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Mindful of the Minister’s incessant zeal to have Concord Repatriation Hospital facilities used to assist in dealing with the carnage of road accidents in the central western suburbs and in the face of certain medical opposition, I ask the Minister: What is the latest score on this situation?

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

– Negotiations have been taking place, as I think is known by all honourable senators. I am certainly concerned not only about the carnage but also about any road accidents that take place in that area. I will try to get a detailed reply for Senator Mulvihill on the precise state of affairs at this time. I know of his interest in this matter and I will let him have a reply as soon as possible.

page 812

QUESTION

TELEVISION FACILITIES: LAUNCESTON

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media. Will he ask his colleague to inquire from the Australian Broadcasting Commission as to whether any action can be taken to enable Australian Broadcasting Commission television in Launceston to provide proper facilities for the conveyance of news film to Hobart or for the transmission of news film from Launceston to the Hobart television studios so that the Australian Broadcasting Commission television news service can give a proper coverage of northern Tasmanian news?

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

– I am unaware of the matters to which the honourable senator refers and I will refer them to my colleague, the Minister for the Media, for advice. I will advise the honourable senator.

page 812

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF X-RAY MACHINE

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Customs. I believe that an X-ray machine has been developed to help in identifying the contents of overseas letters and packages being processed by customs officers at mail exchanges. Can the Minister tell me how effective is this machine and whether it will be widely used by the Department of Police and Customs?

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

-I believe that the machine is in an elementary stage of development at this time. It is being developed by a customs officer in Western Australia. So far it has proved to be effective in detecting narcotic consignments and in reducing the handling cost which occurs now to both the Department of Police and Customs and the Postmaster-General’s Department. It is anticipated that the machine will become available in each State and that it will be very valuable in detecting letter bombs which might contain highly dangerous light active fuses. The machine itself is safe to operate and it complies with the stringent safety standards set down by the State Radiation Commission in Western Australia.

I would just add that whilst the machine is in its infancy, recently I received a letter seeking compensation from the Department. It came from someone who had had mailed to him a number of expensive films and who said that the films were destroyed by the use of the X-ray machine. We did not meet the claim for compensation as we had not used the X-ray machine. But it suggests to my mind that there could be some dangers to films if an X-ray machine is used for detection purposes. That is one of the things that we now will have to investigate. For narcotics and bomb fuses, I am informed, the machine is very effective, and we hope to have it widely used throughout Australia.

page 813

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Agriculture whether it is a fact that Treasury statements for July and August indicate an overexpenditure by the Government somewhat in excess of $750m. In the light of that fact, what stage has the Government reached in its considerations of the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendation to increase assistance in the campaigns to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis? Is it a fact that the Government’s attitude towards the recommendations regarding brucellosis and superphosphate will be determined by the extent of the decline in the Australian economy? Is it a case of the longer the delay the less chance of the recommendations, which this Government said it would implement, being adopted and implemented?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– If Senator Webster wishes and if he is so assiduous in his homework on matters of deficits month by month and year by year, I will supply the figures to him because they are available. He will find that over the past several years- long before this Government came to office- the deficit is always higher at this time of the year and runs at a higher rate than it would on a corresponding annual basis. That is nothing new.

Senator Webster:

– Can you name the year it approached $700m?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Just allow me to answer the question. That is nothing new under this Government. It is something which obtained for many years before we came to office. It is a normal practice of the accounting procedures and the financial transactions of government, irrespective of its political nature. Insofar as the effect which this deficit would have on the Industries Assistance Commission’s reports on the 2 matters to which Senator Webster refers- the brucellosis campaign and superphosphate- they are completely divorced from those considerations. The Government has before it the Commission’s reports on those 2 matters, both of which are currently under consideration. I might also mention to Senator Webster that the Government has 4 other Commission reports before it now and one is about to come before it, involving the rural sector. All of these Commission reports will be dealt with on their merits and on no other basis. I can assure Senator Webster and the Senate that the Government will consider properly the recommendations that the Commission puts before it in respect of each of those matters. The decisions taken by the Government will be, as always, in accordance with what it believes will be in the best interests of the rural sector and not just for the purpose of winning a few short term votes.

page 813

QUESTION

TOBACCO KITS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Police and Customs seen recent Press reports that kits are available for people to grow and process tobacco in their own back yards? Does the Minister propose to take action to bring this practice under control?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I think some Press publicity is being given to this matter at the present time. Someone was advertising the sale of tobacco seeds and information on how to grow them. He has now qualified the advertisement by saying that it is necessary to have a licence from my Department to grow the tobacco and that the cost of the licence is $10. It is an offence for a person to grow tobacco unless he is registered as a producer under the terms of the Excise Act. It is also illegal for a person to process tobacco, even for his own use, unless he is licensed to do so under the same Act. A person who wished to grow tobacco would need to comply with the various requirements of the Act, to keep suitable records and to pay excise duty. Officers of my Department have advised the person promoting the practice of these requirements. It is expected that once members of the public become aware of the requirements they will find that there is no saving in home grown tobacco and that all that is involved is a lot of worry and a need to gain knowledge to process and cure it.

page 814

QUESTION

SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I understand that the Minister attended the recent Council meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. Can the Minister inform the Senate what steps have been taken and will be taken to phase out SEATO?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I attended the SouthEast Asia Treaty Organisation Council meeting in New York on 24 September. The meeting addressed itself to the situation in the region and concluded that the time had come to phase out South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, which is no longer appropriate to the new realities in the region. It was agreed that the Organisation should be phased out in an orderly and systematic manner. The Council recognised that many of the economic and social projects and activities conducted or sponsored by South-East Asia Treaty Organisation were of continuing value. It will take some time to examine them and it is necessary to arrange for them to be continued under other auspices. The public initiative for the phasing out of South-East Asia Treaty Organisation came from its 2 regional members- the Philippines and Thailand. The Senate will recall that in 1973 the Organisation was modified to reduce its military orientation. We do not believe that Australia’s security will be adversely affected by the decision to phase out South-East Asia Treaty Organisation.

page 814

QUESTION

ELECTION SPECULATION

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the answer he gave yesterday to a question asked by Senator Walsh in which he said:

The Government’s attitude is that we have been elected for 3 years by a mandate of the Australian people. We believe that we should be allowed to continue to govern until that 3-year period, during which we would not normally and properly face the electorate again, . . .

I ask the Minister whether he can, on behalf of the Government, give the Senate a firm undertaking that if the Senate did not defeat any Supply or appropriation Bills the Government would not call an election for the House of Representatives until the expiration of the maximum 3-year term for which it was elected in May 1 974. Alternatively, does the Minister believe that the Government should be free to call an election whenever it suits the Government?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I do not know whether Senator Chaney is starting to become worried about how quickly political fortunes can change.

I indicated yesterday to Senator Walsh in my reply that the calling of an election from the Government’s point of view, irrespective of what may take place in the Senate on refusal of appropriation Bills, is entirely a responsibility of the Prime Minister. I am not in a position to say whether the Prime Minister would see fit to call an election at any time. That is a matter for his judgment. I know he has stated on many occasions- it is a matter about which he feels strongly- that, being elected in 1974 for a 3-year term, the Government is entitled to continue in government without being obstructed, unsettled, or disrupted by the majority opinion of the Opposition in the Senate.

Senator Withers:

– And in the electorate.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Well, I think that is the substance of Senator Chaney ‘s question; he also is a little dubious about the electorate at various times during the course of any 3 years. However, the important point is that the Prime Minister makes the decision, as Senator Chaney well knows, as to whether an election should be called.

page 814

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who represents the Minister for Manufacturing Industry in the absence of Senator James McClelland. I refer to reports of a report given by the textiles authority to the Government about quotas to apply from next February on the importation of textiles. In order to help restore confidence in that industry will the Minister seek to have the Minister for Manufacturing Industry give an early definitive statement on whether the recommendations will be implemented in relation to all affected textiles and the carpet making industry, or are we to go back to chaos in that industry again?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I do not know whether Senator Rae refers to the chaos in the textile industry in 1972 or at some earlier date. I am not conversant with the report to which he refers and can only refer the question to the appropriate Minister.

page 814

QUESTION

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation say whether the insurance companies were telling the truth in their advertising campaign against the establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Corportion when they said that ‘investment by insurance companies promotes growth and expansion in industry and commerce and results in increased employment’?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-They were in part telling the truth. There are considerable sums of money available to insurance companies which they invest. There is no doubt that when they invest this money it creates various activities and does create employment for a number of people. The problem, however- and it was not dealt with in any advertisements that I have seen which have been inserted by the insurance companies when using their policy-holders’ funds to attack this Government- has been the manner in which they have invested their money. One of the strongest criticisms that can be made of the insurance offices is that they have not been putting the vast sums available to them and at their command to the most useful purposes for the Australian people. In fact only recently -

Senator Greenwood:

– I take a point of order. Standing Order 100 says that a senator answering a question shall not debate the matter to which the question refers. The question was a very simple one- would he say whether there was truth in the statement. The Minister already has answered that question by saying that in part there was truth in it. For the Minister to proceed to debate this matter in the way he proposes to do is an abuse of question time. After all, the Opposition does not get the opportunity in question time to argue a matter or to respond to the points which the Minister is making. If there is to be a debate, let him put down a ministerial statement and then there will be an opportunity to debate it. To debate the matter in the manner which the Minister is doing not only offends against the Standing Orders but denies to other people the opportunity to ask questions.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Speaking to the point of order, I was endeavouring not to debate the matter but to answer a question asked by Senator Mcintosh in all earnestness. He is seeking an explanation of a situation and I am trying to give it to him. One of the reasons I tried to give the answer in some detail was the fear that Senator Greenwood would ask a supplementary question, which is a habit of his and which could have prolonged the matter to a very great length. In fact I have been trying to curtail question time by giving brief, succinct answers covering all the problems which have aroused the interest of the questioner. 1 think it would be quite unfair not to enable me to give this information which Senator Mcintosh is seeking.

Senator Webster:

– Speaking to the point of order, I believe that the Senate would be best served by allowing the Minister to complete his prepared statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Standing order 100, which has been raised and which says that a senator shall not debate a matter, is a controversial standing order. It must be left to the discretion of the Minister when answering questions to decide how much he elaborates in order to give an answer to any honourable senator. Until I find that the standing order has been transgressed 1 will allow the Minister to continue in the way he has in the past.

Senator WHEELDON:

-As it is a controversial standing order I will try, as always, not to give a controversial answer. I would like to say something about the investment policies of the insurance companies. 1 know that it is a matter in which Senator Webster is interested. With regard to their investment policies, it is very interesting to look at a statement made recently by American Metal Climax of Australia that it had reserved parts -

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise again on a point of order. This is not an answer to the question. 1 submit that the standing order is being transgressed.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Wheeldon to continue.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I thought that -

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I ask for a ruling. Is the standing order being transgressed?

The PRESIDENT:

– I previously ruled that it must be left to the discretion of the Minister to elaborate in his answer in the way he feels fit. I am asking the Minister to do that.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I refer again to the statement by American Metal Climax of Australia. It referred recently to a program which it had of mineral development. When the company was unable to find funds in Australia and sought overseas funds it issued this statement:

This pinpoints one of the big problems, of course. A great number of projects in Australia need huge amounts of capital, and it is just not available there. One of the things we found repeatedly is that appeals are being made in Australia for capital for productive development. Life assurance offices in particular have had this money. They have noi invested this money.

As the statement of American Metal Climax pointed out, they have invested the money in real estate and other activities which bring short term profits but which do not benefit the overall economic development of this country.

page 816

QUESTION

BUSINESS PREMISES IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: RENTS

Senator WITHERS:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. Is it a fact that a government shop in Downer is more than 2 years behind in its rent as at this date? If the answer is yes, what steps are being taken to recover the outstanding rent? In regard to the successful bid on 27 August last of $24,200 annual rental for the supermarket site at Evatt, does the Minister propose to reduce the rent in future years if the lessees are unable to maintain the rent charged?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have no information in respect of the question asked by Senator Withers. If I had been given notice prior to question time I would have been able to give some details to the honourable senator. I will get the information as soon as possible and let the honourable senator know.

page 816

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: DELAYS IN PAYMENT

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to an article in the Melbourne Age of 26 September in which the Victorian Branch of the Australian Institute of Welfare Officers is alleged to have said that delays of up to 3 months by the Department of Social Security in processing claims for unemployment benefits have forced many applicants into crisis situations? Can the Minister advise me of the time it takes his Department to process claims for unemployment and sickness benefits.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I have seen the statement by the Victorian Branch of the Australian Institute of Welfare Officers. I think that one of the things one finds in this field is that there are a number of people, some of whom I think could be described as old welfare hands, who find it to their advantage to complain to various organisations of this kind. By doing so they are able to achieve some sort of immediate payment from the organisations to which they complain as the organisations find it difficult to obtain verification of any allegations by an allegedly aggrieved applicant for social welfare benefits because of the policy of confidentiality which is followed by the Department of Social Security in not disclosing to third parties information concerning the status of people’s claims.

However, what has been said by the Institute of Welfare Officers, which I am sure was said in good faith, really does not in any way accurately reflect the record of the Department of Social Security in the payment of unemployment benefits. About 70 per cent of all claims for unemployment benefits are dealt with within ten to eleven days, which I believe is remarkably rapid when one is dealing with a system in which approximately one million payments are made by the Department every week for various types of benefits. This is particularly the case when 1 70 000-odd people at present are receiving the unemployment benefit. In recent periods all sorts of steps have been taken to try to speed up the payments of the unemployment benefits, and I think they have been successful. I do not believe one could legitimately complain that there are any undue delays.

My view- I think it is the view of the Governmentis that if we are to err at all we ought to err on the side of generosity rather than otherwise. I would rather see somebody who was not entitled to the unemployment benefit receiving it for a short period until such time as one was able to check on it rather than a position in which someone who was entitled to the unemployment benefit was not getting it for a long time because of detailed inquiries which were being maintained. As far as the economies of running such a service are concerned, it can often be the case that the money which is saved by not paying someone the unemployment benefit may be exceeded by the amount that is spent on the investigatory processes which would be necessary to check on all cases.

However, having said that, I believe there are a number of cases which require checking at present. Recently there was quite an appalling program on the Australian Broadcasting Commission in which a number of people were interviewed whose actions can be described only as ripping off social welfare benefits to the disadvantage of the whole of the country, particularly to the disadvantage of legitimately unemployed and sick people to whom the money available is reduced by these people. Within the general budgetary restrictions on expanding the size of the Department I have been trying to tighten up this system as much as can be done and to be stricter with the work test.

Senator Wright:

– Oh, do not be too hard on them.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I take Senator Wright’s advice. I will not be too hard on them. I do not want to see people who are entitled to the unemployment benefit not receiving it. I believe steps have been taken which have tightened up this process. In the last month or so action was taken so that a considerable number of people who had been improperly receiving the unemployment benefit are no longer receiving it. That is the policy which the Department and this Government follows.

page 817

QUESTION

EFFECTIVENESS OF AUSTRALIAN AID

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to comments made in this morning’s radio program AM which referred to the effectiveness of the delivery of Australian aid. Can the Minister indicate the steps taken by the Government to ensure the best possible delivery of aid to the areas of greatest need? Can he indicate what processes are involved to ensure minimum interference and the avoidance of corruption in the delivery and distribution of Australian aid?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Since I first became interested in aid nearly a quarter of a century ago I have heard of corruption, that tractors were’ never delivered, and that sort of thing. I remember that many years ago the accusation was made that in India a lot of Australian tractors had been left rotting in the fields. The Indian Embassy in Australia issued a statement which showed that one tractor had been neglected in the field. We always hear this sort of thing. I have said publicly- I think Senator Davidson has been there when I have said it- that I think Australian aid during all those years has been run very well. Somewhere along the line there is criticism that it might have been done a little better, but I do not think there has been a lot of corruption and I do not think there is corruption now.

I was informed that there was some comment about this matter in this morning’s AM broadcast. I have some notes to answer the question because I did not hear the broadcast myself. With project aid Australian contributions are mainly in the form of technical advisers and equipment. With major projects, Australian technical advisers are associated with the projects and ensure that the equipment and materials are used in accordance with the plan of operations agreed with the recipient government. On smaller projects where Australian advisers are not involved full time, the official Australian representative in the country concerned takes a continuing interest in the use and effectiveness of the equipment and materials involved. Food aid is either channelled into the government distribution system of the recipient country or used in specific feeding programs for needy groups. When going into the government system the food gift may be used to lower the overall retail price and/or the proceeds from the sale of the food may be added to the government’s development budget and be earmarked for specific projects. When it is used for a specific feeding program a formal presentation is normally made and the attendant publicity assists in ensuring that the community is aware of the gift. A lot is said about stealing, as Senator Davidson would know. A few years ago we put in a telecommunication system in Indonesia. It would have been very hard for one of the persons who went up there as an adviser or expert to steal one of the large dishes that were installed there. I think there is a lot of loose talk about this matter. If people are genuine about this matter I think that they should bring to our attention any specific case of which they have knowledge. Of course, we would take action if it were specifically proved.

page 817

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Agriculture aware that rumours are circulating within the wool industry both inside Australia and, I understand, overseas that the Government is considering replacing the wool floor price scheme with a price deficiency scheme or a deficiency payments scheme? Is there any truth in those rumours?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The answer to Senator Walsh’s question is an emphatic no. The matter of the deficiency payments scheme for wool was introduced by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in 1970 and 1971 during the then wool crisis. When a similar crisis confronted this Government we opted for the floor price principle. Without going into great detail on the differences between the two, I point out that the essential thing is that the industry itself prefers the floor price scheme, as does the buying industry overseas, because of the greater stability that the floor price scheme gives it. A wool deficiency payments scheme does not control the basic price for which the wool is sold on the overseas market. It simply follows down the market price itself. That being so, if a deficiency payments scheme operated it would mean that the world buying trade almost certainly would be purchasing Australian wool a lot cheaper than it is doing now. I do not think that the Australian wool industry or the Australian people want to see a repetition of the situation of Australian wool being shipped away overseas at virtually giveaway prices, as it was 5 or 6 years ago.

This Government made its position quite clear when it introduced the floor price scheme that it believed that Australian wool had a real value and it was determined to ensure that the buying trade throughout the world would pay a reasonable price for our wool. That is our fundamental position and we stand by it. I regret that rumours have been circulating not only in respect of this matter but also to the effect that the Government would not continue the floor price scheme during the current financial year. I refute those statements. I believe that those people who helped to circulate those rumours have not done a service to the Australian wool industry or the Australian people.

page 818

QUESTION

FRUIT CANNING INDUSTRY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the extreme competition that is being experienced by the Australian fruit canning industry in world markets and that now has been aggravated by the monetary policies of major competitor exporting countries. Is the Minister aware of the dire financial difficulties of the canning industry, as reflected in the inability of co-operatives to complete the payment for fruit delivered last year and which appears to threaten the ability of canneries to process more than about 50 per cent of the next fruit crop? Can the Minister indicate whether the provision of financial assistance to the canning industry is being considered by the Government and, if so, in what form?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am sure that Senator Laucke would be aware that my predecessor in the previous Liberal-Country Party Government had exactly the same problem because the canning industry in Australia, which is mainly to be found in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, has been in very difficult economic circumstances for many years. Both the previous Government and this Government have made very large sums of money available to the industry in the form of grants and loans involving millions of dollars, virtually to keep it in a viable condition. The position has become aggravated by the continuing loss of the European market by the canning fruit industy and this has necessitated the Government giving very serious consideration to the several co-operatives that are in financial difficulties.

At this stageI can only say that very extensive consideration has been given to the canned fruit industry in the last three or four months and currently I have certain proposals before me which I am not prepared to detail at this stage. But one thing is quite certain, I think, and that is that some very significant restructuring will have to take place in that industry if it is to become viable in its own right, because there is a very serious oversupply which we cannot absorb on the Australian market. Because of the increasing loss of our overseas markets it becomes evident that there will need to be a better thought out overall plan for the industry which will remove this oversupply position which has bedevilled the industry for some years. However, I regret that I am not at liberty to spell out the details which are under consideration but I can restate that a great deal of thought has been given to this matter over the past three or four months.

page 818

QUESTION

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Special Minister of State: Is it a fact that the Industries Assistance Commission Act provides that a temporary assistance authority can make recommendations only on tariffs and import restrictions? Can the Minister advise what action, if any, is being taken to ensure consideration of the needs of particular industries for short term financial assistance?

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

-As the honourable senator has suggested, it is a fact that the Industries Assistance Commission Act provides that the Temporary Assistance Authority can recommend assistance only on a short term basis so far as import restrictions and tariffs are concerned. But I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the fact that in the few months that I have been the Special Minister of State I have sought advice from the Industries Assistance Commission on the need for short term assistance for some significant Australian industries. I refer the honourable senator first to the request that I made to the Industries Assistance Commission to report on the need for short term assistance for the beef industry, the copper industry and the tourist accommodation industry. In the case of the beef industry the Commission is to report to me within a period of 90 days. I think that period expires in about the middle of October and I expect to receive that report very shortly indeed. I made a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission within the last 3 weeks asking it to advise the Government on a short term basis in respect of the copper industry, and that report is to be tendered to me by about the middle of November. The Commission has been considering for some time whether assistance should be recommended for the tourist accommodation industry on a long term basis but, because of representations that were made to me by the tourist industry, I have asked the Industries Assistance Commission to bring down a report on a short term basis by, from recollection, 30 November. So the procedure of asking the Commission to provide reports on short term assistance for industries is an extension of the principle that assistance matters should be decided following reports being received by the Government’s advisory body. Of course, under the Industries Assistance Commission Act, as the honourable senator will know, it is not mandatory to refer to the Commission matters involving provision of short term financial assistance to particular industries. I have sought the advice of the Commission on a short term basis as far as the beef industry, the copper industry and the tourist accommodation industry are concerned.

page 819

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE GROWTH

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the fifty-first annual report of the Public Service Board which reports that there was an increase of 4.0 1 per cent in full time staff during the year 1974-75. The report refers to the Government’s announcement that a 1.5 per cent ceiling on operative staff growth will apply in 1975-76. It further reports that there is expected to be some increase in the number of inoperative staff on various types of extended leave. I ask: On what basis did the Government estimate this year’s appropriations for Public Service salaries? Do the appropriation Bills contain a factor for the replacement of inoperative staff? What planning has been undertaken to ensure that the Budget Estimates are realistic and that extensive supplementary appropriations will not be required?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is very difficult to answer the latter part of Senator Guilfoyle ‘s question because it involves obviously detailed study in the Department of the Treasury to make the necessary appropriations on the assumption of the increase of 1 .5 per cent. In respect of the 4 per cent, I think it is as well to remember that the increase in the number of people employed in the Public Service is a fluctuating factor over the years. I assure the honourable senator that in 2 years during the 1 960s the increase in Public Service employment in this country was greater than it was last year. I also mention that the average increase in the Public Service in the States last year was greater than the increase in the Australian Public Service, namely 7 per cent. In fact, the increase in local government employment was no less than 19 percent. As I have indicated, without being able to answer in detail the latter part of the honourable senator’s question, I ask her to consider those figures which indicate that the increases which have taken place in the Australian Public Service during 1974 could not be described as very great.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question for clarification. I believe the Minister misunderstood the intent of my question. It was not to refer to the growth rate of 4.0 1 per cent last year. I acknowledge the Government’s decision with regard to a 1.5 per cent increase in operative staff this year but I pointed to the prediction of the Public Service Board which said that there would be an increase in inoperative staff on extended leave. I asked whether this year’s Budget appropriations had taken into account the increase in inoperative staff and their replacement. What factor was included in the Bills to avoid extensive additional appropriations in the future? That is the information which I seek.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I intended to imply that I would seek an answer to that question. Perhaps I did not actually say that. I certainly will seek that information. It is information which I could not give off the cuff.

page 819

QUESTION

ADVERTISING OF THERAPEUTIC GOODS

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether he is aware of a circular letter from the Joint Committee on Voluntary Proprietary Medicine Advertising Code which claims that the new controls over the advertising of therapeutic goods on radio and television, which were introduced on 1 September 1975, will result in a deterioration of the quality of television and radio programs, will have an adverse effect on the profitability of the media, advertising and pharmaceutical industries, will add to our country’s economic problems and will require patients to see their doctor more frequently. What is the purpose in implementing the new controls? Is there any substance in the claims of the Joint Committee?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, I have seen the circular letter. I believe it has been sent to all or to most members of Parliament. I am reminded by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media that the last report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which was tabled yesterday, shows that the profits of commercial television and broadcasting stations increased from $21m to $23m over the past year. They cannot be having a very hazardous commercial experience at the present time. These new controls were agreed to by Australian Health Ministers at a conference in August last year. Their purpose is to lay down some basis for governments to regulate uniformly all forms of advertising of therapeutic goods. The main requirement is that advertisements must not be false, misleading or deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression of the product being advertised regarding its character, efficacy, composition or safety. There are specific and more stringent requirements for advertisements for analgesic products, as for example headache tablets and powders, which must contain information on their effectiveness, limitations, content and dosage and include the warning: ‘This preparation is for the relief of minor and temporary ailments and should be used strictly as directed. Prolonged use without medical supervision could be harmful.’ I do not believe that these new requirements will have any significant adverse effect on the total volume of advertising of therapeutic goods generally or result in the fears of this joint committee which has been sending out the circulars coming about. However, I would concede that the advertising of analgesics may be less attractive to pharmaceutical companies than it was previously.

Australia is in a rather serious position in that we have one of the highest incidences of kidney disease of any country in the world. I am informed that this can be attributed very largely to the use so widely of analgesics in Australia. Whatever the consequences may be for advertisers, all of the Health Ministers- they represented all the major political partiesagreed that there has to be some sort of restriction on the type of advertising which was being carried out in Australia. This is being done. The proposals which were adopted are most modest proposals when compared with the much stricter requirements which are found in a number of other countries comparable to Australia. Although, as I have said, I do not believe that this is going to bring about any serious reduction in the amount of advertising or have any terrible effects on the commercial broadcasting industry, even if it were to have some effects on them I think that most honourable senators would agree that the effect which the previous latitude allowed to advertisers of therapeutic products was having on the health of the Australian people was a more important consideration than the profits of commercial broadcasting stations.

page 820

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS MAIL CONCESSION

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General, and I refer to the recent announcement about the concession for Christmas mail. In particular I refer to a statement made by the Chairman of the Postal Commission, Mr Kennedy, in relation to the conditions under which the concession was made when he said: ‘Small personal messages of a seasonal nature will be permitted and items may be opened for inspection.’ I ask the PostmasterGeneral: How much Christmas mail does the Commission intend to open for inspection? How will it decide what mail will be opened? How many words of greeting or good wishes will be permitted and who will decide in any particular case whether the condition relating to small personal messages of a seasonal nature has been satisfied?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I think I can say that when this concession was approved by me it was never intended that any arbitrary action inconsistent with the regulations of the Postal Commission would be taken to open mail. The regulations are there not only to protect the tariffs but also to prevent the passage of prohibited articles, goods, powders and drugs, etc. I think that when Mr Kennedy made the announcement he pointed rather to the need for people to observe the conditions because it is an important concession, as I think everybody now agrees, and the people associated with the Christmas card industry and other agencies have welcomed it. I think the statement was a warning. There cannot be any method adopted other than that provided in the by-laws. I am told that the Commission may- it has not yet decided- make a random survey of such mail coming in to make sure, for example, that it does not contravene the provisions under which the concession was made. In addition, of course, under the provisions of the by-laws it is necessary always for the postal authorities to make sure that any mail, including Christmas mail, does not contravene the by-laws. I think that it might be necessary, in case there is any confusion about the matter, for me to suggest to Mr Kennedy that he should issue a statement, or for me to issue a statement, at a suitable time before the Christmas festivity period to indicate the need to observe the concession and also to what extent the by-laws may be used to avoid the suggestion that I think is inherent in Senator Durack ‘s question. I will discuss the matter with the Chairman of the Commission in order to clear up the position.

page 820

QUESTION

ACQUISITION OF LAND AT BINDOON

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I ask it in the light of reports that it is the intention of the Department of Defence to acquire land at Bindoon in Western Australia. Will the Minister say whether it is in fact the intention of the Department of Defence to acquire that land? How much land is involved?

What is it to be used for, and will the public have an opportunity to comment on or object to the proposals?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The Department of Defence proposes to acquire an additional 2400 hectares of land at Bindoon in Western Australia adjacent to the existent Bindoon training area, lt will enable the site to be established as a permanent training area reasonably accessible from Perth for the present and foreseeable infantry weapons and tank manoeuvre training of Army units in the Perth area. Acquisition is necessary because the existing area is too small for company group training and also too small to allow an effective land management plan to be implemented to ensure our long term environmental protection. I understand that an environmental impact statement is being released and the Department will certainly consider any public comments on the matter.

page 821

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Yesterday in reply to a question from Senator Gietzelt concerning the execution in Spain of 5 terrorists for murder, the Minister advised that the Government had expressed its concern to the Spanish Ambassador and had associated itself with protests in various countries. I ask the Minister: Is he aware of repeated announcements from Saigon that Vietnamese are being tried by people’s courts and summarily executed for theft? Indeed, photographs have appeared in the Press. Has the Government protested to the repressive regime in South Vietnam against this brutal and unjust treatment of its citizens? If the Government has not protested, will it not do so and display its much vaunted even-handedness?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-As I think Senator Sim would remember, we made appeals prior to the takeovers in both Cambodia and South Vietnam. We have consistently made appeals. Why do honourable senators opposite keep bringing this up when there is no evidence to suggest that it is happening? We have deplored any gaolings, any beatings or any killings without proper trials. Senator Sim and the people who make these sorts of criticisms should look right across the spectrum. They will find that this sort of treatment is not confined to left wing governments. It is just as brutally carried out by right wing governments.

Senator Sim:

– I am not arguing that.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I am glad that the honourable senator is not arguing it. I am glad that he concedes that point. We have talked about this matter a lot in this place. We have consistently protested. We have consistently gone as far as we can where we think we will have an effect and not where we think we will get a whiplash back and achieve the opposite result.

page 821

QUESTION

ADELAIDE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

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

– Can the Postmaster-General advise when the 1975 Adelaide telephone directory will be distributed to subscribers in South Australia and why the directory was not available at the same time as the directories of the other States and the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The unfortunate delay has been due to 2 things. One was the very heavy volume of last minute requests from customers for new and amended information in their directory listings, and the other was the production problems which have been encountered by the printers. It is expected that the directories will bc available from the printers on 14 October and that distribution will commence on 1 5 October.

page 821

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION SERVICE: JOURNALISTS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media. He may recall my asking a question on 10 September concerning an article in which it was stated that 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. In reply, the Minister said to me that the Minister for the Media, Dr Cass, would be making a statement shortly on this matter. Can the Minister inform me whether Dr Cass has made a full reply dealing with such things as journalists of the Australian Information Service concentrating on publicising the Government and its policies within Australia? If not, will the Minister make inquiries from the Minister for the Media to see whether this is the policy of the Government? Can the Minister also indicate what the cost of such a policy would be for the publicity issued by the Department of the Media?

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

– I can tell the honourable senator that I am not aware of any statement that Dr Cass, in his capacity as Minister for the Media, has made on that matter. Since the honourable senator has asked me the question, I will refer the question again to my colleague the Minister for the Media to see whether I can obtain a detailed statement from him. I would suggest that the honourable senator raise the matter again next week at the appropriate Senate Estimates Committee.

page 822

QUESTION

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: What funds have been made available by the Australian Government through the urban public transport improvement program and, in particular, what improvements can be expected in South Australia?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-In the first 2 years of the program the Australian Government provided grants totalling $138m to the States under the urban public transport improvement scheme. This commitment was to enable the States to carry out improvements estimated to cost about $207m. The South Australian program for 2 years amounted to $23m, of which our commitment was $ 1 5m. These grants were provided for projects including the extension of an existing railway line to Christie Downs, the purchase of some 70 new buses, the acquisition of ailing private bus companies and an extension of the services. It also enabled a number of minor improvements to be carried out, including the erection of bus shelters. For the whole of Australia $98m was allocated for works to be undertaken in 1973-74 and 1974-75. Recently, since the Budget, the Minister has met all the State Ministers because they have had problems in allocating works based on the program. He has agreed that if the States have particular problems in regard to the use of the funds the Government would be prepared to consider changes to the approved projects.

page 822

QUESTION

WOOL PRICES

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the Minister’s acclamation of the recent New Zealand and South African decisions to adjust their reserve wool prices in line with their currency devaluations. Particularly in view of his answer to Senator Walsh this morning, I ask: Will the Minister give an assurance that Australia would fully and promptly adjust its reserve price in the event of any change in the valuation of Australian currency? Is not the wool industry’s stability and confidence in the near and more distant future largely dependent on such an assurance?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The answer to the last part of the honourable senator’s question is no. The stability of the Australian wool industry is certainly not largely dependent on the devaluation or otherwise of the Australian currency. It is a factor which would affect the wool industry.

Senator Scott:

– But that is not what I asked.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I am sorry; I may have misunderstood your question. That was the impression I gained from the latter part of your question. The matter of giving undertakings is again a matter of judgment for the Government, should that situation arise. We have a very good working relationship with the New Zealand and South African wool corporations. It is true at the time of devaluation of their currencies those adjustments were made to their respective intervention prices. But the question of devaluation of the Australian currency does not arise. I think it is a purely hypothetical question.

page 822

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING ORDERS

The PRESIDENT:

– Before we proceed to questions on notice I would like to draw attention to the matter that was raised by Senator Greenwood earlier relating to standing order 100 which states:

In answering any such Question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers.

The notes I have and to which I refer say, amongst other things: . . where the Senate desires a full statement of a case, latitude is allowed to a Minister in answering a question: but if it is desired to debate the matter, such should only be done on a specific motion.

The notes also state that in answering a question: . . a Senator must not debate the matter to which the same refers. Questions with or without notice are only permissible for the purpose of obtaining information, and answers are subject to exactly the same limitation, that is. they are limited to supplying the information asked for by the questions.

Today we have had 25 questions and probably only half the number of senators who wished to ask questions did so. I think we will have to refer this matter again to the Standing Orders Committee so that we can get more clarity on the matter of questions and answers.

page 822

PRESENTATION OF REPORTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the following reports:

The first annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for the period ended 30 June 1975.

The twenty-ninth annual report of the Life Insurance Commissioner for the year ended 31 December 1974.

The annual report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.

The fourth annual report of the Dried Fruits Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1975.

The interim annual report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

The interim annual report of the Pig Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 823

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to section 35 (2) of the Prices Justification Act 1973-1974 I present the second annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal for the year ended 30 June 1975. Due to the limited numbers of copies available at this time reference copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library and with the Senate Records Office. Normal distribution of the report will be made as soon as printed copies are available.

page 823

GRANTS TO THE STATES FOR EDUCATION FOR 1974

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

– Pursuant to section 59 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1 973- 1 974,I present a statement on financial assistance granted to each State through Schools Commission programs during the 1974 calendar year. I mention that in relation to the in-service education program it has not been possible for all States to provide the information about all individual courses which is stipulated in section 59 (1) (u). Nevertheless, this report overall is remarkably comprehensive and is a significant contribution to the provision of comprehensive information on educational programs for public use.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Would the Minister be prepared to move that the Senate take note of the report? The Minister for Education moved a similar motion in the House of Representatives today.

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

– I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 823

CUSTOMS ACTIVITIES

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a review of Australian customs activities for 1974-75.

page 823

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I present the interim annual report of the Snowy Mountains

Engineering Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 823

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1975 I present the annual report of the National Capital Development Commission for the year ended 30 June 1975 together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 823

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BOARD

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– On behalf of Senator James McClelland, pursuant to section 38 (3) of the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967-1973 I present the eighth annual report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 823

CANBERRA HOSPITAL

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Extension to the podium of Canberra Hospital- stage I Australian Capital Territory.

page 823

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it desired to postpone or re-arrange the business?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

As the Senate is well aware, the matter which forms the subject of that motion is now the subject of a writ. For that reason the Government does not intend to proceed with that motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 823

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Field be granted leave of absence for one month.

page 823

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 September, on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I seek leave to make a statement on this Bill and the 2 subsequent Bills, the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill 1975 and the Customs Bill (No. 2) 1975.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I wish to make a statement to assist the debate because some questions may be debated to which the Government proposes some alteration. I suggest- I think the Opposition agrees- that these Bills, which are orders of the day Nos 2, 3 and 4, should be taken together in a cognate debate. I see that Senator Carrick agrees with me. I want to recall to honourable senators that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) recently announced that in the light of representations from coal producers on the effect of the newly established coal export duty the Government has decided that certain steaming coal should be exempted from duty. Prices for this coal have not risen in line with the general recent price increase in the industry. For this reason the effect of the duty on this coal could be to price it out of its markets in Britain and Europe and could lead to termination of contracts. Exemption from the duty would avoid this result and would open the way for further contracts which would lead to increased production and employment in the Western District coalfield around Lithgow in New South Wales.

The particular types of coal to be exempted is steaming coal having an ash content of more than 14 per cent on an air dried basis and a crucible swelling number of not less than three. This type of coal was produced both in some Western District coalfields and in some coalfields in the Newcastle region. As one of these Bills is a money Bill, I shall propose at the appropriate time in the Committee stage an amendment to provide for the exemption from export duty in this coal Bill. This will involve a request to the House of Representatives to consider a proposed amendment to that clause and a proposed complementary amendment to the Customs Bill (No. 2) 1975.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-! seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WEBSTER:

-With regard to the comment which the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) has made I do not fully understand what the Senate is now embarking upon. I had received notice that an amendment was to be proposed to one of these Bills and I am surprised that the Government has not sought to bring in that amendment before this matter is further debated. We do not really know the terms of the proposed amendment and it would appear to me that we will be proceeding to debate the 3 Bills following some comment that the Minister has made concerning an intention of the Government. But we really do not know what will be implied in this matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Clerk will circulate the proposed amendments.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I say in reply that we have notification of a proposed amendment but we are now setting about the final debate of 3 Bills, one of which is to be amended.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There are two to be amended.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Minister will be bringing forward a proposition that will involve entering into the debate all over again when he brings forward this amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH (South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs)- Mr President, I seek leave to make a further statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I think Senator Webster is trying to confuse the issue. In the Committee stage of the consideration of one Bill we will be moving an amendment that a request be made to the other place. If the request is accepted it will have the effect of amending the Bill as presented. A consequential amendment to another Bill will be necessary if the first amendment is carried. That amendment will be necessary in relation to the Customs Bill (No. 2) 1975. We have given notice that those amendments are to be moved in the Committee stage of the consideration of the relevant Bills because there may have been argument about the hardship that would be inflicted upon some coal mines if the legislation as proposed were to be passed without amendment. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has taken this matter into consideration. An amendment will be moved that will seek to exempt from the tax collection provisions some grades of coal. The Government indicated at the commencement of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bills that it proposes to move such amendments to show that it is unnecessary to debate the hardship that would be inflicted in that respect. It is much preferable to do that now than to bring in an amendment during the Committee stage in relation to something that has been debated unnecessarily.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating 3 Bills of a cognate nature. I want to direct all my remarks to one Bill, that is, the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill 1975. May I say, with emphasis, that of all the many misbegotten policies introduced by the Whitlam Government this must be the worst. In itself it is, of all, the hybrid mule. It seeks with a ravenous appetite to raid at all times and at the same time, like the hybrid mule, is barren and sterile and produces nothing. It is a bad tax and it should be said so from the word go. Not only is it ill-conceived but also the conception was in a hurry and in the dark because now, after grave pressure from the Opposition on this, we have the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) coming forward and saying that the Government was wrong and saying that it must withdraw. I remind the Senate of the 2 main questions that I directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) on this matter. Indeed, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard his reply to me of 30 September.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Minister for Labor and Immigration Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 30 September 1975

Dear Senator Carrick, 1 refer to your two questions without notice in the Senate on 4 September 1975 and 9 September 1975 respectively concerning the coal export levy and its possible impact on employment in the coal mining industry in New South Wales.

You may bc interested to learn that the four major companies engaged in the production of steam coal in New South Wales have already made representations to the Australian Government concerning the possible adverse employment effects of the coal export levy. These representations were considered by the Cabinet Committee on Resources and on 24 September 1975 the Treasurer, Mr Hayden, announced that certain low grade steaming coal would be exempted from the coal export levy. lt is anticipated that this exemption will prevent any reduction in employment in the steam coal mining industry and should in Tact open the way to increased production and employment in the Western Districts coalfields.

Yours sincerely, James McClelland

Senator J. L. Carrick, Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600

Senator CARRICK:

– This is a bad tax for a number of reasons. It is a bad tax because it introduces something quite new and something quite wrong-headed, that is, a tax or a levy on exports. Australia is one of the great exporting countries of the world. It is within the first dozen in the world. Australia balances its well-being, its economy, on the knife edge of its ability to trade in world markets and to establish goodwill and good faith in contracting between itself as the seller and other nations as the buyers. If we have governments seeking to intervene to raid the till because there may be some temporary profitability and therefore to bring pressure not only onto the producers here but also onto the buyers abroad we are destroying the balance of good faith and we are in fact doing damage to Australia. Therefore I would say that it is itself bad. But there are many other reasons why it is bad.

I have said that it is wrong-headed. How it could have been conceived in this form defeats me. If ever there was a fraction of the myth of the past that Mr Rex Connor is the saviour of the minerals and energy world that myth must have been dissipated by this Bill and by the failure of the Bill as well as, of course, the fact that in recent weeks the Whitlam Government has had to abandon every tenet of the Minister’s minerals and energy policy, if such there were, and to cast them aside. How could a Minister in his right mind ever blindly and bluntly impose a tax on tonnage without paying any regard to profitability? Let the honourable senator opposite, Senator Keeffe, who is looking so intently at this matter, explain away how, indeed, the Government could do this when now the Minister has to admit that his Government was wrong and that it will have to withdraw the tax. On the statement of the Opposition- on my own statement in this place- the Government imposed a tax of $2 a ton on an industry that was making a profit of $1.50 a ton and thereby put the industry into a loss situation. It did this either blindly or wittinglywhat was it? How could a Minister do this?

Let us look at how this occurred: A government decided that it wanted to raid the till to get some $ 120m or $ 1 30m extra for its Budget. Incidentally, what kind of a calculation was that? An industry which was becoming more profitable would, in fact, be paying more money in company tax. If it is decided to put such a blunt levy on the profitability of the industry one of two things occurs, each of which reduces very much the revenue that comes ultimately to the Government. If such a levy is imposed there will be a reduction in the intake of company tax. You cannot have it both ways, because the industry’s net profit before tax will be assessed after it has paid this levy. But equally, with the imposition of such a levy the industry would be denied its ability to plough back into the industry the vital capital necessary for its expansion, and by so doing the Government and the people of Australia would be robbed of the potential capacity to earn more company tax and to employ more people in the future. Just how wrong headed can a government get in such a situation?

The Government has been wrong in respect of every other form of minerals. A minister who said that he understood minerals and energy and who boasted that he understood above everything the New South Wales coal industry because he came from the South Coast of New South Wales and from amongst the coal industry, now has to admit that the tax he imposed, particularly on the New South Wales coal industry, would have destroyed substantial sections of the industry. He has now had to withdraw that tax. Indeed, as the Minister has to admit now, and as Senator Cavanagh has to admit, had that tax on low grade steaming coal persisted the industry, particularly in the western fields- in the Lithgow area- would have been destroyed. This is a valuable industry that rose primarily because England was oil hungry due to the Overseas Petroleum Exporting Countries quadrupling of oil prices. A valuable industry developed by sending millions of tons of coal to England on a narrow margin of profit. Yet a Minister who comes from that State and who claims to know what there is to know about this industry now has to admit that what I said in this Senate is right, and that had the Government persisted with the imposition of the tax some 400 people would have been unemployed.

Why has the Minister for Labor and Immigration responded? Why has he written to me? It is because he knew quite well, and indeed admits in the letter that I have incorporated in Hansard that had the Government proceeded in the imposition of this tax it would have destroyed a valuable part of the industry in New South Wales. This imposition came from a Minister who is supposed to be the saviour of the minerals and energy field. Yes, the tax is wrong headed because it is based on tonnage and not on profitability; nothing could be more stupid than that. But let us look at the matter. The Minister’s blind spleen has shown out in the way in which he imposed this levy. Why, in the name of heaven, would anybody who has the slightest understanding of the coal industry decide to fix as an arbitrary measure the difference between coal which attracts the $6 levy and coal which attracts the $2 levy and impose a $6 levy on coal that has an 85 per cent carbon dry ash free content?

Where in the name of heaven in the coal industry does one measure coal for export or for other use by an 85 per cent, or any other percentage, carbon dry ash free content? Where does one measure coking coal by that standard? Has the Government not heard that the normal measure for coking coal is the FSI or free swelling index? Was Mr Connor equally ignorant of this situation when he suggested 85 per cent? Senator Keeffe will know because it is freely known throughout the industry that Mr Connor was out to catch one section of the Queensland coal industry. There was nothing technically correct in his drawing such a line, nothing right in terms of the scientific use of the coal at all. There was a blind desire to hit back at one section of the industry. Incidentally, this was a substantially foreign owned section. I tell the Senate that the way in which Mr Connor has done this has hurt most substantially the New South Wales section of the coal mining industry. That section has the highest Australian owned content. What he has done could not be more wrong if he had set out to do wrong consciously. He imposed this 85 per cent carbon dry ash free content to catch one main section of the industry. It is an extraordinary situation. He has hurt right across the board the good, substantially Australian owned, coal mining industry. It makes no sense at all. By doing this he has set a scale of cost increase inside the industry. There will be a chasing for wages in the industry which will have an impact on the price of steel in this country. The cost flow-on will proceed in Australia through wage demands of workers producing coal for our internal use, whether it be for power generation or for steel production. So indirectly the Minister is also forcing up the cost structure of power generation and steel making in Australia, and of all the residual products which follow. And the Government says it understands the industry!

Let us have a look at what is happening to the industry. Some people say that in recent years the industry has moved into useful profitability and that it ought to be paying something for what it is taking out of Australia. I agree with that. Of course it ought to, particularly in company tax. But any government which understood the industry would understand that there is an absolutely massive need for 2 things for the industry if Australia is to benefit in the future. First of all, there is a need for the provision of enormous capital investment throughout Australia to allow the development and expansion of the industry. Secondly, there is a need for research. I shall deal with the second point first because I have never heard more humbug talked by any government than by the Whitlam Government on the conservation of the precious minerals and resources of Australia.

Coal is one of our greatest assets. It is one of our greatest assets for the future. If we are to conserve coal in Australia then the one thing we should not do is to set out upon this blind venture. The one thing that would be necessary would be to set up in Australia research of a massive kind into the uses of coal so that in the future one ton of coal could do what three or four tons are doing today. Instead of using coal in the most wasteful way, just for thermal generation, we should use all the precious chemicals in the coal. I say this against the background that the Government should know- if it does not- that in England and America there has been an enormous breakthrough in research and technology in the use of coal. For example, fluidised bed boilers are now being introduced into power houses. They were developed with English technology. They can generate 10 times the thermal content from a ton of coal that the present old fashioned boilers can do. In association with that they can recover other by-products at the same time. If this Government were interested in conservation of one of its most precious minerals it would be looking towards research.

What is the Government doing today in research? I shall come back to the situation regarding new technology. In Australia today the Government and the industry jointly are spending $5. 5m a year on coal research. The United States Congress recently voted $20,000m for non-nuclear energy research to be spent over the next 10 years. It has detailed a program for coal processing, including liquefaction and gasification, of $2,222m in 5 years. America wants to learn how much coal it has, how to win it and how to process it. It wants to look to a time in which there is an oil crisis. This Government has exacerbated the oil crisis by turning off oil search. America wants to look to see how in the future it can conserve coal. I appreciate the sincerity of the Minister for Police and Customs in these matters. We should be looking at how to make one ton of coal do what five or ten tons might do.

Let us have a look at what we are talking about at this moment. At the present rate of use of coal in Australia I think we are using something like 80 million tons a year. By the turn of the century it may be 200 million tons, or it may be more, depending upon whether we use the coal for local purposes, for gasification, for liquefaction or for chemical use. In any case, the expansion will be quite enormous. I mentioned the new processes of technology and I referred to fluidised bed boilers. I should have adverted to the fact that there are 2 steps in that technique; the first functions atmospherically and the second is pressurised. Here again we can get enormous gains. If the Government wants to adopt more sophisticated techniques it should be looking now at what is called MHD, magnetohydrodynamic power generation. This is the new way of releasing energy from coal and using it with most conservation. But we are not doing any of these kinds of things at all.

It is extraordinary how wasteful we have been. It is estimated that we burned nearly 2 million tonnes of coal tar and 2 million tonnes of medium calorific gas in our power generation in Australia in 1973-74. Let me state the matter this way: In our power generation we burned some 1 5 million tonnes of black coal. With new boiler systems and with new research we could have cut that amount down, made our coal more valuable and conserved it more effectively. In fact, we threw away 2 million tonnes of medium calorific gas and 2 million tonnes of coal tar. This is the kind of situation at which we should be looking. We are not doing anything about it. The rate at which we are exporting coal is such that capital investment in the industry over the next few years must be enormous. 1 shall give the Senate an idea of its magnitude. In New South Wales alone the industry, in terms of new development, of infrastructure, of developing new mines, will have to spend about $100m. Then something like $200m will be necessary in New South Wales to be spent on loading facilities in Newcastle, Botany Bay and Port Kembla and on the rail services.

This is a classic case of a government which claims to have a policy but which has none. If the Government comes before us with a revenue device from a now rising profitability in the coal industry, surely that device should be geared in with some other device for using valuable money to build the port structures and the rail services, to get the new rail trucks, to build the infrastructure and to help research. But there is not a word of this. Having just raided the till in a blind kind of way the Government has done nothing for the industry. It has not got the $ 120m at all, because that has to be discounted in 2 ways- the loss in company tax which would have been the offset and now the loss in low grade steaming coal. It has taken everything out of the industry, and that to me is of enormously serious consequence. Not only has it done that, but it has removed from the industry the conscience that it ought to be ploughing money back, that it ought to be establishing more Australian equity. Why should the industry have any such conscience now if the Government blindly places on the industry an impost on tonnage which bears no relationship to profitability and no relationship to anything else?

I have no brief at all for the coal industry of Australia in terms of its owners, foreign or Australian. I have an enormous interest in 2 things- in the welfare of those who work in the mines and in the steel industry, and above all in the 13 million Australian people who will have for posterity coal as one of their most precious minerals. The Senate will know that it is no new thing for me to rise in my place and talk about the use of coal, the conservation of coal and the development of coal in its various chemical and thermal capacities. I have on at least 4 main occasions raised the matter in the Senate because I believe that in Australia, with the God given resources we have in the ground, it is our job to appraise them and to attempt to use them.

Let us consider what we are talking about. In terms of the value of exports of coal, in 1 973-74 a tonne of coal f.o.b. was $12.25 on average. The total exports were 28.4 million tonnes, giving f.o.b. some $348m in earnings. That in itself was big. In 1974-75- and these are preliminary figures- we exported some 32.4 million tonnes at an average of $22.60 a tonne, yielding as a preliminary figure some $733m, a very large amount of money to be converted from a resource in the ground into a potential Australian resource. Let us look at what is going to happen in 1975-76. It is estimated that some 37 million tonnes of coal will be exported at $32.50 a tonne, earning something like $I,200m f.o.b. That in itself is a large amount. Lest the Government say: ‘But Mr Connor fixed the price of coal and he got a wonderful deal for us’, let me say that the measure of the price obtained for coal on the market has been worked out over the decades, and anyone who understands anything about the industry, particularly the coking industry, would know that the Beatrice and Pocahontas types of coal in the Americas have been the benchmarks for the price of coal over the years and Australian coal prices move in parallel with them, if we are at all eager as entrepreneurs to go forward. While those coals remain the benchmarks, and they will, and while America has such an enormous reserve of coal compared with Australia, the prices for Australian coal will be high and they will yield those earnings.

Moving ahead with this exciting development for Australia, how are we going to back it up with the proper infrastructure- with all the port facilities, all the rail facilities- if the Government is going to rob the industry altogether? I am not pleading that the industry should be left in a state of hyperprofitability. The contrary is true. My plea is that, when we take a tonne of coal out of the ground in Australia, we should get for the Australian people the best value we can. When we use it internally we should use it in the best way we can so that we conserve it. Indeed, if we contribute to the research of the world so that in future a tonne of coal will be equal to 3, 4 or 5 tonnes now, we not only conserve coal but we raise the international value of a tonne of coal and therefore convert it, in terms of the profit it makes, into real things for the Australian people.

Sitting suspended from 12.4? to 2.1 5 p.m.

Senator CARRICK:

-Mr President, prior to the suspension of the sitting I had made points indicating that this coal export levy is a bad levy for a number of reasons, and I will recapitulate them. First, I made the point that as a new tax it enters into dangerous and I think wrong precedents in taxing exports in a country which is so vitally dependent on exports. Secondly, I made the point that it is a wrong-headed tax in that it is based on tonnage and not on profitability, so that it hits the least profitable as hard as it hits the most profitable. Thirdly, I made the point that it fails to understand the industry and the industry’s cost structure and that particularly- I made this point strongly- it fails to recognise the problems of deep pit or underground mining as opposed to open cut mining. Being a New South Welshman, I believe that this levy is potentially a serious factor in the additional cost structure of deep pit mining in my State, as it would be in Queensland, too, and those who are interested in this industry should recognise this fact. Because there is no differential in the cost structure between the tax on open cut mining and the tax on deep pit mining, the levy is blind in its effects.

I made the point that the levy tackles in an arbitrary fashion the classification of what coal shall attract a duty of $6 a tonne and what coal shall attract a duty of $2 a tonne, and that the 85 per cent carbon ash free content is an arbitrary figure and drawn through spleen. I made the point that the levy affects local industries and that, strangely enough, where it was meant no doubt to hit the multinationals or the foreign capitals it is much more likely to damage the higher Australian content owned mines. In any case, instead of encouraging industries to plough back money into Australia, the levy removes that conscience now because the industries can claim they are ploughing it back into Australia in a blind kind of tax. I made the point also that the coal industry is enormously capital hungry and that if it is to do for Australia what it must do in the future, that is, to earn real treasure for the Australian people as a whole, we must encourage in the industry the ploughing back of capital.

I made the point that any government faced with this virtual bonanza of coal export would be looking towards spending its money in infrastructure, in coal loading, in port dredging, in rail trucks so that we could modernise, get our costs down and compete well. I made the point- I hope a very important point- that coal has now become one of our vital minerals and that we ought to be using research to the maximum. I showed how in Australia in both the government and non-government sectors we spent $5. 5m on reasearch in a year compared with the thousands of millions of dollars that are being spent on research overseas. I stressed the fact that what we needed to do was to undertake that research to apply the research to make coal in its utilisation more precious, more valuable; that is, not only to extract more of the thermal content from coal, but in so doing to recover the chemicals, oils and gases. Indeed, the simple situation at which we should be looking at this moment is the pretreatment by distillation of power station fuel which would enable us to remove the oil and gases as fractions and to use the char for the thermal generation.

The Government itself has made lots of noises about its desire to use the distillation of coal for fuel, but it has done nothing at all in this regard. We should bear in mind that Australia is not a great coal producing country compared with other countries. Australia’s known capacity or known coal stocks would be between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the known coal stocks of America. That is the kind of factor that we should keep in our minds. Because that is so we should be doing a great deal to preserve those coal stocks and to use them wisely. If we have to use coal as a form of gas or oil source for the future, and if we need to do this by the distillation of coal- let us assume that we will need to do it for, say, one-half of the normal automotive fuel that we produce today- the kind of capital that we will have to plough into that kind of an industry in the next 10 years will be of the order of $4,000m. Of course, we are not doing anything of the sort.

I made the point also that the price which we are getting for coal, whilst it is attractive at this moment, is no more than it ought to be. For instance, I understand that at this moment high grade coking coals in America are attracting at their best, say, $70 a tonne. Our coals are attracting, say, $52 a tonne at their best. I think that those figures refer to American dollars. So we are not in fact seeing a miracle. There is a need to get every dollar that we can. I acknowledge, firstly, that the Government has acted to reverse what was a severe defect, that is, taxing the low profitability, low grade steaming coals. I acknowledge that that is to be rectified. I applaud the amendment that is proposed.

The Opposition will not oppose the measure itself. It will support the measure and the amendment. But my purpose in rising to speak is to draw attention to the fact that a government is grossly irresponsible when it blindly rushes in to grab money out of a minerals industry when that industry has so much to offer to Australia not for the next 20 years, but for some hundreds of years to come, in the whole range of oil, gas and chemicals. I therefore urge upon the Government that as quickly as it can it should look to the redirection of its funds in this regard, to ploughing back money into infrastructure, to research, and, above everything else, to getting an education process throughout Australia so that in everything we touch with regard to coal we start now using new forms of boilers and new forms of treatment so that we can use our coal wisely.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, I want to support the Bills and the amendment that has been suggested by the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh). In order to get the record straight, as debate on these Bills was adjourned some 2 weeks ago, I should mention that we are taking in a cognate debate 3 Bills, namely, the Excise Tariff Bill 1975, the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill 1975 and the Customs Bill (No. 2) 1975. It amazes me to hear the opposition expressed from the 2 honourable senators who have spoken from the Opposition side; Senator Webster spoke when these Bills were last debated and Senator Carrick spoke today. The only worthwhile contribution that has been made to the debate so far was that made by my colleague Senator Mulvihill. Senator Webster’s opposition is so far off the old style Country Party sort of attitudes that one wonders what has really happened inside his party. His objection to the main Bill was based on our method of raising revenue. I suppose this attitude is inherent in his Party and, to some degree, in the Liberal Party. Both organisations are much more interested in protecting the profits of one half of 1 per cent of the Australian community involved in mining than looking after the interests of millions of Australians.

Senator Baume:

– Protecting their jobs.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Senator Baume can interject but I suggest that it might be more appropriate if he makes his own speech later. The Opposition’s remedy, if one accepts its argument, is that we should look after the multi-national organisations to ensure that their profits are not disturbed and to ensure that their profits are in fact increased at the expense of the Australian people. Its alternative, in another direction, is to reduce pensions and increase personal income tax- particularly that of the lower income earner- in order to raise the revenue that has to be raised.

We have a Premier in the State from which I come who started off with a farm but finished up with very large holdings in mining industries. Many of these, of course, are associated with the multi-national groups. The Leader of the National Country Party of Australia, in another place, during the 1974 election campaign called for an increase in the price of indigenous oil. One would have thought, if that Party truly represented the country people, that it would have been more interested in calling for an increase in the price of cabbages or potatoes or, at least, ensuring that the farmers got a fair go. The National Country Party has long abandoned the country dwellers of this nation unless, of course, the country dweller happens to be an exploiting mining organisation in some part of Australia. Members of the National Country Party have become lobbyists instead for the multi-nationals and for the big overseas mining interests which have exploited this country for so many years under their direction and with their blessing that it is no longer funny.

A number of figures which were quoted by Senator Carrick will not stand up to public scrutiny. I propose to refer later to only one of the figures mentioned by him. A colleague of mine who will speak later in this debate will expose the falsity of the statements that have been made by Senator Carrick in that regard. It is interesting to note that Senator Webster spent most of his time attacking Medibank and attacking the new tax on cigarettes. I suppose the tax on cigarettes is one of the best things that could happen for

Australia, anyway. For those people who are inclined to give up smoking the additional cost is an added incentive. But in any case, it comes into the luxury class and we can afford to tax in that particular area. Senator Webster complained also of the cost of petrol, the cost of coal and the reduction of profits for the mine owners- not for the miners. The mine owners were those who concerned him the most. We could be cynical about this but we do not need to adopt the stance that Senator Webster adopted when he set out to protect a very small section of the community who wax very fat financially from the profits of the mining industry. He forgets the number of people who have committed the whole of their working lives to the big mining interests and who have been continually subdued and stood over by those in the employing class in their attempts to get at least a decent living wage. It has been only in recent years by trade union organisation and by trade union activity generally that some sort of standard of working conditions has been obtained for those who are employed in the mining industry. It is only through the trade unions’ efforts that some sort of reasonable wage structure has been established. This, of course, is another area in which not only Senator Webster, to whom I have referred, but also other honourable senators on the other side of the chamber have continually lodged their objection.

There has been a lot of criticism of the Minister for Minerals and Energy in the other place, Mr Connor, who was responsible for presenting this Bill. He has been criticised incessantly by the big mining interests and by people in the Opposition because of his alleged mishandling of that portfolio. I think one ought to pause here to remember that until Labor was elected to office and until Mr Connor took over that portfolio the people who ran the mining industry in Australia were not associated with the Government. They were people outside government. There have been plenty of public examples of this over a long period of time. Previous governments on a number of occasions predicted that there would be certain oil price fixing agreements, export agreements and a number of other areas in which proposals would be carried out at projected government levels. Most of these things never happened, of course. The companies involved were able to exercise pressure and get the Government to change its mind. Yet, today, when the Minister mentioned that a minor amendment would be made to one of the Bills - and an even more minor amendment to another Bill- there was immediate objection from the Opposition. Members of the Opposition claimed that they did not understand it. It is one more point of proof that the Government is prepared to listen to everybody. If a case can be put forward we are prepared to act on it. In this case, it is exactly what the Minister forecast. Certain suggestions have been made in a certain area and the appropriate amendment will be committed to the Senate in the Committee stage of the debate.

I refer again to the remarks of Senator Carrick. One would have thought from the way he began his speech that he is an ex-coal miner. One would have thought also that he had the interests of the miners at heart. He went on with his usual waffle- if I might use that expression- when talking about hybrid mules. He introduced sexual overtones into a debate on an export levy Bill. He did have an audience of small school girls who were in the gallery, of course. I suppose that was some attraction to him. He claimed that the legislation had been conceived in a hurry and in the dark. Why he introduced this tone into the debate I do not know. I thought that probably that is where conception normally took place- in the dark. Why he introduced this attitude into the debate I will never know. He immediately waffled on about the ability of the Australian Government to trade in world markets. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has made big decisions in the last two or three years in relation to the increase of hydrocarbon products for the world in general. One has to look only at figures outside Australia and to travel in areas outside Australia to know that Australian petrol and other oil products today are as cheap as or cheaper than they are in most other countries. The tendency in many countries is to produce a small 4-cylinder car- a 2-cylinder car in some cases- in order to cut down petrol consumption. It may not be a bad idea if that eventually happens in Australia. The ability to own and drive a large car does not necessarily make one the most affluent in the community though that statement will perhaps offend many honourable senators opposite.

When my colleague Senator Everett speaks later in the debate he will be able to prove conclusively that the figures that were produced by Senator Carrick did not come out of any reputable mining journal or any reputable records. He will prove that they were, in fact, figures dreamed up by Senator Carrick through his own imagination in order to inflame the situation and in order to inflame the discussion about a Bill that ought to have been passed by this chamber without any debate at all.

Senator Mulvihill:

– From his own secretariat.

Senator Carrick:

– Be careful. They are your own figures.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If Senator Carrick got them from his own secretariat there is no guarantee that they are reliable because Mr Fraser at the moment is relying on false, privately taken opinion polls in order to bolster his courage to see whether he will have an election. One cannot always guarantee that figures coming out of the Liberal Party Secretariat have been based on fact. They are more likely to be based on emotion in order to keep up the spirits of members of the Liberal Party. Let me quote to Senator Carrick through you, Mr President, a figure that he pulled out of the air a while ago when he was talking about developing new methods and using new types of sources of energy. Senator Carrick said quite blithely that this development would cost $4,000m. How the hell does Senator Carrick know it will cost $4,000m? Where did he get those figures from?

Senator Carrick:

– One of your authorities costed it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is just one more of Senator Carrick ‘s figures that he dreamed up. I do not think anybody would be able to cite a figure of that nature as the likely cost. For instance, I saw quite reliable figures recently from a world authority on solar energy. One of the things mentioned by him and those associated with him in the costing of solar energy, was that it was not possible at this time for anybody to know what it would cost. But there will come a time in the history of this world, if the people sitting on the Opposition benches do not get back into government and help some of their friends in other areas to blow up the world, when we will have to look for new sources of energy. Solar energy probably is the area in which we will have to do most of our investigation.

For the whole of the time that the LiberalCountry Party Government- the National Country Party, or whatever it is called- was in office it encouraged the exploitation of all sorts of mining endeavours in this country, and none of the money came back to the people of Australia. By various sorts of incentives, as that Government’s supporters called them, and by its inability to claim proper royalties for the Australian people, it let its multinational friends dig great holes in the ground, take away the minerals and sell them at a very great profit to themselves. It went to great pains to ensure that very little money came back to the Australian people who owned the minerals in the first place. As I said in relation to Senator Webster, the tenor of the contributions of honourable senators opposite to the debate shows that they are more interested in looking after the half of one per cent, or even less, of the community which make a fortune out of the mining industry than in protecting the interests of the millions of other people in this country who are entitled to something in return for the sale of their national wealth. One could almost be excused for thinking that some honourable senators opposite at least, if not all, although I think there are some honest people on the other side of the chamber, are in the pay of the multinationals and the mineral lobby. We know that they get vast sums of money for their election campaigns from the coffers of the exploiters. From the way honourable senators opposite speak sometimes one almost could be led into another area of thinking and believing that not all the moneys necessarily go into Party funds.

Senator Townley:

– I object to that.

Senator KEEFFE:

-If the honourable senator is going to object he should get up and do so, not mumble under his beard while sitting over there.

Senator Webster:

– I think the Prime Minister thinks that all the corruption is on your side.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will continue my contribution to this debate and I am not going to be diverted by the rumblings coming from the National Country Party mineral lobby corner. None of the miners need protection. I want to refer to a number of areas in Queensland.

Senator Webster:

– Why did your Government reverse its policy? Why are you reversing your policy?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will touch on that in a moment or two if the honourable senator is so interested in it. We have not reversed our policy although we may have modified it in a number of ways. It is the policy of this Government to do this if we think there is some legislation that is not to the benefit of the majority. In this respect we differ from the people on the Opposition side of the chamber who when in government were totally inflexible. It did not matter who they hurt, they just continued to hurt. That is not the policy of the Labor Party, nor is it the policy of the Labor Government. If we are required to amend legislation in the event of certain representations made to us from areas that we believe are worthwhile, we are prepared to be flexible enough to do so. But that principle does not apply to the major party in the Opposition, nor to the rump party in the Opposition.

I want to refer to four or five mining areas in my State of Queensland which have been totally exploited without any attempt by the State Government or, in the old days, the Federal Government to protect the interests of the workers, the people who own the land or the coffers of the respective State or Federal governments.

Senator Webster:

– You have protected the workers wonderfully well! There are 700 000 unemployed.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Senator Webster has a long history of not protecting workers. I am not talking about him personally but he has to accept responsibility for this because he belongs to a Party that has exploited the workers of this country ever since it came into operation. He should not start putting up a lot of humbug now and saying that he is a great friend of the workers. He never has been a friend of the workers and never will be because he is too interested in the profit motive. The more money he can get for his private coffers at the expense of the workers the happier he will be. That is the main reason for the opposition of honourable senators opposite to this Bill. They oppose it because the extra revenue is to come from an area which will not hurt the workers. It will not hurt the mining companies either, so do not worry about them. While the Labor Government remains in office and while the Minister for Minerals and Energy is able to make contracts with overseas countries for the sale of our minerals at a price fair to Australia and to the producer, and under conditions that will ensure reasonable living and working standards for those involved in the mining industry, no company will go broke. So do not kid yourselves about that point. All that might happen is that they might lost half of lc on some of the shares they own in mining companies.

When the Weipa venture was established one of the great claims made at the time on behalf of the then State Government and the mining companies was that the rights of the local Aboriginal people would be totally protected. But what happened? By collusion between the Government and the mining companies vast tracts of their territory were taken away from them and despoiled as a result of the mining operation. The compensation paid has been so slow in coming, and so small have been the dribbles that have been paid, that the morale of the local people has been totally broken down. They have got nothing out of it

I want to refer to an area a little further north, the Cape Flattery area where the open cut mining of silica sands takes place. When the operation was first mooted it was said to be one of the greatest ventures of all time. It has been too for those who get the profits out of it; it has been very good indeed. But if one goes into the area one will find that the environment has been totally devastated. No attempts have been made to return fill to the area, no attempts have been made to grow trees in the area and no attempt has been made to properly compensate the Aboriginal people who once walked that area for miles and miles around. Many of them still live there. I had some figures taken out quite recently and it is obvious that there is a cover up operation by the Queensland Government in relation to the compensation. All we could find out was that some $3,000 odd had been paid and that a few Aboriginal people had secured jobs at the Cape Flattery silica sands mining venture. This represents wholesale theft from an Aboriginal tribe which has been based in that area for thousands of years and it is condoned by the Country Party Government of Queensland. In fact it is encouraged by the Country Party Government of Queensland and by the Country Party representatives here who I suppose are led at the moment by Senator Webster.

The area in which Tableland Tin Dredging NL operates is another area that has been exploited in the interests of the mining companies. Fish no longer live today in the lower reaches of the Herbert River.

Senator Martin:

- Mr President, I query the relevance of the honourable senator’s reference to those other mining areas when we are debating an export levy on coal.

The PRESIDENT:

– I was bearing that in mind and hoping that Senator Keeffe would come back to the debate on the export of coal.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr President. I appreciate the objection raised by Senator Martin. I understand that Senator Webster got into similar trouble the other evening when speaking in this debate because he introduced the subject of Medibank. After doing that he got stuck into Craven A filter cigarettes, I think. I do not know what they had to do with mining but he was able to introduce that subject.

Senator Baume:

– Because this is a cognate debate and tobacco comes into it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes, it is a cognate debate and I suppose cigarettes are linked with tobacco. To top it off he introduced a few glasses of beer and said that the tax was too high. With great respect to Senator Martin and you, Mr President, at least I have confined my remarks to mining companies. If I might explain, I propose to do that to indicate that prior to 2 December 1972 the Government of this country was exploited by the multi-national mining companies and the Australian people were neglected. The Government itself was exploited. I have to cite these four or five instances in order to be able to tell the truth about some of this exploitation that went on because the Government of the day was scared to front up to the mining companies. It thought they might take away the few dollars or shekels or whatever other type of currency they provide and spend them in some other area.

I continue. Tin mining operations on the Atherton Tablelands have totally polluted a major river in that area so that today at the mouth of the river fish can no longer breathe, crustaceans no longer exist and various other types of water life have disappeared totally. If that matter had been taken in hand- if there had not been a frightened, State government and a frightened Federal government at the timenone of this pollution would have occurred. I deal now with the Greenvale nickel venture. I have been accused here previously by a member of the National Country Party of Australia, who today is strangely missing, of trying to stop the Greenvale development. That is utter eyewash. I never tried to do that. I believe that if natural minerals are being exploited for a profit motive the environment ought to be protected, the health of the workers ought to be protected, decent standards and working conditions ought to be the order of the day and there ought to be a fair return of profit to the Australian people.

What do we find in relation to the Greenvale nickel development? Environmental experts, not people just going off the top of their heads, have forecast that in a few years time much of the marine life off Saunders Beach will disappear because it will be poisoned by chemical elements going into the open sea. The harmful chemical content of the smoke is above World Health Organisation standards. Who gave permission for this venture to proceed? None other than the Premier of Queensland and those people who support him in the interests of the exploitation to be carried out by big business. We have had instances of this previously in Australia in which certain chemicals coming out of smoke stacks at mining developments have killed the vegetation, have damaged the health of the people living in the vicinity and have damaged the health of the workers. Is it unfair to ask that protection of this sort be the order of the day before consent is given to mining ventures? If honourable senators want to see total devastation they should look at the Rum Jungle area- the old uranium mining area. I suppose it is as good an example as any of devastation in the Northern Territory or in other parts of northern Australia.

Why blame the mining companies? They are there to make a fast dollar. They propose to do it. They do not care whom they hurt in the process. There must be some sort of governmental supervision and some sort of guarantee of a return to the Australian economy. Because the Australian Labor Government has had the courage to stand up to its philosophy it is roundly condemned by members of the Opposition who fear that the value of their mining shares may depreciate slightly. The shares will not depreciate in value because an organised industry is the healthiest industry, economically and otherwise. Labor insists on a balanced development, on orderly marketing in the minerals area, on a proper return to the Australian people of revenue derived from the exploitation of mining fields. The end result undoubtedly will be a balanced economy as well.

What is the alternative? We heard Senator Webster complain a while ago because the price of his glass of beer had risen by 3c, because the price of his packet of cigarettes had risen by 6c and because the price of his gallon of petrol was likely to rise a little more. He said that he was terribly upset, but he was not really. His great worry was not the basis of his argument. The basis of his argument was to protect his friends, the mining companies. To hell with the workers. Exploit them as long as you want to and as far as you can, but look after the multinational mining companies. That was the trend of the contribution to this debate by Senator Webster. We have 2 alternatives. We can pursue the policies that we are pursuing. They are flexible enough to be changeable in view of changing circumstances. The other alternative is to pursue the inflexible policies that have been forecast by Mr Fraser on behalf of the mixed up Opposition. He has either said or implied in the last few weeks that none of these people will be taxed but that things of this sort will take their place: There will be a zero increase in the Public Service, which is already overworked by any standards. He will not allow any increase in the size of it at any time.

He will abolish Medibank. Those were not his exact words. Mr Chipp said that Medibank would be abolished, and this would save the country a lot more money. Members of the Australian Medical Association will be delighted. They will be able to double their income. Some of them are doing very well under Medibank any way. In the first place they said that they would not bulk bill. Each day more and more doctors are bulk billing. Some of them, those with big practices, find that they are doing very well out of it, thank you very much. Mr Fraser has condoned Mr Chipp ‘s statement about the abolition of Medibank. The Opposition will reduce grants for education. That is another sore point with members of the Opposition. That is another way of raising revenue- by cutting out the expenditure in a certain field. The Labor Party has no intention of doing it. Those people in the community best able to pay will be the people who must pay. Those people who have least will get the most assistance. I refer particularly to our young people who, for the first time in history, over the last two or three years have had the opportunity to go on to higher education even if they have no personal funds. That never happened under a Liberal-Country Party government.

Senator Baume:

– Nonsense.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is not nonsense. It is a fact that you have been a senator for a hell of a long time- it must be fully 12 or 15 months. It is obvious that you are not familiar with the policy of your Party. Otherwise you would not interject and say ‘nonsense’. It was part of the policy of the Liberal Party to cut down expenditure on education wherever possible over many years. Education, health, repatriation and social security were the areas in which the Liberal Party would never bend in favour of the underprivileged in the community. So do not say ‘ nonsense ‘ or you will finish up with a broken jaw- that is from saying ‘nonsense’ too often, not because 1 would go over there and use a hand or anything on it. I am not in world class as a fighter.

My time has just about expired, but I want to say that there are 2 alternatives. Either we obtain our revenue from those areas where it will hurt little or not at all or we exploit the working class of this country by increasing personal taxation and indirect taxes on essential goods, essential foodstuffs, etc., at the same time cutting down on our social services scale. I do not believe any thinking Australian wants the second alternative. Any thinking Australian, except those who are a little worried about some of their mining shares, will not be too upset about the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill. The mining companies will be the least upset. They are the last ones who will be worried about it. I suggest that the Bills be carried without further opposition and that the amendment to be moved at the Committee stage also be endorsed.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The speech which we have just heard is one which would be best forgotten, and best forgotten quickly. All the irrelevancies, inaccuracies, hatreds, and obloquy do no service to the senator who made the speech. It was almost a word salad, it was so incomprehensible. It made a very small contribution to a serious attempt to solve some of Australia’s problems today. The 3 Bills which we are discussing are related to the raising of excise. The Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill 1975 relates to the raising of charges on the export of coal and the Excise Tariff Bill 1975 relates to the raising of charges on tobacco products and alcohol. The Customs Bill (No. 2) 1975 is the third Bill. I wish to speak briefly to the first Bill. It is a further example of the damage which Mr Connor can wreak if he tries. He has set out to impose a levy, payable from 19 August, on exports of coal, including steaming coal. We very quickly saw the damage this would do to areas of New South Wales, my home State, where the mining of steaming coal is one of the main sources of employment. New South Wales is a great coal mining State. We have large reserves and large future hopes for our coal mining industry. Senator Carrick set out some of the facts about mining in New South Wales. Senator Keeffe chose to cast doubt upon those facts. He may care to know that they were derived basically from publications of the Joint Coal Board. His objections are entirely without foundation.

Steaming coal in New South Wales is mined on the western fields, particularly in the area of Lithgow. That is a city which has little reason to love the Labor Government. There are 2 industries in Lithgow. There is the coal mining industry and the small arms factory. The winding down of defence procurement has had the effect of reducing employment opportunity in the small arms factory. We see a shameful neglect of Lithgow and prospects for further unemployment in the most important town in the seat of Macquarie. The Mayor of Lithgow, Alderman Gillard, has spoken to me on a number of occasions since this legislation came in and he is concerned at what it threatens for his own town. I was able to visit Newcastle recently and to talk to people there who are associated with the mining of the kind of coal which in the Bill before us is to attract an export levy of $2 a tonne. The concern in Newcastle was again for employment.

If this export levy were carried through it would lead to widespread unemployment in the areas of New South Wales where jobs are already at a premium. We have experience of the contribution made by the Government’s beef export levy to the downturn in the beef export industry in Australia. We do not want any more experiences along the same line.

The western coalfields of New South Wales are not booming. Employment in the coalfields has dropped from 3000 in 1952 to approximately 450 people in 1973. At the same time the demand for coking coal has gone up throughout the rest of New South Wales, but in the western fields where steaming coal is mined employment has been static or dropping. The oil crisis in 1973 had the effect of making steaming coal once again competitive in a limited way. The demand for the coal from the western field did go up slightly but it has been possible to find only one large long term customer. That customer is the Central Electricity Generating Board of Britain and it is buying coal from the western field at prices which, even without this export levy, are only just competitive. Of the 4 companies in the western field, two are producing steaming coal which is being taken to Britain. One company hopes to supply 1.5 million tonnes of steaming coal a year to the Central Electricity Generating Board in Britain until 1982. That represents a very considerable export opportunity and a very considerable employment opportunity. We knew these facts; the Government should have known them. The Government should have known that the price of our coal is only just competitive with coal from Great Britain, Canada and Poland and with oil from the Arabian countries. The price that we have been obtaining for our steaming coal- $16 a tonne f.o.b.- cannot be increased. We have only one customer. That customer has other sources of supply. There is no way that we can pass on the increase in price. The price is $ 1 6 a tonne and the Government proposes to impose a $2 a tonne export levy.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It has rectified that.

Senator BAUME:

– It rectified it but the Government should never have introduced the levy. It is a further example, Senator Cavanagh, of the inefficiency and ineptitude of your Government. We knew what this levy would mean and the Government has come to recognise how inappropriate it was. The Government has come to realise what damage it has threatened to the people of Lithgow and to the people in Newcastle. Contrary to what Senator Keeffe said, the real danger is to jobs and to employment in a nation which is already facing record unemployment. There is no way that the western fields could have absorbed this price increase and continued to operate. That the Government has had to come back with a proposed amendment to remove this levy before the Bill has even gone through is a measure of the incompetence of the Government and a measure of the failure of the Government to consult adequately before it brought in the first proposition.

Senator Wright:

– What levy are they removing?

Senator BAUME:

– The Government is going to remove a portion of the levy applying to steaming coal. It should never have introduced the levy.

Senator Wright:

– But the other remains?

Senator BAUME:

– The other levy remains, Senator Wright; you are quite right. We are concerned that extra job opportunities should be created in Lithgow. We are concerned that the promise of extra employment may be lost if this levy goes through. We are delighted that the Government has listened to representations but I repeat once again that this Bill should never have been introduced in the form in which it was introduced and the levy on steaming coal should never have been entertained.

The other Bills being debated in this cognate fashion concern excise duties upon tobacco products and beer and potable spirits. The Government aims to raise the excise on beer and potable spirits and on tobacco products to fund its other spending programs. It is not often that I rise to support a member of this Government but I rise today partly as a doctor as well as a senator for New South Wales to support some of the things which Dr Everingham, the Minister for Health, has been saying for a considerable period of time. I want to support him on some of the facts surrounding smoking and its dangers. I want to support him on some of the dangers surrounding the use and abuse of alcohol in our society and to relate those to the Government’s cynical action in increasing this excise at the same time as it cut out almost completely the amount of money which it is going to provide for anti-smoking programs, for drug education or for the care of people who cannot cope with those 2 drugs of abuse. We are dealing with blood money and with a government that will take money and will prevent people from having a fair go at getting education or assistance in coping with smoking.

I start off by setting out briefly some of the facts about alcohol. After heart disease and cancer, alcohol is the next most common cause of death, sickness and suffering in Australia. A proper measurement of the suffering caused by alcohol goes far beyond this, taking into account the disruption of family life and altered relationships, child abuse, beatings and other kinds of morbidity. I remind the Senate that in the 10-year period to December 1972, 820 000 people were injured and 33 000 people were killed in road accidents. I remind the Senate that alcohol was responsible for half the deaths on our roads and at least half the injuries. I remind the Senate that according to figures released by Dr Everingham, perhaps 5 per cent of the male population, perhaps one in twenty Australians, drinks excessively and could be classed as having an alcohol problem.

The rate of alcohol consumption in Australia is rising steadily and it has increased at a far more rapid rate than has the population. We know that the alcohol problems in society are related directly to the average intake of alcohol. Professor Hetzel from Monash University has written an excellent book, Health in Australian Society and has given figures and graphs to prove that as average intake of alcohol goes up the incidence of alcoholism rises; that is to say, we are all more likely to become alcoholic or have an alcohol problem as drinking patterns change in Australia.

I drink regularly. I enjoy drinking. I enjoy drinking wines, spirits and beer but I can control my drinking. Many Australians cannot and we have a responsibility to try to take some account of the morbidity and mortality from alcohol abuse in our society, especially if we know that most alcoholics go undetected, that many of the problems in the workforce are due to alcoholism, and that terms of sickness absence from work, alcoholism is a major factor and is of great cost to our society.

Senator Devitt:

– Could there be something underlying that again?

Senator BAUME:

– Perhaps there is, but we are still faced with the fact that alcohol is a drug of addiction used in our society and we must seek to mitigate its effect. The most significant aspect of the problem may be stated as follows: The number of heavy drinkers relates directly to the average level of consumption in our society. If a government wants to do anything to control the amount of heavy drinking or the rate of alcoholism it has to do something to control the average rate of consumption in our society. Senator Keeffe made some comment that the increased excise will be helpful because it will make alcohol more expensive. It will have very little effect upon controlling the average alcohol intake in society. We have to do a lot more. We have a Government that is prepared to take a large slice in terms of excise. I would expect that Government to be prepared to return part of that money in the form of expenditure on educational programs and programs for treatment. It has shown no inclination so to do. I remind the Senate that we have received reports of a survey carried out in Sydney recently showing that more than 9 per cent of the 12 to 17-year-olds now claim that they get very drunk more than once a month; yet we are doing nothing as a national government. The Government is doing nothing with the money that it is going to claim and collect to help to educate the young people or to mitigate the effects of alcohol.

What about the problems of smoking? What do we have in that respect? We know that the Government proposes in these Bills to increase the excise on tobacco products. For the past 20 years we have known that there is a relationship between lung cancer and smoking. For the past 10 years we have known from what has been said by the United States Surgeon-General that there is very good evidence linking a whole series of diseases with smoking. In the past 10 years we have seen mounted a program of public education. We have seen a lot more information gathered and we now know that millions of people have stopped smoking. It may be of interest to know that in my own profession many doctors have stopped smoking. It is now the rule rather than the exception for doctors to be non smokers. We as a profession have been convinced by the evidence relating to the morbidity from smoking and we have cut down our use of tobacco. The public is starting to follow. Many other people have not started smoking as a result of the information that has been disseminated and of the efforts that have been made to continue anti-smoking programs. We know that those who have stopped smoking have improved their health statistics, have had the death rates amongst them lowered and have shown benefits.

In 1 974 a report was published by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare entitled ‘The Health Consequences of Smoking’. The Department has reviewed the evidence available linking smoking with a whole series of diseases and has made the following observations: Cigarettes are the major risk factor for coronary artery disease- heart attacks- and 50 per cent of the annual deaths in our society are due to coronary artery disease. Smokers run twice the risk of contracting coronary artery disease and it is the greatest of all the known risk factors. It is absolute hypocrisy to mount programs to cut down the intake of cholesterol or to have weight reduction programs when the main risk factor is tobacco and we know it. Smokers die younger than non smokers. If they cease smoking they can reduce their risk. We can all reduce the risk of contracting coronary heart disease.

Cigarettes and cigarette smoking increase the risk of suffering strokes and increase the risk of contracting peripheral vascular disease. Cigarettes are the major cause of lung cancer, which is the most common form of cancer occurring in males between the ages of 35 and 74, and the more cigarettes smoked the greater the risk. We are now finding that women who started smoking some decades later than men are starting to show the same increase in relation to the risk of lung cancer. Smokers run approximately 15 times as much risk of lung cancer as non smokers. Heavy smokers run anything up to 25 times the risk-. We know that cigarettes and cigarette smoking are causing an increase in the mortality from obstructive lung diseasesemphysema and bronchitis- and heavy smokers run a very much higher risk. We know that if one stops smoking one’s risk drops. We know that cigarettes cause increased post-operative complications and that they cause increased collapses of the lung. We know that cigarettes are associated with oral cancer, oesophageal cancer, cancer of the pancreas and cancer of the larynx. When we surveyed doctors who stopped smoking after 1951- about 50 per cent of all doctors stopped smoking- we found that the death rates among doctors had fallen, particularly the death rates from cigarette-related diseases. The evidence is overwhelming.

I shall now relate those remarks back to the Bill. The excise proposals for alcohol are designed to yield an extra $245 m this year. The excise proposals in relation to tobacco are designed to yield an extra $7 5 m this year. Those are very large amounts of money. They amount to $374m in a full year. We are using the desire of people for these habituating drugs to increase the general revenue. I accept that the costs which smoking brings about and the cost which the abuse of alcohol brings about should to some extent rest upon those who smoke and drink. But some of the money should go back into programs that are designed to educate and to care for those who are going to suffer.

What has happened in the present Budget in relation to the allocations for anti-smoking programs? If we go to the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Department of Health we find under division 325.3.09 that the appropriation for anti-smoking education has been decreased from $319,000 to $75,000. Similarly we find that there has been a decrease in Appropriation Bill (No. 2). The effect in relation to anti-smoking education has been to cut the allocation from $500,000 last year to $100,000 this year. We have a Government which should know what are the effects of smoking on the health of our society and which is prepared to take an extra $75m in excise but which is not even willing to give any of it back in terms of money for education.

In the same way what do we find if we look at what is happening to the program in relation to drug education? The drug education program has been held steady at $750,000 in a situation in which the Labor Government has given us inflation rates of 15 per cent to 20 per cent. That steady allocation is a reduction in real terms. At the same time the Government stands to gain $245 m extra in its excise on alcohol. The people who are concerned to do something about drug abuse, about the problems of smoking and about the social effects of the abuse of alcohol would like to use some of that money on constructive programs. Is the Government so disinterested in preventive health care that it actually slashes the allocations for those health programs that can help to mitigate a few of the social effects of these drugs?

These Bills are a disgrace. We are seeing blood money- I call it blood money- being collected. The Government wants its extra share but it wants to make sure that it makes it that much harder for the Australian community to have the information it requires to stop smoking or not to start smoking. The Government is going to make it that much harder for the members of the Australian community to know where they can go for assistance if they have an alcohol problem. The Government is going to make it harder for industry to know how to go about starting in-service help for those people on the shop floor who are alcoholics. These kinds of programs could mean less suffering, less morbidity and less family disruption and these are the programs that are affected. It is part of the Government’s Budget that all the preventive programs- all the programs directed towards education and towards good community preventive care- have been slashed. These excise rises on tobacco and alcohol are something of which the Government should be ashamed. It is not too late for the Government to look again at the amount it is likely to derive from the excise on tobacco and alcohol and to determine that some small percentageone half of one per cent of the extra excise would do- should be put back to serve society.

The Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, has frequently spoken to the Australian nation about the problems that these drugs are causing. As a casualty officer I have had to treat car crash victimsthe people who would not have been in that situation if some drunken driven had not hit into them. I do not think it is unreasonable to demand that society take some interest in making available resources for education and for extra institutional help. Until these Bills are matched by some commitment from the Government to provide something extra for anti-smoking programs, for support for the Australian Council on Smoking and Health and for drug education programs and unless we have a program to give help for alcoholics in industry, I think the Government must accept the fact that it is taking blood money from the victims in Australian society who will die and suffer on the roads and in the hospitals from tobacco and alcohol abuse in the years ahead.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I enter the debate on these excise tariff Bills briefly, somewhat in amazement that people such as the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Whitlam) and, indeed, the one time Treasurer, Mr Crean, should be involving themselves with this threat- in fact imposition- of indirect taxation. They have on so many occasions in the past abused Liberal and Country Party governments on that very issue and for that very program. Yet we are debating today excise Bills which in their very own nature involve a distinct and quite dramatic increase in indirect taxation. What a strange confidence trick it is in the context of this Budget that these Bills concern, in less than a year, something like an increase in tax of $721 m on the ordinary consumers in so many fields in Australia and that that $72 1 m has to be related to the alleged saving to the taxpayer in income tax of some $205 m. In other words, the taxpayer in the Australian scene is to be no less than $500m worse off as a result of these Bills alone.

It seems to me that quite clearly we are examining what is nothing more or less than a simple case of increased taxation- indirect but nevertheless increased taxation. This is going to be revealed and has been revealed from the very inception in increases in prices, directly and indirectly, across a very wide scale- across a very wide canvas, indeed. Not only do we see the price of a bottle of beer or the price of a gallon of fuel being increased; not only do we see the price of liquid petroleum gas to the communities of many cities and towns increased as a result of these levies, but we see also the indirect effects of these direct price increases. The indirect effects are felt in the areas of freight, fares, power generation and, indeed, across a whole canvas of the Australian economy. These indirect increases result purely from the taxes- from levies.

Surely this measure of taxation in these Bills is in no small way a betrayal of the trade unionist and the working man for these Bills are significantly placing beyond the reach of the trade unionist and the working man many of the goods which in his own judgment- and assuming, indeed, that he is an intelligent and well versed individual, a judgment he should be prepared and able to make- constitute his demand and consumption pattern. These goods are being placed perhaps outside his capacity to avail himself of them. So these measures are most definitely a disadvantage to the many Australian trade unionists and workers. It cannot be sustained that although some 500 000 Australians allegedly will as a result of the Budget not be paying direct income tax- of course, ultimately the figure will be dependent upon the actual wages and salaries that are received- indeed those 500 000 people, if that is the number, will be unable to avail themselves of many of the things to which, with their own manner of selfdiscipline, they feel entitled to avail themselves. In this circumstance I say again that these Bills impose a levy on many people that is basically unjustified. They are purely and simply matters related to revenue.

Of course, the increases in these particular areas of excise are felt extremely heavily in rural communities- in the towns, on the farms and in the provincial cities. The cost of fuel, of freight and all those associated charges bear perhaps more heavily on the people in the relatively remote areas of Australia than on any other sections of the community. The small business people are hit heavily by the sort of legislation that we are examining this afternoon. I have had brought to my notice by many local government bodies in New South Wales- particularly in the centre and south-west of New South Wales- the extraordinarily damaging effects that the $2 a tonne imposition on crude oil is having on the liquid petroleum gas prices to the community in these areas. Indeed, it has been brought to my attention that in the municipality of Parkes in New South Wales- this is just one of many municipal councils from which I have heard- the added impost has meant an increase in the cost of LPG to councils of some $24.88 a tonne which is an increase of some 59 per cent. This is a damaging and dangerous situation and one which I hope the Government will look at very seriously indeed because many councils have been committed over the past 4, 5 or 6 years to involving themselves in very large capital expenditure in order to be able to reticulate this particular type of energy producing material.

So it seems to me that these customs excise taxes are really, amongst other things, an attack on the coal industry and on any industry that appears to be buoyant. It is an extraordinary circumstance that this Government seems to take the view that wherever there is some abundance of profit, even though that may be just transitory, that profit has to be attacked. In this case it is being attacked by a levy and not by a normal taxation process. If profits were attacked, as they are normally attacked, by the normal process of taxation then funds to the Treasury would be swollen. The industry would remain keen and develop at the rate which this country needs so badly. These levies of $6 a tonne on high grade coking coal and $2 a tonne on steaming coal which thank goodness is to be adjusted, must be seen with considerable dismay by the industry. One must recall that the coal industry in Australia has not been forever at a high point. Very few industries are in a situation in which they know not what booms and depressions are all about. The coal industry has probably had more than its share of periods when it was in a depressed state. I believe that is unfair to describe the industry as one enjoying windfall profits. Whatever profit the industry may be enjoying, it is surely as a result of a demand and supply situation in the world market for coal. The profit cannot justly be described as a windfall. For instance, the price of coal in Australia today is something like $20 a ton less than the cost in the United States. So if our industry is accused of making a windfall profit, what must the circumstances be in the United States?

I reiterate that the profits which are coming to the industry now are not the result of conniving. They are the result of the normal supply and demand situation in the world market place for coal. While that happens to be high at the moment, it has been low in the past. Who knows but that it may well be low at some time in the future. As I am talking briefly about the profit in the coal industry it may be pertinent that I ask: What in itself is so damaging or so basically wrong in finding that the industry is producing a significant profit? I reiterate once again that whether it be an individual, a corporation, a company, a government or a State, in the long term its capacity to make a profit within the law is directly relevant to its capacity to sustain the community. If there is a profit in this industry should we not be pleased that that is the circumstance rather than abuse the industry and levy it in a manner which may well destroy its opportunity and Australia’s opportunity to use and develop the markets which are, at least in the near future, apparently ensured.

Rather than placing on the industry the leaden hand of socialism through these levies and these excise duties we should be feeling a measure of excitement that we are producing various things with great profitability and that we have the opportunity of involving many people in employment and many assets in development. The small ventures and the new - ventures will be almost totally stopped by the set of levy which will be implemented by these Bills. It may well be that in 10 years or 1 5 years- more or less- coal may find itself under very severe competition in the energy producing sector from all sorts of other sources such as nuclear power, water, solar radiation and so on down the line. In other words there is a temporary circumstance at the moment in which there is a fine demand for this source of energy. Surely the intelligent thing as a nation would be to use the circumstances which are around us and to make sure that we develop as a result of them. The higher prices in the industry gives us a positive capacity to increase the production of coal in this country.

It is estimated that some 20 million tonnes of coal a year will be required by Japan alone by 1980. Mr Connor speaks of a program, although he has not been always totally successful. I understand that he has cost the industry something like $ 100m this year in his negotiations for prices. But if we have the capacity to sell an extra 20 million tonnes of coal by 1980 then we must use all the profits we can find to develop the industry so that it has the capacity to produce that amount of coal. To develop the industry to that point will involve a massive investment of more than $2,000m in port facilities, transport, housing and so forth if we are to be able to increase our capacity to export coal to the extent of some 20 million tonnes a year by 1 980.

As a corollary to all this I point out that surely by penalising the industry we are penalising the community. The sooner we recognise this the better. We should adjust our legislation with that in view. Of course if these disincentives or levies were not applied the Treasury would benefit very dramatically because of the increase in taxes which it would receive from the companies and operators involved in this industry and others. The sovereign States of Australia would increase their revenue from royalties significantly. Under this proposal they achieve nothing at all because their royalties are a percentage of the price of coal. So anything which is relevant to a levy has no effect at all on the States’ capacity to produce and to collect royalties. This is more essential today than ever before because the States, like the Commonwealth, face a circumstance of inflation never known in this country at any other time.

I now look at the situation of crude oil, on which an export levy of $2 a barrel has been imposed. The effect of this in the first place is purely and simply to increase the revenue. There is good reason why the Government should seek urgently to increase its revenue. It faces a Budget deficit of some $2, 800m. Last year it thought that it would face a deficit of $500m but at the end of 12 months it found that the amount was $2,300m. Consequently, its capacity to control the economy of this country is in some considerable measure of doubt. In view of this one can understand the desperate measures it takes in seeking revenue. Of course, these levies are a form of revenue. But how much better if they could result in a form of incentive. The Commonwealth Government has taken away all incentive from the oil exploration and development industry with quite tragic results. Those results will be made even worse by the levy of $2 a barrel on crude oil. This is a straight levy. There will be no reference to the price of oil to the producer and there will be no increase in the capacity of the producer or operator to extend the development of his field or to extend to other fields. It is tragic, when one looks at the history of oil exploration and development in Australia, to find that, largely as a result of the policy of the last three or four years, the 121 exploratory holes seeking oil which were drilled around the Australian coastline in 1970 have been reduced to 14 in the first 6 months of this year. Even if drilling continues at that rate, and that is doubtful, there may well be only 28 holes drilled seeking oil this year. There are 2 rigs operating around the Australian coast out of 17 available, and yet the only contribution by the Government to the industry is the imposition of a levy of $2 a barrel on crude oil.

In the oil industry as in any other industry, unless there is incentive, unless there is profitability within the law, there will be no development, and that situation will affect adversely every single Australian. Still referring to the oil and fuel situation, it is anticipated that given the current circumstances, in 5 years this country will be producing barely 40 per cent of its oil requirements. As a result of exploration and development over the past 10 to 15 years we now produce nearly 70 per cent of our requirements. That figure will be reduced to 40 per cent by 1980 and 30 per cent by 1982. I believe it is important to realise the cost to the community created by the failure to develop our resources. For instance, I referred to the capacity of this country to produce and sell another 20 million tonnes of coal per annum. That in itself is significant within our economy in creating jobs, in creating homes, in creating a transport system, and in improving and developing ports. It is also vastly significant in that it would increase our overseas earning capacity by some $ 1,000m annually.

Conversely, in the case of oil, if we are to produce only 40 per cent of our oil needs in 1 980 we will be involved in an annual outlay for imports of some $ 1,500m, even assuming that prices remain as they are today. By 1982 that figure may well be in excess of $2,000m. The massive investment in and development of the coal industry which is capable of occurring in present circumstances can be destroyed in large measure- destroyed in many places in Queensland, destroyed in many places in New South Wales. Senator Baume has referred to the situation in Lithgow. The situation is no less significant in the Hunter Valley; it is no less significant on the South Coast or in the Newcastle area, where there are dramatic possibilities, given a proper measure of encouragement. But the only measure we see is a measure of total discouragement.

In concluding my remarks on these Bills, might I reiterate once again that it is an extremely bad system of taxation to tax exports in a country in which exports are the cornerstone of its economy, of its total community, whether we like it or not. Those are the circumstances in which Australia has found itself and they are the circumstances in which Australia is likely to remain in the foreseeable future. There could be no more damaging attitude than the attitude of a government which imposes export taxes. That problem was referred to by Senator Baume in the case of the cattle industry. Indeed, one or two of our major export industries, considered in the context of the cost structure of the economy, certainly cannot afford export taxes. Even the relatively buoyant wheat industry in Australia today, when it is measured against the cost of capital equipment, against interest rates, against the cost of superphosphate, the cost of labour and so forth, can afford to retreat hardly more than a few cents or it too will be a relatively difficult position.

Senator Walsh:

– Nonsense.

Senator SCOTT:

– I do not believe it is nonsense, and I am quite sure that if Senator Walsh referred that statement to the wheat producers of this country and to the organisations that represent them he would find that it is far from nonsense and quite easily substantiated. The position of the wool industry, with its cost structure, is equally dangerous, and I was very disappointed this morning when the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), in answering a question, was not prepared to say that the Government would support totally any necessary variation in the base price of wool that resulted from any change in currency valuations. The wool industry is running virtually on a line ball, and in that situation export taxes and so on would be anathema to it. Any increased costs in the industry would create an even more damaging situation for the rural .communities of this country.

Let me say again that these excise duties, these levies, these 3 Bills that the Senate is discussing cognately today, unfortunately all contribute to a situation which will tend to drive down the capacity of this country to find, to research and to develop its magnificent natural resources, resources which in many cases are extremely valuable today and tomorrow will be of a value nobody knows. It is a dreadful reflection on a government which is responsible for an economy that it should be creating a circumstance where those sorts of opportunities may well flash by without the whole community being able to gain the proper benefit that should come its way.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-In this cognate debate the Senate is considering together 3 separate Bills, namely, the Excise Tariff Bill, the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill and the Customs Bill- 3 Bills which, in short, impose extra or new duties on tobacco and cigarettes, liquor and coal. I am puzzled by the attitude and the tactics of the Opposition in this matter. When these Bills were debated on 10 September Senator Webster, leading for the Opposition, said that the Opposition did not support the Bills. He spoke strongly, particularly against the Bill establishing the levy on coal, but he said: We will allow these 3 Bills to be passed’. This morning Senator Carrick delivered the strongest speech I have heard him deliver in this chamber in denunciation of the coal export levy. All other Opposition speakers today have opposed one or more of the 3 Bills in the strongest possible terms. If that criticism is sincere and if the Opposition is not being just hypocritical, why does it not vote against these Bills? It says they are bad. It says, in effect, they are an expression of the manner in which the Government is ruining the economy of the country. Why does the Opposition denounce the Bills yet at the beginning of the debate say that although it does not support them it will vote for them? Why does not the Opposition vote against these Bills? Why does not the Opposition use the power that it has under section 53 of the Constitution to request amendments? Why does not the Opposition do that? If it does not do one or the other or both of those things, how sincere is its criticism? Is it anything more than simply political talk for the sake of talk?

The Opposition would be respected far more in the community, I suggest, if it exercised the powers that it asserts in relation to these 3 Bills in accordance with its attitude to the Bills than if it waited until a vote was taken on 2 subsequent Bills and then purely for political purposes took a certain step. The Opposition has a chance now to prove whether or not the speeches delivered today were, in fact, sincere and genuine or whether, on the contrary, they were simply talk for the sake of politics.

Senator Durack:

- Senator, you have no doubts that we have the power to reject money Bills?

Senator EVERETT:

– I will send the honourable senator a copy of my Brisbane speech if he wishes in which I put my views quite clearly.

Senator Durack:

– And quite contrary to your Attorney’s.

Senator EVERETT:

-Not at all. If the honourable senator would like a dissertation on the Constitution some time, perhaps he could put a substantive motion on the notice paper and I would be delighted to oblige him with a debate. The Opposition’s attitude ignores the fact that under the administration of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) the story of the Australian export coal industry has been one of rags to riches. To me it was sad- because I thought it reeked of hypocrisy- to have to listen earlier today to the abuse and the denigration of a person who has done in less than 3 years- the term for which he was constitutionally electedmore for the coal export industry than every appropriate Minister did in the 23 years of Liberal government.

Senator Wright:

– To whom are you referring?

Senator EVERETT:

-We have a mumble from Senator Wright. Let me state the facts. As a result of what Mr Connor has done 4 things have happened. Firstly, the prices for export coal have risen enormously since December 1972, and in most cases have trebled in that period.

Senator Baume:

– Not steaming coal.

Senator EVERETT:

-Not at all. I will give the true figures later. Secondly, the conditions of many contracts have been ameliorated. It was Mr Connor who got the Utah Corporation out of its difficulty with respect to its 7-year contracts. Mr Connor did that. This great giant, the Utah Corporation, whose capacity to make money is shown by the fact that for the 9 months ended July last its net profit increased by 237 per cent to a record $84m, in the journals of this country is depicted as the company which is chasing the elusive $100m net profit for a year. Mr Connor helped that company out of its difficulties in his negotiations with Japan.

The third thing that Mr Connor has done is to stimulate- I realise that how far you go is a question of judgment, but he has done it to a degreetrie research and expertise provided by the Government which have been of considerable assistance to the coal exporting companies. Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, by his actions a climate has been created for the coal industry to develop into one of the nation’s largest export industries. We ought to realise when we are considering this matter that we are looking at enormous resources of coal, and if the resources are enormous the capacity to benefit the Australian people by a reasonable export levy in this area ought to be apprehended and appreciated.

Figures taken from the annual report of the Joint Coal Board illustrate the world position of coal. The figures that I shall cite were those submitted to the World Energy Conference held at Detroit in September 1974. The annual report refers to a comment on the world situation which was made by a subsequent survey, as follows:

  1. . total resources of solid fuels are at least 5 times as large as all crude oil, natural gas and high grade oil shale resources combined.

Referring to the Australian position the annual report states:

This statement is particularly relevant to the Australian position. At the present time, Australia is producing at the rate of about 70 million tonnes of raw coal a year, and at this rate our estimated reserves of coal could last for 1 400 years.

Some may think that that is rather a long time to think ahead but the enormity of the reserves is shown in subsequent figures on page 23 of this report. I do not stay to cite them because I think it will be generally acknowledged that Australia has huge reserves of coal, some of it high quality, some only steaming coal. Nevertheless, Australia has enormous reserves which, unless the Government steps in in the manner in which it does under this Bill, will result in the exploitation of immensely valuable Australian resources without any appropriate benefit for the Australian people. When we consider the question of benefit to the Australian people let it be remembered that the export coal industry in Queensland is 85 per cent in foreign hands.

Mr Connor, the person denigrated so much today, has undoubtedly been the force responsible for the enormous increases in prices that have been earned by the coal exporting companies. On 1 December 1972, expressed in United States dollars for ease of comparison, the per tonne f.o.b. export price of New South Wales coal to Japan varied between US$13 and US$19.50. That was the situation when Labor took office. Now on average the higher quality coals are approaching US$50 per tonne and the lower grade export quality coal is approaching US$40 per tonne. That change has taken place during the ministry of Mr Connor as a direct result of his deliberate policy that he would no longer tolerate the digging of our resources in the interests of foreign companies and their sale overseas with very little benefit to the Australian people, other than the employment this produced and some State taxes.

What is the present position? It ought to be looked at in some detail. The figures that I shall cite are those which were negotiated for the current Japanese fiscal year; that is, the period that runs from 1 April to 3 1 March. Compared with the previous Japanese fiscal year, these results have been achieved. The current price for South Bulli coal is $48.80 which is an increase over the 31 March 1975 price of $53.3 per cent; for coal from Moura in Queensland $46.59, an increase of 50.39 per cent; for coal from South Blackwater in Queensland $45.6 1 , an increase of 44.64 per cent; for coal from Blackwater in Queensland $46.77, an increase of 55.9 per cent; for coal from Goonyella in Queensland $46.67, an increase of 63.9 per cent; and, finally, for the higher quality coal at Peak Downs $46.67, an increase of 63.26 per cent. The price for lower quality Liddell coal, Abersea coal and West Wallsend coal are respectively $38.40, $37.06 and $37.06. In each case it was an increase of more than 60 per cent. Does the Opposition claim that its record in this field gives anyone confidence that it could have achieved anything like that in a period of less than 3 years. Does it? To what experience does it refer? To what achievement -

Senator Durack:

– Do you not think the oil price has had something to do with it?

Senator EVERETT:

-Of course it had something to do with it but the prime mover was that much maligned person, Mr Connor. The honourable senator knows that.

Senator Durack:

– What nonsense.

Senator EVERETT:

– The honourable senator knows that. Let us look at it in different terms. From December 1972 to July 1975 the prices of indicative New South Wales South Coast coals exported to Japan increased by about 170 per cent and of Queensland coal by more than 2 10 per cent. In the same period, prices of leading United States of America coals increased between 120 per cent and 130 per cent. Was America not affected by the oil crisis? Of course it was. Those figures illustrate that prior to December 1972 there had been no proper effort by the then Australian Government to take appropriate action to ensure that a fair return was obtained for the vast exports that were going from Australia with very little benefit to the Australian people. I look at it in another way. I can do no better in this respect, I think, than to quote what the Joint Coal Board said- in an atmosphere that was not political- at page 109 of its report for 1973-74. It paid a proper tribute to the Australian Government and it said:

The Australian Government’s oversight of coal export contracts, through the licensing of coal exports, has been an important factor in Australian producers obtaining satisfactory contracts at improved prices. Virtually all contracts extending beyond one year now provide for annual price negotiations, escalation, without a ceiling, for normal cost items, and currency exchange protection, preserving a constant return in Australian dollars to the exporter.

That is a low key tribute completely divorced from political considerations and it is time the Opposition acknowledged it and stopped this abuse for party political purposes of a person whose stature, through the cameras of history, will be infinitely higher than is attributed to him now by the Opposition.

Senator Webster:

– It would not need much to do that, would it?

Senator EVERETT:

-When one speaks of stature, Senator Webster, perhaps you are not the most appropriate person to speak. I look at the matter from another point of view. I quote from the figures that Mr Connor himself gave in the House of Representatives on 9 September this year which appear at page 1 1 1 3 of Hansard. In answering a question, Mr Connor said:

Of the total gross profit of $544m derived this year from the export to Japan of coking coal the percentage which will flow to the Utah Development Company and its affiliate is 56 per cent. They will take $309m out of $544m-56’/4 per cent to be precise. Only 10.8 percent of that will pass to Australian shareholders; the rest will go abroad.

I pause there to say that the Opposition’s attitude in this matter can only be interpreted as one which applauds the continuation of that present situation as revealed by Mr Connor’s statement, which is not capable of being controverted. The Opposition wants these vast sums to go abroad. The question that is perplexing the electorate is why? I do not make any suggestions. Suggestions of that sort are best left to persons like Senator Webster.

The basic approach of the Australian Government to mineral development generally, and including coal, of course, was stated by the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, as early as 1973 in an address he gave at the AustraliaJapan ministerial talks. He laid down the policy in clear and unequivocal language. It can be summed up in these words in which I paraphrase what he said: Firstly, a sensible governmental supervision of mineral exporters; secondly, that Australia would insist on proper world market prices and on Australian exporters receiving fair and reasonable returns in the light of the world situation; thirdly- this is of particular interest so far as Japan is concerned- at all times within safe limits supplying the proper needs of Japan and our other major trading partners whenever we could reasonably fulfil contracts. Those are the guidelines that have been followed. Under those guidelines we have reached a situation where enormous profits are being made. That cannot be denied. This Bill is an attempt to save, for the people of Australia, some benefit from the fact that a resource, which is in the ground of the nation of which they are part, is being mined at enormous profit- the Utah Development Company has made a profit of nearly $ 100m on present levels- and is being exported. Yet the Opposition opposes that in the manner in which it has today. What does the Opposition really want to do with Australia? Give it away? It seems so.

Senator Webster:

– You are trying to mortgage it with your $4,000m loan from the Arabs.

Senator EVERETT:

– It is interesting that whenever the argument, by facts and figures, goes against the Opposition, Senator Webster has the capacity to resort to complete irrelevancies. I wanted to take up Senator Carrick- I regret that he is not in the chamber- on some of the matters that he informed the Senate of this morning. He asserted that for many years- well before we were in Government- there had been virtual parity between the prices obtained for Australian export coal and prices obtained for American export coal. The figures show that that is just not so. I have already quoted some of them. The fact is that even despite what Mr Connor has done in the renegotiated contracts that apply at present, we are still a significant measure behind the American price which is running at approximately US$60 per tonne. That was just not right. The transformation came in December 1972.

I referred earlier to the enormous resource that coal is for Australia. I want to cite the figures relating to the increase in coal exports that has taken place and is expected to take place. In the case of coking coal Australia’s exports to all markets, based on tonnages under existing contracts, are expected to be worth about $ 1 , 100m in 1975, which is an estimated increase of about $470 m over the corresponding figure for 1974. It is true that some of this can be attributed to inflation and it is true that some of it can be attributed to the consequences of the oil crisis, but the fact is that the export companies are enjoying financial success beyond even their wildest dreams. In those circumstances what is wrong with the Australian people reaping some benefit?

One thing I should refer to is the fact that in his Budget speech the Treasurer, Mr Hayden, said this:

To protect buyers in respect of prices recently renegotiated, -

He was referring, in essence, to the prices negotiated for the current Japanese fiscal year- approval to export will be in terms of those prices and no consideration will be given to adjustment of prices to take account of the duty.

Of course, the Australian Government has the power to enforce that situation. There are only 2 things that deserve comment. Firstly, I have been informed that the Utah company takes the view that legally it is able to pass on this duty at the moment. I do not know whether that is true or not and I think it can be put on one side. The important thing is that there is nothing in what Mr Hayden said, as I read it, to prevent consideration being given to the existence of this levy in the negotiations that will take place and be consummated in the first part of next year so as to apply to the forthcoming Japanese fiscal year. If that is so, again what is wrong with the Australian public getting some benefit out of an Australian resource and the person who ultimately uses the product, the Japanese consumer, or, in the case of exports from Japan, someone else, paying this particular duty? The resource is Australian and the essential benefit should be for Australians.

The only other matter I want to mention is one on which, in one respect, I agree with Senator

Carrick, and that is that we must take care of the future. I quote this paragraph from page 23 of the 1973-74 report of the Joint Coal Board:

It is an urgent task to explore and check the size, quality and likely recovery costs of our coal resources. This can be done only as a result of an intensified drilling campaign carried out over a long term. Having regard to the great importance to the well-being of Australia and, indeed of many other countries of the world, which attaches to the coal resources of this country, it is of the utmost importance that the present rate of drilling be intensified as soon as possible.

As I said earlier, much has been done in that respect. I agree with Senator Carrick that we should make the optimum effort to achieve the goal that the Joint Coal Board said we should have in mind. I do not doubt that once this levy becomes a permanent part of our economy it will be infinitely easier to finance the development work that is envisaged in the paragraph 1 have just read. The enormous benefit to Australia is shown by the fact that even on present levels, and assuming there is no increase in exports over a 10-year period, this levy will produce in excess of $A 1,000m, and that is an enormous benefit to this nation.

I return to the point on which I began. I am not sure who is in charge of the Opposition on the floor of the Senate at the moment. I assume it is Senator Webster but as I do not want to create any demarcation dispute with Senator Durack let us say that they have joint authority on the floor of the Senate. If this tax is so evil and if members of the Opposition were not completely hypocritical in their speeches, why do they not either make a request under section 53 of the Constitution or assert the right that they claim they have and vote against the Bills? I support them.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Senate is debating 3 Bills. The first is the Excise Tariff Bill which imposes a number of increases in excise on a range of items, particularly beer, cigarettes and crude oil production, in accordance with the provisions of the Budget of the Treasurer, Mr Hayden. The second is the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill which imposes an export levy on coal. Senator Everett has been speaking about this Bill. The third Bill is the Customs Bill (No. 2) and it seeks to amend the Customs Act with reference to the collection of the items I mentioned.

The Excise Tariff Bill and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill are money Bills. I was very amused and highly surprised to hear Senator Everett, who just resumed his seat after speaking in support of the Government, challenge the Opposition to vote against the measures. As I understand the campaign of the

Government, and particularly of its AttorneyGeneral, Mr Enderby, over the last couple of weeks, it has been aimed at establishing in some curious way an argument that the Senate has no power to reject a money Bill, yet today we heard Senator Everett, speaking on behalf of the Government, trying to encourage the Opposition to do just that, to reject these measures. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition has indicated that it is not going to vote against these measures although it certainly is opposed to them. The fact that it will not vote against them does not indicate in any way that we are in favour of them. The suggestion by Senator Everett that we should make a request about them is quite specious because there is no room for amendment or requests for amendment of this type of legislation.

These Bills impose a particular tax and one is either for the tax, as is the Government- that is, it wants an increase in taxation of various kinds as set out in the measures, such as the increased tax on beer and cigarettes- or against it. There is no validity in the suggestion that we might make some request for an amendment. The Opposition consistently has taken the view that the Government has the responsibility of deciding how it is going to raise its revenue and how it is going to spend it. We of the Opposition are not going to interfere in individual cases with what the Government decides to do. That is a consistent attitude which we have taken. If we were to take the view that we would vote against a particular tax because we did not like it, that in itself would throw open the whole question of other taxation measures which the Government is introducing and to which we may be equally opposed. Obviously this question of the taxes which will be imposed in a particular Budget is a responsibility of the government of the day when it brings forward that Budget, and it is not in any way the responsibility of the Opposition to say whether certain taxes will be imposed.

Senator Everett:

– The whole Budget is the responsibility of the Government. Traditionally, that has been so for centuries, as you know.

Senator DURACK:

– Yes. It is an all or nothing situation. That is the whole question with regard to any budget.

I wish to speak to 2 of the Bills. The first is the Excise Tariff Bill 1975 which seeks to impose an excise on the production of crude oil. It amounts to $2 a barrel. It virtually doubles the price of crude oil to the Australian refineries. The second Bill is the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill which seeks to impose, for the first time, a levy on the export of coal. It has been the major subject of debate in this chamber today. Before I deal with that Bill I want to say a few words about the imposition of the excise on the production of crude oil. It is a surprising imposition by the Government because for the last year or more Mr Connor in particular, but the Government generally, has been indicating opposition to any increase in the price of crude oil charged by the companies which have pioneered the search for oil in Bass Strait, on Barrow Island and in other parts of Australia. They have spent millions of dollars in exploration and development. Some of it was spent many years ago.

The price that those companies were getting for the oil until last week was fixed in 1967 or thereabouts. It might have been a year or two later. The price that they were getting was geared to an entirely different state of prices in the community generally. Each time it has been suggested that there be an increase in that price to compensate the companies for increases in the costs that they have incurred over these years, and to give them added revenue to expand their development and their exploration for new oil and gas reserves in Australia, the Government has taken a very firm attitude that the companies would not be given any increase because it would result in increases in the price of petrol to the Australian consumer. A week or two ago that old agreement expired, and the Government has entered into a new agreement with the oil companies under which the existing producers get a very minute increase in the price of crude oil. The Government, which has expressed such tender regard for the Australian consumer over this issue, has cheerfully imposed in this Bill a tax which has meant not only a doubling of the price of crude oil to the Australian refineries but has resulted indirectly in an increase in the price of petrol to the Australian consumer of 6c or 7c a gallon.

According to the Government, it is not good enough for the consumer to pay a little extra for his petrol to provide funds for further exploration and development of Australian oil and gas resources, but it is good enough for the Government to impose a tax which results in a considerable increase in the price of petrol, simply to expand the revenues of the Government. It proposes to raise $280m by this tax this year. Not lc of that increased tax is being spent on further exploration for oil or gas on-shore or off-shore of this nation. I would have thought that the imposition of some increased tax to encourage or develop exploration for oil or gas would have been justified. This Government is taking a completely negative or do not care attitude to this subject.

Senator Wright:

– How does the $2 compare with the price actually received by the producers?

Senator DURACK:

– Under the new agreement the Bass Strait producer receives $2.33 a barrel. The imposition is $2 a barrel. I am saying that it is effectively doubling the price that the oil refineries pay to the producer.

The situation as far as Australia’s future supplies of oil are concerned is becoming more and more critical. It is due directly to the policies or lack of policies of the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, whom Senator Everett regards as having some very large stature in the Australian community. Under Mr Connor’s regime as Minister there has been a tremendous fall in exploration for oil throughout Australia. For instance, in 1970 121 exploration wells were drilled. In 1973, the first year of the Connor regime and of this Government’s regime, the number of wells drilled fell to 67. In 1974 it fell to 55. In the first 6 months of the present financial year only 14 wells have been drilled in Australia. I am surprised that Senator Everett, who has such high regard for Mr Connor and who is in the chamber, does not seem to be taking any interest in these figures. I would have thought that they were the most severe reflection upon the qualifications of Mr Connor and upon his ability to continue in his present position.

The critical state of affairs as far as oil exploration in Australia is concerned must be looked at in the light of our reserves. At the present rate of usage, our existing reserves will last for only about 7 years. During that period there will be a steady fall in the rate of utilisation of Australian reserves of crude oil because by 1980, the estimates are, we will probably have only about 40 per cent self-sufficiency. By 1982 that will be reduced further to about 30 per cent. Within 5 to 7 years we will have to import, at steadily increasing prices, about 60 per cent or 70 per cent of our crude oil requirements. By 1982, it is estimated, our imports of oil will be costing $2,000m at present prices. During that period of a few years we have seen the performance of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and we must surely assume that during the next few years the price will go up considerably. At a meeting only last week of the OPEC countries they again increased their price by 10 per cent. We know that the policy of the OPEC countries has had a dramatic effect on the whole world economy in the last year or more and we must expect that they will continue this policy and that Australia within 5 years will be directly and severely suffering from a lack of exploration for and development of crude oil.

As I have shown from the figures which I have cited, that is a direct result of the policy of this Government and the policy that Mr Connor has pursued. He did not seek to give the slightest encouragement- he withdrew any encouragements there were- to private investment in the exploration for and development of crude oil. He had a policy for the establishment of a government authority, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, which he claimed would then take over and provide the necessary exploration for and development of oil resources. Although we know the sad history of that exercise- Mr Connor may well seek to blame the Opposition, the High Court or anybody else for the failure of that organisation to get off the ground- the fact is that in the Budget last year when that authority was established by law and before it was struck down by the High Court, the government of the day had not provided it with one cent for the exploration for and the development of crude oil. So the claims that the Government has made that that was its policy and was the way in which oil would be found in Australia have proved to be a complete charade because not one cent has been provided to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority for the exploration for oil and in no program of that authority was there any provision for exploration for oil.

Although the Government by this tax is recovering $2 80m, not one cent of that money has been directed in any shape or form towards exploration for or development of our crude oil resources. As I have shown, we are now facing the terribly serious situation that within a few years our present self-sufficiency, which is 70 per cent, will be completely reversed and we will be importing at least 70 per cent of our crude oil requirements.

Senator Wright:

– What do you say the cost will be?

Senator DURACK:

– On the estimate of present prices the cost will be a $2,000 billion drain on our export earnings.

I wish now to turn to the other tax which is the subject of this debate; that is, the levy on coal exports. Under the form of taxation contained in this Bill there will be a levy on the export of high quality coking coal. The levy in respect of that coal will be $6 a tonne and in respect of steaming coal it will be $2 a tonne. Many anomalies have been revealed in regard to this tax. I do not propose to go over the ground again in this debate this afternoon except to note that the Government, having introduced this tax in its Budget only a few weeks ago, has now found that the effect of the tax on some of the producers of steaming coal is that they will go bankrupt. I understand that an amendment will be proposed. I do not know whether it will be proposed in the course of the Committee stage today, but it is an extraordinary revelation of the way that this Government operates that it will bring in a tax- this is not the first time we have seen this happen; I think it has happened with every Budget this Government has brought inwhich has been unrealistic and has had such serious ramifications that it has had to be withdrawn or amended in some way.

This tax is another example of the type of don’t care’ attitude to taxation. The Government thinks up something that sounds good, particularly if it is going to get at some foreignowned company that it thinks is making windfall profits or giant profits, which I think was Senator Everettt’s phrase, and then it says: ‘We will kick a head that we can see’. It does not give a damn as to what will happen and who will be hurt in the process. That is just what has happened with this levy. The tax having been imposed, some modification will have to be proposed. The fact is that the major aspect of this taxation will remain and its is estimated to collect $120m for the Government in this financial year. That is what Mr Hayden said in his Budget Speech.

Senator Everett and other speakers on behalf of the Government say that that is a jolly good thing, that Utah Corporation and other multinational companies are ripping off and raking off giant profits and it is good that we are going to get $ 120m out of them for the Australian people. But that is not the case at all. I refer to the speech of Mr Connor who was a little defensive when he was dealing with this matter in another place. In order to minimise- I think that was the objectthe effects of the tax because they were having rather serious consequences on a number of people, he pointed out a very clear fact which seems to have escaped the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. Mr Connor said:

In the lodgment of their company tax returns coal exporting companies will be claiming that-

That is the levy- as a permissable tax deduction. The actual yield to the Australian Government and through it to the Australian people will be an estimated $69m.

This tax which is going to have very serious ramifications for a number of people will not return $ 120m, which is the figure in the Budget. I suppose that this is one of the items that the Government has relied on for revenue. But it will, as Mr Connor pointed out, return for the Government only $69m because the levy will be a tax deduction.

The only reason that I refer to this tax is because of the principle that is involved. I believe, and the Opposition believes, that the principle of imposing a levy on the exports of any commodity, particularly as in this case of a mineral, is wrong. Royalties are already imposed by the States upon the production of minerals. The levy that has now been introduced by the Commonwealth Government is a new type of tax altogether. It is an intrusion by the Commonwealth Government into an area and form of taxation of the mining industry that his hitherto been the preserve of the States- royalties. The Government is not only loading further taxation upon the industry but also, by doing so, is muddying the waters between the Commonwealth and State governments as far as the whole principle of taxation is concerned. I believe that that is the first objection that should be made to this tax and why it is so wrong in principle.

The second objection is that it is a tax that is to be imposed regardless of whether the production or the export is profitable. We have seen that the Government has had to amend the tax already; otherwise it would have sent bankrupt several of the marginal producers in the area. It certainly will have very serious effects upon the development plans of other producers. Sure enough there are some producers- Utah is a classic example- who can well afford to pay it. But, as I have said, because the Government is so anxious to hit at the multi-national and profitable companies it has imposed what is a totally wrong tax in principle, a regressive tax, a tax that is to be imposed without regard to the ability to pay and a tax that already has had serious consequences. The third objection that we have to this tax is the fact that it is simply a penalty upon a successful development. It is another of the Government’s disincentives to development and in particular mineral development, particularly development by any overseas company. The companies already have to pay royalties to the States. They are already paying 42.5 per cent income tax to the Commonwealth Government on their profits. The Commonwealth Government has already cut back on all the incentives of any sort that were given to the mining industry so far as taxation is concerned. The Commonwealth Government has now come along, at a time when it is saying that we ought to be doing something to encourage the private sector, and imposed another tax upon it. If that is the way in which the Commonwealth Government thinks that it can ever get this country going again I believe it is gravely mistaken.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-The export levy on coal has caused a great deal of alarm in Queensland, and for good reasons. I am only the second senator from Queensland to speak in this debate. It is unfortunate that the other senator from Queensland who spoke did not shed a little more light on the actual situation in Queensland. He chose to talk about other mining ventures and brought forward nothing that was of any assistance in considering Queensland’s situation under this legislation. Indeed that honourable senator said that this legislation should have gone through without any debate. For a Queensland senator to have said that is quite deplorable. Either he has not been recently in touch with his own State or he has been unaware for some time of the role that the coal mining industry is playing in the development of Queensland.

I do not find that to be altogether surprising. That honourable senator was the State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland at the time when the Australian Labor Party was in power in that State and had a policy that all of Queensland’s development was to be based upon agriculture. Prior to its defeat in 1957 the Labor Government in Queensland declared as its policy that it believed that the future of Queensland lay in primary production. It was only with the election of a Country- Liberal Party Government in 1957 that a deliberate policy of expanding industry and of opening up mining areas so far as was possible was embarked upon. The rest is history.

Not so long ago- some 2 or 3 years ago- the great drought broke in Queensland. There had been a 16-year drought which had very serious effects upon the whole economy of the State. The reason why the Queensland economy did not collapse during the period of the drought was that concurrent with it, tremendous expansion was taking place in the mining industry, notably in the coal mining industry.

The senator from Queensland who spoke earlier in the debate- Senator Keeffe- made a couple of statements which were so false that they must be contradicted. At one stage he said that ‘none of the money from mining came back to Australia’, and in the same breath he changed the word ‘none’ to ‘very little’. He also made the statement that the extra revenue from this levy will be coming from an area which will not hurt the worker’. I suggest to the Senate and I urge upon the Government that this type of policy will have an extraordinarily severe effect upon the worker. The reverse policy whereby mining was encouraged, and encouraged to expand, therefore expanding the development of Queensland, has had a very marked effect on the standard of living of the worker in Queensland.

We have to look a little beyond even the great mining towns that have developed over recent years- the Moranbahs, the Blackwater, the Dysarts- brand new towns- the Mouras and so on. The expansion of the coal mining towns has meant that many other provincial cities and towns in Queensland have had the opportunity for a far faster rate of growth and a far more solidly based growth than they would have had otherwise. Mackay, which is one of the fastest growing centres in Australia, receives no special Federal Government assistance to do so, which is in contrast to other areas. Mackay owes much of its expansion to the development of the coal basin in its hinterland. Rockhampton and Gladstone 2 towns in central Queensland which would have been in severe difficulties by now because of the collapse of the beef industry, which is also important in central Queensland- have seen unprecedented boom days. Gladstonewhich 10 years ago was a sleepy hollow in Queensland, a little town which was decaying and, some said, dying- is now a growing town of about 20 000 people. It is a bustling, vital centre of industry which is intextricably linked with the development of the coal fields in central Queensland and in its hinterland. The whole story of the coal industry is not just how many tons of coal we export and how much profit is made. Another important part of the story that must be told is the effect that the coal industry has on local industries and the effect that the prior input into that development has upon the economies about it.

The problem with this levy, apart from the fact that it sets a precedent for setting export levies on a product which is profitable, is the deterrent effect it will have upon new companies and the limiting effect it will have upon future capital investment in this industry. We hear much criticism of the multi-national companies. Where are all those other companies that the Government wishes to bring in? The plans for Queensland which have been announced, which have been costed in detail but which have now been shelved, would have brought hundreds of millions of dollars into our State in just the pure infrastructure of the towns that would have been constructed. I must take Senator Keeffe to task on his statement about profits leaving Australia. So long as Australian companies are reluctant to develop these areas- not all of them are reluctant; there are some Australian companies as well as international companies involved in these areas- we must choose either to have no development, or limited development, or we must face the fact that the enormous sort of capital investment that is involved deserves some return. Unlike Senator Keeffe, I am not frightened of the word ‘profit’. It has been a great stimulus to the development of this country. I will agree that there are some limits on how far we can allow money to be taken out of the country; but I do not believe that the Government has established that case. It has established that only a minor amount of revenue will accrue to the Government to the benefit of the worker, to whom Senator Keeffe referred, but it has had a salutary effect in deterring further mining expansion in my State, including further projects that were not costed in detail- that did not reach that stage- that we do not know about.

Queensland has an enormous coal basin; it has enormous resources; it has enormous potential for development. It is worth pointing out I think, that the expansion of the coal mining industry, especially in recent years, has been particularly important in Queensland’s development when one considers it alongside the unfortunate decline of the beef industry. The beef industry has been part of the basis of the development of the whole of Queensland. As I have said before in the Senate, Queensland has the most decentralised pattern of development of any State in Australia and we are proud of it. From my visits to many of these smaller mining towns and some of the longer established towns it is my conclusion that there are an increasing number of Australians, and certainly Queenslanders, who wish to live in the smaller community; who do not wish to be forced to live in the capital city; who do not wish to see all industries centred in just a few huge centres; and who want the advantages of the smaller community. The development of mining has enabled this process to continue while some of our agriculture has been in decline.

I should like to mention a couple of figures in this regard. In 1972 for example, the export value of beef from Queensland was $279m. In 1974-75, only 2 years later, it had almost halved-it dropped by $ 133.8m to only $ 146.2 m. That sudden decline has had its effect on decentralisation in Queensland. It has had its effect on our development pattern. Many local government authorities are experiencing difficulties with rate collection, for example. But over the same period we have had a continued input in the mining industry- over a period of some seven or eight years the input on infrastructure alone for towns has been in excess of $500m. It has been that sort of expenditure expansion which has helped expand Queensland and which has stopped any slipping back over the last couple of years when our beef industry has experienced its particular problems.

I think some facts should be stated on this input. I said earlier that not all the companies involved are multi-nationals, although a couple of them are. Some of the actual input into my State must be detailed. Blackwater, which has been built by 3 mining companies- Utah Development Company, the multi-national, Thiess Bros, and Queensland Coal Mining Co. Ltd, a subsidiary of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd- is one of the first towns which has expanded. BHP has put nearly $0.6m into this town in providing water and sewerage for a town which previously had a population of 25 and now has a population in excess of 4000. This company’s share alone of the cost for the town was $2. 1 95m. Recently it spent an extra $.067m. In housing, which is a really crucial area, Queensland Coal Mining has spent $2.668m- it has constructed 136 houses and also provides housing for single employees. Housing alone is an area of which the Government should take note. The problems of the housing industry today are all too apparent. The building of whole towns in Queensland over the last couple of years has required tremendous effort from our construction industry and has surely meant that many hundreds, if not thousands, of Queensland workers are still in jobs in that industry who would have been thrown out of work had it not been for the input of that capital which the Government finds so distasteful.

It has been the policy of the Queensland Government that, when mining companies go in, take up a lease and start expanding an area, they are required to make heavy investments into the further infrastructure associated with the whole town and the whole industry. In Blackwater, Queensland Coal Mining has had to spend $. 1 97m on roads. That expenditure is common to all mining companies which go into an area. Further expenditure and further types of development with a far ranging effect on other industries involve, of course, the development of ports and railways, and a number of companies have had that responsibility.

Thiess Peabody Mitsui, which employs 1000 men at Moura, a town very close to Biloela and which has had an effect on the Biloela economy, spent a total of $.721m on infrastructure $.077m on power and water and $0,382 m on the town itself. The company’s contribution in 1974 towards the development of railways and ports, which are of benefit to all Queenslanders and all industries, was $0.262m. This is quite apart from money that it spent in developing its own mines. I am afraid, Mr Acting Deputy President, that in the time available to me I was not able to get the information on what that company, Thiess Peabody Mitsui, has spent on Blackwater but it has made a similar contribution to that of Queensland Coal Mining and Utah.

Then we come to Utah, the bete noire of our Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). Utah has played a major role in the development of Queensland and I just wish that more of its critics would go to Queensland and see what Utah has done. It has built 2 modern towns completely from scratch- Moranbah and Dysart. Dysart is still in a stage of rapid expansion- it has not reached its limit of expansion by any means. Moranbah, which is still expanding, but at a slower rate than Dysart, is a completely new town, started only 5 years ago. Where there was nobody living, there are now almost 4000 people. Moranbah is a model town that needs to be seen- it is a model of planning in Australia into which Utah has poured huge sums of money. Utah has not spared expense on the environment, that issue which concerns Senator Keeffe so much in relation to the mining industry. It is one of the most pleasant towns that you will ever see. A community centre has been provided, provision has been made for church facilities, a swimming pool, sporting grounds, generous park grounds, good roads and lighting. It is a town where people are happy to live, so long as they are also allowed to work.

When Senator Keeffe says that the extra revenue is coming from an area that will not hurt the worker, he should take into account that the development of towns like Moranbah has given the Queensland worker a way of life that many thousands of them obviously desire. Although it is a virtually brand new town it does not show the same degree of social instability that new mining towns normally do. From the people I have talked to there- mainly young family people- it is quite clear that they want to stay in Moranbah. They are not there to make their fast buck and then move on to somewhere else. There is more money than they can spend in

Moranbah, one of the reasons being that for the very pleasant homes that are provided for them by Utah they spend only $5 a week in rent compared with an average weekly wage last year of $264. A lot of money is available to be spent in Moranbah by the workers and a lot of money is being spent by those workers in other places. The development of this area has enabled so many of those workers, as they so freely state, to buy seaside homes near Mackay on the coast, to plan for retirement, to have investments, and to become the little capitalists that this Government hates to see the worker become.

Dysart, which commenced occupation only last year, now has a permanent population of 1 500 and that population will expand rapidly. It is another town which is linked up very closely with the development of Mackay. In building and expanding these towns, local expertise and skills have been used, lt has been of benefit to industry in Mackay that its planners, its architects, its designers, as well as its retailers, have been involved in the development of these towns. As I said before, Blackwater- a town which had a population of only 25 some eight or nine years ago- now has a population in excess of 4000. The total population of the MoranbahDysart region- the area with which Utah has been involved- has increased from 300 to 8000. There are real benefits to Queensland in terms of decentralisation just in that region. There are also of course, the many flow-on benefits to other towns which are part of our decentralisation pattern. I mentioned before that the average weekly wage paid by the Utah Development Co. last year was $264. lt is projected that in 1975-76 miners will be earning in the income range of $1 1,000 to $21,000 per annum. It is difficult to estimate the figure because one is not sure just how high wages will go.

Utah has spent $240m on the infrastructure of these towns which is 55 per cent of its total investment. It has not been just a case of buying the huge draglines and bringing them in, or of buying the massive equipment which is involved and bringing that in- the company has put a very high and extremely fair proportion of its investment into the actual life style of its employees and provided a good quality life for them. The company has spent $20m on power and water and $20m on its towns. As I said before, the company receives a rental of only $5 per house per week. On railways and ports it has spent $200m. It has developed Hay Point, a port a little to the south of Mackay. It is Utah’s total responsibility. Utah pays all the running costs and it staffs the port. There is absolutely no liability on any other authority to maintain that port. That is just a little of the contribution which mining has made in Queensland.

There is a very real fear in the Queensland mining industry that only the real giants will survive. There is a fear of what is in store. We cannot get the sort of investment we need either from within Australia or without if the Government pursues a policy of bashing mining companies. Not only have overseas companies been affected but also Australian companies. The rationale of this sort of policy completely escapes me. We are told that overseas companies are taking money out of Australia and that they should be stopped. Apparently it has not occurred to the Government that this affects the attitude of the Australian investor and of the Australian company presently here which would like to expand its activities. It does not occur to the Government that people in Australia are as likely to bc affected as are people overseas by this sort of policy and to be as strongly dissuaded.

We will not vote against the Bills. This is the Government’s policy and these are the Government’s Bills. So be it on the Government’s head. In particular, as to the effect which we will see in Queensland, be that also on the Government’s head. Let us have no more of the nonsense which was advanced not very successfully by the Australian Labor Party senator from Queensland. Let us have no more of these bland criticisms which do not look at the facts. Personally, I am a little bit weary of them, although I am not out of patience with them yet. It is fashionable to be Queensland bashers, apparently, these days, and to make all manner of ill-informed comments which have nothing to do with the facts.

Senator Sheil:

– Particularly from the other Queensland senator. He is the biggest Queensland basher in the business.

Senator MARTIN:

– Yes. The activities of that particular Queensland senator in advancing his State’s cause are not notable. We want a government which will look fairly at the development of all Australia. I am not in a position to list the relative merits or effects of this legislation on Queensland as against New South Wales but. it distresses me a little to hear an honourable senator from Tasmania pontificating on the Queensland industry and demonstrating throughout his speech that he has no knowledge of the details of the industry there. In fact, he just does not care.

Senator Button:

– Australian industry, not Queensland industry.

Senator MARTIN:

– I am talking about the Queensland section of the industry. One must look at it that way. The fact is that the Queensland Government has put a great deal of effort into the development of the mining industry in Queensland. It has put certain very hard conditions and restrictions on mining and it has demanded an input from the mining industry in terms of ports, roads and railways which also benefit many other industries in Queensland. The Queensland situation has been a special area of development; it can be looked at in those terms.

However, as I was saying, I am not in a position to assess the relative effects which this legislation will have on Queensland versus New South Wales or any other area. Given the fact that we hear so much about the lack of business confidence and about the state of uncertainty in the mining industry, it is a matter of great surprise to me that the Government could produce a policy as insane as this. There has been no real justification given for it, not even in money terms. There has been no proof that it is needed. There has been nothing but a greedy grab at somebody else’s cake, without any attempt at justice or even rationalisation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– In reply- We are dealing with the Excise Tariff Bill, the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill, and the Customs Bill (No. 2). The Excise Tariff Bill, as has been stated, relates to tariff increases on such things as tobacco and liquor. As to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill and the Customs Bill (No. 2), one seeks to put a levy on coal and the other provides for the method of collecting that levy. By agreement with the Opposition the 3 Bills were taken in a cognate second reading debate. It was at the end of Senator Carrick ‘s address that we discovered that the Opposition was not opposing any of the 3 Bills or the proposed amendments which we seek to make to the 3 Bills. As there was no opposition, one would have thought that there would have been very little discussion and possibly very little to reply to. But the debate was still used as a vehicle for propaganda. While the speakers said they were opposed to the legislation, obviously they will not vote against it. I do not want to labour the matter but because of what has been said I think there is a need to reply to some of the comments, although Senator Keeffe and Senator Everett might have replied to some points.

In relation to the first Bill, that is the Excise Tariff Bill, we have seen the time taken up mostly by Senator Baume and Senator Scott. They are very concerned about the alcoholism and drug addiction which is going on in Australia and, I think, justifiably concerned. I support their claim that insufficient is being done by way of remedial action such as by education. But more is being done at this time than has ever done before in the history of Australia. It is being done through education, through rehabilitation centres, by the setting up of detoxification centres, and through publicity and some restrictions on smoking advertisements. More is going on today than has ever gone on previously. It is well to say that insufficient is being done. I agree with that. But if this Government is remiss in that it cannot meet the requirements of society in rectifying those evils, what condemnation must previous government have deserved. Senator Baume has pointed out that some $3 74m was collected in tax on drugs of some description and he asked whether the Government should be collecting that tax if it is not paying it back. I say that more is being done today than was done previously. The tax today is not as high as it was previously on such things as liquor, etc. Figures show that in 1 965 the cost of a 10-ounce glass of beer purchased in Sydney, 51.15 per cent was taxation. Under the 1975 Budget, on a 10-ounce glass of beer bought in Sydney, only 37.33 per cent goes into taxation.

Senator Missen:

– That is by virtue of inflation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No. It is not as great a taxation proportion of the amount the customer is paying when compared with 1965. Therefore the present Government deserves no condemnation because of allegedly high taxation. The Government in this financial position is faced with the situation that it has to get finance to administer the country. There has been a readjustment of the taxation benefits to some income earners so some effort has to be made to get that taxation from those commodities whose consumption it is not desired to encourage and from other areas where taxation can be imposed without doing any damage to industry.

That brings me to the question of coal. Senator Martin rose obviously with the firm intention of condemning the Queensland Labor senator who spoke previously. It is a quite acceptable form of warfare between opposing senators from the same State when one endeavours to denigrate the other, and Senator Martin had the privilege of following Senator Keeffe, who also is a Queensland senator. While we can forgive her for that, I also congratulate her on making a very fine contribution to the debate this afternoon. However, she does not seem to recognise or appreciate fully what this Government has done for Queensland. She painted a picture of a State relying on primary industry. Queensland has natural resources in the ground and it is well endowed with minerals, but nothing was done about them until the State had 14 years of drought, and then the State had to turn from primary industry and develop its mineral resources. Today there are companies that can build townships, roads, accommodation in the towns and pay a high salary to their workers, and all that is from the mineral resources that this Australian Government has developed and for which it has insisted on comparable world prices. That has been done by the Australian Government for Queensland, despite the neglect of the Queensland Government, which never sought to benefit from the State’s mineral resources until it was forced into doing something because of drought conditions. 1 am in a difficult position as the Minister responsible for these Bills, which will have to be administered by the Department of Police and Customs. There has been discussion on the benefits of coal, and Senator Carrick ‘s speech indicated that either he has a great knowledge of and insight into the coal industry or whoever briefed him has that knowledge, a knowledge which is perhaps comparable to that of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). If the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy were here he would be able to say more about the coal industry than I can. As the Minister responsible merely for the tax collecting authority, I am not conversant with the industry or with how the method of raising a tax on coal should be judged.

The question has been raised of whether the Government should have adopted the carbon dry ash system or the free swelling index as a means of ascertaining the duty. In a budgetary context it was decided to place a levy of $6 a tonne on coal which on world markets is bringing about US$50 or US$50.50 per tonne and a levy of some $2 on lower value coal which is bringing some US$37 per tonne on world markets. While the Department was of the opinion that the industry generally was well able to afford the levy, according to figures which I shall give, it came to the knowledge of the Department that there were a few colliers who could not afford to pay that amount. An amendment has been proposed by the Government and was announced on 1 1 September by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). In reply to a question from Mr O ‘Keefe the Minister stated:

There could be problems with certain small steaming coal producers. I have already met representatives of four of those companies and have received details of their cost structure and contracts and they are currently being examined.

As a result of that examination agreement has been reached that the Government will move an amendment for the purpose of exempting those companies which cannot afford to pay the levy.

When considering what has been done in this industry and the prices that have been obtained, it is all very well to say that this Government did not obtain those prices, that they simply followed American prices- a statement which Senator Everett disputes- but the fact is that Australia was not getting those prices until the Minister for Minerals and Energy insisted on raising the price in overseas contracts. He claimed that Australian coal was being sold overseas on the cheap. The Minister insisted on the increased prices which have resulted in profits to the mining companies, allowing them to achieve the developments that they have in the isolated towns of Queensland. In the last 12 months profits in the industry have trebled. The total profit of the coal mining industry last year was $544m, as against $ 1 66m for the previous year. Who could say that the Government has been neglectful or inconsiderate when it has done that for the coal mining industry?

Senator Wright:

– Is that net profit?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is the net profit of the coal mining industry. From that amount of $544m the companies are being asked, in view of the state of the economy at the present time, to pay to the Commonwealth in the community interest a tax of what has been stated by Mr Connor to be $ 120m as some return for the mineral wealth that the companies have discovered and developed and from which they are getting a handsome profit at the present time. It has been said that $120m will not be paid into the Treasury, although $120m will be collected in this tax. There will be some reduction in what the companies will be paying in company tax, which will be 42Vb per cent on next year’s production, and they will therefore be paying to the Government only $69m of the $ 120m after allowance is made for the lower company tax. There will be a further reduction of some $4m as a result of the amendment relating to low steaming coal. That still leaves some $380m profit for the coal industry in Australia. So it cannot be said that there has been an attempt to impoverish the industry or that the companies are unable to pay.

Senator Durack:

– That profit would be subject to the ordinary company income tax. They have to pay tax on that $380m.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is right, they have got to pay tax on it, but I am saying that the additional payment of $ 120m still leaves them a profit of $380m. I am not sure whether that is before or after tax. Of course, the industry is only just developing; the demand for coal is becoming greater. No one could say that this is an unreasonable tax. When deductions for company tax have been made, the actual payment to the Government will be only $3.45 and not $6.

Senator Webster:

– What was that calculation?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The levy of $2 will be reduced to $1.1 5.

Senator Webster:

– What was the calculation that had reference to taxation? You said that they will pay only $3.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, I said that the $6, which is a tax on coal, represents an additional cost to the company of $3.45 because it will be taken as an allowable expenditure for the purpose of calculation of company tax.

Senator Webster:

– You are speaking of every profitable company?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Of course this is an average. It depends on the profits of the company; it could be a lesser amount in some cases and a greater amount in others. Utah- we have heard about its development today- exports 13’/2 million tonnes of coal out of a total production of some 30 30½ million tonnes. That company’s anticipated profit next year is $ 160m, which is bigger than that anticipated by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and by any other company in Australia. Surely no one can say that the imposition of this levy will impoverish the industry.

Senator Carrick:

– Tell us about the less profitable industries. Do not tell us about the highest profitable industries.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– These companies are being asked to pay in a levy a proportion of the profits that they produce. This year they are selling their products at a price which is 53 per cent higher than that at which they sold their products last year. Out of $55 a tonne which these companies will receive for their coal they are being asked to pay $6 a tonne to the Government which, in effect, will be reduced to $3.45 a tonne after company taxation is taken into account. Out of an increased price of $37 a tonne which these companies will receive for other quality coal they are being asked to pay $2 a tonne to the Government which, after company taxation is taken into account, will be reduced to $ 1. 1 5 a tonne.

Much has been said about the future energy resources of the world and about the need for research into Australian coal products and what better use can be made of them. I agree with that.

It is not that no research is being done at present. The Government is currently examining methods for the conversion of coal to liquid fuel. Research is going on in the coal industry. Whether it is sufficient or not I do not know. All I say is that this levy is one of the budgetary measures of the Government. It is a tax which is being imposed on an industry that can afford it. It is an industry that this Government has developed. It is an industry which, as a result of this Government’s activities, is wealthy today, and we hope that with our assistance the industry will go much further in the future. I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) gave the Senate some indication of the percentages of duty that will be applicable to a 10 oz. glass of beer. I wonder whether he could put on record the number of cents which represent the duty levied on a glass of beer. I think in giving the percentages of duty the Minister may have intentionally given one side of the picture. While he is obtaining those figures I ask him to give the Committee an assurance that under this Bill there is no possibility of unemployment being created by the Government’s action and that those industries which are affected by this high government impost will not find that they are disadvantaged to the extent that unemployment may increase in the community.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– My adviser is trying to find those figures for me at present. Of course, no Minister can give a definite assurance that there will be no unemployment or that no person will be disadvantaged. Despite the campaigns against tobacco smoking, the consumption of tobacco is increasing. On present sales, it would appear that no matter what the cost of tobacco is no additional unemployment will be created in that industry. Technological changes and other things could bring about unemployment. If the imposition of additional duty on beer and tobacco meant that beer consumption and cigarette smoking were cut by half, whatever the consequence in employment in those industries, would anyone here be much concerned about it? I would hope not. Beer and cigarettes are two of the things on which if there is a reduction in consumption it does not worry us, even if that reduction in consumption results in unemployment. Employment opportunities would have to be found in another area.

I have been given figures about the duty on a glass of beer. In 1965 a 10 oz glass of beer cost 14.2c in Sydney, and the duty on it was 7. 1 lc. In 1975 a 1 0 oz glass of beer costs 30c, and the duty on it is 1 1.2c. As I said previously, the duty on a glass of beer was more than 50 per cent in 1965, and it is about 38 per cent at present.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-There is a point of policy that I would put to the Minister. Constituents in my State have suggested to me that this Government’s policy in relation to indirect taxation was clearly expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) as being totally opposed to indirect taxation. I understand that he generally described that type of tax as a charge against the ordinary working man. He said that it was spread over the whole community and it was unjust in its application. The Minister mentioned that a tax of some $360m is now being levied on those ordinary working men who drink or smoke or enjoy those normal pleasures which I have heard many members of the Minister’s Party attack previously. In 1971 the Prime Minister, when referring to indirect taxes which the former Government had introduced, said:

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 everything -and that is precisely the result this Budget will inflict.

At that time Mr Whitlam also 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.

I raise this matter because Mr Crean, as Treasurer, attacked this type of financing. In November 197 1, in a debate on the Excise Tariff Bill, he said:

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.

I ask the Minister: Does this Government now support indirect taxation as a basis of taxation, and does it agree that the charges that are imposed under this Bill must inevitably lead to an escalation in costs of goods in the community?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that we went through a second reading debate in which Senator Webster never sought to participate.

Senator Baume:

– He did. He led the debate.

Senator Webster:

– I think that you may have been in a back room when it occurred.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I heard Senator Keeffe say that Senator Webster spoke on the first reading of the Bill.

Senator Webster:

– It is a very important matter, Mr Minister. The community is up in arms about it.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The question is: If the Government has changed its policy and now believes in all forms of indirect taxation, how does it affect this Bill? The Government has introduced this Bill because it believes in it. If we did not believe in it, why should we introduce such legislation? The Opposition believes that the Government’s total policy is determined by what is concerned in this legislation. The Opposition makes up its own mind about its interpretation of Government policy. We have a Bill before the Senate to impose indirect taxation. Because the Government has done this by this Bill, the Opposition believes that it is the Government’s policy in general. I do not know whether it has ever been said that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is totally opposed to all indirect taxation. I do not think he has ever said that. I think in 1971, and on other occasions, he has opposed indirect taxation. Possibly everyone is aware that the most equitable form of taxation is that which is directly related to the income received. The position has been that in present economic circumstances our taxation measures are used- I think they always should be used- to achieve a certain effect. Income from taxation contributes to Consolidated Revenue. Our taxation measures can be used, indirectly, to direct consumption of certain commodities or to encourage the sale of them. Obviously, if indirect taxes are imposed on commodities such as beer and cigarettes, it is for the purpose of discouraging their use. Those who continue to drink beer and smoke cigarettes will incur increased costs. We hope that the worker will not experience such increased costs. It is hoped that the worker, as an alternative, will reduce his consumption of those items. It does not follow necessarily that the worker will incur these increased charges. He will do so only if he consumes as much beer or smokes as many cigarettes as he did previously.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 856

CUSTOMS TARIFF (COAL EXPORT DUTY) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 September, on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I move:

The relevant part of clause 5 reads:

  1. Subject to sub-section (2), a duty of Customs is imposed on coal exported from Australia after the time specified in section 2.
Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise to seek from the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) an explanation of the application of these amendments. I have listened to the debate on the second reading of the Bill and certain formulae have been referred to- some reliably and some unreliably- which have been suggested as bases for the proper imposition of this tax. But as I understood the drift of the debate it related, in the main, to New South Wales steaming coal. Am I right in that? Therefore, I want to know whether the amendments are designed to exempt the whole or part, and if so what part, of the coal production of the mines in New South Wales that were referred to so clearly and strongly, I thought, by Senator Baume and Senator Carrick as not being able to afford this sort of levy. The Minister, in explaining the purpose of the amendments, said that they were designed to relieve from the tax those companieshaving referred to 4 companies which had undergone examination by the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor. Surely the amendments are not directed to just 4 unspecified companies. I take it that they are directed to the whole industry in New South Wales. If not, will the Minister please explain in what way they apply to the coal produced from the mines of New South Wales?

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– We are dealing with the Customs Tariff(Coal Export Duty) Bill 1975. This Bill is a request Bill so far as the Senate is concerned. It is interesting to note that the basis of this levy formed part of the Budget for the 1 975-76 year. So far as my investigation has gone, there is not one instance in which a government having brought in a levy such as this, having passed through the House of Representatives the Bill to impose the levy, has brought it into the Senate and has then sought to eliminate entirely a part of the levy which was proposed. Again, I say that it was on 1 9 August that the Government, apparently after due considerationconsideration by that man of great strength, as Senator Everett described the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor)decided that this method of taxation was appropriate to this particular industry.

It is, I believe, very critical to the Government’s Budget that it should decide to eliminate part of the taxation which it had put down in its Budget and which it intended to impose. I think it does this Government no credit that its considerations relating to this particularly important industry have to be reversed entirely within a month of laying down its Budget proposals. Opposition senators are delighted with the general view that has been conveyed to us, that is, that the imposition contained in clause 6 (b) is to be eliminated. That is the view that had been conveyed to the Opposition. Apparently the rate of $6 per tonne was to remain in the case of high quality coking coal but, as stated in clause 6(b), in the case of coal other than quality coking coal a charge of $2 per tonne was to be levied.

Senator Wright:

– The statement was that the whole of that $2 levy was to be removed.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It was to be removed. I think the point raised by Senator Wright is very appropriate. The wording of the amendment moved by the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) in my view in no way conveys that impression to the Senate. Prior to Senator Wright speaking I was going to ask the Minister for a very thorough explanation of what the wording of the amendment means. It appears to me that the Minister is not eliminating the levy of $2 a tonne.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, I am not.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is not the view you conveyed to the Senate. If that is not the situation I ask the Minister to explain very fully to the Senate who will be affected and who will not be affected. I ask him to explain to us the areas from which the coal referred to in the criterion set out in his amendment will come. In which areas are those mines? Can he inform the Senate which mines will still be taxed at the rate of $2 per tonne. If he can cite those mines to us we will be able to convey that information and at least make our own inquiries about what will be the incidence of unemployment created in those areas.

It cannot be said that the Minister’s Government conveys one tittle of confidence. Some 5 or 6 weeks ago the Government introduced in the Senate certain taxation proposals. I imagine that Ministers of high standing with a responsibility towards particular industries in this country considered all those factors that the Minister laid down in his response to the second reading debate this afternoon. The Minister suggested that this levy is being imposed on industries that can well afford to pay it. I ask the Minister to state to the Senate what consideration he gave to the mining companies which are not as profitable as the one he picked out and referred to as being likely to make $ 1 60m in the ensuing year.

I ask the Minister whether he can make the Senate confident that what he is doing is appropriate and that it will not create unemployment in any mining town in Australia. I ask him to say that he has now looked thoroughly at this matter and that in areas where this tax is imposed it will be quite appropriate, that the companies concerned are quite profitable and that they will continue their interest in research and look towards expansion in their industry. I ask him to say that no unemployment will occur. I imagine that the Minister’s concern is the same as that of the Opposition, that is that unemployment should not be created. The Minister must admit that it was a senator from the Opposition side who directed his attention to the fact that in applying this $2 per tonne tax in globo the Government was going to bring disaster to many mining areas. One area in which unemployment would reach one of the highest levels is the area represented by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) himself.

It should not be the job of the Opposition to have to alert Ministers to the fact that actions of the Government are going to create unemployment. Since the Government first came to office the Opposition has been attempting to alert it to the fact that its policies in so many areas were going to create unemployment. I refer to matters such as the 25 per cent cut across the board in tariffs. That was a decision taken in haste and one which the Government now must repent, whether it be at its leisure or not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! I think it would be appreciated if the honourable senator could specifically relate his remarks to the requests which are before the Committee.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Bill is before the Committee and we are debating the reason why the Government wishes to eliminate one part of its Bill. This Bill was considered by it some 5 or 6 weeks ago and it will have the effect of creating unemployment. The Government agrees that it will have this effect and it does not wish to see that result. I seek an assurance from the Government that it has not only looked at the incidence of tax imposed by this Bill on the very profitable sectors of the coal mining industry but that it has also looked at some of the minor companies where we believe unemployment is likely to occur. I ask the Minister for some assurance that the Bill has received proper consideration. I hope he will explain in detail the wording of this amendment which the Opposition has been told will eliminate the $2 levy.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I take it that the question asked by Senator Webster is the same as that asked by Senator Wright. Senator Wright asked his question in about 3 seconds while Senator Webster took about 10 minutes. This might be an exercise in efficiency and capability.

Senator Webster:

– Can you answer it in 3 minutes or will you take 10 minutes?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If the honourable senator would like a full explanation -

Senator Webster:

– I would like a full explanation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will not go into any condemnation of the Opposition. I noted the results of Senator Webster’s deep thinking about something that he says does the Government no good. Simply because the Senate proceedings arc being broadcast he spent 10 minutes criticising the Government but said nothing about the question before us. I will give him the benefit and not reply and condemn the Opposition. I will do so in the interests of Senator Wright who had a genuine desire to get some information on this question. I only owe him a full answer to the question. If honourable senators look at the Bill they will find that clause 4 contains certain definitions. It says: coal’ does not include brown coal: high quality coking coal’ means coal other than coal which a Collector is satisfied is coal the carbon content in which, if that content were determined by ultimate analysis on a dry ash free basis, would be less than 85 per cent.

The second part of that definition refers to high quality coking coal. If honourable senators turn over the Bill they will find that the rate of duty of customs imposed by this Bill is as follows:

  1. in the case of high quality coking coal- $6.00 per tonne; and
  2. in the case of coal other than high quality coking coal- $2.00 per tonne.

Therefore there is a definition and there are to be 2 rates of tax on coal. The duty on high quality coking coal is to be $6 per tonne and on other coal it is to be $2 per tonne. Certain considerations arose since that clause was included in the Bill. The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, said in the House of Representatives on 1 1 September:

There could be problems for certain small steaming coal producers. I have already met representatives of four of those companies and have received details of their cost structure and contracts and they are currently being examined.

Four companies would be in distress if all coal were taxed at either $6 per tonne or $2 per tonne. Therefore in this amendment it is proposed that there will be one type of coal, as defined in the amendment, which will bear no tax. There will be 3 types of coal. The high quality coking coal will be taxed at $6 per tonne. Coal that is not high quality coking coal but also is not within the definition set out in the amendment will be taxed at $2 per tonne. There will be no tax on coal falling within the definition set out in the amendment. The 3 definitions apply to coal from anywhere. It does not matter whether it is from New South Wales, Queensland or anywhere else. It affects all coal in Australia of the quality specified. At present 4 New South Wales exporters are selling coal of the type that comes within the definition in the amendment.

Senator Baume:

– What are the names of the companies?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-They are at Lithgow and Newcastle. The companies which are exempted from the $2 a tonne are the only companies paying $2 which made representations.

The others did not presumably because they felt they were in no trouble. Any company which has coal which comes within the definition will be exempt. I will try to get for Senator Baume the names of the companies.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-While that answer is being obtained, will the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) advise me whether any duty has been collected? It was payable from 19 August. If any duty has been collected, will there be any refunds to those companies which have paid? Would he indicate the amount? He could supply that information later, if it is the wish of the Committee that the sitting be suspended.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I can give the answer to Senator Webster now. Duty has been collected in a number of cases. The refunds will be made, if this request is passed. I have the names of the companies for Senator Baume. The companies at Newcastle are R. W. Miller and Co. Pty Ltd and Gollin and Co. Ltd. The companies at Lithgow are Austen and Butta Pty Ltd and Coalex Pty Ltd.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I have only one further question of the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh). I have spoken to him about it previously. Some concern was expressed by Opposition members about the decision being left to the collector. I refer to that part of the request to amend clause .6 which states ‘where a collector is satisfied’. Could the Minister give the Committee an assurance that there is a basis of appeal which we will find in a further amendment which he has not yet moved?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– Clause 4 of the Customs Bill (No. 2) 1 975 is proposed to be amended to provide for application to be made to the Administrator of Trade Appeal or to a tribunal for review of decisions made by a collector in accordance with clause 4 or clause 7 of the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill. The tribunal has the right to set aside the decision and make a decision in substitution for the decision set aside. So there is the right of appeal.

Request agreed to.

Bill agreed to with requests.

Bill reported with requests; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 8 p.m.

page 859

CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 September, on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I propose to move an amendment to clause 4, which reads in part:

Section 133 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections:

Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions of a Collector made for the purposes of the definition of “high quality coking coal” in section 4 of the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975.’.

I move:

This gives the right of appeal and is consequential to the Bill which has just been passed.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) has raised one matter regarding clause 4 of the Bill in which there is allowance for the duty to be paid within such further period as the collector allows. I wonder whether the Minister would explain, for the benefit of those who may note this Bill, exactly what that may indicate. I am not certain whether this provision applies in other Bills, but it would appear that there is a possibility that the collector may allow an individual exporter some time- weeks, days or perhaps even months- before he need pay his duty, or it should be paid prior to export. I ask the Minister to place on record just what is intended by that sub-clause 1.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– While the duty is payable before export, it could well be that the analysis of the grade of coal is not available at the time of export. This sub-clause gives the exporter the opportunity to postpone payment until that analysis has been obtained and to pay at a later date.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I thank the Minister. Does the Minister confirm that the import of the amendment which he has mentioned and which he has now placed before the

Senate gives the right of appeal from a collector’s decision?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– Yes, I can give the honourable senator that assurance. It is provided for in section 7 of the principal Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 859

RAILWAYS AGREEMENT (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 August on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– The last time the Senate discussed this Bill was just prior to the winter recess. I think honourable senators will recall that concurrently the Railways Agreement (South Australia) Bill was being debated by the South Australian House of Assembly. In my speech on that occasion I indicated that the Opposition would support the Bill as it was the constitutional right of any State to request the Federal Government to take over its railway system or any part thereof. However, the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) will recall that at the time I suggested that my colleagues in the State Liberal Party Opposition would be quite justified in having some reservations about handing over the State rural railway system to Canberra. So it was not surprising to me that the Opposition in the South Australian Legislative Council sought to have the matter referred to a select committee. I believe this action was quite proper in the circumstances because the States have witnessed blatant attempts by this Government to weaken their position and to transfer more control to the central Government. So it is no wonder that the Opposition required much more information and guarantees with respect to this proposal.

Although the Premier had no mandate from the people of South Australia to effect a transfer of the rural railways to the Australian Government, he used that request by the Liberal Party Opposition for the reference of the proposal to a select committee, which I believe was a quite logical request, as an excuse to hold a premature election. I have no doubt that he welcomed the excuse because he was embarrassed by the Federal Government in Canberra. The people of South Australia gave him a sound rebuke because there was a considerable swing against Labor on 12 July. The vote throughout the State in favour of the Government was about 47 per cent and on a preferred basis it was less than 50 per cent. No fewer than 2 country seats were gained by the Liberal Party- Millicent and Mount Gambier. I understand from residents in those areas that one of the reasons for the swing there and for the success of the Liberal Party was that the local attitude to the intrusion of the Aus.tralian Government into the rural railway services in those areas was adverse. The same would have applied to Port Pirie which has always been one of the blue-ribbon Labor seats in South Australia.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They have a very good member there- Mr Wallis.

Senator JESSOP:

– The honourable senator misunderstands. Obviously I can excuse him because Mr Wallis is in the Federal Parliament. The seat of Port Pirie has always been a blueribbon Labor seat. Now we find that there is an independent member in place of the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate. Mr Dunstan is now in a Stott situation and has to rely upon the whims and the fancies of his new Speaker to give effect to his legislation. I venture to suggest that the result of the election of 12 July reflected the thoughts of the South Australian people on the matter before the Senate tonight.

In the House of Assembly debate last month the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Tonkin, said that the South Australian Government was selling the State’s asset at a bargain price and pointed out that that will have a general effect on transport in South Australia, particularly road transport. He feels that this will be manifested in increased freight charges and that country people in South Australia will suffer most as a result. Last week I visited various parts of Eyre Peninsula. I went as far as Ceduna. A rumour is current in those parts of the State that after the Australian Government assumes responsibility for the rural railways the people living there will be forced to use that system and will be denied the right to choose private road transport for the carriage of their produce and supplies. It was pointed out to me that this would add considerably to their costs, particularly their costs with respect to the transportation of refrigerated foods. I understand that those transportation costs could treble if they have to use that railway system. I would like a categorical assurance from the Postmaster-General that the freedom of choice as far as transport is concerned will prevail after this railway transfer is effected.

The South Australian Government will receive $10m before the date upon which this Agreement comes into force and the balance will be paid according to the Sixth Schedule on page 1 5 of the Bill. On looking at the debate on this matter in the House of Representatives I noticed that the Honourable Peter Nixon drew attention to the extraordinary interest rates set out for the repayment of the debt to South Australia up to July 2005. Apparently that is because of the variable commencement dates of the loans. I gather that the Australian Government will be taking over existing loans that were raised by the State Government. The Postmaster-General might care to elaborate upon that particular point for the benefit of honourable senators. The total financial commitment of the Australian Government is $ 134m, which is a quite large amount for the Australian taxpayer to find for this project in South Australia.

I turn now to the subject of the administrative changes which will be necessary as a result of this railway amalgamation. I refer to a statement by Mr Charles Jones in South Australia not long ago. In the South Australian News of Wednesday, 20 August, he was reported as having said that South Australia would become the centre of the Federal Government’s proposed national rail system. That, of course, has caused some uncertainty among the people working at Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Peterborough in particular. When I visited Port Augusta recently people were quite concerned that a significant number of Australian National Railways employees would have to move to Adelaide. I expressed the personal view that this would not occur. I feel that, on the contrary, there ought to be a steady expansion of railway activities in Port Augusta as a result of this Agreement.

The Postmaster-General may recall that in my previous speech on this Bill I asked him where the headquarters of the railways would be located. I do not think he answered that question effectively. I suggest that the headquarters ought to be at Port Augusta as it seems to me to be the logical place for the centre of the national rail system. I have noticed that Senator Laucke expressed some concern about the possibility of the downgrading of the various railway workshops that are servicing the railway system in South Australia and that in his reply to a question asked by Senator Laucke on the subject on 3 September the Postmaster-General said:

I do not know of any such proposals. The only matter which arose from the legislation concerning the transfer to the Australian National Railways of the South Australian railway facility, as the honourable senator will remember, was the question which I think had to be considered of the likelihood of the relocation from Melbourne to Adelaide of the headquarters of the Australian National Railways.

I point out to the Postmaster-General that he mentioned in his reply to that question that Adelaide would appear to be likely to become the headquarters. In answering the question the Postmaster-General went on to say:

I have not heard any rumours in relation to the capacity of the workshops. I think it is most unlikely that at present the capacity of any South Australian railway workshop -

The Postmaster-General went on to say that he presumed that Senator Laucke was referring to the Islington facility- will in any way be downgraded because of the new arrangements.

The Postmaster-General went on to say that he thought that Islington would probably in fact achieve a higher percentage of activity resulting from the new arrangements. He then referred to the fact that it was his personal opinion that the Port Augusta workshops are in fact fairly restricted. He went on to say that attempts have been made to reach agreement on upgrading them but that agreement has not yet been reached. He said also that there has been some improvement there. The Postmaster-General went on to say.

So I think that overall there is no possibility that any such downgrading might occur in respect of the capacity of the Adelaide facility. However, I shall direct the honourable senator’s question to Mr Jones -

I do not know whether the Postmaster-General has had an opportunity to clarify that matter.

Senator Bishop:

– Yes.

Senator JESSOP:

– Apparently he has. I look forward to his further comment on that aspect. I am also concerned about the difficulties that might be presented as a result of the confusion with the dichotomy of the 2 railway administrations. On the one hand we have the South Australian metropolitan railway service, which will be owned by the State and administered by the State transport authority with State employees and on the other hand we will have the rural railways, which will be under federal administration with Australian Government employees. It seems to me that this will create some serious difficulties, particularly as the State authority also has to administer the Adelaide Municipal Tramways Trust.

There are other areas of concern that I have in relation to this Bill. I refer to the definition that applies to the particular Bill that we are discussing. I understand that according to the definition railways’ includes all land and so on -

Senator Laucke:

– Wharves.

Senator JESSOP:

– Yes, wharves. The definition includes all lands and, as Senator Laucke has reminded me, wharves and so on that carry railway lines and concludes with the words ‘ matters and things used, associated, or connected with or appurtenant to the railway system vested in the SAR Commissioner*. Of course, it has caused grave concern- I think quite properly- in the farming community in South Australia that this definition could place in jeopardy grain installations on railway property owned by the South Australian Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd of which farmers are shareholders. They fear that their particular investment could be handed over to the Australian Government. It was with that in mind that the Honourable Arthur White, M.L.C., moved to exclude such land from the influence of this Bill. Unfortunately the amendment seeking to exclude such land and other amendments were defeated, regrettably with the support of the Liberal Movement. The value of these installations is currently estimated as being in the vicinity of $80m. The definition also includes wharves, as Senator Laucke has properly reminded me. A typical example of this is the grain exporting wharf at Wallaroo. A railway line runs alongside that particular facility. This raises some questions in the minds of local inhabitants as to whether they will be able to use this wharf as they have in the past or whether some restrictions will be placed upon them by the Australian Government. Some rural councils, of course, are concerned about the substantial rates paid to them by South Australian Cooperative Bulk Handling Ltd. I should like the Postmaster-General to assure me that equivalent ex gratia payments in lieu of rates will be paid to these councils which are dependent to quite an extent upon some of the installations to which I have referred.

Clause 8 of the agreement refers to rates and charges. At the moment there is a favourable rate for the transportation of primary produce in South Australia. It is feared- I think, not without foundation- that this advantage could be lost by the Australian Government assuming control of the rural railways system. That is another matter on which I should like the Postmaster-General to give me his assurance that such favourable rates for transportation will continue. The agreement appears to give authority to the Australian National Railways Commission to introduce new services or to extend present road freight and passenger services, presumably with Australian Government law superseding any State law. Further to this it is feared that private enterprise would be at a competitive disadvantage, as sub-clause (5) of clause 13 of the Agreement frees the Commission from any fees, taxes or charges.I remember that when we last debated this measure in the Senate I asked the Postmaster-General a question about this. I do not think he really gave me any satisfactory answer. When I said ‘competitive disadvantage’ I was referring to the road taxes that are applied in South Australia to private road transporters. If the Commonwealth is going to take over the railway system I want the Postmaster-General ‘s assurance that these road hauliers are not going to be disadvantaged as a result.

In summary, the inhabitants of South Australia are concerned, firstly, about the centralist control from Canberra of all transportrail and road- in that State under this agreement. Clause 10 of this Bill is the operative clause with respect to that matter. Secondly, concern is held by the primary producers of South Australia about the validity of the present agreement and the terms of future agreements involving Cooperative Bulk Handling Ltd installations on railway property. Finally, they are concerned about loss of preferential freight charges now existing and the possibility of closure of some country lines. I should like the PostmasterGeneral’s assurance and comment on these particular matters.

There are one or two points to which I should like to refer as a result of a perusal of the explanatory notes. I quote from page 3 of those notes, under the heading ‘Clause 9- Application of State Laws’:

This clause relates to clause 2(2)(c) of the Agreement and overcomes difficulties created by section 52 of the Constitution concerning the application of State laws to Commonwealth Places.

In the event that a State law purports to have effect in relation to railway land (a Commonwealth Place) after the commencement date but cannot have effect by virtue of section 52 of the Constitution, the law shall have effect pursuant to the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 as amended.

Section 52 of the Constitution gives the Parliament exclusive power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes.

This issue was brought out to me quite forcefully when I recently attended the Northern Local Government Conference in South Australia and the question arose with respect to the application of the South Australian Bushfires Act to railway lines taken over by the Commonwealth- or by the Federal Australian Government- under this particular agreement. I wrote to the Chairman of the Australian National Railways Commission with respect to this matter and he replied to me on 1 5 September in the following terms:

Legal opinion obtained indicates that the Australian National Railways Commission would not be liable for any damage caused to a property by a fire started without any negligence on the part of the Commission or its employees. This is an exception to the normal rules which impose a strict liability where fire escapes from land and does damage. This is because the Commission has statutory authority to use the railway line, under the Australian National Railways Act, for railway purposes.

It is not considered that the Bushfires Act, 1 960 -

That is, in South Australia- applies to the Commission.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What about the Commonwealth railway that crosses the road outside of Port Augusta? That is a clear case of that.

Senator JESSOP:

-That is quite true. But this illustrates some of the confusion. As a matter of fact, Sir Magnus Cormack raises a very interesting matter. I have received a complaint about a fire that occurred in that area only recently- I think in December last year. The person concerned is still negotiating with the Chairman of the Australian National Railways Commission with respect to damages that he believes ought to apply as a result of this particular fire. But Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has illustrated just how confusing it is. The letter from the Chairman of the Australian National Railways Commission goes on to state:

It is not considered that the Bushfires Act 1960 applies to the Commission -

This is what I want the Postmaster-General to consider very carefully- and there is no other provision to assist a party claiming damage (such as section 99 of that Act) which could apply.

Under the Statutory power afforded by the Australian National Railways Act, the Commission’s liability for damage which occurs would not be absolute, but would be dependent upon negligence being proved against it or its servants.

Claims in respect of damage caused by fires which are alleged to have started on the Commission’s land and all available associated information are submitted to the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor’s Office -

This is the operative part of the letter- in the State or Territory concerned, for legal opinion whether the outbreak of fire could be considered to be caused through negligence of the Commission or its employees.

Although the incidence of bushfires alleged to have originated on the Commission’s land has been slight on the occasions when legal opinion has indicated that the Commission (then Commonwealth Railways Commissoner) would be considered liable for fire damage through negligence, compensation has been made to claimants on the basis of fair valuation of damage as assessed by the Australian Taxation Valuer.

That letter was written on only 15 September in response to concern that is felt by the people in South Australia who are associated with local government with respect to the application of State laws touching that agreement.

I quote from page 12 of the explanatory notes, under the heading ‘Clause 13 of the Agreement- - Services Associated with Non-Metropolitan Railways ‘:

This clause relates to Principle 6- set out below.

Services that are incidental or supplementary to or are operated in association with the railways are to be transferred to the Australian Government.

The Commission will also be able to introduce new road freight and passenger services or extend existing services.

In the event the Commission wishes to introduce new road passenger services which would normally require the approval of the Transport Authority, Australia or the Commission will similarly seek approval for the introduction of the service. In the event that the application is refused the matter will be referred to arbitration.

This brings me to the question of the legality of the Agreement. Some legal authorities maintain that the South Australian Government does not have a legally enforceable agreement now and that it will not have one. They say that the Commonwealth cannot be compelled to carry out any of its promises. The authority for this proposition which has been cited by a prominent legal identity in South Australia -

Senator Mulvihill:

– What is his name?

Senator JESSOP:

– I am not going to mention his name.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is a case of put up or shut up.

Senator JESSOP:

-That does not matter. The source of the information is beyond reproach. He has cited the example of the rail standardisation case which turned, among other things, on the 1907 agreement which South Australia made with the Commonwealth to hand over the Northern Territory on a specific agreement which included the building of the AdelaideDarwin railway from Oodnadatta and Pine Creek. When the Premier of the day, Mr Tom Playford, sued to compel the Commonwealth to honour its agreement he was met by 2 defences. The first defence was that it was only an agreement to make an agreement and, secondly, that the High Court had no jurisdiction because it was a non-justiciable matter. Some of the justices decided for the Commonwealth on one ground and some on the other ground, but neither group disagreed with the other group’s reasoning. So the end result was the same in either case- a victory for the Commonwealth. The decision is usually treated in the textbooks as authority for both propositions. The first argument that it was only an agreement to make an agreement depends on the well known fact that any agreement such as this has to be carried on over a period of years. I hear Senator Davidson trying to interject. Have you read the judgment, Senator?

Senator Davidson:

– Yes, I have it here.

Senator JESSOP:

-That is good. The honourable senator might like to reinforce what I say. This is a very important matter which ought to be reinforced by every honourable senator from South Australia. I repeat: The argument that it was only an agreement to make an agreement depends on the well known fact that any agreement such as this has to be carried on over a period of years. So the Government in carrying out the work had to appropriate public money each time for the new work. Of course this experience is not peculiar to the Liberal Party in South Australia. As honourable senators on the Government side will appreciate Mr Ken Bur.dolph the Labor member for the Legislative Council found out in his fight with the New South Wales Government that the courts have no power to compel any Parliament to do this or to agree at any specific time to do any item of work. So there has to be a subsidiary agreement each time to block in- to use the words used in the argument in Mr Burdolph’s case- a new section ofthe agreement. Accordingly, it is only an agreement to make an agreement and unenforceable at law.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have great pleasure in supporting the Railway Agreement (South Australia) Bill which is before the Senate. It is legislation to approve the Agreement for the transfer of the nonmetropolitan South Australian railways to the Australian Government. Apparently Senator Jessop has not read the document which was introduced to this Parliament along with the Bill, namely the transfer Agreement, otherwise he would not have made some of the comments which he made this evening. I shall comment on a remark which he made that the South Australian Premier has no mandate to transfer the South Australian railways to the Commonwealth. Of course Mr Dunstan has a mandate. If he did not have it before 12 July it was given to him on 12 July. Senator Jessop made the remark that the Labor Government suffered a sound rebuke from the electors. He did not go on to tell the Senate what a terrible rebuke the Liberal Party suffered in relation to its percentage vote at the hands of the electors. He did not tell us that the votes the Party lost in the main went to the very virile Party of his opponent in South Australia, Senator Hall.

Senator Jessop:

– We won 2 seats.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Jessop refers to the fact that the Opposition in South Australia won Millicent and Mt Gambier. I will have something to say about that. The Opposition won 2 seats but overall it did not get the vote and it did not become the government. When Mr Playford was Premier he did not get the vote but because of the gerrymander he always got the government, at least until the present Premier became Premier of South Australia and was able to bring some justice into the electoral system. After we had had the debate in the Senate in the last session I took it unto myself to distribute many copies of the Bill, plus the second reading speech of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) who in this place represents the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), the explanatory notes and the document which sets out the principles to govern the transfer. I distributed those documents widely amongst railway people. During the State election I attended many meetings in South Australia in company with Mr Virgo, the Minister of Transport, and with us was Mr Ray Taylor who was the Federal Secretary of the Australian Railways Union. Mr Taylor said that his union was in full agreement with the transfer because members had read the details of the transfer Agreement and they were quite happy with it. Any questions which were asked at meetings which I attended were fully answered both by Mr Virgo and Mr Taylor.

Senator Jessop has made some remarks that the farming community in South Australia is very concerned that when the transfer takes place it will be disadvantaged. Had the honourable senator read the Agreement he would know that it sets out plainly that no railway employee or user of the railways will be disadvantaged because of the transfer of the South Australian railways to the Australian Government. I shall refresh his memory because apparently he did not read principle 3 which is under the heading Clause 7 of the agreement’ as set out in the railway Agreement. I read it because no doubt many people listening have been confused by what Senator Jessop said here tonight, particularly those people who live on Eyre Peninsula whom he is particularly addressing. Principle 3 states:

The Australian Government will agree to continue to operate the railways in the State to standards in all respects at least equal to those obtaining at the time of transfer and to pursue a program of improvements that are shown to be economically desirable to ensure standards of service and facilities at least equivalent to those at any time current to the remainder of the Commonwealth system and in other State systems. Any proposals involving closure of lines, reductions in effectively demanded services, or reductions in level of employment at railway workshops, shall not be implemented without prior agreement of the State.

There is a safeguard in that principle. If we go over further in the document we find, under the heading ‘Closure of lines and reductions in services’ the statement:

This clause relates to principle 3- set out below clause 7 -

I have just read that principle-

Under this clause, the agreement of the State Minister is required to any proposed closure of lines or reduction in the level of effectively demanded services. Failing agreement, the matter is to be referred to an arbitrator, who is to take into account the level of public demand and the need for the line or service in question, as well as the additional aspects described in clause 23 (2).

I point out to Senator Jessop that those are the safeguards. I point that out to those people to whom Senator Jessop may not have sent out this information so that they could analyse the agreement for themselves instead of being hoodwinked by people of the honourable senator’s Party who made a determined effort in the south east area. I must admit that they fooled a lot of the people in relation to what was entailed in this transfer. Senator Jessop said that agreements are not worth anything. He went on to talk about the construction of the north-south railway and the obligations under the Northern Territory Acceptance Act of 1 9 10.

Senator Jessop:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Senator McLaren said that I said agreements are not worth anything. I did not say that at all. I would suggest that he ought to withdraw that statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is not a point of order. You have a right at the end of Senator McLaren’s speech to claim that you have been misrepresented.

Senator McLAREN:

– If Senator Jessop did not say that he implied it by quoting a very esteemed legal authority in South Australia who has given him an interpretation. When Senator Mulvihill asked him who was the authority Senator Jessop declined to name the person. I am referring now to the remarks made by Senator Jessop about the construction of the north-south railway line, which was an obligation under the Northern Territory Acceptance Act of 1 9 10, and the fact that agreement could not be reached with the Commonwealth Government. The State had to go to the High Court, which I think Senator Jessop said decided that it had no jurisdiction. But he did not tell the Senate who was in power in the Commonwealth Government. It was not a Labor Government, because a Labor Government would have honoured the agreement. It will honour this agreement, because the Labor Party always honours agreements, and it will not have to go to the High Court.

I have mentioned this matter on many occasions in my capacity as a member of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory and I have stated often that the government of the day did not carry out its obligations under the Northern Territory Acceptance Act. Had it done so we would now have a railway line extending from Port Augusta to Darwin, and that is what this Government wants. I am a firm supporter of that proposal and I always have been. I quote now from the second reading speech of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop), so that we can get back to the Bill with which we are dealing. The Minister stated:

Honourable senators will notice that the present Agreement is in fact the one the Parliament previously approved. The reason for this is that the Australian and State governments arc concerned that the people of South Australia should not be penalised financially by the initial rejection of the South Australian legislation. This Bill therefore approves the existing Agreement with effect from I July 1975 as did the State legislation approving the Agreement.

Of course, this legislation is in full conformity with the Platform, Constitution and Rules of my Party. Under the heading of ‘Transport’, clause 3 of that document states:

Operate any railways, ports, air routes, shipping services or pipelines transferred to it by a State.

That has been in the Labor Party’s platform for many years for all and sundry to read, and this platform has been flashed about in the Senate on many occasions by people who want to use it. But Senator Jessop did not see fit to quote that clause tonight. In the policy speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in 1972 he said at page 24:

A Federal Labor Government will accept the offers of the New South Wales and Victorian Premiers for a transfer of their State railways systems and accept such an offer from any other State.

Senator Jessop said that Mr Dunstan did not have a mandate, but of course it was there in the policy speech made by the Prime Minister in 1972 when the Labor Party was elected to Government. That policy speech covered a term of 3 years and the undertaking did not have to be repeated in the policy speech made last year because this Government did not run for 3 years but was sent prematurely to the electors. Be that as it may, the fact is that it has been set out in documents of the Labor Party for many years that a Labor government would accept the transfer of railways from any States who are prepared to give them to it.

I think I said in a speech during the Budget debate not so many weeks ago that the first person to advocate giving State railways to the Commonwealth was Mr Bolte in Victoria, followed closely by Mr Askin in New South Wales. But the then Government, under the leadership I think of Mr McMahon, would not accept that proposition. When the Labor Party came into office the Prime Minister immediately wrote to all State governments- I think it was on 12 December- offering to take over the railways. The only 2 States that were prepared to hand over railways, despite the fact that such moves were first initiated by Liberal governments, were the 2 Labor States of Tasmania and South Australia. It has been said that the rest of the States have to subsidise South Australia and Tasmania because the Commonwealth has taken over their railways. In that respect I wish to quote from page 290 of the Senate Hansard of 27 August, when Senator Withers was speaking about a redistribution of certain things in the Commonwealth, and I think he was referring to money matters. He said:

One example is the railways. South Australia and Tasmania are to gain $32m to cover the losses on their railways, which is of advantage to the governments and the people of South Australia and Tasmania even if they forgo control of their railway systems, but I ask: Who pays for this? The answer is that the people ofthe other States will pay. So the taxpayers in the other States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and my own State of Western Australia not only have to meet the cost of their own railway systems but also are required to subsidise the losses incurred in South Australia and Tasmania although they are effectively denied any political control over the running of these systems.

Who is to blame for that? It is not this Government. It is the Premiers of those States because the Prime Minister wrote to them and offered to take over the railways. If the Premiers of those States penalise their own people because of their failure to hand over the railways and allow this Government to set up a national railway system which will be of benefit to the community then Senator Withers has nothing to complain about. He should sheet home the blame where it lies.

A public opinion poll was conducted during the South Australian election campaign. A document headed ‘Australian Public Opinion Polls (The Gallup Method)’ states that it is for publication on or after the morning of Monday, 1 1 August 1975. Under the heading ‘Federal

Government should take over Railways’ it states:

A majority of Australians favor the Federal Government taking over the railways in the States in which they live, says the Gallup Poll.

Fifty-two per cent support the proposal, while 40 per cent oppose it, says the poll. The remaining 8 per cent are undecided.

Senator Coleman:

– When was that?

Senator McLAREN:

– This document was published on 1 1 August. It continues:

People in the two Labor-held States, South Australia and Tasmania, where the State Governments have declared in favor of the proposal, strongly support the Federal plan.

Of course, if Senator Jessop liked to use this as some sort of guide, in the same way as he uses the Gallup Polls on the popularity of this Government, he would agree that the people of South Australia are very strongly in favour of this Government taking over the South Australian railways. The Gallup Poll goes on to state:

The results for South Australia, where 57 per cent of people favoured a Federal take-over of the railways, are particularly interesting because of the recent State election, which was precipitated by this issue and which resulted in the return of Labor to power in that State.

It quotes comments by people favouring a Federal takeover. These are some of the comments that were published giving the reasons why people voted as they did:

Railways are in a financial mess and need Federal support.

We should have a standard rail service- there is need for a unified gauge.

We would probably get better service at a lower price.

States have failed to provide good services.

Something has to be done- they are shocking as they are.

Liberals won ‘t agree for political reasons.

I am happy to say that the Liberals in this Parliament have agreed. They agreed when the legislation was before the Parliament on a previous occasion and I have no doubt that they are going to agree on this occasion. But the opposite was the case when the legislation was introduced into the South Australian Parliament. The Liberals did not agree. I do not agree with Senator Hall on most things but I do agree with his Party when it supported the passage of this Bill in the Legislative Council in South Australia.

Senator Steele Hall:

– It was unopposed.

Senator McLAREN:

– But you did support it, and I am grateful to your Party for that, whatever other things there may be on which I disagree with you. Senator Jessop said that country people were very disturbed at the Commonwealth taking over the railways. I have had communications from people in country areas and from organisations in the Pinaroo and Mallee areas and they have asked that I do all I can to see that the country rail services are retained. They point out in their correspondence that private enterprise cannot carry seed, superphosphate and grain by road transport at the competitive rates at which the railways can carry it. They are most insistent that I do all I can and I have promised them by letter that I will. I have no doubt that the country rail systems will survive. Of course, down in the south-east of the State, where Senator Jessop ‘s Party won 2 seats, there is a different situation altogether because there are private road transport companies there which are doing their very best to stifle the railways and put them out of business. They are the people who organised the street march in Mount Gambier during the election campaign, assisted by Mr Fraser’s people from Wannon, who came over by the busload to bring about the defeat of Mr Allan Burdon. Of course, a lot of people in that area now realise that they were conned into voting the wrong way. They lost a good man in Mr Allan Burdon, but no doubt that seat is only a temporary loss to the present State Labor Government. Private road transport companies organised street marches under the slogan of SOS- Sweep Out Socialism- and quietly put it around to their employees that if they did not take part in the march their jobs might be defunct on the following Monday. This is borne out in a statement in the State House by Mr Tonkin to whom Senator Jessop referred. I shall quote from the South Australian Hansard of the House of Assembly of 6 August 1975. Mr Tonkin- or Dr Tonkin, I should say, because he at least is one person with a title who has earned it- when speaking to the Railways (Transfer Agreement) Bill said:

I consider that those people who operate road transport businesses are seriously concerned and that, in fact, their future will be desperate. If this legislation is passed. We have had representations from many parts of the State, particularly the South-East, where there is a high proportion of these operators. These people have left us in no doubt that will go out of business and that then a Commonwealth Government monopoly will be established in this State.

That is just a lot of bunkum. Road transport firms will not go out of business if they offer fair and reasonable competition to the people who want to use road transport. But that is the type of thing that was put around in South Australia, and that is the type of thing that Senator Jessop reiterated here tonight. When we talk about road transport we want to look at the dangers that exist on our roads today because of these massive semi-trailers. I shall quote an article which appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser on 1 8 September 1975. It is headed ‘Fourth semi in accident’. I am very concerned about this accident because it happened very close to the town in which I live. The article, which is by police reporter Chris Brice, reads:

A semi-trailer and a car towing a trailer were involved in a crash near Murray Bridge yesterday- the fourth accident in three days involving semi-trailers.

All the accidents happened on the Prince’s Highway.

Yesterday’s accident was about 10 kilometres (six miles) east of Murray Bridge.

No one was hurt.

Both vehicles were travelling in the same direction when the semi-trailer prime mover overturned.

The car trailer was seriously damaged.

Three cars which were on top of the prime mover also were badly damaged.

On Monday there were two accidents involving semitrailers near Nairne.

In one, seven people were injured when a semi-trailer overturned on top of two cars.

In the other a semi-trailer overturned in the main street of Nairne causing the road to be blocked for several hours.

On the Prince’s Highway near Crafers early yesterday a semi-trailer carrying sheep caught fire.

The fire is believed to have been caused by an electrical fault in the prime mover.

That is only one instance of all the accidents that take place on our roads today involving these juggernauts that we see driving around. Most of the commodities that they carry, apart from livestock and perishables, should be carried by the railways which are much more economic, they are more reliable and they employ people under decent standards of living and proper hours of work. This cannot be said about a lot of road transport operators. One only has to look in the country courts to see what is happening. Every court case that comes up in Murray Bridge involves transport operators. A large number of transport operators are fined for an infringement of the Road Traffic Act. I think that the sooner we get a proper rail system and do away with a lot of these juggernauts that are on the road the better this country will be served.

With the passage of this legislation I confidently look forward to a furtherance of my Government’s decentralisation program by the upgrading of the workshops and running sheds at Tailem Bend. This is practically assured by the statement in clause 5 ofthe document which sets out the principles to govern the transfer. Clause 5 states:

The Australian Government will agree to construct and operate a rail connection to the container terminal at Outer Harbour and to improve and where necessary replace the main line to Murray Bridge in order to ensure a high standard service to the growth centre at Monarto, subject to evaluation by the Bureau of Transport Economics showing these to be economically desirable.

Some studies have already been carried out by the South Australian railways, and these have been set out in a little publication entitled Keeping Track which is issued by the South Australian railways. In the issue for this month, number 87, Project Peregrine is discussed. The publication states:

Recently a study has been carried out under the direction of the Chief Engineer for Railways to establish whether there is a viable alternative to the ‘long tunnel ‘ scheme.

People in South Australia of course will be well aware of what we have been discussing for years. This is a long tunnel scheme through the Adelaide Hills so that we will have quicker transport. This study in itself will be invaluable to the Bureau of Transport Economics when it undertakes a study to upgrade that line to Murray Bridge. I shall quote briefly another passage from this publication. On page 3 it states:

But probably the most important outcome of this work (particularly scheme 2) would be a reduction in the running time of express goods trains between Tailem Bend and Adelaide of approximately 1 hour 45 minutes. This would have a dramatic effect on interstate goods trains. The express goods which departs Melbourne at 5.00 p.m. and arrives in Mile End at 8.05 a.m. the next morning would be able to arrive at 6.20 a.m. and enable loading to be placed ready for receival by start work time and still leave a margin for outofcourse running by the train concerned. Furthermore, this train will be able to haul 4000 tonnes instead of 1 800 tonnes at present, thus providing a first class overnight goods service.

These are the things which will flow from the transfer of this railway under this Bill, and I believe that it can do nothing else but benefit the people not only of South Australia but also of the surrounding States. I am sure that when the other States see the benefits which are accruing to Tasmania and South Australia because of this transfer, it will not be long before the States of Victoria and New South Wales come into the system. Then, although Mr Court or Mr BjelkePetersen will still want to go their own way, we will have a system involving those 3 southern States and the people who live in those States will have a very fine service. That is the reason why I give my whole-hearted support to this legislation.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The speech which Senator McLaren has just delivered to the Senate is outstanding for the fact that he has identified himself firstly, secondly, and lastly with the behaviour, policy and performance of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) because he is obviously a kil-OM-etre man. I understand that there has been some discussion and even some public dispute between the Prime Minister and one or two of his senior Ministers over such important things as measures of distance.

Senator McLaren:

– What has measure of distance got to do with the Bill?

Senator DAVIDSON:

-I would think that measures of distance have a great deal to do with this Bill because we are talking about the takeover by the Commonwealth of a railway system. One of the things that the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government will have to work out is an agreement about what is paid or received in terms of distance and how many kil-OM-etres or KILL-o-MEtres, according to one’s political connections, are travelled in a railway system. I think also that Senator McLaren who expressed his pride in the standards of the Commonwealth as far as rail transportation is concerned should find adequate expression and a splendid example in that night train that travels through Murray Bridge, where he lives, to Mount Gambier. It is one of the most uncomfortable trains in Australia, especially when one travels in it in the dead of winter. Once upon a time if we travelled on a daylight train we had an opportunity to select for ourselves a comfortable seat in which to travel, but that is not the case any more. Under a Labor government with its participatory democracy, we are all herded together. We are not given any choice, whether we like it or not or whether we can afford it or not. So Senator McLaren’s tribute to the role of the South Australian Government and its railways falls rather barrenly and certainly rather ineffectively.

The Bill before the Senate is simply titled Railways Agreement Bill. I should like to write into the record its longer title because there is more in the longer title than just a series of words. The longer title reads:

A Bill for an Act relating to the Acquisition by Australia- that means the Commonwealth of Australia- with the consent of South Australia, of certain Railways of South Australia and to the Construction and Extension by Australia, with the consent of South Australia, of Railways in South Australia, and for purposes connected therewith.

The nature of the legislation is that the Commonwealth, at the request of the South Australian Parliament, can take over all or portion of the State’s rail transport system. In this case, the measure refers to the non-urban sector of the railways in South Australia. The complementary legislation relating to this takeover has been passed in Adelaide. Indeed, when the

Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) was making his speech he recounted some details of the history of the measure. The South Australian Legislative Council had previously rejected the transfer legislation. A State election followed. The Government was returned and the South Australian legislation approving the Agreement has now been passed. As the Minister very correctly says, it only remains for this Parliament to approve the Agreement again.

I think that whilst we are affording passage of this legislation, we should express the background of questioning, doubt and concern that is in the minds of some of us in relation to such an agreement. One of those which springs to my mind relates to the retrospective approval. The Minister has conceded that it is very unusual for an agreement to have some retrospective approval. Indeed, he goes on to explain that during his years in Parliament he does not remember it ever being done. This means that there are some extraordinary circumstances relating to the Agreement. The Minister endeavours to explain by saying that the rights of third parties might be adversely affected. In his second reading speech the Minister stated: the State authorities will be deemed to have continued, and will continue, to administer, maintain and operate the non-metropolitan South Australian Railways under State laws but subject to direction by the Australian National Railways Commission until the declared date which is expected to be in about 12 months.

As a consequence the Minister claims that third party rights will be protected. I would just question the wisdom of this course in spite of the reasons which the Minister has set out. With the passing of this measure it could be significant that a date can be set for the non-metropolitan South Australian Railways to become part of the Australian National Railways Commission. It needs to be said because of its historical significance that this is the first mainland railway system to do so. The Government has described this as a further major step taken towards the creation of a national railway system. The Minister seemed to undergird this by pointing out that a national railways system would have the means of overcoming what the Minister calls the disadvantages inherent in the operations of the State railway system.

The South Australian non-urban railway system will be the first mainland State railway to be transferred to the Commission. I suppose, for South Australians, this has some historical significance because South Australia has common borders with all mainland States and rail connections with all the mainland States with the exception of Queensland. As the Government has been very anxious to underline, this move will form what the Minister has called the central core of a national railways system that- I quote his words- ‘we can build on in the future’. There are many admissions inherent in the Minister’s speeches, not only in the one that he made in connection with the presentation of this measure but also his speech which he made in connection with the presentation of the measure when it came before the Senate on a previous occasion. One of the admissions, by inference, was that the rail systems of the States, South Australia in particular, are heavily bogged down with disadvantages and a great measure of ineffectiveness. He has conceded that the South Australian railway system, especially as far as country systems are concerned, has operating procedures that are most unsatisfactory. I do not know, but I do not think that the railway workers in South Australia and the railway administrators in South Australia would respond with a great, deal of enthusiasm to that charge.

I wonder what the South Australian Minister for Transport thinks of the references which the Minister has made. I wonder what he thinks of the deductions of his fellow South Australian Minister. Has the South Australian Minister proved to be so inefficient as to be incapable of running the non-urban railway? This is a question which is immediately raised in my mind. True, the South Australian Minister for Transport could run a busy bee-line bus service in the city. He could also reduce time-tables and increase standards of long distance transportation in South Australia, but it seems that he cannot run a non-metropolitan railway. He cannot run a non-urban transport system. We have the Minister here acknowledging that the State administration of non-urban railways has not been successful and so the States have made approaches to the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth, eager to promote and establish its centralised administration, seized the opportunity. I believe the Government has really taken this on without ensuring sufficient safeguards and precautions.

A further admission in the Minister’s speech is a reflection- by inference, I would think- on the co-ordination that has already been carried out. After all, there are a number of State Railway commissioners who have been working on national co-ordination and national co-operation for many years. Yet one gets the impression from the Minister’s speeches- both this and the previous speech- that nothing has been done. That is surely what he means when he talks about the non-urban South Australia Railways becoming part of the Australian National Railways Commission. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the Government has taken a major step towards the creation of a national railway system. Surely the Minister is aware and surely the Government is aware that the several commissioners, over the years, have been meeting in consultation to form and to establish a coordinated railway system throughout Australia that works with the co-operation of all governments and which works effectively. Surely the Minister will acknowledge that the commissioners have been examining the problem areas that have arisen over many years between the State systems. I want to suggest that the commissioners have been overcoming many of the problems. I think that the nation is indebted to the commissioners of the several States and of the Commonwealth for the work which they have done and the attention which they have given to the various details relating to interstate and intrastate railway transportation. They have made a substantial contribution- in my view a positive contribution- to national rail transport. I suspect- I do not know- that the commissioners will continue to meet in spite of this Bill.

The measure for taking over the South Australia Railways springs from foundations about which I have a number of personal doubts. There is an admission on the part of the South Australia Government that it cannot successfully run the non-urban railways. There is a clear indication in the Minister’s speech and in the inferences which have been made that this is a step towards the total centralisation of all Australian life and the transportation system in particular. I want to look at the first of those 2 matters. I should like to examine some figures from the South Australia Auditor-General’s report. When the Dunstan Government first came to office in 1970 there was a deficit in the South Australia Railways of $12,773,000. Only a year later that figure reached $16,124,000. In 1972, only 2 years after the Dunstan Government came to office, the figure stood at $19Vi. In 1973, after 3 years of Labor administration, the railways deficit was $25,883,000. So that the deficit more than doubled for the South Australia Railways in 3 years of the Dunstan Government’s administration.

Unfortunately, the deficit has soared since then. Last year’s figure was some $29m. The 1 975 figure is not yet available but the estimated deficit for the non-urban system is already set at some $32m. No wonder the South Australia

Government was anxious to transfer its responsibility, and running a railway system is its responsibility. No wonder it was prepared and anxious to transfer its responsibilities to the Commonwealth Government. It has a responsibility, in my view, to run public transport on economic lines and to hold in balance the needs of the people. I recognise that this is a difficult task. The matter of closing uneconomic lines and services simply because they are not used has many problems attached to it. After all, railways provide a variety of services to a community and a variety of services to a State. It is a challenge to the authority nearest that State, the State Government, to take up the matter of running the railways and, what is more, to run them successfully. In my view the State Government has contracted out of its responsibility to provide transportation for the State.

A natural advance from that point is what is contained in paragraph 9 of the agreement. I will take a moment of the Senate’s time to read paragraph 9 ( 1 ) of the agreement. It states:

The Australian Minister will obtain the prior agreement of the State Minister to-

any proposal for the closure of a railway line of the non-metropolitan railways; or

b ) the reduction in the level of effectively demanded services on the non-metropolitan railways, and failing agreement on any of these matters the dispute shall be determined by arbitration.

That looks quite straightforward. My predecessor in this debate described it as an absolutely foolproof, adequate safeguard. But imagine the situations that can emerge from a clause of that nature. We not only have to consider economic situations but political situations and social situations. What if the Federal Minister wants to close a railway line and the State Minister does not want to do so? This is the sort of thing that can emerge long after the present incumbents in office both here and in Adelaide have passed into history. There will be a variety of reasons why the Federal Minister may want to close a line and an equal number of reasons why the State Minister wants to keep it open. The reasons could be social but I suspect that mainly they would be political. And so the matter under dispute will go to arbitration.

What will be the situation if the arbitrator says that the line should close and the State Minister says that it should not close? What will happen? The State Minister will turn to the people, he will turn to the unionists, he will turn all over the place and with a great display of virtue claim that he would never have closed the line. He will blame the Commonwealth Minister for closing the line. The State Minister will say that he would never have deprived the people of that particular service; no, never. He could well say: Look, I cannot help this; the arbitrator has said that the line must be closed and therefore it must be closed ‘. I repeat what I said a little while ago: This is evidence of failure to assume proper ministerial responsibility for the State railway transportation system. It is one of the fruits of centralism. When there is a vast cumbersome centralist machine the buck passes from desk to desk and never stops anywhere.

For a moment I want to underline what my colleagues said earlier this evening about legal enforceability. I will not quote a lawyer or a judge but the material that has been freely and regularly referred to in discussion circles in South Australia. As I understand it the State has not got a legally enforceable agreement under this legislation and it will not have one in the future. I ask the Minister to reply to this point. Am I right when I say that the Commonwealth cannot be compelled to carry out any of its promises in relation to this agreement? I want to refer, as my friend Senator Jessop referred, to my authority for this proposition, the rail standardisation case which turned, amongst other things, on the 1907 agreement that South Australia made with the Commonwealth Government when it handed over the Northern Territory. There was a specific agreement that included the building of the Adelaide to Darwin railway line. When Sir Thomas Playford sought to compel the Commonwealth Government to honour that agreement he was met, as was said earlier tonight, by 2 particular defences. One was that it was only an agreement to make an agreement and the second was that the High Court had no jurisdiction. Of course, there was a victory for the Commonwealth in any event. I challenge the Minister to give an explanation to the Senate showing that agreements between the Commonwealth and the State Government are adequately safeguarded. As I read this agreement they tend to be like treaties between foreign countries and it has long been acknowledged that such treaties do not contain matter that can be proved in the courts.

This Bill is an interesting measure and one to which all people concerned with the development of our society give their interest and, basically, their approval. I give it my approval but I raise these matters because they are problems in my mind, problems which I honestly believe have not been adequately safeguarded in the Agreement or in the statements made by the Minister. Long distance non-urban railways are receiving attention all over the world. A great deal of research is being carried out in countries like the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan and the continent of Europe. The matter comes back to the basic issue that everything depends on customers. Today’s Australian, because of our affluent situation, is not a train traveller by nature. Today’s Australian businessman is not by nature, broadly speaking, a train freighter.

References in the Agreement to road systems and passenger and freight transportation as far as the Commonwealth are concerned raise many serious doubts and even some anxieties in my mind. They raise doubts as to the effect of the Agreement on the provision of private transport systems and private enterprise transport systems in the community. I warn of the serious effect on South Australian life if the people there are forced to use a Commonwealth based monopoly transport system, whether it be rail transport, road transport or any other kind of transport. After all, in spite of what Senator McLaren said, road transport has proved to be reliable. It has problems and it makes problems but so does any large major transport system. The road transport system, as far as both freight and passengers are concerned, has proved to be reliable. As far as freight is concerned there is less handling of goods and there is greater convenience for people despatching goods and receiving goods. It is one of the systems within the country where for a change the customer is right and where the customer can get value for what he pays for. The customer is not at the mercy of somebody who might refuse to unload goods from a rail truck simply because the hands of the clock have gone 1 minute past the hour. I have had enough experience with railway freight to know the inconvenience that many people have suffered simply because of a total disregard for the man who is paying, the customer. Road transport systems at least are concerned for the people paying the freight. Therefore I am very concerned that this agreement, as I read it, does not sufficiently safeguard the situation of the private freighter and the private operator.

I am concerned also about the relationship of the Agreement attached to this Bill to railway property in South Australia, not only the railway land alongside the tracks or railway lines but the large yards and other areas where there are grain silos and other installations. What is the relationship of the Commonwealth and this Agreement to wharves and ancillary installations? Is there any protection of the interests of people who live in country areas where the railway systems run and where, by reason of the nature of things, there may not be as many services as the people who live there would like? What is the relationship of this Agreement to railway administration in South Australia? If a Commonwealth instrumentality takes over the non-urban railways I suggest that there will be a large and complex administration situation which simply cannot be effective. I warn that there could be very serious bungling. What is the situation to be in relation to railway crews, their location, equipment and rolling stock? What about research undertaken for new development? Honourable senators should not forget that if this system continues for a while there is some suggestion that the Commonwealth may take over the metropolitan and urban transport system. All these things pose very serious questions in my mind.

On a lighter note, I hope that this Agreement does not interfere with the railway historical societies. I had the pleasure on Sunday last of watching a steam train system go to the south coast of South Australia. It was a magnificent spectacle which was organised magnificently. I return to the Bill. Because it is a request from a State administration- a State parliament and a State government- to the Commonwealth it carries all the weight that the Constitution can give. It is backed by legislative authority. It is supported. I hope that the deficits to which I referred earlier will turn into surpluses. I ask the Minister to ensure that the South Australian community receives good service. I am concerned about many factors relating to the Agreement. I warn that there may be many problems. I charge the Minister and the Government with the responsibility of justifying the very important step that they are initiating.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– in reply- I think it is fair for me to say now that what irks the Opposition speakers is that the Agreement is between 2 Australian Labor Party governments. That is what they are growling about. This is the second time that the Senate and the other place have debated the Bill. Honourable senators opposite are not opposed to the Agreement. They say that they will support it.

Senator Jessop:

– We are not growling about it. We want assurances.

Senator BISHOP:

- Senator Jessop spent half an hour nitpicking an agreement which he will support. I put it to him that if this country ever needed a new agreement on railways it is now. He ought to know that even during the time of his Government certain attempts were made to implement railways standardisation and coordination policies. Committees of the Liberal Party and committees of the Labor Party 20 years ago tried to bring about a national railway system, lt is only now that efforts are being brought to fruition to bring about such a system. Three Labor governments- the State governments in Tasmania and in South Australia and the Australian Government- have decided to enter into an agreement which brings into fruition at last the start of a national railway system. In those circumstances I would have expected support from people on the other side who took part in debate when legislation came before the Senate dealing . for example, with railway standardisation agreements. I took part in those debates and shared the satisfaction of the day when the States agreed with the Federal Government about procedures which brought about a co-ordination or standardisation which was long overdue. Who can forget the contributions made not only by Labor speakers in the Senate and in the other place but also contributions by Liberal members such as Mr Wentworth? So we have moved towards that sort of achievement. Let us applaud what has been done.

I remind the Senate that as far back as 1 968, as Senator McLaren pointed out, Mr Bolte, the Premier of Victoria, and the Premier of New South Wales proposed to the then Federal Liberal Government the handing over to the Federal Government of their State railways. Mr Whitlam, in his pre-election speech, said:

We will accept the offers of the New South Wales and Victorian Premiers for a transfer of their State railway systems and accept such an offer from any other State. In no other federal system in the world are railways conducted by State governments or within State compartments.

I think anybody with any sort of national pride would say that the move towards the objective to which we are now moving- a national railway system- is long overdue. I am pleased to say that it has been achieved despite great difficulty. I suppose some argument was to be expected about what happened in South Australia. Whatever honourable senators opposite say, nobody can refute the proposition that in this Parliament all the parties were in favour of the Agreement between the South Australian Labor Government and the Federal Labor Government to bring about a new arrangement in respect of railways in South Australia. What happened in that State was the the Legislative Council frustrated the Government. The net result, whether Senator Jessop agrees or not, was that the majority of

South Australians returned the Labor Government and supported what the Premier, Mr Dunstan, wanted. There can be no question about it. These little side issues about which he talked are, as I said to him previously, nitpicking. That is all they are.

Senator Jessop raised some questions which ought to be answered, but before I answer them let me refer to that stirring speech by Senator Davidson about railways deficits. Let me remind him of the position in the Liberal-governed States. I start with the year he nominated.

Senator Davidson:

– That was 1 970.

Senator BISHOP:

-That is right. He said that the deficit in South Australia in 1970 was $ 1 6. 1 m. He said that the deficit now is estimated to be $32m. In 1970 in New South Wales the deficit was $26.5m. As he knows, the deficit is now estimated at nearly $200m. Yet the Premier of that State does not want to hand over the railways to the Australian Government. In Victoria in 1970 the deficit was $29.8m. The estimated deficit for 1975-76 is $134m. In Queensland the deficit in 1970 was $2 1.5 m. It is now estimated to be $74m. In Western Australia in 1 970 the deficit was $ 10.7m. The estimate now is $20m. Those who have watched railways develop and who look properly and accurately at railway finances know of the great need for a national railway system. I put to the Senate that the support for the Agreement tonight indicates that the proposal is a very sensible Agreement which the Opposition will support.

Perhaps I should reply to the queries about the incidental services. Honourable senators will remember that in the last debate Opposition senators, including Senator Jessop and others, and members in the other place were worried about the associated road services. I drew to the attention of honourable senators the fact that when the reservation was raised in the other place by Mr Nixon. Mr Jones said that he was quite prepared to settle for a prescription. Such a prescription was put in the Australian National Railways Act. Clause 15 of the Bill, which was passed in this place, proposed a new section 3 1 A. It read:

The Commission may provide to Australia and authorities of Australia, for reward, land transport and engineering services and such other services as can conveniently be provided by the use of the resources of the Commission.

Section 3 IB ( 1 ) states

Without limiting the powers of the Commission to transport passengers and goods on the railways, the Commission may (as incidental or supplementary to, or in association with, the transport of passengers or goods on the railways) transport passengers and goods for reward by land, otherwise than on the railways, between . . .

The places are nominated. That was the agreed upon prescription. It was inserted. It was thought to be satisfactory. We put it in the Act. In the present circumstances there is no departure from any operation which was proposed or which is proposed under the new Agreement. So I am saying that under the provisions of the Agreement the Australian National Railways is given power to operate services that are incidental or supplementary to or are operated in association with the railways. That enables the National Railways to continue to run those road services and passenger services which are already operated by the State Railways and, if necessary, to expand those services where necessary to improve the overall rail services. It does not give the Australian Government power to regulate road haulage in the States. That will remain the province of the relevant State authority.

Senator Jessop raised 2 related issues. He referred to the question of liability for fires caused by rail services. They are not as frequent now, with a minimum use of steam trains or with none. We will take over all liability in respect of any State law. So the position currently is that any obligation under State law will be continued by the Australian National Railways. Another matter about which the honourable senator talked was an obligation in relation to the silo people. Any obligations which they presently have in respect of local corporations or councils will similarly be accepted. So there will be no change in operations. We all agree that in setting up a new national railway system we need great back-up services such as the Islington works, about which Senator Laucke asked me. Those works will be merged into the new national complex and there will be no redundancy. As I said to Senator Laucke some weeks ago, there will be more activity at Islington. That is accepted. I am reinforced in my opinion because Mr Charles Jones supports what I have put forward which is that there ought to be growth within the Islington works, without any diminution in respect of Port Pirie or Port Augusta, about which Senator Laucke is concerned, so that we can see what is essential.

Somebody may say: ‘If you did that, why does the State Government want to maintain its own metropolitan services?’ It wishes to do so for its own reasons. In discussions with the Federal Government, the State Government decided that in keeping with the concept which it has it wants to keep the railways, the roads and related services within its control in the metropolitan area. For those reasons it has handed over to the Australian National Railways and to the Australian Government control of all the other services. It may be that in future years governments will decide that the Australian National Railways ought to control the lot. Whenever anybody talks about State governments or the Federal Government being obliged to set up new and improved commitments to transportation I am always reminded, as everybody knows, of what great burdens they are on State government and Federal government finances. Yet the State governments today attempt to undertake those new obligations. I know that in my State the State government is attempting to provide new services. It has accepted the great obligation and the challenge to set up new and modern services within the city. So the justification for the takeover is, after all, a concept which has been agreed by the State Government.

Of course there will be some administrative difficulties, as there are in any other operation. There were difficulties when standardisation became more effective throughout Australia. The administration must take over control of staff, safe working arrangements, train operation arrangements, new trade and proficiency standards. But the administration is presently matching that and the 2 authorities presume that within 12 months they will be able to solve the problems. There are currently no reservations about the future on the part of staff organisations or unions. So we are confident about the future.

When I gave an answer about an undertaking by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that consideration will be given to transferring the headquarters of the Australian National Railways to Adelaide, -I was referring to the commercial headquarters of the Australian National Railways in Melbourne. That matter will be properly considered. I have referred to the general question of liability which the Government has accepted. I suppose that honourable senators could ask: ‘Is any agreement sacrosanct?’ All I can say is that I take the same view about this agreement with a Labor State as I took with regard to railway standardisation agreements. Honourable senators will remember that agreements about new lines in the past were made between governments and we expected that they would be honoured. I expect this agreement to be honoured. The reference to the Northern Territory Acceptance Act does not have relevance because in that case no date of operation was nominated and it caused some legal arguments.

Senator Jessop raised the question of debt, which is one of the things about which he is worried, and he referred to the Schedule which nominates a series of loans which the Australian Government will now take over. They are in the schedule to indicate the number of different loans which were raised at the time, the date of maturity and the sort of obligations which we have. Given the normal fluctuations of the money market, interest rates tend to vary from year to year. This is why the debt shown in the sixth Schedule is to be taken over by the Australian Government to equate those debts which are attributable to the non-metropolitan railways. At the same time there is a package of debts which do not mature together. So it is clear that they have been identified as debts which relate only to non-metropolitan services, and in any agreement such debts ought to be identified.

I have mentioned the sort of problems which will come up in respect of administration. People can argue that the administrative difficulties would be great. In all such changes that are made there may be an unnecessary waste sometimes in administration because one has to duplicate services. But here we hope that we are setting up, as in other amalgamations or consolidations, a more efficient organisation. I say in answer to Senator Davidson that I have never said that any South Australian government had been in any way inefficient in respect of railway matters, because I know from personal experienceas honourable senators know, I worked on the railways as a young bloke- that the South Australian railways were fortunate in having a reorganisation occasioned by the American Webb. We were fortunate to be able to set up a very efficient, stable and firm railway system which other States did not have. There is no question of criticism in respect of any South Australian Administration that it failed to discharge its duties. The South Australian Government is facing up to new obligations and financial strictures with which it cannot cope. After all, it should pass those services to the Federal Government. I think I have mentioned already the situation concerning South Australian Cooperative Bulk Handling Ltd.

I think Senator Jessop mentioned in one of his references to debates in the State Parliament that there was a question of legal opinion in respect of whether a wharf at Wallaroo belongs to the Australian National Railways. It does not. It is clear that if any building, such as a silo, is built on railway property and there is a contract between the railway administration and the Co-operative Bulk Handling organisation the matter will simply involve a change of landlord.

Senator Laucke:

– That would mean that all the contractual arrangements between the South Australian Government and CBH-

Senator BISHOP:

-They will be accepted. It is clear that the liability in respect of that and also in respect of the issue raised by Senator Jessopany contractual arrangements- will be honoured. There is no question of that. I think Senator Jessop raised the question of the meaning of clause 9 of the Bill. That was included because during the interim period railways will still continue to operate on behalf of the Australian Government. As land and equipment during this time will be owned by the Australian Government, the clause is necessary to ensure that the State laws can be applied during the period. The clause is simply to ensure that in the event of any contest or any challenge of invalidity State laws can be made to apply.

Senator Davidson:

– They can apply only for a limited period.

Senator BISHOP:

-They will be applied until there is a reconciliation. If a challenge is made it becomes proper and pertinent for the State Government to take over the obligation by State law. The need to write into a Commonwealth Act some new prescription will be considered as required.

I think it was Senator Jessop who raised a question in relation to paragraph 9 of the Agreement, which refers to the closure of lines. We have talked about this matter before. I do not think anybody considers that the arrangement in this case is not a satisfactory arrangement. Before I explain the position regarding the possible closure of lines perhaps I should point out to honourable senators that, as they would well know, most of the State governments have already taken action to close lines in their own States. In this respect I am referring not only to the position in my own State in relation to which some line closures have been proposed and there has been disagreement and negotiation, but also to the position in every other State where such proposals are put forward. It will be recalled that the report of Sir Henry Bland proposed the closing down of a massive number of lines in Victoria and there was negotiation on that proposal and a settlement reached. Everybody knows what is the position in New South Wales today. For example, a controversy has been raging between the Australian Postal Commission, the unions and the New South Wales Government about the closing down of travelling post office services in relation to some lines. Those are actions that the State governments have to take because of the huge expenditure involved and the lack of compensating revenue for the operation of such lines. Paragraph 9 ( 1 ) of the Agreement states:

The Australian Minister will obtain the prior agreement of the State Minister to-

any proposal for the closure of a railway line ofthe non-metropolitan railways; or

the reduction in the level of effectively demanded services on the non-metropolitan railways, and failing agreement on any of these matters the dispute shall be determined by arbitration.

That is the only clear way in which to do it. I have mentioned cases where lines have been closed within the States and there have been negotiations between mutual parties. I can remember taking part many years ago with Senator Lillico, who was a member of this chamber at the time, in negotiations with railway unions in Tasmania in an attempt to prevent the closing down of some lines. The matter was settled by way of an agreement. The cases mentioned in this respect will go to arbitration. I think it was Senator Davidson who raised the question of what happens when a case goes to arbitration and the arbitration goes against the State’s demand. It is obvious that it would be a just arbitration and the State would then have to decide what it should do. I think it has been suggested that the only way in which to get away from that situation would be for the State Government to provide funds to maintain the line that it thinks is economically, socially or regionally necessary. I think that is one of the only ways of being able to achieve any sort of agreement.

Despite some of the criticisms that have been made and that rest simply upon political differences because it so happens that there have been State Labor governments and a Federal Labor Government making the agreements, I think it is clear that the Opposition supports the proposal. I hope that we will now be able to talk about something that I have had in mind and that many of us have had in mind for many years, that is, the need for the Australian Government and the State governments to move towards a really national and standardised railway system. That is where the efficiencies will be obtained in the future. I have already referred to the deficits being incurred in this field. Even with perfect administration- even with energetic gentlemen like, for example, Bill Gibbs of South

Australia, who is now the Chairman of Commissioners in Victoria and who is innovating many new services- there is a great and heavy responsibility upon finances, which means that the provision of any improved services for the community is very hard to do because of the great expenditures involved. I want to wind up simply by thanking those who have contributed to the debate and by thanking the Senate for supporting the proposals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, may I ask the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) for a little more elucidation in respect of the matter of the wharves to be taken over by the Commonwealth Government railways. Does the State still have to foot the maintenance bills and carry the debt structure of those wharves after the takeover?

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I think I referred to the debate in the South Australian Parliament where the same sort of question was raised and in relation to which the premier referred to a legal opinion from the Crown-Solicitor and said that the wharves that had been referred to were in fact the property of the Marine and Harbors Department in South Australia and it accepted liability for the maintenance of those wharves.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 875

LOAN BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 September, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

The the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– In addressing myself to the Loan Bill 1975 I wish to instance what happened in 1971-72 when the Liberal-Country Party Government was in office and when it probably was also ill. Liberal-Country Party governments are sometimes both. When the Liberal-Country Party Government presented its second last Budget there were among the Budget papers similar documents to those appended to this year’s Budget Speech. Among the papers attached to the 197 1-72 Budget Speech was Budget Statement No. 3, which made this observation:

It is not possible to predict accurately what changes will occur in holdings of Commonwealth securities by the public on the one hand and by the banking system on the other. These, as discussed earlier, will reflect monetary and other developments during the course of the year.

That is what the Opposition said when it was in office. This debate is remarkable for one fact, that is, for the fact that it is taking place at all. The Loan Bill 1975, which is before the chamber for consideration, is a machinery Bill which is required to secure the authority to borrow amounts for the financing of defence expenditure that will need to be charged to the Loan Fund during 1975-76. All honourable senators know that the Australian Government’s financial transactions are recorded in 3 separate funds. The first fund is the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the second is the Loan Fund and the third is the Trust Fund. As the Treasurer ( Mr Hayden) pointed out in Budget Paper No. 4 attached to his Budget Speech, the estimated expenditure for 1975-76 normally charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund substantially exceeds the estimated receipts of the Fund, which is part of the estimated overall deficit of some $2, 798m, as outlined in the Budget Speech.

In this kind of situation successive governments have obtained authority from the Parliament to charge to the Loan Fund some expenditures which would normally be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is a normal practice, a machinery measure that has been adopted by previous governments and that no doubt will be adopted by other governments in the future. It is a policy that is certain to be pursued by other governments. Liberal governments introduced similar Bills in 1968, 70, 71 and 1972. So I ask: Why all the fuss and all the rot that we have been subjected to in the course of the debate on the Loan Bill 1975? The remarkable thing about this debate is that the Opposition is attempting to criticise the Government for doing something that the Opposition itself did on numerous occasions when it was in government. That is the hypocrisy of the opposition to this Bill.

Honourable senators opposite suggested in their speeches during the second reading debate that the Government is hiding something by not saying how the deficit will be financed. Surely anybody who knows anything- even the elementary accountancy student- knows that the fact is that the Opposition did not explain either when it was in government how it was going to finance its deficits in other years. Of course it did not. As I said earlier, any first year accountancy student would know that no government is going to say at the outset of a financial year how it is going to finance this deficit. What it will do in the course of the year will be decided by the economic requirements of the time. As the year goes by all kinds of variations in the economy will occur which will require a different monetary policy from time to time. That occurs with Labor governments and with anti-Labor governments. The Opposition would have us, and the electorate at large, believe that deficits are something new, that they are associated only with the great Australian Labor Party when in government.

Senator Wright:

– The great-

Senator McAULIFFE:

– Deficits are nothing new. Senator Wright knows as I do that deficits are nothing new. More often than not deficits have been incurred on total Budget accounts for a 12 months period. Anyone who cares to thumb the pages of previous Budgets will see that as clear as crystal before his eyes. The Opposition voices are saying that this is a special deficit as though they do not agree with it and this is something peculiar to the Labor Party in government. I submit that at least the Opposition and the Government seem to have much in common on this occasion regarding the deficit, because the other evening in the other place the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) more or less agreed with the level of the deficit of $2,798m, in round figures. I do not need to remind honourable senators opposite that such a deficit is a fact of life that has been accepted by the Leader of the Opposition as being a reasonable figure for a deficit on which to formulate his financial policy if by accident he were to become the Prime Minister of this country.

There were voices in opposition to the deficit but it is a figure that has been accepted as reasonable by the Opposition’s own leader. It follows that if the Leader of the Opposition were going to work to that sort of deficit he would have to employ the same sort of mechanisms as are being employed through this Bill. He would have available to him the same Treasury advice. He would be bound by the same Treasury minutes. He would have the scrutiny of the same PublicAccounts Committee. Books would be audited by the same Auditor-General of Australia. He would have to apply himself in the same manner as this Government has applied itself towards a deficit of some $2, 798m. So why do we hear all this rot that the Labor Party is the only party that mismanages, that it is unable to handle the economy or to govern? Even when the Opposition was on the Treasury bench it found itself- and if they are ever again returned to the Treasury bench it will find itself- in the same position as this Government. It will have to work within the confines of the Treasury regulations of this country and it will have to finance and introduce measures- Appropriation Bills, Loan Bills and Supply Bills- as this Government has to do. So much for that.

On this occasion in respect of money Bills the Opposition is running true to form. It has tried again to imply that the Bill seeks to authorise additional defence expenditure. It seems to think that every time we introduce a money Bill we are trying to crib some extra money that is not provided for in the normal machinery of government. Again, that is absolute poppycock, and of course the Opposition knows as well as we know that it is not true. It is as false as the Opposition itself in the circumstances surrounding this debate. This Bill will simply allow the Government to reallocate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund part of the expenditures of the Department of Defence which have already been authorised in Supply Act (No. 1) 1975-76 which was introduced earlier this year and subsequently included in the Appropriation Bills of 1975-76. The Supply Bill which contained this defence expenditure was passed by this Parliament and this is now only a machinery measure to make available finance that is not available at the present time in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is a situation that all governments have at some time or other been faced with, and, as I said earlier, it is a situation with which governments in the future also will be faced.

Let us examine again what will happen when this Bill has passed this place and is enacted. When the Bill is enacted the Treasurer will move an amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76, and that amendment will permit defence expenditure specified in this Bill to be charged to the Loan Fund. The exercise is as simple as that. But we find that during the second reading debate the Opposition asked for answers to 1 8 questions. It is preposterous and unheard of in the history of this Parliament for a simple loan Bill, which is a machinery measure, to be frustrated in its passage through this House by the asking and answering of 1 8 questions. I quote an example of the questions and answers to remind honourable senators opposite of their exercise in futility. The first question was:

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?).

The answer which was promptly supplied by the Government was:

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.

It is as simple as that. The answer continues:

On the basis ofthe 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 1 m. 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 1967.

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

The figures set out 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

as stated in my Second Reading Speech it will be necessary to amend Appropriation Act (No. I ) 1975-76 to make it subject to the provisions of this Act.

So the answers went on in reply to the 18 unnecessary questions. It was an elementary exercise in parliamentary accounting. The Loan Bill was a machinery measure seeking temporary moneys to be transferred from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund to meet Defence expenditure. Yet we find honourable senators opposite pontificating and trying to convince the electorate at large that something wrong was going on with the accountancy in the Government, that there was misappropriation, that we were acting unconstitutionally, and that we were acting from outside the framework of the Treasury regulations, the Public Accounts Act and of the Auditor-General. The answers to these questions and remarks made during this debate have told the world at large that all these claims made by the Opposition, just as those that have been made in relation to all other money Bills- have been false. It makes one wonder what is behind all this frustration and all this delay. What is behind all this humbug and the creating of innuendo by the purveyors of misery and those who are shattering confidence in the community by making false charges that the

Government is wobbling and shaking as far as its financial transactions are concerned?

As I have said in this place before one can only believe that the Opposition feels that it has a divine right, like the Stuarts, to be in Government and not in Opposition. It cannot wait to get over to the Government side. The Opposition is hanging on to any pretence- because it has the weight of numbers in this place- to try to force an election. The only thing wrong is that it cannot make up its mind when to do it or whether to do it at all. The Opposition would have us believe, from the way the Leader of the Opposition is portrayed in the Press and by the Liberal Party machine, that he is the great Messiah who will lead us to the Promised Land. He is the strong, tough leader who by sheer industry, brilliance and capacity has emerged from among his own followers in the Liberal Party to become Leader of the Opposition. That is the impression which the Opposition is trying to give. A very high ranking member of the Liberal Party Opposition, not in this place but in the other place, told me that the Leader, Mr Malcolm Fraser, is filling a role- no more nor less- no different from that of Mr Snedden, Mr McMahon, Mr Gorton or of any leader before him. He is there because he may be a vote catcher.

If his timing for an election is too soon he will get the chopper. If it is too late he will get the chopper. But the startling fact is, I have been reliably informed, that instead of Mr Fraser being his own decision maker he relies on Kooyong- and I am not referring to the flat of a well-known and respected honourable senator. Mr Fraser relies on the advice of none other than RGM himself. Mr Fraser is continually, daily and on many occasions on the telephone, seeking advice and instructions as to what his tactics or strategy should be. In fact, I am reliably informed by this leading member of the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives that Mr Fraser is a de facto leader of the Opposition and that the orders are coming from Kooyong, from RGM

Senator Marriott:

– Does not Jim Cairns give Whitlam the orders?

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I shall deal with that later on. Do not let us change the subject. I suggest that the honourable senator cultivate that very important virtue of patience. I think it is well for everybody to know about this matter. This is the dilemma the Opposition is in. It is waiting for its leader to make a decision. So every time a money Bill, such as this Loan Bill, comes before the Senate we have frustration, delaying and false claims. The Opposition thought it had a vote catcher. That is why it elevated Mr Fraser to the leadership. But no longer is there any decision making within the confines of its own party room. As a result of his leadership there is a pipeline to Kooyong and to RGM. All the decision making, the future proposals and the strategy of the Liberal Party are being decided down there.

During the course of a debate this afternoon certain accusations were made by a Liberal lady senator, Senator Martin, who sits opposite, regarding some sort of an attack on a colleague from Queensland, Senator Keeffe. Senator Martin claimed that the performance of the Queensland Government in the field of mining and minerals was exemplary and that Senator Keeffe, as a Queenslander, should be proud of it. I want to connect the Queensland performance in the mining industry, in the way of royalties, to this debate, because the matter has some bearing on the size of the deficit. I claim that if Queensland’s performance in relation to royalties and mining had been as suggested by the Grants Commission the deficit would have been lower than $2,798m. I suggest that Senator Martin do some research. For her edification I refer her to a speech I made in the Senate on 16 May 1972. 1 said:

The submission by the Queensland Government came under very strong criticism in another section of the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s report. I repeat that this is not an attempt to make political capital in the sense of criticism being made by one political party of another; it is criticism that has been published in the Commonwealth Grants Commission report, a Federal Government document, lt expresses the view of top public servants and members of the Federal Treasury. The Commission had something to say about Queensland’s submission that it wanted additional cash grants. On page 1 1 paragraph 24 of the report in relation to royalties it states:

The Commonwealth Treasury suggested that the value of mining output might give some indication of capacity to raise mining royalties. This would suggest that Queensland ‘s capacity is above standard; and as the royalties collected per head of population in Queensland are below the average per capital for the standard States it would appear that Queensland makes a relatively low effort in this field.

Why did they make a relatively low effort in this field? Last year 6.S million tons of bauxite was mined at Weipa at a cost of $37m. The royalties which came to the Queensland Government from that $37m worth of bauxite amounted to $412,000 or 1 per cent. The royalty rate is 5c a ton for bauxite produced for local use and 10c a ton for that exported. Yet, just across the Gulf at Gove the Commonwealth Government negotiated rates of 10c to 20c for local use and 30c for export. That is 3 times the pittance accepted by the Country-Liberal Party Government of Queensland.

It is only in recent months, due to the efforts of the Federal Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), that the royalties have been increased. If this performance had been adopted in Queensland in previous years then this

Government in the national capital would not be facing deficits of $2,798m. Mr Deputy President, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to reply to the criticism that I felt was levelled unfairly this afternoon at a Queensland senator. At another time and in a more appropriate debate I hope I will have the opportunity to answer some of the false claims that were made this afternoon by Senator Martin against Senator Keeffe.

I return to the Loan Bill 1975. As I said at the outset, it is a machinery Bill and the only remarkable thing about the debate that has gone on and been prolonged in this chamber is that the Bill is being debated at all. It is a machinery measure that has been followed by governments in the past and will be followed by the governments in the future. It makes provision for temporary financing of defence expenditures. I wish that the Opposition would forget all about its frustrating and delaying tactics in its unnecessary probing of the money Bills. The same situation applies in relation to the Estimates debates, where money matters are being discussed. One honourable senator during an Estimates debate the other evening asked were there any spare tables and chairs in a particular office and, if so, what was being done with them. An appropriation of some $129m was being considered and an honourable senator wanted to know were there any unused tables or chairs in this office or any other office and what was happening to them. That sort of frustration is not good for any government, whether the Labor Party is in government or the parties on the other side of the chamber are in government. It is about time that the Opposition behaved itself, acted responsibly, as Her Majesty’s Opposition should, and allowed this Bill to be passed and the Government to get on with governing.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

- Mr Deputy President, the Senate is debating the Loan Bill 1975. It is not, as the Government would like to have us believe, a minor machinery matter. It is a vital part of the overall strategy of the Federal Budget, and the testing of this Bill is a primary testing of the authenticity or the validity of the Budget itself. It is therefore a very proper and absolutely necessary duty of an Opposition to do what we are now doing. The Bill itself aims to allow the borrowing of money under Government bonds, or indeed the raising of money by the issue of Treasury bills. In the first place, it seeks to do so because of a provision, clause 3(8), in the financial Agreement which, as the Senate knows, allows the Commonwealth Government to act to raise money without first seeking Loan Council approval.

Senator Wright:

– For defence.

Senator CARRICK:

– For defence, indeed. It is also, as Senator Wright intervenes, for temporary purposes. Clause 3(8) states: . . Loans for Defence purposes approved by the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall not be included in the Commonwealth’s loan program or be otherwise subject to this Agreement.

That allows the Government to go on the bond market to raise loans for defence. The Government itself has brought in a Budget which it says will have an overall deficit of $2,798m. The test of whether that is so or not can be measured by the fact that the previous Budget was alleged to provide for a deficit of $570m and ended up with a deficit of $2,567m. That had a major and very disastrous inflationary result. So the size of the deficit itself ought to be probed in order that we may know what is the problem, and then the nature of the borrowing and the nature of the funding of the deficit should be probed.

The Bill is only for part funding of the deficit. The Appropriation Bills (No. 1 ) and (No. 2) and the special appropriations provide that the Consolidated Revenue Fund will have expenditures in this year of $20,203m. The Consolidated Revenue Fund is expected to yield $ 19,051m in the same year, leaving a gap of $1,1 52m, which I take it is the primary aim. As Senator Wright quite properly reminds me, the Financial Agreement allowed this procedure for the authentic purpose of raising money for defence. Whether or not the Agreement has been abused in the past, that is the important point to make. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) takes the entirely cynical view, of course, and he takes the open-ended view. I quote from Hansard of 20 August at page 299 where Mr Hayden stated:

It is not possible at this stage of the financial year to be at all precise as to the amount of defence expenditure which will have to be charged to the Loan Fund. That amount, which can be expected to be sizeable, will be a residual affected by all other transactions of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is for this reason that the Bill does not specify a fixed amount of borrowing.

In other words, Mr Hayden said that what we are going to do is to find what the deficit is and then pretend that it is a defence expenditure and say: We will use the device that we can use and bypass the Loan Council’, and I quote his actual words. They may need clarification, but those are his words in the second reading speech on the Bill. To me they are utterly outrageous because what they say, on the face of it, and continue to say is that the Government proposes an openended method, at least up to $1,71 lm, which is the total amount of the defence expenditure allowed, to finance the Budget.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It is another Reid Murray operation.

Senator CARRICK:

– Indeed, it could teach Reid Murray some new tricks. Let me demonstrate that. Senator McAuliffe and his colleagues have thrown up their hands in horror and said: What a fuss you are making. We have used this device many times before.’ Let me put this in perspective. In 12 years of Liberal government, embracing the years 1961-62 to 1972-73, the total deficit for the whole of those 12 years added together was a sum of $4,253m. The total moneys raised for defence purposes under this device in those 12 years were $ 1,062m. In the 2 years 1974-75 and 1975-76 the Government proposes to raise for defence purposes $2, 108m or more, if Mr Hayden is right. That is twice as much in 2 years as was raised in 12 years. It is a trivial matter, so Senator McAuliffe said, to have a deficit of $5, 365m in 2 years, or substantially more than all the deficits for 12 years put together. But the Government comes to us and says that this is a minor machinery matter. We are asking 2 questions. Is the deficit going to be $2, 798m, as has been suggested in the Budget, and how will the Government finance that deficit? They are proper questions to ask.

Lest time should defeat me in this, and knowing Senator McAuliffe ‘s natural antipathy to questions, I have delivered to the responsible Minister the text of some 8 questions that I pose; not to hold up the debate but, as I have said to him in my communication, to give him ample warning so that when he sums up this debate he may, and I hope he will, reply and provide answers. That is a very proper procedure. I pose these 8 questions which require answer if we are to understand the 2 things: Is the deficit going to be held, and how is it going to be financed?

My first question is: Will the Minister reaffirm the statement of the Treasurer, as recorded on page 419 of the Senate Hansard of 2 September, that ‘Present plans envisage that only small amounts will be raised overseas in 1975-76. Small refinancing loans to cover maturing debt are planned together with a borrowing of about $50m for on-lending to the AIDC which is provided for in the Budget’?

I preface my second question by saying that it has come to my attention from a number of sources that there are considerable activities in the European money markets at this moment concerning people purporting to be acting on behalf of the Australian Government raising money, and seeking to raise money, in units of $ 1,000m. Because this is so, and because of the former answer by the Treasurer, I ask this question: Will the Minister affirm that current activities in the money markets of Europe, and indeed of the world, purporting to be directed towards the raising of substantial loans reputedly in units of $ 1,000m for Australia have no stimulus or support from the Commonwealth Government? Quite clearly it is terribly important to know what volume of money will flow in from abroad, because it will increase the total money supply and therefore it will be imperative to a study of what will happen to inflation in Australia.

My third question is: Is it a fact, as evidence in answers provided to Estimates Committee D on 1 1 September, that salaries shown throughout the Budget Estimates are calculated on March 1975 levels, before the national wage case and making no allowance whatsoever for the 23 per cent salary rises foreshadowed in the Budget Speech? If not, what basis of calculation was used? That is a summary of the reply of the Government officials to an extensive series of questions asked by members of Estimates Committee D. I am well aware that in the Budget statements there is an indication of some $ 150m put as an umbrella amount to cover escalations in salaries. That would be petty cash if the answer to my third question is as the officials have said; that is, if the salaries have been calculated without regard to any kind of escalation or to any kind of prediction of a 23 per cent increase in salaries during the year. I am well aware of the normal Treasury practice of not allowing such escalations in ordinary estimates. I am equally aware, and the Government must be aware, that it would be utterly dishonest for a government to know that it had not included those calculations, that it had reached a deficit of $2, 798m on false calculations and that it had not disclosed that to the public and to the Parliament. It is in that sense that I seek an answer to that question.

I ask further: Is it a further fact that postal and telephone charges in the Budget Estimates are calculated on charges prevailing prior to the recent steep increases? I repeat that members of Estimates Committees have asked this question and have repeatedly been given the answer that the postal and telephone charges throughout the whole of the Estimates are calculated on the rates applying prior to the recent rises. So here we have postage calculated at 80 per cent less- at 10c instead of 18c- and telephone charges calculated at 6c instead of 9c. If that is so, quite clearly the basis of the Budget is wrong and totally dishonest. So I ask: Are the officials stating the fact as they stated it before the Estimates Committees, or are they in fact not telling the truth?

My next question is: Are all the costs in the Budget Estimates calculated on March 1975 prevailing levels? If not, on what levels are they costed? Clearly this applies not only to salaries or to telephones. If the costs are based on levels at March or June of this year and do not allow for escalation, every line item in the Budget itself is subject to tainting and subject to the fact that it has been under-costed.

My next question is: Does the Budget include adequate allowance for the salaries, etc., of the projected 2.8 per cent increase in the Commonwealth Public Service? Has that been allowed for? I see no sign of that at all. That would be a very substantial sum. I then ask: Will it be necessary, based on the above factors and upon the information in the Treasurer’s letter of July 1975 to the Prime Minister foreshadowing under-budgeting on Medibank and other charges, to introduce additional Appropriation Bills for very substantial sums, either later this year or early next year, thereby enormously increasing the amount of the foreshadowed deficit?

My final question is: Was the Minister for Labor and Immigration correct, in his answer to me, when he indicated that no new expenditures or initiatives whatsoever will be introduced in this financial year to offset his projected 400 000 or more unemployed? I ask those questions as being vital to an understanding, firstly, of whether the deficit itself is a true one and, secondly, how it might be financed. In my view, on the evidence that has been given so far by officials to the Estimates Committees, there is an error at least of the magnitude of some $700m or $800m in understating of the Budget. That is an error without any likelihood of any extension of any programs whatsoever- an unreal likelihood.

My reason for asking this question is of supreme importance. Senator McAuliffe has been worried about our raising unnecessary matters, so I will raise the matter which is regarded as of prime necessity by the Government itself. Perhaps we can find- who knows- a common interest because the key argument in the Budget runs this way- and I read 2 paragraphs from the opening of the Budget Speech which deal with the whole basis of strategy of the Budget:

This year’s budgetary considerations began, as usual, with an examination of the prospective Budget aggregates. Expenditures were projected to grow much more rapidly than revenues and the prospective deficit was nearly double that of 1974-75. Clearly, such a deficit could not be countenanced under the circumstances.

In the context of an economy beginning to pick up, a deficit ofthe order initially projected would have been a prescription for accelerating inflation. Its acceptance would have been tantamount to abandoning concern with inflation, discarding our wages policies, condemning the corporate sector to an attack upon its profitability and threatening the future jobs of thousands of Australians- all at a time when the first signs of improvement in most of those respects are beginning to appear.

This is a simple situation. We need to know whether the deficit is to remain at $2,798m, or whether it is on its way to doubling and, if so, creating the absolute disaster that the Government says will happen if the Budget deficit gets to the order of $4,000m or $5,000m. Is that trivia? This is the very core of the analysis of this debate.

In returning to the Bill, the real question that is posed is: How much is to be financed? Will the amount be as high as $ 1,152m or more open ended, as Mr Hayden said. What will happen to this deficit, leaving aside the questions I have posed? In July of this year, as all honourable senators are aware, expenditure rose enormously. In fact, it rose by 53 per cent compared with last year. A lot of clucking noises were made and it was said that we could not use these figures because they were not correct. I will quote what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Crean) said so that honourable senators can judge the truth of the July figures. On 27 August on page 589 of Hansard, Mr Crean, in relation to this Bill, said:

Everybody knows that in the early part of a financial year expenditure is uniform month by month but revenue is not.

Mr Crean indicated that expenditure early in the financial year is uniform month by month and he says we can infer therefore that an increase of 53 per cent in July in expenditure is to be the uniform rate month by month. Mr Crean said this, not me. Senator McAuliffe says that this is a machinery measure and it is trivia. Yet, here is Mr Crean saying that we are well on our way to doubling the deficit which the Government believes is disastrous. If I may paraphrase, Mr Crean said that we should not rely too much on the size of the deficit; it is probable that we may have to increase expenditure as we go. That is quite different from the remarks of Senator McAuliffe, Therefore, I ask: Who is in fact telling the truth? We now have a situation in which we have to look at the rate of growth of money supply, which is called M3. In the answers to questions a very important answer came forward. Senator McAuliffe was a little shy in giving the answers. In answer to one question the Government stated:

The Reserve Bank estimates that the underlying annual rate or 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 1973 and June 1976. Some slowing in the rate as the year progresses would be consistent with this yearly figure.

If indeed what I have said is taking place, then the rate of growth of money supply will be enormous. If indeed it is necessary to finance this deficit wholly or substantially out of the creation of money and out of borrowings, as I would like to demonstrate, we will be increasing the money supply disastrously. It is said that we will raise the money by loan. Attention has been drawn to the fact that loans were raised. I think a loan for $68 1 m was raised on 2 1 August this year. It is instructive, when we are dealing with the raising of loans to fulfil Loan Council borrowing programs for the States, as well as this so-called defence loan, to look at what happened. Of those loans 50 per cent or more was subscribed by the banks. Everybody knows that the banks, facing a call up through statutory reserve deposits, would prefer to go into the bond market than simply have their money called up at minimal interest rates. The banks provide that money. The next basic factor was that there was a 20 to 30 ratio of the insurance companies, which are forced to subscribe money, but a relatively minor amount was subscribed by the general public. The first test is the general public. The non-bank lenders were relatively few. If we examine the answers again we find that they are instructive. The question was asked:

How much long and short term moneys were obtained from banks and other institutions?

The answer stated:

In announcing on 26 August 1975 the result of the recent August loan, the Treasurer stated that cash subscriptions totalled $68 1.7m, comprising $3S4.0m of subscriptions to the 18-month (February 1977) stock, $292.2m to the 5’A year (November 1980) stock and $34.7m to the 9’A year (February 1985) stock.

In other words, these loans were mostly short term. They showed that the public was not willing to lend and was not willing to lend for long periods. What the Government is getting is subscriptions forced from the banking institutions and they, of course, on their own basis are not unlimited.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They put it into those loans in order to avoid going to the statutory reserve deposits.

Senator CARRICK:

– I made the point, Sir Magnus, that basically the banks would subscribe to the loans because they, at least, did not have to go to the SRDs. That is absolutely and fundamentally true. So what have we got now?

We have a situation in which the Budget deficit is under challenge at this moment on evidence given to us- not by Opposition officials but by Government officials in the presence of their Ministers and the Chairman of the Estimates Committees. These Government officials challenge the deficit and suggest that it will be substantially larger. Those comments are written into the Senate Estimate Committee’s Hansard. The comments were in response to questions I posed to the Ministers involved. I asked the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) how the salaries of the defence forces were calculated and whether they allowed for any escalation. He gave me a clear answer ‘No’. Indeed, to save the hypertension of Senator McAuliffe, who is attempting to interject, let me say that the officials have said that it will be necessary to introduce more appropriation Bills.

Senator McAuliffe:

– That is the procedure.

Senator CARRICK:

-Indeed, Senator McAuliffe is now acknowledging it. How grateful I am. If the Government has to introduce more appropriation Bills- Senator McAuliffe has acknowledged this- this Budget deficit is as wrong as hell.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Every Government has to do that.

Senator CARRICK:

– If there is to be one more penny of expenditure over $2,798m, this Government will fall to the ground and, indeed, the very basis on which the Government is stating its case will collapse. Senator McAuliffe has acknowledged that more appropriation Bills will have to be introduced. On the acknowledgement of the officials who appeared before Estimates Committee, it will be necessary to have more appropriation Bills introduced, especially in the months immediately ahead, to provide for the escalation in costs which were- whether the Treasury prescribed it or not- not only not included in the line items but deliberately hidden in the Budget statement itself. It is no excuse that the Treasury has a formula. It is no excuse that the Treasurer and his Government when they got on their feet hid from the public of Australia the fact that they had apparently under costed the Budget by hundreds of millions of dollars. Now we are getting to the very crunch of the matter.

We have a Bill before us which the Treasurer has said is open ended. The Treasurer has said that his belief is that this Bill will go partially towards funding it. When we asked what will happen if the bond market fails, as demonstrably it is likely to do, it becomes clear- the answers are in Hansard- that it will have to be funded otherwise. We are told that this is trivia. In answer to the question:

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

The answer stated:

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 balances and/or other residual financing arrangements with the Reserve Bank.

In other words the Government will increase substantially the total money supply by printing money, thereby escalating inflation to an enormous degree. What is the result of an analysis of this simple little machinery Loan Bill? First, it is a device, and a corrupt device. The corruption is evident throughout the whole of the Budget Speech. The Government pretends to the people that it has a costing system, and that is a false claim. Secondly, it pretends that it can go onto the loan market and take out of non-bank borrowing sufficient money to fund this deficit. But the non-bank borrowers, who would, by lending this money, not increase the money supply, are not in the market. That is a simple demonstration. If the Government could not get a substantial majority of non-bank borrowers in its first loan situation does it expect to get it in its second, its third or its fourth? What is going to happen to the loan fund program for the States if this is so? It will be in jeopardy.

One of the terrible dangers in this situation where we are now looking ahead to huge inflation in the expenditure of the Government and a huge seeking of funds is that the Government, in order to try to get more money out of the nonbank sector, will be forced into putting up bond rates. If the bond rates go up- and that will be absolutely necessary in order to attract such money- the whole interest rate structure will accelerate as in the past. This will trigger hyperinflation not seen in the history of Australia before- and this Government already holds the record.

I want to sum up my remarks. The purpose of this Bill is to provide the main strategy for financing the Budget deficit. The questions we have asked about this Bill have been satisfactorily answered in the main. I acknowledge that the Treasury officials have been most helpful. However, there remains a massive field of inquiry that it is absolutely necessary to undertake if there is to be understanding. The situation is very simple, Mr President. If the Government has nothing to hide, if in fact what the Government says is true and that the Budget deficit is to stand at $2,798m, then all it has to do is to say so. If the

Budget, apart from this item of $ 150m, contains adequate escalation and costing for all these costs then let us have the information and we will be able to understand it.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– Shortly some Bills are to be introduced into the Senate and at this late hour it would be very difficult for me to make an objective appraisal of this Bill. Before seeking leave to continue my remarks I want to say that the Opposition obviously has taken the opportunity while the Senate proceedings have been broadcast to use this Bill as a vehicle for peddling the sort of tripe we have heard in the last half hour from Senator Carrick. He posed a series of questions. Since this Bill was first introduced it has had more starts than Phar Lap. Since it was first introduced no less than 12 closely typed pages of information, questions and answers, have been supplied to the Opposition about its provisions.

Before I seek to do what I was proposing to do at the outset of my remarks I again reiterate what we on the Government side ofthe chamber have been saying: This Bill in fact is a simple technical measure and its introduction follows the procedure adopted year after year by the Opposition parties when they were in government in this country. This whole exercise is quite farcical. The suggestion that there is now something to precipitate a debate of the length of the debate on this measure- this is the fourth time that this Bill has come before the Senate for debate- shows the complete farce of the situation. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted: debate adjourned.

page 883

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to:

That the second reading of the Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 883

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (TASMANIA) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to:

That the second reading of the Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 884

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (QUEENSLAND) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to:

That the second reading of the Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 884

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (VICTORIA) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to:

That the second reading of the Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 884

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (NEW SOUTH WALES) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to:

That the second reading of the Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 884

ADJOURNMENT

Status of Women- Queensland Government- Political Parties- Rail Freight Concessions

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

– I crave the indulgence of the Senate for a few minutes. This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in the debate on the motion that the Senate do now adjourn, but I feel obliged to seek this opportunity to put on record a few facts in relation to some statements which have appeared in the newspapers over the last couple of days on the subject of the Queensland Government and the women of Queensland. Glaring headlines were given in the newspapers yesterday and more coverage was given again today to a statement by Miss Elizabeth Reid, the former adviser of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on women ‘s affairs. In commenting on a statement by the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, on

Monday dealing with the real social problems in Australia and the world at the moment, she said:

It is a pity that they are being written off by people who are not prepared to acknowledge the contribution of women.

I quoted from a report in the Courier-Mail. That report was the same as the report in every other newspaper. Miss Reid stated also that Mr Bjelke-Petersen had not enabled women to hold high places or high office under the policies of the National-Liberal Government in Queensland. As a senator for Queensland I have become rather accustomed to people using Queensland as the Aunt Sally of Australian politics. If someone wants to make a rude remark about somebody it is fashionable to pick on Queensland or some personality from that State.

Senator Poyser:

– Did you say ‘a rude remark about somebody’..

Senator MARTIN:

-Well, a less than complimentary remark.

Senator Poyser:

– I just want you on record.

Senator MARTIN:

– I thought that phrase might have been a little involved, but if Senator Poyser prefers it I will use it.

Senator Poyser:

– I just want you on record. It is important to what may follow.

Senator MARTIN:

– Apparently the truth irritates, but in this case the truth must be put on record. Miss Reid could not have been worse informed and could not have given the Australian public a worse picture of the Queensland Government in this area. As I said, I am accustomed to people making statements about Queensland which are either devoid of fact or so far from the fact as to be barely recognisable. I expected better from Miss Reid. After all, this is her subject. What is going on in the various States and what various State governments are doing is her business. If she has made the activity of the Queensland Government in the area of legislation on women her business, she did not reveal it in the Press statements that appeared Australia wide yesterday and today.

In 1973 the Minister for Justice in Queensland, Mr Bill Knox, set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Status of Women. It was purely his initiative. While many women welcomed it, it was not in response to any specific pressure or request from women or from any group within the community. It was some far-sightedness on the part of a Minister who has shown similar farsightedness in other legislative areas, particularly consumer affairs. This commission of inquiry was asked to recommend to the State Government areas in which legislation or policy initiatives were needed, which would combat any complaint based on fact about disadvantage to women in Queensland, insofar as the State Government is capable of legislating. That commission had 4 members- 2 men and 2 women. The report was given to the State Government towards the end of 1974. As an election promise in the 1974 Queensland State election campaign Mr Knox stated that the recommendations of that commission of inquiry would be implemented. A number have been; others are in the process.

For the record, I will state the initiatives that the Queensland Government has taken this year to implement some of the recommendations. One of the most controversial, probably so far as the public and the Parliament were concerned, but which was carried by an overwhelming majority, was a Bill to ensure that women are not required to state their marital status on legal documents. I do not want to spend a great deal of time explaining why these things are necessary. I shall take it as implicit that the ladies and gentlemen of this chamber realise the significance and the great importance of that Bill to women.

In Queensland women have served on juries for a number of years, but they were able to claim certain special exemptions. Generally, they did not serve in the same numbers that men did. This year the differences in conditions of service on juries were abolished. Women in Queensland serve on juries, in response to their stated desire, on exactly the same terms as men. Since that legislation was passed there have already been several juries in Queensland comprised entirely of women.

In its election promises the Government also committed itself to a policy of ensuring that women would be appointed to all Government boards and advisory bodies, wherever there is a woman in the State who is capable of contributing to such a board or such a body. So much for Miss Reid ‘s statement about reluctance to have women in high places. A woman has already been appointed Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Council. Consumer affairs is an area in which women are particularly involved since they are major consumers on behalf of the families in our society.

More recently the Government took another initiative which was not a recommendation of that commission of inquiry but which was a very important one and one which has been welcomed by all women. In the 1975 Budget Sir Gordon Chalk, the State Treasurer, promised the elimination of gift and death duties on the passage of assets or gifts from spouse to spouse. The area of estate duty has been one which has been particularly cruel to women. Its implementation has shown the poor recognition that previous governments have given to the economic status of women in our community. Queensland is the State which leads the way there and recognises that in that area some very simple justice is due to women.

Probably one of the most important initiatives, in my opinion, and one which refutes Miss Reid, was the setting up by the Government- again as a direct result of a specific recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Status of Women- of a body called the Council of Queensland Women. It is the principal advisory body to the Government on issues as they affect the women of the community. The advice that comes from this Council to the Government can come either because the Government has requested advice in a particular area or because the Council, in its own wisdom, deemed that there was an area which it should investigate and on which it should make recommendations to the Government. There is an important difference between this Council and the similar body in New South Wales- namely, in Queensland that group can initiate areas in which it believes the Government needs advice. It does not wait for the Premier or anybody else to become aware that they may need advice. These women work with the State Government to advise it and they are not therefore, as somebody might suggest, lackeys of a National Country Party-Liberal government. On the contrary, when the Government moved to set up this Council it invited any women of Queensland who were interested to serve on the Council and, who thought they may have qualifications to assist the Council’s deliberations, to nominate themselves.

The Government did not select those women whose opinions it knew would conveniently fit in with its own opinions. It did not require that groups should nominate the women. It recognised that there are many women in the community who have much which is worthwhile to contribute and who have opinions which are valuable, particularly in the area ofthe needs of the family in our community and who do not necessarily, as a direct result of those commitments, have the time to become heavily involved in community groups. From the many hundreds of women who nominated themselves the State Government made a choice. In my opinion it has made a quite successful attempt to get together a combination of individuals in employment, the professions, the arts, politics, community and welfare activities and women who just occupy the traditional role of homemaker. It sought a cross-section of political and social opinion. It sought to ensure that women from all parts of the State were represented on that Council, which is particularly important in a State such as Queensland where size and distances can invoke very particular problems for special regions of the State. I do not propose to give all the names of the women on the Council because I do not have all the individual names. Although the women were not nominated by groups it is interesting to look at the sort of groups to which the women who are now on that Council belong. I want to make it clear that the Government has kept faith with its intention to have a cross-section of political and social opinion.

With the indulgence of the Senate I shall read very quickly a list of organisations which have members on the Council, although they are not in the capacity of representing their organisations. There is the State President of the Liberal Women’s Council. There is a woman from the National Party State Executive. There is a member of the Queensland Central Executive of the Australian Labor Party. There are local government aldermen and the Deputy Mayor of a major provincial city who is also a senior social worker. There are women from the Queensland Country Women’s Association and from the National Council of Women. There is the Chairman of the International Women’s Year United Nations Association Committee. There is the President of the Queensland Status of Women Committee. There is a representative from the Women’s Employment Committee. There is the Vice President of the Federated Clerks Union, who is also a member of the National Executive of the Federated Clerks Union. There is a member of the Regional Council for Social Development. There is the matron of a major provincial city hospital. There are representatives of the Queensland Health Education Council, the National Trust and the Keep Australia Beautiful Council.

Senator Poyser:

– We will let you incorporate it.

Senator MARTIN:

– I am afraid that it is not in a form which I can incorporate. I am sure that Senator Poyser, along with all his colleagues, is sufficiently interested in the subject to bear with it for a couple of minutes. There are representatives from the Queensland Council for the Arts, Home Management Advisory Service and the

Pregnancy Help organisation. There are representatives from the Business and Professional Women’s Club, Quota Clubs, the College of Ophthalmologists, the Good Shepherd Lodge, and the Girl Guides. There is also the President of the Queensland Ladies Jockeys Association. I am really sorry that I bore the Labor senator from Victoria. It was possibly to be anticipated. The truth hurts in some cases and raises a noise and an objection. It is clear from Senator Poyser’s own words that the monopoly of ignorance on this subject does not lie, as claimed by Miss Reid, with the Queensland. Premier. There is a point there which should be taken by this Government.

I have never previously commented on Miss Reid’s appointment because frankly I wished her luck. I hoped that she would succeed in her job and that the women of Australian would reap some benefit from it, but I was critical of the administrative tactics of the Government in this type of appointment. One of the reasons that I think some women in the community have criticised Miss Reid, sometimes unfairly, is that they feared that one person’s opinion was to be foisted on all women in Australia. Women have a characteristic in common with the community at large. Their opinions differ widely on the same subjects. They have different aspirations and they have different abilities. They feared in this appointment that one person’s opinion would be foisted upon them. I think this is what lies beyond the sort of publicity the subject has received over the last few days.

I am not saying that Miss Reid has necessarily tried to do that but I contrast it with the very genuine attempts by the Queensland Government to try to gather together the opinion of women in Queensland in a way which would benefit all women in Queensland. There has been no objection to the composition of that Council of Queensland Women. It has been welcomed by women of all groups and of all political persuasions in Queensland. It is sad that the nonsense to which we have been subjected through the Press over the last couple of days ever got into print. It is sad that the Press did not take the trouble to find out, if it did not know in advance, what was the state of affairs in Queensland. Mr President, I thank the Senate for its indulgence.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Perhaps Senator Martin ought to be reminded that Miss Reid was provoked by the Queensland Premier in a fashion which we have to come to accept as typical of him. He provoked Miss Reid by some outrageous statements concerning the variety of women’s organisations which have been sponsored and assisted by this Government since it came to power. Surely Senator Martin will not deny the initiatives which this Government has take on behalf of the rights of women. The list of achievements of the Queensland Government which she read out is really not convincing when compared with the initiatives taken by the Australian Government. Let me highlight the position of the Premier and his right to make such a statement about Miss Reid. Let me also refer to Senator Martin’s defence of the Queensland Premier.

The Premier can be judged by the behaviour and the standard of debate in the Queensland Parliament over which he presides. When he utters those righteous statements against certain legislation and actions of the Australian Parliament he ought first to put his own house in order. Over the last 2 days I have needed to refer to the Hansard of the Queensland Parliament. Previously I had not had the opportunity to read it. I have not been on anyone’s mailing list and I have not received the Hansard of the Queensland Parliament. Nevertheless, I have been told from time to time that I have been mentioned. From my reading over the past 2 days I have also found out that Senator Bonner has received honourable mention and Senator Keeffe and a number of others have also been mentioned.

Senator Missen:

– You could always pay the fee and have it sent to you.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, I could. Having had to read the Hansard report of 2 days’ debate in the Queensland Parliament, I would say that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is the last person who should criticise others for what he calls licentious behaviour. I had to read the Hansard to find out what happened when Dr Colston was denied selection to this place. To my horror I came across passages like the following which went unchallenged:

RecentlyI learned to my horror that the Federal Government was contemplating the introduction of some amendments to the Criminal Code in the Australian Capital Territory. It proposes to change things in a way that I think will shock and sicken even the most ardent Australian Labor Party supporters. The honourable member for Bundaberg is leaving the Chamber because he does not want to hear this.

The proposed amendments would legalise homosexual marriages. That is understandable when one realises the number of homosexuals who are now members of the Australian Labor Party. It is proposed to legalise homosexual acts between consenting males over 1 8 years of age-

Senator Mulvihill:

– Who is the degenerate member who said that?

Senator GEORGES:

– It is a chap called Frawley who, I believe, is the member for Murrumba. The Hansard report of his speech continues:

It is proposed to legalise homosexual acts between consenting males over 1 8 years of age and it will be a defence if the accused believes that the other person was 1 8 years of age. However, the worst is yet to come. The proposed Bill actually legalises incest between persons over 18 years of age. When I saw that I had to read it 6 times because I just couldn’t believe it.

Those remarks go unchallenged in the Queensland Legislative Assembly which is controlled by the Queensland Premier who does nothing about such statements. The Hansard report continues:

Every minister of religion, every parent and every rightthinking person in the community should be up in arms about this legislation and determined to oppose it to the bitter end. It is well known that today the Australian Labor Party has become the playground for all the ratbags, radicals, homosexuals, lesbians, touts, urgers and bludgers- you name it; the Australian Labor Party has it. In an earlier debate the honourable member for Townsville South said that he is not afraid of getting down into the cesspool to attack the Australian Labor Party. I am not frightened either, I will get down into it, too.

Then came this interjection:

Why don’t you tell the people about thetime you were caught soliciting in a publiclavatory at Redcliffe.

That, too, went unchallenged in the Queensland Parliament. I am relating these matters in sequence. This is what happened in the Parliament. The debate in which it occurred was the discussion on matters of public interest. Let me read further:

The Labor Party members should hang their heads in shame at the enunciation of some of their Party’s proposals. During the Vietnam demonstrations the previous member for Everton and some of his sidekicks, such as Senator Georges, sat down in the street, waving Bibles above their heads, shouting, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, and, ‘Love thy neighbour’. But now they are completely disregarding the Ten Commandments. They advocate the sale of women -

That was unchallenged:

  1. . and they have no respect whatever for the feelings of the people.

Mr Jensen interjected:

Could you ever make a speech without tipping the tin on somebody?

Mr Frawley continued:

I am not tipping the tin on anyone; I am making a worthwhile contribution to the debate.

I know that the ALP has a plan to form a union of prostitutes so that it can cash in on the action. What better man is there to lead such a union than the honourable member for Archerfield?

He refers to him as a ‘union organiser’.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What dregs of humanity.

Senator GEORGES:

– It goes on. Shall I take another page?

Senator McAuliffe:

– Give it more.

Senator Bonner:

– This is not Senator McLaren?

Senator GEORGES:

-This is Mr Aikens. On the same day, in the debate on the ‘Vacancy in Senate of Commonwealth of Australia’, which dealt with the appointment to fill the vacancy in this Senate, Mr Aikens said:

All that talk of the donkey vote is pure nonsense. I could use a harsher expression but 1 feel sure, Mr Speaker, that you would not allow it. Has anyone ever heard of a Communist recording a donkey vote? The Communist vote is the most highly organised vote in the world, particularly in Australia. 1 know from friends of mine in the ALP that the Communist Party vote in Moreton on that particular occasion was highly organised.

He was talking about the time when the honourable member for Moreton in the other place, Jim Killen, won his seat by a narrow margin.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Magnificent Jim.

Senator GEORGES:

-Yes, magnificent Jim, as I am being reminded.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Killen the magnificent!

Senator GEORGES:

-Yes. Mr Aikens continued: 1 know from friends of mine in the ALP that the Communist Party vote in Moreton on that particular occasion was highly organised. They knew that they had to keep Jim Killen in partly because Jim Killen was the best friend they had in the Federal Parliament. He still is the best friend of the ALP in the Federal Parliament. He is almost as big a dissident in the Federal Parliament as Don Chipp. I will say that he is not as bad as Chipp, but he is damn near as bad.

Then we have Senator Bonner- a coloured man. He claims to be an Aborigine. Well, at least he is pan Aborigine. We find him now rushing into the Press, crawling and cringing to the ALP. For what reason? In order to truckle to and to remain the favourite bosom pal of Senator Jim Keeffe, the most obnoxious character in the Federal Parliament and the most virulent anti-white racist in Australia today. I don’t know what Senator Bonner thinks he will get from Jim Keeffe for his toadyism and sycophancy.

Mr Aikens goes on:

Does anyone believe that the people of Queensland would vote for a man who, if elected to the Canberra Parliament, is pledged to vote in favour of homosexual marriages? Does anyone think that the majority of the people of Queensland would vote for a man who, in the Canberra Parliament, would support homosexual copulation? Does anyone think that the people of Queensland would vote for a man who has pledged his support for legalised incest? This is what Dr Colston would do if he were elected, and that is why I know the people of Queensland would not elect him. Would they vote for a man who would support legislation enabling brother to marry brother or father to marry son? Is that the type of man the people of Queensland want to represent them in the Federal Parliament?

So it goes on. I recall that about a week or so ago I was asked in this place to withdraw the word disgraceful’ which I had used concerning the Premier of Queensland. But during this debate in the Queensland Parliament mention was made of a housing program promised by the Prime Minister ( Mr Whitlam) and an interjection was made by one of the Liberal members who said Of course he is a liar.’ No retraction. In fact, the Minister said that he agreed with the interjection. This is the type of behaviour, the type of debate, the level of ethic of the Parliament over which Mr Bjelke-Petersen rules. He is the last one who should be making criticisms. Let us take a look at what the Queensland Parliament had to say about the Senate. On 27 August 1975 Mr Aikens said:

I see no reason to alter any of those opinions. As a matter of fact, they are more strongly embedded than ever and I repeat that in my opinion the Senate is a parliamentary eventide home, a political scrap-heap, a political garbage bin and a political rubbish tip into which all sorts of queer characters were thrown under the party system control.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen was present at the time Mr Aikens made that statement. Mr Aikens went on to say:

I was not going to be elevated to the Senate, Mr Speaker.

Senator Baume:

– Is this the independent Labor man?

Senator GEORGES:

– He is within the Parliament- within the debate- with the Speaker in charge of the House and with the Premier present. But I shall give you one of your National Party men in a minute. Mr Aikens went on to say about the Senate:

I was not going to be elevated to the Senate, Mr Speaker. Do not get that idea into your head! I was going to be denigrated; I was going to descend into that cesspit, the Senate-

Unchallenged! Unchecked by the Premier of Queensland, unchecked by the Speaker. I would say that this indicates the standard of the Queensland politician and of the Queensland Premier who had the supreme righteousness to attack Miss Reid and to attack this Government. Let us get on to a National Party representative. Or perhaps I should continue with what Mr Aikens had to say.

Senator Mulvihill:

– We have heard enough of those degenerate utterances.

Senator GEORGES:

– I have given you Mr Frawley ‘s comments and I could give you the comments of another person also. But take this:

The Leader of the Opposition talked of Senate-elect Colston topping the poll for the election of ALP candidates at the ALP Electoral College. Good God, the less he said about the Electoral College for the election of ALP candidates the better! Everyone knows how that works. When Senator Georges was elected as an ALP Senator, I told the following story. I think there were 37 at the college -

Only half the number that were there, incidentally- that day, and he let it be known that there was $1,000 in it for everyone at the college who would vote for him. One fellow who was a little bit obtuse, like the honourable member for Port Curtis and others, with that lack of perspiracity for which some ALP members are notorious ran along to Georges and said, ‘George, I’ll be in that. You can have my vote for $1,000’. Georges said, ‘No thanks, I’ve got 19. I’ve got enough. ‘ He had already spent $ 1 9,000 to win. We all know that to be true. 1 am not telling anyone anything that he did not know. 1 am not dealing with a debate which spread over a year; I am not dealing with a debate which spread over even a month. This debate took place over 2 days.

Senator Missen:

– You are spreading it over the country, are you not?

Senator GEORGES:

Senator Poyser- Mr Bjelke-Petersen is supposed to be a paragon of virtue. Let us hear what he really is.

Senator GEORGES:

– He is set up as a mammon of righteousness, but he is not. Let us put all those things aside, because they merely indicate the level of debate, the level of, shall we say, parliamentary standards that exist in the Queensland Parliament. I would say that many of the decisions of that Parliament are a reflection of those standards. The most serious thing of which Mr Bjelke-Petersen was guilty was the disadvantage which he caused Dr Colston to suffer. For that Mr Bjelke-Petersen must be held responsible. He was responsible for allowing a police investigation to take place of Dr Colston. When he was headmaster of a school at Carters Ridge in 1962 a fire broke out at that school. A police officer investigated that fire and, since Dr Colston was the only teacher at that school, he was the person who had to respond to the questioning. On the basis of a suspicion that Dr Colston had the only key to the room in which the fire started and on the basis of the replies to questions by a 14-year-old boy, Dr Colston was considered to be guilty by the Premier of Queensland. He accepted the report on suspicion that Dr Colston must have been guilty of setting that fire. He was the only person who had the key to the room in which the fire was set. Since it had not been proven otherwise, Mr Bjelke-Petersen determined that it must be true that Dr Colston set the fire. Mr Bjelke-Petersen should consider very carefully the decision which he has made on this occasion. It has never been my experience previously- I doubt whether it has been the experience of any of the legal men in this Senate- to witness such a disgraceful performance on the part of a group of politicians and on the part of a premier who led those politicians. To me Mr Bjelke-Petersen must be held responsible for having accepted such slim evidence against a man without hearing what that man had to say in his defence. The evidence was based upon a questionnaire of a police officer, upon which the Police Department did not proceed.

What makes the actions of the Premier more reprehensible is the fact that in the original statement made by Mr Byrne who gave the information to the House, it was also implied that the police file was missing and that the person who must be held responsible for that missing file was Dr Colston who was employed by the Police Department at that time. Subsequently the file turned up and was used in the second debate on the matter by Mr John Greenwood who was the member for Ashgrove. Mr Greenwood and 1 have worked very closely together on the Save the Barrier Reef Committee in Queensland. He was a very good advocate for the conservation forces before the Royal Commission on the Great Barrier Reef. I am astonished that Mr Greenwood used the file in the way that he did. It is quite contrary to all legal and ethical practice. Perhaps one day he will explain why he did it. The inference that the file was stolen by Mai Colston was placed to rest because it was produced. How did the Premier get hold of that file? How was he made aware of it? He was made aware of the file by a policeman who is now a sergeant in the Australia Police. He is a person who worked closely with Dr Colston. He made that file available. This member of the Australia Police is also a member of the National Party. So honourable senators can see the devious way, the devious method, which Mr Bjelke-Petersen used to bring forward this report based on an investigation of a fire.

There are many fires in schools. There was one just recently. It involved an administrative block in a school in Queensland. Fires in schools are very frequent occurrences. On the basis of a flimsy investigation set out on a file which was taken from the Police Department records by a person who was a member of the police force and also a member of the National Party and given to the Premier of Queensland, Mai Colston was disadvantaged in order to support his nonendorsement. When Senator Martin comes into this place and endeavours to support such a man she must realise that the whole basis of her argument, no matter how well expressed, is destroyed.

Senator McLaren:

– They will not give him his job back either.

Senator GEORGES:

- Dr Colston resigned from his job according to the requirements of the Constitution in order to nominate for the Senate. Until today he had not been reappointed to his job. 1 am told that he is to be reappointed on Monday, after considerable pressure being applied. Let us continue to expose the actions of the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Parliament and the utterances of the Queensland members of Parliament. If anyone wants to go further into these Hansards they are welcome to do so. For myself, having read two copies of the Hansard, I have read enough. I do not think I will be subscribing to Hansard. If anyone wants to send me a free copy I will accept that free copy. If this is the standard of debate in the Queensland Parliament then I say that any criticism of the Queensland Government and of the Queensland Premier is justified.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I think the last speech really should not go completely unanswered It seems to me that 3 points were made. It was probably one of the most disgraceful speeches heard during an adjournment debate for some time. Firstly, of course, it was not a speech in reply to Senator Martin. Quite obviously Senator Georges came in here determined to speak and determined to read his little extracts from the Queensland Hansard. We only need to recall that Senator Martin was here to answer an allegation which was patently stupid and false, namely, the work which the NationalLiberal Party Government in Queensland has done in the area of women and their advancement. To that allegation the honourable senator made an absolute reply.

The two other parts of the speech were the things Senator Georges really wanted to speak about. I deplored in interjection to him- and I deplore now- his avid interest in what seems to be perhaps some of the silliest speeches and remarks made in a particular State Parliament. I suggest to the honourable senator that he does not do this Parliament any credit by filling up the Hansard of this Parliament with a certain amount of garbage. I think most of what he said was garbage. We do not always have an absolutely perfect standard of debate ourselves. It is not only in the Queensland Parliament that one finds members who use the advantages of Parliament to attack people under privilege, to attack people’s records and so forth. I can see other honourable senators across the chamber who make a practice of doing that. I think it is a deplorable practice. Such honourable senators are really in no position to say to some members- I think they are very obscure members of the

Queensland Parliament who were quoted- that they should not be doing the same thing. They should reflect on some of the less edifying remarks that are sometimes made in the Senate.

Then, of course, Senator Georges chose to join these comments to the perfectly proper remarks, the perfectly proper criticisms of the misuse of the privilege of the Parliament. Privilege of the Parliament ought to be examined by this Parliament as well. There have been occasions in the past in this Parliament and often in the States on which parliamentary privilege has been used very badly. Its use has brought some discredit on the parliaments. Obviously in the case recently in Queensland, the attacks on Dr Colston were disgraceful and were so recognised by members on all sides of this Parliament. Nobody doubts that for one moment. The fact that the honourable senator revives the allegations here in the debate tonight can only cause further hurt. It was an action condemned by the people of this country as being a disgraceful misuse of excessive power. We have a great power in this Parliament which can be misused and can cause great damage to people. There was obviously no senator -

Senator Keeffe:

– If you believe that, why do you not live up to what you are saying?

Senator MISSEN:

– I think that the honourable senator will find, even in the short period I have been here, that I have lived up to that. I will continue to live up to that.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are getting down to the gutter now.

Senator MISSEN:

– Oh no, senator. I am just pointing out that this 3-piece speech of Senator Georges started with a completely irrelevant attack on Senator Martin and then went on to a useless repetition of extracts from debates in the Queensland Parliament. Of course, if the honourable senator does not buy the Hansard reports of debates there, he will probably not be in a position to read them any further. That is a pity because he obviously has an avid interest in them. In the third part, he made very justified remarks except that he made them some weeks too late. Those remarks have been made already. The actions have been condemned by the Australian people and Senator Georges should not try to wrap himself now in some sort of moral attitude as though he is the only person in the Senate who feels as he does on that matter. I suggest that the speech was totally unnecessary and totally unwise. Much of it could well have been left out of the Hansard reports of the Senate.

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I am prepared to accept Senator Martin on face value this evening. She has donned the shining armour and mounted the prancing steed, and become the champion for those who have been wronged. I will accept her on that basis. I ask her for assistance to help me correct a wrong that has been happening in Queensland for some time. I have made this appeal previously to the National Country Party senators but without success. I refer to the secret rail freight concessions system that operates in Queensland at the present moment. Up until 1957 when there was a Labor government occupying the treasury bench in Queensland, governments entered into contract freight arrangements with companies. Having done so, they were published in the railway weekly notice and posted on the notice board of every railway institution throughout the State. But since 1957 with the advent of the National Country Party-Liberal Party coalition Government in Queensland, secret rail freight concessions have been given to companies in Queensland and the information is not published or available for anyone to see, including companies in opposition to the companies that have been given the freight rate concessions.

This is a matter of grave concern to a great number of people in Queensland. It is, I may say, a matter of grave concern to the States Grants Commission which has commented adversely upon this system of secret rail freight concessions operating in Quensland. I think that it would be fair at this stage to say that the system was the brain child ofthe National Country Party section of the coalition. Pressure on the Government became so strong and views were expressed so loudly throughout Queensland about this iniquitous state of affairs that in 1968 the Government of Queensland was forced into the position of engaging a firm of management consultants by the name of Beckingsale to conduct an inquiry into the secret rail freight concessions operating in Queensland. That report was finished in 1971 and was handed to the Premier of Queensland.

It has never been tabled in the Parliament and nobody, no matter how enthusiastic his endeavours have been, has been able to see the findings contained in that report. I think it is a bad state of affairs and something that should not be tolerated by anyone who claims to be a good Queenslander. The Queensland members of the Senate on this side of the chamber have been endeavouring for 3, 4 or 5 years to find out just what is contained in that report and how one can obtain a copy of it so that we might be able to add our endeavours towards wiping out in Queensland this secrecy about rail freight concessions. I appeal to Senator Martin publicly in this Senate, as she is the new found champion of those who have been wronged, to use her endeavours. I do not know whether the Country Party senators here have even tried because my appeal to them has fallen on deaf ears. I ask Senator Martin to use her endeavours to find out about the Beckingsale inquiry into secret rail freight concessions in Queensland. I await anxiously any response from her.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.37.

page 892

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of the Capital Territory (Question No. 807)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What persons or private companies outside the Public Service have been used by the Ministers’ Department for research, public relations, advice, or any other purpose, since 1 July 1973.
  2. For what project or purpose were the services of each person or company utilised.
  3. What was the cost of each of the consultations referred to above.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

Since 1 July 1973, the Department of the Capital Territory has engaged the following consultants.

Department of Tourism and Recreation: Publications (Question No. 706)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation the following question, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications have been regularly produced by (a) the Minister’s Department; (b) the Australian Tourist Commission; (c) the Australian Council for National Fitness; (d) the Australian Sports Council; and (e) other bodies responsible to the Minister.
  2. What has been the purpose of each publication produced regularly by (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) as referred to in(1)
  3. To, whom and specifically, what groups and organisations and how many individuals have these publications been sent which are produced regularly by (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e ) referred to in ( 1 ).
  4. For each of the six States, what publications have been produced regularly by (a) its Minister for Tourism and Department of Tourism and the bodies responsible to each State Minister for Tourism and (b) its Minister for Recreation and Department of Recreation, or its appropriate equivalent, and the bodies responsible to each State Minister for Recreation.
  5. What is the answer to (4) in the context of (a) the Australian Capital Territory; (b) the Northern Territory; and (c) other territories.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) to (3) See table hereunder.
  1. While some State publications are known to me, I am not able to answer the honourable senator’s question accurately and suggest he refer to the appropriate State Ministers responsible for tourism and for recreation.
  2. See the Prime Minister’s answer on 5 June, 1975 ( House of Representatives Hansard, page 3545).

Telephones (Question No. 688)

Senator RAE:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In view of public allegations about telephone overcharging, in particular the Sun Herald report of 10 August 1975, when was subscriber trunk dialling first introduced in Australia.
  2. How many telephone subscribers from each State and Territory have complained to the Postmaster-General’s Department or its successor, or Ministers responsible, alleging overcharging for their telephone services, in each of the years since subscriber trunk dialling was introduced.
  3. In how many of those complaints has re-examination produced evidence which has accepted that the subscriber’s complaint was to some extent justified and indicated the first assessment was wrong.
  4. What is the percentage rate of customer satisfaction in respect of complaints.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Subscriber trunk dialling (STD) was first introduced in March 1959. Extension of the facility in the early years was slow and it was not until the late 1960’s that STD was made available to a significant proportion of subscribers. Today, over 90 per cent of subscribers have access to the facility and during the year to 30 June 1975, 75 per cent of all trunk calls (over 250 million) were dialled direct by subscribers.
  2. and (3) The only available statistics are those given below in respect of metered call charge complaints for each State capital city for each financial year since 1969-70. In about 80 per cent of cases the adjustments were made to correct a human error, either in reading the meter or in the computation and billing processes. The remainder were adjusted because of proven or possible technical faults.
  1. A special review undertaken in 1973 found that the main factors giving rise to disputes were:

    1. the subscriber being unaware of the extent of use by other persons,
    2. failure to recall usage in the early part of the accounting period, and
    3. iii ) failure to recollect tariffincreases.

In most instances a discussion with the subscribers is all that is necessary to enable them to reconcile their accounts with past usage. Where this is not the case a thorough investigation is carried out and in all but a small proportion of cases the subscribers are generally satisfied with the outcome. The actual percentage is not known.

Former Ministerial Office-holders: Benefits and Payments (Question No. 728)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many former Liberal and Country Party Officeholders are in receipt of benefits and payments from the Australian Government.
  2. What are their names.
  3. 3 ) What is the nature of the benefits and payments.
  4. What is the amount of payment and benefit received by each person.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Six former Government Liberal and Country Party Office-holders are currently receiving privileges and facilities which are made available because of their former office in the Australian Parliament.
  2. Rt Hon Sir Robert Menzies; Rt Hon Sir John McEwen; Lord Casey; Rt Hon J. G. Gorton; Rt Hon W. McMahon; Rt Hon B. M. Snedden.
  3. and (4) Details are listed below in the table below:

Sir Robert Menzies office accommodation in Melbourne, including furniture, equipment and facilities normally associated with such an office unrestricted use of an official car, with regular driver, in Victoria and access to pool car transport elsewhere access to official cars for Dame Pattie Menzies overseas fares met officially for self and wife in respect of visits abroad on occasions connected with his former office; use of official cars at overseas posts on particular occasions of significance associated with the visit staff of-

One Private Secretary

One Steno-Secretary Grade 1

Sir John McEwen office accommodation in Melbourne, including furniture, equipment and facilities normally associated with such an office unrestricted use of an official car, with regular driver, in Victoria and access to pool transport elsewhere retention of Federal Member trunk telephone authority (not valid for phonograms) access to official cars at Australian overseas posts staffof-

One Private Secretary

Lord Casey office accommodation in Melbourne including furniture, equipment and facilities normally associated with such an office staffof-

One Private Secretary in addition, Lord Casey is provided with an official car and driver on call in Victoria and access to pool car transport elsewhere on occasions arising from his period of service as Governor-General. In this regard Lord Casey has access to official car transport when visiting the United Kingdom.

Mr J. G. Gorton and Mr W. McMahon (while remaining a Member of the Parliament) in addition to a private Member’s travel entitlement in Australia, may be accompanied by wife at official expense unrestricted use of an official car, with regular driver, for self and wife in Canberra (Mr Gorton) or Sydney (Mr McMahon), with access to pool car transport elsewhere for self and wife postage, and official telephone at residence, for official purposes staff of-

One Private Secretary

One Steno-Secretary Grade 1, plus

One Secretary/Typist for Mr Gorton and

One Assistant Private Secretary for Mr McMahon for Mr McMahon- office accommodation in Sydney, including furniture, equipment and facilities normally associated with such an office.

Mr B. M. Snedden (while remaining a Member of the Parliament) unrestricted access to pool car transport for official purposes office accommodation in Melbourne or in electorate postage, and official telephone at residence, for official purposes staffof-

One Private Secretary

One Secretary/Typist

One part-time Steno-Secretary Grade1 (during Parliamentary sessions).

International Airlines: Fuel Contracts (Question No. 339)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. Have international airlines been advised that when their fuel contracts with oil companies come up for renewal they will be required to pay an increased price for fuel?
  2. What is the price presently charged to international airlines operating into Australia for aviation fuel?
  3. 3 ) What is the extent of the increase to be applied?
  4. What will be the total cost to the international airlines of the changed policy?
  5. How much of this cost will Qantas Airways Limited pay?
  6. How does Qantas Airways Limited intend to absorb the proposed increased costs?
  7. Will the increased fuel price mean an increased price in air fares for Australians wishing to travel overseas; if so, what will be the extent of the increase?
  8. Have all international airlines been advised of the change of policy; if not, what airlines have been advised and how were they advised?
  9. When was the change of policy approved and when was the changed policy announced?
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. to (5), (8) and (9) The international airlines have been made aware that the Government’s policy is to secure world prices for mineral exports including petroleum products: following Cabinet’s decision on the subject in April 1975, matters concerned with the implementation of this policy in relation to the supply of aviation fuel in Australia to international airlines are being settled.
  2. and (7) It can be expected that Qantas and other international airlines concerned will seek to increase air fares for international air services between Australia and overseas countries as a means of meeting the increased costs of aviation fuel supplied in Australia. This procedure was followed by all international airlines following rises in the price of aviation fuel in other countries.

Hospitals: Health Insurance Scheme (Question No. 516)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Has the Government claimed that hospital treatment in standard wards will be free in those hospitals systems participating in the hospital side of the Government’s health insurance scheme.
  2. Did the Minister announce that Canberra residents treated in standard ward beds by doctors of their own choice will pay a hospital surcharge of $20 a day for accommodation and that free standard ward care will be available only to those patients treated by salaried doctors; if so, is this proposed surcharge a punitive imposition designed to discourage participation of non-salaried doctors in the hospital care of Canberra residents.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I have explained publicly in relation to the Canberra and Woden Valley Hospitals that the quality of accommodation in multiple wards is already comparable with that of intermediate wards elsewhere, especially as most accommodation is provided in rooms with four beds. A patient who wishes to be treated by a private (non-Medibank) doctor on a fee-for-service basis can choose intermediate accommodation (usually four beds to a room, as is the case in standard wards), at a cost of $20 a day, or a private (single-bed) room at a cost of $30 a day when such accommodation is available. A hospital charge of $20 per day is made to Medibank patients who seek and are granted single room accommodation. Where a single room is a medical necessity the patient has priority over patients who choose a single room merely for personal preference. In cases of such necessity no such extra charges for single accommodation are made.

Contrary to the suggestion in the honourable senator’s question, these arrangements are far from a ‘punitive imposition’ on patients choosing treatment by a doctor charging fee-for-service. Medibank payments are made for occupants of all beds in the hospital be they public (Medibank) or private patients. Until 1 July, private patients were required to pay at least $30 a day for accommodation in a multiple-bed standard ward at Canberra Hospital or Woden Valley Hospital plus extra charges for radiology. These charges were based on State charges. Since Medibank came in, they have been charged $20 a day all inclusive for the same bed. In a single room they were previously charged $50 plus extras- since Medibank $30 is the all inclusive charge per day. If punitive rates have occurred, they were the rates charged to all patients before Medibank except those few exempted from fees because of poverty or for other reasons. No government, including the National-Liberal coalition in Queensland, has ever suggested that private doctors’ patients should be accommodated free when they had a free hospital service alternative, and no government has suggested that the charges they all impose for accommodation of patients of private doctors are ‘punitive’ or ‘designed to discourage participation of non-salaried doctors’ in hospital care of their residents.

Consumer Standards (Question No. 533)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

What are the titles of the reports, papers, or documents, produced by, or for the Government, since December 1972 on consumer standards, which have not been publicly released.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There is one report relating to consumer standards which has not been publicly released. The report, prepared by the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories, covers an evaluation of characteristics of hard floor coverings for use in the development of Australian consumer standards.

The report has been made available to the Standards Association of Australia. An article, based on information of interest to the consumer contained in the report, is under consideration for inclusion in an issue of the consumer magazine which is to be published by the Government shortly. Full details of the report will then be made available to interested parties.

Education: Teacher Inservice Courses (Question No. 571)

Senator Guilfoyle:

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

  1. 1 ) Does an anomaly arise from the wording of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1973 in connection with financial provision for inservice education to teachers in Government and non-Government schools, as the Act makes no provision for inservice activity involving pre-school education.
  2. Has the Institute of Early Childhood Development in Victoria over a number of years conducted inservice courses for pre-school teachers as well as for teachers of other levels.
  3. As the pre-school teachers suffer discrimination through being unable to claim reimbursement for fees paid for inservice courses, will the Minister investigate this matter and take appropriate action to correct this anomaly.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-74 allows for the payment of costs incurred by primary and secondary teachers in attending inservice or teacher development courses. The courses must be organised principally for teachers at the primary or secondary level (or both). While pre-school teachers may attend such courses no reimbursement of costs can be made in respect of their attendance. The States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-74 makes provision for programs which relate to primary and secondary education only. The Schools Commission is likewise empowered to bc concerned with educational provision at the primary and secondary level.

The development of facilities and services in relation to pre-school education is the concern of the Childrens Commission in consultation, as appropriate with other authorities.

  1. ) The Institute of Early Childhood Development in Victoria has conducted a number of inservice courses organised mainly for pre-school teachers. It is also understood that teachers from other levels of education were able to attend these courses.
  2. The Childrens Commission has developed a policy on inservice courses for pre-school teachers. The Commission will consider funding inservice courses for pre-school teachers following the receipt of proposals. A system has been instituted which allows institutions conducting inservice activities for pre-school teachers to put their proposals to the appropriate State level Consultative Committees. These committees will then decide which courses will be supported. In this way the inservice needs of pre-school teachers are fully catered for.

Visas: Jack Russell Co. Inc. (Question No. 661)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many business visas have been issued to people involved with the firm of Jack Russell Co. Inc. and its Australian agent, Mr Jones, in the past five years.
  2. What were the professions of the people referred to in (1).
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The records of my department reveal that in the years 1970, 1971 and 1973 a total of 53 requests were lodged in Australia by Mr Jones, the Regional Manager of the United States firm Jack Russell Company Inc. for business visitor visas for Australia to be issued overseas to persons associated with the firm.

A range of nationalities was involved and visa applications would have been processed at several points overseas.

There is no record of any requests by Mr Jones in 1 972 or since 1973.

The procedures associated with applications for business visitor visas are such that direct applications by individuals can be accepted by overseas posts and dealt with without reference to Australia. There would be no record of any such cases in Australia and no readily available record in overseas posts.

  1. Several occupations were stated in connection with the 53 visit requests of which my department has a record. These related in the main, to publicity, advertising, and sales promotion.

Qantas: Inaugural Flight to Belgrade (Question No. 663)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

Who constituted the official guests who travelled on the inaugural Qantas Airways Limited ‘s flight to Belgrade, and who selected them.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

Guests invited by Qantas to travel on its inaugural flights to Belgrade on 28 May and 11 June 1975 comprised representatives from the travel industry, news media and other community and commercial organizations.

International Airlines: IATA Membership (Question No. 716)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) Which international operators servicing Australia are members of IATA
  2. Which international operators servicing Australia are not members ofIATA.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Sixteen of the twenty-four airlines conducting scheduled air services to and from Australia are members of IATA. These airlines are as follows:

    1. Air India
    2. Air New Zealand
    3. Alitalia
    4. British Airways (Overseas Division)
    5. Canadian Pacific Air Lines (CP Air)
    6. Garuda Indonesian Airways
    7. Japan Air Lines
    8. Jugoslovenski Aerotransport (JAT)
    9. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
    10. Lufthansa German Airlines
    11. Olympic Airways SA
    12. Pan American World Airways Inc.
    13. Philippine Airlines
    14. Qantas Airways Limited
    15. South African Airways
    16. x vi ) Union De Transportes Aeriens ( UTA )
  2. The remaining eight international operators are not members of IATA. These are:

    1. Air Nauru
    2. Air Pacific Ltd
    3. iii) Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd
    4. iv) Malaysian Airline System
    5. MerpatiNusantara
    6. Singapore Airlines
    7. vii ) Transportes Aereos De Timor ( TAT)
    8. Thai Airways Interenational Ltd

The foregoing represents the position as at 12 September 1975.

International Airlines: Fuel (Question No. 717)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) What proportion of aviation fuel uplifted by international airlines in Australia is used by Qantas Airways Limited.
  2. What proportion of the total fuel consumed by Qantas Limited is uplifted in Australia.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Approximately 45 per cent in the financial year 1974-75.
  2. Approximately 37 per cent in the financial year 1974-75.

International Airlines: Fuel (Question No. 718)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) When does the local fuel contract for aviation fuel for each international airline operating into Australia expire.
  2. Which international airlines have already been forced, because of the Government’s policy, to negotiate a fuel price in the vicinity of the’ world parity price’.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. ) and (2) The information sought in the question would only be available to the Government in contracts that have been submitted pursuant to the export control on aviation fuel. The Minister for Minerals and Energy, in his statement of 23 February 1973 announcing that the Australian Government had imposed export control on all minerals, emphasised that the contracts and related information provided to the Government by exporters would be treated in the strictest confidence.

I am therefore unable to provide the honourable senator with the information.

Former Parliamentary Office-holders: Facilities (Question No. 727)

Senator Poyser:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the criteria for the provision of staff and use of Government cars by former Office-holders.
  2. ) What facilities are provided for-

    1. former Presiding Officers;
    2. Dr Cairns, former Deputy Prime Minister; and
    3. Mr Snedden, former Leader of the Opposition.
  3. If staff and facilities differ, are the variations determined according to rank or on some other basis.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) By long-standing practice the provision of facilities for former Office-holders, including former Prime Ministers, is a matter for decision by the Prime Minister or by a Minister delegated by the Prime Minister.

On occasion former Presiding Officers or former Deputy Prime Ministers are permitted access to official car transport and the retention of some staff for a short period after relinquishing their office.

Mr Snedden, as former Leader of the Opposition has been granted certain limited facilities while he remains in the Parliament. These facilities are: access to pool car transport for official purposes office accommodation in Melbourne or in his electorate postage and telephone at his residence, for official purposes staffof-

One Private Secretary

One Secretary /Typist

One part-time Steno-Secretary Grade 1 (during Parliamentary sessions).

Qantas Services: First Class Traffic (Question No. 731)

Senator Withers:

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

What percentage of traffic carried by Qantas Airways Limited travelled first class in:

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 7 percent
  2. 7 percent
  3. 6 percent.

International Airlines: Outgoing Passengers (Question No. 713)

Senator Withers:

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

What percentage of outgoing passengers were carried by each of the international operators, including Qantas Airways Ltd, in the financial years ending 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

International Airlines: Incoming Passengers (Question No. 714)

Senator Withers:

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

What percentage of incoming passengers to Australia were carried by each of the international operators in the financial years ending 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

Departmental Journalists (Question No. 739)

Senator Withers:

asked the Special Minister of

State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many journalists are employed in the Department and in commissions and statutory authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What position does each journalist fill and what is his or her salary.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Three.
  2. (i) Journalist Grade A- Grants and Assistance Branch-$12,565

    1. Journalist Grade A 1 -Expositions Branch- $ 1 5,397
    2. Journalist Grade A 1- Australian War Memorial $ 1 5,397 (position vacant at present).

Departmental Journalists (Question No. 750)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many journalists are employed in the Department and in commissions and statutory authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What position does each journalist fill and what is his or her salary.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) 12 in all- 10 employed by my Department, 2 by Capital Territory Health Commission.
  2. Department- 1 position of Director of Public Relations $ 1 7,062; I position of Assistant Director of Health Relations $15,962; 5 positions of Journalist, Grade A1 with salaries of $15,397 (4), $14,815 ( 1); 2 positions of Journalist, Grade A $12,862;1 position of Journalist, Grade B $11,169.

Capital Territory Health Commission- 1 position of Journalist Grade Al $15,397; 1 position of Journalist Grade A $ 1 2,565.

Departmental Journalists (Question No. 755)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many journalists are employed in the Department and in commissions and statutory authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What position does each journalist fill and what is his or her salary.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) There are seventeen journalists employed in my Department. There are no journalists employed in commissions and statutory authorities under my control.
  2. The seventeen journalists in the Department are designated and classified as follows: 1 Journalist, Grade B-$ 10,647- 1 1 , 169 6 Journalists, Grade A-$ 1 2,565- 1 3, 1 59 5 Journalists, Grade Al- $14,815-1 5,397 3 Assistant Directors Public Relations- $ 1 6,537 1 Director Public Relations-$ 18,8 16

In addition fourteen Service personnel are engaged on journalist-type duties.

Jindalee Radar Project (Question No. 762)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the present position, so far as can be publicly stated, of the development of the Australian Jindalee OTHradar system.
  2. What funds have been expended on this project in (a) 1973-74 and (b) 1974-75.
  3. What funds have been allocated to the project in 1975-76.
  4. What is (a) the estimated completion date of Jindalee research and development and (b) the planned initial entry of the developed radar into service.
  5. What Government and departmental press releases and publications record developments in project Jindalee.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Jindalee project is progressing as planned. Construction work is going ahead at the transmitter and receiver sites north of Alice Springs. Equipment for use at the sites is being gathered together and checked out at Weapons Research Establishment, Salisbury, South Australia. Theoretical analysis and planning of experiments is proceeding in consultation with the United States Department of Defense. (2 and 3) The costs attributed to the project were $28,000 in 1973-74 and $1,161,000 in 1974-75. These costs include the project’s share of the staff and overheads of the Weapons Research Establishment. To achieve the progress planned for 1975-76, the cost- on the same basis- is expected to be 2¼ million dollars.
  2. An OTH-radar system for Australian defence would be a very costly item, needing to be carefully phased into the equipment acquisition program. Such a system would be specially developed for our needs; it could not be purchased off the shelf. There is no plan yet for that development, because we need the results of the research being conducted in Jindalee project to help determine whether to undertake the development. It is estimated that the research now planned will be completed about the end of 1977, and a further stage of research is likely to be necessary. Clearly we would not expect to have a developed radar enter service for many years.
  3. Two press releases have been made concerning Jindalee. Mr Barnard announced his approval of the program on 1 1 April 1 974. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction announced on 15 May 1975 that contracts for site construction and civil works had been awarded.

Guided Missiles (Question No. 763)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What surface-to-air guided missiles are presently in service, or planned to be in service by 1 July 1976, with the Australian armed forces.
  2. ) What is the general form of guidance in each case.
  3. When did each type of surface-to-air guided missle enter service in Australia.
  4. Are further acquisitions of surface-to-air guided missiles planned before 31 December 1980 in (a) infantry portable and (b) other classes; if so, what are the broad options open to the Government; if not, why not.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Improved Tartar Retrofit (Tartar ITR), Standard 1 , Seacat, Redeye.
  2. Tartar ITR: Semi-active homing; Standard 1- Semiactive homing; Seacat- Command Line-of-sight; RedeyeHeat seeking (Infra-red).
  3. Tartar ITR-1965; Standard 1-1975; Seacat-1964; Redeye- 1 972.
  4. It is not planned to acquire:

    1. new types ofmanportable surface-to-air guided weapons before 31 December 1980. The question of the replacement for the Redeye missile in Army’s inventory is under consideration in my department.
    2. On 28 August 1975, I announced a decision to acquire a battery of Rapier surface-to-air weapons with ancillary training and support equipment. Rapier is planned to enter service in mid- 1978.

It is not planned to acquire new types of surface-to-air missiles for the RAN and RAAF before 3 1 December 1980.

The Standard missile, now entering service, will replace Tartar ( ITR) in the three RAN DDGs (HMA Ships PERTH, HOBART and BRISBANE) after a period of parallel service, and the Seacat missile will remain in service in RAN Destroyer Escorts during the 1980s.

The need to acquire equipment in this field of technology for the RAAF is currently under review within my department.

Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Question No. 764)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. With respect to the purchase by Australia of new armoured fighting vehicles, (a) is Australia to procure any of the following versions of the Leopard tank- Leopard 1, Al, A2, A3, A4; (b) how many tanks of each version are to be procured and by what date or dates: (c) are any versions of the Leopard tank not listed in part (b) above to be procured; if so, how many other versions are to be procured, how many tanks of each such version are to be procured and by what date or dates; and (d) is any version of the tank to be acquired by Australia air portable in current RAAF aircraft without dissassembly.
  2. With respect to each version of Leopard tank to be procured by Australia, (a) what is the cost per tank to Australia exclusive of spares; (b) what is the cost of spares for each tank; and (c) what proportion of total cost will be spent in Australia.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. I ) and (2 ) The Australian Army has ordered for delivery commencing late 1976, 42 Leopard A3 gun tanks to be fitted with an advanced fire control system in lieu of that presently fitted to German Army tanks. The fire control system which is manufactured in Belgium, is also being fitted to Leopard tanks in service with the Belgian Army. In addition to the 42 gun tanks on order, the Australian Army has ordered 11 tanks specially fitted for recovery and bridge-laying operations. The Leopard tank is not air portable in current RAAF aircraft but is more readily transported by road and rail than existing Centurions.

The Leopard tank was chosen for the Australian Army following evaluation of it and the United States M60. These two tanks are likely to remain as competitors for sales to other countries and it would not be appropriate for detailed cost information to be given by the Australian Government on either vehicle. On the question of Australian industry participation, under contractual arrangements agreed with the German suppliers, they will continue to offer work for Australian industry for a period of seven years until a target figure of 30 per cent of the value of orders placed with them is reached.

Anti-tank Guided Weapons (Question No. 765)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. l ) What anti-tank guided weapons are presently in service, or planned to be in service by 1 July 1976, with the Australian armed forces.

    1. ) What is the general form of guidance in each case.
    2. When did each type of anti-tank guided weapon enter service in Australia.
    3. Are further acquisitions of anti-tank guided weapons planned before 3 1 December 1 980; if so, what are the broad options open to the Government; if not, why not.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. ENTAC;
  2. Wire Guided;
  3. 1964;
  4. Acquisition of further anti-tank guided weapons is not planned before 31 December 1980. However, this field of military technology is currently under review within my Department.

Darwin Hospital: Staffing (Question No. 772)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of the expression of fears that it may be impossible to maintain adequate medical staffing in the Darwin Hospital.
  2. Has a resignation reduced the Hospital’s medical staff to 14 doctors and will 3 further resignations take effect over the next week.
  3. What steps are planned so as to ensure that a shortage of trained medical personnel does not add to the already formidable problems facing the residents of Darwin.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The present establishment of Resident Medical Officer positions is 22. This was the pre-cyclone figure. Currently it is regarded that the employment of at least 15 Resident Medical Officers is essential to maintain adequate services in the hospital. Recently this number fell to 14 but the situation has now been rectified by the employment of an additional Resident Medical Officer. With regard to other positions of medical officer the current establishment and vacancies at the Darwin Hospital are as follows:- one of Medical Superintendent one of Deputy Medical Superintendent one of Assistant Medical Superintendent- vacant seven of Senior Specialist-in-Charge ten of Specialist- four vacancies thirteen of Senior Registrars- four vacancies.
  3. This is an unsatisfactory situation. The major problems concerning recruitment of adequate numbers of medical staff centre around salaries and terms of conditions of employment. These aspects are currently being examined by my Department and the Public Service Board.

Navigation Act: M.S. ‘Lamant’ Incident (Question No. 774)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

What action has been taken under the provisions of the Navigation Act, or kindred legislation, to discipline the master and owners of the M.S. ‘Lamant’ for the illegal departure from Sydney without a pilot, tugs, customs or port clearance.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

This vessel was not in breach of any Australian law. It did, for example, obtain customs clearance, and was in compliance with all relevant provisions of the Navigation Act.

It appears, however, to have breached several regulations of the New South Wales Maritime Services Board, and I understand that the Board is taking action.

Former Parliamentary Office-holders: Benefits and Payments (Question No. 775)

Senator Martin:

asked the Special Minister of

State, upon notice:

  1. How many former Australian Labor Party Government Office-holders are in receipt of benefits and payments from the Australian Government.
  2. 2 ) What are their names.
  3. What is the nature of the benefits and payments.
  4. What is the amount of payment and benefit received by each person.
  5. For how long did each of them hold the office which entitles them to the benefits and payments.
  6. On which dates did each of them cease to be members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. One former Australian Labor Party Government Office-holder is currently receiving privileges and facilities which are made available by virtue of his former office in the Australian Parliament.
  2. Right Honourable F. M. Forde.
  3. and (4) Mr Forde is provided with official car transport to attend functions to which he is invited because of his former office as Prime Minister and with part-time secretarial assistance- for up to two mornings a week- to help with correspondence.

In addition, an ex-gratia pension of$ 10,500 per annum is paid to Mr Forde in respect of his service of more than twenty-three years in the Australian Parliament.

  1. Eight days.
  2. 28 September 1946.

Cancer (Question No. 783)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of the recent reported statements by Dr N. Gray of the Victorian Anti-Cancer Council pointing out that efforts to discourage young people from smoking are failing, because of the effect of glamorous advertising of certain brands of cigarettes which are now heavily purchased by the young.
  2. In view of this fact and the established link between heavy smoking and lung cancer, how does the Australian

Government justify the savage reduction of Government contribution to anti-cancer campaign funds in this year’s Budget from $500,000 to $ 100,000.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The amounts quoted refer to the National Warning Against Smoking, which was funded for the triennium 1972-75 and concluded on 30 June 1975. Some minor funds were required in 1975-76 to conclude projects in hand. The Australian Government decided not to fund the National Warning Against Smoking in 1975-76. The effectiveness of the Warning will be evaluated as a basis of consideration of future policy in this area.

Commonwealth Stock (Question No. 785)

Senator Wright:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What is the present approximate market value of Commonwealth Stock of any series maturing in 1985, 1990 and 1995.
  2. Is Commonwealth estate duty payable by Commonwealth Stock at par, pursuant to section 52 (c) of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. ) Approximate Market Value: Monday 1 5 September 1975
  1. Section 52C of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act states that such securities as are provided by the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Regulations may be accepted in payment of estate duty imposed by the Australian Government. In practice, for a security to be so accepted, a provision to that effect, together with a provision determining the value of the security, must be included in the prospectus covering its issue.

The only Government securities at present on issue that are accepted in payment of Australian Government estate duty are Special Bonds and associated Inscribed Stock. These are accepted at the appropriate redemption value (that is, par or, if the securities have been held for sufficient time, an amount greater than par) provided in the prospectus for the particular series involved, plus accrued interest.

Cadet Training (Question No. 792)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1) In view ofthe Government’s proposal to abandon the Cadet Movement hitherto attached to the Australian Army; if so, when, and by whom, was that decision made.
  2. What percentage rate of transition of cadets into the Army has occurred for each ofthe last 20 years.
  3. What savings have been computed in relation to the cost of training cadets as against recruiting servicemen directly into the Army.
  4. What impact is the decision expected to have on future manpower requirements ofthe Army.
  5. 5 ) What costing have Defence authorities provided to the Government specifying additional training costs which the Army will with this decision have to bear over the next 20 years.
  6. How does the decision endorse the Australian Labor Party’s 1974 commitment in which ‘ . . . Australia shall have the defence forces she needs- finely equipped, highly professional, highly mobile and highly respected ‘.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. See the Minister for Defence’s announcement in the Hansard p. 483-4, House of Representatives of 26 August 1975.
  2. The Report on the Army Cadet Corps, June 1974 pointed out that ‘The cadets’ military activities cease on discharge, and only a small proportion of them ever go into the full time or reserve armed forces.’
  3. 3 ) There will be no savings.
  4. The decision to disband the Army Cadet Corps will have no adverse effect on Defence capabilities but will free some 330 Regular Army personnel- for higher priority activities.
  5. 5 ) There will be no additional cost.
  6. It is the Government’s objective that every dollar which is spent in the Defence vote is used to the utmost benefit of Australia’s defence preparedness and it was on this basis the Government’s decision was made. The release of highly proficient Regular Army personnel for more important activities will increase defence capability.

Department of Health: Consultants (Question No. 810)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) What persons or private companies outside the Public Service have been used by the Minister’s Department for research, public relations, advice, or any other purpose, since 1 July 1973.
  2. For what project or purpose were the services of each person or company utilized.
  3. 3 ) What was the cost of each of the consultations referred to above.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 )-(3) ADAPs Ltd- Computer Service Organisation was engaged to provide programming expertise to assist in the development of urgent ADP projects at a cost of $248,433.

A full-time consultant in Family Planning has been engaged for a period of 12 months at a cost of $20,000 and a part-time consultant on Aboriginal Health was engaged for a period of 12 months at a cost of $ 10,800.

Thirty-one Drug Evaluators have been used for evaluation of data submitted by drug companies in support of applications for clinical trial or general marketing of new drugs in Australia. A total of $26,550 has been paid for this work since 1 July 1973 up to 1 1 August 1975.

Four experts were used to evaluate and report on a stoma appliance invented in Australia. The cost of this consultation was $4 18.33.

Four experts were consulted for the purpose of reaching agreement on proposed Australian standards on orthoses. The cost of this consultation was $793.04.

In answering this question, the information provided has been confined to consultancy in respect of the three areas of research, public relations and advice. Information on the use of persons or private companies for any other purpose is so broad a request as to make it not immediately available. For example, a number of private medical practitioners have been engaged for short periods to provide specialist medical services in the Northern Territory, otologists are employed as consultants on a sessional basis by the National Acoustic Laboratories throughout Australia and pan-time lecturers are engaged from time to time to assist in teaching at the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.

Defence Service Home Loans

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– On 28 May, 1975 Senator Drake-Brockman asked the following question, without notice:

I address my question to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation or the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, whichever is appropriate. Is the Minister aware that a small number of totally and permanently incapacitated repatriation pensioners are ineligible for defence service home loans because they did not serve in a theatre of war? Will the Minister examine this situation with a view to having what appears to be an anomaly corrected?

The answer to Senator Drake-Brockman ‘s question is as follows:

On 28 May 1975 you asked a question without notice in which you stated that there were a small number of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners who are ineligible for a Defence Services Homes loan because they did not serve in a theatre of war. You asked whether this matter could be looked into, with a view to correcting what appeared to you to be an anomaly.

Whilst it is true that the entitlement conditions under the Repatriation Act and the Defence Services Homes Act differ, it is not considered that there is any real anomaly when the true nature and purpose of a repatriation pension is examined and compared with the benefit granted under the Defence Service Homes Scheme.

A repatriation pension is ordinarily granted as a measure of compensation for death of incapacity due to war service, that is, a person must have an accepted war caused disability before any pension becomes payable. On the other hand, a

Defence Services Homes loan is a benefit granted on the basis of a prescribed period of qualifying service without regard to whether the ex-serviceman has an accepted war caused disability. There are, of course, certain benefits granted under the Repatriation Act which, like some forms of qualifying war service under the Defence Service Homes Act, depend upon service in an operational area.

I trust that this clarifies the situation for you.

Roche Products, Switzerland

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 10 September 1975, Senator Gietzelt asked me a question without notice concerning Roche Products of Basle, Switzerland. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Because of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act, it is not possible to comment, in the way the honourable senator envisages, on the income tax affairs of particular business undertakings.

Like the law of many other countries, the Australian law includes a provision to the effect that where a business carried on in Australia is effectively controlled or conducted by non-residents, and it appears to the Commissioner of Taxation that the business produces either no taxable income or less income than might be expected, the Commissioner has power to determine the amount of total receipts on which the business is to be liable to Australian tax. The taxation Administration applies this provision vigorously where the circumstances of particular cases are seen to call for such action.

Departmental Journalists (Question No. 749)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many journalists are employed in the Department and in commissions and statutory authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What position does each journalist fill and what is his or her salary.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. ) Department of Transport 1 x Director Public Relations $1 7,676 2 x Assistant Director of Public Relations $ 16.537 1 x Journalist, Grade A 1 $ 1 4.8 1 5- 1 5,397 1 x Journalist, Grade A $ 1 2,565- 1 3.1 59 1 x Journalist, Grade B $ 10,647- 1 1, 169

Australian National Line 1 x Public Relations Officer $13,505

Qantas 1 x Director ofPublic Affairs $20,5 10 1 x Press Relations Manager $ 1 6,97 1 1 x Qantas News Editor $ 1 2, 1 34 4 x Press Officers $ 1 2,65 1 , $ 1 2, 1 34, $ 1 1 , 665. $ 1 1 , 43 1 1 x Magazine Editor $ 1 4,379 3 x Journalist (Overseas)- London $A 16.971: San Francisco $A 1 1,900: New Zealand $A1 1.471 1 x Chief Press Officer $ 1 1 , 47 1

TransAustraliaAirlines 1 x Public Relations Manager $ 1 5,633 2 x Public Relations Officer $ 10,40 1 , $ 10, 1 32

Centurion Tanks (Question No. 761)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. 1 ) Using the definition given in the Minister’s answer to Question No. 4 1 7 (vide, Senate Hansard, 7 November 1 973, page 1632), what were the unserviceability rates for Centurion tanks on issue for each month from September 1973 to the latest complete month.
  2. How many Centurions were on issue in each of these months.
  3. Has the Army ordered spare parts for the Centurion tanks currently in service to last until 1983; if so, why.
  4. Does each ‘serviceable’ Centurion require four hours servicing for each hour of operation.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The unserviceability rates for Centurion tanks on issue for each month from September 1973 to the latest complete month were:
  1. The number of Centurions on issue in each of these months was:
  2. Army has not ordered spare parts for the Centurion tanks currently in service to last until 1983. A ‘life of type’ buy of Centurion spare parts was made in 1972 to cover the anticipated life of the vehicle until 1977. No further major procurement of Centurion spares has been made since that date, although some orders have been placed for specific items, based on current deficiencies, to maintain the tanks until 1977.
  3. Each ‘serviceable’ Centurion requires two hours servicing for each hour of operation.

Departmental Journalists (Question No. 733)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many journalists are employed in the Department and in commissions and statutory authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What position does each journalist fill and what is his or her salary.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. 27
  2. The Department produces a range of publications to assist exporters and potential exporters. These include two regular periodicals and, in 1974-75, 26 ad hoc publications. They are distributed in Australia and overseas.

The Department employs the following journalists:

Departmental Journalists (Question No. 747)

Senator Withers:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many journalists are employed in the Department and in commissions and statutory authorities under the Postmaster-General ‘s control.
  2. What position does each journalist fill and what is his or her salary.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) There are no journalists employed in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department.
The following information is submitted in respect of the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the Australian Postal Commission and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia): AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Number of journalists employed is fifteen. AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION Number of journalists employed is thirteen. OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (AUSTRALIA) There are no journalists employed in a full time capacity. When journalistic material is required to be prepared within the Commission (e.g. for house magazines, service brochures and press releases), this activity is undertaken by members of the Public Relations staff as one part of their duties. The positions and salaries of the positions concerned are:

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19751001_senate_29_s65/>.