Senate
27 April 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1235

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP

– I inform the Senate of a change in representational arrangements. Senator Carrick will now represent the Minister for Transport in the Senate, thus relieving Senator Cotton of this responsibility.

page 1235

PETITIONS

Australian Heritage Commission

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 37 citizens of Australia:

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

There a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Governments programme of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Overseas Development Assistance

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1 3 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 many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $21 million, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

as a matter of urgency, reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote, so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance is spent this financial year to meet the pressing needs of those in the developing countries;

reaffirm Australia ‘s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP, and

establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Income Tax

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

That the existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more that one State in any one year would-

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and
  3. require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not introduced. by Senator Douglas McClelland.

Petition received.

Overseas Development Assistance

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $21 million, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. as a matter of urgency, reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote, so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance is spent this financial year to meet the pressing needs of those in the developing countries;
  2. reaffirm Australia ‘s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of the GNP, and
  3. establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

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

Petition received.

page 1236

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senate Estimates Committees

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

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

That-

Unless otherwise ordered, the annual Estimates, as contained in the papers presenting the particulars of the proposed expenditure, and the Additional Estimates, as contained in the papers presenting the particulars of the proposed provision for additional expenditure, shall on motion be referred for examination and report to 6 committees, to be known as Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F, which are appointed by this resolution.

Each Estimates Committee shall consist of 6 senators, 3 being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 3 being senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by an independent senator.

The particular Estimates Committees in respect of which the Australian Labor Party or the Independents make nominations shall be determined by agreement between that Party and the independents, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation on any particular committee shall be determined by the Senate.

Each Committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacany.

Each Committee shall elect a Government member as chairman.

The chairman may from time to time appoint another member of the Committee to be deputy-chairman and the member so appointed shall act as chairman of the Committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

In the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy-chairman when acting as chairman, shall have a casting vote.

Three members of a Committee shall constitute a quorum.

A Senator, though not a member of a Committee, may attend and participate in its deliberations, and question witnesses, unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote.

The Committees shall sit in open session, unless otherwise ordered, may sit during any adjournment or suspension of the Senate, and may adjourn from time to time.

1 1 ) A Committee shall not meet while the Senate is actually sitting, unless by special order of the Senate.

Not more than three Committees shall sit simultaneously.

In considering the Estimates, the chairman shall, without motion, call on divisions of expenditure in the order decided upon and declare the proposed expenditure open for examination.

The Committees may ask for explanations from Ministers of State in the Senate, or officers, relating to the items of proposed expenditure.

The resolution referring the Estimates to the Committees may fix a day for the reporting of their proceedings to the Senate, by which day the final reports of the Committees shall be brought up.

The report of a Committee shall be presented to the Senate by the chairman and, if considered necessary, may propose the further consideration of any particular items. A reservation by any member of a Committee may be added to the report.

The reports from the Committees shall be received by the Senate without debate and their consideration deferred until consideration of the Appropriation Bills.

1 8) A Hansard report of Committee proceedings shall be circulated, in manner similar to the daily Senate Hansard, as soon as practicable after each day ‘s proceedings.

The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 1236

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware that only 8 per cent of respondents to the latest Australian Chamber of Commerce-National Bank survey said that the 40 per cent investment allowance would influence their investment decisions? Because of this fact and the Prime Minister’s belated concern with consumer spending, is the Government now lessening its preoccupation with investment led economic recovery and placing more emphasis on consumption led recovery as urged by the Australian Labor Party? If so, will the Minister ensure that the expenditure cut-backs proposed in the next Budget will not further inhibit consumer spending already stifled by Government cut-backs and official warnings of hard times ahead?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am aware of the results of the survey. Like all surveys, this is a very valuable indication of what some people are thinking. Many other surveys indicate other viewpoints. Surveys like this are valuable indicators only to the extent that they may be accurate. They need checking with other people’s views and against other surveys. Senator Wriedt referred to the fact that the Budget may have some positions in it. He knows, as well as anybody, that one does not comment on Budget proposals ahead of the Budget. Also, he ought to know that the amount of money in household savings accounts in Australia is more than adequate for people to begin to buy again once they develop the confidence which this Government is bringing about out of the previous state of confusion created by his Government.

page 1237

QUESTION

USE OF TAXATION INFORMATION

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to an earlier question asked by me on 23 March 1976. 1 now ask: Can the Minister tell the Senate the specific purposes for which information provided by the public in personal income tax returns is being used at this time and the authority for the use of such information by persons other than those employed by the Taxation Office?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am aware of Senator Missen ‘s previous question. He will be aware that I directed the question to the Treasury for an answer which I have not yet obtained.

page 1237

QUESTION

MINERALS POLICY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I remind the Minister of his Government’s recently stated minerals policy which requires that at least 50 per cent of any developing mineral project be Australian. I ask whether he can inform the Parliament why his Government has withdrawn the $500,000 commitment to Mareeba Mining, which incidentally is a wholly owned Australian company, for the development of its promising Dianne and OK copper mines in North Queensland? Does this mean that the Government will, for the sake of a mere $500,000, allow this small but promisingly high grade deposit to fall back into the hands of foreign rnining companies?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no knowledge of this matter. I shall seek information from my colleague in the other place.

page 1237

QUESTION

CONFISCATION OF KING PRAWNS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of today’s date concerning the confiscation by inspectors from the South Australian Department of Fisheries of a cargo of king prawns valued at $ 10,000. Can the Minister inform the Senate of progress made to date between the Commonwealth and the State of South Australia in working out an agreement to cover fisheries management in waters under Commonwealth jurisdiction adjacent to the South Australian coastline? Has the Minister provided an opportunity for all interested parties, that is, the South Australian Fisheries Department, fishermen and processors, to make submissions before the agreement is finalised?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This matter has been discussed in the Senate before and, as was indicated at that time, discussions have taken place between the Commonwealth officials and the State officials in South Australia. I am not yet aware of the final result of those discussions. After question time today I shall ask the Department of Primary Industry whether it has finalised its discussions and whether it can tell the honourable senator what the result is.

page 1237

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICY

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Does the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs consider it desirable in the national interest for the States to have the sole responsibility of raising revenue for education and hospitalisation? Is that not an objective of the Government’s federalism policy? If so, would not the Australian Government have to vacate the income tax field to enable the States to raise this revenue for these functions?

Senator CARRICK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Senator McAuliffe’s question is based on a total fallacy. The present Federal Government does not consider it at all desirable that the States should have the sole responsibility for raising the finances for education and hospitalisation. Indeed, it is clearly stated in its health and education policies that the Federal Government will maintain its national concern for these great issues. What it proposes to do through federalism programs is to provide better, more effective and more equitable finances for both these vital national issues.

page 1237

QUESTION

BROADCASTING INQUIRY

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the announcement made by the Minister on 13 April that the Government is proceeding with an inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting system to ensure ‘that our broadcasting system … is developed … in a way which will best serve the needs of the Australian community’. In his statement of that date the Minister said:

All interested parties, both in the public and private sectors, will be invited to make public submissions to the Department. These submissions should be made by 30 June 1976. Requests by organisations or individuals to submit confidential representations will be accepted.

In view of that statement, I ask the Minister the following question: Who will be conducting the inquiry and what expertise do such persons have for assessing the needs of the Australian community in broadcasting? Who are the interested parties referred to in the Minister’s statement who will be invited to make public submissions, and will they include representatives of consumers? Have any invitations been issued to interested parties and, if so, to what parties? If no invitations have yet been issued, will such invitations include public advertisements?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-In view of the fact that the honourable senator is seeking a great deal of particular detail which is quite clearly not available to me, I ask him to put the question on notice.

page 1238

QUESTION

FAMILY LAW ACT

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, concerns the Minster’s recommendations to alter the Family Law Act. I preface my question with the observation that in theory it may be worth while to insist that each man be responsible for his own actions, but I observe further that in practice this does not happen. I ask: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of evidence, empirical evidence, to show that deserting husbands do not meet or keep up with large maintenance orders? Is the Minister further aware that the Family Law Act amendment she has suggested is considered by many professional welfare workers to be inhumane? Will the Minister tell the deserted women and children in Australia why she felt it necessary to return them to the Draconian preFamily Law Act times?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I am unable to answer the question because the premise on which it is based is totally inaccurate. The 3 segments of the question related I presume, to some Press reports that have mentioned that I have shown interest in an inconsistency between the Family Law Act and the Social Services Act. But none of the statements that have been made by the honourable senator have been the basis of my consideration. I am unable to answer any of the segments of the question because the premise on which it is based is totally inaccurate.

page 1238

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-Is the Minister for Social Security aware that the Melbourne office of the Department of Social Security has instructed the Wangaratta and Shepparton offices in Victoria to reject all unemployment benefit requests by owner-operator dairy and fruit farmers even though these applicants have passed the Commonwealth Employment Service work test as being genuinely available for work? Is the Minister aware also that this instruction is harsher in operation than any previously applied by these offices and currently by other offices in Victoria?

Will the Minister instruct the Victorian office to accept the Commonwealth Employment Service work test criteria and thus allow the income test to be applied to determine eligibility for benefit if employment is not available?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It has been drawn to my attention that there appears to be some inconsistency between various offices of my Department and/or the Commonwealth Employment Service with regard to unemployment benefit being paid to primary producers. It would be understood by the Senate that one of the tests previously applied in respect of unemployment benefit has been that the benefit is not available to persons who are self employed. Because many of the self employed primary producers have reached a no income stage and have made themselves available for work in some instances, I understand that some may have been in receipt of unemployment benefit. The present way of dealing with applications for unemployment benefit is that the work test must be applied. Formerly it has been accepted that the applicant shall not be in the category of being self employed. I acknowledge to the Senate that at the present time I am investigating the inconsistencies which have occurred and which have been reported to me. I hope that I may be able to make a statement within a few days dealing with those inconsistencies.

page 1238

QUESTION

EDUCATION DELEGATION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– In view of the tremendous national importance of education, the widespread interest in and concern throughout Australia for the retention of the Australian Schools Commission, the Children’s Commission and so on, and the maintenance of Karmel-type funding at present value, and in view of the fact that representatives from the total spectrum of education will be visiting this Parliament on Thursday next to see members and to state the case to the widest possible audience, will the Minister for Education take steps to have the sittings adjourned for, say, 2 hours to allow the principal spokesmen and spokeswomen to put their views to members in an orderly, dignified and organised way and to receive assurances of the Government’s intentions concerning future federal funding of education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Senate will be very happy to know, I hope, that the Government has acted already to ensure the maximum capacity for those visiting Canberra next Thursday, whether parents or teachers, to meet all honourable senators and all honourable members, and to meet them in a way that provides optimum opportunities for discussion. Indeed, I offeredand my offer has been accepted- to book in my name Senate committee rooms No. 1 and No. 2 for the leaders of the delegation. They will in fact be functioning from there as the guests of, I hope, all honourable senators. So, it will be possible for them to meet any honourable senator who would like to call upon them or whom they would like to meet. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is willing to meet the delegation, and that will be so arranged. I have indicated that I will be willing to address a gathering of the people coming here and to receive a deputation. I have indicated, and I hope it will be accepted, that I believe it desirable for all honourable senators and members to meet the people, particularly those from their electorates. I confirm that their goal, the maintenance of the highest possible standards of education throughout Australia, is the goal of the present Federal Government.

page 1239

QUESTION

KOOMARRI SCHOOL

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security concerning the Koomarri school in Canberra for the intellectually handicapped. Is the Minister aware that many facilities at the school for both teachers and students are most inadequate and that plans for improvements have been approved for some years but no action has been taken to implement them? Will the Minister investigate this situation and the hardship it is causing many already disadvantaged young people, their families and their teachers? Will the Minister ensure that the situation at Koomarri school and action on improvements there are given high priority in considering the 1976-77 Budget?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of some of the matters that were mentioned by the honourable senator. An investigation is being undertaken into the assistance that can be given to this institution at present. I will have a closer look at the questions that have been directed to me and determine whether I am able to release any further information at this stage.

page 1239

QUESTION

STATE INCOME TAX

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs whether he agrees with Mr Lewis, the former Premier of New South Wales until his deposition a little earlier this year, who told us last Friday that there is now no need for a State income tax; or whether on the other hand he agrees with the present Premier of New South Wales, Sir Eric Willis, who told the Premiers

Conference on 4 February, as recorded at page 89 of the official transcript:

Whether we do it in the first, second, or third year, we will ultimately reach a point where the States are imposing income tax in addition to Commonwealth income taxCommonwealth for Commonwealth purposes and for topping up the less affluent States, the States for their own purposes.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am happy to say that without any inconsistency I am able to support the true intention of both Mr Lewis when he made the statement last Friday and Sir Eric Willis in the past. Mr Lewis was saying, and it should be understood, that because of the generous arrangements made by the Commonwealth at the Premiers Conference on 9 April it would not be necessary for the New South Wales Government to impose additional taxation. He was reflecting what Sir Eric Willis was able to say in backing him up on that statement and that is that the contrary was true. He was saying it was now possible for the Liberal Government in New South Wales to reduce taxation, and that is being done, notably in the abolition of the petrol tax. It has been foreshadowed that there will be relief of payroll tax, land tax, and estate duty or probate. So it is true that because of the very generous arrangements of the Premiers Conference there will be no need for additional taxation, quite unlike what happened in recent years when the pressure of the Commonwealth under the Whitlam Government put a squeeze upon the States. Sir Eric Willis has indicated that it is his hope and belief that over the years, under federalism, with the return of responsibilities to the States, his Government will be able to rationalise and reduce very much the great bulk of the indirect taxes and charges, with the result that there will be less taxation in Australia than there was under the Whitlam Government or is now.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister for Education tell us whether the Government’s new federalism policies envisage a power resting with State governments to impose their own income tax?

Senator CARRICK:

– The strict answer to that question is no. What has happened -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Ha !

Senator CARRICK:

Senator James McClelland, says ‘Ha’. I will answer him on this matter. There will be 2 stages -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You mean not this week, not until after 1 May?

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, may I help the honourable senator whose misunderstanding on this issue is consistent with his misunderstanding ever since, I understand, November of last year. There will be 2 stages to the federalism policies. Stage one will be a general revenue sharing arrangement which will take the States into a fixed percentage of income tax so that for the first time in the last 2 decades State revenues will be able to grow at the same rate as Commonwealth revenue and not slower as they have done previously. Therefore, the States predictably will have a greater amount of growth funds. There will be 2 stages -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Through income tax.

Senator CARRICK:

– On the contrary. Indeed, if one goes back beyond November one finds that the same confusion arose in the honourable senator’s mind. There will be one income tax, one tax form, one tax scale, one tax rebate, one tax deductibility, one tax assessment, one tax payment- one income tax. There will be in stage 2 the right not to impose a State income tax but to impose a surcharge or a rebate on the one income tax that exists. Mr President, this question has come from an Opposition which is now seeking to talk about increased taxation. I will repeat the record of this Opposition when in Government- and Mr Wran is a member of the same Party. In the last 3 years it doubled the take from personal income tax, doubled the take from sales tax and it doubled the take from custom’s duty. It now has the gall to talk about double taxation. The only government to impose a higher taxation on the people of Australia was the Whitlam Government. Both in the State and Federal sphere we are, in fact, pledged to reduce taxation and we will do so.

page 1240

QUESTION

PRIVATE MAIL BAGS AND BOXES

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Those people who use private mail bags and private mail boxes have recently experienced a large increase in the charges for the use of those facilities. Firstly how did the Australian Postal Commission arrive at the decision to increase these charges? And secondly when one considers the criteria of user pays and the fact that in this case the user has to use his own time and energy to obtain the better service and, indeed, to assist the Postal Commission in carrying out its function, would the Commission consider removing all charges from the users of private mail bags and boxes and instead pay such users a slight remuneration?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Of course, this matter concerns my colleague, the Minister for Post and

Telecommunications. It concerns specifically the Australian Postal Commission whose responsibility it is to make these decisions. I am unaware of the basic reason why the Postal Commission has raised these charges. I am unaware of what would be the basic merits of the proposal put by the honourable senator. However, if he will place his question on the notice paper, I shall seek out a detailed answer for him.

page 1240

QUESTION

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the attention of the Minister for Administrative Services been drawn to a report appearing in this morning’s Canberra Times newspaper under the dateline ‘Cocos Islands’ which states that the Minister, amongst other things, told Malay workers on the Clunies Ross estate that troublemakers could be in bother if they continued their actions and that he did not believe islanders would understand concepts of independence or citizenship? I ask the Minister: Is this report correct? If so, who are those he would describe as troublemakers’ and what does he mean by the phrase ‘could be in bother’? Further, does the Minister seriously suggest that none of the Cocos-Malay community has any understanding of the concepts of independence or of citizenship? Finally, does the Minister intend making a ministerial statement on his visits to Christmas Island and to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I said whilst I was at both Christmas Island and Cocos Islands that I had gone there to look, to listen and to learn and that as a result of what I learned I would be making certain submissions to Cabinet. I said that when the decisions on those submissions were made by Cabinet an announcement would be made in the normal course. I do not think that a ministerial statement is necessarily the right way of doing this because there is a wide range of issues that would require separate and distinct Cabinet decisions. But I accept that a number of people on Cocos Islands do understand both the problems. Certainly I think they understand the problems of nationality and citizenship. But I think that to imagine that all of them, or a great majority of them, understand all the sophistication of international politics and independence and all that that brings forth is to whistle in the dark. At least I had the opportunity to speak to a wide range of people in a calm and civilised manner. My idea in going to both those islands was to attempt to straighten out the mess which I inherited and which had occurred over the last 3 years.

Senator Georges:

– Enough of that.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is as simple as this: As I understand it my colleague, Mr Peacock, made certain announcements when he was the responsible Minister back in 1 972. When we returned to office none of the things which he had announced had been fulfilled. At least I have been attempting to get this matter concluded. That is one of the reasons I went to New Zealand. I went there to talk to the New Zealanders about the resettlement program. As I said when I was at Cocos Islands, I hope that before this year is out we shall be legislating for the resettlement program for Christmas Island and that we will have the program working. That was something that the previous Government could not do in 3 years but I hope to be able to achieve it in less than 12 months. Honourable senators who are trying to interject may not like this very much but that is a fact of life.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Who are the troublemakers?

Senator WITHERS:

-I think that there are troublemakers on all sides. I said quite clearly and distinctly to the islanders and to the whole community that if the problems of Cocos Islands are to be solved they are going to be solved by co-operation between all groups interested in this matter, be it the estate, the administration, the Australian people working on West Island or the community itself. These problems are not going to be solved if the islanders spend all of their time fighting amongst themselves. That may have suited the previous Government. I do not know. But I think that it is a lunatic way of going about solving problems. I hope that the island community realises now that if it works together a lot of its problems will more than likely be resolved. It is a matter of having a little bit of good will and sense on all sides. I am afraid that these have not prevailed for far too long.

Quite frankly- it does not matter to which group they belong- if I can find people who are just stirring up trouble for trouble’s sake I shall use whatever powers I have to get them out of the road. I say that bluntly because the problem needs to be solved. I do not say that necessarily there are troublemakers amongst the COCOS.Malays. I did not say that before and I do not say it now. But some people, both within Australia and outside of Australia, occasionally have an interest in causing mischief and where people cause mischief quite deliberately when governments, working with the co-operation of the great mass of the community, are attempting to solve problems, I think that the mischief makers ought to be dealt with.

page 1241

QUESTION

INCOME SECURITY REVIEW

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Mininster for Social Security who has referred on several occasions to an income security review being conducted at the present time to cover a broad area of concern in the welfare field. I ask the Minister: Is she able to advise the Senate how the results of this inquiry will be made public? Specifically, is it intended that the result should be presented to Parliament by way of statement or otherwise made available for detailed public examination and debate?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Income Security Review Committee consists of officers of various departments which I enumerated in the Senate a short time ago. That Committee will report to the Prime Minister. He will decide whether the information which is reported to him is to be made public or whether it will be the basis of Cabinet discussion. There is no guideline as to the reporting procedure. The Committee is to report to the Prime Minister and then either a decision will be taken by the Government or the information will be released to the public.

page 1241

QUESTION

STATE INCOME TAX

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, flows from the answer which he gave earlier to questions on taxation and the States. In view of his admission that double tax will be involved under the federalism policy of the Government, I ask: Is he aware that in the 3 years of Labor government total payments to the States increased by 137 per cent? In view of the Minister’s claim that taxation increased by 100 per cent, will he give an assurance that under this Government’s federalism policy that relationship will not change, or at least that payments to the States under that policy will not be in smaller proportion than they were under the Labor Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– First of all, I would like to give an emphatic denial to the double talk of the Leader of the Opposition who started his question by saying that I had made an admission that there would be double taxation. My words could not have been plainer. I give that the direct lie.

Senator Wriedt:

– What is the difference?

Senator CARRICK:

– I can understand the Leader of the Opposition asking ‘What is the difference?’ Who in the world would fail to know the difference between truth and a lie better than the Leader of the Opposition when he throws up his hands and says: ‘What is the difference’?

Senator Wriedt:

– I rise on a point of order. I am not quite clear whether Senator Carrick is suggesting that I gave a lie to the Senate. If that is his intention, I ask him to withdraw it and clarify what he meant.

Senator CARRICK:

– Nobody would be happier than I to clarify my statement. I said that the Leader of the Opposition had said that I had admitted that there would be double taxation. To that I said ‘I give that the direct lie’. The Leader of the Opposition said ‘What is the difference’, meaning was my statement really double talk. I then said: ‘Who would be more confused about the difference between truth and a lie than the Leader of the Opposition?’ I hope this clarifies the position. I had no intention whatsoever of calling the Leader of the Opposition a liar. I simply responded to his interjection. Having said that, let me now answer him.

Senator Georges:

– I rise on a point of order. It is obvious from the explanation that Senator Carrick has given that he did imply that the Leader of the Opposition was a liar. He has not withdrawn that. I do not see any reason why the Senate should tolerate the non-withdrawal of that statement.

Senator Wriedt:

– Speaking to the point of order raised by Senator Georges, I must confess that I had doubt in my mind as to Senator Carrick ‘s explanation, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. May I say that the difference that I am seeking is the difference between a tax and a surcharge, not the difference in the Minister’s statements. We still have not had an answer to my question.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Leader of the Opposition now has asked 2 questions. The first is whether we as a government intend to provide as much or more -

Senator Georges:

– My point of order has not been responded to. I still think that the Senate requires a withdrawal from Senator Carrick. It was clear to me, if not to anyone else, that he called the Leader of the Opposition a liar. He ought to be made to withdraw that implication.

Senator CARRICK:

– Honourable senators will recall that I said that I was in no way intending to say that the Leader of the Opposition was a liar. They are plain terms; they are plain and unequivocal. I am not to be put aside by slick points of order designed to get question time edited, which, of course, is the slick trick of the Opposition.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, your point of order is not sustained.

Senator CARRICK:

– Thank you, Mr President. There are 2 responses to be made to the Leader of the Opposition. He asked whether we will provide for the States in the course of the year or years ahead a rate of finance at least equal to that provided by the Whitlam Government. The answer is that the Premiers’ Conference on 9 April was given an unqualified guarantee that the minimum base to be operating for this coming year and the next 2 years will be the base worked out under the formula of the Whitlam Government and including a 3 per cent betterment factor. We will at least give what the Whitlam Government gave and by the formula which we have we will provide more.

I was asked what was the difference between a double tax and a surcharge. A surcharge or a rebate will be based upon a single tax. It will be a variation upwards or downwards on a single tax. There will be no double tax. I repeat: There will be a single tax scale, a single tax form, a single tax deductibility and a single assessment. Let me make it perfectly clear that whilst the Labor Party has said that it will not impose a surcharge, the hundreds of millions of dollars of extra expenditure foreshadowed by the Labor Leader in New South Wales will therefore be met by huge increases in indirect taxes and charges- a fact not denied at all by Mr Wran. So Mr Wran ‘s words simply mean: ‘I will not take it out by the progressive scale; I will take it out by the regressive scale of indirect taxes and charges which will hurt the poor people the most’.

page 1242

QUESTION

EDUCATION EXPENDITURE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Education. In view of the Minister’s acknowledgment earlier today that he is aware of the grave concern being expressed by many responsible people in the education field at the continued reports that the Government intends to curtail expenditure on all facets of education, can the Minister inform the Senate when he intends to table the recommendations of the Schools Commission and the Technical and Further Education Commission on federal funding for the next 3 years and whether the Government intends acting upon those recommendations?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-There is a singular disregard for listening to what is said. I did not say that I reflected the grave concern of people at the threat of the Government’s cutting of education expenditure. I said that I shared their concern that education in Australia should be of the highest standard possible. This again is an example of the double talk of the Opposition today.

The fact that ought to be stressed is that the real cut in expenditure commenced last year when the then Labor Government rejected the triennial reports of the commissions, forced guidelines and brought in its own education ideas which contained cuts of a real value of 6 per cent. The questioner himself belonged to a government which cut back education within the last 12 months.

Senator McLaren:

– What did we increase it by-$ 1,500m?

Senator CARRICK:

– The interjector says: What did we increase it by?’ It was done by such devices as cutting off from the States amounts which were then added to Federal expenditure, as when the Labor Party took over the financing of tertiary institutions. There was a variety of devices which suggested a larger cake but which, when examined, showed that their ingredients were not as large as had been claimed. The single fact of the matter is that at this time the Government is seeking ways in which it can provide to the commissions effective guidelines so that they can bring down their reports. We recognise that we cannot say to the commissions: ‘Give us an open ended report’, as the Labor Government sought to do in 1975. We recognise that we must say to them: ‘Within the difficulties created by the previous Government it will be necessary to set these parameters of education expenditure and within those parameters will you give us your general recommendations and priorities, as you are perfectly free to do’. That will be done. I responded some weeks ago to Senator Wriedt who asked when the commissions’ reports would be brought down. I believe the reports will be delayed for some weeks. We will try to get them as soon as possible.

page 1243

QUESTION

AVIATION CHARGES

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. No doubt the Minister is aware of the effect on air fares in Australia of the Government’s policy of cost recovery. I ask: Has the Minister seen a study of Mr Kevin Cho of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in which he advocates 2 solutions to the problem of cost recovery from the civil aviation sector, namely, the abandonment of the cost recovery program or, alternatively, the implementation of the policy in a practical way by apportioning cost recovery measures where the major costs are and where the costs can be absorbed without causing continuing problems? I also ask: Is the Minister able to say when the Government will make public its policy towards this matter of recovery of costs from civil aviation because of its vital bearing on the cost of air fares to the whole country and particularly to Tasmania which is so dependent on air travel?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am well aware of the burden of transport costs, particularly to Tasmania. It is true that I have seen a report from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology on both aspects recounted by Senator Townley. It is equally true that I have not studied the report in depth and have not had an opportunity to study its actual arguments and recommendations. I think it is also true that this is very much the responsibility of my colleague in another place, the Minister for Transport. The second question asked by the honourable senator was: When will the Government be in a position to make a statement on this matter? I invite Senator Townley to put his question upon the notice paper in detail and I will obtain an answer for him.

page 1243

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, who has been rusticating during most of question time. Mindful of the decision of the 4th International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment urging all nations to examine immediately all programs that could over stretch the ozone layer of the atmosphere, and the United Nations document that confirms the possibility of this cancer hazard, I now ask the Minister: What is he doing to curb the monumental folly of his colleague, the Minister for Transport, in inflicting the Concorde aircraft on the skies of the Southern Hemisphere?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable senator’s question is in 2 parts. In relation to his first question as to the effects of the Concorde upon the ozone layer, I recollect that he wrote to me about the matter earlier this year. I think I indicated then- if I did not, it is a fact- that scientific opinion throughout the world as to the effects of any breaks in the ozone layer is not clear. I indicated then I was seeking information from the Minister for Health. I have sought information from him. I expect to receive it in the very near future. The second part of the honourable senator’s question represents, I think, a misconception on his part. No decision has been made by the Minister for Transport with regard to Concorde flights. Initial discussions have taken place between the Minister and myself. I have received a monumental report from my Department on the question of the Concorde, following the exposure of the draft environmental impact statement for public comment. I am going through that report at the present time. When I am in a position to do so I shall have further talks with the Minister for Transport. The proponents, the British aircraft people, have not yet presented a final environmental impact statement as they are required to do under the procedures. So the ultimate decision is still a little time off.

Senator MULVIHILL:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate how many millions of dollars have been expended by the consortium which constructed the Concorde aircraft. Has the consortium suggested, in any display of generosity, that it will come forward with a couple of million dollars to assist the Government in its research into skin cancer?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– In response to that question all I can say is that whether there are effects of the character to which Senator Mulvihill refers is still not clear. There is no world opinion which is of his view. I am awaiting opinions from the Department of Health in this country which is the appropriate body to which I would refer.

page 1244

QUESTION

TASMANIAN ECONOMY

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs by reminding him of the regrettably poor state of the economy in Tasmania where there is the lowest growth rate in Australia, the highest unemployment rate in Australia, the lowest average weekly earnings in Australia and, until recently forfeited to the Commonwealth, the worst rail services in Australia. All this is the legacy of the State Labor Government. How can credibility be given to the extravagant claims currently being made by Mr Wran in the face of the development and prosperity of New South Wales under the present Liberal Government and in view of the record of State Labor governments, particularly in Tasmania?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It is regrettably true that conditions as described in relation to Tasmania exist today. It is equally true that the people of Australia have been shown consistently that real progress at the State level as well as at the Federal level comes from Liberal governments. At this moment, by those measurements, the 4 State Liberal governments are the pacesetters for progress. It is equally true that given the next opportunity there will be Liberal governments in both Tasmania and South Australia.

Senator Walsh:

– They do not have gerrymanders there.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, you know that those who call out about gerrymanders have a short memory in relation to Western Australia under a Labor government. Governor Gerry of Massachusetts would have declared himself of amateur status in the face of the professional gerrymander of the Labor Government. Honourable senators opposite have little understanding of history in that regard. Mr Wran has no basis at all for this or for any other claims which he makes.

page 1244

QUESTION

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question to the Minister for Administrative Services arises out of a surprising answer given to Senator Douglas McClelland. I seek further information. Is the Minister seeking to identify troublemakers on Cocos (Keeling) Islands? What, in his opinion, constitutes a troublemaker? Does a protest against conditions on Cocos Island constitute a troublemaker? What can the Senate accept as the Minister’s intention in relation to any troublemaker by the remark that he would be got out of the road?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not have to identify troublemakers; they tend to identify themselves. They stand out like sore thumbs. Troublemakers are not necessarily people who protest against conditions. That does not make a person a troublemaker. Troublemakers are people who go around deliberately misrepresenting the facts of life.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You would be out of the road if that were so?

Senator WITHERS:

-That is why the honourable senator is in Opposition.

page 1244

QUESTION

MARITIME COLLEGE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Education aware that the Tasmanian Minister for Education, Mr Batt, last Friday claimed that the future of the maritime college to be situated at Launceston is now in doubt? Will the Minister reassure the Senate and all people interested in this Liberal Party initiated project that it will proceed with all possible expedition consistent with proper planning?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am aware that the Labor State Minister for Education, Mr Batt, made that totally untrue statement. All honourable senators, including Senator Georges, will be aware that the Bill is now before the Senate. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate points out, it is order of the day No. 1 1 on the Senate notice paper and therefore its carriage is in the hands of the Senate. I have no doubt we will carry it unanimously. So. as to the first pan of the question, the Bill is before the Parliament. It will be carried this session.

I am equally happy to tell the Senate, as I have done before, that my own Department, in conjunction with the Department of Transport and the Department of Primary Industry, is finalising the details of an interim committee which will be established shortly to plan the whole operation. Lest anyone should be looking for the tardy people, I should point out that the very nature of what the Newnham College of Advanced Education is to be in Launceston, and therefore its qualifications and capacity to function alongside the Maritime College, rests not with the Federal Government but with Mr Batt, the Labor Minister for Education in Tasmania, and his Government. We are waiting eagerly at this moment upon a committee of inquiry which Mr Cosgrove, Q.C., I think, is conducting in Tasmania so that we will know what is the intention of the State Labor Government regarding its College of Advanced Education in Launceston.

It will be imperative for us to have that information in relation to such disciplines as science and engineering, because if we are to have a maritime college of excellence we must be able to sustain those disciplines in the college. Mr Batt says that we were not willing to have a pilot course. The simple fact of the matter is that until the Tasmanian Government tells us basically what it is going to do with its tertiary institutions in Tasmania we will really be unable to integrate what we are doing. However, there will be no delays. The Bill will go through the Parliament. We will set up an interim committee and we will work with the Tasmanian Government to get the best college that it is possible to establish.

page 1245

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it true that decisions made by social security appeal tribunals are merely of a recommendatory nature and are passed on to the Director-General of Social Security as recommendations only; that the Director-General alone has the final say on all appeals for the whole of Australia, and that he is refusing a large percentage of the appeals that have been made?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is a fact that decisions made by the social security appeal tribunals are of a recommendatory nature. It is not a fact that to a large degree those recommendations are refused by the Director-General. My understanding of the situation is that decisions made by the social security tribunals are mostly upheld by the Director-General and my Department. I shall examine the matter and have the satistical evidence of that statement made available to the honourable senator. As I said, my understanding is that recommendations from the tribunals are mostly accepted by the DirectorGeneral.

page 1245

QUESTION

DARWIN HOSPITAL

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Recently the Chairman of the Darwin Hospital Advisory Board tabled a report which was highly critical of the present state of the Darwin Hospital. In view of the deplorable conditions that exist, what action has been taken to rectify the faults and deficiencies? In view of the deterioration of the Darwin Hospital, who is responsible for the lack of maintenance and reconstruction? Have further resignations been received from the Department of Health in Darwin because of the conditions indicated in the report?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– We did discuss some weeks ago in the Senate the matter of the staffing of the Darwin Hospital. I have no up-to-date information that I can give to the honourable senator at this stage. We were aware at that time of the difficulties in staffing. If there have been resignations from that time, this would be very grave indeed. However, I will obtain the information on an up-to-date basis and make it available to the honourable senator.

page 1245

QUESTION

DEATH OF AUSTRALIAN NEWSMEN

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am encouraged to do so by the Senate’s interest in the rights of individuals. Has the Government been informed by its embassies in Jakarta, Lisbon and Geneva of the mounting evidence showing that the 5 Australian newsmen were brutally murdered by Indonesian forces on 16 October 1975 and were not burnt to death as claimed by Indonesia? Can the Minister advise the Senate when the personal effects and documents were received by the embassy in Jakarta and what information was passed on to the Australian Government? Does the Minister recall that this evidence now confirms the Fretilin statements and similar views published in the Indonesian Press Kompas last October by Mr de Cruz, leader of the UDT and a member of the pro-Indonesian Government in Dili? In the circumstances and having regard to the inadequate explanation and information given to the people of Australia about the 5 deaths, will the Government take steps to recall Mr Woolcott, our ambassador in Jakarta, so that a proper inquiry can be conducted in Australia, not by a Foreign Affairs group but by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence or by the Senate itself?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have heard some interesting suggestions in my time, but to imagine that a committee of the Australian Senate could investigate what happened in an overseas country last October is, I think, more than interesting. I rather thought that if it was to be investigated it ought to be investigated on the spot, if witnesses were available. A Senate committee could get some of the evidence, perhaps, but I doubt whether it would get all of the evidence. The suggestion is interesting; I put it no higher than that. I do not think it is for me to comment on whether our ambassador to Indonesia ought to be recalled. That is a decision for my colleague, Mr Peacock. I think that the best thing I can do for the honourable senator is to pass his question to my colleague and ask him to give a detailed reply.

page 1246

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Senator WALSH:

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Does the Minister assert that the federalism policy means a more generous financial deal for the States than under the previous Labor Government? Secondly, given the fact that total Federal payments to the States increased by more than 58 per cent in constant value dollars in the period 1972 to 1975, can he guarantee that the total payments to the States in the next 3 years will increase, also in constant value dollars, by more than 58 per cent?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In response to Senator Walsh, my answer is an unqualified yes. The arrangements under federalism will be more generous for the States. All Premiers have expressed at 2 Premiers’ Conferences their considerable approval. Incidentally, they have all expressed their delight at having the first opportunity in years to give their opinion or advice at a Premiers’ Conference. It is a novelty to them, this opportunity having not been available to them under the Labor Government which told them what they would get and sent them away with a flea in their ear.

What is going to happen in the next few years is precisely what I told Senator Wriedt, that is, that we will ensure that at no time shall the payments to the States- the amount of money which goes to the States- fall below what would have happened had the pre-existing formula persisted over that period. It has a further life of 3 years. Our belief is very substantial, that with the growth rate of Australia, with a return to full employment, and with the abatement of inflation, there will be considerably more funds to the people -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What about tax indexation?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am always grateful for Senator James McClelland ‘s interjections. He asks: ‘What about tax indexation?’ Presumably his inference is that that will lower the take. Let me explain rather patiently that tax indexation, which I take it is not being opposed by the honourable senator, is designed, as he would hope, to help to abate inflation and therefore to increase employment. If we can return to full employment in Australia the total revenue and the total national wealth will be greater, in parallel with tax indexation, than they would otherwise have been. Quite clearly, under tax indexation there will be great value to the Premiers. The honourable senator did not think further forward, because what the States get under tax indexation is a lower wage bill. As it abates their inflation costs so in fact it keeps their costs down. So it is good news on every level and all six of the Premiers, including the Labor Premiers, have acknowledged it.

page 1246

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill 1976 Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1 976 Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill 1976 Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill 1976

Commonwealth Teaching Service Bill 1976.

page 1246

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on miscellaneous industrial machinery and fruit growing.

page 1246

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 I present an amending agreement in relation to dairy adjustment programs in Western Australia (1976).

page 1247

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the resolutions of the ninety-fifth meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Perth on 3 1 January 1 976.

page 1247

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the 157th report. I seek leave to make a statement in relation to it.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BAUME:

-The 157th report relates to the Committee’s inquiry into matters raised by the Auditor-General in his report for the financial year 1973-74. The Committee regrets the delay in tabling this report but the Committee’s normal timetable for conducting these particular inquiries and the presentation of related reports has been affected by the double dissolutions of the Parliament that occurred in April 1974 and November 1975. In its inquiry the Committee took evidence from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the departments of Defence, Education and Manufacturing Industry. In all, the Committee’s inquiries related to 6 matters. Regarding the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Committee took evidence from witnesses from the Australian Council for the Arts on a number of unsatisfactory features relating to the expenditure and activities of the Council. The Committee has criticised the Council on a number of matters including:

  1. Conflicting and confusing evidence given to the Committee in relation to staffing;
  2. The Council’s intransigent attitude towards the classification of some of its proposed positions which caused long delays in the filling of key positions;
  3. Failure by the Council to expedite the filling of vacancies in its approved establishment;
  4. The Council undermined the Government’s policy in relation to staff ceilings through irregular and undesirable practices of using grants for the payment of staff engaged on duties for the Council or its boards;
  5. The Prime Minister was misled by the description of the purposes of proposed grants; (0 The Council took far too long to develop suitable administrative and financial procedures;
  6. There was a high incidence of error in the calculation of travelling allowance considered to be symptomatic of an inefficient financial administration;
  7. The Chairman’s guidelines in regard to the provision of working luncheons were apparently disregarded by the Council; and
  8. In summary, the Public Accounts Committee believed that the Council did not give the administration of its activities the importance deserved. The Committee is aware that since the investigation, the form of the administration of the council has altered and the appropriate legislation passed.

Evidence was taken from the Department of Defence relating to the purchase, on behalf of the Department of the Army, of 6 1 earthmoving tractors that were meant to be capable of being transported by air. However, it was later found that the equipment had insufficient clearance, when placed in the aircraft, to meet Royal Australian Air Force requirements. Mechanical faults had also developed in the production units that had not shown up in the prototype. The Committee concluded that the evaluation of the prototype’s air portability by the RAAF should have been completed and consultation should have taken place between Army and RAAF technical officers before orders were placed for 6 1 units. The Committee also criticised the quality of the tests made on the prototype and drew attention to the principle it has previously enunciated that in contracts with a developmental content, the prototype should be subjected to exhaustive testing before authority is given for the rest of production to proceed.

Again in relation to the Department of Defence, the Committee inquired into the purchase, on behalf of the Department of Air, of 1 14 transportable-demountable houses at RAAF base, Tindal, Northern Territory, which proved not to be readily demountable and transportable as was required in the specifications. The Committee concluded that insufficient consideration had been given to the economics of dismantling, transporting and re-erecting the houses at the time tenders were invited and the contract let. In this regard the Committee felt strongly that a detailed study into the likely costs of moving the houses should have been carried out by the then

Department of Air in conjunction with the Department of Works before the project was approved by the Minister.

In connection with the Department of Education, evidence was taken on a number of unsatisfactory matters relating to the tertiary allowance scheme. In many instances the reasons given for the errors made were that proper procedures were not prescribed, that the prescribed procedures were not followed or that instructions were not properly understood. The Committee believes that the central office of the Department has a continuing responsibility to ensure that suitable procedures are prescribed and that the prescribed procedures are followed. In exercising this responsibility the Department should make certain that all officers are aware of the existence of the procedures, that copies are freely available and that each officer is informed of the necessity to comply with them.

Again in connection with the Department of Education, the Committee took evidence relating to errors in the compilation of salary records and the assessment of salary entitlements. The Committee has criticised the Department for the incidence in excess of 50 per cent of error detected in the calculation of salary entitlements in the Northern Territory and for its failure to take effective action to stop duplicate payments being made to an education adviser overseas.

In relation to the Department of Manufacturing Industry, the Committee inquired into the production performance allowance scheme, which is a system of incentive payment to wages employees of the Department’s Munitions and Aircraft Production Undertakings. The Committee conceded that the scheme’s introduction has ensured the continuation of a higher level of labour performance and also resulted in a greater degree of industrial harmony than would otherwise have been the case. However the Committee believes that the administrative costs of the scheme were disproportionately large when related to the amount paid out under the scheme and suggests that as soon as staff resources permit, the external audit coverage of the scheme carried out by the Department’s central office should be increased. I commend the report to honourable senators.

page 1248

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE BILL 1976

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1248

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a message from the House of Representatives intimating that Mr Crean, a member of the House of Representatives, has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in the place of Mr Innes, who has been discharged.

page 1248

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

This Bill provides for the payment of grants to the States for government and non-government schools in 1976. I recently foreshadowed the introduction of this Bill when introducing Bills relating to other sectors of education. The background to this Bill and aspects of it are common to the Bills introduced earlier for universities and colleges of advanced education. In November of last year the Government, in its caretaker capacity, gave an undertaking to the States and non-government schools that financial assistance would be provided to institutions in 1 976 on the basis announced by the previous Government. This Bill discharges that undertaking. It provides for programs estimated to cost $43 lm, which together with the funds that continue to be provided under the States Grants (Schools) Act passed by this Government in 1972, make a total of $476m for the 1976 calendar year. As part of the review of expenditure undertaken by the Government earlier this year, it was decided that because of the late start to the special projects program for 1 976, it was doubtful whether all of the funds would be spent. Accordingly, the sum available was reduced from $5.2m to $3. 6m.

These grants are, in the main, expressed in June 1975 price levels and will be supplemented by amending legislation for subsequent movements in costs. The previous Government decided that the new triennium should be deferred for a year and that 1976 should be treated outside the normal triennium progression. This Bill gives effect to that decision.

The Government wants to make clear that the Bill now before the Senate is largely the product of decisions by the previous Government; future programs will be determined in the light of our appreciation of priorities affecting Australian schools. The Bill does however reflect our intention to depart from the recent trend towards centralism in the administration of schools. It is our aim to ensure, by consultation and co-operation with the States and other education authorities, that Commonwealth funds are made available in such a way as to reflect local priorities. To this end, the Schools Commission, in preparing its report to the Government for the proposed triennium 1977-79, has been consulting with the States and other authorities in order to take full account of the priorities and needs of the various education agencies.

The prorogation of Parliament in November 1975 made it impossible until now to introduce legislation to appropriate grants for 1976. To avoid impediments to the implementation of school programs pending passage of this Bill, special financial arrangements were made with the States, by the caretaker Government. Accordingly, the Bill also provides for reimbursement of the States in respect of payments they have made under the special arrangements in the interim period.

As with the other education Bills I have already introduced, provision is made in this Bill for grants in relation to building and equipment projects to be met, if necessary, from the Loan Fund. There are to be 6 programs in 1976 - general recurrent grants, disadvantaged schools, special education, services and development, special projects and capital grants.

It is the policy of this Government to establish as much flexibility and initiative as possible for systems and school in using education grants. Decentralisation of decision making is desirable to permit maximum responsiveness and local involvement in education. A capacity to re-order priorities as changing needs arise and to reallocate funds accordingly is an important characteristic of any organisation.

The Government supports increased autonomy in decision making for all schools and greater involvement of the community associated with individual schools. We applaud the moves already made in this direction by some States and look forward to further development of this trend. We will continue co-operative discussions with systems of ways of increasing local decision making for schools.

It has been possible to expand the definition of those who may participate in the in-service training and related activities to allow participation of parents and other citizens. The Government accepts that there will be a need for opportunities for many people to increase their knowledge and experience if there is to be genuine community participation and increased autonomy for schools, and hopes that funds will be used accordingly.

To give increased flexibility in the application of funds, the previous arrangements permitting transfer of funds have been extended and now allow for transfers of funds between elements of the capital program and other transfers between components within a specified program. Subject to arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States, it is also possible that there be some re-allocation between recurrent and capital funds and some re-allocation between States.

There is a recognised need to inform this Parliament and the Australian people how moneys granted for education purposes are spent. This does not mean we need to have every small item of expenditure undertaken by the States or by non-government schools reported. We do need, however, information which covers the main areas of expenditure and enables a proper assessment of progress made towards meeting the learning needs of children. Continuing assessment and evaluation of progress is essential to the proper determination of future levels and direction of funding. With this in mind, we have modified the accountability requirements so that States will report the major items of expenditure but will not have to provide reports in detail. Similarly, in the case of the nongovernment schools it is not our intent, under this legislation, to call for accountability requirements beyond those which have been customary for some years.

I would also like to make it clear that the discretion which the Bill accords to the Commonwealth Minister in matters such as the declaration of disadvantaged schools and the classes of persons other than teachers who may take part in in-service training activities will be exercised in consultation with State Ministers. Following the application of grants under this legislation a report will be tabled in each House of the Parliament containing such information as is reasonable and practicable for the States to provide. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 1249

ROADS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

This is a very important measure both in respect of Commonwealth Government appropriations for road works and also in respect of the other changes which we proposed to make to the existing legislation. The Bill is of course similar in some respects to the Bill introduced last November and which lapsed at the time of the double dissolution. I have circulated to honourable senators an explanatory memorandum covering the details of the Bill. I would comment that the Bill does appear to be rather complex and I have attempted in the explanatory memorandum to outline in clear layman’s language what the various proposed clauses are intended to do.

The Bill serves really 3 main purposes. First of all it will appropriate an additional $64m in Commonwealth Government grants to the States for road works in 1975-76. Secondly it will amend the existing legislation so as to allow easier administration and transfer of funds between road categories and between Acts. Thirdly it will amend the legislation to avoid unnecessary involvement and control by the Commonwealth Government in the area of local road programs. I propose to deal briefly with each of these aspects in turn before outlining the main provisions included in the Bill. Of the additional $64m to be provided by the Act $ 14.9m is to be allocated to national roads and the remaining $49. lm will be made available for use in accordance with the Roads Grants Act. The purpose of the additional funds is to partially offset the effects of inflation on existing appropriations. The increase is equivalent to about 17.8 per cent of the existing appropriations for 1975-76 and thus represents a very substantial effort on the part of the Commonwealth Government at a time when we are pressing heavily to reduce expenditure so as to get the Budget deficit under control.

State quotas are also to be increased by an equivalent percentage and together with additional Commonwealth funds this should enable us to maintain a substantial improvement in road construction and maintenance activities generally. The detailed allocations of these additional funds are of course set out in the Bill. I would comment however that the way these allocations have been made largely reflect the States’ own views and their program commitments. As honourable senators are no doubt aware the Commonwealth expressed its concern at previous cut backs in funds for local authorities and we asked the States to direct these additional funds wherever possible for use at the local level. As a sign of our co-operative approach we have accepted the requests made by the States in respect of allocations and the States have given assurances that they are able to provide properly for local government authorities.

I now turn to the administrative changes which we are proposing. First of all we intend to continue with the amendment originally proposed by the previous Government to allow State Governments more flexibility in seeking approvals for transfer of funds between road categories and between Acts. As the Act stands at present States may only seek approval for transfer if they can certify that they cannot spend the funds in the particular road category concerned. Obviously in times of high inflation it would be very difficult to give such an assurance. In any event it is necessary that the administration of the Acts be made more flexible so as to allow for work priorities to be taken into account in switching funds. We are therefore proposing to continue with this amendment.

More important however is the change we are proposing with regard to local government road works. At the present time State Governments are obliged under the Act to seek approval for individual pojects. In fact this system has already broken down. Generally, the States are simply unable to provide this level of detail because it has no part in their normal administrative procedures. We are therefore proposing to restructure the Act in respect of rural and urban local roads so that in future State Governments may seek approval for proposed allocations of Commonwealth funds to local authorities. The Act also provides for other State authorities to use funds provided under the Act for local roads in those cases where the authorities concerned are in fact doing the work. These moves represent a change in the basic philosophy of the legislation.

The Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, discussed these and other matters in some detail with his State counterparts at the meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council held in Melbourne on 5 March. I think it would be informative for honourable senators if I summarised very briefly the main points which the Minister made in an opening policy statement to that meeting. The Minister indicated to me that the

State Ministers seemed to be unanimous in welcoming the marked difference in approach which he outlined in his statement from that of his predecessor. The meeting represented a good practical Stan to the co-operative approach we are trying to achieve in transport matters. In addition to the main changes proposed in the roads legislation, which I have already described to the Senate, one further most important change concerns urban arterial road projects, including freeways. Under the previous Government, States were obliged to seek Canberra approval for all urban arterial projects even where the States proposed to fund the works entirely from their own resources. Under the new arrangements which now apply States will be able to proceed with their own urban arterial projects without having first sought permission from Canberra.

The Minister also indicated to the State Ministers the steps he had taken to clear up a number of outstanding issues. One example which I should mention concerns the re-allocation of urban transport funds to allow available funds to be used in the really pressing areas such as the provision of rolling stock. The States had been placed in some difficulty I understand because the previous Government had not approved the commencement of new projects for the 1975-76 year. The Government’s aim simply is to get the program moving again at least with the depleted funds we have available this year. As the Minister made clear to the ATAC meeting, therefore, his approach in the transport portfolio will be to seek the closest co-operation with the States. The Commonwealth has a clear national interest in a number of transport areas and these also have to be dealt with in a co-operative and federalist manner. I should repeat at this point that all States, including those with Labor Governments, seemed to welcome our proposed co-operative approach.

I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. It is divided into 3 Parts. Part I sets out the usual preliminary information. Part II, that is clauses 3 to 8, relate to the National Roads Act. Part III, that is clauses 9 to 22, relate to the Roads Grants Act. The total increase in funds for each State is as follows:

The detailed Schedules included in the Bill show how these State totals are allocated to the various road categories. The relevant clauses for the detailed category allocations are clause 8 for National Roads and clause 21 for the Roads Grants Act. The Bill provides for the additional amounts set out in the Schedules to be added to the existing 1975-76 appropriations. As I have already indicated the allocations reflect State views and wishes. The main clauses relating to the easiest transfer provisions to which 1 referred earlier are clauses 6 and 16 for the National Roads and Roads Grants Acts respectively.

The changes with regard to local road allocations are substantially covered in clauses 10, 12 and 13. Honourable senators will note that it was necessary to amend a number of the definitions included in the original Bill and this of course reflects the different approach we are adopting to allow proposed allocations of funds to be submitted for approval. I should comment that the purpose of the roads legislation is to ensure that money going to the States is actually spent on roads and these changes do not in any way alter that situation. Finally in relation to the new procedure for rural roads I should also draw the attention of honourable senators to clause 22 which is a validation clause to cover retrospectively certain actions already taken with regard to local road programs. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Bill (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1251

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

I understand that the Opposition will move an amendment proposing that this matter be referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I should like to indicate that the Government will oppose that amendment. It would seem that such an amendment might suggest that it is inappropriate that such a subject be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. We believe that that is not so. The subject- the implications for Australia’s foreign policy and national security of proposals for a new international economic order- is one of great significance. The consideration of it, I believe, is fully in accord with the status of the Senate and of its standing committees.

I should like to refer to the resolution of the Senate by which this and other Senate standing committees were established earlier this year, lt states that the committees will be ‘empowered to inquire into and report upon such matters as are referred to them by the Senate’. In 1970 when the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees of the Senate were established their specific purpose was to assist and supplement the other work of the Senate by inquiring into and reporting on matters referred to them by the Senate. I suggest that such committees are competent to deal with any subject which the Senate sees fit to refer to them. I believe that this important reference is one which a standing committee of this chamber ought to consider.

I should like briefly to refer to an eminent authority who has written:

The Senate’s standing committee system has significantly strengthened the parliamentary system of government by providing opportunities and facilities for the more thorough consideration of public affairs and, by establishing formal channels of communication between the Senate and the electorate, has stimulated more public interest and participation in decision making.

I believe that a Senate committee, in considering such a reference as that proposed could effectively serve the purposes referred to in that statement. The Senate can thereby play its part in increasing public awareness of the importance of the subject about which, I believe, there is perhaps too little awareness at the moment.

The proposals for a new international economic order, which have been current now for some three or four years, deal with many subjects of great importance to our foreign policy and to our national security, ranging from the question of development assistance through to trade and the transfer of technology. It is a vitally important subject to which I think the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence ought to direct its attention. I should like to refer to some of the other subjects with which this Committee has dealt. It has dealt with subjects such as Japan, the Australian Army, Australia and the United Nations involvement in Australian territories, Vietnamese refugees and, shortly, it will deal with the subject of the Indian Ocean.

I believe that this reference is in keeping with the tradition which has been set for this Committee of dealing with matters of great public significance which cover a wide range of issues of importance to the community. I simply say that I believe the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is competent to deal with this subject. The Senate is competent to refer the subject to it. I consider that the subject is consistent with the standing and status of the Senate itself and of the standing committees of the Senate. Therefore, we will oppose the amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition and support the motion as it stands.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- Is the motion seconded?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I rise to move an amendment to the motion moved by Senator Knight. I move:

I do so for the reason expressed by the Opposition on a previous occasion. We hold the belief that unnecessary duplication occurs in references to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. We believe it is not in the best interests of the members or of the Parliament. As I have said previously, Senate committees by their very proliferation have become virtually the tail which wags the dog. For that reason I have moved the amendment.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (4.10)- I feel that I should intrude at this juncture to support Senator Knight’s motion and to oppose the amendment moved by Senator Primmer. I do so for a simple reason. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was set up some years ago. It was established as one of the standing committees of the Senate for the specific reason that the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defence is an amorphous committee of substantial numbers. It has a constant stream of preoccupation from various members of the Committee, comprising as it does members from both Houses and from separate parties inside the Parliament. The result is that it is almost impossible to get a reference through the Joint Committee simply because of the weight of business. There is a tendency in a large committee for people to be unable to come to some definite proposition so that the Committee can report to the Parliament. There are a lot of other reasons why the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was set up. Most of the objections which originally frustrated the Parliament in the context of that Committee have disappeared with the effluxion of time.

Nevertheless, the primary argument which I have advanced is still valid. I suppose I am not being out of the way or in any way impugning the obligations which rest upon me as Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence by saying that the Committee is already fully occupied with references which have come to it from various interested members of the parties comprising this Parliament. In my opinion, simply because of the interests of various members and of various groups of members on the Joint Committee a reference such as the one which has been put down by Senator Knight would go to the bottom of the business paper of the Joint Committee. I doubt that it would ever see the light of day. There is a third argument to which I should draw the attention of honourable senators. The previous Administration propelled through both Houses a recommendation that both Houses should set up the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System. I have had the honour to serve on that Committee for some time as you have, Mr Acting Deputy President. I now sit on it again. That Committee is in the process of coming to certain conclusions. I hope that the report on the Parliamentary committee system will be available to the Parliament before very long.

An interesting thing emerged as a result of hearing witnesses and having discussions on that Committee. The evidence was given in public session so there is no breach of confidence when I make the observation that the weight of evidence taken by the Committee indicated that the Committee system should operate on the basis of each House doing its own thing. Obviously, when that report comes down, it will be the subject of severe debate. In the meantime I think the Senate standing committees and general purpose committees should be allowed to continue. We should not anticipate the feelings and wants of various people in various parts of the Parliament. I know that it is the wish of honourable senators opposite to have joint committees. One of the difficulties, as far as the Senate is concerned, is not that the Senate tail is wagging the parliamentary dog; what happens is that joint committees comprise twice as many members from the House of Representatives as it does senators. So the tail is left in the air and the dog goes through some sort of physical contortion. I for one hold that the Senate is a House directed by the Constitution to carry out certain functions. It has developed an expertise in various areas. It examines matters thoroughly and reports with far greater speed than do joint committees. I could carry on these arguments to a far greater degree but I think they sustain the right and the belief of honourable senators on the Government side that this reference should go to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. When the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System comes down I hope that all honourable senators will support the system of Senate committees.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1253

FINANCIAL AGREEMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 March on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I assume, with the concurrence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), that this Financial Agreement Bill and the National Debt Sinking Fund Amendment Bill will be debated concurrently.

Senator Cotton:

– Yes, thank you.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I do not assume that either of these Bills will create lengthy debate. They are essentially similar to Bills which have been brought before the Parliament over many years. They relate to the original financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which was negotiated in 1927. I think most of us are aware that the purpose of the Bills is to bring some measure of rationality to the financial agreements between the State and Federal governments. Over the years there have been many amendments to the Financial Agreement Act made by Federal governments of both political persuasions. In the agreement of 1970 the Commonwealth agreed to accept certain debt responsibilities of the States. It was agreed at that time that an initial amount of $200m a year would be provided to meet the debt and that this would be expanded each year over a 5-year period, reaching $ 1,000m in 1975. It was intended at that time that there would be a formal transfer of that debt to the Commonwealth. For reasons which I do not profess to understand the legislation at the time did not make that transfer formal in the 1975 financial year. The principal purpose of this legislation is to incorporate that transfer in the Act.

There are some other matters which have been changed but which are of no real substance or concern to us. They are matters of an accounting nature which will streamline the agreement. There are some alterations to the procedures which obtain now at Australian Loan Council meetings. In substance, the Bill essentially provides the formality which apparently should have been attended to in 1 970 but which was not done. Agreement was reached at the 1974 Loan Council for this amendment to be effected to the Act. The Australian Labor Party was in power and this legislation essentially gives effect to that agreement. For that reason I, on behalf of the Opposition, will not oppose the legislation. One could launch into a major debate on this Bill as it relates to the whole question of CommonwealthState financial relations. However, I am sure that before long we will have an opportunity to debate that matter which is currently of very great concern. So we should confine ourselves precisely to the legislation which is before us. I believe it is not a mattei which requires lengthy debate. I simply indicate that the Opposition will not oppose either of the Bills.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I do not intend either to delay the Senate on this matter. I merely wish to highlight one or two points in relation to Commonwealth-State problems in this area. I make the point that whereas since 1949 we have seen an increase of the order of 62 per cent in government securities on issue from the Commonwealth Government in my State of South Australia we have seen an increase of some 500 per cent in State government indebtedness. That brings with it a number of side issues and problems, not the least of which is the rising interest payments which my State, through its Budget, needs to bear each year. In 1972 interest paid on State debts as a percentage of total outlays amounted to 1 7.3 per cent. In 1975 it rose to 18.3 per cent. As the general burden increased it rose, as a proportion of the total debt, by 8.79 per cent from an average growth over the previous 25 years of about 6.5 per cent. So the problem which we are discussing today is one which not only relates back to 1970 but which is growing and which will have to be faced in the years to come.

I shall mention the taxation position in the States. I refer to the percentages of taxes raised by the various governmental authorities in the United States compared with those in Australia, as I think they highlight the growing centralism which has occurred and which is evidenced by the figures which I have just given for the last 26 years. In the United States the proportion of income tax raised by the Federal Government is of the order of 70 per cent; State taxation is about 16 per cent; and local government taxation is 13.5 per cent. In broad terms the level of State government taxation in Australia is roughly equal to that in the United States. Local government taxation in Australia, however, is of the order of only 4 per cent of total taxation, which means that it is some 9 per cent less than that raised by local government in the United States. In contrast to that, of course, is the heavy involvement of the Federal Government in Australia which raises nearly 80 per cent of total taxation compared with the level of 70 per cent in the United States.

So it is interesting to compare Federal systems which have similar forms of government. In doing so one discovers that this nation has particularly heavy centralised tax raisings which, of course, is one of the reasons why the Government introduced its federalism policy. As we know, that policy has been accepted by the various State Premiers. I might add that it was accepted by the Premier of South Australia in glowing terms, as reported in the local Press on 10 April. But that debate is for another day. I wish only to indicate my support for the legislation.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– in reply- I welcome the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and my colleague from South Australia, Senator Messner. This legislation really deals with the assumption by the Commonwealth of $ 1,000m of State debt and the picking up of the interest burden on that debt. As was mentioned by both Senator Wriedt and Senator Messner, the legislation is not opposed; it is accepted by both sides of the Senate. This Bill and the National Debt Sinking Fund Agreement Bill are being debated cognately. There is no need for argument. Perhaps detailed discussion on the whole problem of* Commonwealth-State financial relations can take place at a later date when we are considering a more contentious measure. But this debate does allow me to go back in my mind to my early days in the Senate when Senator McKenna was a member of the Senate. He said to me: ‘The National Debt Sinking Fund Bill is coming up for debate and you should take an interest in it’. I said: ‘Thank you very much’, and I volunteered. Nobody else volunteered. There was a long debate in the Senate; it took 242 hours. Senator McKenna spoke for an hour and a half; I spoke for an hour. Nobody else was in the chamber. We congratulated each other and went away quite happy. Fortunately for us all, today’s debate is a great deal shorter.

As Senator Messner mentioned, there has been a growing burden of State debt through the years in contrast to the national debt, and this legislation is an attempt to bring that position back into balance. I hope that as time goes on that process will receive more attention from us. It is appropriate to remind ourselves that the beginning of all this was the unco-ordinated borrowing by all governments of Australia which, in the 1920s put the national credit at some hazard. That led to the consolidation of the public debt of Australia and the paying off of it by proper means through a National Debt Sinking Fund. That process having been honoured through all the years is one of the most substantial measures that has led to Australia’s credit as a borrower, both internationally and through its own people. The measure therefore is one of importance and it is wise, I am quite sure, not to put it under any contest. We are here involved in the management of the national debt, the proper raising of the national debt, and the proper paying off of that debt once it is raised. When one hears from time to time of the desire of various States to go off and raise loans on their own account, one needs to remind oneself of the great importance of Australia’s debt obligation being taken totally and not in separate transactions.

Senator Wriedt referred to the 1970 agreement. The State Grants Debt Charges Act 1970 was Commonwealth legislation providing for payments to the States in relation to debt charges on State debt. Under section 105a of the Constitution it was necessary to enter an agreement with the States to provide for the takeover of the debt by the Commonwealth. That could have been the subject of a separate agreement, but the Loan Council decided that it should be effected by amendment to the Financial Agreement of 1927.

I do not think I need to say a great deal more than that, except perhaps once again to reiterate that at a time like this we ought to be very conscious of the debt incurred by governments on behalf of the Australian people being raised totally, being examined by the Loan Council, always being consolidated, and being properly and regularly paid off to those who have lent the money. That has been our practice for a long time now. I hope it continues to be our practice and, that at the same time we keep under review through the years the proportions of debt standing in the names of the States as against that standing in the name of the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1255

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 7 March on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

page 1255

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 April on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I assume that the Government would wish to debate cognately with this Bill the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1976?

Senator Cotton:

– Yes.

Senator GRIMES:

– I think the Minister has indicated to me that that will be so.

Senator Cotton:

– While I am not in charge of this Bill, the idea seems to me to be one full of the greatest merit.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator GRIMES:

-The Opposition does not oppose these Bills in toto. Neither does it wish to delay unduly the passage of these Bills as they contain provisions for some much needed and much delayed increases in benefits for pensioners and repatriation benefit recipients in this country. However, the Opposition does intend to oppose in the Committee stages that clause of the Social Services Amendment Bill, clause 7, which deprives those who meet the costs of a funeral of a pensioner the Government contribution to those costs. On behalf of my colleagues, I move the following amendment to the second reading motion:

At end of motion add- but the Senate deplores the failure of the Government to index dependants allowances to meet increases in the cost of living’.

Senator Wood:

– That amendment does not refer to the funeral benefit.

Senator GRIMES:

– I have moved that amendment, Senator Wood, to the second reading motion. There are 2 amendments, one to oppose that clause in the Committee stages. The amendments deal with different aspects.

The Social Services Amendment Bill provides for increases in the single rate pension from $38.75 a week to $41.25 a week, and an increase in the married rate pension from $33.25 a week to $34.25 a week, these increases being roughly 6.4 per cent, in line with the consumer price index figures for the last 2 quarters of 1975. It provides also for similar increases in unemployment and sickness benefits. The Bill provides also for an increase in the allowances for pensioner inmates and widow inmates of benevolent homes. It increases the penalty for fraudulent claims on the Department of Social Security from $100 to $500. Finally, and most deplorably in our mind, the legislation abolishes the funeral benefit available to those responsible for the funeral costs of a deceased pensioner.

This Bill has come in for widespread criticism in the community. It has come in for criticism from both sides of politics, including a State conference of one of the Government parties. It has been criticised particularly by many pensioner organisations in the community. I believe that the basis for this widespread and vocal criticism is very easy to find. Both Bills, particularly the Social Services Amendment Bill, repudiate the promises made to pensioners and to pensioner organisations in the course of the election campaign of November-December last that the value of social welfare benefits in this country would not be reduced if a Liberal-National Country Party government was elected. Secondly, neither Bill fulfils the promised policies of the Liberal and National Country Parties that there would be an instant and automatic adjustment of pensions and benefits in line with movements in the consumer price index if a coalition government was elected.

I point out firstly that the initial legislative action of this Government was to abolish subsidised pharmaceutical benefits. This action had the effect of increasing the cost of prescription charges to many people who received those benefits, including new migrants in this country, from 75c to $2. We have had restrictions on the availability of legal aid so that a deserted wife cannot obtain legal aid when she seeks maintenance payments. We have had foreshadowed, although nothing seems very clear about this matter, the possibility of withholding social security benefits from wives who are in this situation. Severe restrictions are being applied to the unemployment benefit. The ethnic interpreter service is being cut back. A whole series of cutbacks has been made and obviously will continue to be made. These Bills are just part of the whole attack, we believe, on the social welfare system of this country.

Let me quote first some of those statements which have been made in the past 6 months, particularly some of those things which were said last November and December. In November 1975 Mr Chipp was caretaker Minister for Social Security. Let me repeat what he said. This was quoted in many newspapers. In fact, he issued a Press statement making the same undertaking. He said:

Pensioners would get automatic twice-yearly increases in line with the cost of living rises.

Pensions would be out of the hands of politicians and no longer would be a political football.

They would be automatic. Legislation will not even have to come to Parliament.

In his Press statement dated 8 December 1975 he said:

Legislation would be introduced to allow instant increases in pensions in line with the consumer price index.

At a meeting at Rockhampton on 6 December 1975 widely reported, particularly in the Sun Herald and the Melbourne Sun of 7 December and 8 December respectively, Mr Fraser said:

A Liberal-CP Government would give automatic twiceyearly increases in pensions, and would raise pensions directly in line with price rises.

Mr Fraser said there would be no need to wait 3 months as with Labor’s proposed adjustment for price index rises.

I ask honourable senators to take note of the repeated use of the terms ‘instant’ and ‘automatic’ by those 2 gentlemen and to note Mr Fraser ‘s reference that there would not be any need to wait until 3 months after the CPI figures were out for the pensioners to get their increases. Quite clearly the implication of their words was that pensioners could expect instant rises when the CPI figures were released. Quite clearly pensioners could expect pensions to rise automatically after the legislation which had been promised was introduced. The consumer price index rose 6.4 per cent in the second half or the last 2 quarters of 1975. Workers on awards received their indexed increases in February and March. Pensioners will receive their increases in May.

To put a vice-regal seal on the whole issue, Mr Fraser put into the mouth of the GovernorGeneral in his Speech when opening this Parliament the following words:

The Government will not permit economic recovery to take place at the expense of those who are less well off.

The Government proposes to introduce to the Parliament amending legislation to increase social service pensions and benefit rates every 6 months in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. Similar legislation will be introduced to increase repatriation compensation payments.

The Governor-General said that amending legislation would be introduced to increase pensions and benefits every 6 months in accordance with movements of the CPI. He did not say that legislation would be introduced every 6 months to increase pensions but that amending legislation would be introduced to have the effect of increasing the pensions every 6 months. Mr Chipp ‘s promise was that legislation would not even have to come to the Parliament. Since the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, to my knowledge, neither the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) nor the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) has mentioned this proposed legislation. Certainly Mr Chipp and other Government supporters in the House of Representatives have. They have expressed their disappointment at the turn of events and made their disappointment quite clear. So have the pensioner organisations.

I think we may well ask: Where is this promised legislation? I do not think it is any wonder that pensioners and their representatives are annoyed and disillusioned. I do not think it is any wonder that newspaper editorials are critical. Pensioners had had 3 years of Labor government which had increased pensions by 93.8 per cent when the average weekly earnings in this country had increased by 64 per cent. They had seen the pension rise from 19 per cent of the average weekly earnings to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings. They had seen children’s allowances rise from $4.50 to $7.50 per week, in excess of the cost of living increase. Other benefits had been introduced to make a start on bridging gaps in our social welfare program. A start had also been made on the elimination of the means test. The Labor Government knew perfectly well, and the Labor Opposition knows well now, that the system needed reform. Numerous reports were coming into the Labor Government, and they are still coming in, suggesting the nature of possible reforms, but the Labor Government knew that the first priority in 2 short terms of government was to increase the income level of beneficiaries to something near a reasonable sum compared with parameters such as the average weekly earnings and the consumer price index figures.

Then pensioners were presented with a policy by the coalition parties under which they would get instant application of the consumer price index to their pensions; that they would get automatic application without the need for parliamentary debate. They had firm and repeated promises that there would be no reduction in the value of welfare benefits. I point out that nowhere in pre-election policy speeches was there a word about funeral benefits or in fact about subsidised pharmaceutical benefits. Pensioner organisations admitted that it was almost too much to believe. I believe that they are realising now that, as it turns out, it was too much to believe. They were told earlier this year that pensions were to be increased, not instantly, not automatically, but in May. It was said, and it is still being said, that to pay the pension increase in May was not depriving the pensioners of one month’s pension increase and thus decreasing the value of their benefits but that the payment was in line with Labor policy. This statement, which was repeated in the House of Representatives, which I dare say will be repeated today, and which certainly is still being repeated in public by supporters of the Government, I believe was given the lie by the Prime Minister himself. On 4 February he released a list of cuts in government spending totalling some $350m. On page 4 of that list was a cut of $29m in government spending, and this cut is attributed to a delay in the pension payments of one month. It is a cut of $29m in the Labor Budget’s proposed spending. 1 will be interested to hear honourable senators opposite explain to me how the Government can save $29m expenditure by depriving the pensioners of $29m in benefits and not at the same time cutting the value of pensions. So much for the instant increases and so much for the promise that pensioners would not bear the brunt of the Government’s plans for recoveryjust a cut of $29m.

Pensioner organisations also expected, quite reasonably, that the indexing of pensions and benefits referred to in the Governor-General’s Speech and other speeches would also apply to dependants’ allowances. Children of pensioners and beneficiaries must be fed, must be clothed, must travel by private and public transport, and must be educated. All these things are affected by the CPI increases. The Labor Government did not increase these payments 6-monthly. It substantially raised pensions following increases in the consumer price index. Prior to the election the coalition parties promised to tie benefits such as the dependants allowances to the CPI. If honourable senators opposite like to indulge in semantics and say that the promises referred to the word ‘ benefits’ and did not mean allowances, I point out that the section of the original Act referring to allowances paid to spouses and other dependants of pensioners who die refers to funeral benefits. These benefits are not indexed; they are abolished. In view of the record of the previous coalition Government between 1949 and 1972 with pensions and allowances we believe that the Government should be asked by this House to index all associated benefits so that in the future pensioners can have some guarantee as they were promised before the election. We believe that only by insisting on an amendment to index these benefits can we guarantee that the Government will do justice to the pensioners in view of the already abysmal record of this Government and the abysmal record of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in the social welfare field.

Clause 7 of the Bill abolishes the funeral benefit. This benefit provides payments of $20 to $40 towards the cost of funerals of deceased pensioners. It was introduced in the early 1940s. Everyone in this place admits that it was inadequate and needed reform by increasing the amount and perhaps by slightly varying the amounts available in different circumstances to different people who are responsible for the funerals of pensioners who die, thus making them more equitable and more reasonable. This was the situation with repatriation beneficiaries, whose funeral benefit is considerably higher, although probably not sufficiently high by today’s standards. Funeral expenses are high and are a burden for many families, perhaps most families. After the purchase of a house and a car, a funeral probably represents the next most expensive item to be paid for by any family. But the Government intends without warning to abolish the funeral benefit to save the derisory expenditure of $ 1.7m. I point out that this is a further $1.7m cut in welfare spending. Despite all the previous promises it is being done at a time of worry and concern for all pensioners, in fact for most of us- a time of world wide economic difficulties. It is done to save an absolutely infinitesimal proportion of the projected Budget deficit.

What statements were made by the Government in justification of this move? The Minister for Social Security said that the Government had decided to continue the payment of the combined married rate of pension to the surviving partner in a case where a married pensioner died. One wonders whether these words indicated that the Government was considering abolishing this benefit too. If the Government was not considering removing this benefit, what relevance has that statement to the funeral benefit? I believe that the Government and the Minister were grasping at straws. The combined rate payment for 12 weeks to the surviving spouse was introduced in 1968. It was introduced to tide over the spouse for the period when a sudden and almost always unexpected drop in income would have caused distress to that surviving spouse. I point out that it was not introduced to pay for funerals. The funeral benefit was in existence then and was not abolished at the same time as the combined rate payment was introduced. The combined rate payment was not introduced to provide funeral benefits. In depriving the surviving spouse of even the miserly $40 funeral benefit payment the Government, in fact, is cutting almost 2 weeks payment off that 12 weeks combined benefits payment. So much for the Government’s maintaining the value of pensions.

A second attempt to justify this abolition of the benefit was made in a further statement by the Minister for Social Security when she said:

Some 25 per cent of aged pensioners are single and own their own houses. On the death of such pensioners their estates would generally cover funeral costs.

What sort of a statement of justification is that? Apparently, 25 per cent will be OK; so the other 75 per cent can be disregarded. That statement seems hardly to provide justification for the attitude that this expenditure should be cut. Another Government attitude- I believe a more accurate one- was demonstrated by Mr Newman, the Minister for Repatriation, when he spoke to clause 7 of the Bill in another place. His remarks are recorded on page 1360 of House of Representatives Hansard of 6 April 1976. He said: the whole Bill, including this particular clause is clearing the way for something better.

I submit to the Senate that this case is the same as the subsidised pharmaceutical benefits case. In this case, we have the funeral benefit. There is a need for this benefit. I do not think many here would deny that. But the benefit was inefficient in the case of subsidised pharmaceutical benefits. In this case it is inadequate. Is the answer really to throw out this benefit and say, as Mr Newman said later, that sometime in the future- perhaps in four or five months when the Budget is introduced, perhaps in four or five years, or perhaps never- the Government will produce something better. Surely the time to throw out a benefit is when something better is introduced or when reforms are introduced. Are we to ask surviving spouses between now and Budget time or between now and Budget time next year, or whenever it will be, to feel proud that the Government has singled them out to take a special place in the battle against inflation and in cutting Government spending? The delayed pensioner benefit increase, on Mr Fraser ‘s own admission, saved the Government $29m. I believe that if the pensioner organisations could have taken seriously his statement that we would have instant and automatic increases in pension benefits, perhaps justifiably it could be argued that the delay has been 3 months and that the saving has been something like $87m. However, we will take Mr Fraser ‘s word on this matter and say that this cut saved $29m. The removal of the funeral benefit saved $1.7m. But the sum saved has not really cut Government spending because increased Government spending on other items for other special groups in the community has increased far beyond this amount. Perhaps I should not be unkind enough to mention where some of that increased Government spending will take place and say who will be benefiting from it.

I believe that the factors that apply to the delay in age pension payments apply also to the repatriation pensioners who also were promised instant and automatic pension increases. There has been a further decrease in the special benefit rate and the total and permanent incapacity pension because in the last Budget, which members of the present Government eventually voted for when they were in Opposition, pensioners receiving these pensions were promised an increase other than the one they are receiving now. In fact, if that pension increase had been passed and the Government had honoured the previous Labor Government’s promise, those pensioners would now be some $2.50 a week better off. They fully expected these increases. The Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Pensioners Association expected this increase. These pensioners, like so many other people in this country, are not very happy with this action.

This country chose the repatriation system a long time ago as its means of repaying in part those who defended this country in war and who went away to protect our freedom. The promise of instant and automatic pensions increases gave these people some hope. We believe that this policy should apply to all repatriation pensioners and also to their dependants. The Returned Services League, members of the present Government and ex-servicemen generally recognise the improvements made to the repatriation system by the previous Government. Other speakers from the Opposition who will follow me in this debate will amplify this matter. For the same reasons as we are moving an amendment to the motion that this Bill be read a second time, we will move an amendment to the motion that the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill be read a second time. It is to try to ensure that in the future the Senate makes sure that the Government follows up the promises it made before the last election.

We recognised in government the inadequacy of the pension rates at that time. We recognised also the effects of inflation on those pension rates. This is why we increased the pension rates at a higher rate than the inflation rate. We recognised that the same need applied in the case of dependants’ allowances, so we increased dependants’ allowances at a greater rate than the inflation rate. We also recognised, as I am sure everyone recognises, that the whole system was faulty. We made a start at reforming the system. We did not get very far. We did not have very long to do so and most of the information was not in. It is still coming in. We did not remove benefits that were present with the promise that in the future we would do something better. As I said before, the time to remove these benefits is when the reform is being introduced and when the changes are to be made. It should not be necessary. It should not be necessary to leave a hiatus of need in the social welfare system while some new scheme is being investigated or while some new scheme is being brought up.

It seems ironical and rather cruel to us to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) preaching from on high like some sort of latter day prophet and urging the citizens of this country to spend. He has announced the need for a consumer led recovery of the economy in this country. We have heard him plead with the people to buy new refrigerators, new motor cars and new washing machines so that there will be more jobs. But at the same time he has reduced the spending capacity of the pensioners in this country, on his own admission, by some $3 1 m. I believe that it is sad to hear the Prime Minister proclaim that his Government will give people more independence in the use of their money and more freedom to spend their money as they wish and then deprive those in the community who, through no fault of their own, have the least financial independence. These are the people whose meagre funds are committed largely to essential spending. They do not know what luxuries are. He has deprived these people of some $3 1 m of their spending power. Surely, even in the difficult economic times that we face, this country can afford to care for those people who, as I have said, through no fault of their own, need assistance. We believe that these people need confidence as much as business needs confidence. We do not believe that they should feel again that the chill winds of conservative philosophy will blow through our social security field. We think they should have confidence that the payments under the social security system will stay at the level reached during the period of the Labor Government and that social security will not revert to the low priority it had during the years of office of the previous conservative Government. These people expected that the promises made to them would be kept.

Finally, I should like to quote from a letter which was written to a small newspaper, the Launceston Examiner, by Mr L. B. Clark of Low Head on 27 March 1976. Mr Clark has since written again and again asking his local government members to reply to his letters.

Senator Rae:

– So have some other people been writing, have they not, Senator?

Senator GRIMES:

-Senator Rae finds this issue very amusing. He always finds it very funny when things like this happen to pensioners. During the recent general election campaign Mr Clark reprimanded me very strongly because I suggested that pension values would drop under a Liberal government. Mr Clark referred to members of the present Government and to their promises before the election in his letter to the Launceston Examiner. His letter then stated, in part:

As secretary of the George Town Branch of the Liberal Party during this campaign I was personally assured by both -

Both the people he referred to earlier in his letter- that pensions would be maintained at least at the level of purchasing power of December, and probably would be improved.

He then went on to castigate the Whitlam Government. To be fair I shall read that also. He stated:

The Whitlam Government may have been incompetent and ruinous to our economy and its socialistic policies deplorable, but at least it was not bloodsuckers of the poor.

Mr Clark finished his letter by stating:

To the pensioners I can only extend my deepest apologies for any part I played in deceiving them during the election campaign. I am indeed sorry.

I believe that Mr Clark has summed up the reasons for our moving the amendment which we have moved and for our proposing to oppose clause 7 of the Social Services Amendment Bill during the Committee stage. This clause provides for the abolition of the funeral benefit. I believe that I should let Mr Clark have the last word.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating in cognate fashion the Social Services Amendment Bill 1976 and the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1976. From what honourable senators have just heard from Senator Grimes, they might be forgiven for forgetting that these are Bills which will give away large amounts of money. They are Bills which will make available to pensioners large amounts of money and which will give pensioners very significant rises in the level of their pension. The Bills will hand out benefits to people. If the honourable senator wants to criticise, he might at least combine his criticism with an acknowledgment of the benefits that will flow from these Bills to the very people about whom he spoke. But that would require a generosity of mind and a balanced argument of which I believe he is not capable.

These Bills give expression to the determination of the Fraser Government to maintain the value of pensions and they will do this. These Bills are in keeping with our undertaking that pensions will rise every 6 months. These Bills actually put into effect what we promised during the general election campaign. The objects of the Bills are laudable and it is the result of an act of hypocrisy that no statement has been made by honourable senators opposite about the benefits that will accrue to people through these Bills which should be attracting bipartisan support and which Senator Grimes should be supporting. These Bills will allow more money to be paid to pensioners. I remind honourable senators that it is through pensions that the main workings of the cash transfer system operate. As honourable senators know, we give to people in need 2 kinds of services: We give cash through the cash transfer system and we support the provision of services through other welfare agencies. The pension system is the great cash transfer system operating in Australia. These Bills enable more money to be made available to pensioners- to those in need.

In Australia it is necessary that our cash transfer system be effective, that it be equitable and that it be adequate. All honourable senators will be aware of the emphasis which the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty gave to the cash needs of the poor. All honourable senators will be aware that the Henderson Commission identified the undue numbers of aged people among those who exist in poverty in Australia. All honourable senators will be aware also of the emphasis which Professor Henderson and his coworkers placed upon the provision of adequate amounts of cash for these people through the pension system.

These Bills which the Liberal-National Country Party Government is putting before the

Senate acknowledge that need. The Bills acknowledge the need to increase pensions with inflation and they give effect to that increase.

We undertook in our policy statement to increase pensions twice yearly in line with the consumer price index. This rise- the rise which we are seeking to implement now by way of these Bills- takes into account the rises in the CPI for the September and December quarters. The rise takes into account a rise in the CPI for the September quarter of 0.8 per cent and a rise in the CPI in the December quarter of 5.6 per cent, a total rise of 6.4 per cent, which is being passed on as an appropriate increase in pensions to allow for that 6.4 per cent rise in the CPI over 2 three-month periods. The rise in fact gives effect to our promise to introduce a Bill to increase the pension by the 6-monthly rise in the CPI. These Bills are doing this.

The September and December quarters are the quarters corresponding to the 2 quarters that were included in the equivalent Bill brought in last year by the Labor Government. The Labor Government brought in such a Bill at the same time of the year as this- in the autumn Session of Parliament. That Bill covered the same 2 quarters in order to give effect to a rise in pensions to take some account of rises that had occurred in the cost of living. There is no difference in our time table. The Labor Party cannot claim that we have departed in any way from a program of 6-monthly increases. This will be a 6-monthly rise and in due course the rises in the CPI for the March and June quarters will be incorporated in legislation.

The rise of $2.50 per week is the full rise which one would expect from the rise in the CPI. It takes the standard rate of pension to $41.25. It is necessary to mention this because Senator Grimes did not see fit to emphasise these matters.

Senator Grimes:

– I did mention it.

Senator BAUME:

– I stand corrected. Senator Grimes says that he did mention it but let us mention it again. The rise proposed in this legislation will take the standard rate of pension to $4 1 .25 a week. This is the highest rate at which it has ever stood. When this rise was announced we had available figures for the average weekly earnings to the end of the December quarter. The pension rate would then have equalled 25.2 per cent of the average weekly earnings. I do not know the latest figures for average weekly earnings but this rise still represents a high level of the order which the Labor Party sought to achieve during its period in office.

These Bills will provide for the outlay of $35.2m this financial year; that is $35.2m in cash for pensioners. The legislation will allow for an extra $232m to be provided in 1976-77 even if there are no further benefit increases. These Bills allow for millions more dollars to be provided for the cash transfer system to help the pensioner population.

Even more, the Government has combined with this rise in the pension rate provisions to ease the income and property limits on the means test. These are significant initiatives which should be welcomed and acknowledged.

Having read the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) we know that some pension will be payable to a single person who receives an income of $102.50 a week. This is a new upper limit. It is a new provision to make available to more people the benefits of the pensions system. Some pension will remain payable to people while their assets, as assessed, do not exceed $53,700. This is a new upper limit. It is providing a further means of bringing more people under the umbrella to gain protection from the pension system. Most aged people will find now that the value of the family house or other assets will not debar them from receiving some pension. Married couples without children will continue to receive some pension until their income reaches $171 a week or until the value of their property reaches $90,000. These provisions are generous. They are the start of the Liberal-National Country Party Government’s program of providing pension increases and improvements.

The Minister for Social Security has gone to some length during the last few weeks to let people know that the Income Security Review Committee is meeting to look at the whole cash transfer system in Australia. This Government is concerned that cash transfer should operate in the best possible way. We are looking to this Commitee to make a basic examination of how the cash transfer works, to examine the findings of Professor Henderson, to identify what we would expect from such a cash transfer system, and to report back to the Government. It is this kind of initiative undertaken by the Fraser Ministry which will give us an opportunity to examine the whole cash transfer system and to determine whether we want to make major alterations to the system to give pensioners an even better deal than they are receiving. Let us riot forget that 1.7 million people will benefit from the provisions of the Social Services Amendment Bill.

When one looks at the amendment which has been proposed by the Labor Opposition one finds that it deplores the failure of the Government to index dependants’ allowances. We learnt one thing from the former Labor Government, that is, that inordinate haste brings about disastrous legislation. Inordinate haste made the Labor Government the laughing stock of the nation. It could not write a Family Law Bill that did not need plugging later. It could not write a Trade Practices Bill that did not require more than 100 amendments in the Senate just to make it workable. When this Government proposes substantive alterations in the law they will be well prepared, and when they come into the Senate they will not embarrass us and the nation like previous Labor Government legislation embarrassed honourable senators opposite. The Government believes in the orderly consideration of legislative change and that contrasts with the policy of the Labor Party. We believe in the orderly consideration of the legislation itself.

This Government has a 3-year mandate. It has never been suggested that all the Government’s legislation has to be introduced by 26 April or 27 April, in the Government’s first term. What a ridiculous suggestion. This Government has plenty of time in a busy program to look at its legislative priorities and to introduce the Bills as they are prepared after the proposals leave the departments. We will continue to introduce legislation as it is available. We do not pretend that all our Bills are ready now, that they will be introduced now, or that all our promises can be carried out immediately. At the present time we are giving a full 6-month rise to pensioners to cover the recent rise in the consumer price index. We are honouring our obligation. Opposition senators cannot argue otherwise. We are sticking to the timetable which the Labor Government established during its term of office. This is a generous piece of legislation and it should be acknowledged as such. The Government hopes that it is the beginning of a number of Bills. We hope to do more for pensioners. This Government has time before it. Whatever we do will be done carefully. During the Committee stage of the Social Services Amendment Bill I may wish to intervene and speak on particular clauses, but at this stage I commend the general thrust of the legislation and emphasise the generous nature of the legislation in making available to pensioners much more than they have at the present time. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)-Before calling Senator

McAuliffe, is there a seconder to the amendment moved by Senator Grimes?

Senator McAuliffe:

– I am going to second the amendment.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Very well.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– Before I say anything at all, allow me to second enthusiastically the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Grimes. I propose this evening to address a short sermon to the Government. I take my text from the political gospel according to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), employing for the purpose these touching words:

It has been stated more than once today that we are dealing with people and not statistics. Here again there is a cardinal philosophy of the Liberal Party that there is a basic dignity required for each individual person. He is never a statistic; he is always an individual with needs, and the measures of the Government are based on that philosophy.

Those words are part of a speech delivered by the Minister in an urgency debate on social services in the Senate on 24 November 1971. This evening I shall set out to prove that the honourable senator has condemned herself out of her own mouth and that she has failed in the performance of the trust committed to her by the people.

If we are to understand that the Minister for Social Security feels herself not only entitled but also bound to subordinate her views to the necessity to maintain Party solidarity, then my argument falls to the ground. I am as good a party man as anyone but I believe that there are considerations which are superior to the Party. An honourable senator, having once committed herself to a policy, cannot and dare not abandon it in order to preserve her seat in the Cabinet. The Federal Government’s decision to abolish the pensioners’ funeral benefit which was introduced in 1943 in order to save $1.7m is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. One of the matters that concern pensioners gravely and more than any other matter is whether they will have enough money for their funeral expenses. Anyone who has had any experience with pensioners will know that for many years before pensioners pass away they subscribe to funeral funds.

When the funeral benefit was introduced originally in 1943 it was designed to give pensioners peace of mind. The benefit of $20 that is paid to a person liable for the funeral costs of a pensioner and the benefit of $40 payable to a pensioner responsible for the funeral costs of another pensioner do not go very far towards meeting the cost of funerals these days. As Senator Grimes so eloquently pointed out in his address, the policy of the Australian Pensioners Federation is that the allowance should be $200. Why not, when the average cost of a funeral today is $300? Even in Queensland the allowance for a pauper’s funeral is $100. The benefit should not be snatched away from the pensioners. It should never have been allowed to remain at its paltry 1 943 level.

In 1974-75 there were 55 453 beneficiaries under the scheme. It is no good the Government or the Minister saying that the benefit does not count. It is important to many needy people. It brings shame to the Minister and to the Government when existing benefits for pensioners are to be removed on such scanty grounds as outlined in the Minister’s second reading speech. In her second reading speech the Minister told us that the total saving will be $1.7m, that the decision has been taken as part of the Government’s review of spending programs and that it is part of its endeavour to reduce administrative costs in government expenditure. Is this $1.7m not a piddling amount, a small amount, indeed? In endeavouring to justify the rationale for doing away with the benefit, the Minister stated:

I might also point out that some 25 per cent of age pensioners are single and own their own homes. On the death of such pensioners, their estates would generally be sufficient to cover the funeral costs.

As the previous speaker, my colleague Senator Grimes, asked: What of the 75 per cent of pensioners who are not in that position? Has there been any inquiry by the Minister or the Government into their position? The Minister continued:

In addition the $20 funeral benefit is often paid to people who are not pensioners and may not be in need of this assistance.

Often that may be so. The Minister may be quite right. But why has the Minister, who professes to be interested in people and not statistics, not bothered to find out the facts about funeral benefits? Why did she not ask her Department to find out what was the situation regarding the remaining 75 per cent of pensioners who did not own their own homes and whether they were in need of this funeral benefit? Again on funeral benefits in another aside the Minister advised the New South Wales Combined Pensioners Association that the Government’s decision was influenced by the fact that the surviving spouse may receive a double pension for 12 weeks after the marriage partner dies. Let us have it on record in Hansard that the Association rejected that claim and that argument by the Minister, and rightly so, because the Association correctly claimed, as every honourable senator knows or should know, that the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1968 introduced the double pension as a means of overcoming the problems that beset pensioners at that time particularly, when their life partner passed away. That provision was never intended- and the Minister and her colleagues know this as well as I do- to replace the funeral benefit. I am surprised that in her reply to the New South Wales Combined Pensioners Association she implied that whilst the funeral benefit was being taken away there was nevertheless this 12 week payment of the double pension, the suggestion, I believe, being that it was something that was being newly introduced. As the pensioners league and we in this chamber know, that double pension was introduced for an entirely separate purpose and not to replace the funeral benefit. This is borne out by the action of successive Liberal-Country Party governments from 1968 to 1972 and by successive Labor governments from 1972 to 1975. Those governments allowed the benefit to remain side by side with the double pension payment. Senator, snatching away the funeral benefit from the pensioner has been cruel and shameful. It is surely a very poor little hen roost to rob; and robbery is the word- cruel robbery- because those who are plundered are poor, and you know that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order Senator! Moderate your language in respect to imputations against the Minister.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I am only claiming that those who were plundered by the taking away of the funeral benefit were the poor. What is offensive in that?

The PRESIDENT:

– The implied imputation in respect of the Minister. Proceed.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-I do not want to be personally offensive to the Minister, but am I to believe that she is unaware that the removal of the funeral benefit affected the poor people? If she is unaware of it I withdraw any imputation at all. I do not intend to be personally offensive. I appeal to the Minister. It is not too late for her to restore the funeral benefit to the pensioners. It is self-apparent that needs exist for the benefit.

Another section singled out for specially severe treatment are the children of pensioners. As reported on page 2072 of the Senate Hansard of 29 October 1974, when the Social Services Bill (No. 3) 1974 was being debated, Senator Guilfoyle moved an amendment in the following words: but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should consent to the incorporation in it of a provision making widowers and deserted husbands with dependent children eligible for benefit on the same basis as widows and deserted wives. ‘

I believe that amendment had the wholehearted and enthusiastic support of the Minister who was then an Opposition senator. That was a sentiment Senator Guilfoyle expressed at the time in criticism of a government that in 2 years had done much more for pensioners than the party that she represents had done in the previous 23 years in government. One must accept that Senator Guilfoyle was genuine and her point was very worthy at the time she moved the amendment. In the same debate on 29 October 1974 Senator Guilfoyle again expressed humanitarianism when she said:

Prior to the formation of the Budget I spoke in the Senate of the hope that I had that it would be possible this year to assist supporting fathers and the children in those families.

Again, worthy and noble thoughts. One would have thought that if Senator Guilfoyle had had her way at the time something would have been done for deserted fathers and more importantly something would have been done for the children of those families.

Now that Senator Guilfoyle is Minister for Social Security let us examine her performance. Not only has the Minister forgotten the sentiments expressed regarding deserted fathers and their children by making no provision whatsoever for them in the measures before us this afternoon, the Minister has gone out of her way to penalise the innocent children of pensioners by ignoring them and depriving them of a justifiable increase in the dependants allowance which would have cost something less than $lm for the rest of the fiscal year. The Government has adjusted pensions by 6.4 per cent- the cost of living increase. For that it is to be commended. The Government is to be commended for giving to pensioners the cost of living increase of 6.4 per cent. But why has the Government denied the flow on of the increase to dependent children of those pensioners? A large number of children are involved. Figures available at 30 June 1975 show that eligible for the dependants’ allowance were 9858 children of age pensioners; 46 269 children of invalid pensioners; 138 867 children of widows; and 5956 children of supporting mothers. There are some 50 000 dependent children of deserted fathers who receive nothing. When in government the Labor Party, in less than 3 years, increased the dependent children’s allowance from $4.50 a week to $7.50 a week.

I should now like to deal with the 6.4 per cent cost of living adjustment that is to be paid to pensioners and I have previously commended the Government for introducing it. It is provided for in the measures before us now. An amount of $2.50 a week for single pensioners and an amount of $4.50 a week for married couples are provided for. The increases are sadly needed and will be greatly appreciated by the pensioners. I ask the Government and I ask the Minister: Why did the Government delay the increases until May? The workers received their increases in March. Why have the pensioners to wait until May? By doing this, the Government has deprived the pensioners of some $30m. Each standard rate pensioner will be deprived of at least $10 and a married pensioner will be deprived of $16. 1 ask the Government and I ask the Minister: Why did the Government delay in introducing this increase? The Government did not delay in introducing the superphosphate bounty at a considerably greater cost and it did not find any difficulty in making it retrospective. I ask the Minister and the Government: Where is the justice and the equity in this?

What happened to the election promises that were made by the Government’s then spokesman on social security matters, Mr Chipp, regarding the timing of pension increases? On the television program A Current Affair on 24 November 1975 Mr Chipp was asked questions regarding the likely pension increases, should his Party become the Government. He was first asked:

Will it increase by more than 50c a year as it did during the government time?

Mr Chipp replied:

Of course, because what our policy is and what I am personally committed to is to increase pensions automatically twice a year geared to a cost of living increase. This means that pensions will be taken out of the hands of politicians. No longer will pensions be able to be a political football kicked around. Pensioners will automatically get that increase twice a year without the legislation -

I repeat: without the legislation even having to come to Parliament. Also included in Hansard of 31 March 1976 is a voluntary statement by Mr Chipp himself as a rider to that quotation. He said:

I do not like saying things lightly; I never have. I did not say that lightly. I regard that as an unequivocal undertaking by the Liberal and National Country Parties.

Yet, we have legislation before us today. Where are the automatic and instant increases that were promised by Mr Chipp as the spokesman for Social Security during the election campaign? Just in case honourable senators opposite try to direct attention away from Mr Chipp because he is no longer a member of the Ministry, I should like to refer to what their Leader, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), had to say on the same occasion. Mr Fraser said:

A Liberal-National Country Party Government would give automatic twice-yearly increases in pensions and would raise pensions directly in line instantly with price increases.

On that one occasion Mr Chipp and Mr Fraser were in step.

In view of those statements of Mr Chipp, who was recognised as the spokesman for the Government on social security matters, and the supporting statement of the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, why then are not the pension increases instant and automatic? Why is the legislation being debated in this place this evening? Is it, as was claimed in the other place, because a saving of $29m was required to offset expenditure on the superphosphate bounty to wealthy farmers and graziers? What of the shameful and cruel robbery of $ 1.7m from the pensioners in denying them the funeral benefit? What of the disgraceful action in denying a flow on to dependent children of pensioners of the cost of living adjustment of 6.4 per cent to save a paltry $lm this fiscal year? The pensioner has been called upon to make enough sacrifices. We have seen the cancelling of the abolition of the means test on pensions for persons of 69 years of age which was to have come into force on 1 July 1976. That was a firm promise by the Labor Party and it is one that has been cancelled by this Government.

All these facts expose the Government for what it really is in social welfare matters. It saddens me that the Government appears to have concluded that those best able to make sacrifices are those with the most experience in bearing hardships- namely, the poor, the sick, the oppressed and the needy. It will be a sad day for this country if the Government pursues a policy by which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I think one of the greatest reproaches which can be made of this Government is that by its welfare policy so far it has brought us within measurable distance of this unfortunate state of affairs.

I make this final appeal to the Minister: It is not too late to withdraw this legislation. The Minister would be surprised at the support she would receive if she changed her mind or if she persuaded the Government to change its mind and restore the funeral benefit to pensioners. As I said earlier, it is a piddling amount of $ 1.7m. By snatching it away from the pensioners the Government is leaving the great number of 55 858 people sadly in need of help to meet funeral expenses. I appeal to the humanitarian spark in the Minister and ask her to use her persuasion in the Party room to convince the Government to withdraw this legislation. There is time for it to be withdrawn and for the funeral benefit to be restored to pensioners.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I rise to lend the support of the National Country Party to these 2 Bills- the Social Services Amendment Bill 1976 and the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1976. These Bills promise huge amounts of money. They are large, realistic and most generous amounts of money. They are in line with the Government’s promises to increase all sorts of pension rates and they are designed to maintain the real value of those pensions. I am surprised to hear that perhaps pensions are not geared to a 6 monthly increase. I understood that they were. Not only that, but also they are geared to rises in the consumer price index. I heard that the aged, the sick and the disadvantaged are not included. I point out to Senator McAuliffe who has just spoken that 5 rates of pensions are mentioned as being upgraded substantially. The first is the standard rate of pension for aged persons, invalids, widows and supporting mothers. The next is the married rate pension. The next pension increase is the unemployment and sickness benefit which is paid to unmarried persons aged 18 years or more. The next increase is in the unemployment and sickness benefits payable to married persons. Then, additional unemployment and sickness benefits payable in respect of dependent spouses are to be increased.

All those benefits will flow on to people in sheltered employment circumstances. So, generous allowances are made in these 2 Bills. The Government’s big problem is inflation. The Government has set about inflation with a will and with determination. It will fix inflation as best it can. But inflation is like a loaded truck running downhill. One cannot pull it up in one fell swoop. It is a robber which robs earnings and savings. Most of all, it robs those people least able to find any protection from inflation- the people on pensions and fixed incomes. They are the people who have been disadvantaged most by the huge and almost uncontrolled inflation which we experienced under the Labor Government. In these Bills a large number of people have been made eligible for pension benefits because limits on their income and property which existed before have been elevated substantially. This has extended the benefits to many more people who are in disadvantaged circumstances.

The only sour note in the Bill- I confess it- is the provision to abolish the funeral benefit. At first sight this appears harsh. But the Government has put its explanation for doing this. It appears harsh on those people who can least afford it. It was an unattractive decision; nevertheless the Government made that decision. It knew fully how unpopular the decision would be and how badly it would be received. Nevertheless, the Government went ahead and made that decision. It was a courageous act. These Bills allow for a huge amount of money to go to people who need it most. My Party supports the Bills and rejects the amendment.

Sitting suspended from 5.44 to 8 p.m.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Grimes, and seconded by my colleague, Senator McAuliffe. It had not been my intention to speak at length this evening about the pension provisions in this Bill. In fact originally I had not intended to speak on them at all, but not because I do not think pensions are important. They are indeed most important. Those people who have a recollection of some of my remarks when I first spoke in this chamber will remember that I dwelt on the subject of pensions and pension provisions at great length. I intended to speak mainly on the funeral benefit provisions and the abolition of the funeral benefit, because I thought it was the most mean and most uncalled for proposal that I have heard of since I entered this chamber.

I shall speak very briefly about some aspects of the pension provisions in this Bill. I do so to answer some of the remarks made by previous speakers from the other side of the chamber. I think it is significant that Senator Baume did not speak on any aspects of the abolition of funeral benefit, but he said that the Bill would make more money available for pensioners. I do not disagree with his statment, but it is important to realise that, although more money is going to be made available for pensioners, in real money terms all we are doing is catching up with the situation which applied 6 months ago. In other words, we are not being overly generous. We are not being generous at all. All we are doing is keeping pensions at the level, in real money terms, at which they stood 6 months ago.

The same honourable senator referred to handouts to people in the community. I take exception to the word ‘handouts’. If people in the community need help from a government in the form of social service benefits they should not be regarded as being given a handout. They are being provided with finance so they can get through a rough time or so they can enjoy their retirement after they have worked for this nation all their lives. The pension which is paid to aged people is a right, so that those people can enjoy their later life after having worked for their fellow Australians who have since taken their place in the work force.

Some of the arguments that were used by Government speakers gave me the impression that they were clutching at straws. A previous speaker in the debate said that because of the provisions of this Bill aged people will not be debarred from receiving a pension because of the value of their family home. It had always been my impression that the value of the family home was not taken into consideration in the pension means test. The same honourable senator said that the present Government will not implement its policies with the same inordinate haste that the present Opposition displayed when it was in government but that it would carry out orderly change. I claim that the present Government has done many things with inordinate haste, such as increasing pharmaceutical benefit charges, taking certain drugs off the pharmaceutical benefits list and those sorts of things which affect people on low incomes. Senator Sheil, who preceded me in the debate, said that the Government is being most generous to the pensioners. We are not being generous but are simply keeping the pension rate, in real money terms, at the level at which it stood 6 months ago. My final comment on this matter- I shall revert to it presently- is that Senator Sheil also said that the Government has put up its explanations in relation to the abolition of the funeral benefit. It certainly has put up its explanations, but let me deal with that presently and see what its explanations were.

Before I touch on the abolition of the funeral benefit I would like to mention one final thing about pensions, and it concerns what the spokesman of the present Government said before the election last year. I want to know where are the instant and automatic increases in pensions, because the impression that the Australian people gained was that if the Liberal and National Country parties came to power there would be instant and automatic increases in pensions whenever there was an increase in the cost of living index. I shall quote from a statement that Mr Chipp made on 8 December 1975. Mr Chipp is no longer a Minister but he was a Minister at that time. He issued a statement headed ‘Statement to Pensioners by the Hon. D. L. Chipp, Minister for Social Security’. In that statement he said:

Both Parties -

He is speaking about the Liberal and National Country parties - have undertaken to increase pensions in line with the Consumer Price Index. We propose to bring in legislation which will allow increases in pensions to be made instantly and automatically as soon as the new Index is announced. This will eliminate the procedure now necessary of having to debate a Bill in Parliament in order to increase pensions. This procedure takes time and involves a delay of up to three months between the announcement of the increase in inflation and the increase in pensions going to the pensioners. Once and for all we want to take pensioners and their benefits out of the political arena and to make sure that they do not suffer erosion of their pension through inflation. This policy has been stated by Mr Fraser and myself many times. . . .

I ask: Where in this Bill- of course, it is not in the Bill;- is there any indication that there will be instant and automatic increases? Where in this Bill does it say that we will not have to debate a Bill in Parliament? That is what we are doing at this moment. These are the sorts of things that were said before the election and these are the sorts of things that should be put before this Parliament following the return to power of the people who made these promises.

As I said earlier, I had not intended to speak at length about pensions. My principal intention tonight was to speak, somewhat briefly I hope, on the funeral benefit and its abolition, because it seems to me that the abolition of the benefit is a most contemptible and uncalled for cut in pension benefits. It has antagonised people throughout the country. It has antagonised not only traditional Labor supporters and people who might be called swinging voters but also a great many people who are normally supporters of the present Government.

I would like, first of all, to look at the historical background of funeral benefits in Australia. They were first introduced in 1943 by the Curtin Government. If one reads Hansard of those times one sees that there was very little mention of funeral benefits as such. The main debate was whether a country at war could afford to have a social security program. The Curtin Government, being a humane Government, put forward a social security program and in doing so introduced funeral benefits. When introducing th: amending legislation which was necessary the then Minister for Social Services, Mr Holloway, drew attention to the fact that many pensioners, because of the fear of being buried as paupers, contributed to pensioners mortuary funds which, for a small weekly outlay guaranteed them an amount which was sometimes around £ 1 0 towards the cost of a decent funeral.

Mr Holloway said that the purpose of the legislation was to relieve pensioners of this anxiety in their declining years and at the same time to make it possible for them to devote the full amount of their pension to their maintenance. I ask: If it was necessary in 1943 to introduce legislation so that pensioners would be relieved of the anxiety that they might not have a decent funeral, why is it that in 1 976 the Government thinks that this benefit is no longer necessary?

Indeed, the cost of a funeral has escalated tremendously and the small amount which the Government provides towards that cost hardly scratches the surface. But surviving pensioner spouses and those people who find that they have to pay for the funeral of a pensioner in future will receive no help from the Government in respect of that cost. The basic pensioner funeral benefit has remained unchanged since 1943 at £10 or what is now $20, and since October 1965 the benefit for certain pensioners has been increased to $40. It has not been changed since then. I referred a moment ago to the fact that this benefit does not go anywhere near covering the cost of a funeral nowadays. In fact, the inadequacy of the benefit has been pointed out many times. On a number of occasions, in policy speeches preceding elections, attention has been directed to the inadequacy of this benefit. I do not intend any pun, but it seems to me that this benefit is not considered a real live political issue. It is not considered to be a political issue which will inspire people to vote for one party or the other. So, in recent years, no mention has been made of the funeral benefit in the course of federal election campaigns.

Recently, the Committee of Inquiry into Poverty in its first main report made some comments on the funeral benefit. Amongst other things, it said- and what I will quote is fairly long:

The rate of benefit now paid is laughable in relation to funeral costs and should either be abandoned or changed.

It went on to say: . . elderly people are known for their desire to receive a decent funeral and find security in the knowledge that it will be provided. Further, funeral expenses do sometimes cause hardship. Accordingly, grants should be made available to contribute to the cost of a modest funeral where:

  1. 1 ) the pensioner leaves a surviving husband or wife and insufficient assets (excluding a house) to pay for the funeral;
  2. the pensioner leaves no surviving wife or husband, and leaves total assets insufficient to pay for the funeral.

The report says finally:

If these conditions prove too complex, a grant worth (say) 4 weeks pension should be made towards the funeral expenses of pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance at the full rate and to pensioners responsible for paying the funeral costs of other pensioners (the present higher rate of eligibility).

The point which I wish to make in respect of that quotation is that if the Government thought that there were some people in the community who were receiving this benefit who did not really need it that was not a good case on which to throw out the whole benefit for everybody. It seems to me that a more humane attitude would have been to examine the matter fully and decide those people in the community who really needed this benefit, provide the benefit to them, and provide it at an adequate rate. The application of the funeral benefit could have been changed in this way and not by throwing out the whole scheme completely, which is what this legislation proposes to do. Many people in our community will be hit hard by the abolition of this benefit. These are the people who should have been looked after before any action was taken to throw the whole scheme out.

Let me move now to the circumstances relating to the original announcement that this benefit would be abolished. By the way, this announcement was made before this Parliament was called together. As a new senator who had been recently elected but who had not yet come into this chamber to be able to voice his opinion in this forum of the national Parliament, it disturbed me that such an announcement would be made before the Parliament was called together as, in this way, senators and members in the House of Representatives would not be able to use Parliament at that stage to voice their opinions. Part of the Press statement announcing this change was in these words:

Senator Guilfoyle said that the Government had decided to abolish one social security benefit. This was the payment of funeral benefits ranging to a maximum of $40 according to circumstances.

This benefit would be abolished at an annual saving of $1.7m. Senator Guilfoyle said this benefit appeared to be of little significance . . .

I wonder how little significance it is to the person who is scratching to live from one pension day to another. It is of great significance to such people.

There were reactions throughout the nation to this announcement. Let me read a typical reaction that I saw. It was a reaction that many people in this chamber may not have seen because it appeared in a Brisbane newspaper; it was written by a journalist and was not a letter to the Editor. One of the journalists of the Brisbane Telegraph wrote:

Mean and miserable

You didn’t believe it? I didn’t believe it either, not until I had read it a second time-

The Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle, said the Government had decided to cut out the funeral benefit for pensioners because it appeared to be of little significance’.

Good God!

That benefit is the paltry sum of $40 paid to the pensioner wife or husband of a pensioner- but subject, remember, to a shockingly stringent means test.

Insignificant? To the impoverished bereaved it can be anything but; its withdrawal simply will add more hardship to bitter hardship.

The article continues in similar vein. This to me was the reaction that I saw not only in Brisbane where this newspaper was published but everywhere that I went in my electorate of Queensland and throughout the rest of Australia as well.

I wish to revert now to something that I mentioned earlier and to which I said I would return. That is the statement by the previous speaker, Senator Sheil, who said that the Government has put up its explanations for this action. What explanations did it put up in that announcement that I read from the Minister’s Press statement? Let me repeat that part and continue the quotation. It reads: . . this benefit appeared to be of little significance particularly as the Government had decided to continue the payment for 12 weeks of the combined married rate of pension to the surviving partner in cases where a married pensioner died.

To me, that statement was deliberately misleading. This benefit had been payable since 1968. When it was introduced no mention was made that that benefit was to be substituted for the funeral benefit. It was an additional benefit. It was a benefit that was introduced to help pensioners over what would be a very rough time for them, a time when a pensioner’s partner died.

In the second reading speech delivered in the House of Representatives, the same sort of argument was used. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) said:

The Government has decided that although the funeral benefit is to be abolished, the ‘double pension’ provisions will continue.

How generous! How generous that they should continue because the Government has abolished one benefit. This is a different benefit altogether. This was the explanation that the Government put up. The Minister who is responsible for this Bill in this chamber implied to the general public that it was quite satisfactory to eliminate the benefit because the Government was to continue another provision which had been included years ago. She wrote to members and senators in the Liberal and National Country Parties and in her letter to them said:

Attached is a copy of a letter that I sent yesterday in reply to a representation on the Funeral Benefit.

I am intending to adopt this form of words to reply to future representations I receive on this matter. You may wish to do the same.

The letter to a constituent in Victoria read:

The Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Fraser, M.P., forwarded to me for reply your recent letter concerning the abolition of the Funeral Benefit.

Early this year the Government undertook a review of expenditure in all Departments in an endeavour to reduce administrative costs and Government expenditure. A number of programs and items were reduced, deferred or abolished and one of the decisions taken by the Government was to abolish the Funeral Benefits Scheme for pensioners from 1 April 1976.

The Government has decided that although the Funeral Benefit will be abolished, the payment of married couple rate pension will continue for 12 weeks following the death of the pensioner spouse.

Yours sincerely, MARGARET GUILFOYLE

I did not come across that letter by any surreptitious means. It appeared in my mail box here at Parliament House.

Senator McLaren:

– We all got one.

Senator COLSTON:

-I was pleased to find out we all got one because I was somewhat upset that people might have thought I belonged to the Liberal Party. This letter is deliberately misleading. It is misleading because when the double rate pension was introduced it was introduced to tide people over a period when they had to adjust their income after their spouse had died. Mr McMahon introduced this in the Budget Speech in 1968. He did not say too much about the benefit, but amongst some minor other things he said:

To relieve the difficulties faced by the surviving partner of a married pensioner couple and to help these pensioners to adjust to a single pension, the Government has decided that the equivalent of the combined pension will be paid to the survivor for 12 weeks after one of them dies.

There is a lot of adjustment in these circumstances. Think of the things that a surviving partner might be faced with. Such a person might have half finished repainting the home and still have to make payments on it. Such a person might have been buying a refrigerator on hire purchase and still have payments to make. This provision was introduced to cover these things so that the pensioner could adjust to the time when he or she changed to a single rate pension.

It seems to me that abolition of the funeral benefit was a move made by the Government which could well have been left alone. If the Government thought that it was necessary to change the provision for the funeral benefit I would have thought that it would have brought forward a better scheme before scuttling the old one. Senator McAuliffe appealed to the Minister to do something about this provision before it was too late. I shall make the same appeal, although I think that my appeal will probably fall upon deaf ears. If it does, I make an appeal to any honourable senator opposite who has a spark of humanity in him, who thinks of the plight of pensioners, who thinks of what this will mean to the pensioners who find themselves in very poor circumstances after their partner dies, to vote with the Opposition so that the pensioners of Australia will not be faced with having this benefit taken from them.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I support this Bill because I believe it implements a very important election promise of the Government to adjust pensions in accordance with movements of the consumer price index twice yearly. Since it implements that principle it is a very important piece of legislation. Its introduction at this early stage in the life of the Thirtieth Parliament is an indication of the priority given to this legislation by the Government. Senator Colston addressed himself at considerable length to one aspect of the Bill. I feel it might be worth mentioning some other aspects which I believe are of great significance. In particular, I refer to the fact that the main provisions of the Bill give substantial increases in various rates of pensions and other benefits, namely, the standard rate of pension for aged persons, invalids, widows and supporting mothers; the married rate of pension; unemployment and sickness benefits payable to unmarried persons aged 18 years or more; unemployment and sickness benefits payable to maimed persons; and additional unemployment and sickness benefits payable in respect of dependent spouses. The proposed pension increases will also flow on to the recipients of sheltered employment allowances. These increases flow from increases in November 1975 introduced by the former Labor Government and therefore follow at a 6-month interval those increases.

The Bill will make available very significant pension increases to pensioners throughout Australia. The cost this financial year will be $35. 3m, and next year $232. 7m. It is important that this legislation proceed quickly and that these additional benefits be made available quickly to the people who need this support. An important principle of the legislation is that it will ensure that the value of pensions is maintained, and it establishes the principle of twice yearly increases, which will ensure that this is a continuing commitment and it is one to which the Government is dedicated.

The point has to be made that pensioners are among those disadvantaged groups in the community who cannot defend themselves against such insidious problems as inflation. I was particularly interested in some of the statistics provided by Senator Grimes. He referred to increases in pensions during the 3 years of the Labor Government, but the increases had to be as large as they were because of the inflation created by the policies of the Labor Government. One has to subtract from these increases the impact of inflation in assessing the real rate of increase of pensions. I think he referred to a figure beyond 90 per cent, but we could probably halve that figure once inflation is taken into account. I reiterate that it is the people on fixed incomes, and pensioners in particular, who are most vulnerable to the impact of inflation. This Bill provides a guard against inflation for people on fixed incomes, and I believe that is an important principle which ought to be supported by those on the opposite side of this chamber. I would therefore expect them to support the legislation. I quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) a passage which I think says a great deal about the legislation and about the principles on which it is based. It reads:

Unless inflation is brought under control there can be no genuine return to prosperity and no sound base for the Government to provide better and more effective assistance to the disadvantaged.

This Bill then takes into account the 6.4 per cent increase in the consumer price index over the September and December quarters. It provides for increases over the range of pensions to accord with that.

Another significant feature of the Bill is that it provides for more flexible means tests to bring more aged persons under the pension scheme, but that was dealt with at some length by Senator Baume and I do not propose to reiterate the points made by him. I emphasise that this Bill, in establishing in legislative form important principles on which this Government stands, is the beginning of reform with respect to pensions. It represents the beginning of a better deal for pensioners and a better deal for many other disadvantaged groups because it expresses principles to which this Government is dedicated. These principles were expressed in the Speech of the Governor-General when he referred to the fact that this Government is dedicated to establishing a truly liberal and humane society. That is what this Bill is all about. I therefore support it.

I would like to refer to one particular aspect which gives me some concern. The benefits to which I have referred are very substantial. They are the most important element of the Bill. But the question of funeral benefits is one which concerns me to the extent that I have written to the Minister for Social Security raising with hertherefore, I also do it now- the question whether this decision might be reviewed. The amount involved is $1.7m. Whilst I think Senator Colston canvassed with a relative degree of success the fact that $40, the maximum amount of that benefit, is not a great deal to provide in the way of a funeral benefit in 1976, I believe it is not necessarily the amount in absolute terms which is important. The abolition of the benefit has had a substantial impact on many people who have made representations to me. For many, it is a matter of considerable emotional impact. I think it has to be recognised that many aged pensioners are almost entirely dependent on their pensions and that their sense of security comes from that. From the representations that I have received it would seem that many people place great weight on the availability to them of the funeral benefit, however small it may be in absolute terms. It is for these reasons that I have asked the Minister for Social Security whether this matter might be reconsidered and whether the decision might be reviewed.

It is my understanding that of the $1.7m involved, a very large proportion was absorbed in administrative costs- in the administration of the benefit. I wonder whether there might be some means of cutting down on that aspect or whether consideration might be given to some other measures which would provide this element of assurance to many aged pensioners, particularly those who face conditions of poverty. There are 1 .7 million people who benefit from this Bill. The funeral benefit would apply to some 55 000 people only. I think the matter is worthy of the Minister’s reconsideration. Having said that, I state that I support the Bill because I believe it establishes important new principles in respect of pensioners and the disadvantaged in the community.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I rise to support the amendment moved by the Opposition to the Social Services Amendment Bill. I do so a little amazed that the Government does not take its propaganda seriously but knowing that, whilst I say that, I should not really be amazed by it at all. On the one hand we have the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) telling people that they must spend. He wants more spending and less saving. I cannot see why he cannot apply the same logic to pensioners. Whilst the Government is talking about increasing pensions, we know very well that it is not increasing pensions; it is compensating pensioners for the increase in the consumer price index for the 6 months ending December 1975. It is now almost May 1976. If this Government really meant what it said, it would be giving a greater increase to pensioners to cover the rise in the cost of living up to this date so that more money would be flowing into the community. The Government wants money spent. It wants goods sold. It wants goods moved off the warehouse floor so that more goods can be produced and so that more jobs will be made available. So why does it not give pensioners a pension that is at least equal to the amount they should receive taking into account the increase in the cost of living that has occurred since the last increase was granted?

As the position stands, by keeping pension rates back and by denying to pensioners the rise they should have received, the Government is inspiring in people a seige mentality. In point of fact, the Government is pushing people to the point at which they will not spend. They are almost reaching the stage of storing tinned food against the disaster they believe will descend upon them. The Government is showing that it has this fear about the matter by holding back real rises in pensions. If the Government really believes that there is a good future and if it wants to encourage the community, it should show its faith in that future by bringing pension rates up to a level that is equivalent to present day standards. In December 1975, the then caretaker Minister for Social Security, Mr Chipp, said that he deplored rumours that the Liberal-National Country Party Government would be cutting pensions. What else can one call a postponement of increases that were promised to pensioners? What else can be said when the Government does not bring those pensions up to their rightful level?

Much has been said in this debate about bringing children’s benefits up to an appropriate rate. What has the Government done about civilian widows without children? For instance, they are limited to having an amount of $419 in the bank, above which their pension is decreased. That amount has not been increased since 1954. If they ever have more than that amount in the bank, the pension they receive is reduced. How can anybody with only $4 1 9 paint the house, buy a new refrigerator or have the hot water service repaired? How can such people save for their funerals if that is the only money they are allowed to keep in the bank? How do they save for their approaching old age if they are not able to earn the piddling amount of money that at the moment they are allowed to earn before their pension is reduced? That little extra might just give them jam to go with the bread and butter. Yet the Government has not even looked at that area. When Government senators talk about bringing new principles to pensions, I say that is poppycock. All they want to do is to cut costs. When we look at the position of widows with children, the amount of money they are allowed to earn and the amount we graciously give them as a pension, we could easily believe that no honourable senator opposite ever had to face up to the costs of educating, feeding and clothing children today. How such women do this on the amount of money we give them is a mystery to me.

Government senators talk a lot about people as individuals and people making individual effort. But here we have a band of professional women who do what is probably the most important job in this country, that of bringing up our children. Yet the Government does not pay them at a rate which is anything like that paid at a professional level. The Government leaves them in terror and fear as to what will happen to them and to their children, and it leaves them with an infinitesimal amount of money. If the Government really believed all that talk about individuals and about individual effort, it would give those individuals the sort of professional pay that they deserve for doing the job that they do.

We hear talk about people struggling to save for funerals. Have honourable senators opposite really looked at the cost involved? I did, and the only comfort in the whole matter is that when you are dead somebody else pays the bills. The ordinary average funeral when a person is buried these days costs over $200 for the grave and over $450 for the undertaker’s charges. Honourable senators may say that some of the undertakers’ charges are excessive, but that is the ordinary scale of costs they present. If a person is cremated, it is a little cheaper. It costs only about $175 for the cremation as against $200 for the grave. However, the total costs are between $600 and $700. How do ordinary people provide that sort of money? How does a man and his wife with two or three children provide it? How do poor people ever pay? They used to pay under funeral benefits schemes. These are the sort of funeral benefits schemes which people who are now of an age when they are really worrying about who will bury them enter into: They pay out $60 on the death of a male, $30 for the death of a wife- obviously, it costs less to bury a woman than it does a man- and $30 on the death of an unmarried female. I suppose that was to cover the- there is a lovely word for it -

Senator Baume:

– You are stretching it a bit.

Senator MELZER:

– No. I suppose that was to cover the unfound treasures- the maiden ladies, who were at home. Obviously the men did not need it. But male pensioners receive $60 and a wife receives $30. That is under the scheme that is coining to fruition now. Under the modern scheme pensioners get $400- remember, the cost of a funeral is between $600 and $700- by paying, from 17 years of age, 19c a week until 65 years of age when they receive the magnificent sum of $400. By the time the 17 year old of today reaches 65 years of age one can imagine what the cost of funerals will be. If a person is 55 years of age on joining this scheme he pays 57c a week to get the $400 benefit. But still he has only half the cost of a funeral.

How do pensioners pay for their funerals? We know how they pay for them and if honourable senators opposite had any feeling for these people they would be thinking about increasing the amount of funeral benefit rather than cutting it out. These pensioners have a passion to be buried decently. Regardless of the argument that that is rubbish because once we are dead it does not matter, obviously as people get closer to the age when they might die they have a passion to be buried with decency; not to be buried in a pauper’s grave; and not to have their house sold to pay for the funeral; nor to have their children go into debt to pay for the funeral. They wish to provide for their own funerals.

So what do they do on this magnificent pension that we give them to make up the difference between the $40 funeral benefit that we gave them and the $600 which is the cost of a funeral; or to make up the difference between the $60 from a funeral benefit to which they have subscribed and the $600 for a funeral? They go without food, clothes and that insignificant amount of entertainment that they have been able to afford on the pension; they go without beer and a block of chocolate. A visit to the pictures obviously is not at all possible. But most of all they go without food. If we have read anything about people of that age we would know that that is the worst thing that they can do. To live on that cup of tea and a huie bit of bread and butter means that they get to the point of needing that funeral quicker than they otherwise would have needed it. So what we are really doing is consigning these people to using the funeral benefit that they may have been able to save for quicker than would otherwise have been the case. It seems to me to be a dreadful thing to do to people.

When the present Government was campaigning in the recent general election it made great play on relieving voluntary organisations of the burden of always being the bunny in providing the ready cash in emergency situations. Yet this Bill in no way makes provision for any sort of emergency grants to be allocated by officers of the Department of Social Security to help people in the situations in which they find themselves. After all, we never know when we might suddenly be in a position where our husband or wife has vanished, where our job has suddenly folded up or where our husband or wife is dead and we have children to support, bills to pay, food to buy and rent to pay.

Ordinary people do not have money in the bank to fall back on. Ordinary people live from one payday to the next. Any honourable senator in this chamber can think himself very fortunate if he has never had to stretch the contents of the pantry to cover the last 3 days of the pay period with his purse empty. The fact is that for ordinary people caught in those emergencies there is nothing else for them to do but to front up to a clerk behind a counter, beg for help, be treated like some sort of fraud and be sent off to beg around the voluntary agencies for a food voucher. It seems to me that governments who are supposed to provide for people in emergencies and to care for people could provide for a very small amount of money those emergency grants that people in those circumstances need.

The Government talks about people being free and about people being individuals. All the Government is providing in this Bill is the freedom to starve. The Government is obsessed with balancing the Budget but I do not think it should balance the Budget at the cost of people who served their country well up until the twilight years of their lives.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I rise to speak very briefly on the Social Services Amendment Bill at this stage. I rise to support the motion for the second reading of the Bill because I believe it is very necessary that those payments which are promised in this Bill for pensioners ought to be adopted at a very early period and ought to come into effect. I think that we all on this side of the chamber, are in agreement and I think our opponents are in agreement that the major proposals contained in this Bill, that is the increase in pension payments, ought to be adopted as soon as possible. It is all very well for our colleagues to make claims and to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading by which they request something further be done. But we know that as a Senate we do not have the power to make such increases. We know that under section 53 of the Constitution we have no power to increase the expenditures which are required to make further payments.

Senator McAuliffe:

– They are provided for in the Budget.

Senator MISSEN:

– The Budget is another matter which is to be considered some months hence, as the honourable senator well knows. But so far as this is concerned -

Senator McAuliffe:

– What about the last Budget?

Senator MISSEN:

– As the honourable senator may remember, the last Budget was introduced by his Party. I should not go into that too deeply if I were the honourable senator because his Party did not make any changes in this regard. Therefore, I do not think the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition is anything other than a pious platitude. Many of us would wish that there were further increases and that better things were available in the economy at the moment for the pensioner. But the fact is that to carry a pious platitude here achieves nothing. At this stage I say nothing more about that. I support warmly the desire that this Bill will come into operation so far as the major matter, that is the pensions, are concerned.

Other matters have been raised in this debate. When this Bill reaches the Committee stage honourable senators on this side of the chamber indeed will raise the question of funeral benefits covered by clauses 7 and 1 1 . When the debate on this Bill reaches the Committee stage we shall express our views on that subject but so far as the second reading is concerned, I too support the passing of this Bill because it is necessary and desirable in the interests of pensioners.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I rise to foreshadow a further amendment to the Opposition amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Social Services Amendment Bill. I believe that in so doing the record must be put straight. Where justice is delayed then justice is denied. One of the purposes of the Bill is to adjust and increase rates of pensions payable under the Act to take into account increases in the consumer price index for the September and December quarters of last year- a total increase of 6.4 per cent. The Bill seeks to make the increase in pension operative from 13 May 1976 whereas, of course, the operative date ought logically to be 1 January 1976; or alternatively the date on which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision became effective in respect of increases in the consumer price index, namely 15 February 1976.

Attempts have been made over a number of years to have pension adjustments made retrospective to an appropriate date consistent with the application to wages of an increase in the consumer price index for a particular period. Such an attempt occurred in 1964 when Senator Tangney moved an amendment that the adjustments take place from 1 July 1 964. In 1 966 Senator Tangney again moved a similar amendment for adjustments to take place from 1 July 1966 when the Bill provided for the adjustments to take place from 13 October 1966. Both of those amendments were defeated. In 1967 Senator Toohey moved an amendment which was carried. In 1968 Senator Fitzgerald moved an amendment which was designed to make the increases retrospective to 1 July 1968. That was defeated. In 1969 Senator Poke moved an amendment which noted the question of retrospectivity. That amendment was carried. Of course, the Senate could not amend a money Bill. Since that date no amendments referring to retrospectivity of pension increases have been moved.

I wonder why on this occasion there should not be moved an amendment which seeks to highlight the fact that these pension increases are not to operate from the appropriate date which I believe ought to be 1 January 1976. For that reason at the end of my speech I will move an amendment to the Opposition’s amendment in the following terms: and deplores the failure of the Government to back date all increased payments to 1 January 1976.

There is no need for me to canvass this matter at length. I believe the only thing that needs to be said is that justice delayed is justice denied.

Turning to the question of funeral benefits, it is recognised that there is a substantial administrative problem in respect of this matter. Nevertheless, that administrative problem has not been placed fully before the Senate as far as I am aware, and until such time as it is I believe that the Senate should reject this attempt to delete Part IVA of the Social Services Act. This funeral benefit is very small. Whilst some administrative problems may be involved, the funeral benefit ought to be maintained in some fashion. I will support whatever action is suggested in this place to ensure that the funeral benefit is maintained. I suggest to the Government that the administrative problems involved ought to be detailed perhaps to the Sir Henry Bland Committee that is inquiring into administrative matters at present. Certainly until such time as the position is rectified, the funeral benefit ought to be maintained. I move:

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)- Is Senator Harradine ‘s amendment seconded? There being no seconder, the amendment lapses.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– in reply- The Senate has been debating a Bill which provides for increases in age, invalid and other pensions. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the rates of increases that will be applicable for the various pensions. But because there has been some debate with regard to the timing of the increases, I think it is appropriate that I should give some background to this matter and refer to the increases in pensions which have occurred since December 1972. It should be recognised that the first increase in pensions after the Federal election in December 1972 occurred after an interval of 9Vi months from the previous increase. In 1973 there was a further increase in pensions which occurred 6 months after the previous increase. In April 1974 and August 1974 there were further increases in pensions which represented a time span of 4 months and 8% months from the previous increase. There was an increase in pensions in May 1975, which was 614 months after the previous increase. There was an increase in pensions in November 1975, and the Bill which is before the Senate proposes an increase in pensions in May 1 976, which will be 6 months after the previous increase.

The policy of the Liberal and National Country Parties is that increases will be made in all pensions at 6-monthly intervals in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. The Bill which is now being considered provides for the movement of 6.4 per cent in the consumer price index which has occurred in the 6-month period since the last increase in pensions was provided in 1975.

It has been of interest to me to hear some of the comments about the amount of the increases that are being given, why the increases are not greater and why they should not have been back dated to 1 January last. It should be understood that an increase of $ 1 a week in the whole range of pensions adds $ 10 1 m to the bill of the Department of Social Security in one year. That is a significant factor to be taken into account when the policy of the Government with regard to the management of our economy is being considered. Our policy is to endeavour to reduce the rate of inflation and to manage the economy by adjusting government expenditure. It is for this reason that we are able to uphold our policy which is to increase pension payments at 6- monthly intervals in accordance with the consumer price index. Let us consider the amendment that was proposed by Senator Harradine. It sought to back date these increased pension payments to 1 January last and to give an increase from November to January instead of from November to May.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He never got a seconder.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I know that. If that amendment had been seconded and supported by the members of the Opposition it would not have been acceptable to us.

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Get on to our amendment.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I will get on to the Opposition’s amendment. One other matter has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in recent days, that is, the abolition of the means test at the age of 69 years. In the Budget last year the former Government proposed that legislation would be introduced to abolish the means test for all persons reaching the age of 69 years. That was a promise of the former Government, but unfortunately that Government did not have to fulfil that promise. For a number of other reasons that Government was not able to fulfil any of its promises beyond December last year.

Senator McAuliffe:

– It is in your platform.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– We have a policy which states that we will abolish the means test for all persons at the age of 65 years. But we have been quite frank in saying to the Australian people that in view of the present economic circumstances we are unable to consider this question as a matter of priority. If we were to abolish the means test for all persons who have reached the age of 69 years we would add $34m to the present pension bill. We believe that that question cannot be considered as a matter of utmost urgency or priority. We are not disregarding our policy, but we are suggesting that other programs are of greater importance.

It is of interest to note that an estimate made at 30 June last year shows that 65 per cent of persons in the 65 years to 69 years age group are in receipt of a means tested pension. The figure rises to 88 per cent of the people in the 70 to 74 years age group. In the 75 years and over age group the figure is 96 per cent. Quite obviously with a free of means test pension at 70 years of age that figure is subject to increase as people apply and receive the pensions to which they are entitled.

Let me make it clear that the increase of $2.50 for single people and $4 in the combined married rate will take effect from the first pay period in May. It is of importance to us that this Bill has passage without delay. It will be understood that for pensions to be increased on the first pay period in May the legislation must have royal assent by tomorrow night. It is understood in the Senate that there must be a program to make the payment of cheques for pensions possible. I simply outline to the Senate the urgency of the passage of this Bill through both Houses. Once royal assent is obtained we can put into operation the mechanism to provide the payment of cheques at the increased level.

The other matter that has had a great deal of comment in the Senate this evening has been the abolition of the funeral benefit as it has existed since the 1940s. Some of the comments which have been made about the continuation of the combined married rate of pension for 12 weeks are being misinterpreted as having been stated in that way to mislead the Australian public. The very first proposal that was suggested as an alternative to the abolition of the funeral benefit was that the rate of pension should be continued for one extra week. The Australian people put forward as a first suggestion the idea of abolishing the funeral benefit, a scheme which has to be administered, and simply paying the pension for an additional week. We pointed out that not only is the pension continued in the case of a married couple for one week but that it is continued for 12 weeks. The reason why this statement has been made about the continuation of that benefit for a period of 12 weeks is to enable the Australian people and those other people who are concerned to understand that it is not one week that is given as a gesture but it is 12 weeks that has been given as a gesture thus enabling the readjustment of expenditure in the case of married persons to be undertaken without undue hardship.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Did not the Association know that?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think the Association did know that, Senator. The reference was made because suggestions had come forward that the continuation of the pension for one week would overcome the difficulty. Many people felt that that would be a more appropriate way of paying approximately $40 to someone instead of administering a separate program for funeral benefits.

I think Senator Colston’s reference to an excerpt in the report with regard to funeral benefits is of interest. The terms that were used with regard to the need either to abolish the funeral benefit as it existed or to change the benefit would be of interest to everyone here. The reference in that report was of course known to me and to the Government. I think the reference to the abolition of the benefit, which had ceased to have the meaning that it did have when it was introduced, was important to take into account. It is also important to take into account that at present an Income Security Review Committee is looking at the whole range of existing benefits and is looking towards the maintenance of a minimum income so that an income level is established below which people cannot be expected to live in this country. The reviews which are being undertaken of all programs which relate to income security are of significance. We hope that the work of that Committee will be bringing forward constructive recommendations for consideration in this year’s Budget.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Will you tell us in the Committee stage who is on that Committee?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Yes, I can tell you who is on it. I have already reported to the Senate in question time, but I can tell the honourable senator who is on that Committee. The Income Security Review Committee will be looking at the range of matters that are subject to the provisions of this Bill. It will be looking at the means testing arrangements as they exist. It will be looking at the free income that can be held, at the sort of matter that was referred to by Senator Melzer when she spoke of the amount which is allowable before there is any diminution of benefit.

These things are matters of interest to us all when we are looking to the dignity of the people who require income maintenance, support and pensions from government. It is also important to say that they are the people who are most seriously affected by inflation. They are the people who have no way in which to overcome the difficulty of rising costs when their income does not necessarily rise to keep pace with those costs. For all of those reasons we have the policy that at each 6 months we will pass on the movements in the consumer price index. This has been done, as I have said earlier.

The only other matter to which I wish to refer is the fact that some honourable senators have been talking about automatic increases and have been suggesting that because we will now give an increase in May, in some way we are not fulfilling our own policy. Our own policy refers to movements in the consumer price index. We assure members of the Senate that 6 months from the date of this pension entitlement there will be a further increase that will give the movement in the consumer price index for the succeeding 6 months after the 6 months to which this increase refers.

Senator McAuliffe:

– By legislation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It will be done in the way in which this increase is introduced- by an amendment to the Act. It will pass on the movements in the consumer price index.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Your Leader said that there would not be legislation and Mr Chipp said there would not be any.

Senator McLaren:

– What did Mr Fraser say in Rockhampton during the campaign?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I am not sure what Mr Fraser said in Rockhampton. There is no record in the terms of the report of what Mr Fraser said in Rockhampton during the campaign. I think some people’s expectations may not have been in accordance with our policy or in accordance with our desire to pass on the movements in the consumer price index. Because it is important to have the passage of these Bills I simply have referred to those matters which have been raised. I now hope that the Bill will proceed -

Senator McAuliffe:

– You have not told us about the dependent children.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I have told the honourable senator that we have passed on to the basic pension rates the movements in the consumer price index.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Not to dependent children.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I cannot answer one question after another. As far as dependent children and other allowances are concerned I would agree that any benefit that can be given at this time would be appropriate to be given in order to pass on the increases that have resulted from inflation. But as far as capability of passing on what may be desirable at this time is concerned, we have taken the view that to give the increase to the basic rate of pension is the fulfilment of our policy and it is the matter to which this Bill is addressed. With these remarks I hope that the Bill will now proceed through the Committee stage.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 25

NOES: 33

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 6- by leave- taken together.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Opposition does not oppose clauses 1 to 6. We just wish to clarify a couple of points. The first comment I should like to make is that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) pointed out to us the importance of this Bill passing through this chamber expeditiously so that these payments can be made quickly. The Opposition is aware of this factor. In the opening part of my speech in the second reading debate I said that we did not oppose the Bill in toto, that we oppose only sections of it and that we did not wish to delay the passage of the Bill unduly. I commenced my speech on the second reading of the Bill at 4.32 p.m. today and it has been debated for about 2Vi hours. This Bill was introduced into the Senate on 7 April this year and there was opportunity for it to be debated before the recent Easter recess. I think we have dealt with this Bill expeditiously. We have not wanted to delay its passage.

Clauses 1 to 6 provide increases in general. They provide increases in the pension rate and other allowances to age pensioners. The Opposition’s reason for criticising this part of the Bill arises from the delay that has occurred. Senator Guilfoyle and other honourable senators opposite repeatedly have pointed out that this increase is introduced 6 months after the last increase introduced by the Labor Party. I should like to point out to Senator Guilfoyle that even the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) does not know what he said at Rockhampton. We have no accurate record of what he said at Rockhampton. We have absolutely accurate records of what Mr Chipp said and what he has said since. His remarks were made with the full approval of the Liberal and Country Parties. He said that legislation would be introduced into the Parliament to provide for automatic and instant increases in the pensions when the consumer price index figures came out. He made great play of the point that once this had happened there would be no need for pension increases to come before the Parliament in the form of legislation. He said that this would be a great thing because pensions would no longer be a political football.

Senator Rae:

– Did he say the increase would be more than twice a year?

Senator GRIMES:

– He said it would be twice a year but it would be automatic. I put it to honourable senators opposite, as Mr Chipp put it in the House of Representatives the other night, that this Bill does not do that. In fact, if honourable senators read the Hansard record they will find that Mr Chipp said that if legislation of this type is not introduced before the next increase is due he will introduce it himself.

Senator Rae:

– Is there not a different point? One point is whether it was twice a year and the other is whether it is automatic or has to be debated.

Senator GRIMES:

– We are not objecting to the fact that it is introduced twice a year. When in government, we introduced increases twice a year. We accept twice a year as reasonable for the introduction of these sorts of Bills; the 6- monthly interval is reasonable. What we are pointing out is that Mr Chipp, as the Government’s spokesman, said that legislation would be introduced to make these increases automatic and to make this sort of debate unnecessary. I am no constitutional expert. I have some doubts as to whether that can be done. It may be able to be done or it may not be able to be done; but that was the promise made by Mr Chipp. We have heard nothing about it since. That is our only criticism of these clauses of the Bill.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 7 (Repeal).

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Opposition wishes to oppose clause 7 of the Bill. Briefly, clause 7 repeals Part IVa of the principal Act; in other words, it abolishes the funeral benefit. I understand from newspaper articles today that some doubt has been expressed as to whether the Senate has the power to oppose this clause. I realise, Mr Chairman, that this will be a matter for you. We have taken advice from those who are considered to be experts on this matter and we are assured that in fact we are able to take such a move in relation to the Bill. I get back to the point which Senator Guilfoyle made. We do not want to delay the Bill. We do not believe that our move, if supported, will unduly delay the Bill. It will merely have the effect of removing clause 7 and, if that move is successful, clause 11 also will have to be removed. The Bill could go back to the House of Representatives where, because of the numbers in the House of Representatives, it could be decided quickly. It could come back here and still be decided by tomorrow afternoon, which would be in time for royal assent.

Mr Chairman, should you rule that this course of action cannot be taken, I am certainly prepared to move that the Bill, with clauses 7 and 1 1, be referred back to the House of Representatives with the request that they be deleted. I shall not canvass all the arguments I and other honourable senators on this side have used as to why we oppose the abolition of the funeral benefit. Basically, we oppose it because we believe that before the last election the Government promised that it would not do this sort of thing. It said that it would not reduce the value of benefits available to people. We oppose this repeal because of the emotional effect it will have on people and we oppose it because of the real practical effect. It removes the benefit from people at a time when they feel they need it. These are difficult economic times when people are in great distress. We express our intention of opposing this clause.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I also oppose clause 7. 1 believe that it is not necessary and that it would be an unwise act for the Senate, being the House of review of the Parliament, to proceed at this stage to abolish the funeral benefit for pensioners. I believe that we ought to look a little further than has so far been the case at the purpose behind this proposal. If we read a book by T. H. Kewley called Social Security in Australia 1900-72 we find that the funeral benefits were in fact introduced in 1943 for a very real purpose. At that time it was thought that the contribution which people made to mortuary funds was often undesirable and was forced upon them by reason of the fears they had that they would not receive a decent burial. In fact, in this book it states:

When introducing the amending legislation … the Minister for Social Services, Mr Holloway, drew attention to the fact that many pensioners, because of the fear of being buried as paupers, contributed to pensioners’ mortuary funds, which, in return for small weekly payments, guaranteed them an amount, usually of not more than £10, towards the cost of a ‘decent burial’. The purpose of the legislation, he said, was to relieve the pensioners of this anxiety in their declining years and, at the same time, to make it possible for them to devote the full amount of their pension to their maintenance. Relatives of pensioners were to continue to make private arrangements for the funeral, but were to be reimbursed for its costs up to an amount of £10.

The Government was of the opinion that the continuance of pensioners’ mortuary funds would serve no useful purpose and so included a provision in the Act which forbade the making of any payment, except in the case of a friendly society, to a person administering a contributory funeral benefit fund.

I am not satisfied that there has been a change in the reasons and fears which were felt by people at that time and which thereby induced them to enter into funds which might have been unwise economically in their economic circumstances. They then felt they had a very real need for these funds to make provision for their funerals. The feeling was there and it still continues to be a worry to pensioners, as far as I know. It has been said at some stage of the debate in one of the chambers that the 1968 benefit which enabled payments to be continued for 12 weeks, for a surviving member of a family was in some way an answer to this matter. Of course, that is not so. It was not introduced for that purpose. It does nothing whatsoever to cover the situation of a single pensioner, a person who is a widow or widower or one who has never married. From my experience this is the sort of person who is most concerned that he is likely to be a burden on his friends and relatives. Such a person has the desire and fear, and so he must make provision for his funeral.

It has also been said in debate that this provision has not been increased for many years and, consequently, that it is an insignificant benefit. I do not hold with that as any argument. I realise from my reading of Mr Kewley ‘s work that on at least 3 occasions- in 1958, 1961 and 1963- the Australian Labor Party in its policy promised to increase substantially the amount of the funeral benefit. When it came to power in 1972 it did not do so. I do not see the failure to introduce an increase in this benefit as any argument for its removal at the present time.

Reference has been made to the policies which the Liberal-National Country Parties put forward prior to the previous election. As I read the policy there is no provision for the reduction or removal of the benefit. There is no reference to the benefit at all. The policy states:

Our social welfare policy seeks to enhance the security, dignity, self-reliance and well-being of Australians. . . . The aim of this policy is to assist people to overcome hardship and insecurity in ways which ensure that they retain the maximum scope for independence and achievement.

We have a desire and intention to ensure that the many miscellaneous benefits are brought together so that there is something more comprehensive and logical in them. I refer to the last of our objectives in this policy where we state that we will: continuously examine the nature and causes of social deprivation and poverty, recognising that these are not only related to material difficulties, but also to social and emotional needs.

I feel that this benefit is closely related to emotional need. Therefore I believe that this is an appropriate case in which the Committee should look again at this proposal. Of course I am aware that in January and February the Government put forward proposals for a saving of $360m in government expenditure. I applaud this effort and idea. There was a need to reduce government expenditure. But in the course of doing that it is most likely that there are some cases where a mistake has been made, where further examination of the request for such a cutback could show that it would cause a great deal of distress and annoyance in the community and that the costs saved would not be worth the loss of public confidence which is involved. I say that by hindsight, by reason of the fact that, as a House of review, we are entitled to use hindsight, not claiming for ourselves any great ability or knowledge, but claiming at least that we have the opportunity, some months later, to look at the effect of this action and at the reaction it has had on the public.

I refer to last night’s Melbourne Herald which spoke of the desire of the Government to reduce expenditure in a drive against waste. The editorial, under the heading ‘Funeral aid should stay’ stated:

In this atmosphere, some economies, while looking fine on paper, have proved too zealous; too harsh in human terms. An example has been the abolition of the $40 pensioner funeral benefit.

It went on to state:

Senator Guilfoyle endorsed this case, but now finds ‘a lot of resentment in the community’, as she said last night. This is hardly surprising. The $40 is not an immense payment. The change will save at most $ 1 .7m a year.

Pensioners do not have an easy time of it, particularly under inflation.

Other examples might be given. The New South Wales secretary of the Combined Pensioners Association had this to say:

If there is one matter that concerns pensioners more than any other it is the question: ‘Will I have enough money for my funeral expenses?’ They go to no end of trouble to join funeral funds for a number of years in an endeavour to cover costs. They now find that because of inflation, the funds in no way cover the expenses, even when they take out a double coverage.

I note that the South Melbourne Council proposes to pay the funeral benefit if it is not continued, presumably because it thinks it is a matter of significance and importance.

It is also a matter of concern to me that during the debate in the House of Representatives at least 2 proposals were made by Liberal members of the Parliament, which I think were of sufficient importance to be given further consideration. Mr Wentworth made a proposal in these terms: He thought that perhaps there should be an extension of the current twelve weeks payments. That would be an alternative, of course, to the present method and that should be investigated. He thought that should be considered as a further alternative to abolishing these particular funeral benefits. Likewise Mr Ian Wilson, another Liberal member, made the point that investigations ought to be made in the States to see what were the situations of pensioners and in what way in particular they could be helped as an alternative to the present proposal. I put it to the Senate that we are here as a House of review entitled to look again at proposals such as this. We are dealing not actually with $ 1.7m.

What I am proposing is that if these proposals are taken out of the Bill, tomorrow I shall give notice of a motion that the Senate should send to a committee of the Senate this whole proposal for investigation. My proposed notice of motion is in these terms:

  1. That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare the substance of proposed clauses 7 and 1 1 of the Social Services Amendment Bill 1976. relating to the proposed abolition of funeral benefits.
  2. That the Committee report to the Senate by the first sitting day in August 1 976 advising as to the effect of the proposed abolition and /or whether any other alternative action might be taken to achieve government objectives in this regard.

In other words, if we now abolish funeral benefits is there any real belief that they can somehow magically be restored after the Budget? No. I think that we should hold this position. I hope that the Government, having seen the public effect of these proposals, will have the wisdom to allow a continuing investigation. What more suitable way can we do that than with a committee of the Senate? Are not our committees most capable? I know that we have a committee of public servants looking into proposals for changes in the social security provisions, but I happen to be confident that a committee of this Senate, which could call before it various organisations and various people, could do it better and can do it before this proposal is withdrawn altogether.

If we withhold this provision even for the period up to the Budget, the cost would not be $1.7m; it would be less than $500,000. We are talking in terms of a Budget of $22,000m or more. What is there in the amount that should not persuade us tonight that we should withhold the abolition of funeral benefits and that we as a Senate, with the desire and the obligation we have to judge these things in our own conscience, should consider whether the case is made out for an immediate abolition of this proposal.

I believe that we must be a House for all seasons. Some of our colleagues opposite have suggested that the Senate would be a House which would review legislation only when they were in government. I believe- I said this in a much unreported speech on the AddressinReply that this is our duty to be a House of review at all times, at all seasons, no matter who is in government. Governments are not infallible. I hope that the Government will show resilience in this and will accept the proposal which I have put forward and which, I believe, other honourable senators in the chamber will support. I hope that at this stage we will not remove this provision, bearing in mind the feeling and the sensitivity which there is throughout the community, but that we will have a look at it in the best way we can, that is, by a Senate committee. For those reasons I oppose this clause and clause 1 1, and I give notice that I shall move in the Senate tomorrow as I have indicated.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I also rise to oppose clause 7. The decision to abolish funeral benefits is a decision which I feel was fed to the Government by the Department of Social Security when very necessary cuts in government spending were instituted by the present Government- cuts which would not have been necessary if the Labor Government had not stuffed up the economy. Anyway, that decision was accepted in good faith early in the life of the Government; so it now appears in the Bill as clause 7 and the related clause 1 1 which we will discuss later. I have had a great deal of heart searching over this matter in the last few weeks. The amount involved in pension funeral benefits is, of course, small. It is somewhat less than $500,000. That is the amount which will be required between now and the Budget, and the amount involved over a full year is approximately $1.7m. That amount must be read in the context of government spending of some $2 5, 000m. So it can be seen that it is a very small amount indeed. I am convinced that the retention of this benefit will not harm the economy at all.

I have had association and friendship, I hope, with some thousands of pensioners over the years, and many of them voted for me. I will not let them down at this time. I have therefore made the not too difficult decision to vote for the deletion of this clause. On the whole I believe that pensioners will fare much better under this Government. We must remember that the Labor Party is the only Party ever to have reduced pensions. Any efforts to control inflation, which affects pensioners so much, will of course get my full support. This benefit is not inflationary. It is a small amount and I campaigned on the pledge that pensioners would be looked after. As I said, I believe that pensioners will be looked after better by this Government.

Senator Devitt:

– But you campaigned as an Independent.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-You are really out of date as usual. The rabbit is at it again.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! The honourable senator will address his remarks to the Chair.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-The rabbit does not know when he is well off.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Townley will address his remarks to the Chair.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I am sorry, Mr Chairman. Maybe the deletion of the funeral benefit was suggested to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) by the Department because the cost of administering the benefit was out of proportion to the benefit paid. If that is so, it is unfortunate that the Government accepted that submission and could not find some way in which to streamline the administrative process. We live in a time of inflation- an inflation which has been caused by the acts of the Labor Government. That inflation causes more hidden trouble by way of price increases and lack of spending power for pensioners than I think most of them realise. Stability of prices is essential if we are ever going to be able to plan for pension increases which will do more than keep pension rates at a standstill. I agree with Senator Missen ‘s comment that pensioners can and do worry a great deal about their funeral and the cost of it. Whilst I believe that in most instances it is much better to give pensioners money while they are alive, in this case I shall support the retention of funeral benefits. I hope that if the Senate does decide to delete this clause and clause 1 1 that decision will be accepted by the Government.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I wish to inform the Senate that it is my intention to vote against this proposal by the Government. I feel that this action which will eliminate the funeral benefit touches on the hearts and minds of people and appears to be a very mean action. I think that the people who inspired this decision are totally lacking in political intelligence. Such a proposal suggests that the Government should have a fresh look at the situation.

I do not blame the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) on whom I look as a most capable Minister who performs her duty, I believe, to a very high standard. I believe that this proposal demonstrates one of the situations that has developed as a result of the Government asking departments to reduce expenditure by a certain percentage. As a consequence, this benefit was slaughtered. The amount of money that is involved is less than $2m. When considered in relation to a warm, human approach to the welfare of people, the amount that the benefit costs this country each year is really infinitesimal.

Let me put to the Senate the way in which I view this matter. Whilst we are trying to economise in certain ways, this does not mean that areas of merit which require certain funds should not be considered. If the amount of the funeral benefit had been doubled, the cost to the nation would not have increased by another $2m.

Surely in the cuts that are being made, some consideration might have been given to this aspect. I feel that the decision which has been made in this respect is a case where the Government has made a very grave mistake. Personally, when the decision was first announced, I could hardly believe that it was a decision of the Government.

In my view, nothing affects people more in relation to the warm human side of life than the area touched by this benefit. I cannot think of any aspect that touches the hearts and minds of people more than the passing of a person and the necessity to see that that person’s remains are dealt with properly. People like to see that the deceased is given the type of burial that he or she would wish.

To me this is a decision of a piffling nature on a matter which from a financial point of view has no consequence to this nation. Surely it is a decision on which this Government should have second thoughts. It should resolve to renege on the decision which it made previously. If it wants to be really generous and big hearted, it should give consideration not to eliminating the benefit but to increasing it.

I am now in my 27th year of serving in the Liberal Party in the Senate. The one aspect of that Party of which I am most proud is the freedom of its members to exercise their votes in accordance with the dictates of their conscience.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Did not the Liberal Party send you to Coventry in 1 96 1 ?

Senator WOOD:

-No. The Liberal Party has always re-endorsed me. Back home, the people in the Liberal Party- they are the true people, not the people in Parliament- have sent me here each time. As far as I am concerned, while I am here I will always vote according to the dictates of my conscience. As a consequence, I will vote against this clause of the Bill.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, I wish to state my point of view on this matter. I wish to endorse what Senator Missen and the other speakers have already said. I remind members of the Labor Party that to my knowledge the Labor Government was the first government to reduce pensions. Anything that disadvantages pensioners in my view ought to be rejected or spoken against by this Senate. I am proud to be able to get up in this place and to put a point of view which in the freedom of my Party I am able to do but which members of the Opposition have no right to do. They are bound slavishly by dictates of their socialist party. I stand here proudly as a Liberal to put a point of view in favour of the retention of the funeral benefit.

Senator McLaren:

– What about Mr Southey and Senator Withers? What did they say? I will quote them to you.

Senator JESSOP:

-Mr Southey has nothing to do with what my decision may be; neither has Senator Withers. I make my own decision. That is exactly what I intend to do tonight.

Senator Devitt:

– What about Senator Marriott? What happened to him? Do not forget Senator Bessell.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator JESSOP:

- Mr Chairman, it is obvious that members of the Opposition become most disturbed when they recognise that there is freedom of speech on this side of the Senate. I have some regard for the plight of pensioners. Mr Chairman, may I have some silence? I become disturbed when I am interrupted when making a serious speech such as this.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I suggest to the honourable senator that he should speak to the Chair.

Senator JESSOP:

– I am speaking to you, Sir. I will never fail to recognise your authority. It seems to me that this matter has engendered some emotions in the electorate. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) referred to the number of people who will be affected by this proposal. In 1974-75, she pointed out, 55 453 people to whom this benefit was applied died. Of those, 27 35 1 attracted a benefit at the rate of $20-that was the cost to the taxpayer- and 28 102 attracted a benefit of $40. That is not the end of the matter. A number of those people who died were married and left widows or widowers. A number of those people would have had children and grandchildren. So, this is not a matter which affects only some 50 000 people. The number involved grows to the extent that it reaches 250 000 or more. In my opinion this what I regard to be a niggardly decision by the Government flows through to a great many more people than would first appear to be involved and affects them quite emotionally.

I believe that there are some administrative problems associated with the granting of such a benefit. No doubt that is one of the reasons why the Minister has been advised by her Department to take the action proposed. It seems to me quite logical that we ought to follow the suggestion that has been propounded by my colleague, Senator Missen, that is, that this subject ought to be referred to a standing committee of the Senate so that it might be examined properly and so that we might discover how we can provide an alternative proposal so that the pensioners of Australia are not disadvantaged.

It appears quite logical to me to suggest that there ought to be an extension of the provision which makes available to the surviving spouse benefits at the married pension rate for 12 weeks after the death of a married pensioner. That was introduced by a Liberal-Country Party Government in September 1968 when Mr Wentworth was the Minister for Social Services. The suggestion that the married rate of pension should be extended for an extra week in payment to the widow or widower of a married pensioner who has died seems to me to be a logical one to put to the Minister. The administrative costs involved would not be great.

I know that the single pensioner is in a special category. But why should the Government not pay an extra week’s pension to the estate of the single pensioner? After all, many people in that age group whom I know live with their children or with a married brother or sister. These people have some concern with respect to providing a proper funeral for the deceased pensioner. An extension of the $40 benefit in my view would be administratively simple and it would compensate for the action that the Government has proposed. I remind the Senate that when we came into Government the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that we would maintain essential programs in health, education, welfare and matters of this kind. His words were obviously most specifically related to programs for which funds had already been provided. It would have been irresponsible to come in with a heavy axe, try to break contracts and cause all sorts of disruptions of that kind. I believe that that is the sort of responsibility we are obliged to fulfil as a Senate. I oppose this clause of the Bill for the reasons I have described.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I support the Government in its general program to restore sound economic management to this country. We all know that the pensioners, above all others, have been adversely affected by the economic mismanagement which was the hallmark of the 3 years up until December 1975. We all know that although pensions were increased their purchasing value decreased. We all know that although the moneys for education were increased the number of schools and classrooms, and effectively the amount of advantage to be gained by the people of Australia from the amount of Government money, people’s money, spent tended to diminish.

I make it quite clear that insofar as it is necessary to restore sound economic management to this country and to effect cuts I shall support the Government, but I find it impossible to support the proposal put forward in this piece of legislation. My experience as the honorary secretary of a law society and legal aid scheme for six or seven years certainly brought it home to me that a large number of people are particularly concerned about whether they will be able to obtain, in the words that have been used so often in this debate, a decent burial. When these people are asked to fill in an application for legal aid they are reticent about disclosing their means.

Senator McAuliffe:
Senator RAE:

- Senator McAuliffe, you with your pub experience would not even know what hardship is like. Just keep out of it. Mr Chairman, if I may goon -

Senator McAuliffe:

– I have thrown better fellows than you out.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I will not have that sort of behaviour in the Senate.

Senator RAE:

– I was going to talk about people with real problems, people like those who, when asked to complete an application form for legal aid stating their means, display a reticence. When the legal aid officer starts to investigate he finds out that if the people are elderly they have a sum of money tucked away in a bank account to give them a decent burial. These are the people I am concerned about and about whom Senator McAuliffe and others apparently are not concerned. I am talking about people who think it is important that they should be able to be buried decently, people who think it is important that they should not have to be a load upon their relations or their friends and that they should be able to pay for their own funeral. The $40 represented by the funeral benefit, however inadequate, is a supplement to help meet that desire of a large number of elderly people. Unless there were an extremely good reason for withdrawing that benefit, or unless it were being supplanted by something superior, then I would simply say that those people of whom I speak, those people to whom it matters, must have their interests represented in the Senate if nowhere else.

We on the Government side made promises that we would not reduce any existing pensioner benefit. During a period of time when, as members of the Liberal Party, we were challenged with the claim so often negligently and recklessly made by the Australian Labor Party that we would do this or do that, we were challenged in relation to pensioner benefits. I can only conclude that in this instance there has been some unfortunate misjudgment which has led to something which upon reflection appears to us in a House of review to be a clear breach of a promise and undertaking given, that is, that we would not reduce any existing benefit. If the proposal were to supplement the funeral benefit by something that was a better alternative then I would be happy to support it. In the absence of any such alternative I think that in the interests of the people who raised pension issues during the election campaign, the people in elderly citizens clubs who asked questions at public meetings, the people generally of the State I represent and the people of Australia who were interested in this matter, we should not support the withdrawal of this benefit.

Senator Missen has outlined an approach which I would regard as a desirable approach to be adopted by a Senate which is a House of review. At least while the Liberal and National Country Parties are in government the Senate can expect to fulfil a role as a House of review. If the caucused Labor Party were in government we would never see the day when any one of its members had the freedom to express a view different from the view expressed in the House of Representatives. At least members of the Liberal and National Country Parties have a freedom to operate in the Senate as members of a House of review. I simply say to those who designed and those who currently make up the Liberal and National Country Parties: Thank God for that freedom; thank God for the opportunity for us to express a view which is different from a view of the House of Representatives, the House of Government, and to ask that this matter be reviewed, which is what we do. I therefore propose to support those who oppose clause 7.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I rise to indicate my opposition to clauses 7 and 1 1 of this Bill. I have not spoken on the Bill as a whole because I am quite proud of what the Government is proposing in the Bill except for these clauses. I do not particularly want to gain political kudos out of this because to me it is a matter of deep conscience and deep concern for those senior citizens who by clause 7 will be deprived of a benefit, but I am staggered by the deafening silence from the Opposition on this occasion.

Senator Georges:

– We have been speaking all afternoon.

Senator BONNER:

– I indicate, despite the rattling noises coming from the empty head on the other side of the chamber -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable senator come back to the clause.

Senator BONNER:

– I indicate my support for my colleagues on the Government side of the chamber in their opposition to this clause. I am not particularly concerned about the amount of money that is involved. What I am concerned about is the psychological effect on a number of senior citizens of our country when we are today enjoying the fruits of their labour. The people we are talking about, the senior citizens who are to be deprived of the funeral benefit, have made their contributions; they have paid their taxes. I hope that when I reach their age I will be able to say that I too have made my contribution. I indicate my strong opposition to depriving our senior citizens of this benefit. As I said, I am not terribly concerned about the amount of money. To me it is a small amount. If we were proposing to do something extra for the senior citizens of our country I would be all for it, but I will not support taking something away from them. I make it very clear in this chamber that I will be opposing clauses 7 and 1 1 and supporting a colleague on my side when he moves a motion later on.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to speak on behalf of what is beginning to appear to be a silent minority. I would like to support the Government’s action and to oppose the course of action that has been indicated by some of my colleagues. In fairness to those who I am sure will do likewise, I would like to give the Committee some indication of why this should be done. I preface my remarks by saying that of course I, like other honourable senators and I am sure like every member of Parliament, feel regret that any benefit should be removed or cut. It is never a palatable political task to reduce a benefit which anybody is receiving. Honourable gentlemen opposite ought to remember the extreme reluctance of their own Government over a number of years to say ‘no’ to anybody who was seeking any sort of benefit and to realise that this Government would not have taken the decision lightly or easily.

There are 2 matters which in my view it is necessary to consider to see the context of what is proposed by these clauses. Firstly, I would like to refer to the general problem of inflation and, secondly, to the general benefits which are granted under this Bill. It is terribly easy for people to say, ‘What has inflation really got to do with these social service benefits?’. But, of course, the

Commission of Inquiry into Poverty conducted under the chairmanship of Professor Henderson makes it very clear in its report that there is a direct link between the problems that arise in social welfare and the problems of inflation. The inflation which was largely fuelled by the previous Government with its pacesetter wage principle and with its glorious attitude towards Government spending has, in fact, hit many of the weakest in the community. There are many passages in the Henderson report which would bear that out. I refer to page 10 of the report where Professor Henderson states:

In 1974-75 it seems that inflation created poverty through unemployment. But rapid inflation has also contributed to poverty even more surely in many other ways. There is very clear evidence from countries such as Brazil, which have suffered a high rate of inflation for many years, that the great majority of poor people have made no progress and many have become worse off.

I will skip a few lines and carry on where the report states:

The basic reason for this is simple: inflation favours the active and the powerful; the position of poor people deterioriates

Many honourable senators would be familiar with those passages. I turn to page 11 of the report where it is stated:

In our judgment, no country with a continuing inflation rate of over 10 per cent has been able to prevent this causing grave hardship to important groups of poor people. We do not believe that Australia can escape this consequence.

Everybody who has spoken to these clauses has paid lip service to the cuts in Government expenditure which have been made already by the Fraser Government. They have expressed their regret, as I am expressing my regret, that the Government has seen the need to cut out this $1.7m benefit. I point out that that is the total of cuts in a Bill which grants increases in benefits of $230m. We are dealing with one area of social welfare cuts that the Government has proposed. We find Professor Henderson ‘s description of funeral benefits on page 238 of the same report to be as follows:

Special payments to the person responsible for the burial of a deceased pensioner are discussed in Volume 2 -

The next sentence states:

The rate of benefit now paid is laughable in relation to funeral costs and should either be abandoned or changed.

Senator Georges:

– Let us change it.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Change it.

Senator CHANEY:

– Honourable senators opposite now say that it should be changed. They did nothing to change it. They did nothing to increase it when they were in government. I simply say: By all means, let us all encourage the

Government to look to some other means of providing some form of benefit. But to suggest that the funeral benefit is of major significance is, in fact, to play politics in this area. The Opposition knows it. I ask honourable senators simply to look at the volume of reduction in expenditure which is proposed by these clauses and the volume of increases in expenditure which are proposed by the rest of the Bill. The total cost to revenue in a full year of the proposals contained in the Bill is increased by $230m. There will be $230m in increases and $1.7m in decreases. I regret that the action of my honourable colleagues- I regard them as that- will succeed in focusing the attention of the community not on the fact that there has been an additional $230m worth of benefits paid but on the fact that there has been a reduction of $1.7m in certain payments. I would say that when those 2 matters are taken into account and when the seriousness of the inflation problem which has been left with the Government by the previous Government is considered, the Government warrants support. It is terribly easy for honourable senators opposite to say that they oppose any cuts in Government expenditure. I suggest with the greatest of respect to my colleagues that it is also easier to make the decision they have made than to grasp the nettle and face up to their responsibilities in the wider sphere of ensuring that general benefits going to all pensioners continue to increase and that we do, in fact, take a realistic attitude in tackling the problem of inflation. I finish my remarks by expressing the hope that I expressed earlier, namely, that the Government will consider the problem of funeral costs for pensioners when it is considering the Budget over the next few months. I would certainly have preferred to see cuts in some other area. But if the Government has found that this is the course it must follow, I for one intend to support it.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I rise to oppose clauses 7 and 1 1 of the Social Services Amendment Bill. A social services policy should be based on providing help for those most in need. This entails an assessment of need with consequent administrative and other problems. This benefit is one of the remaining benefits that are paid on the basis of need. A test is applied. Of course, this entails administrative problems. Why has the Government suggested that this particular benefit should be abolished? 1 believe that it has done so on the advice of its Department which has an administrative headache. But what does the Government do? Its answer is to chop off the head and not to examine the real problem which would be an administrative problem associated not only with this benefit but also with any other benefit if those benefits were truly and properly based upon social service policies, namely, of providing help for those most in need. That is one of the principal reasons why I oppose these clauses. Here we have that principle and that principle is going out the door.

It is not the money that is of importance. The amount of the benefit, $40, would not even buy a casket. If it were a question of the money or the box, you would take the box every time. If there were some suggestion that funeral directors were raking on” some money as a result of the Government benefit, there are ways and means of attending to that problem. I would seriously recommend to the Government that an examination be undertaken of this matter and that even at this late stage it adjourn consideration of this Bill so as to reconsider it and leave out clauses 7 and 1 1 which abolish the benefit.

I am also very encouraged to hear that on this side of the chamber as well as on the other side there is a recognition that this is a House of review and that it has real powers. These real powers will be used because at a future date not long from now we, as representatives of the States, will have to consider what moneys will go to the States. I hope that the spirit that influences us here now will influence us then. If the situation arises in which expenditure cuts are proposed, the Senate will vote accordingly to throw out the proposition. I further wish simply to say that I will be opposing clause 7 now. If clause 1 is carried, I intend to vote against it on the motion that the Bill stand as printed.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have listened with great interest to the debate that has surrounded clauses 7 and 1 1 of the Social Services Amendment Bill and have taken note of the statements that have been made by various honourable senators. I do want to say that I recognise, as a senator, the role of the Senate as a house of review. I recognise also, as a member of my Party, the attitude that members of the Party take on matters of conscience. However, to suggest that the Senate is a house of review selectively in terms of the economic policy of the Government is something which the Government does not accept.

The present Bill which has been introduced reflects a part of the economic policy of this Government. It is one of the measures which have been taken by the Government to overcome the serious inflation and government expenditure which confronted the Government on taking office late last year. This Bill is required by the Government to be passed intact if the pensioners and the other people concerned are to have the benefits which have been proposed within the Bill. The attitude with regard to Senate committees pursuing any matter which they find of interest is not in question. What is in question is the fact that this is a Bill which implements the economic policy of the Government expressed in the terms of the expenditure cuts which were made on our assuming office earlier this year.

I regret the fact that many members of the Senate who are sitting on this side of the chamber have expressed their opposition to clause 7 and ultimately to clause 1 1 . But I reiterate what was said earlier today with respect to the timing of the royal assent for these Bills. It is required that the Social Services Amendment Bill be signed by 28 April if the rises which are proposed within it for the pensioners are to be paid on the due dates. It would be illegal for the Government to embark upon printing, or preparation for printing, of cheques at the increased amounts until royal assent of this Bill is achieved. I simply indicate quite firmly that the Government regards this Bill as not being subject to amendment. The consequence of what I am saying is that if the amendment to clause 7 is carried the Bill will then not pass. If the honourable senators who have expressed their objections to this particular clause take that into account they will be taking into account what was made most clear by Senator Chaney when he said that the benefits proposed in this Bill total $230m; the clause to which objection is taken relates to an amount in a full year of $ 1 .7m. I ask that those 2 facts be placed into perspective as we proceed to the vote on this Bill.

I take note also of the statement that was made by Senator Harradine because he adopted the attitude that selectively this Senate will deal with money Bills as they are introduced by the Government. He has indicated that he would like the same course of action to be taken if we were debating States Grants Bills. It is for this overriding reason that the Government requires this Bill to be passed intact or not passed at all. I simply make that perfectly clear as we proceed to the vote on this Bill. An increase of $2 30m in pensioner payments stands to be set aside by those honourable senators who will not accept this Bill in its entirety.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I had no intention to rise to speak again on clause 7 of the Social Services Amendment Bill but I am provoked to do so by the remarks of the Minister for Social Security. I think it is absolutely abysmal that such a tactic which can be described only as ‘blackmail’ should be adopted in this chamber. This Bill was introduced into this chamber on 7 April. There has been ample opportunity to debate the Bill before today. When the Bill was introduced today the debate was extended on this side of the chamber for only some Vh hours. If clauses 7 and 1 1 are rejected by this chamber there is ample time for this Bill to go back to the House of Representatives, to come back here and to go for the royal assent. It is ludicrous for the Minister to attempt blackmail and to say to the members of this chamber that they should not vote against this Bill because if they do the Government will not pay the pensioners their increases.

I point out to Senator Sim and his colleagues who are attempting to interject and who claim that they have the freedom to vote as they like in this place while Opposition senators do not that there is a very great difference between the way in which the Parties of the honourable senators opposite would have considered this Bill and the way in which we would have considered it. If we were in government this Bill would have gone to the Caucus and the Caucus never would have passed this nonsensical legislation. Honourable senators opposite, including those who have expressed their intention to vote against this Bill, had no opportunity to vote on this Bill in their Party room. Therefore, they should have the right to vote as they like in this place.

Senator Sim:

– Apply that to yourselves.

Senator GRIMES:

- Senator Sim, the Leader of the war lobby, who is interested only in increasing funds to kill people -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order, senator! I should like you to rephrase that.

Senator GRIMES:

– It is typical that Senator Sim would be one of those who would not oppose clauses 7 and 1 1. But really I rose to express my concern that such a threat should have been made by the Minister to prevent the pensioners of this country from getting the rise that we agree they deserve. We stated at the beginning of this debate that we did not intend to oppose the Bill in toto- only the abolition of the funeral benefits. We regret that the Minister has had to resort to this sort of tactic.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I did not intend to rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Social Services Amendment Bill but, like Senator Grimes, I too have been provoked by the attitude expressed by the Minister for

Social Security. It is an attitude of blackmail in what has been a mean and shabby deal in this chamber tonight. In the debate earlier the Minister did say that royal assent was necessary for this Bill and that therefore there was a sense of urgency about the Bill. When I spoke earlier tonight I said that the first time that an announcement was made about the abolition of funeral benefits was before this Parliament assembled. If this announcement was made before this Parliament assembled, why has it taken the Government until tonight to bring this legislation before the Senate?

A government senator- What about your legislation?

Senator COLSTON:

-You do not seem to have a spark of humanity in you. All you want to do is to get this legislation through.

The CHAIRMAN Senator DrakeBrockman) Order, senator! I suggest that you address the Chair and ignore the interjections.

Senator COLSTON:

-Mr Chairman, I am provoked not only by the Minister’s attitude but also by those people who want to see this benefit abolished. But more importantly, there should have been no urgency with this legislation. This Bill should have been presented to this chamber in time for honourable senators to have the opportunity to speak on it. If the Bill had been introduced earlier there would have been plenty of time for it to have a proper debate and for it then to obtain the necessary royal assent.

I cannot see why the provisions concerning the funeral benefit were included with the provisions concerning pensions. It seems to me that what we have been told in this chamber is that if we do not pass the clauses relating to the funeral benefit we will be holding up benefits for pensioners. If the pensions are held up for any reason it will not be due to any fault of honourable senators on this side of the chamber; it will be due to the fault of honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I just want to say a few words. First of all, let me say again that it is a recognised principle of the Liberal Party that members of the Party have the freedom of our conscience. It is well for the members of the Opposition and for the Senate to know this. It is well also for some of our Ministers to know it. Unfortunately, Ministers come into office and at times become very arrogant. I take the view that some of the expressions that we have heard from the Minister for Social Security contain a threat to this effect: That if we do not pass clause 7 something else will not be given to the pensioners. I think that it is for the Government to decide whether those people will be paid once the Senate makes its decision on this legislation. The blame does not come back to the people who are prepared to stand up and oppose a particular section of this Bill. I heard this sort of argument over a number of years when we were in office previously. I will not be frightened by it. The suggestion is that those of us on this side of the chamber who are talking and voting in this way are not acting in accordance with what our Party desires. If that is the way in which the Ministers are talking they are beginning to get out of touch with the senators. I will not be frightened on the matter.

Question put:

That the clause stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 26

NOES: 32

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 8 to 10- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 1 1 (Recovery of over-payments)

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Opposition opposes clause 11 which is consequential on clause 7, which we have already defeated.

Question put:

That the clause stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 26

NOES: 32

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Consideration interrupted.

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1288

ADJOURNMENT

Radio Stations- Immigration-Australian Broadcasting Commission

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

– I rise to speak briefly on the motion that the Senate do now adjourn on a matter relating to broadcasting in south-east Queensland. This matter has been raised in Queensland on a number of occasions and I wish to raise it to give this Government an opportunity to reassess a decision which was made under the previous Government, which was controversial to say the least. The matter pertains to the broadcasting of radio stations in south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales. In May 1975 the Australian Broadcasting Control Board announced that it had made 2 decisions which affected radio stations in this area. One was that radio stations in the Brisbane and Ipswich area were to be given permission to broadcast on 5000 watts in future and that radio stations 4KQ and 4IP were to be given permission to transmit in future from St Helena Island in Moreton Bay. Radio station 4KQ is Brisbane based and radio station 4IP was given a licence to broadcast in the Ipswich area, Ipswich of course being a city some 25 miles distant from Brisbane.

Objections were made to this decision by a number of radio stations in that area. They were made by Brisbane stations 4BC, 4BH and 4BK, by provincial radio station 4NA which is based on Nambour, 4GY based on Gympie, 4GG, a Gold Coast station, and 2MW which is based on Murwillumbah in northern New South Wales. By giving these 2 Brisbane or Brisbane area radio stations permission to increase their broadcasting strength, as well as permission for them to broadcast from an island, they had a far stronger beam not only into Brisbane but also into the north and south coast areas of Queensland and into northern New South Wales. Radio station 4IP thus became effectively a Brisbane radio station as well as an Ipswich radio station. It had been broadcasting into the Brisbane area for some time and this was not a particular cause of any heartburn amongst Brisbane radio stations. The point of upset was that 4IP and 4KQ were then in a position to compete with stations which had been given their licences and permission to operate on the basis of serving certain provincial city areas of Queensland and northern New South Wales.

Let me deal briefly with the situation on the Gold Coast first. This area has been previously serviced by 2 radio stations, 4GG and 2MW. Both these stations have reasonable reception from Nerang through to a bit further south than Murwillumbah. People living in that area have received, apart from Australian Broadcasting Commission coverage, reasonable coverage from 2 commercial stations which were granted licences to operate specifically in that area. The broadcasting difficulties in that area of Queensland and New South Wales are not great. The broadcasting difficulties north of Brisbane are a different matter. Radio stations 4NA and 4GY have effectively a very limited area of broadcast because of the terrain. They were not given permission to broadcast at 5000 watts. They remained on the 2000 watt frequency. The mountainous terrain and other difficulties mean that areas in that part of Queensland receive a very much more limited radio service. In certain areas you can receive 4NA or 4GY plus the ABC but in no area can you receive both those commercial stations plus the ABC. There is an area between the 2 cities of Nambour and Gympie in which you can receive neither of the commercial stations because of broadcasting difficulties.

As I said, the Broadcasting Control Board’s decision effectively made available to people who were listening to radios in those areas a further 2 commercial radio stations, stations which had never been granted permission nor had ever entered into any sort of application to broadcast in those areas in competition with either the stations operating there or other people who might have been interested in setting up radio stations. There seems to be some degree of acceptance that the Gold Coast could support another commercial radio licence, but whether or not it could the fact is that if that was a consideration of the Broadcasting Control Board, 4KQ and 4IP got backdoor permission to operate in an area. It is quite possible that other interests could have competed to broadcast in that area. It is quite possible that the broadcasting that would have been given in that area would have been more beneficial to the people living in that area.

The Brisbane and Ipswich radio stations that I have mentioned tend to generalise or specialise. Some of them have a special type of broadcasting. One station, for example, specialises in a particular type of music, which it calls ‘beautiful music’. Other radio stations choose to specialise in pop music. Some specialise in talk-back programs and so on. Where there are a number of stations this is possible. The listeners then have a choice between a number of different types of programs. If they particularly fancy one of the very specialised types of programming they can listen to it all day and all night.

In the areas outside Brisbane listeners and broadcasters have not had this opportunity. A radio station such as 4NA or 4GY, or either of the other 2 stations, performs a very particular social role in the area in which it is broadcasting. In areas such as those served by the Nambour and Gympie stations the broadcasters feel an obligation to provide during the course of the day as many different types of programs as they can. This means that the people living in those areas do not have the opportunity to tune into one of the particular types of programming and listen to it all day. This, of course, is one of the difficulties of living in a provincial area. Radio in these areas needs to perform a positive community role. That community role is rather different from the community role which may or may not be expected of capital city radio stations. It is certainly a role far closer to the community as it has been operating than that of the role of any of the Brisbane radio stations, and I mean no offence to the Brisbane radio stations. There is, as I have said, a different need in provincial areas. As I have also said, the Gold Coast, which may have a case for further radio licences, got 2 extra stations without that opportunity being available to broadcasters. There is no case for further radio stations in the area to the north of Brisbane. That area could not support another radio station in terms of population and in terms of the commercial support from advertisers which would be necessary. The powers that be have decided that 2 stations, for the moment, is the optimum number. That is effectively only one in each area.

There is one other issue to which I must advert before I refer to the consequences of that situation. I am informed that 4IP when given permission to transmit from St Helena was required to indicate to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board that it would broadcast a signal of a strength at least equal to the signal that was being received previously in the Ipswich area. I am informed that it has been a matter of public comment, even by those responsible for that radio station, that its signal is only at most threequarters of the strength of the signal that it is supposed to be sending into Ipswich. But that area is not the problem. No one in that area is complaining or feels that community services are in jeopardy. But I think it ought to be mentioned. Quite clearly, an undertaking was required from 4IP because it was supposed to be an Ipswich station. As far as we can ascertain, that undertaking has not been met and 4IP has not, in any way, been called to account on that matter.

The fact is that 4IP and potentially 4KQ are operating in a particular way in those additional areas into which they beam, lt is no answer to say that this is some sort of windfall, that they just happened to go into those areas and that it was not something they particularly wanted. Station 4IP has set up an office on the Gold Coast. It employs an advertising sales team from that office. It is pursuing a vigorous campaign to sell advertising time in the Gold Coast area and, of course, to try, if possible, to take away advertising sales from the existing radio stations. One could argue whether or not the existing radio stations can afford that sort of competition. There is no doubt that the north coast radio stations cannot afford that sort of competition. At the moment only 4IP is acting in the way I have described, but 4KQ is broadcasting with exactly the same strength. So long as 4IP acts in this way it is always open to 4KQ to do the same thing. We could find that shortly these 2 radio stations will be vigorously selling their wares in that area.

I am informed that 4IP arranged an open air concert or pop festival at Christmas time. I am informed also that it was to be held as a promotional exercise in the north coast area at a cost of $5,000. So, there is no doubt about its intentions in that area even though it may not have reached the stage yet of opening a sales office in the area. Because of our notorious wet weather during the last summer season the concert was washed out. This, of course, has nothing to do with the end result. Broadcasting operators in those areas now have strong evidence that they are losing advertising. People who wish to advertise for commercial and other reasons are buying advertising time on Brisbane radio stations. Because they are buying advertising time on 4IP as well, they are now advising radio stations in the provincial areas that they will no longer be buying advertising time with them because 4IP and 4KQ are covering those areas. There is written evidence that that course of action is being taken by some people.

The reason I raise this matter is that I want to make a simple request to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson). So far as I am aware this matter was not raised in the Senate last year. It was certainly a matter of some public controversy in Queensland. Whether it has been raised previously in this place, I believe it is a matter to which the Minister ought to direct his attention. If 4IP is not meeting the broadcasting requirements that were put on it in relation to Ipswich then whatever action is relevant ought to be taken. If it appears that through a decision of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in 1975 there are serious implications regarding a back door new licence or there is a threat to the viability of radio stations in the provincial areas which are playing a very positive social role in those areas, then something ought to be done about it. Very simply, of course, radio stations 4IP and 4KQ could be asked to beam their signals in a way that will prevent them having the same strength in the areas to the south and to the north of Brisbane. This must be considered in fairness to those who established radio stations in the area and who have tried conscientiously in my opinion- I speak from my direct experience and also as a listener- to carry out their important social broadcasting role. I appeal to the Minister this evening to indicate whether the Government can do anything and to say, if possible, what can be done. I ask the Minister to take up this matter and to use his good offices with those responsible so that what is clearly an injustice will be rectified.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was not my intention to speak during the adjournment debate this evening. I rise because of the remarks made by Senator Martin. At the time that the extension of the power of operation of radio stations 4IP and 4KQ was granted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board I happened to be the Minister for the Media. If there was any implication in Senator Martin’s remarks that this was done at the direction of or with the approval of the Minister, I should like to say at the outset that it was a decision of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, under its existing powers.

Senator Martin:

– I made no reference that could be construed in that way.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You mentioned the Government. I want to indicate that it was a decision of an independent statutory body. I should like to go on to say that it had been a recommendation from the Broadcasting Control Board to the Minister and had I been the Minister, I certainly would have approved of the decision. If Senator Martin reads the last annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board she will see that on 7 January 1975, in circular letter B109 of the Broadcasting Control Board headed Changed Policy Regarding Trans

Broadcasting Stations, the Board advised licensees of commercial broadcasting stations that it would approve increases in transmitter power in certain circumstances. That was in January 1975. In a circular letter to all broadcasting stations the Board indicated that it was prepared to consider applications from every station not at present operating a 5 kilowatt transmitter power for permission to increase power to that figure. As I have said, that was in January 1 975.

In May 1975, 4 months after that circular had been issued by the Broadcasting Control Board, 2 commercial stations for the first time made application to the Board to increase their power from 2 kilowatts to 5 kilowatts. One station was 4IP. I hesitate to add that I think the board of directors of that station are members, if not supporters, of the National Country Party of Australia. The other station, 4KQ, happens to be a Labor Party station in Brisbane. Despite the polemics of politics involved, the 2 stations saw that by operating at 5 kilowatts and by the joint sharing of masting facilities as was being encouraged by the Board for technical and engineering reasons, obviously on the advice of their engineers, they could get together and make an application to the Board, which they did 4 months after the Board’s initial circular went out to all commercial stations.

Senator Martin:

– There is no objection to that.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator suggested that the stations did this through a back door method.

Senator Martin:

– I did not say that at all.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If I recall the honourable senator’s words, she said that a back door method was used by the 2 stations in getting increased transmission. What I am saying is that 4 months after the Board notified every commercial broadcasting station that this would be its new policy, these 2 stations made application to the Board for increased power. If one goes to the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board one will see that paragraph 28 states:

On 9 May 1975 the Board held a special meeting with representatives of station 4KQ Brisbane and 4IP Ipswich regarding the establishment of joint transmitting facilities on St Helena Island in Moreton Bay, Queensland. Subsequently, members of the Board had discussions with other Brisbane stations on 1 1 June 1 975.

I assume that not only did they in the first instance have discussions with 4IP and 4KQ but that subsequently, after those discussions, they had discussions with other commercial broadcasting stations in Brisbane about the matter. If one goes to page 48 of the last annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board under the general heading of ‘Development of the Commercial Medium Frequency Service’ one will see mentioned in paragraph 267 the following:

During the year the Board determined changes in the technical operating conditions of certain stations . . .

A number of stations are set out, but as far as these 2 stations are concerned- 4IP Ipswich and 4KQ Brisbane- it states:

Re-siting of both stations to a new location at St Helena Island, provision of a shared directional aerial and power increase from 2000 to 5000 watts. Not yet effected.

The comment that this had not been effected was made on 30 June 1975. 1 mention those 2 matters in fairness to the operators of 4IP and 4KQ. I do not think any back door method was used. I think that the decision to apply was obviously made as a result of the Board’s circular letter of January 1 975. While 4IP is a station which serves Ipswich, a city some 25 miles from the city of Brisbane, it is only fair to say that 4IP is the highest rated commercial broadcasting station in Brisbane. Because it operates within a 30 mile radius of the General Post Office of the capital city of Brisbane it is regarded, under the Board’s standard, as a capital city station for the purpose of determination by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I make those comments so far as the circumstances of the 2 stations are concerned.

The decision was one purely for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to take after it received applications from those 2 stations. If 4IP is not providing the signal which it used to provide to the people of Ipswich then I certainly agree with Senator Martin that the Board should look at the matter. But in fairness to the operators of 4IP and 4KQ- despite the difference in political persuasion between the directors of 4IP and myself- I can say that it was one of the best administered commercial stations that I saw when I was the Minister for the Media.

Senator MARTIN (Queensland)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to be misrepresented?

Senator MARTIN:

– Yes. I do not want to be tedious or to debate backwards and forwards with Senator Douglas McClelland. I cannot recall whether Senator McClelland was sitting in the Senate when I started speaking. But I want to make one thing clear. The point at issue was not the 5000 watts. I never suggested that the 5000 watt broadcasting was a back door method which was used to get increased transmission. In using the phrase ‘ back door method ‘ I referred to the fact that those radio stations effectively became stations with the ability to extend their broadcasting area not only because of the 5000 watts but also because they were broadcasting over water- that was the point of contentionfrom St Helena Island which is where the transmission mast is situated. That was the back door method to get a licence to broadcast to the Gold Coast, northern New South Wales and north of Brisbane. The term ‘back door method’ had nothing at all to do with the increased transmission power of those stations. That was accepted by all stations. I hope there is no suggestion that I was attempting to conceal the fact that there were some discussions with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in June. I am well aware of the contents of the submission which was made then. The report in no way impinges on what I said in my speech.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Tonight I seek amplification of a joint statement which emanated from Ministers for Immigration, both Commonwealth and State, in regard to what I believe is an innovation which is to be implemented shortly. The State Ministers will have a role in recruiting migrants from the United Kingdom. I assume that this will include both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I seek this amplification because, in general terms, I am somewhat apprehensive about duplication. I take the matter a little further. Most of us have already had cases where people have come to us because of some foul up. They have produced a set of files from State immigration officers and they have other file numbers from our Commonwealth office in London. I feel that this matter should be clarified.

I shall take it to a much more detailed level. I think New South Wales and Queensland honourable senators will appreciate that in relation to a football code- I refer to rugby league- we have a situation under which some players come to Australia on a direct transfer fee. Others, who are entitled to sell their wares, come as British sponsored or unsponsored migrants. The whole tenor of the exercise is to get them here quickly at a particular time of the football season. I put the matter directly to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). This matter affects rugby league clubs, but I mention in passing that it applies with equal force to soccer clubs. I know on the New South Wales scene a case which involved John Gray, the present North Sydney forward and a former British representative. One of my colleagues, the then honourable member for Evans, intervened in this matter. To show how broad-minded he is, it was not a club in his electorate either. He was successful in breaking the logjam. In the soccer field I was successful, on behalf of the Western Suburbs Soccer Club, in clearing up a matter concerning a couple of Scottish players.

The point I am getting at is that in the sporting field a parliamentarian on numerous occasions has to be a mediator in relation to United Kingdom or Irish migrants, because at times clubs try to play it a little hard in relation to the conditions of entry. The player, of course, has his rights. That is my prime reason for raising this matter, although honourable senators may think that it is rather a minute aspect of immigration. I have before me a clipping from the London Times of last week concerning the involvement of the Home Office in a dispute which concerned one of the first division soccer clubs, Arsenal, which was trying to entice a Yugoslav national, who was the coach of Real Madrid, to come to England. The Home Office was in a very invidious position. Although I am speaking of football players, I would imagine that in the soccer field the same situation would apply to all the other States. I believe that this joint press statement leaves much unsaid. It is in that regard I would like some clear cut guide line for retailing to affected clubs.

Honourable senators would know that I was in the United Kingdom as late as last week. I am concerned about the existing Commonwealth immigration offices not only in London but also- I suppose some of them would be temporaryin Manchester, Birmingham and, for that matter, Belfast and Dublin. I would like to know what their position is and whether we will have the duplication. The Minister will know that some weeks ago I raised the real, regular bottleneck which occurs, irrespective of whether migrants are recruited by the States or by the Commonwealth Government. There is wholesale delay in relation to X-ray processing in London. That delay does not apply only to British migrants; it applies to people from Europe as well. When I raised this matter previously the Minister agreed with me. She will recall that when the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) held a seminar one evening in Parliament House I raised this matter with his officers and they accepted the fact that the delay seems to be a running sore. I simply say that as the football season goes on and we are after players to come here quickly this X-ray procedure will still have to be complied with. The odds are virtually 100 to 1 on that there will be no problem with the lungs of the players but they will still have to go through that procedure.

They are the points I make. I mention one final matter which I discussed with my colleague from Western Australia, Senator Gordon Mcintosh. I am making this criticism in a very low key. In Western Australia there was some concern on the part of both United Kingdom migrant associations and the building trades about some migrant agencies using a sort of a carrot; they offered certain accommodation. When Senator Mcintosh entered this chamber he played a role with the previous Ministers in getting this racket stopped. Perhaps the Minister can explain to me what the procedure will be and what is the position with regard to freedom of choice. Last week I addressed a gathering of potential shop stewards who were doing cources at Ruskin College. There was a bit of interest in Australia. I am just wondering whether a person who on the impulse goes along to the regular Commonwealth migration office will be told arbitrarily: ‘You have got to tell us to which State you are going and then you have to go to the New South Wales Agent-General or his Victorian counterpart’. I leave those questions with the Minister.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I draw the attention of the Senate to a problem which has been drawn to my attention by Mr Kozned, the Acting Town Clerk of the City of Elizabeth. So that the Minister responsible for this matter will understand what I am talking about I shall read the correspondence which I have received from the Acting Town Clerk. He wrote to me in these terms:

I have enclosed herewith a copy of a letter sent to the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission protesting against the cessation of the Adelaide Metropolitan Regional News following the economy measures introduced by the Commonwealth Government.

It would be appreciated if representation could be made to the appropriate quarters in Canberra for its resumption.

Yours faithfully, G. KOZNED Acting Town Clerk

The letter to which he refers, a copy of which was forwarded to me, was addressed to the General Manager, Australian Broadcasting Commission, GPO Box 1419, Adelaide, South Australia 5001. It reads:

Dear Sir,

Re: Metropolitan Regional News

It has been brought to this Council’s attention that the Metropolitan Regional News which has been serving a large population on the periphery of Adelaide, has ceased as a result of the austerity measures taken by the Commonwealth Government.

Apparently the news which was broadcast to literally thousands of people and, needless to say that will now be sadly missed, was a victim of the economy cuts recently implemented by the Commonwealth Government.

This Council feels that the cessation of the dissemination of news in this area is a retrograde step as it believes that the best citizen of a community is the most informed one. Accordingly, this Council strongly protests at the cessation of this news and requests that it be reintroduced as soon as practicable.

Furthermore it is requested that this matter be referred to the appropriate Departments in the Commonwealth Government so that the necessary steps are taken to reverse the present policy.

For your information a copy of this letter will be forwarded to all the South Australian Senators and to the Member for Bonython.

Yours faithfully,

G.KOZNED Acting Town Clerk

I raise this matter in the Senate because since the Parliament resumed for the autumn session much has been said about the economy cuts that have been instituted by the present Government. I feel that this is one area, together with many other areas, in which economy cuts should not have been made by the Government.

From memory, more than $8m was withdrawn from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and that is probably one of the reasons why it has cut out this regional news service. It may well be that regional news services have been cut out in a number of areas in Australia and that the people are being deprived of a service they have been receiving over a number of years. I make this plea to the Minister. In the interests of the people who have been in the habit of using this regional news service please give urgent consideration to its reinstatement, because these people deserve the service they have been getting. When one adds this action to the withdrawal of many other services by the present Government from the people, one begins to realise the massive number of services which have been withdrawn and to which the Australian people are entitled. I again ask the Minister to give this case, about which the Acting Town Clerk saw fit to write to me on behalf of his Council, every consideration and to see whether this service can be restored for the people in the Elizabeth area.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-On behalf of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) I want to respond briefly to the matters raised by Senator Mulvihill. I shall refer to one or two things which are of concern to the honourable senator. I refer firstly to the arrangements between the States and Commonwealth immigration offices. I know that the honourable senator was concerned about the statement made in a Press release issued following the conference of Ministers on 12 April. I make it clear that any moves which were made were made to simplify and to avoid duplication. Certainly it would not be expected that they would cause delays or would unduly complicate the process of migration to this country.

The decision to involve State governments in migration from Britain was made in 1946 by the then Australian Labor Party Government and that decision was to make the State authorities responsible for receiving and assessing personal and group nominations in respect of United Kingdom citizens resident in Britain. In addition the States assumed responsibility for the reception and after care of these nominees. Until January 1975 United Kingdom citizens of European descent did not require authority to enter Australia. Therefore there was no question of their requiring nominations for unassisted entry.

With the extension of the visa requirements to all British migrants at the beginning of 1975 it became necessary to institute procedures for the receipt and processing of such nominations. It would have been particularly confusing to nominators in Australia if responsibility for receiving nominations in respect of United Kingdom citizens in Britain was divided between the Commonwealth, responsible for the unassisted, and the States, responsible for the assisted. The assigning of the responsibility for both assisted and unassisted to the States therefore results in a simpler arrangement and is less likely to confuse the prospective nominators. It should be pointed out that each State government, except the Government of Tasmania, maintains a State reception centre to provide accommodation on arrival for nominees dealt with by State authorities. The assignment of responsibility for unassisted British migration to the States will make those facilities available to such nominees. The States have agents-general in London and their offices have detailed information on prospects and conditions in relation to their respective States. They are thus well equipped to provide specialist counselling to British migrants. The move which was instituted on 12 April is consistent with the Government’s policy to encourage the involvement of the States in activities where they are able to make a valuable contribution.

So, in summary, senator, the decision can be said to have both avoided a potentially confusing division of responsibility between Commonwealth and State immigration authorities and to have extended to nominated British unassisted migrants counselling facilities in Britain and reception services in Australia which might not otherwise have been available to them.

I will bring to the attention of the Minister for Immigration the matters of urgency raised by the honourable senator with regard to Rugby League and Soccer clubs. I hope that what I have outlined as the procedure for assisted and unassisted British migrants will -

Senator Mulvihill:

– But will State officials accept a Federal member ringing up? Do you think they will give us some accessibility and reception?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Yes. This is a matter of co-operation between State governments and the Federal government. Where State government is able to provide the service, that service should be available to all the migrants who otherwise would not have had that service given to them. The matter concerning X-rays is known by the Minister to be of concern to the honourable senator. It is the subject of examination at present. I will see whether I can expedite the report following that examination to overcome the difficulties which have been outlined. With regard to Western Australia, I am unaware of the matter that has been raised, but I will refer it to the Minister.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Will what the Minister said in relation to Britain apply also to those coming from Northern Ireland and southern Ireland?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I would hope so. But I will check that point and have the Minister’s decision given to the honourable senator without further delay.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will not delay the Senate at length. May I refer to 2 speeches tonight, one by Senator Martin on Queensland radio stations and the other by Senator McLaren regarding some correspondence from the Town Clerk of the city of Elizabeth. If I can be ungallant, may I deal with the latter first, and briefly? The Town Clerk alleges that the reason for the cessation of the Adelaide Metropolitan Regional News Service was, to quote Senator McLaren, ‘the austerity measures of the Commonwealth Government’. We have the benefit of the correspondence of the Town Clerk to the general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission but we are without his reply. Therefore, we do not know at this point the details.

I say, and say emphatically, that the statement reiterated tonight by Senator McLaren that the Commonwealth Government has cut $8m from the Budget of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is totally incorrect. The fact of the matter is this: The Australian Broadcasting Commission sought to gain an additional supplementary budget of some $7.3m. It failed to get that amount. The Budget of the Australian Broadcasting Commission was cut by, I think, some $1.2m. That was the cut. As to whether the so-called cut related to the decision of the ABC to cease the regional news service in its Adelaide metropolitan service is a matter to be ascertained from the Commission. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is an autonomous body. It makes its own decisions within its own budget. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) in another place to the statement. I will invite him to contact the ABC and to obtain a factual reply including, I hope, the response of the General Manager of the ABC to the Town Clerk of Elizabeth.

Senator Martin was good enough earlier to indicate to me that she would raise some matters concerning 2 radio stations operating from a shared mast from St Helena Island. There are some basic facts of information that I have received and there are some inquiries that I must pursue. Basically I am told that, as she said, in May 1975 the Australian Broadcasting Control Board after considering all the aspects involved approved a joint application submitted to it by radio stations 4KQ and 4IP to operate from a common transmitting site situated in an area on St Helena Island leased for the use of the stations. The transfer of the stations from their then existing sites, namely in a Brisbane suburb in the case of 4KQ and 1 8 miles west of Brisbane in relation to 4IP, was approved on the following conditions that I will set out. First, the primary service areas of the stations were not to extend north beyond Caloundra and, additionally, for Station 4IP, the station was to continue to provide a satsofactory signal to Ipswich, the area it originally had been established to serve. Station 4IP commenced operation on 2 1 September and Station 4KQ on 8 October. I understand that prior to these approvals there had been discussions with Brisbane commercial stations with the thought of increasing the operating power of the commercial stations to 5000 watts.

I understand that the honourable senator raised a number of questions to which obviously I would not have answers and for which answers ought to be sought. Her questions relate to her assertion that the altered site for transmission of signal for the 2 stations, together with their altered power, has altered their relative penetration pattern for areas in general and, of course, their competitive advantage with other stations in a coverage. These things are matters which need to be tested and the facts discovered. We would want to know, for example, as the honourable senator has suggested, whether there has been a substantial increase in signal strength into the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast areas and whether this has an adverse effect on other stations. We want to know whether it will result in more extensive coverage than that of other Brisbane commercial stations. These matters need to be tested against the background reasons why the Australian Broadcasting Control Board made its original decision. The Board is a statutory body. I will direct the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the text of the Hansard report of this debate. I will invite him to pursue the matter and investigate the points made by the honourable senator and then give her a report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.18 p.m.

page 1296

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Citizenship (Question No. 24)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Minister considered a change in the format of the existing application form for citizenship which would provide a place for the names of children of applicants born outside Australia; if so, would it facilitate the issue of evidentiary certificates for such children.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

The existing application form for the grant of citizenship was designed with brevity and simplicity in mind and with the object of obtaining additional essential information including the details of children at interview. There would be some advantages from the management side if applicants had to specify in their applications the names of children under sixteen years they wished to have included in their certificates of citizenship but this would not have relevancy to the facility with which evidentiary certificates for such children are at present issued. These certificates, more correctly designated Declaratory Certificates of Citizenship, are available on request.

Drugs: Chlormethiazole (Question No. 47)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a letter appearing on page 725 of the Medical Journal of Australia of 1 November 1975, highlighting some of the addictive dangers of the drug chlormethiazole.
  2. What restrictions exist on the use and prescribing of chlormethiazole and what information has been given to medical practitioners to alert them to the problem which it might represent.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Chlormethiazole is available only on prescription and as a Pharmaceutical Benefit is restricted to ‘Hospital only’ use. The Department of Health has not cautioned medical practitioners on the addictive potential of the drug which is not widely used in Australia. However, my Department is currently examining the product information distributed by the manufacturers with a view to including a cautionary statement on the dangers of developing barbiturate type dependency with chlormethiazole.

Haemophilia (Question No. 49)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Does about half the plasma received from all donors attending the Red Cross’s main collecting Centre in Sydney go into the production of clotting factors for haemophilia.
  2. Has research into increasing the potency of preparations of cryoprecipitate for use in haemophilic patients been done in the Blood Bank of the Red Cross in Sydney by Dr Joel Margolis; if so, is Dr Margolis supported only by payment as a sessional medical officer.
  3. Have his techniques already been put into operation in the Sydney Blood Bank and the Brisbane Blood Bank and are they now being introduced into Melbourne’s Blood Bank.
  4. What benefit is the Nation likely to receive from these advances which will increase the potency of products available for the treatment of haemophilia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1) The New South Wales Blood Transfusion Service has confirmed that about half the plasma of all donors attending the Red Cross Central Blood Bank in Sydney is used for the production of clotting factors for the treatment of haemophilia.
  2. Yes.
  3. Dr Margolis ‘techniques have aready been put into operation in the Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne Blood Banks.
  4. The benefit likely to the nation as a result of these advances is that there should be a significant increase in the amount of factor VIII available for the treatment of haemophiliacs at considerably less cost than would be the case if the additional units of activity were provided by cryoprecipitate produced by the standard technique, or by AHF Concentrate.

Haemophilia (Question No. 50)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Is cryoprecipitate prepared from blood plasma by conventional methods for treatment of haemophilia, rich in fibrinogen; if so, does this limit its use in patients who may require large amounts of the product.
  2. What research and development programmes are under way funded by the Federal Government to reduce the content of fibrinogen in cryoprecipitate.
  3. Have new research developments occurred recently in the laboratories of the Red Cross Blood Banks which will significantly improve the yield of cryoprecipitate from blood plasma by a factor of approximately two times; if so does this represent a potential two-fold increase in the production of anti-haemophilic factors, especially if greater emphasis is given to the use of cryoprecipitate in the treatment of haemophilia.
  4. What information does the Government have about the production and availability of freeze dried cryoprecipitate for the treatment of haemophilia and what plans does it have to support research and development to make a convenient product available, especially if freeze drying removes fibrinogen from the final product.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Cryoprecipitate prepared from blood plasma by conventional methods is rich in fibrinogen in that it contains approximately 50 per cent of that present in the starting plasma. Where very high doses of cryoprecipitate have been given, fibrinogen levels in the patient s plasma have been observed to rise to excessive levels, but this only rarely has been a limiting factor in therapy. With the lesser volume required by use of cryoprecipitate two to three times increased in potency, the amount of fibrinogen injected will be proportionately less.
  2. There are no research and development programs to reduce the content of fibrinogen in cryoprecipitate being funded by the Federal Government.
  3. Recent research developments are expected to improve the yield of factor VIII in cryoprecipitate approximately two-fold. This represents a potential two-fold increase in the availability of antihaemophilic factor when cryoprecipitate is used in treatment.
  4. Methods of producing freeze-dried cryoprecipitate are currently being investigated in the N.S.W. Blood Transfusion Service. Discussions have been held concerning the feasibility of freeze-drying cryoprecipitate by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories’ fractionation plant. Freezedrying does not remove fibrinogen from the final product.

Trade Practices Commission (Question No. 59)

Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) Have any actions been taken by the Trade Practices Commission under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974; if so, will the Attorney-General detail the outcome of such actions.
  2. How many complaints have been received by the Trade Practices Commission and what is the nature of the complaints received by the Commission in Western Australia.
  3. Is a legal officer attached to the Commission in Western Australia or does the Commission act on advice from the Crown Law Department in that State.
  4. Have there been any prosecutions under the Trade Practices Act in Western Australia.
  5. If the answer to (4) is in the negative, or there have only been few prosecutions, has the Crown Law Department advised the Commission not to prosecute unless it can be assured of winning a case.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) No action has yet been taken by the Trade Practices Commission in the Australian Industrial Court for alleged contraventions of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974-75.
  2. There have been 1206 complaints received by the Western Australian office of the Trade Practices Commission between the date of commencement of the Act, 1 October 1974, and 29 February 1976. The following tables show the break-up of those complaints.
  1. There is no legal officer attached to the Commission in Western Australia. The Commission, if necessary, obtains advice from the Commonwealth Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office, Perth. The Crown Law Officer referred to in the question is a State Government Department which is not consulted on questions of Commonwealth law.
  2. No.
  3. Legal advice to the Trade Practices Commission on the question of possible prosecutions by the Trade Practices Commission under the Act is a matter for the Crown Solicitor and the Commission.

Silver Dollars (Question No. 64)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Has the Treasurer given consideration to minting a silver dollar, either annually or to commemorate special events.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Currency Act does not provide for the issue of a coin above the value of 50 cents and an amendment to that Act would be required to allow the issue of an Australian dollar coin. However, the general question of Australia’s coinage requirements, including the mixture of denominations of coins and notes on issue, is under continuous review, and in this context the honourable senator’s interest in the subject has been carefully noted.

Australia, like most developed countries, has produced very few commemorative coins. Those produced in Australia have generally been restricted to the commemoration of important historical events, the most recent being the 50 cent Captain Cook Commemorative Coin in 1970. These commemorative coins were all equivalent to the highest value coin currently on issue and were issued for general circulation. It is not proposed at this stage to depart from this general policy.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Question No. 73)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Did the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s liaison officer in Washington on 10 December 1975 send a cable to the Director-General of the organisation in Canberra.
  2. Did the cable seek explanations as requested by the Central Intelligence Agency of alleged statements made by the then Australian Prime Minister.
  3. If such a cable was sent and received, how did it come to the knowledge of a journalist, Mr Brian Toohey, who published what was claimed to be the contents of the cable.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. to (3) This Government and its predecessors have adhered to the policy established by Prime Minister Chifley in 1949 that details of the operation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation are not disclosed.

Death of Paula Sweet (Question No. 74)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

What has been done by the Government to rectify problems disclosed in the report of two senior police officials who

conducted an inquiry into the dismissal of charges laid against two Aboriginals from Papunya for allegedly having murdered Paula Sweet.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have examined the report made by the two Australian Capital Territory police officers who conducted an inquiry into the circumstances in which certain charges arising out of the death of Paula Sweet were dismissed by the Northern Territory Supreme Court on 9 September 1975. Charges were laid against six Aboriginals from Papunya, four of whom pleaded guilty to charges of assault with intent to rape. The other two were charged with murder and assault with intent to rape. It was the dismissal of these charges that led to the inquiry.

I note that the recommendations made by the officers, in the main, relate to police investigations procedures and, accordingly, I have written to the Minister for the Northern Territory, who is responsible for the Northern Territory Police Force, commending the report to his attention with a view to implementing the recommended changes in police investigation procedures, particularly in those cases where Aboriginals are involved.

Royal Flying Doctor Service (Question No. 88)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. What funds has the Royal Flying Doctor Service received from the Australian Government for each financial year from and including the financial year 1 970-7 1 .
  2. For each of these years, what percentage of the funds provided by the Australian Government was in (a) direct grants, and (b) subsidy.
  3. Will funding for the Royal Flying Doctor Service be affected by the recent austerity measures announced by the Government.
  4. Is it envisaged that funding of the Royal Flying Doctor Service will be increased in the 1 976-77 Budget.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The basis of funding has been:

Capital assistance- S 1 for $ 1 in respect of an approved program of capital expenditure.

Operating assistance- A fixed contribution towards the operating costs of the Service.

Special capital assistance- 100 per cent funding of the conversion of radio base stations to single sideband operation.

Family Planning assistance- A fixed grant for a pilot scheme attaching family planning educators to RFDS bases.

All funds are provided through the Department of Health to the RFDS and are direct grants.

  1. There is a further year of an approved grant program covering the triennium 1 974-77 still to run.
  2. A submission from the RFDS seeking an increase in funding for 1976-77 will receive consideration in the Budget context.

School Dental Service (Question No. 102)

Senator Jessop:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the total expenditure, both capital and running costs, for the school dental service, State by State, for the year 1974-75.
  2. What is the proposed expenditure for 1 975-76.
  3. What proportion of these funds are specifically allocated to provide dental care in areas not served by existing private dentists.
  4. What proportion of these funds are used to provide dental care for the handicapped, institutionalised or other necessitous groups in the community.
  5. Is any independent advisory body consulted in the development of the school dental service.
  6. What steps are taken to avoid duplication of dental services to prevent wastage of public monies.
  7. Does the Minister intend to make more funds available to the States for the school dental services to extend treatment for secondary school children, or has any consideration been given to using private dentists as is the practice in New Zealand.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Funds have not been specifically allocated to provide dental care in areas not serviced by existing private dentists. The initial objective of the School Dental Service is to offer free dental care to all primary school children, including those in areas where there are no private dental practitioners.
  2. Funds for the School Dental Service are provided only for the provision of dental care to eligible school children. Within this framework, emphasis is placed on providing dental care in areas of greatest need. At this early stage of the scheme, specific information is not available as to the proportion of funds used to provide dental care for the handicapped, institutionalised or other necessitous groups in the community.
  3. Yes. The Australian Dental Services Advisory Council provides advice to me through the Director-General of Health, on the development of the School Dental Service. The Council was established to facilitate the most effective development and co-ordination of the School Dental Service. Membership comprises representatives of the Commonwealth Government, State and Territorial Health authorities, and the Australian Dental Association.
  4. In the development of the School Dental Service consideration is given, primarily on a State level, to other dental services in the area to avoid unnecessary duplication and to integrate services where it is feasible. Consideration is also being given to involving private dental practitioners in the work of the School Dental Service.

It is emphasised that there is an acute shortage of dental manpower in Australia as was highlighted by a recent study carried out by the Universities Commission in collaboration with the Department of Health and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Because of this shortage of dental manpower, there are many areas which either do not have a private dentist or have insufficient dentists to meet the community’s needs. The dental health of children suffers accordingly so that, in this situation, the School Dental Service has a particularly important role.

  1. As the initial objective of the Scheme is to offer free dental treatment to all primary school children, and as it will be some years before this group is covered, arrangements for the treatment of secondary school children have not been developed. However, the role of the private practitioner in the treatment of secondary school children will certainly be considered.

Medibank (Question No. 153)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) What date has been set for the completion of the inquiry into Medibank chaired by Mr Austin Holmes.
  2. When does the Government expect to receive the final report.
  3. Have any interim reports been received to date.
  4. Will the Minister table the final report and recommendations of the Holmes Committee in the Parliament, together with any interim reports that may have been received, so that they may undergo public examination and criticism prior to the formulation of the 1976-77 Budget.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Committee is working towards a completion date of 3 1 May 1 976 and I am confident it will meet or anticipate that date.
  2. See(l).
  3. There have been progress reports and continuing discussions with the Committee.
  4. A decision has not yet been made as to whether or not the report and recommendations of the Medibank Review Committee will be tabled.

Public Service: Department of Labor and Immigration Staff (Question No. 158)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the staff establishment of the Department of Labor and Immigration at 1 1 November 1975.
  2. What proportion of this establishment was involved in work designated as immigration duties at 1 1 November 1975.
  3. What were the numbers and classifications of the Department’s staff designated or performing duties of a migrant welfare nature in each State.
  4. What staff ceilings have been set for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for 30 June 1 976.
  5. Has the Department submitted any proposal to the Public Service Board for the classification and/or appointment of staff in line with the promise in the GovernorGeneral’s speech to appoint bi-lingual staff in Government departments; if so, what classification level, salary range, and qualifications are envisaged for these positions.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. At 11 November 1975, Immigration Group Establishment was 1562, comprising Central Office 560, State Offices including administrative areas 773 and Overseas 229.
  2. In February 1975 all positions provided for post arrival migrant welfare activities were abolished and functional responsibility given to the Department of Social Security.

The new Department is in the process of formulating an establishment to cover its responsibilities for ethnic affairs.

  1. Proposals are soon to be submitted to the Public Service Board for 18 positions for translating and interpreting requirements in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. Currently the classifications for Translators and Interpreters are Clerks Class 4 and Clerks Class 1, respectively. The level of classification for this kind of work is at present under review by the Public Service Board.

Applications for Assistance Under Childhood Services Program (Question No. 186)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Child Care Matters, upon notice:

  1. What applications, if any, were received by the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission for service project funding in the Rockdale, Kogarah, Hurstville and Sutherland areas of Sydney.
  2. What assistance by way of service funding projects in these areas has been approved by the Minister to date.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I have been advised by the Office of the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission that assistance has been approved to organisations in the four areas of Sydney nominated by the honourable senator, as follows:

In addition to the above projects recurrent assistance has been provided towards salary costs of agreed staff in the preschools listed below.

The following additional applications were received and considered but financial assistance has not been approved for a variety of reasons including priority of need and availability of funds.

Water Pollution (Question No. 191)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

What role does the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development play in water pollution monitoring.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

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

The Department’s role in water pollution monitoring covers the:

Provision of financial assistance to the States for water pollution monitoring projects deemed of national significance and which relate to pollution by sewage.

b ) Inclusion, when required, of monitoring conditions to Permits issued for the dumping wastes at sea; and

Consideration is currently being given to what role the de- partment should undertake in relation to any proposed legis- l ation for the protection of the marine environment.

Public Service: Department of National Resources (Question No. 193)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Department of National Resources for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 192 which appeared in Senate Hansard on 30 March, 1976, page 892.

Public Service: Department of Overseas Trade (Question No. 194)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Department of Overseas Trade for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

On 30 March 1976 on page 892, Hansard recorded the Prime Minister’s reply to the above question asked of him by the honourable senator.

Expenditure by my Department is also recorded under the headings as set out in the Appropriation Acts and further details are available in the Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure. I am not prepared to authorise the time and expenditure that would be involved in dissecting all departmental expenditure on the basis requested.

If the honourable senator seeks information related to a particular Government program or area of expenditure, I shall be pleased to provide him with whatever figures are reasonably available.

Public Service: Department of the Treasury (Question No. 195)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Department of the Treasury tor the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Senate Question No. 192 (Hansard, 30 March 1976, page 892).

Public Service: Department of Primary Industry (Question No. 196)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Department of Primary Industry for the financial years 1 973-74, 1 974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided by the Prime Minister in request of Senate Question No. 192 (Hansard, 30 March 1976, page 892).

Public Service: Department of Defence (Question No. 204)

Senator Wriedt:

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of Defence for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 192, which appeared in Hansard 30 March 1976 (page 892).

Public Service: Department of Social Security (Question No. 205)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Department of Social Security for the financial years 1 973-74, 1 974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Total expenditure by the Department of Social Security for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and the anticipated total expenditure in 1975-76 are set out below:

These totals include not only benefit and subsidy payments under legislation administered by the Depanment, but also payments in behalf of other Commonwealth Departments and Authorities and overseas administrations, administrative costs (excluding charges for rent, furniture, fittings, maintenance and repairs) and outlays on plant and equipment.

The total for 1974-75 includes $13,836,000 spent on behalf of the Health Insurance Commission, but the corresponding outlays are not included in the estimated expenditure for 1975-76 as the relevant appropriations were transferred during the year to the control of the Department of Health.

Because many payments are made in the Australian Capital Territory in respect of States and Territories and in some States in respect of other States or Territories, it is not practicable and would be misleading to present a dissection by States and Territories of total expenditures as recorded. However, the principal benefits outlays are not affected by those arrangements and details of these expenditures by States and Territories are set out below:

Attorney General’s Department (Question No. 206)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Attorney-General’s Department for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Attorney-General has furnished the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 192 furnished by the Prime Minister and published in Hansard of 30 March 1976 at page 892.

New Frigates: Pollution Control Devices (Question No. 252)

Senator Colston:

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

Are pollution control devices planned for the two new frigates on order from the United States for the Australian Navy; if so, will these devices completely eliminate pollution sources from the ships.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Pollution control devices are planned for installation on the guided missile frigates (FFG’s) on order from the United States. Whilst it is impossible to completely eliminate all pollution sources from the ships, all reasonable steps have been taken by the United States Navy to minimise pollution.

For example, devices have been designed to minimise pollution from smoke and the discharge of sewage and solid waste into harbour or coastal waters.

The new ships will use a light distillate fuel instead of heavy furnace fuel and in normal operations there will be no requirement to ballast fuel tanks. Arrangements for the treatment of bilge water from machinery spaces are designed to meet international standards.

Noise pollution has also been studied during the design and acoustic treatments are planned to reduce airborne noise to within acceptable limits.

Oil Reserves Development (Question No. 281)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is the Treasury studying a scheme designed to inject about $300 million at low interest rates into a consortium which is developing oil reserves on the North West Shelf.
  2. Has an official approach regarding this proposal been made to the Federal Government by the consortium.
  3. What companies are involved in the consortium.
  4. Has an interest rate on the loan between 5 per cent and 7 per cent been suggested.
  5. Is the Government seeking equity in the development of the North West Shelf reserves.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Not to my knowledge.
  3. The exploration permits covering the main discoveries on the North West Shelf are currently held by the WoodsideBurmah Consortium comprising-

Bocal Pty Ltd- 33W per cent, of which one half is held in trust for BP Petroleum Development Australia Pty Ltd.

Woodside Oil NL-33W per cent.

Shell Development (Australia) Pty Ltd- 33W per cent, of which one half is held in trust for California Asiatic Oil Co.

Bocal Pty Ltd and Woodside Oil NL are both subsidiaries of Woodside-Burmah Oil NL which thus has a 50 per cent interest in the permits.

  1. See answers to ( 1 ) and (2) above.
  2. No.

East Timor: Death of Australian Newsmen, October 1975 (Question No. 282)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen comments by Mr Rex Syddell, a former Australian resident of East Timor, who alleges that FRETILIN troops killed five Australian newsmen at Balibo in October 1975.
  2. Is the Minister also aware of claims by a former Australian Consul in Dili, Mr James Dunn, that the five newsmen were killed by Indonesian forces.
  3. Has the Minister received any additional information since his last official statement on this matter which will shed light on these two conflicting claims.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Government has no additional information which would enable it to announce definitive conclusions about the precise manner or circumstances in which the newsmen met their deaths. For the information of the honourable senator I propose to table both a copy of a letter sent to the President of the Australian Journalists’ Association on 5 April and a paper prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs which together set out in the fullest possible manner what the Government knows about the tragic events which took place at Balibo in October 1 975.

OBSERVATIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE VICTORIA BRANCH OF THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNALISTS’ ASSOCIATION

Protection of Australian citizens

The Department of Foreign Affairs has never at any time suggested that simply because the five newsmen had travelled into areas where the Australian Government could not afford them protection, the Department need no longer concern itself with them. It is true that they and all persons travelling to East Timor at the time were warned that they were proceeding to a dangerous area and that there could be no guarantee of assistance or protection from the Government. It would have been irresponsible of the Department not to have pointed this out. In the event, the Department was able to evacuate Australian citizens from Dili in December (and, earlier, from Dili, Baucau and Same at the end of August) but it was clearly not able to assist in areas as remote from Dili, and as close to the fighting, as Balibo.

Two of the five newsmen were, of course, not Australian citizens and so, strictly, their protection abroad was not the primary responsibility of the Australian Government. Nevertheless the Department was happy- and indeed considered itself obliged- to do what it could to ascertain the facts in regard to all five men and to keep their families informed.

Lopes da Cruz: Kompas report

The Department did not ignore or minimise the importance of the report in the Jakarta daily, Kompas quoting the UDT leader, Lopes da Cruz, as having seen the bodies of four Europeans at Balibo. The next day, on 2 1 October, Mr Johnson, a member of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, left for Kupang from where he sent a letter to da Cruz inquiring about the missing journalists and referring in this regard to the Kompas report. The embassy in Jakarta also instituted immediate inquiries with the Indonesian Government regarding the Kompas report. Da Cruz subsequently wrote to Mr Johnson denying he had given the reported interview to Kompas.

Radio Kupang broadcasts

It is also incorrect to suggest that the Department has failed to follow up reports (some of which were traced to Mr Ramos Horta) of broadcasts over Radio Kupang concerning the journalists. Indeed, one of the AJA’s own members, Mr Gerald Stone, News Director of Channel Nine in Sydney, passed the Department two tapes in Tetum said to be part of the Radio Kupang broadcast. The tapes were listened to by a Tetum-speaking Australian official. Those sections of the tapes which were audible were indeed repugnantly-worded, though they could in fact be taken as giving some verification of the UDT-APODETI account that the newsmen were killed during a mortar attack and not shot as alleged by Mr Ramos Horta. The tapes did not identify the broadcaster as Lopes da Cruz and, as the AJA states, da Cruz later denied making the broadcasts. The head of Radio Kupang has also denied broadcasting such reports. These denials have been repeated (in response to our inquiries) by senior Government officials in Jakarta. The AJA states that it has in its possession a statement, presumably a further transcript, monitored from Radio Kupang. We should of course be glad to receive a copy of that statement.

Purported eye-witness accounts

The Department took note of the account given by Mr Guido do Santos and published in Australian newspapers at the end of October. It is true that Mr Guido do Santos was not interviewed by an Australian official. The reason was that, in accordance with the policy being pursued by the then Government in regard to dealings with the FRETILIN authorities in Dili, there was no Australian official presence in Timor. For the same reason, the then Government was only prepared to authorise a brief visit by the departmental officer, Mr Starey, to Dili on 17 October. It was of course not until some days later that reports began to filter through that the newsmen might have been killed.

According to Mr Rex Syddell, Santos, the FRETILIN eyewitness interviewed by Ms Joliffe on 27 October, has subsequently repudiated his story and now claims to have been paid’ to give his previous account. There is of course no verification of this allegation. 10 November Sydney Morning Herald story by Roger East

According to the account published by Mr Roger East, which recounted information provided by three FRETILIN militiamen, one of the newsmen was shot while filming the attack on Balibo. The other four were reportedly captured by the attacking forces and were last seen being lined up along the wall of a house. According to the militiamen, as they were crawling away they heard a burst of automatic fire and then silence.

On 11 November, that is the day after publication of East’s report in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Department contacted the International Red Cross in Geneva to ask whether they would arrange for their representative in Dili to interview the militiamen concerned. Efforts were made by the ICRC to locate the militiamen but were not successful; in response to our inquiries we were told by the ICRC on 26 November that the men had returned to the border areas but that the FRETILIN authorities in Dili were being asked to assist the ICRC to locate the militiamen. In the event, the ICRC team was evacuated from Dili on 6 December without having been able to interview the militiamen.

Ramos Horta

In a press interview in Canberra on 27 October, Mr Ramos Horta said that he had been with the newsmen the day before the attack on Balibo, that the newsmen used to stay in the house opposite one shown in photographs appearing in the Indonesian press, and that information from FRETILIN spies’ in the area indicated that the newsmen were captured, machine-gunned, taken to the house in the photograph, and burned. Mr Horta, however, said that he had been in Balibo on 1 1 October and that the attack took place on 12 October (in fact the attack took place on 16 October). The Department in discussions with Mr Horta on 28 October sought further information, but found that he could add nothing to his public comments. He said simply that he believed the journalists had been shot, that he had met them at Balibo, but had not himself been present at the time of the fighting. Mr Horta added nothing further in a meeting with Senator Willesee on 28 October.

Personal effects

The AJA poses the question why, if the five newsmen were incinerated, their personal effects including passports were not also burnt. This question was among those raised with the Indonesian authorities by the Embassy in Jakarta. The reply was that the items had apparently been in a container blown clear of the house by the mortar explosions. The Department finds this explanation open to question and in fact has been seeking to pursue the matter further. The important point in terms of the AJA’s criticism, however, is that the question was put and the explanation given. The Department in short did pursue the matter.

Gary Cunningham

The body of Mr Gary Cunningham was allegedly found separately from the others; the AJA asks why. We can only refer to the account given in the letter from the Raja of Atsabe, which is the only account available of the location of the fifth body. The AJA suggests that the location of the fifth body proves that the Raja of Atsabe had fabricated the circumstances surrounding the death of the newsmen. We do not believe that this necessarily follows.

Australian Consul’s statutory declaration

The AJA is reading too much into the document signed by Mr Rutter. The purpose of the declaration was to fulfil certain legal requirements, at the request of the solicitors of the next of kin. The declaration was not meant to constitute a Government statement on the manner and circumstances in which the newsmen met their deaths. The Government indeed has deliberately refrained from going beyond stating that it believes the newsmen to be dead. But inquiries remain open, and indeed it is still our hope that when the situation in Timor has settled down we shall be able to send an Australian official there, and in particular to the Balibo area to carry out on-the-spot inquiries.

Lopes da Cruz documents

The suggestion that the Department was seeking to prevent publication of the full texts of documents signed by Mr Lopes da Cruz and other leaders of the pro-Indonesian parties has no basis. The texts have not been reproduced in full in the papers so far released simply because they had already been summarised elsewhere. But for the record, the full texts of these documents are appended.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Canberra

Dear Mr Crosland,

I am writing in response to your letter of 3 March on the subject of the five newsmen missing in East Timor.

I believe that the Australian Journalists’ Association has not been just in its criticism of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am disturbed that these allegations have been repeated publicly and indeed I have noted that a good deal of the Victorian Branch’s report was reproduced in the article written by Ms Jill Joliffe in the National Times of 8-13 March. I do not accept that the Department has been remiss either in its attempts to uncover the facts, or in failing to act with urgency or compassion.

To recapitalise the relevant events, the Department first learnt of reports that five Australian newsmen were missing following on the attack of Balibo on 17 October. Immediately, that is on 17 October, the Department instructed the Australian Embassy in Jakarta to institute urgent inquiries; at the same time the Department asked the International Red Cross to request its representatives in Timor to do likewise; and at the direction of Senator Willesee a departmental officer accompanied an ICRC flight into Dili to inquire about the newsmen. On 18 October the Australian Ambassador in Jakarta made representations about them to the Indonesian Foreign Minister. The subsequent record shows that representations were renewed virtually every day and at numerous and various levels. The former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, wrote to President Suharto himself on 7

November seeking his help in establishing positively the fate of the missing newsmen.

MrS. P. Crosland, Federal Secretary, Australian Journalists ‘ Association, 93 Clarence Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000

It had been hoped that an Australian official could visit the border areas and possibly Balibo to institute on-the-spot inquiries. An official from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta did in fact travel to Kupang, in Indonesian Timor, on 22 October, but was unable to proceed further. A second official was then sent to Kupang on 7 November, but again without any effective result. The possibility of trying to reach Balibo through Dili was considered but abandoned, as this would have involved an attempt to cross the lines of fire without protection into what was in effect a war zone.

Despite persistent inquiries, it was not until 12 November that the Government received through Indonesian channels firm evidence that the five men were killed during the attack on Balibo. As you will be aware, this evidence included documents, personal effects and human remains. The Government was also passed a letter from the Raja of Atsabe, a leader of the Apodeti party, describing where the bodies of the newsmen were found.

It was on the basis of this information that as Minister for Foreign Affairs in the caretaker government I issued a statement in Canberra on 1 3 November (a copy of which has previously been forwarded to you) stating that the Government had concluded that there was now no hope that any of the newsmen might have survived the fighting at Balibo. We have received no further information which would lead us to vary this assessment.

Your letter suggests that the Department of Foreign Affairs sought its information from only one side in the conflict. This is not the case. Mr Ramos Horta was asked for his account of the deaths of the newsmen when he called on the Department on 28 October. Ms Joliffe has also given her account to the Department. If in the documents so far released the Department has focussed on what has been said by the anti-Fretilin forces, this is because it was they who carried out the attack on Balibo.

As to the claims of the several reported eyewitnesses, it is true that they have not been interviewed by Australian officials. The absence of an official Australian consular or diplomatic presence in Dili led to the decision to seek the assistance of the International Red Cross (which has a general mandate for accounting for persons missing in war zones) in interviewing the persons concerned. In particular, the Department addressed a specific request to the ICRC that the three Fertilin militiamen, reported by Mr Roger East in the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 November as ‘eye witnesses’, should be interviewed on Australia’s behalf by the ICRC representative in Dili. The approach to the ICRC was made the day after the press story was published. But in the event the ICRC was unable to locate the militiamen concerned before the ICRC teams themselves were evacuated from Dili on 6 December.

The Government is well aware that the accounts emanating from pro and anti-FRETILIN sources differ as to the circumstances in which the newsmen met their deaths. The letter sent by the Raja of Atsabe is one account. There have been others, including most recently that of the Australian evacuee, Mr Rex Syddell, which have conflicted with that of the Raja of Atsabe. These other accounts, however, have also conflicted in certain respects with each other.

Our Embassy in Jakarta was recently able to question the Raja of Atsabe directly about the deaths of the newsmen. His oral account was in accord with the written account which he had given earlier, though in both cases he also affirmed that his version was based on what he had been told by his son, Thomas Gonsalves, who commanded the attack on Balibo.

On the same occasion our Embassy spoke to another PGET personality who claims to have been a FRETILIN field commander in the area at the time of the Balibo attack. He said that the journalists had been killed by mortar fire directed by FRETILIN troops who had withdrawn from Balibo on 15 October to a location between Balibo and Atabe. He said that a FRETILIN soldier, who had remained behind in Balibo after the others had left, had reported seeing the house sheltering the Australians hit during the FRETILIN mortar barrages; one of the Australians had been seen running away from the house. The Raja of Atsabe, commenting on this account said that no one knew exactly when and how the newsmen had died or which side had actually been responsible for their deaths. However, he asserted firmly that four bodies had been found in the house and one in the woods.

We have, of course, also sought to explore with Mr Syddell his account of the deaths of the newsmen. He cites a number of former FRETILIN soldiers as having received orders in Balibo to execute the Australian newsmen, and said that this was done on the eve of the attack on the town by pro-Indonesian forces. Mr Syddell told us that in due course he will produce affidavits, and indeed the former FRETILIN soldiers concerned, to support his account. We have explained to him the deep public concern in Australia about the deaths of the newsmen and that we therefore hope that, if he has evidence in his possession, he will produce it at the earliest opportunity.

You may also have seen an Antara report dated 16 March to the effect that an ex-FRETILIN commander has come forward with an account which accords in many respects with Mr Syddell ‘s own account. I have asked our Embassy in Jakarta to follow up this latest report.

I hope that you will understand from the foregoing why, given these various conflicting accounts, the Government has not felt able to announce definitive conclusions about the precise manner or circumstances in which the newsmen met their deaths. On the basis of the evidence now available the Government believes it is not possible to do so.

I should like to assure you, however, that this does not mean that the Government has closed the book on the matter. Our inquiries remain open and continue to be pursued. We shall be asking the International Red Cross to renew its inquiries at such time as it is able to return to Timor. It is also still our hope that when the situation in Timor has settled down we shall be able to send an Australian official to Balibo to initiate on-the-spot inquiries, and to conduct further interviews.

I appreciate that there remain many unanswered questions about the tragic events at Balibo, and it is perfectly understandable why the AJA should be seeking further clarifications. But I also have to reiterate that I believe that some of the specific allegations made by the AJA Victoria Branch are unjust to the Government and to the Department of Foreign Affairs. At my request the Department has prepared comments on each of the allegations. I am appending a copy of these comments to this letter.

If you wish to discuss this case further, officers of the Department would be happy to meet you or your representative at any mutually convenient time for this purpose. If it proves possible in future for us to send an officer to Balibo, it would be useful for the Department to be able to consult the Association beforehand, and I have in mind that we should do so.

Yours sincerely,

ANDREW PEACOCK

Air Cargo Regulations (Question No. 289)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Were the criticisms made, in the Age on 12 March 1976, by Captain Joe Salfass, a member of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots Technical Council, that existing air cargo regulations in Australia are inadequate and that hundreds if not thousands of violations go undetected each year.
  2. What steps are currently taken by the Department of Transport to police air freight safety requirements.
  3. How many prosecutions have been instigated each year since 1966 for offences against air freight safety regulations.
  4. What steps, if any, are being taken to make the regulations and the policing of them more stringent.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, an article containing such criticism was carried in the Age.

The article somewhat over-dramatised the situation when account is taken of the record in Australian operations.

Internationally accepted regulations, called the ‘ “IATA” Restricted Article Regulations’, control the transportation by air, of over 2000 different articles, all requiring special precautions and safeguards. They include precise instructions as to the packaging, labelling and quantities of goods permitted to be carried in passenger or cargo aircraft. They form part of the Australian requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials, thereby ensuring that all domestic freight is carried with the same level of safety as is required for international flights.

Without intent to minimise the potential hazards associated with carriage of restricted articles, it is relevant that the actual number of reported incidents, involving all Australian registered aircraft numbered 13 in the years 1971-75. To date, there has been one incident reported in the current year. These figures reflect a position from which it is difficult to visualise the ‘hundreds, if not thousands’ of violations which, the article alleges, go undetected each year.

  1. The high standard of operation prevailing in Australia, indicated by the very small numbers of reported incidents, has been verified by periodic checks and inspections carried out by the Department of Transport. A further country-wide assessment by Departmental officers was initiated last December and is still in progress. This assessment is covering all airline and airfreight carriers. Reports received to date indicate that the same satisfactory level of operation observed previously is being maintained.
  2. 3 ) There have been 9 prosecutions since 1 966- 1 in 1 968, 3 in 1972, 2 in 1973 and 3 in 1975.
  3. More stringent regulations and policing is not necessarily the best way of achieving further improvement. Checks have revealed that, normally, the area of concern lies not with the large manufacturer or shipper handling regular consignments of restricted articles, but with the occasional one-off shipper who is not fully aware of the hazards which could arise through careless handling or packaging of restricted goods. The major airlines are well aware of this and are making determined efforts to educate all persons who may be involved with the handling of restricted cargo. The Department has also been concerned with this aspect and is presently completing a project aimed at better defining a desired level of proficiency for persons dealing with restricted articles.

Consideration is also being given to making this level of proficiency subject to annual testing.

The development of this policy relating to training and education on the subject of restricted articles has been discussed on several occasions between Captain Salfass and Officers of the Department.

IATA have recently developed a training programme including an audiovisual slide presentation entitled “Safety Is the Key Word”. This programme will be assessed in the very near future and, together with the training requirements being developed by the Department, is expected to form a proper and sound basis for industry wide discussion.

This discussion will not only consider training and educational aspects, but will also consider policing requirements, together with all other avenues which could lead to a further improvement in overall safety.

Young Farmers Establishment Scheme (Question No. 303)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is the Government making arrangements for the establishment of a Young Farmers Establishment Scheme.
  2. What is the age definition of young farmer.
  3. Will the Scheme enable young persons who wish to become primary producers, to borrow finance from a publicauthority at a discounted rate.
  4. When will the Scheme be announced.
  5. What other schemes is the Government considering which will enable young Australians who wish to participate in other primary, secondary or tertiary industry enterprises to borrow finance from a public authority at a discounted rate.
Senator Cotton:
LP

-The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (4) The Government has undertaken to look for ways, through extension of rural reconstruction, by which approved applicants might lease farms for a period of ten years with an option to purchase at the end of that period.

There are many economic and administrative aspects of this proposal requiring consideration in detail before firm proposals can be developed or announcements made. Advice is currently being obtained from State Governments based on their experience in this field.

  1. and (3) These aspects will be looked at as part of the Government’s examination of this proposal.
  2. None specifically directed to Young Australians.

Quarantine: Interstate Movements of Primary Produce and Animals (Question No. 304)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What legislation and/or other administrative authority, at either State or Commonwealth level, enables the closing of States’ borders to stop the movement of primary produce and /or animals when an area within one State is declared a health risk, as with the recent outbreak of poultry disease in Victoria.
  2. How and where are such border closures maintained, (a) on the mainland (b) in respect of Tasmania.
  3. Who is responsible for their maintenance.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. The Quarantine Act 1908-1973 empowers the Governor-General, where he is satisfied that an epidemic caused by a quarantinable disease exists in a part of the Commonwealth or there is danger of such an epidemic existing, to declare the existence or likely existence of the disease in that pan of the Commonwealth.

Upon the making of such a proclamation the Act empowers the Minister, during the period the proclamation remains in force, to give such directions and take such action as he thinks necessary to control and eradicate the epidemic or remove the danger of the epidemic by quarantine measures or measures incidental to quarantine.

The Quarantine Act also empowers the GovernorGeneral, where he is of the opinion that it is necessary to prevent the spread of a quarantinable disease or a disease or pest affecting animals, to declare by proclamation any part of the Commonwealth to be a quarantine area, or prohibit by proclamation the removal of any animal or parts of animals from one part of the Commonwealth to another part of the Commonwealth.

Section 12a of the Act authorises the Minister to take such quarantine measures or measures incidental to quarantine as he thinks necessary or desirable for the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of any quarantinable disease where he is of the opinion that an emergency has arisen which requires the taking of action not authorised by the Act.

Similarly, legislation in the States and the Territories gives the power to prohibit the movement of primary produce and animals across State or Territory borders.

  1. (a) State legislation provides powers for the closure of borders when and where necessary. The closure may be maintained by ceasing to issue permits for the movement of livestock and products and where necessary by the use of border patrols or inspectors.

In the Australian Capital Territory it is an offence under the Stock Diseases Regulations to bring infected stock into the Territory. The Stock Disease Ordinance gives the power to detain, examine and destroy travelling stock in certain circumstances. The movement of all stock in the Territory is controlled by the Stock Ordinance and a permit must be obtained before any stock are moved from one part of the Territory to another.

In the Northern Territory the Administration has the power to prohibit the entry, or to place conditions on the entry, of stock, stock from particular areas, stock of a particular species or of meat or products from such stock.

These measures to prevent the movement of livestock and products can be maintained by the use of border patrols or inspectors.

  1. (b) In Tasmania traffic of livestock and animal products is similarly policed at air and sea ports by officers of the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture.
  2. State Departments of Agriculture are responsible for the maintenance of border closures. The Commonwealth maintains similar control in its Territories.

Governor-General’s Visit to Europe (Question No. 308)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the official reason for the recent overseas visit undertaken by the Governor-General.
  2. Was the Governor-General accompanied by his wife, an aide-de-camp, a valet, a maid and two security agents.
  3. Did the party stay at the Connaught Hotel in London at a total cost of $300 per day.
  4. Did the Governor-General leave one hotel in Paris and move to another in the same city; if he did, what was the cost for the Governor-General and his party in each hotel.
  5. Did the Governor-General tour Tuscany in a Mercedes Benz, and was the total cost of this tour borne by the Australian taxpayers.
  6. What was the total cost of the overseas visit by the Governor-General and his party.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

See my answer on 23 March 1976, (House of Representatives Hansard page 927).

Building Societies (Question No. 310)

Senator McAuliffe:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government have any powers to require the Reserve Bank to maintain a close check on the activities of building societies in view of the magnitude of investment in those societies; if so, has surveillance become necessary to protect the institutions, investors and borrowers.
  2. Does the Reserve Bank have any authority to inspect the operations of building societies, so as to ensure that they observe proper ratios between reserves and investment, in the same way that it enforces the rules governing banking operations.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Responsibility for maintaining surveillance of the activities of permanent building societies rests traditionally and currently with State Governments. The States have specific legislation concerning rights of borrowers and lenders and the stability of building societies, and have the administrative machinery necessary for the execution of their responsibilities.

The Reserve Bank’s powers under the Banking Act in relation to the supervision of banks’ operations and protection of depositors reflect its statutory responsibilities in this area. As stated above, similar statutory responsibilities with regard to building societies rest with State Governments.

The Reserve Bank does have responsibilities in relation to building societies and certain other financial institutions under the Financial Corporations Act. This Act is concerned, however, with economic management; it does not contain provisions relating to the stability of financial institutions or the protection of borrowers and lenders.

At the same dme, in view of the Government’s responsibilities for economic management, the Government monitors closely developments in the capital market and the financial sector generally. The Reserve Bank has an important role to play in this, as will the Advisory Committees established recently under the Financial Corporations Act. It should also be mentioned that the Government will shortly commence collecting detailed statistics on the activities of corporations covered by the Act.

Public Service: Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (Question No. 207)

Senator Wriedt:

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has asked me to refer you to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 192 and to indicate that that answer should be taken as the response also to Question No. 207.

Public Service: Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 211)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the reply provided by the Minister representing the Prime Minister to question number 192, Hansard, 30 March 1976, page 892.

Bombing Incidents (Question No. 228)

Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Attorney-General able to give details as to what stage the investigations into the bombing incidents involving the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke Petersen, the then caretaker Prime Minister, and the Governor-General in late 1 975 have reached.
  2. Have these investigations in fact been concluded; if so, what were the results.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Extensive inquiries have been made throughout Australia by Police Forces.

Inquiries pertaining to certain bomb components are still being made overseas.

  1. No.

Armed Services: Retention Rate (Question No. 229)

Senator Sibraa:

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

Will the Minister provide details of the rate of retention for all ranks of the Australian Armed Services for the years 1972 and 1975.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Set out in Table 1 are details of Other Ranks reengagement rate for each rank in the Defence Force in 1972 and 1 975. Re-engagement rate is the percentage actual reengagements of those due for re-engagement.

In Table 2 are details of officer wastage rates for each rank also for 1972 and 1975. Wastage rate for rank is the percentage of rank strength wasting from the Defence Force. Wastage includes age and early retirements, resignations, completion of short service commissions, terminations, medical retirements and death.

It should be noted that officers do not enlist for a specific period- except in cases of short service commissions.

Uranium Exploration (Question No. 231)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have tenders been called for a company to take over the exploration activities to which the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is committed to by its agreements with certain mining companies.
  2. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, and no tenderer does come forward to take over the Commission’s activities, how will it be effected.
  3. If there is a successful tender, what will happen to (a) the buildings and equipment at present in Alice Springs and Darwin, (b) the personnel currently employed by the Commission in the Northern Territory, and (c) the data at present being held by the Commission following its research over the years.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has invited offers from Australian interests for the purchase of its beneficial interest in a uranium exploration joint venture with certain companies in the Ngalia Basin in the Northern Territory.
  2. Consideration of this possibility is premature at this stage.
  3. This disposal of the AAEC’s interest in the joint venture will not directly affect the Commission’s present requirements for buildings, equipment and personnel in the Northern Territory, except that one Commission geologist now attached to the joint venture field teams will be transferred to other duties. The decision on what will happen to the data held by the Commission in respect of the Ngalia Basin exploration venture will depend on the nature of any agreement reached on the disposal of the Commission ‘s beneficial interest.

Roads: Improvement Schemes in Tasmania (Question No. 234)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1 ) Will the schemes for the improvement of rural arterial roads, urban arterial roads, rural local roads and urban local roads in Tasmania, announced in September 1975 by the then Minister, be continued.
  2. Will the Minister itemise all projects included in each scheme.
  3. If there is to be any curtailment of projects, will the Minister list those which are not to proceed immediately, and indicate a projected date for their recommencement.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. Details of all projects included in ;he approved program are provided below.
  3. The approval by the Minister for Transport of a project in these programs makes it eligible for the assistance which the Commonwealth Government is providing to the States for these roads under the Roads Grants Act, 1974. However, the question of whether or not a particular project is to proceed and the rate at which the work is to be carried out, is a matter for each State Government to determine in the light of available funds and its own priorities.

In addition to the above grants, the following Australian Government financed projects will be carried out in the electorate by the Public Works Department.

1975-76 URBAN ARTERIAL ROADS PROGRAM TASMANIA

DETAILS OF APPROVED PROJECTS BY ELECTORATES

Papua New Guinea: Discussions with World Bank (Question No. 241)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did a delegation from the World Bank recently visit Australia; if so, what was the composition of the delegation.
  2. Did the delegation’s mission include ascertaining from the Australian Government the level of financial and other aid Australia intends providing to Papua New Guinea this year; if so, what information was the delegation given.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A World Bank mission visited Papua New Guinea in January and February 1976 to evaluate Papua New Guinea’s economic situation and to assess its creditworthiness for World Bank loans. After leaving Papua New Guinea, the leader of the mission, Mr Baldwyn, and Miss Galenson, a World Bank Country Economist, visited Canberra on 16 February. The Bank’s Divisional Chief for the East Asia and Pacific Region, Mr Helmers, who had joined the mission for its first week, had also visited Canberra, on 4 February.
  2. Discussions between the visitors and Australian Government officials dealt with Australia’s relations with Papua New Guinea. Mr Baldwyn was informed that the Australian Government had still to take decisions on its longterm aid arrangements, but that Papua New Guinea should continue to have the highest priority in our aid program. He was also told that in financial year 1975-76 the budget provided for Papua New Guinea to receive $21 lm in aid out of a total allocation of $385m, but that the said figure for financial year 1976-77 had not, at that stage, been decided.

Appearance in Senate of Ministers from other Chamber (Question No. 246)

Senator Colston:

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the practice of requiring Ministers in the Senate to represent Ministers in the House of Representatives and to answer Questions Without Notice on their behalf leave much to be desired.
  2. Were proposals previously made in the Senate for Ministers from the House of Representatives to be invited to this Chamber, from time to time, to answer Questions Without Notice.
  3. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of adopting such a reform, at least on a trial basis.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. I am informed that no record can be found of such proposals having been raised in the Senate. If the honourable senator has such information I would be pleased if he would make it available.
  2. 1 will raise with the Prime Minister whether anything can reasonably be done to overcome the deficiencies of the present practice.

The Parliament: Research Officers (Question No. 247)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Senators and Members of the House of Representatives have availed themselves of the services of a Research Officer.
  2. How many of these Research Officers are (a) full-time and (b) part-time.
  3. Is the salary provided for Research Officers, particularly those working on a full-time basis, inconsistent with the duties required of them; if so, will the Minister inquire into the salary and conditions of Research Officers employed by Members of Parliament with a view to tying their salary to a recognised Public Service grading.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 55 Senators and 100 Members of the House of Representatives were employing Electorate (Research) Assistants as at 18 March 1976.
  2. (a) Electorate (Research) Assistants employed fulltime by

    1. Senators-52
    2. Members- 93
    1. Electorate (Research) Assistants employed part-time by

    2. Senators- 3
    3. Members- 7
  3. As I indicated in my statement to the Senate on 4 March 1976 I have asked the Remuneration Tribunal to determine or report on a number of matters relating to the entitlement of Senators and Members, including the provision of staff.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the matters raised by the honourable senator while the Remuneration Tribunal is currently reviewing, inter alia, entitlements of Members of Parliament to staff.

Medibank (Question No. 248)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen press reports of various submissions presented to the Medibank Review Committee by interested organisations.
  2. Has press coverage been particularly given to submissions from the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia and the Australian Council of Social Services.
  3. Were these submissions released to the press by the organisations themselves, or by the Committee.
  4. Will the Minister provide interested Senators and Members of the House of Representatives with copies of all submissions presented to the Committee.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am in no better position than the honourable senator to determine whether particular press coverage has been given to the submissions from the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia and the Australian Council of Social Services.
  3. The Medibank Review Committee has regarded the submissions made to it as confidential. It has not, therefore, made them available to the press. Any press coverage that has been given would have arisen from the organisations concerned making their submissions available to the press; the extent of any coverage would have been determined by the press.
  4. As the Medibank Review Committee has treated as confidential the submissions made to it, I cannot make them available as requested by the honourable senator. If the honourable senator wishes to see particular submissions I suggest he approach the organisations who made them.

Northern Territory Medical Staff (Question No. 315)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. What is the present situation in regard to the upgrading of salaries for medical staff in the Northern Territory.
  2. Has recruiting of professional staff been carried out this year; if so, with what result.
  3. How many vacancies for medical staff exist in the Northern Territory and in which centres.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Medical Officers Association have before the Public Service Arbitrator an application to vary their wage claims in their determination.

The claims have been referred to a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The hearing commenced on 30 March 1976.

  1. Yes. Results or recruitment, by category, are:
  1. Medical staff vacancies are as follows:

Darwin Hospital, 19 vacancies; Alice Springs Hospital, 2 vacancies; Gove Hospital, 2 vacancies; Southern Region Administration, 2 vacancies; Northern Region Administration, 4 vacancies.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Question No. 319)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to provide loans at concessional terms to developing countries.
  2. Will this be made possible by an interest subsidy fund to which nine countries have so far announced a willingness to contribute a combined amount of S 1 1 7m.
  3. Does the list of contributing countries include the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway and Canada.
  4. Will Australia be contributing to the fund; if so, how much will be contributed; if not, why not.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) recently established for one year an Intermediate Financing Facility, also known as the ‘Third Window’, to lend to its poorer member countries on terms intermediate between those of the IBRD and the latter ‘s soft funds affiliate, the International Development Association (IDA). This facility became operational on 23 December 1975 and a number of loans have already been approved.
  2. The Bank is able to make ‘Third Window’ loans on semi-concessional terms by means of an Interest Subsidy Fund to which 12 countries (including Australia) have agreed to contribute a combined amount of some $US130m to date and which is capable of supporting ‘Third Window’ loans of the order of $US600m. Other countries are considering contributions.
  3. Yes.
  4. Australia will contribute $A4m to the ‘Third Window’ Interest Subsidy Fund. Payment of Australia’s contribution will be made early in 1 976-77.

Housing Loans in the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 333)

Senator Jessop:

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

Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, and in view of the fact that the Government contemplates changes in the eligibility requirements for Commissioner for Housing loans in the Australian Capital Territory, assure all those persons who have purchased leases and who would previously have been eligible for such loans, that they will not now be bound by the present rule which requires that building commence within six months of the lease agreement coming into effect.

Senator Webster:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

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

All residential leases contain a covenant requiring building to be commenced within six months and this cannot be waived. However any lessee who is having difficulty in complying with this covenant because of uncertainty about the availablity of a Commissioner for Housing loan should apply to the Department of the Capital Territory for an extension of time.

I have asked the Department to give sympathetic consideration to any such requests. If any lessee subsequently finds that he is completely unable to proceed, then he is able to surrender the lease and is able to obtain a refund of the purchase price less a modest administration charge.

Monarto (Question No. 341)

Senator Messner:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

What Federal Government funds were provided to the Government of South Australia for the proposed Monarto development in each of the financial years since the inception of such grants up to, and including 1974-75, on (a) research, (b) land acquisition, and (c) administration of the Monarto Commission.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

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

Investment in ‘Old Sydney Town’ (Question 342)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government propose to continue with the large investment in the Old Sydney Town project near Gosford, New South Wales; if so, will the terms of the investment be the same as those outlined by the previous Government?
  2. Will the terms be different, if so, in what way?
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The question of continued Government investment in the Old Sydney Town project forms part of the Government’s consideration of all current and forward expenditure proposals. I am unable to give any indication at this time of what the Government’s decision will be.

Rural Reconstruction Assistance (Question No. 351)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs costed the major items contained in the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission’s Report on Rural Reconstruction Assistance; if so, will the Minister provide a detailed summary of the estimated cost of implementing each of the major recommendations of the Report.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No. The report of the Industries Assistance Commission on Rural Reconstruction has been released for comment by interested parties. Departments are currently considering the Commission’s recommendations on this matter.

Marine Waste (Question No. 356)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister read the British High Commission’s publication, Feature, of 18 March 1976, dealing with the introduction of a marine waste shredder to reduce pollution from ships ‘ sewerage.
  2. Will the Minister invoke the provisions of the Navigation Act, after consultation with the Minister for Transport, so as to ensure that all ships operating in Australian waters have such a device installed.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No, but my attention has been drawn to it.
  2. This device has been developed to assist compliance with the provisions of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The device satisfies only one of a number of complementary actions required by the Convention and in fact deals with solid refuse, not sewage.

The Convention is unlikely to come into force for some years but in the meantime the technical difficulties associated with the Convention’s implementation including both shipborne equipment and land-based facilities are being considered by the Department of Transport. Solutions to these difficulties are most likely to be found through the machinery of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative organisation which developed the Convention referred to earlier. The Department of Transport and my own Department represent Australia’s interests at all relevant meetings of this UN body.

I will bring this article to the attention of the Minister of Transport.

Aboriginal Land Claim (Question No. 357)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Has any progress been made to date on the land claims for the Aboriginal people on Victoria River Downs: if not, has consideration of this claim been deferred indefinitely.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Interim Land Commissioner, Mr Justice Ward, has completed his investigation into the Aboriginal land claim at Victoria River Downs. I expect to receive the Interim Land Commissioner’s recommendations on the claim in the near future.

Investment Allowance Policy (Question No. 367)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the $50m capital expenditure by the Swan Brewery Company Ltd on a new brewery at Canning Vale, Western Australia, qualify for the 40 per cent investment allowance and a taxation subsidy, at present tax rates, of $8. 5m.
  2. Did the Company announce a firm decision to build the brewery last October before the policy was introduced.
  3. Will other companies also reap windfall gains from investment decisions which pre-date the investment allowance policy.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1) lt has been the sound practice of many years not to divulge details of the private financial affairs of individual taxpayers. If it were the case that the whole of an investment program of $50m were eligible for the investment allowance at 40 per cent- and this could be established only on all the facts- then, at the present general company tax rate of 42.5 per cent, there would be a tax saving of $8. 5m, assuming of course that the company had sufficient income to absorb the full investment allowance deduction of $20m.
  2. and (3) I am not privy to the terms of any decision made by the company to which the honourable senator refers or to the degree of ‘firmness’ of any such decision. I suggest to him that a very real distinction can be, and needs to be, drawn between the taking of a decision, however firm’, by any company on its future investment intentions and the binding commitment under the contracts for the expenditure involved in the decision the timing of which governs eligibility for investment allowance tax deductions.

Official Engagements of the Governor-General (Question No. 369)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can the Prime Minister state categorically whether or not the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General F. G. Hassett, and the Vice-Chief of the General Staff, MajorGeneral A. L. MacDonald, were called to a conference at Yarralumla on 20 November 1 975.
  2. Did the persons referred to attend a conference, despite the fact that it was left out of the information regularly provided to the Press and does not appear in the record’.
  3. Does the Governor-General provide the Press with information and does he provide in the ‘record’ details of every person who visits him officially.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) I am informed that the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General F. G. Hassett, and the Vice-Chief of the General Staff, Major-General A. L. MacDonald, were not called to and did not attend any conference at Yarralumla on 20 November 1975. It follows, as indicated in my answer on 24 March 1976 (Hansard, page 773 ), that the Vice-Regal notes issued to the Press would not indicate that the officers attended the Governor-General.

Pharmacy Guild of Australia (Question No. 376)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Pharmacy Guild of Australia notified its members of a $ 1 00 levy to establish a $500,000 fund for the purpose of fighting the Government on national health issues.
  2. Is the Guild about to issue a High Court Writ to force the Government to arbitration on the issues in dispute following the ‘Scott Inquiry’ into Chemists’ Earnings, Costs and Profits.
  3. What action is the Government taking to fulfil its election promise of re-opening negotiations with the Guild and bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the ‘Scott Inquiry’.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There have been Press reports that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia is levying each of its members $100 for the purpose of establishing a research unit within its national secretariat, and that the Guild is considering the issue of a High Court writ because the former Government did not accept all the recommendations of the chairman of the ‘Scott Inquiry’.
  2. Negotiations have been re-opened with the Guild on the matter of chemists’ remuneration for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. I met with representatives of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia on 10-11 March 1976 and the issues are now under active consideration.

Darwin Port Facilities (Question No. 391)

Senator Robertson:

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

  1. 1 ) Are the port facilities in Darwin outmoded and in need of upgrading at the earliest possible date.
  2. Will the Minister investigate the possibility of widening the front of the wharf apron on berth 1 and 2 by at least 20 feet to facilitate the handling of cargo.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. and (2) A report by the Bureau of Transport Economics into the Darwin port facilities will be tabled shortly.

Belconnen Shopping Mall (Question No. 400)

Senator Knight:

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

Has the feasibility study completed by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority indicated that the Belconnen Shopping Mall project is economically and commercially viable; if so, is there now any problem in this respect preventing the Authority proceeding with this project; if not, what action is being taken to overcome the problems involved so that urgently needed shopping facilities can be provided in the Belconnen area as soon as possible.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The Canberra Commercial Development Authority is currently updating its viability studies and will submit them to me shortly.

This study must be completed and prove acceptable to me and my colleague the Treasurer before, among other things, an approach can be made to the Loan Council for approval to a borrowing program covering the total estimated cost of the Belconnen Mall, lt is also required in connection with the Treasurer’s consideration of the Authority’s application for approval to individual loans as they are negotiated.

Once Loan Council approval is given it would be the Authority’s responsibility to negotiate individual loans to arrange construction of the shopping mall.

Pharmacy Guild of Australia (Question No. 405)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Pharmacy Guild of Australia made a suggestion that the Department of Health establish an ombudsman or a properly constituted grievance committee under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in order that complaints may be thoroughly investigated.
  2. Does the Minister intend instituting a reform of this nature.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I am not aware of any representations from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia regarding the establishment of an ombudsman or a grievance committee under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Pharmacy Guild of Australia (Question No. 406)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Pharmacy Guild of Australia been waiting over two years for pre-printed Repeat Authorisation Forms: if so, what is the reason for the delay.
  2. When can their introduction be expected.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Health agreed to supply approved chemists with pre-printed Repeat Authorisation Forms but, due to staff limitations and the lack of funds to cover the additional costs, implementation has been deferred.
  2. The pre-printed forms will be introduced as soon as the necessary additional funds can be made available.

Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits (Question No. 408)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Will the Government implement the recommendations on pharmacy contained in the House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits released in May 1972.
  2. What would be the estimated cost t of implementing the recommendations.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits made forty-three recommendations some of which are directly related to pharmacy whilst others may be considered to have some indirect relationship. A number of these recommendations have been either wholly or partially implemented. If the honourable senator will specify the recommendations in which he is interested, I will supply further details regarding those recommendations.

National Compensation Insurance Industry Committee (Question No. 414)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the composition and aims of the National Compensation Insurance Industry Committee of 335 Flinders Lane, Melbourne.
  2. Is the Committee financed from policy-holders’ funds; if so, is there justification for the use of policy-holders’ funds in advertising campaigns waged against national compensation proposals in Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) As I announced on 8 March, my Department and I are conducting consultations with State Governments, private insurers, unions, employers, motorists’ and welfare organisations and the legal and medical professions in relation to the development of options for a national compensation program for Australia. In keeping with this policy, we have had discussions with the National Compensation Insurance Industry Committee.

I am advised that the Committee is a working committee of the Insurance Council of Australia. It is made up of representatives from member insurance companies. It represents the Australian non-life insurance industry in all matters relating to national compensation.

The Committee made submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs at the time the Senate Committee was examining the clauses of the National Compensation Bill 1974, which had been introduced into Parliament by the previous Government. The submissions referred to were directed towards the presentation of a national compensation plan as an alternative to the proposals of the former Government.

The Committee is not opposed to a national compensation scheme as such but it is opposed to one along the lines of that proposed by the previous Government which was of a universal nature, covering both injury and sickness, embracing the whole of the Australian population and involving extensive Commonwealth Government administration and excluding the ongoing involvement of the State Governments and the private insurance industry.

The Committee has informed me that it is financed by the Insurance Council of Australia which, in turn, is funded by levies on member companies. The Committee feels it is totally justified in spending money to warn policy holders of its member companies, and indeed all Australians, about what it regards as ‘the dangers inherent in bad legislation, such as the National Compensation Bill 1974’.

Prime Minister’s Travel to New Zealand (Question No. 417)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Prime Minister seen an article by Peter Costigan in the Melbourne Herald of 13 March 1976, in which it is claimed that the Prime Minister created security problems by insisting on travelling to New Zealand on a commercial aircraft.
  2. Were other passengers on the Qantas Airways Ltd’s aircraft taking Mr Fraser and his party to New Zealand seriously inconvenienced by the security precautions taken.
  3. Did the presence of a number of security guards on the flight create an air of tension for the other passengers.
  4. Has the Government received any complaints from the airline, or from any passengers, over this matter.
  5. Was a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft of No. 34 Squadron made ready for a flight to New Zealand on the date of Mr Fraser’s departure; if so, why was the Air Force’s aircraft not used for the trip instead of a commercial aircraft.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. No, but my attention has been drawn to it by this question.
  2. to (4) I am informed that passengers were not inconvenienced and that no ‘air of tension’ was created. No complaint has been received by the Government or by Qantas concerning my travel by scheduledflights to and from New Zealand, at considerably less cost than would have been the case if a Qantas charter flight or RAAF aircraft had been used.
  3. No.

Dr Coombs: Meetings with Torres Strait Islanders (Question No. 421)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has Dr Coombs met with any representatives of the Torres Strait Islanders in relation to the border dispute between Australia and Papua New Guinea; if so, when and where did the meetings take place, and with whom.
  2. ) What decisions, if any, were reached.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes; following are details of meetings since June 1973- 13 June 1973: Dr Coombs was present at a meeting between the Prime Minister and Islanders in Canberra (Council for Aboriginal Affairs and other Departments present as observers). 19-20 September 1973: Yam Island meeting between Islanders and coastal Papuans. Dr Coombs and two Queensland officials were present as observers. 29-30 May 1974: Daru Island Conference between Islanders and coastal Papuans. Dr Coombs and two Queensland officials were present as observers. 30 June 1975: Dr Coombs was present at a meeting between the Prime Minister and Islanders in Sydney (Permanent Heads of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and other officials present also as observers). 19-20 September 1975: Dr Coombs attended Conference of Torres Strait Island Chairmen on Thursday Island. 9 March 1976: Dr Coombs met Mr G. Mye who is the Chairman of the Conference of Torres Strait Chairmen of Advisory Councils, and NACC Member for Reserve Island area in Sydney. The meeting was arranged at Mr Mye’s request, through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. None.

Passports of Bird Smugglers (Question No. 42S)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What action has the Minister taken with regard to the persons involved in the New Zealand bird smuggling episode (vide answer to Senate Question No. 142) to ensure that their Australian passports are cancelled forthwith.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided me with the following answer

There are no grounds under the Passport Act to justify any action by me to take away the passports of the persons referred to in the honourable senator’s question, No. 425 on the Notice Paper. In this particular case, it should be noted the Australians concerned would not have needed passports for travel to New Zealand anyway.

Mr Maxmillian Wechsler (Question No. 436)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was a former Australian Security Intelligence Organisation agent, Mr Maxmillian Wechsler, deported from Singapore, if so, did the Australian Government inquire into the circumstances.
  2. Does the Government intend cancelling Mr Wechsler’s passport, as was done in the Srecko Rover case, if the Government accepts the action of the Singapore Government as correct.
  3. Has Mr Wechsler continued his travels in other parts of South-East Asia and has he had recourse to Australian diplomatic assistance on such visits.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department has no information to indicate that Mr Maxmillian Wechsler has been deported from Singapore.
  2. The question of cancellation of Mr Wechsler’s passport does not therefore arise.
  3. Mr Wechsler was last heard of in Bangkok last month when he was given consular assistance.

Australian National Gallery (Question No. 437)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the latest estimated completion date for the National Gallery.
  2. ) What is the latest estimated final cost of the Gallery.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. The latest estimated completion date for the National Gallery is December 1980.
  2. The estimated final cost based on price rises up to and including the recent 6.4 per cent wage increase is $25. 66m.

Income Tax Deduction for Rates (Question No. 444)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does section 1 59v of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1975 permit private rates and land taxes, up to a limit of $300 paid by the taxpayer in respect of a dwelling, flat or home unit used as the taxpayer’s sole or principal residence, to qualify for a rebate.
  2. Did a Mr John Marriott, Lecturer in Public Finance and Accounting at Latrobe University, in the Australian Municipal Journal of February 1976, claim that the real value of the present deduction limit is now inappropriate due to the effects of inflation.
  3. Will the Treasurer seriously consider Mr Marriott’s suggestion that the Australian Government index the $300 deduction limit.
  4. Alternatively, will the Treasurer agree to an immediate upward adjustment of the limit.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I have not seen the article in question but the same view has been put to me from a number of other quarters.
  3. and (4) Whether the form or quantum of a concession is appropriate or inappropriate, for whatever reason, must always, of course, be a matter of judgment, and there is no compelling reason why concessions should cover all the particular domestic or private expenditures which taxpayers incur. However, since the concession involves a cost to revenue, the question of its liberalisation raises issue of the kind normally considered in a budgetary context and the matter is, in fact, already listed for consideration when the 1976-77 Budget comes to be prepared.

Wool (Question No. 469)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Have low lambings since 1973 caused grave concern amongst graziers in central and northern Queensland; if so, will this have a serious effect on the volume of wool produced over the next few years.
  2. Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization carried out any research into this problem; if not, will the Minister urgently investigate whether funds can be made available to that Organization to enable it to assist the Queensland Department of Primary Industries to pinpoint the reasons for the low lambing.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes. The low lambing percentages that have occurred in central and north Queensland since 1 973 could reduce the volume of wool produced in this region over the next few years.
  2. No. CSIRO does not usually become involved in studying regional problems unless requested to do so by the appropriate State authority. CSIRO understands that the Queensland Department of Primary Industries intends to have one of its livestock officers visit the region to investigate the problem. Should the Department then seek the assistance of CSIRO, the Organization would be pleased to cooperate.

Wheat (Question No. 470)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has draft legislation been drawn up by the New South Wales Government under which wheat growers could be fined up to $100 for sowing, harvesting or selling a nonprescribed variety of grain.
  2. Have suggestions for similar penal provisions been made in other States.
  3. Is the Australian Wheat Board now seeking to control wheat acceptance without resorting to State legislation.
  4. Would these controls include a system of dockages on grain delivery.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. and (2) At the request of the Australian Agricultural Council the New South Wales Department of Agriculture has produced draft model legislation for possible adoption by all States, designed to control the varieties of cereal crops to be planted and to regulate the harvesting, delivery or disposal otherwise of non-registered wheat varieties.

I am informed that the draft, which contains penal sanctions, has been receiving the consideration of the several State authorities in consultation with the cereal industries.

  1. and (4) I am further informed that, mainly resulting from industry opposition to certain proposals contained in the draft legislation, representatives of the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation and the Australian Wheat Board are currently examining and developing a concept that the Board might be authorised to operate a dockage system with a view to discouraging the delivery of varieties undesirable in the market place. A prerequisite to the adoption of this proposal would be at least its endorsement by State governments and appropriate amendment of the wheat stabilisation legislation.

Taxation: Sugar Cane Farmers

Senator Cotton:
LP

– On 3 March 1976, Senator Bonner asked a question without notice concerning the impact of the primary producer averaging provisions on sugar cane farmers in Queensland. I undertook to refer the matter to the Treasurer who has provided the following answer:

The report to which the honourable senator refers had come to my notice.

The report was quite wrong in suggesting that this year the averaging provisions will result in some sugar cane farmers paying as much as 90 cents in the dollar as tax.

The highest marginal rate in the personal income tax rate scale now in force is 65 per cent- 65 cents in the dollar, and there is no way in which the averaging provisions can force the marginal rate, on any part of the year’s income, let alone the average rate, above that level.

Iron Ore

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 17 March 1976, Senator O ‘Byrne asked the following question without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources aware that the continuity of employment of those engaged in the production of iron ore pellets at the Savage River mine in the north-west of Tasmania is under threat because of the slump in demand for this type of iron ore by Japanese steel makers? Will the Minister for National Resources have a survey made of the present total exports of iron ore to Japan from all sources, including Western Australia, with a view to allocating a quota of Tasmanian iron ore adequate to keep the Savage River mine in operation?

I undertook to pass the honourable senator’s request on to the Minister concerned. The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The difficulties being experienced by the Savage River operation have not been brought about by the overall reduction in demand for iron ore by the Japanese steel mills. In fact, whereas the Savage River contracts with the Japanese mills provide for the delivery of some 2.5 million tons each year, only about 2. 1 million tons will be produced in the year cnding 31 March 1976due mainly to stoppages caused by industrial disputes and to a lesser extent technical problems. In these circumstances the Japanese mills are accepting the tonnage of Savage River pellets that is available for shipment.

However, in common with other pellet producers in Australia, the Savage River operation, which is one of Tasmania ‘s most important industrial operations, is experiencing some difficulties arising from the substantial cost increases, which have occurred since the present contract prices were negotiated. Northwest Iron, a co-venturer in the project, has been seeking a significant price increase from the Japanese mills as have other Australian iron ore and pellet producers. I am hopeful that these commercial pricing negotiations will reach a satisfactory outcome before much longer.

Administrative Review Committee: Release of Recommendations

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 25 March 1976 (Hansard, page 781) Senator Robertson asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the possibility of the findings of the Bland Committee being made public and subject to public debate before being implemented. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is not intended that the reports of the Administrative Review Committee (the Bland Committee) be released before their recommendations are considered by the Government. The question of their subsequent release will be kept under review.

Australian Opera Company

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 6 April 1976 (Hansard, page 1034) Senator Collard asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the level of financial support for the Australian Opera Company and its touring schedule. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Australia Council grant to the Australian Opera Tor 1975-76 is $1,750,000. It is not possible for the Australian Opera to visit every State each year because of the heavy cost of travel and touring allowances. However, efforts are made to visit as many capital cities as possible, and this year the Company will perform in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. Plans for 1977 include visits to Canberra and Brisbane.

The Australian Opera’s performances are broadcast regularly on radio throughout Australia, and with the assistance of the Australian Broadcasting Commission six productions will this year be presented on television.

Canberra Development (Question No. 8)

Senator Knight:

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

What construction or other developmental projects are scheduled to commence in the older Canberra area of the Australian Capital Territory in the remainder of the financial year 1975-76.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory advises me that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

There are no new works to be commenced by the National Capital. Development Commission in the older Canberra areas before June 1976.

Apart from Commonwealth Government initiatives, the response by private enterprise to recent releases of commercial and industrial sites suggests that the private sector will commence building in the light industrial suburbs of Fyshwick and Mitchell.

Canberra Development (Question No. 9)

Senator Knight:

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

What construction or other developmental projects are scheduled to commence in the Belconnen area of the Australian Capital Territory in the remainder of 1 975-76.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory advises me that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The National Capital Development Commission proposes to commence construction on the following projects in the balance of 1975-76: land development at Evatt some augmentation of water and stormwater mains 1 34 Government housing units Canberra Technical College Building- Belconnen Town Centre Holt Primary School extensions Spence Primary School Melba College Kaleen High School

In addition to Commonwealth Government development initiatives, a number of commercial retail leases in the area have been granted to private developers.

Canberra Development (Question No. 10)

Senator Knight:

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

What construction or other developmental projects are scheduled to commence in the Woden Valley/Weston Creek areas of the Australian Capital Territory in the remainder of the financial year 1975-76.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory advises me that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

In the remainder of the financial year 1975-76, the National Capital Development Commission is scheduled to commence construction of a Trade Waste depot at Phillip, for the Department of the Capital Territory.

In addition to Commonwealth Government initiatives, a number of commercial/retail leases in the area have been granted to private enterprise developers.

Canberra Development (QuestionNo.11)

Senator Knight:

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

What construction or other developmental projects are scheduled to commence in the Tuggeranong area of the Australian Capital Territory in the remainder of the financial year 1975-76.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory advises me that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The National Capital Development Commission is likely to commence construction on the following projects: land development- Richardson and Chisholm 132 government housing units Ashley Drive

In addition to Commonwealth Government initiatives a number of commercial and retail leases in the Tuggeranong area have been taken up by private enterprise developers.

Canberra Development (Question No. 12)

Senator Knight:

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

What construction or other developmental projects are scheduled to commence in the Gungahlin area of the Australian Capital Territory in the remainder of the financial year 1975-76.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory advises me that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The National Capital Development Commission has no construction or other developmental projects scheduled for the Gungahlin area in the remainder of 1 975-76.

Public Service: Department of the Northern Territory (Question No. 212)

Senator Wriedt:

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of the Northern Territory for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the honourable senator to the information provided by the Prime Minister in his answer to question No. 192, ,Hansard page 892 of 30 March 1976.

Northern Territory Freight Charges (Question No. 340)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) Will the Government give any assistance to alleviate the huge freight charges that the Northern Territory community is now called upon to pay, in particular, the increased cost to the building industry of some eleven to thirteen per cent, in view of further heavy flooding in Central Australia this week and the fact that it now appears the Port Augusta to Alice Springs rail link will continue to be disrupted indefinitely.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Although there was some further heavy rain in the area freight services resumed on the CAR to Alice Springs on 3 April.

Consideration of whether the building industry or other businesses in the Northern Territory should be assisted for the additional freight costs resulting from disruption to services on the CAR falls within the responsibility of the Minister for the Northern Territory. The question has been drawn to his attention.

Consumer Price Index Surveys (Question No. 346)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) Are many persons and organisations, including unions, in the Northern Territory, and members of the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory, concerned that the Government does not carry out Consumer Price Index surveys in the Territory.
  2. Will the Government introduce the Consumer Price Index into the Territory.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It is understood that there is widespread concern regarding the absence of a comprehensive Consumer Price Index in the Northern Territory.

The Bureau of Census and Statistics is currently completing an Australia wide household expenditure survey which includes three hundred residential units in Darwin. It is proposed that this survey will form the basis of the compilation of a regimen which may then be used for the establishment of a Consumer Price Index for Darwin.

At present there is a monthly price survey conducted in Darwin of average retail prices of selected food and grocery items. It is recognised that this is not a comprehensive measure of cost of living in Darwin or elsewhere in the Territory and for this reason the proposal to introduce a Consumer Price Index for the Northern Territory is being considered.

Mrs Elke Greig Grant (Question No. 348)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What qualifications in law, psychology, sociology, or other discipline, are held by Mrs Elke Greig, of Western Australia, in order to justify a grant of $2,000 made to her for a research project on the crime of rape.
  2. What factors were taken into account in making the grant.
  3. Will the final report for the project be made available to the public.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The National Advisory Committee for International Women’s Year recommended the grant as consistent with its guidelines as set out in the paper, International Women’s Year- Priorities and Considerations, a copy of which has been forwarded to the honourable senator.

Ms Greig is a foundation member of the Rape Crisis Centre in Perth. This Centre was recently established to form part of the general health services available to women from the Women’s Health and Community Centre, Perth. The Rape Crisis Centre works in close co-operation with the West Australian Department of Health. Ms Greig is currently studying for an Arts degree.

  1. Yes.

Northern Territory: Director of Corrective Services (Question No. 36 1)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of the Northern Territory in 1 974 advertise a position of Director of Corrective Services for the Northern Territory. If so, has an appointment been made. If not, why not?
  2. What is the establishment, and present strength of, staff servicing the various arms of the corrective services in the Northern Territory?
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, advertised 3 October 1974.

An offer of appointment was made to Mr J. Purcell. He subsequently declined the offer.

  1. Corrective Services in the Northern Territory involve activities at present undertaken by the Prisons Services Branch of the Northern Territory Public Service, and elements of the Social Development Branch of the Department of the Northern Territory.

The position of Director of Correctional Services created in the Northern Territory Public Service was initially to take control of the Prisons Services Branch, and in accordance with a development program, to gradually bring together elements at present undertaken by the Depanment.

Present establishment of the Prisons Service Branch is 83 positions and current starring is 73 officers.

Activities undertaken by the Department of the Northern Territory are related to an integrated social welfare service including probation, family and community welfare and child care institutions controlled within the Social Development Branch. Establishment is 125 positions and current staffing is 93 officers.

Wolston Park Hospital (Question No. 409)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are two wards at the Wolston Park Hospital at Wacol in Queensland classified as closed.
  2. Are the remainder classified as rehabilitation wards.
  3. Does the Department of Social Security differentiate between patients who are in closed wards and those in rehabilitation wards for the purpose of determining (a) invalid pension, and (b) sickness benefit; if so, what is the Departmental policy involved.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed that there are three wards at Wolston Park Hospital classified as closed; they are Olsen House, Pearce House and Dawson House ‘C’.
  2. The remainder are classified as rehabilitation wards.
  3. Yes. Section 17a of the Social Services Act provides that where the Director-General of Social Services is satisfied that accommodation for mentally ill or mentally defective persons is provided in any premises he may, by instrument in writing, declare the premises to be a mental hospital for the purpose of the Act. The Act also provides that pensions and sickness benefits are pot payable while a person is a mental hospital patient.

In deciding whether premises should not be declared to be a mental hospital under section 17a of the Social Services Act the Director-General has regard to the purposes to which such premises are put. As a general rule premises which have been set aside for the purpose of providing rehabilitation or social and vocational training designed to equip the mentally ill or intellectually handicapped for an active life and possible employment in the community may be excluded from the Declaration of Mental Hospitals. Patients in such wards are entitled to receive pensions and sickness benefits.

While pensions and sickness benefits are not paid to patients of institutions included in the Declaration of Mental Hospitals, the Commonwealth Government assists them on discharge and when they are on leave.

Under the Social Services Act pension may be restored when a person is discharged from hospital and arrears for up to 12 weeks of the period of hospitalisation paid. A pensioner on leave from the hospital for a period of four weeks or more is regarded as being discharged. Where he or she is not discharged but is absent from a mental hospital for more than six days payment may be restored but the arrears payment (up to 12 weeks) in respect of the period in hospital may not be paid until he or she has been absent from the hospital for four weeks or more. Similar provisions apply for sickness benefit, except that benefit may be paid immediately a person leaves hospital.

Pensioners: Social Welfare Cheques (Question No. 448)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen an article in the Brisbane Sunday Sun of 2% March 1976, which claims that pensioners will now find it harder to cash social welfare cheques, because of the introduction of new anti-fraud regulations by the Commonwealth Bank.
  2. What are the new regulations involved.
  3. Is the Department of Social Security aware of any cases of fraud involving the cashing of social security cheques with the Commonwealth Bank; if so, how many.
  4. Will the Minister take the matter up with officials of the Commonwealth Bank to ensure that pensioners are inconvenienced as little as possible.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The article has been drawn to my attention and its ramifications are being examined by officers of my Department.
  2. It is understood that the regulations referred to are internal working instructions of the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the Commonwealth Trading Bank.
  3. Records of the Department of Social Security show that recoveries in respect of allegedly fraudulent negotiations of social security cheques were effected from Commonwealth Savings/Trading Bank branches in 10 1 5 cases in 1973-74 and in 1274 cases in 1974-75.
  4. I am arranging for the matter to be taken up through the Reserve Bank of Australia which is the banker for my Department.

In this regard it should be mentioned that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has, for many years, been most co-operative in its endeavours to ensure that pensioners receive their social security entitlements with as little inconvenience as possible.

Social Security cheques are drawn payable to order, crossed and marked not negotiable, so as to protect the payees to the greatest possible extent against loss. It is consistent with the protection intended to be given that a person seeking to cash such a cheque, if not known to be the payee, should be asked to provide satisfactory identification.

Cost of VIP Aircraft and Motor Vehicles for Governors-General (Question No. ISO)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What has been the cost of providing (a) VIP aircraft and (b) VIP motor vehicles, for use by Governors-General for each financial year since 1969-70.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

For many years successive governments have followed the practice of, firstly, publishing in the annual Appropriation Bills the estimated expenditure for the current financial year and the actual expenditure for the previous financial year, as single figures, covering the total use of VIP aircraft and, secondly, of providing to Parliament from time to time details of VIP flights including names of passengers carried.

The cost of providing particular motor vehicles for the Governor-General is not recorded separately in my Department’s accounts. I am not prepared to authorize the time and effort that would be involved in identifying the costs which the honourable senator has requested.

Ministerial Staffs: Security Checks (Question No. 157)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation been asked to provide a detailed security check on any persons proposed for appointment to Ministerial staff since 1 1 November 1 975; if so, what form do these checks take.
  2. Has the Prime Minister or the Minister for Administrative Services had occasion to refuse permission for any person to assume responsibilities on any Minister’s staff since 11 November 1975; if so, how many persons have been refused, and for what reason were they refused.
  3. Will the Prime Minister table copies of the official form or forms which the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation use to provide security checks on persons proposed for appointment to Ministerial staff.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Current arrangements for security clearances for Ministerial staff follow those adopted by the previous Government. Security checking arrangements are the subject of examination by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, and the extent to which details can be divulged will be a matter for consideration in the light of any relevant recommendations of the Commission.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly: Discussions in Canberra (Question No. 344)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did members of the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory leave Darwin by plane at 2 p.m. for Canberra on 23 March 1976.
  2. Does the delegation intend to make representations to obtain continuing finance for the Northern Territory and the transfer to the Assembly of powers under an Aboriginal Rights Bill.
  3. Did the delegation state before leaving Darwin that if they did not receive satisfaction, it was their intention to consider disaffiliation from the Country Party.
  4. Will the Minister ensure that residents of the Northern Territory are not disadvantaged by the tactics being adopted by the delegation and, will he reassure the Parliament that power over Aboriginal lands legislation will remain with the Federal Parliament and that sufficient funds will be made available for ongoing capital works in the Northern Territory and reconstruction work in Darwin.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) I refer the honourable senator to the press statement I issued after discussions had been held with the delegation from the Legislative Assembly.

Public Service: Staff Ceilings

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– On 26 February 1976 (Hansard, page 254) and 16 March 1976 (Hansard, page 472) Senator Bishop asked the Leader of the Government questions without notice concerning reductions in staff ceilings throughout the Commonwealth Public Service. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

The Government decision to reduce the growth of the Commonwealth Government area of employment, including the Public Service, reflects our policy commitment and is an essential element in our drive to combat inflation.

On 9 February 1976 the Prime Minister announced the Government’s decision to reduce by 30 June 1976 Public Service Act employment to 154 881 and non-Public Service Act employment in statutory authorities to 171 677. Ministers and the Public Service Board are monitoring the implementation of that decision and they have been asked to keep the Prime Minister informed of any difficulty encountered in achieving the ceilings by 30 June.

The Government has stated that departments and authorities should reach their revised ceiling levels by processes of natural wastage, such as retirements and resignations. It is clear, however, that staff surpluses will occur in some Departments/Authorities, particularly where functions have been transferred, abolished or curtailed. The dimensions of the displacement problem are still not clear, but every effort, including close control on the filling of vacancies, is being made to redeploy surplus staff to other areas.

Information available to date supports the Government’s decision that the ceilings are to be achieved by 30 June 1 976. The honourable senator may be assured that the Government will be keeping a close watch on this situation and that the matters raised will be taken into account.

On the question of consultation with staff associations the Public Service Board had a meeting on staff ceilings with representatives of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and subsequently, on 16 February 1976, advised the ‘Peak Councils’ that it was the Board’s intention to keep in touch on relevant key issues over the next few months.

The Prime Minister met representatives of the ACTU and CAGEO on 1 March 1976 when related matters were discussed.

Australia-New Zealand Defence Procurement Senator Withers-On 18 March 1976 (Hansard, page 618) Senator Bishop asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, a question without notice concerning possible new defence procurement arrangements with New Zealand following upon recent discussions between Mr Fraser and the

New Zealand Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question.

I am advised that the discussions on this matter centred around the desirability of developing further the defence cooperation already existing between Australia and New Zealand. The Australian and New Zealand Governments in 1969 agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate closely in defence supply matters with the objective of increasing regional self-reliance in respect of the logistic support for the Defence Forces of both countries. Here again the recent discussions were directed towards a continuing exchange of information aimed at achieving uniformity in equipment acquisitions wherever possible. Much value is seen in the practice of common selection teams and agreement was reached in principle that both countries will seek to maximise common equipment purchases and to sustain local defence factories as much as possible.

An Australian/New Zealand Consultations Committee on Defence Co-operation was formed in 1973 and a meeting of this Committee will be held later in the year to give further consideration to the way by which the principal objectives of defence co-operation might be achieved.

In regard to the effect of any new arrangements on the recent recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission on the Aerospace Industry, the Senator will know that the Government is yet to consider the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission, and in so doing it will take into account the continuing development of defence co-operation with New Zealand.

Victoria: Commonwealth Grants (Question No. 423)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What Federal Government Grants to State Government instrumentalities and to private organisations and individuals in the State of Victoria were announced by Ministers in the Australian Government, or the Victorian Government, in the six weeks prior to 20 March 1 976.
  2. What was the total cost of each of the grants involved.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) During the period under question Commonwealth Ministers announced grants under programs which cover more than one State. Those applicable to State Government instrumentalities, private organisations and individuals in Victoria are shown below. The Commonwealth Government does not maintain records of announcements by State Ministers.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 April 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760427_senate_30_s68/>.