Senate
4 May 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1451

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock, left Australia on 2 May to attend the Fourth Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which is being held in Nairobi. He is expected to return to Australia on 12 May. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1451

PETITIONS

Australian Heritage Commission

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 3 1 citizens of Australia:

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

There is 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 program of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that ofl 975-76.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pharmaceutical Benefits: Milk Substitutes

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 65 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That reduction of the age limit from six years to eighteen months for patients eligible to receive cows’ milk substitutes as a Pharmaceutical Benefit under the schedules of the National Health Act will cause serious financial hardship to many families;

That the Government’s action is responsible for a severe increase in the cost of cows’ milk substitutes which penalise parents of children aged eighteen months and over who have a medical need for these substitutes.

That there is an urgent, humane need to restore cows’ milk substitutes to children up to six years of age to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that cows’ milk substitutes be restored to the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for children up to the age of six years as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 4097 citizens of Australia:

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

That the plan to obliterate weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Assistance Plan

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 222 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 since the Australian Assistance Plan is making it possible for citizens to help themselves, thereby ensuring best possible use of limited Government resources, as shown by the fact that over 200 community projects have been initiated or funded through the A.A.P. in the Outer Eastern Region.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament will take immediate steps to continue the Australian Assistance Plan as recommended in the Report tabled by the Honourable the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle in Parliament on the 4th of March, 1 976.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Overseas Development Assistance

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament asembled. 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 $21m 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. reaffirim Australia’s commitment to Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of 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 Archer and Senator Rae. Petitions received.

Australian Heritage Commission

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of community organisations respectfully showeth that:

There is 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 Government 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 1975-76.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Missen. Petition received.

page 1452

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1452

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICIES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Does the Minister agree that as the Government’s new federalism policies were a major issue in the New South Wales elections, those policies have received a severe rebuff in that State? If the Minister’s answer is ‘no ‘, will he give an assurance to the Senate that the Government intends to proceed with those policies- particularly in the States of Western Australia and Tasmania- with the consequent imposition of a double taxation system on the Australian people?

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

– I do not agree with Senator Wriedt that the federalism policy was a major or significant issue in the New South Wales election. I remind the honourable senator that he and his Party had 2 goes prior to that- one in the Federal election of 13 December 1975 when the honourable senator sought to raise the issue and was soundly and resoundingly beaten, and the other in the Victorian election when there was a resounding victory for Mr Hamer. I also ask the honourable senator to remember Mrs Beaton’s advice for jugged hare- first catch the harebecause the honourable senator is seeking to see in the New South Wales election hares that are not there.

The second part of the honourable senator’s question was to the effect that if my answer is no’ will the Government proceed. As I understand it, the honourable senator’s colleague, the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Neilson, is eager that we should proceed. So I take it that Senator Wriedt and Mr Neilson are at odds in their attitude towards what is good for Tasmania because Mr Neilson has let it be known that he believes that the federalism proposal for Tasmania will be first class. Of course it is utter propaganda to use the term ‘double taxation’ when referring to federalism. Federalism, when applied at both Federal and State levels, will result in very substantially reduced taxation at both levels.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The second part of my question was not answered. I asked the Minister. Will he give an assurance to the Senate that this Federal Government intends to proceed with those policies?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am happy to assure both the Senate and the people of Australia that the Federal Government will proceed with those policies, which will result, of course, in a major reduction in personal income tax by way of tax indexation and will result in a major reduction in State taxation by way of a reduction in indirect taxes and charges. The answer is emphatically: Yes, we shall proceed and there will be no double taxation’.

page 1453

QUESTION

WOOL HANDLING DISPUTE

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: In view of the serious situation which has occurred in the wool industry as a result of the long drawn out dispute in the wool stores, and in view of the urgent need to shift wool to the manufacturers, particularly those in Japan, will the Minister stress to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations the urgent need to have the present waterfront dispute resolved as soon as possible or, failing that, to make some provision to shift the pile of wool?

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

– I shall convey the matters raised by Senator Maunsell to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I think the honourable senator appreciates that the original wool dispute is currently being arbitrated before the Arbitration Commission.

page 1453

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, relates to ethnic radio. Does the Minister agree that, consistent with Liberal Party policy, any form of government departmental control of a public broadcasting organisation is bad? If so, will he give an assurance that any government organisation to be involved in ethnic broadcasting will be given independence in its operation from any government department?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The honourable senator will know that an inquiry is being conducted at present by the Government into all aspects of broadcasting and television, including ethnic radio. No doubt the honourable senator would have the facility to put his own views to that inquiry. Of course I cannot pre-empt what the result of those recommendations or Government policies will be but concerning his question as to whether the Government believes that the general supervision of radio standards, the issue of licences and so on should be done at a nonpolitical level, the answer is emphatically ‘yes’. The Government will be looking for ways in which the orderly conduct of the whole of the broadcasting and television field can be carried out in that way. As to the allocation of licences and who shall hold the licence, of necessity the Government will have to wait for the recommendations in the report, but it is Government policy that there should be a non-political attitude towards the conduct of broadcasting.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand from the Minister’s answer that the Liberal Party platform, on which the last election was fought, might be altered in relation to this question by the findings of a departmental inquiry into ethnic radio?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am unable to perceive why that understanding should have been arrived at. I have said that our platform, our principles and our philosophy are based upon a non-political attitude towards the general ordering of broadcasting and television. In my judgment, that attitude will permeate any decisions that the Government might make in the future.

page 1453

QUESTION

ALLEGATION AGAINST FORMER SENATOR

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government, and I preface it by referring to the sentiments I expressed when I first spoke in this chamber about the late Senator Sir Shane Paltridge, whom I regard as being one of the finest men ever to sit in this Parliament. Has the Minister seen the report in the Sydney Morning Herald and other newspapers that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, has alleged that the late Sir Shane Paltridge was a corrupt Minister? Can the Minister comment on this scurrilous defamation of a deceased senator?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I did see the report in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald.

Senator Colston:

– You do read some newspapers?

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, some matters are drawn to my attention, especially when people peddle scurrilous garbage about deceased members of this Parliament. I put it in those terms because I think that is what it deserves. Honourable senators may recall that during the late senator’s lifetime a well known purveyor of lies and innuendoes about Canberra, one Somerville Smith, made much the same sort of allegation against the deceased senator. Round about 1960, as I recall the date, he was prosecuted for criminal libel in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. During that prosecution the late senator gave evidence, as I understand it, and was open to cross-examination. Somerville Smith, who spread that piece of defamation, was duly convicted and sentenced to about a year’s imprisonment. As a lot of honourable senators would know, prosecution for criminal libel is a rare event in this country. The deceased gentleman, who sat in this chamber during a very distinguished career, whom I replaced on his death and who was Leader of the Government in this place, was prepared to go to court and put his reputation on the line and was cleared by a court in the proper manner. All I can express, I hope on behalf of all honourable senators, is my absolute disgust as a senator on reading the report in this morning’s paper of those words coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place.

page 1454

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REFORM: VOTING HOURS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Is he aware that in the New South Wales elections last Saturday for the first time in that State’s history polling booths were open only from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. to handle a general election and a referendum, without apparent consternation being shown by anyone and obviously with very sensible voting trends taking place? In any review of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act will the Minister consider the introduction into Commonwealth legislation of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. voting, as proposed last year by the Whitlam Labor Government? Finally, will the Minister take on board the suggestion I made in the Senate last Thursday that the Australian Electoral Office should present a report for publication and debate on all aspects of electoral reform within Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– Again surprising as it may seem, I am aware that an election took place in New South Wales last Saturday, and I am also aware that for the first time 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. voting was tried. I am prepared to consider the suggestion made in the second part of the honourable senator’s question when looking at the Electoral Act. I am not pig-headed or dogmatic about electoral matters, as is well known; I am always open to suggestion. The third suggestion of the honourable senator’s is an interesting one but I must say that I am somewhat reluctant to have the Australian Electoral Office involved in matters which could be looked upon by one side or the other as possibly intruding into the area of partisan politics. I think it is fair to say that the Australian Electoral Office has had a very high reputation ever since Federation, and I would be very wary of attempting at all to get it involved in matters which are often the subject of disputation between political parties in this place. However, being the sort of person I am, I shall have a look at the honourable senator’s suggestion and if I have anything further to add to what I have said already I shall also inform the honourable senator of that.

page 1454

QUESTION

PARENTS AND CITIZENS ORGANISATIONS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the

Minister for Education: Is it a fact that with the availability of Government educational grants the traditional role of parents and citizens associations in Australia is changing? Does the Minister consider that such associations have lost a lot of their reason for existence? If this is so, what role does the Government now see these associations playing in the education field?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I shall direct my attention first to the third part of the question. What the Government sees is an ever widening role for parents and citizens organisations to play in education. The fact that grants may be made to schools, the fact that money may be directed towards schools or school boards will widen rather than narrow the role of parents and citizens associations, lt is Government policy- and one which I commend- to ensure the fullest possible community participation in education and that means that the parent, the teacher and the community in general should play an increasing part. So the emergence of some grants from a Government level to parents and citizens associations does not in any way diminish their responsibilities. The real challenge for them now is to confront the great problems in education and, in co-partnership, help to resolve them.

page 1454

QUESTION

WOODCHIP INDUSTRY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a twofold question to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. In the first instance, can the Minister assure the Senate that no further export permits for woodchips will be granted until the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, under the chairmanship of his colleague, Senator Jessop, has examined all aspects of this industry, mindful of the fact that it did commence such an operation during the life of the previous Parliament. I further ask him whether he is in possession of a report in relation to the Coffs Harbour project, which apparently makes a very adverse judgment about woodchip operations in that area of New South Wales.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

-There is, as far as I am aware, only one current woodchip licence which comes up for renewal in the near future, and that is concerned with the operations of Harris Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd in the southern part of New South Wales. However, a number of companies have made application to the New South Wales Government to conduct woodchip operations in the northern part of New

South Wales. Those applications have been the subject of 2 inquiries conducted by the New South Wales Government, one by the State Pollution Control Commission and the other by the State Development Co-ordinating Committee. The Premier of New South Wales has referred copies of the reports of each of those bodies to me for my information, and discussions have taken place between officers of my Department and officers of the New South Wales Department. The New South Wales Government is currently considering them and has not made them public. I consider that while they are not made public by the New South Wales Government I should not advert to them in any public forum.

Against that background, there has been a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. Whilst I do not think I can go so far as to say that any decision which might be made by the Commonwealth Government would await the, outcome or report of the Senate Committee of inquiry over which it would not have control as to its method or timing of operations, I can say quite positively that we would give the fullest possible consideration to any report or recommendations which that Committee made.

page 1455

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security. It relates to newspaper reports over the weekend on the subject of the Government’s intentions with respect to child endowment. Is the Minister aware that these reports allege that the Government intends either to abolish child endowment, to means-test it, or to review eligibility depending on the number of children in a family? I ask the Minister: Is there any truth in these reports?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– There have been reports in the Press over recent days and weeks with regard to a number of programs in my Department. I have on numerous occasions said that the Income Security Review Committee is looking at all benefits that are applicable to my Department’s responsibility, in accordance with the setting up of that Committee by the former Government and with the concurrence of the present Government that its work should continue. From time to time I expect to receive reports from the Income Security Review Committee on a number of matters. But because a report is received on a specific matter and knowledge of that report may become available does not mean that the Government has taken any decision with regard to such matter or that any report is a final report. Work will progress and reports will be received from time to time. They may be referred back to the Income Security Review Committee for further work on a related area. But the reports that have been printed by the Press with regard to child endowment are a matter of conjecture on the part of the Press. I think it is to be regretted that a number of people in receipt of benefits from my Department are placed in a position of insecurity by reason of the conjecture which has been developing because it has been common knowledge that the Income Security Review Committee is looking at a range of programs.

page 1455

QUESTION

KIDNEY PATIENTS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer to the support given by the Labor Government to members of the Australian community suffering from kidney ailments or failure and, in particular, those requiring regular dialysis treatment. I ask the Minister for Social Security: Will the Government give an unqualified undertaking to continue to support the programs assisting persons suffering this disability? Will the Government give consideration to providing financial support to the efforts of voluntary organisations and individuals to provide suitably equipped holiday accommodation to persons requiring dialysis, thereby making it possible for those disadvantaged persons in the community to have a holiday away from their place of residence and the places where they normally receive treatment?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– In conjunction with the Minister for Health I would be prepared to undertake consideration of the matters that have been raised by the honourable senator with regard to patients requiring dialysis treatment. I am aware of the very great discomfort and disabilities which do relate to people with this condition. I shall certainly subject the matters that have been raised by him to the consideration of my colleague the Minister for Health and myself.

page 1455

QUESTION

RAGWEED

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Science aware of the growing concern by many property owners in Queensland at the infestation of ragweed? Can the Minister tell the Senate whether his Department or the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is doing anything about this weed?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– The spread of ragweed is of importance to Queensland at the present time. During a recent visit to Queensland, a member of the State Parliament drew my attention to the infestation. In actual fact, the weed is known as parthenium weed. It is a weed native to the tropical and sub-tropical parts of North and South America. It is a common roadside plant in many countries, including Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, South East Asia, South Africa and India. I brought a sample of the weed back to Canberra with me and had Dr Waterhouse, Chief of the Division of Entomology at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation look at it. I am advised that its presence in Queensland was first recorded in 1955, although its reinfestation was reckoned to have commenced with a contaminated consignment of buffel grass which was sown in 1958 in the Clermont area.

The Queensland Government has made investigations into this matter. I am informed that in 1975 it stated that no detailed studies had been carried out into the biology or ecology of this important weed. A request was made by the Queensland Premier to the Prime Minister for some assistance. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation advised the Department of the Prime Minister as late as 20 April that if it is requested that use be made of its phytotron, which is a room in which outside conditions are simulated for the growth of plants, the Organisation is willing to assist by making available that unit. The Organisation has also stated that if there is a possibility of transferring existing staff to research on this weed, arrangements will be made at officer level with the relevant State department in Queensland.

page 1456

QUESTION

REPORT ON TREATMENT OF ABORIGINES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. As the Premier of Western Australia has stated publicly that he will this day table in the Western Australian Parliament a copy of the report of the royal commission jointly established by the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments on the incidents between police and Aborigines at Laverton, Western Australia, on 5 January 1975, will the Minister likewise table a copy of such report in the Senate? I further inform the Minister that I have received advice from Western Australia that copies of the report have been made available to the Minister for Administrative Services for tabling in the Federal Parliament on Wednesday. Why has the report of the joint royal commission been made available in one parliament before another parliament has received copies of it? Is this an example of the new federalism? Does the Minister propose any action by the

Commonwealth as a result of the findings of the royal commission?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no direct knowledge of the matters referred to by the honourable senator. If he places the question on the notice paper, I will undertake to have an answer from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for him perhaps later today or tomorrow.

page 1456

QUESTION

MEDICAL RESEARCH

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of Australia’s proud record in medical research and the need to attract to Australia high quality medical teachers and research workers, and also in view of the parlous plight of Australia’s economy, what is the current position regarding the availability of adequate funds for our various medical research programs?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am aware that the Minister for Health made some statements with regard to medical research, I think about a week ago. He pointed out his own concern with regard to the standard and extent of medical research in this country. He stated that the Government had a policy gradually to increase the amount of funds that are available for medical research. He hoped that this would result in an extension of research that is presently being undertaken. He also said that he was proposing to seek a review of the funds which are available for 1977-78. To this extent I am still waiting for any further information from him, but the way in which he answered the question directed to him some days ago indicates that, despite the economic situation with which we are confronted, his concern is that medical research opportunities and work should be extended in this country.

page 1456

QUESTION

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SCHEME

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I confess I have not seen the figures to which Senator Donald Cameron refers. Therefore I am not in a position to comment upon what conclusions might be drawn from them and whether I would concur in his conclusions. Repeating what has been said in this chamber before, the Government’s amendments to the National Employment and Training scheme were designed to make the NEAT scheme what in its origins the Labor Party claimed it was to be. The Labor Party’s performance did not measure up to what it claimed for the scheme. We are endeavouring to make the scheme work as originally intended, that is, that those people who are genuinely unemployed and who want to retrain so that they may equip themselves for a new job will be given the facilities of the NEAT scheme. It is not, as the Labor Party planned it and developed it, simply a scheme whereby anybody who wanted a job could get a very generous living allowance at the taxpayers’ expense, to the exclusion of the genuine unemployed who needed retraining to get jobs. That is the way the Government’s whole program of changing the NEAT scheme is designed to work.

page 1457

QUESTION

EDINBURGH AIR BASE

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of the proposed removal of No. 1 Aircraft Research and Development Unit, Royal Australian Air Force, from Laverton in Victoria to the Edinburgh air base near Adelaide? Is it not a fact that the RAAF at Edinburgh has moved to control the air space in the areas north of Adelaide in such a way as to limit the use of this air space for light aircraft based at nearby Parafield aerodrome, which may cause the cost of pilot training to double? Is he aware that the rising cost of training now threatens the immediate employment of 300 persons employed at Parafield aerodrome in providing air maintenance services, training, etc.? Is it not also a fact that present restrictions on air space are seriously hampering gliding clubs in the area and that further restrictions may result in forcing 2 gliding clubs in the area to close, thereby losing a valuable training facility? Will the Minister request his colleague to investigate the matter urgently with a view to mitigating its effects on the important private aviation sector in South Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– The honourable senator asks his question in 5 parts. I just would not have an answer to some parts because of the technical knowledge required. It would appear from the question that not only is the Minister for Defence involved but also my colleague the Minister for

Transport. I gather from the question that the honourable senator is talking about air space and the use of civilian light aircraft. I undertake to pass on the question to my colleagues in the other place, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Transport, and obtain for Senator Messner a joint answer, I would hope, from both the Ministers.

page 1457

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICY

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate confident that he can control the gallant 6 honourable senators and prevent them from rebelling against the federalism policy which received such rough treatment by the New South Wales electors last Saturday?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am rather interested that the honourable senator should talk about controls because that is how his Party operates. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of what 6 honourable senators on this side of the chamber did last week, they have not been expelled. There are no rules in our Party by which a man, if he is prepared to think and speak for himself, is automatically expelled. I think it sits ill in the mouths of those opposite- what are they down to, about forty- that if twenty-one of them want something and nineteen do not want it, the nineteen are silenced by the twenty-one.

Senator Georges:

– We do not do that.

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes, you do. It sits ill in the mouths of members of the Opposition to attempt to make some cheap political capital out of that incident. We are not afraid of our policy on federalism. I cannot understand the fascination that it has for honourable senators opposite. Evidently they see out of the shambles and the wreckage of their Party something which they can latch onto. I am confident that if our policy is accepted by 6 State Premiers- 3 Liberal Premiers, one National Country Party Premier and 2 Labor Premiers- it would appear that it has wide Party support within Australia

page 1457

QUESTION

WOOL HANDLING

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It is in some way related to an earlier question posed by Senator Maunsell. I want to highlight the question in another way. No doubt the Minister is aware that threats by tugboat crews and concern by wool buyers over a requested extension of credit time for them until the backlog of wool shipments is overcome again threaten the industry at home and abroad. Will the Minister ensure that immediate and all steps are being taken by the Minister he represents to avert a further crisis in this important section of the economy which, given certainty in the marketing and distribution of its products, appears to have a more buoyant future than it has had for some time?

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

-I am disturbed to hear of the problem raised by the honourable senator. I had not heard of it before. It is perfectly true that around the world the wool industry was beginning to pick up. A sense of confidence was emerging and greater buying was taking place. It looked like the beginning of a new era for Australian wool producers who had been put at some hazard by an industrial dispute. I believe that the question raised by the honourable senator is urgent. I shall communicate immediately with the Minister responsible for this matter after question time.

page 1458

QUESTION

EDINBURGH AIR BASE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It refers to the controversy which has broken out in South Australia in relation to the increase in the establishment of the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh and the reports by various flying and gliding clubs that the request by the RAAF would prevent those clubs from operating. I ask: Is it now clear whether or not the 4 flying clubs, the gliding club and the soaring club would be stopped from operating should the request by the RAAF for new controls over the air space be granted? Can the Minister also advise to what extent the establishment of the RAAF base at Edinburgh is to be increased with its new operations and with the transfer of the No. 1 Aircraft Research and Development Unit? To what extent will that increase in personnel and operational staff assist the defence forces and local community interests in South Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The first question asked is similar to that asked earlier by Senator Messner. I say to Senator Bishop what I said to Senator Messner: I shall obtain that information for him from the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Transport who are both involved. The second part of the honourable senator’s question referred to the number of personnel. I do not have that information available but I shall seek it from the Minister for Defence.

page 1458

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRAVEL

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it true that inspectors from the International Air Transport Association are in

Australia or will be coming to Australia to instruct the Commonwealth Police in enforcing conditions on the issue of international airline tickets? If so, why is this being done? Is it the Government’s intention to place further restrictions on the price of international air travel that operators in Australia can offer?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Because this matter was raised with me some time earlier in another place I have some information on it. I am advised as follows: An International Air Transport Association compliance officer has been stationed in Australia for a number of years in accordance with IATA practice in various countries to ensure compliance with IATA regulations by IATA member airlines. I am advised that recently staff strength increased in some countries, including Australia, and that the Australian Government has indicated its support for increased controls over air fare malpractices by recent amendments to the Air Navigation Regulations. Commonwealth Police may, where appropriate, be instructed by the Department of Transport to assist in investigations of alleged infringement of regulations. Commonwealth police were briefed by the IATA compliance officer in Australia on IATA practices and by the Department of Transport and international airlines on other relevant aspects. In accordance with IATA practices elsewhere airlines in Australia are required to provide air fares and conditions authorised by the Australian Government and agreed to by the other governments concerned.

page 1458

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. In view of the fact that the names of users of superphosphate who benefited by $5,000 or more from the bounty and subsidy in 1973 are now on public record as a result of the list of users having been incorporated in the Senate Hansard of 29 April last, I now ask the Minister: Will he use his powers under the provisions of section 14 of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act and section 1 7 of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act to obtain the names of users of superphosphate who benefited by $5,000 and all amounts above that figure by way of subsidy in 1 974 and make that information available to the Senate at the earliest possible date?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I compliment the honourable senator on his persistence over many months in ultimately getting his list of names published in Hansard. But I do not compliment him upon his invasion of other people’s privacy, or his attempt further to invade people ‘s privacy. I question whether any public purpose is being served by obtaining the names of the persons who purchased superphosphate where a bounty attaches to the sale of the superphosphate, any more than a public purpose is served by finding the names of the chemists or doctors who receive bounties from the Commonwealth. I will convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs because he has asked me to do so, but I shall convey it with the hope that the Minister does not accede to the honourable senator’s request.

page 1459

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: What progress has been made in the national evaluation of the Australian Assistance Plan? Is the Minister in a position to inform the Senate of the outcome of 2 conferences held last weekend in relation to the Plan? Can she advise the Senate of some of the expressions of support for the Australian Assistance Plan made at these conferences?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am unable to advise at this stage on the outcome of the 2 conferences held last weekend with regard to the Australian Assistance Plan. I was able to attend the conference which was held in Canberra over the weekend. I was interested to hear the reporting back from the regional officers and others who have been involved in the Plan over the past 3 years. Another conference was held in Melbourne at which I know that at least one honourable senator, Senator Missen, was in attendance. The reports from both conferences indicate that there is a great deal of satisfaction with the Plan amongst those who have been working within it. I simply want to say at this stage that the reports from those conferences, the report from a conference which was held involving Local Government Association people and a report at officer level from the State departments concerned will all be taken into account in evaluating this Plan as we are proceeding beyond the pilot stage of the first 3 years.

The final matter is that on 2 1 May in Darwin I will be meeting State Ministers and the Australian Assistance Plan has been listed as an agenda item. I am concerned that 30 June is the closing date of the pilot program and that many people are employed by the Plan. At the conference in Canberra last weekend I undertook to give as early as possible an indication of the future arrangements for the Plan believing that those people who are presently engaged in it are entitled to a decision prior to a normal announcement at Budget time. In answer to the honourable senator’s specific question, the reports of the 2 conferences are well in my mind and the further conference with State Ministers will be the final stage of evaluation as far as I am concerned. An announcement will be made shortly thereafter.

page 1459

QUESTION

SCHOOLS: CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Will the Minister confirm whether it is true that there has been a complete embargo on capital expenditure for the financial year 1976-77 for both independent and State schools?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will not confirm it. Expenditure for the year 1976-77, whether capital or recurrent, will be announced in the Budget. No such embargo has been placed at all. The only restriction that has been placed on capital expenditure is the restriction placed by the previous Whitlam Labor Government last year when it severely cut back capital expenditure of schools.

page 1459

QUESTION

CAMBODIAN AND VIETNAMESE STUDENTS: TERTIARY ALLOWANCES

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Are tertiary allowances under the tertiary education assistance scheme available to Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees now living in Australia as settlers? If so, can the Minister indicate the conditions under which these allowances are paid to such refugees? Is the Minister able to say whether some refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia have been unable to obtain such allowances because they cannot be means tested as it is impossible to trace or assess their parents’ means in their country of origin? What action can be taken if these people are refused assistance on such grounds? Have appeals been heard concerning people in such circumstances and can the Minister say whether some special consideration might be given to them in view of their situation as refugees?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Arrangements have been made for the education of both Vietnamese and Cambodian students in Australia and they are receiving Government assistance under both the Colombo Plan and a special scheme set up for private students from Vietnam and Cambodia who have been cut off from their sources of funds at home following changes of government in their home countries. The private students being assisted under the scheme receive allowances based on those provided for Australian students pursuing similar courses. There are some 67 private students from Vietnam and Cambodia currently being assisted. Allowances under the tertiary education assistance scheme are in general available to Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees and there are academic and means tests applied. The honourable senator asked whether some have been rejected? My understanding is that one student only has been refused assistance but that was because she wished to undertake a course that was not approved under the scheme. She fully understands that. The possibility of lack of knowledge of the means of parents or families abroad affecting students is a new circumstance to me. I do not know that it has in any way militated against such students but I will find out. I imagine that if a student could show with reasonable credibility that he or she had no means other than what were visible, that student would be eligible for the TEAS.

page 1460

QUESTION

MEDICAL SERVICES ON GROOTE EYLANDT

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the 2500 people living on Groote Eylandt have no resident doctor and that the only service available for emergency cases is that supplied from Gove, which can be provided only during daylight hours and weather permitting? If this is a fact, will the Minister indicate what steps are being taken to resolve this unsatisfactory situation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– This is a matter which I need to refer to the Minister for Health. I undertake to get an early answer on the matter.

page 1460

QUESTION

DAIRY FARMERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-The Minister for Social Security will have read in the Victorian Press at the weekend of the criticism by the Victorian Minister of Agriculture of the uneven administration of unemployment benefits for dairy farmers who are without income and who have made themselves available, without success, for full-time employment. The Minister will also be aware of the statement at the weekend by Mr Bill Pyle, the President of the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria, about the harsh application of the regulations which is causing grave hardship to the people affected. Is the Minister able to inform the Senate of any Government decision on this matter?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– With regard to any inconsistencies in the application of the Act, I inform the Senate that a meeting of officers of my Department has been called for Wednesday of this week in Melbourne. I hope that any inconsistencies in the application of the Act may be resolved. In conjunction with the Minister for Primary Industry I have arranged to meet Mr Bill Pyle of the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria in Canberra on Thursday. I hope that at the meeting or prior to it an announcement will be made by the Government with regard to this urgent matter.

page 1460

QUESTION

STUDENT ASSISTANCE REVIEW TRIBUNALS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Education whether he has been able to reconsider his original decision to suspend country sittings of student assistance review tribunals? Has the Minister been able to give consideration to the request of the Australian Union of Students that it be permitted to represent country students who are disadvantaged at metropolitan sittings of student assistance review tribunals which are hearing appeals against tertiary education allowance scheme decisions?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Some weeks ago I was happy to meet representatives of the Australian Union of Students and to discuss this very problem. It is quite a real one. They pointed out to me the benefits which would flow from tribunals sitting in particular parts of the country. I examined with them the relatively small number of appeals from outlying parts of the country and the inordinately high cost of hearing appeals in country areas. We discussed the question of the AUS representing these students at tribunals held in capital cities. I am not sure of the final conclusion. I thought we left the matter on the basis that some arrangements would be made by the AUS to represent students. I will check the matter out because we want to help. It is my view that the course I have just referred would be suitable to us, certainly if it were suitable to the students concerned. We want to help the students concerned.

page 1460

QUESTION

CLAIM BY VEHICLE BUILDERS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to the proposed stop work meeting involving 3500 workers planned at Chrysler’s Tonsley Park plant for next Monday by the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia to launch a campaign for a new log of claims. This was reported in last night’s Adelaide News. Is the

Minister aware that the log consists of 45 different claims, including a demand for 4 hours paid leave for each 40 hours continuous employment, 13 weeks long service leave after 10 years service, voluntary retirement at age 60 with normal retirement rights and benefits, 5 weeks annual leave instead of 4 weeks, and an increase in annual leave loading from 17.5 per cent to 25 per cent? In view of the precarious situation of the motor industry in South Australia and the attempts by the industry to rationalise its activity in South Australia in order to preserve present jobs and to provide guarantees for the future, can the Minister say what effect these claims are likely to have on the motor industry in that State?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I was talking in Sydney yesterday to people from Chrysler Australia Ltd, amongst other people involved in the motor car industry. The industry is in a very delicate state of balance as far as future consumption is concerned because this depends to quite an extent upon the cost of motor vehicles. Any acceleration in the total cost of a motor vehicle which is due to a log of claims such as the log of claims mentioned being acceded to would have, I think, a very adverse affect upon the industry and employment within the industry, and the flow-on effect would adversely affect Australia generally. It is not within my province to comment on industrial relations and labour affairs, but I think I could comment on the general problem of Australian manufacturing and illustrate in fairly simple terms the difficulty that Australia is experiencing. If we look at the scene as it existed in 1970 we find that a given Australian manufacturer had an ability to produce at about the same rate of cost as a given North American manufacturer. Yet at the current time a given Australian manufacturer has a disability of 30 per cent compared with a given North American manufacturer. As I have been saying, we are in danger of pricing ourselves out of our domestic market as well as our overseas markets. This is a matter of great seriousness.

page 1461

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION FROM LEBANON

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration: How many applications for migration to Australia from Lebanon have been received during 1976? How many have been successful? What are the main reasons for the rejection of unsuccessful applications?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I do not have at ready notice the figures that are required by the honourable senator. I shall refer the matter to the Minister for Immigration and see that the honourable senator gets an early reply.

page 1461

QUESTION

MARRIAGE LAWS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister representing the Attorney-General seen the statement issued by the Attorney-General regarding the proposed extension of time for notice of marriage from one week to one month? Can the Minister assure the Senate that this is aimed as only as a general safeguard and that cases of special circumstances will be looked at according to their need?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think that the assurance which the honourable senator seeks can readily be given. After all, by a free vote of the Parliament we have decided to facilitate the separation of people who are married. I think it is time- as the Attorney-General acknowledgesthat we gave some thought to people’s consideration of the steps they are about to embark upon when they decide to get married. This is one of the considerations which the Attorney-General has in mind. He has already made an announcement in respect of this matter.

page 1461

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNALS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister for Social Security, by mentioning that last week I asked the Minister whether the Director-General had the final say on appeals made to Social Security Appeals Tribunals and whether he was rejecting a large number of those appeals. Is the Minister now in a position to report on the number of appeals rejected by the Director-General?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am in a position to give the information requested by the honourable senator. I have a table which gives full details of the matters that have been referred to the Social Security Appeals Tribunals and the number of appeals that have been upheld or disallowed. This table may be of interest to the Senate and with the concurrence of the Senate I should be pleased to have it incorporated in Hansard. I think that it could be said in general terms that the statement does not bear out the claim made in the question that a majority of the appeals were disallowed. I think that it would be of interest to the Senate if this table were incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 1462

QUESTION

SCHOOL HOLIDAY PROGRAMS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. The statement relating to assistance for May school holiday child care projects being funded through the Interim Committee of the Children’s Commission has been circulated by the Minister. As all projects are being carried out within the various States and not the Territories, what plans, if any, exist for children in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did announce on behalf of the Prime Minister that some $95,000 would be available to finance holiday programs. With regard to the Australian Capital Territory, I think $1,500 had been notionally set aside for programs in the Territory but no applications had been received at the time I made the statement. Since then a grant of $300 has been made to the Australian Capital Territory for a holiday program which has been approved. However, I do not have any information in relation to the Northern Territory and I shall be pleased to obtain that for the honourable senator from the Interim Committee of the Children’s Commission.

page 1462

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICIES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs and refers to the Prime Minister’s acknowledgment at his Press conference on 23 April that under the Government’s new federalism policy income tax between the States could vary- in Mr Fraser’s words, ‘more like in Canada’. Of course, in Canada the surcharges vary from 26 per cent in Alberta to 42 Vi per cent in Manitoba. I ask: Does the Government envisage that variations of that magnitude will occur in Australia and could such variations be described accurately as marginal?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have no precise recollection of the statement made by the Prime Minister in April to which the honourable senator refers. It is true that in stage 2 of the income tax sharing arrangements some minor variations of income taxation could take place, with the States indicating their desire either to reduce their income tax by rebate or to apply a surcharge in a minor way. In no way would one contemplate that the kind of variations about which Senator Walsh speaks could or would occur. There are in Australia, of course, the overriding restraints of the ballot box. I must remind the Senate that over the years the tendency by federal governments to increase income tax by way of surcharge has been of the order of a maximum of 2 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent. So the variations that the honourable senator spoke about would not, and in my view could not, occur.

page 1462

QUESTION

EUROPEAN CARP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Science aware of the current severe invasion by European carp of the waters of the MurrayDarling and its tributaries extending into Queensland? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether an in-depth inquiry could be initiated into this invasion by the fish into areas where, up to a month or so ago, they had been practically unknown but where at present they are a menace?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Following a number of questions asked recently in the Senate relating to carp, I indicated that the spread of carp was likely to be severe in internal waters. I indicated also that the CSIRO would stand ready to help any State instrumentality which sought its assistance. At that time I outlined the working that had occurred between the State of Victoria and Great Britain in research matters relating to carp in an attempt to find a virus that might be effective. Indeed, a lot of research was going on at the time. Does the honourable senator’s question relate to a new type of carp?

Senator O’Byrne:

– No, its invasion into new areas in Queensland waters.

Senator WEBSTER:

-As I understand it, the spread of carp is extensive and can be quite damaging. In relation to the particular question, I note the honourable senator’s remarks and will endeavour to obtain an answer for him.

page 1463

QUESTION

RECALLED MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator COLSTON:

-Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware that the consumer organisation, Canberra Consumer Incorporated, in its current magazine has published a list of 27 types of cars, utilities and panel vans that have been recalled by Australian manufacturers in the past 2 years? Further, is the Minister also aware that Canberra Consumer Incorporated has claimed that the Australian vehicle recall code is riddled with gaps? Finally, is the Minister concerned at the serious situation indicated by the group’s findings, and will he have investigations made to determine whether the vehicle recall code adequately protects people who purchase motor vehicles in Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– We are aware of that particular comment and we are aware of the organisation and its journal. We have a concern about some of the problems associated with vehicles not being up to standard. This matter essentially does not fall into my area; it belongs more to the area of consumer protection which comes within the portfolio of my colleague in the other place. I shall also take up the matter and give it detailed attention.

page 1463

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Social Services Amendment Bill 1976 Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1976 Financial Agreement Bill 1 976 National Debt Sinking Fund Amendment Bill 1 976 Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill 1976 Wheat Export Charge Amendment Bill 1 976 Wheat Products Export Adjustment Amendment Bill 1976

page 1463

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to sub-section 7 (7) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1975 I present a copy of Remuneration Tribunal determinations relating to the Chairman of the Interim Darwin Reconstruction Commission, and the Schools Commission part-time Chairmen of Planning and Finance Committees- New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory.

page 1463

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the Tourist Accommodation Industry- Short Term Assistance.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1463

FRUIT INDUSTRY SUGAR CONCESSION COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to clause 11 of the Sugar Agreement 1975, I present the annual report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee for the year ended 30 June 1975, together with the financial statement and the report of the Auditor-General on that statement.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1463

STATES GRANTS (SCIENCE LABORATORIES) ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971, 1 present a statement of payments authorised under section 3 of that Act during 1974-75. The statement shows the total amount paid to each State in respect of non-government and government schools, the grant paid to each nongovernment school, and the government schools assisted with grants.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-by leave-On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, I move:

I ask for leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1464

WAR PENSIONS ENTITLEMENT APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Social Security who, in her turn, was to act in this matter on behalf of the Minister for Repatriation, pursuant to section 82 of the Repatriation Act 1 920- 1 975, 1 present the annual reports of the War Pension Entitlement Appeal Tribunals Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 1464

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I bring up the 53rd and 54th reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances relating to the Australian Capital Territory Representation Ordinance 1975 and the Australian Capital Territory Manufacturers Warranty Ordinance 1975 respectively.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 1464

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES: BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

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

– I ask for leave to make a statement relating to the sittings of Estimates committees and the program of business for this week’s sitting.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I indicated last Thursday that there may be a need to consider rearranging the times of meeting of Estimates committees to meet legislative priorities. It has now been decided that, in view of the urgent need to pass certain legislation this week, the Estimates committees’ meetings previously scheduled for this week will be cancelled. This re-arrangement has already been indicated to the Opposition during the morning and the program of Bills proposed to be dealt with this week under this rearrangement was communicated to the Opposition last Thursday. As the cancellation of Estimates committees meetings was not decided until this morning, officers from the Department of the Northern Territory have already arrived in

Canberra to attend the scheduled hearings. To avoid the necessity of their returning to Darwin and coming back at a later date, Senate Estimates Committee F has been asked to meet tomorrow morning to consider the proposed expenditure for the Department of the Northern Territory. Arrangements have been made for the Committee to meet in the Senate chamber at 9 a.m.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on the same matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GEORGES:

-The Opposition understood the difficulties the Government was facing in regard to this Estimates Committee. We on this side have agreed for it to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow on the understanding that it should not meet beyond 10.30 a.m. and that the Committee adjourn at that time in order to allow our Australian Labor Party members sitting on it to attend our Party meeting. It is agreed that, if necessary, the Committee will meet again later in the day at the convenience of the Government.

page 1464

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Government believes in effective trade practices legislation. We have stated that time and time again. Free and fair competition is a basic tenet of a free enterprise economy. The complexities of the market place have required successive governments to produce complex legislation to maintain that free and fair competition. However, complex legislation must always be kept under close review to ensure that the legal requirements and procedures always work efficiently and equitably in the public interest. For this reason the Government recently appointed an expert committee to conduct a general review of the Trade Practices Act. That committee will report to the Government by 30 June 1976. It is the intention of the Government that any amendments to the Act which may flow from the recommendations of the committee will be introduced into Parliament later this year. In the meantime, there are some pans of the Act which need changing immediately. This Trade Practices Amendment Bill makes those changes.

Firstly, the Bill amends the Trade Practices Act to make it clear that governments have the right to make public interest submissions to the Commission on authorisation applications under consideration by that body. The Commission will then be required by the existing provisions of the Act to consider those submissions together with all other submissions by interested parties. Both Federal and State governments will have the right to make such submissions. The position will then be analogous to wage determinations by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Secondly, the Bill deals with the relationship between the Trade Practices Act and the foreign takeovers legislation. The Trade Practices Act presently provides for special treatment of takeovers to which the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act 1 972- 1 974 applies.

This Bill discontinues that special treatment. It provides for all companies, whether domestic or foreign, to be subject to the same rules regarding the anti-competitive aspects of their takeover proposals. Foreign companies will be subject to additional requirements under the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act. The Government has taken this step because the previous arrangements for dealing with foreign takeovers gave foreign companies a favoured position under the Trade Practices Act. As to their effect on competition, foreign takeovers appeared to be judged in the light of less strict criteria than domestic takeovers. Furthermore, the different requirements of the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act and the Trade Practices Act meant that foreign takeovers were not exposed to the same publicity as domestic takeovers. In many cases when a foreign and a domestic company were competing for the same target company, the differential treatment I have just mentioned handicapped the domestic company. That is, of course, incompatible with the policy of the Government towards foreign investment.

Thirdly, the Bill fills a gap in the present jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to deal with matters arising under the Trade Practices Act. For these matters, the Industrial Court is to be given the power to make declaratory judgments and to issue prerogative writs in the nature of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus. The difficulties caused by the omission of these powers became apparent early in the operation of the Trade

Practices Act. Last year, actions seeking the making of a declaratory order were commenced in a State and a Territory Supreme Court. Those courts, or the High Court, then were the only courts with such jurisdiction. This is incongruous, since otherwise the focus of the Act is upon proceedings in the Industrial Court. The previous Government announced in July last year that it proposed to remedy this defect in the Act. but had not done so before the change of government.

The power of the Industrial Court to make these declaratory orders will not extend to the provisions of Division 2 of Part V of the Act, which imply certain conditions and warranties into consumer transactions. Litigation relying upon these provisions was always intended to take place in courts other than the Industrial Court, and that position will not be altered.

The power to make declaratory orders will complement the existing procedures of the Act providing for clearance of certain restrictive trade practices. It will provide, in some cases, a procedure to obtain more certainty as to the operation of the Act. However, the exercise of the power will always be in the discretion of the court and will, of course, be subject to the restraints imposed by the constitutional requirements of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Finally, the Bill makes certain other amendments to the Trade Practices Act, of a technical or consequential nature. I need not take up the time of the Senate describing all these matters. However, one matter cannot pass without comment. Most references in the Act to ‘the Attorney-General’ are to be replaced by references to ‘the Minister’. This is, of course, a consequence of the present administrative arrangements of the Government.

The ministerial portfolio of Business and Consumer Affairs was created so that business regulation by the Federal Government could be co-ordinated and administered with a practical orientation. It seeks to avoid the costs and inefficiencies, both to business and to Government, which flow from multiple Government agencies operating independently of each other. The creation of this portfolio is a real step forward in the administration of reasonable and practical business regulation. Honourable senators will be aware that the pre-election policy statement of the coalition parties foreshadowed the elimination of the discretionary power now available to the Minister under section 90 (9) of the Act to compel the Trade Practices Commission to authorize mergers. As also indicated in that pre-election statement, one of the items to be considered by the review is the operation of the provisions of the Act dealing with mergers. I have already stated that the Government intends that any amendments to the Act flowing from the report of the review Committee are to be introduced during the Budget session this year. That will be the appropriate time to give attention to the implemention of our undertaking regarding the discretionary power under section 90. 1 commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1466

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

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

– I move:

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1976, being a money Bill, gives the opportunity to speak to the motion for the first reading on questions that may be relevant or irrelevent to the Bill. I take this opportunity to spend a few minutes of the Senate’s time on questions that I have under consideration and to which I want the Government to give some consideration. I seek to make a plea for the Aborigines of Australia. As a result of increasing interest in Aboriginal affairs since about 1970 and especially the increased vote for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs with the advent of the Labor Government in 1972-73, organisations were established for the protection of Aboriginal rights and special legal aid and better medical services were provided. These were all things to improve the lot of the Aborigines. During my period as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I got on very well with members of the then Opposition who were interested in Aborigines. The then shadow minister for aboriginal affairs, who is now the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), and I were united in the view that Aboriginal problems were not a party political matter, that Australia owed much to the Aboriginal people and that the Australian Government was the machinery by which the Australian-European population should recompense the Aboriginal people for what they had suffered since we had been in possession of their land. Problems raised when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs were sorted om and, generally, agreement was reached on the best way of handling those problems. During that period there were no disputes between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and other members of this Parliament, particularly honourable senators in this chamber, who were voicing proposals to help Aborigines.

Regrettably, when this Government came into power, with its policy of reducing Government expenditure, it reduced considerably the vote by which help could be given to the Aboriginal people. Great cuts were made in expenditure by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Government has set up a committee of inquiry into the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee to see whether its expenditure can be reduced, to see whether an alternative method of running the committee may be found, and to see whether its expenditure can be cut for the purpose of financing other proposals- perhaps to the detriment of Aborigines.

When the Australian Labor Party was suddenly dismissed from government I had instituted an inquiry- as I stated earlier- into the murder of Paula Sweet in Alice Springs. When this Government came into office I placed on the notice paper a question on this subject. After some weeks I had received no reply to that question so I raised the matter on the first reading of a money Bill. I asked the Government to take immediate action to ascertain what the inquiry of 2 police officers who had been sent to Alice Springs revealed about the death of Paula Sweet. I do not want to relate the events again. I only want to clarify the point that at the time the Minister would not make available to me papers relating to this matter which I had been dealing with when I was the Minister. When I raised this matter I made out a case- it may not have been exact in all details- which showed that a professor of the Division of Veterinary Science laboratory at the University of South Australia was of the opinion that the girl who had a split spleen could have survived with rest and that a congealing of the blood could have stopped the haemorrhaging. The fact that Paula Sweet lived for 48 hours after the assault upon her suggested that the blood congealment had stopped the haemorrhaging. Of course, she could have lived. The haemorrhaging was possibly re-started by the blood transfusion which was given to her in the Alice Springs Hospital.

When I raised this matter previously I pointed out that there appeared to be a mistake by the police in their presentation of the statement of the Aborigines who were charged with murder. I said that an inquiry was needed into a matter involving the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service as they appeared to be concerned with those who were accused and facing trial but did not appear to be concerned about the victim, who was an Aboriginal girl. I asked also whether an inquiry could be initiated by the Department of Health to find out whether the treatment at the Alice Springs Hospital was the best treatment that could be given to people in the outback who have no other recourse to medical services and who rely on the Alice Springs Hospital. I asked also whether it could be ascertained whether that treatment could have contributed to the death of Paula Sweet. In doing so I made no accusations. The medical report showed that the injury suffered by Paula Sweet could not have occurred more than 4 hours prior to her death. The only person in contact with Paula Sweet in that time was her de facto husband. I believe as others do that there is no evidence to suggest that he was implicated in the case. As a result of my inquiries, last week I received a reply to my question on notice from the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, which stated:

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 Aborigines 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 Aborigines are involved.

If the Minister for the Northern Territory, (Mr Adermann) who is the Minister responsible for police in the Northern Territory, ensures that the necessary changes are made, it is possible that in the future persons charged with an offence will not be discharged or found not guilty for the same reasons as applied when those charged with assaulting Paula Sweet were discharged. We might get a greater conviction rate. But this will not solve the many problems I have raised. As I have stated, on the day that we were dismissed from office I had arranged a meeting of the

Minister for Health, the Minister for the Northern Territory, the Minister for Police and Customswhich was me- and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I wanted a proper inquiry held into the matter. The matter cries out for inquiry. Every Aborigine in the Northern Territory wants an inquiry to be held to ensure that what happened to Paula Sweet does not happen to other Aborigines. I hope that the Government will take up the matter. It is of vital importance to the Aboriginal people.

I should like now to turn to another matter which to my mind shows the lack of concern of this Government at the plight of the less privileged people in our society. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I received a report relating to the bashing of Aborigines at Skull Creek on 5 January last year. After a series of negotiations and discussions a joint royal commission was established by the Commonwealth Government and the Western Australian Government, the expense of which was shared by both governments, to inquire into what happened between the police and Aborigines at Skull Creek last year. The commission has now presented its report. Since Friday its findings have been published by the Press in every Western Australian newspaper. It is not a matter that interests the media in any of the other States. No mention has been made of the report in the Press, in radio or television broadcasts in other States. It was a minor incident as far as the other States were concerned.

The findings of the joint commission have been published in Western Australia and the report will be tabled in the Western Australian State Parliament today, yet the other party to the establishment of the commission has not tabled a copy of the report in this Parliament. We do not know whether we will see the report. I asked the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) today whether the report would be tabled. The reply I received was: ‘Well, I do not know’. The Minister for Social Security who in this place represents the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) neither knows anything about Aboriginal affairs nor is briefed about them because at no time do we get from her an answer to any question on Aboriginal affairs. We always receive the pleasant answer that she will refer the question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or draw it to his attention. But we get nothing as a result of her drawing the question to the attention of the responsible Minister.

I have heard from Western Australia that copies of the royal commission’s report have been sent to Canberra and that it is expected that a copy of the report will be tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament tomorrow. As we were joint parties to the setting up of this royal commission I do not know why we must follow behind the Western Australian Government and learn of the report of the royal commission after it has been published in all the newspapers in Western Australia. The royal commission found that there was great neglect of duty by the police in Western Australia; that there was a conspiracy by the police in Western Australia; that they arrested men who were not in breach of the law; that they made up cases against men who were not in breach of the law; and that they made up claims of having arrested men whom they never arrested. Twenty-two were found guilty by the court and had costs awarded against them for that prosecution. In Western Australia today 22 men have been convicted for offences that they never committed.

The Press of Western Australia and the public of Western Australia are strong in their condemnation of the Police Force of Western Australia. The West Australian of Friday last in its editorial said that this matter has left a sorry blot on the record of the police in Western Australia. But the police are not the only guilty men. But the information contained in this finding of the royal commission was known to the Western Australian Government in March last year. That Government had this information but it did nothing about the matter. In order to obtain the facts so that something could be done about this matter, the sum of $300,000 has been spent on a royal commission. Sir Charles Court questioned whether the royal commission was warranted.

Let us look at the facts. I first became aware of this matter when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. As honourable senators know, as a result of the 1967 referendum on Aborigines, the Commonwealth now has a responsibility for Aborigines. We were trying, in co-operation with the States, to advance and improve the standing of Aborigines. While Aborigines are still subject to State laws, nevertheless, we cannot wipe our hands of the Aboriginal question when we see injustices done to Aborigines. We have the right to step in when we see that injustices are done to Aboriginal citizens. The Wongatha Wonganarra association at Laverton is an Aboriginal business association which has been set up in the town. It has built houses for Aborigines. One of the houses that it has built has received much notoriety. It is called the ‘Opera House’ because of its peculiarly shaped roof. It is an assembly place for all Aborigines from the desert area and from the gold mining area in Western Australia who come into the township for various reasons.

In December 1974 there had been a big increase in the Aboriginal population in the township. This resulted from the mining activities in the area. There was much drinking and much fighting between Aborigines and, at times, between Aborigines and the police. On 5 January 1975 a group of Aborigines was coming from Warburton for the purpose of attending a religious ceremony at Wiluna. It was a rainmaking and man making ceremony. Many young boys were to be initiated into the tribes at Wiluna. The ceremony attracted Aborigines from many hundreds of miles away. A lorry, a Land Rover and a station wagon were used to convey Aborigines from Warburton to Wiluna. I felt somewhat guilty because only a few weeks previously I was at Warburton where there are some of the most primitive Aborigines in Australia. They have not long been in contact with white men. We had financed the construction of certain buildings and a sewerage treatment plant at their settlement. We provided the finance to the local organisation which engaged a contractor to do the work. The contractor would not permit the truck to be used for transporting these Aborigines to Wiluna. As it was a religious trip, as the Aborigines had a registered driver, as they had agreed to take all care with the truck and as it meant such a lot in the lives of these Aborigines to go to such a religious ceremony, I made representations to the contractor. I endeavoured to convince him that, as the Department was paying for the cost of the trip, he should permit the truck, which after all was the Aborigines’ truck, to be used for conveying these Aborigines to this ceremony and organise the work for the 3 days for which the Aborigines would be away so that he would not have any use for the truck. He agreed, and this was the truck that was used for transporting the Aborigines.

The Aborigines got to Skull Creek where they rested on the side of the road. But before the Aborigines got to Skull Creek the police had gone out and met them up the road for the purpose of seeing what time they would arrive at Skull Creek. When the Aborigines arrived at Skull Creek 22 policemen raided them. They had brought in reinforcements under Senior Inspector Brown of Kalgoorlie. There were 40 men, 15 women and 21 children in the 3 vehicles. The police sent some of the elderly men, the women and the children into the bush and promptly proceeded to arrest the others. They locked them up in cells. They let 2 elderly Aborigines go and charged all the others. The royal commission found that there was a conspiracy among the policemen. At a conference they decided that each one of them had to be responsible for laying a complaint against a number of Aborigines. He had to make up a story about the way in which the Aborigines were in breach of the Western Australian law. He also had to say that he had made the arrest.

The police agreed to say that when they arrived the Aborigines were fighting amongst themselves. In evidence before the royal commission the police agreed that this was not so. When the outburst came and it was claimed that the Aborigines were innocent, that they were doing no harm, that they were arrested for no reason at all, it was said that the Commissioner of Police wanted a charge laid against the Aborigines so that he could counter this propaganda. The court found them guilty. It was stated that when the Commissioner of Police asked for charge sheets the policemen wrote up other charge sheets some days later putting on them the date 5 January. It was not a question of the Aborigines fighting amongst themselves. The policemen said that when they arrived the Aborigines began to fight the policemen.

Senior Inspector Hilton saw the statements from the policeman. He noticed the changes in the allegations but he never brought this fact to anyone’s attention. He was named by the royal commission as one who knew that false charges had been made. The Aborigines were charged with offences that they never committed on the Statements of police officers who never arrested them. They were convicted and court costs were awarded against them. This matter first erupted as a result of an Aboriginal association making it public. The Aboriginal Legal Aid Service of Western Australia went to the Press and claimed that injustice had been done to these Aborigines. I made representations to Mr Baxter, the Minister for Community Welfare in Western Australia, and asked for an inquiry into the whole incident so that we could get to the bottom of .it. I said that if. he did not do it, I would. He said: ‘Look, senator, I am determined to clean this up. We have a magistrate Syddall whom I am going to send to make a full investigation and you will be satisfied with his report. He has a good rapport with Aborigines. He was a magistrate in the area for years. He dealt leniently with them and he has sympathy for them. I am sure that this will clear the matter up’.

This satisfied me until I got the report of magistrate Syddall who said in it that the report was wanted in a hurry, he had no commissioner status, he could not compel anyone to give evidence and he could put no one on oath that the evidence they would give would be truthful. Syddall was in the police force for some time. He was a magistrate in an area of Western Australia where there were Aborigines and for that reason had the confidence of both the police and the Aborigines. He said, however, that while he could go and talk to policemen confidentially and in their own language, nothing in this report could be accepted as factual. It is only what he believed occurred from hearing all the evidence. Because his information was obtained so confidentially from so many, the report could not be made a public document.

Everything the Commission has now found was known from the day we received magistrate Syddall ‘s report, that is, that the police were at fault in the incident at Skull Creek. Anyone who sought to protect them from that time on was seeking to protect guilty men and therefore became partly guilty himself. I then appealed to Mr Baxter and Sir Charles Court in Western Australia to establish a commission of some sort so that we could get a public report after a full inquiry into the matter, upon which action could be taken. Mr O’Connor, the Minister for Police in Western Australia, was then brought into the action. He said: ‘No, do not do that. I do not uphold what these policemen did and I will send Mr Parker’- I believe he was the Deputy Commissioner of Police- ‘out to investigate the whole matter as a result of the Syddall report and to take action against any policeman who has done wrong in the execution of his duty’. Mr Parker went out and made a report to his Minister that after a full investigation he could find nothing that justified disciplinary action against the police. The Deputy Police Commissioner investigated complaints against the police and he could find nothing that justified disciplinary action against them.

When I saw that I immediately asked for a royal commission. It was refused. They said: You will only be stirring up things that are best left dead’. They said that they had set up a committee which magistrate Syddall was on, an operating committee for the northern region, for the purpose of seeing whether something could be done to bring about better relations in the future. I was told that that committee had met and had made a decision on future policies for the north. My insistence on a royal commission into this matter met with no approval from the Western Australian Government until I decided that there was some constitutional doubt whether the Commonwealth, while it had power to look after Aborigines and investigate what happened to Aborigines, could inquire into the activities or action of State police. In order to operate within the Constitution we decided to set up a royal commission to inquire into Aborigines in the desert area, which included Alice Springs and those areas such as Warburton, Kalgoorlie and Skull Creek, particularly into police relations with Aborigines. Immediately this was announced I was told by Sir Charles Court, who came over for a conference with me: ‘Do not do that. We cannot have it’.

If we had set up the commission and borne the full cost of it, we would have been able to select the commissioners, which Western Australia did not want the Commonwealth to do, to inquire into the Skull Creek incident. The Western Australian Government was prepared to have a joint commission with it and the Commonwealth each paying half the cost of the commission. I went over to Western Australia with terms of reference for the commission but they were promptly scrubbed. The Western Australian Government wanted its own terms of reference. We reached agreement on the terms of reference. The Commonwealth then said: ‘As we have agreed on that and as the Commonwealth has responsibility for Aboriginal affairs, we should have the choice of 2 commissioners and Western Australia should select the other commissioner’. However, Western Australia wanted to keep the inquiry under its control and thought it was right that it should elect 2 commissioners while the Commonwealth should elect one. It wanted to appoint as chairman of the commission Mr Clarkson who had been a magistrate in New Guinea but who was then working at the University of Western Australia. I think he is now a Supreme Court judge.

The Commonwealth then said that if it caved in and allowed Western Australia to appoint the chairman of the commission the Commonwealth should appoint the other 2 commissioners. Western Australia said: ‘No, we have decided on Mr Ernie Bridges who is an Aborigine from Hall’s Creek’. Mr Bridges is a part- Aborigine, the mayor of Hall’s Creek, who was elected on a white man’s vote. He owns a roadhouse at Hall’s Creek and rides around in a Mercedes Benz. I think he is an honest man but one can see how divorced he is from Aboriginal thinking. He is not the normal Aborigine. He has a position on the Aboriginal Lands Trust and has several other government appointments. However, Mr Baxter had every confidence in Ernie Bridges. That left the Commonwealth with one commissioner which it could appoint and we appointed Mr

Elliott Johnston, Q.C., from Adelaide to the royal commission. We then said: ‘You have appointed 2 commissioners and we have appointed one. We should nominate the solicitor to assist the commissioners’. ‘No’, they said, ‘we have made our mind up about who that will be’. The only representation the Commonwealth had was one commissioner. The others were the selection of the government of Western Australia which had done everything possible to stop this inquiry to prevent the facts being made public.

The Western Australian Government requested that the cost of counsel for the police should be a cost of the commission and should be divided between the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments. Good God, the Western Australian Government knew that the police were guilty, yet it wanted us to finance the guilty party so that it could have counsel at the inquiry. The policy had complained about it but we refused to pay the police costs. Now the inquiry is over and what the Western Australian Government and I knew in March last year has become public. I believe, however, that a few more details have become public. Not only are the police accused of conspiring to give false evidence and of changing the charge sheet because they did not think the other charge would stick, but also they are accused of doing everything possible in order to prevent the commission from getting to the truth of the matter. The police are a close-knit group. The commission stated that their loyalty, association and comradeship did not justify their actions. The Minister stated that if the police were guilty they would be charged. As I have said, the only intention of the Aborigines was to go and worship. A cry went out when the royal commission was first appointed. I was interviewed by a newspaper. I said that the main purpose of the royal commission was an investigation into Parker who had all the evidence we had available. He knew that the police were wrong but he could find nothing to justify any disciplinary action. If our royal commission found that there was some justification for disciplinary action it would show for all times that a police investigation into complaints against police is not worth two hoots. It is only to exonerate and to get over the wrongdoings in the police force. There was talk about outside investigations into police action. The Premier of Western Australia said: ‘Well, although this is serious and we will have to do something we must not neglect the fact that there was a lot of drinking around there. The commission found that drink was the cause of a lot of the upheaval between the Aborigines and the police. The policeman at

Laverton had a difficult job with all these drunken hooligans around. ‘

Even now there is an attempt to justify the police action. There seems to have been an attempt to distort the story in order to get convicted and gaoled simple-minded religious people going to a religious service. There is still a place in the Western Australian police force for people who did this. The Premier said that some action had been taken. Some of those who were concerned and who were named by the commission had left the force in the meantime. The officer in charge of Kalgoorlie district at the time of the clash, Senior Inspector D. Hilton, had been shifted, he said. He has been punished. He has been shifted. That is punishment for someone who, the commission pointed out, noted the discrepancies in the statement and did nothing to inquire into them. He was one who was blamed as one of the chief culprits. Senior Inspector T. Brown must take full responsibility because he went to Laverton and took over. He dismissed the sergeant there. He gave him the day off and arranged this raid. Sir Charles Court said: Senior Inspector T. Brown, the officer in charge of Laverton at that time, had been pased over when he was due for promotion 8 months ago.’ Mr Jamieson, the leader of the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia, said that there would have to be an independent inquiry. Mr Huelin, of the Aboriginal Legal Service, said that the Western Australian Government owed the Aborigines an apology.

No one is tackling corruption in the Western Australian police force. No one is tackling the raw deal which innocent Aboriginal people in Western Australia have to undergo. These are matters for which we as an Australian government have a responsibility. The Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs cannot make a statement. He has not tabled the report. We in the Senate cannot get a reply to questions we ask about Aboriginal affairs. The Minister has a special duty because he is the person appointed to look after Aborigines and to see that at least they get a fair deal. He is not there to set up inquiries to see whether we should cut down expenditure on these people more and more. Although the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is not here I hope that these words will be read by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. For God’s sake, let us do something for these unfortunate people.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak briefly on a matter which may seem rather trifling as it consists largely of a personal anecdote but I think the implications of what I am saying are of sufficient importance to warrant the small amount of time I will be giving to it this afternoon and the amount of the time of the Senate I will be taking up in doing so. Yesterday when I arrived in my office I found some correspondence from the Royal Insurance Company Ltd which, despite some of my feelings about multi-national insurance companies, I find is the insurer with which I carry a householder’s insurance policy over my residence in Perth. I found that the Royal Insurance Company had sent me 2 documents. The first one, which became visible on opening the envelope, was described as an expiry reminder.

It informed me, to my shock, that the householder’s insurance policy which I held had expired on 2 May. I received this advice on 3 May.

However, a note was appended. I shall not weary the Senate by reading the note, other than a small part. I was informed that as I was a valued client the company had not immediately terminated my policy but it would give me a fortnight’s grace in which to renew the policy. I was somewhat concerned that such a distressing lapse had taken place on my part as not to renew a householder’s insurance policy. If one did not have a householder’s insurance policy, as honourable senators will appreciate, one could be in a most embarrassing situation if one’s house were to burn down.

Senator Webster:

– I imagine it was a stereotyped reply to you.

Senator WHEELDON:

– It was not a reply at all. I had said nothing to the company. It was written to me. It certainly was not a reply. I found appended to the note a renewal certificate which was to serve as a receipt upon payment of the premium. I discovered that this was the notice advising me that the policy was due to be renewed. It had been sent to me with the notice that the policy had expired. This material was posted on 30 April which was a Friday. The earliest it could have reached me was 3 May. The information which was contained therein was to the effect that my policy had expired on 2 May.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Did you examine the post mark on the envelope?

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes. The postmark on the envelope showed that it was posted on 30 April. This was confirmed by the manager of the insurance company. I do not think one can shift the onus for any oversight on this matter to the Australian Postal Commission. It was posted on 30 April and it arrived on 3 May. I telephoned the manager of the Royal Insurance Company and expressed in, I hope, not too querulous a tone my view that it was a little late to advise somebody that their policy had expired. If one were to be absent, as most of us in our occupation are and as any person may be, despite this apparently generous gesture in extending the time of the policy by another fortnight, one could be absent for the whole of that period, one would find that one’s policy had expired while one was absent, and, with the expiration of the additional time, one would not be covered. One could even be in the unfortunate circumstance where one’s house had been burgled or burnt between the date of the expiry of the period of grace which had been given and the time when one paid the premium.

Senator Webster:

– Did you advocate to him what he should have done?

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, I did. I advocated to the manager of the Royal Insurance Company that he ought to send out renewal notices at a reasonable time before the expiry of the policy. This would seem not only to be a proper business practice but also something which I think the holders of policies are entitled to have.

Senator Webster:
Senator WHEELDON:

-Senator Webster does not think so. I know Senator Webster has an association with insurance companies which is quite different from mine.

Senator Webster:

– I think practical business experience shows that if a person owes you money you do not necessarily send him an advice that he owes it to you.

Senator WHEELDON:

-No, Senator Webster, one does not necessarily send an advice to somebody. But it would seem to me that in providing a service such as insurance it would be reasonable to advise the insured person that his policy is liable to expire.

Senator Webster:

– With postage at 18c? Fair go!

Senator WHEELDON:

-When one is paying a premium of $80-odd I do not think that 18c postage would add tremendously to the cost. I think that most people would prefer to have the 1 8c added to their premium rather than face the possibility of having their policy expire. I certainly would rather pay the 18c for the insurance company to give me that notification. But the manager of the Royal Insurance Company- as possibly is not to be wondered at- took the same point of view as that of Senator Webster. The manager first of all said that they had some confusion in their office and that they had meant to send out a reminder but had not done so, or something to that effect. I could not quite follow his argument. He raised also the argument raised by Senator Webster that they were trying to save on postage. If I may interpolate, seeing the question of saving on postage has been raised, I did not notice any desire to save on postage when they were sending communications to all of their policy holders throughout Australia during 1975 calling for the defeat of the Labor Government. But I see that postage is a consideration when it comes to communicating to their policy holders that their policies might expire. I think that possibly one can draw some conclusions from that.

I think that I have made quite clear the position as I see it and that is that here is at least one insurance company which is not notifying policy holders of the date of the expiry of their policies. I believe that to require policy holders to keep records places an unreasonable burden upon them. A number of people are not as used as Senator Webster is to dealing in the upper reaches of high finance and do not therefore keep all these matters at their finger tips. A number of people would not be able to remember precisely when their householder’s policy was going to expire as opposed to their third party insurance policy, their employer’s liability policy or whatever other policy it might be. I understand that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is responsible for the administration of the insurance legislation. I hope that Senator Webster will convey to the Minister representing the Treasurer the suggestion that some amendment should be made to the laws relating to insurance in this country, either by amending the relevant section of the insurance legislation or, I would imagine more properly, by amending the insurance regulations.

Insurers are given under the insurance legislation an opportunity to make considerable sums of money- I am not arguing about that- by engaging in the business of insurance. Householders’ insurance, for example, is not one field of insurance, like third party insurance or workers’ compensation insurance, which is a losing branch of the insurance industry. I think that on the whole most insurance companies make profits from householders’ insurance, except in circumstances such as the Darwin cyclone. Overall insurance companies would make fairly substantial profits in most parts of Australia on their householders’ insurance. I believe that the laws relating to insurance should be amended to require insurance companies to give due notice, possibly something like 30 days notice, to the insured -

Senator Lajovic:

– Some do.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I agree completely that many insurance companies do. In fact, my colleague, Senator Wriedt, who was in the insurance industry before coming into this chamber, informed me that the insurance office with which he was associated before coming here always made it a practice of sending a reminder 30 days before the expiry of a policy. I believe that this is something which could well be made the subject of regulations or, if necessary, an amendment of the appropriate Act. It is much too serious for people to be placed in the position where they could lose the value of their assets through the mere fact that they had not intended to default on payment of a premium but in fact had not been advised by an insurance company in whose interest one would have thought if would have been just as significant to give this sort of advice as it would have been in the interests of the insured. I make the suggestion that perhaps the Treasurer would consider an appropriate amendment to the law.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Many people, including honourable senators on both sides of this chamber, had expected that in my first speech in the Senate I would mention certain aspects of the circumstances which I had experienced in one of my attempts to enter this chamber as a representative of the people of Queensland. That attempt, of course, was the one associated with the casual Senate vacancy in Queensland in 1975. In my first speech in this chamber, however, I made it clear that at that time there were more important issues about which I could speak. Nevertheless, 1 have decided that it is necessary for me to set down in the official record of this Parliament my observations of some of the events surrounding the casual Senate vacancies of 1975. Much but by no means all of what I say will be known to honourable senators. I expect that the casual Senate vacancies of 1975 will be discussed by political observers and students of government for many years to come. After all, the events surrounding one of the vacancies changed the course of politics in Australia. Therefore, 1 consider that it is encumbent upon me, as one who was intimately involved in the second vacancy for 1975, to set down some of my personal observations.

Naturally, there are more ways than by solely using Parliament to ensure that a permanent record is made of my comments on the 2 vacancies. Certain events, however, have forced me to conclude that I should now speak on this matter in the Senate. The circumstances which have persuaded me to speak on the 1975 casual Senate vacancies include the many self-righteous statements made by Government senators during the Address-in-Reply debate. Certain of my comments later will indicate that honourable senators opposite were not entirely the men and women of high principle that they have suggested this year that they were. Additionally, many deliberately incorrect statements have been made recently about the vacancies. One of these can be attributed to Mr Sparkes, President of the National Party in Queensland, who on a recent television program glibly gave incorrect historical facts about a previous casual Senate vacancy in Queensland.

More recently, a member of the Queensland Parliament went on record to imply that the deliberate flouting of an established political convention was justified if for a particular political party such an action was politically expedient. The member’s remarks suggest to me that the unprecedented action in relation to the casual Senate vacancy in Queensland was well and deliberately planned, despite the smokescreen that was developed to give the matter a facade of respectability. The member to whom I refer is Mr Charles Porter, currently the member for Toowong in the Queensland Parliament and one-time General Secretary of the Liberal Party in Queensland. Speaking appropriately at the Brisbane Conservative Club on 5 April 1976 Mr Porter defended the action of the Queensland Parliament in appointing a non-Labor senator to take the place of Senator Milliner. Mr Porter was reported in the Courier-Mail of 6 April 1 976 as having said: lt should never be forgotten that Australia would not have had the opportunity last December to throw out Whitlam’s gang had Queensland not refused to follow so-called convention and appoint a committed socialist. We were assailed bitterly for this decision by many who should have known better.

Before honourable senators opposite, or honourable senators who normally sit opposite, begin to say ‘Tut, tut’ about Mr Porter’s statement, let them reflect on some further words of Mr Charles Porter who continued his speech to the Brisbane Conservative Club by saying:

But I have not noticed any of my critical colleagues who appear reluctant to enjoy the fruits of office they have gained by courtesy of the Queensland Parliament.

Mr Porter’s recent statement reinforces my belief that the action of a majority of members of the Queensland Parliament was carefully and deliberately planned. Quite obviously I cannot mention all aspects associated with the 2 casual Senate vacancies in the time that I have at my disposal. I intend, therefore, to speak on the more relevant aspects only. Honourable senators are aware that casual Senate vacancies arise from one of three main causes. These are death, resignation or disqualification of some nature. All but one of the casual vacancies in the history of the Senate have occurred due to death or resignation. The exception occurred in 1903 when Senator Ferguson’s place was deemed to be vacant due to his extended absence from the Chamber. In that case the provisions of section 20 of the Constitution were invoked.

Consistent with the notion that the Senate was to be a States house, the writers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution vested the responsibility for filling casual Senate vacancies in the State Parliaments. Section 15 of the Constitution requires: the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he -

That is the previous senator- was chosen shall, sitting and voting together, choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term, or until the election of a successor . . . whichever first happens.

Further provision is made in section 1 5 for the Governor of the State, with the advice of the Executive Council, to make what is actually an interim appointment if the Houses of Parliament of the State are not in session. Whichever way an appointment is made, however, the significant fact is that it is not made by the electorate but by a State parliament; for, in the latter case, unless the successor is earlier elected or the appointee ‘s term earlier expires, a permanent appointment is made subsequently by the Houses of Parliament of the State.

Prior to 1 949 there was probably little need for concern that any casual vacancy should be filled by a person from the same party as the senator who had vacated the position. Until 1 949 the systems of voting for the Senate did not reflect accurately the intent of the electorate. For example, at the election following the double dissolution of 1914, the non-Labor Opposition polled nearly half of the Senate vote but won only five of the 36 places in the Senate. Following the Senate election of 1919 there was only one Labor senator, and from 1946 to 1949 Labor held thirtythree of the Senate places to non-Labor’s three. Certainly on a number of occasions before 1949 State Houses of Parliament chose persons from a different party from that to which the retired or deceased senator belonged. Since 1949, however, senators have been elected under a system of proportional representation and the effect has been to have a more evenly divided Senate. This delicate balance can be destroyed readily if casual vacancies are not filled by persons of the same party as the senators whom they replace.

The first casual vacancy after the introduction of proportional representation occurred in 1951 upon the death of R. H. Nash, an Australian Labor Party senator. At that time there was a non-Labor government in Western Australia, the State which Senator Nash represented. In January 1952 the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Ross McLarty, communicated with other State Premiers about the vacancy. The text of Sir Ross McLarty ‘s letter was outlined in a Press statement by the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, on 12 February 1975. Amongst other things, Sir Ross said:

This is the first vacancy that has arisen since proportional representation was adopted for the Senate, so whatever action is taken on this occasion could be taken as a precedent in filling future vacancies. I am therefore anxious to obtain the views of all State Premiers as to how they consider the future vacancies should be filled.

My opinion is that, in view of the fact that proportional representation is now the method of election to the Senate, a member of the same Party, nominated by the Executive of the Party, should be appointed when future vacancies arise through death or other causes.

In this particular case, the nomination would come from the Executive of the Western Australian Branch of the ALP.

Not all the correspondence on the matter has been made public. Sir Charles Court, the Premier of Western Australia, said on 1 3 February 1975 on the ABC program A.M. that the Premier of South Australia in 1952 did not agree to Sir Ross McLarty ‘s proposition. It appears, however, that there was general, if not unanimous, agreement with Sir Ross McLarty ‘s proposal amongst the State Premiers. A nominee of the Labor Party, J. A. Cooke, was subsequently appointed in the place of Senator Nash. Following the appointment of Senator Cooke there were until 1974 a further 24 casual vacancies. Five of those were caused by resignation and each of the five was a member of the Liberal Party. The remaining 19 vacancies were caused by death. In each case the vacancy was filled by an appointee from the same political party to which the retired or deceased senator belonged. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard details in relation to casual vacancies from 1951 to 1974.

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

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate. The only time when there appeared to be some doubt that the convention might not be observed occurred following the death in 1962 of a Labor senator from Queensland, Senator M. W. Poulter. Honourable senators will recall that earlier I mentioned that Mr Sparkes, the President of the

National Party, recently presented incorrect historical information about a previous casual vacancy in Queensland. Referring to the casual vacancy following the death of Senator Poulter, Mr Sparkes said on the television program Monday Conference that the Australian Labor Party put forward a panel of 3 names. His statement was patently incorrect. What happened was that the Country Party-Liberal Government in Queensland vetoed Mr A. E. Arnell, Labor’s choice to fill the casual vacancy. The Government’s objection was based upon Mr Arnell’s alleged left wing associations. At the Government’s insistence, the Australian Labor Party in Queensland submitted a further name to the Parliament, and Mr G. I. Whiteside, who was Labor’s second nominee, was appointed. At this stage it is worthwhile making 2 comments. Firstly, on the Monday Conference program to which I have referred in which Mr Sparkes gave incorrect information, he said also that Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s action was justifiable. Secondly, Patrick Tennison, in his recent book The Lucky Country Reborn made the same mistake as Mr Sparkes did in relation to a list being submitted to the then State Government. Incidentally, that was not the only error of fact made by Mr Tennison. It is a pity that a journalist of his experience should make such basic errors and thus cast doubts on other aspects of his book.

I return now to the convention in relation to casual vacancies. Despite the growing acceptance of the convention, at least until 1975, there has often been raised the suggestion that it would be desirable to change the law to ensure that casual vacancies would be filled by a person from the same political party as his predecessor. Both the Select Committee on the Constitution Alteration (Avoidance of Double Dissolution Deadlocks) Bill 1950 and the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review referred to casual vacancies and made that suggestion. The Select Committee ‘s report, of course, was made before the historical vacancy of 1951. The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review pointed out the difficulties in framing a suitable amendment. In its first report in 1958 it stated that it was unable to find a form of amendment which would express satisfactorily the objective it had in mind. In its 1959 report it went even further, and I should like to quote some aspects of that report. In paragraph 287 it stated, amongst other things:

The Committee could not, however, find suitable language which would have covered all possible contingencies and, at the same time, avoided reference to political parties in the Constitution. By way of illustration of the difficulties confronting the Committee, it would have been necessary, in any constitutional alteration, to deal with possible cases of a vacating senator who joined another party after election, became a member of another party because that party succeeded the party in existence at the date of election or who, for that matter, was not a member of any party. The difficulties proved to be insurmountable.

In paragraph 291 the Committee stated:

At this juncture, the Committee merely reiterates its view, expressed in the first Report, that all members who sat on the

Committee thought the principle should continue to be observed without exception so that the matter may become the subject of a constitutional convention or understanding which political parties will always observe.

In 1975, however, there were 2 casual vacancies, and each time the convention was broken. On 9 February 1975 Labor Senator L. K. Murphy from New South Wales resigned from the Senate to accept an appointment to the High Court of Australia. He was not, however, to be replaced by a nominee of the Labor Party. Terming the vacancy a ‘contrived’ one, the then New South Wales Premier, Mr Lewis, denied that he was bound by any convention. He said, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 February 1975, that ‘no evidence existed of any convention for filling Senate vacancies other than those created by death or ill-health’. In one respect Mr Lewis was correct. His reported statement in the Sydney Morning Herald rightly pointed out that every ‘vacancy caused by deliberate act of government since 1949 had been filled by a State Parliament where the majority had been of the same political colour as that of the retiring senator’.

On the other hand, Mr Lewis conveniently disregarded the apparent agreement of a majority of the Premiers in 1952. That agreement had considered casual vacancies arising through death or other causes’. With no provision in the Standing Orders of the New South Wales Parliament for a secret ballot for filling Senate vacancies, the result was beyond doubt when the New South Wales Cabinet approved the nomination of the Mayor of Albury, 72-year-old Alderman Cleaver Bunton. That was the man who had apparently filled the quaint description that Mr Lewis was reported in the Courier Mail of 17 February 1975 to have given the person for whom he was looking- a political neuter.

The Australian Labor Party chose as its nominee Mr Peter Westerway who had been an unsuccessful candidate for Labor in the 1974 Senate election. Alderman Bunton however was chosen by a joint parliamentary vote of 87 votes to 70 votes. The appointment of Alderman Bunton was to have little effect on the direction of the Australian Parliament. The Opposition already had half of the members in the Senate of 60 members, which enabled it to reject any government legislation. Senator Bunton voted with the Government when the 1975-76 Budget came before the Senate. In that respect then his appointment did not contribute to the political instability of October-November 1975. That is not to say, of course, that there was not public controversy about Alderman Bunton ‘s appointment. Even a cursory glance at the newspapers of the day reveal the public indignation on the move.

The outcome however, was different following the filling of the second casual vacancy for 1975. That vacancy occurred upon the death on 30 June 1975 of a Labor representative from Queensland, Senator B. R. Milliner. The early indications were that a Labor appointee would fill the vacancy. On 2 July 1975 the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, was reported in the Courier Mail to have said that the appointee would be a person from the Australian Labor Party. He said that ‘in the case of a death, it is logical to appoint a man from the same Party’. Mr Bjelke-Petersen, however, made a statement to the Press that Labor ‘would have to put forward a panel of candidates from which a choice would be made’. He formally issued that direction to the Queensland branch of the Labor Party in a letter addressed to the Leader of the Opposition, MrT. Burns. In part the letter read:

The generally accepted practice when a vacancy of this nature occurs is for the new Senator to be of the same political Party as his predecessor.

To this end therefore, t should appreciate your advising me as soon as possible the names of three persons whom your Party would be prepared to nominate for the election of one of them by the Parliament to fill the present casual Senate vacancy.

At this stage, Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the full text of that letter from the Premier of Queensland to Mr Burns.

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

Premier’s Department Brisbane Q. 4000 17th July, 1975.

Dear Mr Burns,

On 1 July 1 975, His Excellency the Governor was formally advised by the President of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia of the Senate vacancy which had resulted from the death of Senator Bertie Richard Milliner on 3.0 June 1975.

The question now arises of having that vacancy filled. As you are aware Section 15 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that when the State Parliament is not in Session the Governor in Council of the State concerned may appoint a person to hold the Senate place until the expiry of fourteen days from the beginning of the next Session of the said Parliament. When the Parliament does meet, it must then proceed within fourteen days to the election of a person to hold the late Senator’s place in the Senate. Section 1 5 also states that ‘If the place of a Senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the House of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen shall, sitting and voting together, choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term . . .’

The Queensland Parliament is not presently in Session but today His Excellency the Governor has summoned the Parliament to meet on Tuesday, 19 August 1975. In view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Constitution and the imminent commencement of the Second Session of the Forty-First Parliament of Queensland, it would be appropriate if the constitutional action involved for the filling of the casual Senate vacancy were undertaken by the Parliament following the commencement of the Second Session.

The generally accepted practice when a vacancy of this nature occurs is for the new Senator to be of the same political Party as his predecessor.

To this end therefore, I should appreciate your advising me as soon as possible the names of three persons whom your Party would be prepared to nominate for the election of one of them by the Parliament to fill the present casual Senate vacancy.

In this regard I refer you also to the provisions of Standing Order 331 (e) of the Legislative Assembly as expressed in that Standing Order and the relevant Schedule.

Yours faithfully. JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN Premier

Senator COLSTON:

-Mr Burns pointed out that that direction was in contrast to the stand taken by Mr Bjelke-Petersen when Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin resigned her place in the Senate to accept an appointment as High Commissioner for New Zealand. On that occasion Mr Bjelke-Petersen asked the Queensland division of the Liberal Party to advise him of the name of one person whom it wished to nominate for the casual vacancy. Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that letter from Mr Bjelke-Petersen to Mr Houston.

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

Premier’s Department Brisbane Q. 4000 31 May 1971.

Dear Mr. Houston,

His Excellency the Governor was formally advised by His Excellency the Governor-General on 25 May 1971, that, on 24 May 1971, Senator the Honourable Dame Annabelle Jane Mary Rankin, D.B.E., a Senator for the State of Queensland, resigned her place in the Senate, in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that place thereupon became vacant. Dame Annabelle Rankin’s term of service had been due to expire on 30 June 1 974.

As you know, the accepted practice when a casual vacancy of this nature occurs is for the new Senator to be of the same political party as his predecessor and I have asked the Queensland Division of the Liberal Party of Australia to advise me, as quickly as possible, of the name of the person they wish to nominate on this particular occasion.

As soon as I am in receipt of the name of this nominee, I shall advise you accordingly and, at the same time, the necessary constitutional procedure for the filling of this casual Senate vacancy brought about by Dame Annabelle ‘s resignation will be set in train.

Yours sincerely, JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN Premier

Mr. J. W.Houston, M.L.A., Leader of the Opposition, Parliament House, BRISBANE.

Senator COLSTON:

-With one exception, it was also in constrast to the practice which had prevailed since 1 952, of accepting the nominee of the political Party concerned. The exception was the previously mentioned occasion following the death of Senator Poulter in 1962. At that time a second name had been submitted only after the Parliament had expressed its dubious dissatisfaction with the original nominee.

The Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party decided that it could not and would not accede to Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s provocative request. It held that the Party itself should have the right to choose its candidate for the casual vacancy. Overwhelming Labor opinion and, indeed, overwhelming public opinion was that one name only should be submitted. Nominations were called from within the Labor Party for the vacancy. Two nominations were received. A ballot was held and I subsequently became the Party’s sole nominee.

The Queensland Parliament met on 27 August 1975 to consider the casual vacancy. My name was submitted by the Leader of the Opposition in the State Parliament, Mr Burns. That was the only nomination but, after a 3-hour debate, the Parliament voted by 62 votes to 15 votes- Labor had 1 1 members in the Queensland Parliamentnot to accept the nomination. The principal reason for the rejection of the nomination was that a panel of 3 names had not been submitted so that, in accordance with section 1 5 of the Constitution, a choice could not be made. It was argued that with one name only before the Parliament it was not possible for the Parliament, in the terms of the Constitution, ‘to choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term, or until the election of a successor . . whichever first happens’. It seemed that that was really but a convenient exercise in semantics when one considers that during the debate a concerted effort had been made to discredit me as an acceptable nominee.

The circumstances of the vicious personal attack on me are, of course, fully documented in the State Hansard. It is pertinent, however, to make one observation and to pose one question. The observation is that even though such attacks were made on me the State Government saw fit to re-employ me as a State public servant. Apparently I was considered sufficiently fit to work for the people of Queensland as a public servant but not fit enough to represent them in the Senate. In other words, the State Parliament’s actions were an example of a first-class humbug. The question which now may be posed is this: If I was so unfit to be a member of this chamber in 1975, where are last year’s critics now?

It is pertinent for me to mention an incident which occurred on 27 August prior to the time when the Parliament met to consider the vacancy. In one of the corridors of the State Parliament I encountered a State Minister whom I had known reasonably well through my duties as a public servant. During the course of a conversation which followed our meeting one another he said: ‘You get your Party to put forward 3 names. Then you will be chosen by Parliament as the new senator’. My immediate reaction was: Well, what a peculiar piece of logic!

After the abortive parliamentary meeting on 27 August 1975, Parliament met one week later on 3 September 1975 to consider the casual vacancy once more. Again the Australian Labor Party put forward my name only. There had been widespread condemnation of the actions of 27 August from people of all political persuasions throughout Australia, including many members of the House of Representatives who debated the issue in that House on 3 September 1975. Nevertheless, my nomination was again rejected by the State Parliament. This time all the Liberal Ministers who were present voted for my nomination, but it was again rejected. On that occasion voting was 53 to 26. Then the man whom Mr Bjelke-Petersen nominated, Mr A. P. Field- a relative unknown in politics at that time and, incidentally, not really known by Mr Bjelke-Petersen himself- was appointed by 50 votes to 26 votes. Despite what was mentioned by the Queensland Minister who said that I would be chosen if a panel of three was put forward, I doubt that Mr Bjelke-Petersen ever had any intention of appointing a Labor nominee. His whole strategy in my opinion was deliberately devised to ensure that a non-Labor nominee would become the new senator for the State of Queensland.

Mr Field was a card carrying member of the Australian Labor Party. But, under rule 49 of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party, he had automatically expelled himself by standing against an endorsed Labor candidate.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen should have been well aware of the substance of rule 49 as it had been mentioned many times after Senator Milliner’s death and during the debates on 27 August and 3 September. He was thus unconvincing when, as reported in the Brisbane Courier Mail of 4 September 1975, he remarked:

I have said from the outset I would observe convention and the Senate vacancy would be filled by a member of the ALP. Mr Albert Patrick Field is such a man.

Any thoughts that Mr Field might support the Australian Labor Party in the Senate were quickly dispelled by one of his first press statements. In the same edition of the Courier Mail as I just mentioned, he is reported as follows:

He wanted the Federal Labor Party turned out. If voting against Supply would do this, he might vote against Supply.

The composition of the Senate therefore had been changed by the appointments of Senators Bunton and Field to 30 Liberal-National Country Party senators, 27 Australian Labor Party senators, 1 Liberal Movement senator and 2 Independent senators. The Labor representation of 29 senators as chosen by the electorate in May 1974 had been reduced by two.

Many honourable senators will be conversant with the events which followed. Even without the assistance of either of the appointed independents, Senator Field and Senator Bunton, the Opposition was able to reject any Government legislation. On the other hand, with 30 senators in a chamber with a membership of 60, it was unable to initiate legislation. The appointment of Senator Field, however, allowed the Opposition to take complete control in the Senate. A writ was issued challenging the right of Senator Field to occupy a place in the Senate. To cover his nonattendance in the Senate while the case was being considered by the High Court, this chamber granted him leave of absence for one month. With his absence, the Opposition had a majority of senators in this chamber, having 30 senators out of 59 senators. Thus, when the Appropriation Bills came before the Senate, the Opposition was able to move for their deferment. The Opposition’s willingness to pass the Bills was conditional upon the Government agreeing to go to the people. Each time the Opposition was able to carry its motion of deferment by one vote, Senator Bunton and Senator Hall voting with the Government.

In this manner, Supply was deferred on 3 occasions- 11 October, 23 October and 6 November. The continuing deferment set the stage for the crisis of government and its consequent climax on 1 1 November. But if a Labor nominee had replaced Senator Milliner, there would not have been an extended crisis. Without the support of Senators Bunton and Hall, the Opposition would have been obliged, if it wished to use the Appropriation Bills to force an election, to reject those Bills. If it had done so, the political position would have become clear immediately. Admittedly the Government could have kept sending the Appropriation Bills to the Senate and had them rejected over the same period as they were deferred. The outcome could have been similar to that which occurred following the deferment of the Bills. On the other hand, it is more likely that, if the Opposition had not been able to defer the Appropriation Bills, Supply would have been passed. It seemed that there were sufficient Opposition senators who would not have agreed to take the ultimate step and vote for the rejection of Supply. Under these circumstances, therefore, it is probable that, unless there had been some other unforeseen circumstance, there would still have been a Labor government in 1976.

It is worth while pointing out that one Opposition senator- Senator Bessell- publicly announced that he would not vote for the rejection of Supply. It is probably significant that this senator’s State organisation was successful in its attempts to prevent Senator Bessell from returning to this chamber after the December 1975 election; or, at least, it put sufficient obstacles in his path to prevent his return. On a Four Corners program on 25 October 1975, Senator Bessell was interviewed by Peter Ross. The transcript of that program reads:

Peter Ross: Senator, how would you react if it came to a rejection of the Budget?

Senator Bessell: Well it’s not a question of that but I would not be in favour of a rejection of the Budget. I’m certainly very much in favour of the situation we have at the moment where the amendment that was put down a couple of days ago will be put down on the Bills that are currently before the Senate . . .

Later, the transcript continues:

Peter Ross: Would you under no circumstances vote for a rejection of Supply?

Senator Bessell: At the present moment that would be my opinion, I would not want to vote for rejection.

Peter Ross: Does that make you a lone figure in the Opposition benches?

Senator Bessell: Well I wouldn’t think so but I couldn’t bc more specific than that.

Finally, the transcript reads:

Peter Ross: And if it came to a vote of pure rejection of Supply you wouldn’t vote?

Senator Bessell: I would not vote for a rejection.

It is my opinion that not only was a long standing convention twice broken in 1975 by reactionary State Premiers but, in addition, the very stability of Australian parliamentary government as it was known prior to 1975 was discarded. By deliberately altering the composition of one of the Houses of the national Parliament from that which the Australian electors set in 1974, a democratically elected government was eventually dismissed from office.

So, I ask: What of the future? It is now difficult to say whether a convention still exists in relation to the filling of casual vacancies. Will the system which prevailed from 1952 to 1974 be adhered to in the future and will the 2 events of 1975 be regarded simply as an unfortunate departure from accepted political practice in Australia? Or will the circumstances surrounding the 1975 occurrences be accepted as a new convention- a convention of cynical political expediency? Much as I would deplore it, I consider that the latter will prevail. No longer will the votes of the electorate have any special significance for the Senate. The composition of the upper chamber can be manipulated at will.

When honourable senators contemplate this possibility, they must have some reservations about what it means to them, knowing that vacancies almost invariably occur because of resignation or death. Will the events of 1975 eventually lead to the necessity for tight security provisions for each Australian senator to prevent extreme measures from being taken to cause casual vacancies? This may be a frightening picture to paint. In the light of the Murphy-Bunton and Milliner-Field incidents, however, I do not believe it to be unrealistic.

There is currently no State Parliament in Australia which has sufficient Labor representatives in its 2 chambers- of course Queensland has one chamber- to expect that a move to replace non-Labor senators with Labor nominees would be successful. Nevertheless this situation will one day change. Non-Labor parties may regret the precedent set by Messrs Lewis and Bjelke-Petersen. Along with many of my Australian Labor Party colleagues, I hope that no future State Labor government will follow the 2 examples of 1975. Nevertheless, now that the convention has been disregarded, it is difficult to be certain that this will not happen. Those who do care about the 1975 incident should support any moves to have the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in relation to casual vacancies investigated further. Perhaps it may be possible to frame a suitable amendment to frustrate the will of a future maverick premier.

The implications of the actions spearheaded by Messrs Lewis and Bjelke- Petersen, however, go far beyond the effect on the convention- in relation to casual vacancies. They throw into total doubt any assumptions of the permanency of all the conventions which are essential for the maintenance of our Australian system of government. If in the future the hydra-like spectre of political expediency questions these conventions, ‘ I hope that good sense will prevail. Regretfully, however, I have some doubts- that it will. The shabby manner in which established conventions were treated with contempt in 1975 has added a new dimension to Australian politics.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I take the opportunity presented by the debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill to draw attention of the Senate and the Parliament to the fact that today saw the opening of the Sixth Intermediate Conference of the Australian Pensioners Federation in Canberra. Given the present Government’s attempts to diminish benefits available to pensioners, it is timely that pensioners, representing associations from just about all over Australia, have come to Canberra to put their case to the Government. Their main concern, of course, is to ensure that in the preparation of its next Budget the Government does not encroach any further on the standards attained by pensioners under the Whitlam Government. Whilst I, and perhaps most honourable senators, admire the energy and activism of the pensioners in organising their associations and coming to Canberra in this way, I believe that it should not be necessary for the senior citizens of Australia to have to come to Canberra and demand their rights. It seems to me as a member of a different and more fortunate generation that it is a tragic irony that it is still the pensioners who have to come, almost cap in hand, to the Government to ask for what should be in any civilised society a minimum economic security.

Most of the people now associated with pensioner federations are people who did not benefit greatly from the economic prosperity that Australia experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. They suffered from the Depression, from the Second World War and in some cases from the First World War. The advances that were possible in Australia in areas such as education, health services and employment opportunities were not for their generation. They were for my generation. So it seems to me to be a tragic irony that now that the economic prosperity has stopped and we are facing economic difficulties, it is not the people of my generation who have perhaps the wherewithal to defend themselves in a time of economic hardship who will suffer, it is the people who missed out all along the line who now appear to be the most direct victims of this Government’s attempts to manage the economy.

Until 1972 the condition of Australian pensioners was a national scandal. I do not think any honourable senator would have the hide to disagree with that assertion today. The basic pension of $20 a week which was then the lot of the single pensioner bore no relation to any cost of living criteria that anyone could possibly imagine. However, under the Whitlam Government things improved and they improved very dramatically. During this time there was an 80 per cent increase in pensions. Of course, this occurred during a time of rapid inflation. Nonetheless, average male weekly earnings increased 56 per cent in that time and the consumer price index increased by 41 per cent. So certainly the condition of the pensioner improved relatively at a rapid rate under the Whitiam Government. However, what is the situation now? It appears that pensioners can look forward only to consumer price index adjustments of their pensions perhaps several months after the increase in prices actually occurs- several months after they start paying the higher costs. Certainly, if the Whitlam Government had persisted in making only the CPI increases to the pensioners, their benefits at the moment would be much lower than they are.

Other benefits that pensioners achieved during the time of the Whitlam Government included the reduction of the means test. The means test for persons over 75 years was removed in October 1973. For those persons aged between 70 years and 74 years it was removed in May 1975. It was the intention of the Labor Government to proceed with the removal of the means test until all pensioners were able to receive their pension entitlements regardless of means. It was also the intention of the Labor Government to persist with pension increases until the value of the basic pension was 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The intentions of the present Government with respect to the future of present pension increases are unclear. Also during the time of the Whitlam Government, subsidies for voluntary organisations establishing homes for the aged increased considerably from $2 for every $1 raised to $4 from every $1 raised by the voluntary organisation. Certainly the introduction of Medibank maintained the level of health benefits available to pensioners and increased them in some cases. Similarly, nursing home benefits were increased during the period of the Whitlam Government.

Why is it that pensioners must still organise and come to lobby in Canberra, to lobby only for their rights and not for anything special or outrageous? The main reason, of course, is that we have had a change of government. The change of government and the attitude exhibited by this Government towards pensioners has caused a great deal of concern and distress to those people who are beneficiaries of welfare programs. For example, it was to be the Government’s intention, we understand, to introduce a $10 charge for hearing aids. As a result of public pressure, including pressure from the pensioner organisations and from the general community, the Government did not proceed with that intention. The Government went a lot further in its intention to take away the $40 funeral benefit currently still allowable, I am happy to say. It went so far as to draw up legislation which would deprive the pensioners of that funeral benefit. However, it seems clear now that the community at large will no longer tolerate this kind of injustice to pensioners. The outcry from all sections of the community about this piece of legislation was so great that some honourable senators opposite saw the justice of the pensioners’ case, had the social conscience to act and voted against their Government’s legislation. Whilst I feel that this action only continued to permit a very modest benefit to pensioners, it was an important victory for pensioners themselves. It reflected the fact that finally within the community there is an attitude that pensioners should not be the ones who have to accept the bad deal, that at least they should have their current benefits maintained and, I should hope, have them increased.

Perhaps the only positive thing to emerge from the Government’s disgraceful attempt to deprive the pensioners of their funeral benefit is that there is now much more awareness throughout the community of the funeral benefit, of what a small amount it is and of the difficulties faced by pensioners when a spouse dies and the remaining pensioner has to cope with the funeral expenses. I hope that, as a result of the public interest and the increased information now available to the public about the plight of pensioners with regard to funeral expenses, there will be a great deal of support for the pensioner association’s own claim to have the funeral benefit increased to 60 per cent of the funeral cost. There is some prospect that this may happen as we have now discovered that there are indeed senators in this chamber who are prepared to put the needs of the pensioners before their own narrow party considerations.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Do not overdo it.

Senator RYAN:

– I am very optimistic. Although there are still some sections of the Government which are prepared to make pensioners pay the price of the Government’s own clumsy attempts to manage the economy, no sections of the community are prepared to accept this. Perhaps we may see not only the maintenance of the benefit but also an increase of the funeral benefit for pensioners to 60 per cent of the actual funeral expenses.

Other matters of concern to pensioners, however, have not been resolved so successfully. Firstly there was the matter of the delay of the increase due to pensioners which was experienced by the pensioners after the change of government. Although it has been reported that the Prime Minister said during the campaign that no delays would occur in passing on the consumer price index to the pensioners and that the indexation would be automatic and immediate, there has, in fact, been a delay. This has caused a great deal of concern, not to mention economic hardship, to the pensioners and it has caused them to doubt the good faith of this Government with respect to many other election promises that affect pensioners.

An other matter of great concern was the Government’s tampering with the pharmaceutical benefits list. It is true that aged pensioners do not have to pay for drugs which are on the pharmaceutical benefits list; those drugs are available to pensioners free. However, when a drug is taken off that list it is no longer available to the pensioners in any subsidised form at all. The pensioner has to pay the full cost. I have been informed by members of the Australian Pensioners Federation that as a result of this tampering with the pharmaceutical benefits list some pensioners are paying up to $9 a week every week for a drug for which they have some chronic need and which was previously on the pharmaceutical benefits list and therefore available free. It has now been removed from that list and is therefore available to the pensioner only at the full retail cost. I hope again that, with the sort of support in the community and even the support that there appears to be in this chamber for the needs of the pensioners, we may see a review of the Government’s decision to take certain drugs off the pharmaceutical benefits list and make those drugs for which pensioners have need once again available to them as a pharmaceutical benefit.

The other matter which I have mentioned previously is what is to be the future with regard to the passing on to pensioners of the CPI increase. Pensioners claim that as of today they are in fact 9.4 per cent behind in CPI increases. Is it to be the policy of this Government to continue to let the pensioners lag behind the CPI increases or will the Government accept the responsibility that it undertook when it asked pensioners to vote for it in the December campaign and fulfil its election promise of making these increases automatic and immediate?

Finally, age pensioners, like all other beneficiaries of welfare programs in Australia, resent and are extremely distressed by the smear being cast on them by some sections of the Government. Aided and abetted by the Press we have seen a campaign in this country in the last few months aimed at humiliating and insulting people who are genuine beneficiaries of welfare programs. In particular we have seen the campaign waged against the genuinely unemployed. To the already dramatic problems of a person who is genuinely unemployed are now added the psychological and social problems of discrimination from neighbours, family and acquaintances, based on the dole-bludger campaign waged so successfully by some elements of the media in conjunction with some members of the present Government. The pensioners feel the humiliation of these sorts of smears and feel that the attacks made on beneficiaries of welfare programs extend in the minds of some people to pensioners. They are very distressed by allusions to things such as the soft society of which we have heard a little from some members of the Government recently. The genuine needs of pensioners, people who have lived and worked for this society all their lifetime, are not at the indulgence of the so-called soft society, and any attempt to suggest that they are is callous and insulting in the extreme.

Pensioners after all have worked in many ways. They have reared families. They have contributed to this society economically. They have contributed their labour. Surely they are entitled at this stage of their lives to things that we all take for granted for ourselves, such as economic security, adequate health services and dignity. I hope that the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and his Government will acknowledge the justice of the pensioners cause when the pensioners come to the Parliament tomorrow to present their case to him and to other members of the Government. I hope that members of the Government will be chastened by their experience over the funeral benefits, that they will seriously consider the justice of the pensioners claim and that they will drop any other plans they may have to make reductions in the deficit by depriving the pensioners of basic benefits.

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

– I propose that we now move on to the second reading stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1976 now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1974. The Bill, which contains 32 schedules, is necessary to enact tariff changes made since September 1974. All of the changes were incorporated in Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 6 1976 which were introduced into the Parliament earlier this session.

Honourable senators may recall that at the time the proposals were introduced in another place a comprehensive summary in respect of each proposal was circulated to all honourable senators setting out the nature of the changes in duty rates and the origin of each change. A consolidation of these summaries has been prepared and copies may be obtained from the Bills and Papers Office. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1483

LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

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

-I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1483

LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION 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 Cotton) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Livestock Slaughter Collection Act 1964-1974 to establish a National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account into which moneys raised through the additional slaughter levy imposed by the Livestock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1976 will be paid. As I will say in my second reading speech in connection with the Livestock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the levy for national disease eradication will, for the time being at least, be used only for purposes of the national brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. However, the Trust Account has been given its wider name so that in future the same system and arrangements can operate without new legislation.

The Trust Account will be subject to the normal audit provision for such accounts. Into the account will be paid moneys collected by the newly introduced levy and interest from the investment of funds standing to the credit of the Trust Account. The Minister for Primary Industry may approve expenditure of moneys from the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account by way of payment to the States and in meeting costs incurred by the Commonwealth for the purpose of the eradication of any endemic cattle disease in Australia. Moneys may also be paid from the Trust Account with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry, to reimburse the Consolidated Revenue Fund in respect of any expenses connected with eradication of an endemic disease of cattle which may have been defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In accordance with the Government’s wish to simplify printing styles in legislation a number of formal amendments have been included. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1484

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS (PENSION INCREASES) 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 Withers) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to increase pension benefits payable under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1975 and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-1975. The pension increases provided by this Bill are to be on an interim basis. They are to apply retrospectively to 3 July 1975 for the year 1975-1976.

Honourable senators may recall that the last 2 pension increases received by former servicemen were granted on an interim basis. It was the intention of the previous Government to introduce legislation to provide for an annual adjustment of Service pensions on a permanent basis. That is also this Government’s intention. However, as honourable senators will appreciate, it was not until recently that the Government reached decisions on the new Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme thus allowing the Government a clear basis upon which to proceed with the development of a generally comparable updating procedure for defence force pensions.

Future permanent methods of adjustment are currently under intensive and urgent examination. The Government will be taking decisions on the whole matter soon. The increases in both DFRB and DFRDB pensions contained in this Bill will be related to the 1 7.6 per cent increase in the consumer price index during the 12 months ending 31 March 1975. In the case of DFRB pensioners, that is those who retired prior to 1 October 1972, the amount of the increase is determined by applying 1.4 times the 17.6 per cent increase to the Government share of pension as at 30 June 1974. The practical outcome is that the great majority of DFRB pensioners will receive an increase of the order of 20 per cent of their total annual pension.

Additionally, some older DFRB pensioners will be entitled to the payment of arrears of pension arising from the last 2 interim adjustments. The arrears have become payable following the introduction of a more accurate method for determining the Government share of pension to replace the assessment method used in the last 2 interim adjustments. For DFRDB pensioners, the whole pension payable as at 30 June 1974, or later where pension subsequently became payable, is to be increased by 1.0 times the 17.6 per cent increase in the consumer price index except where retirement occurred within the 12 months preceding 1 July 1975 when the percentage will be proportionately reduced in relation to the number of months served during that year.

The adjustment formulae for DFRB and DFRDB pensioners respectively acknowledge the essential differences between the 2 retirement schemes and thus a common adjustment method is not possible. Widows pensions and the additional pension payable in respect of eligible children will be increased in proportion to the increase that would have applied to the deceased serviceman if he were still alive and drawing pension. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.48 to 8 p.m.

page 1484

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS LANDS ACQUISITION ORDINANCE 1975

Notice of Motion

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WOOD:

– This notice of motion is for the disallowance of the Lands Acquisition Ordinance 1975 of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. In its 52nd report presented to the Senate on 18 March 1976 the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances recommended the disallowance of the ordinance on the ground that if the Executive Government is to be given a general power to acquire all land in the Territory for unspecified purposes, this ought to be done by Act of Parliament and not by subordinate legislation. The ordinance, however, has now been repealed in accordance with an undertaking given to the Committee by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). The repealing ordinance was made by the Governor-General yesterday. Accordingly, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on the subject matter of the notice of motion which Senator Wood has withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Wood has said, on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances that he has withdrawn his notice of motion that the Lands Acquisition Ordinance 1975, as contained in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Ordinance No. 5 of 1975, and made under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955-1975, be disallowed. He indicated that he is doing this on behalf of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee because the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) has informed the Committee that the Government will introduce an ordinance repealing the earlier one. But I note that the Government apparently has not given an undertaking that there will be an enactment by way of legislation to bring about acquisition of the Clunies Ross Estate on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I had hoped that such an announcement would have been made by way of a ministerial statement by Senator Withers rather than by way of an indication to the Committee so that the matter could then have been adequately debated in this chamber.

I can assure you, Mr President, that concern is felt amongst a large section of the Cocos Malay community about the matter. Only this week two of the Cocos Malay community went to the trouble of writing to me personally in their own language to try to convey to me some of their feelings on the matter. Whilst I am not in a position at this stage to be able to relate to the Senate what is in those letters, because I cannot understand their language, I am making every attempt possible to have their letters translated so that I will know the. feelings of those people who have gone to the trouble of writing to me about the matter. I believe they are looking for hope. They want something done. They believe that they as people are entitled to make up their own minds about, and have a real say in, their own destiny.

We of the Opposition regard the matter as one of very great importance, particularly because of the heavy-handed statements on the subject that have been made by the Minister for

Administrative Services since he returned from the Cocos Islands the week before last. Last Thursday in the Senate the Minister said that some of the problems in the Cocos and Christmas Islands which must be solved will not be solved by people making a lot of hoo-ha in the Press about them; that they will be solved only by sensible negotiations between the Government, the Clunies Ross estate in the case of the Cocos Islands, the British Phosphate Commission in the case of Christmas Island, and the people involved in those areas. I perhaps can agree to some extent with the last statement but indeed, the Minister himself has been coming out practically every second day and making some Press statements on the subjects.

The first statement purported to be in relation to the Asian population on Christmas Island who apparently were complaining to the Minister about lacie of action so far as resettlement programs were concerned. The Minister was reported as having said, when speaking to those demonstrators at Christmas Island, that they could not expect to get too far because if they propositioned a girl like they were propositioning him they would not get too far at all. He was then reported as having told the Cocos Islands workers that trouble makers would be in bother if they continued their actions and that he did not believe that many islanders would understand the concepts of independence or citizenship. A couple of days after that the Minister came out with the statement that he saw nothing wrong with Cocos Islanders being paid in plastic tokens. I suggest that all these statements do not do Australia as a nation very much credit in the eyes of our Asian neighbours in particular. I suggest to the Minister for Administrative Services that he should heed his own remarks and not make a lot of hoo-ha in the Press as, in fact, he has been doing. If the Minister does not contain himself in his remarks I can see problems ahead for this nation so far as the future control of these territories is concerned.

The ordinance which was before the Regulations and Ordinances Standing Committee and to which Senator Wood has referred this evening arises from a ministerial statement that I made in the Senate on 10 September last year, after I, as the Special Minister of State, had been to the Cocos Islands and also to Christmas Island. If I might say so, I think it was the first ministerial statement about the Cocos Islands that had ever been made in this Parliament. It was made at that time because there was, and still is, perhaps more than ever, an obvious need for the Australian Government to do something to assist the 500 Cocos Malay people who now live on the island. I point out, as I pointed out last September, that those who have been born on that island since 1955- and they are the great bulk of the 500 Cocos Malays- are, in fact, Australian citizens. Unless those Australian citizens receive some form of assistance from the Clunies Ross estate, they have no hope whatever of ever getting to Australia.

Why was the ordinance made originally? Firstly, the Cocos Islands consist of 27 coral islands, about 2800 kilometres north-west of Perth. In total, the 27 islands comprise a mere 14 square kilometres. Only two of the 27 islands are inhabited. One is West Island which is occupied by the Australian administration and on which there are about 140 Australians. Then there is Home Island on which there are the Clunies Ross family and about 500 Cocos Malays. The 2 islands, West Island and Home Island, are separated by a strip of water which is commonly known as the lagoon. It is the washing place, the cleansing place, the fishing place and the toilet for the Cocos Malay people who unfortunately, on medical advice that was given to me, are riddled with worm. Mr Clunies Ross, who is known as ‘Tuan’ or ‘Mr John’ by the Islanders, appears to dominate the Imarat the 9 headmen council that has been appointed. He wields a decisive influence on the community’s affairs. Rightly or wrongly, I am told that the pill is compulsory for all young girls upon reaching the age of puberty and that there is a system of education- this matter was mentioned by Senator Jessop by way of question the other day- which provides education for only 2 children in each family. I thought that as Australians we were insisting that education for all citizens of this nation be compulsory.

The Minister for Administrative Services must know that there is no real freedom of movement for the Cocos Malay people between Home Island and West Island. Practically the only time that Home Islanders get to West Island is when they are required to go there for work purposes on the plantation on West Island, for servicing an aircraft, for carrying out some contractual obligation entered into by the Clunies Ross Estate, or perhaps to go to the hospital that is on West Island. Incidentally, Mr Clunies Ross has won contracts worth a great deal of money, be it hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars, over the years from the Australian Government. I suggest that the prices in his tenders are based on Perth prices and labour charges. He wins those contracts because there is no one else there to carry them out and having won the contracts he employs his Home Islanders, the Cocos Malay people, and pays them in plastic token money which is commonly called rupiah. If my memory serves me correctly there is an obligation under contracts entered into with the Australian Government on a contractor to pay his employees in Australian currency.

The Minister talked about conversion of the plastic rupiah into dollars and cents, but I ask him what the conversion rate is and who sets it. Is it the Australian Government or Mr Clunies Ross? I suggest that the answer is Mr Clunies Ross. Is the conversion rate 30c per rupiah and, if it is, are the workers paid about 12 rupiah a week? Also, is it a fact that any female worker on the Island cannot earn any more in the whole of her lifetime than 9 rupiah a week? As I said, it is Mr Clunies Ross and not the Australian Government who determines the conversion rate. Mr Clunies Ross controls the token system which is used exclusively on Home Island. He controls the single trade store on Home Island. He controls the prices that his store receives for goods provided. He controls access to and egress from Home Island. When I was there last August even the Administrator did not have a launch available to him to cross the lagoon. Every time he wanted to go to see Mr Clunies Ross, Mr Clunies Ross would have to send his boat for the Administrator to use. Mr Clunies Ross has complete landing rights on the Island with his launch and, as I mentioned in my ministerial statement last September, in my opinion the situation prevailing is a denial of basic human rights to the indigenous people there. When we were in government we said that we would move towards the enactment of an ordinance to establish for the Islanders a basis for the acquisition of land in line, as far as practicable, with the procedures of the Lands Acquisition Act which applies on the Australian mainland. Our regulation provided for the acquisition of land on Cocos on just terms.

I went to the Cocos Islands in the first instance at the request of the manager of the Clunies Ross Estate, Mr Dickson, who had had discussions with me in Australia last year on 2 occasions. One of the reasons for my visit was that, as Mr Dickson had told me, Mr Clunies Ross had proposed to our Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that the Government should finance the acquisition, with fair compensation, of all his Cocos assets and operations on behalf of the Cocos community. I went there at the invitation of the Estate to discuss the question of acquisition on just terms but, regrettably and unfortunately, that discussion did not bear fruit. Shortly after I presented my ministerial statement, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence presented a report to the Senate as a result of its inquiries into the subject. I read now paragraphs 53 and 54 from the report of the Senate Committee under the heading ‘Economic Viability of Cocos’. They state:

  1. A related issue concerns the continued presence of the Clunies Ross Family in the Islands. As a result of economic and governmental pressures, Mr Clunies Ross informed the Committee of his decision to sever the family’s connections with the islands and to negotiate the transfer of his assets to a Cocos Island Community Co-operative.
  2. The Committee urges that serious consideration now be given to acquisition of the entire Estate in order to establish a Cocos Island Community Co-operative. The Committee believes that such a Co-operative would assist significantly in the creation of an integrated community with a sense of responsibility and purpose. The Committee concurs with the view that acquisition of the Estate is the most practical means of giving effect to the reforms which are desired for the benefit of the Cocos Island people.

That was a recommendation to this Senate by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and explains in simple terms why the Labor Government introduced the regulation. The Opposition invites the Government to introduce legislation providing for the acquisition of the Estate on just terms and if the Government acts in that manner we will not oppose the legislation. On the other hand, as the Government has indicated to the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee and as Senator Wood on its behalf has indicated to us, should the Government introduce an ordinance for the repeal of this legislation, I will give notice of motion on behalf of the Opposition to disallow that repealing ordinance.

page 1487

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 April on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This Superannuation Bill, to which an amendment will be moved, flows from the Superannuation Bill that was introduced by the previous Government last year. Those of us who were present in the Senate at that time will recall the very long and at times involved debates that took place on the introduction of a new superannuation scheme for Commonwealth public servants. There were many people in this chamber who spent a great deal of time and effort in research and argument in order to advance or oppose the proposition which was put at that time by the Labor Government. I understand that the unions involved wish to see the legislation carried without delay. I hope that they Will have their wish tonight. This legislation in many ways moves backwards from the legislation which was proposed last year. I do not intend to debate the details. Others may wish to. I am sure that those of us who were here last year heard all the arguments ad nauseum. I am sure that we have all made up our minds long before this as to the merits or otherwise of this legislation. Mr President, I should have mentioned earlier that if the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) is agreeable, we could have a cognate debate on this, the Superannuation Amendment Bill and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Admendment Bill.

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, I am quite agreeable.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I think it is fair to say that the principal grounds of opposition to the legislation of last year was that the Labor Government was being over generous towards Commonwealth public servants. That was not a valid argument. I am sure that in princple we would have been in error had we attempted to introduce a new superannuation scheme which gave an undue advantage to Commonwealth public servants over other members of the community, bearing in mind the historical advantage of working conditions- I think admitted- which public servants, both Commonwealth and State, have enjoyed in the Australian community and work force over the years. We believed that a new superannuation scheme had to be introduced. I do not think there is any argument that the scheme which will operate up until the passage of this legislation was a completely desirable scheme but that it needed upgrading. Perhaps it is an argument of degree rather than principle. We have always believed that if a new scheme were to be introduced, we ought to set a standard which was commensurate with the responsibilities and traditions of the Service. We attempted to do that.

This was not done on the basis that favourable treatment would be given to the Commonwealth public servant. It is essential, as I am sure every one of us will agree, that irrespective of who is in office, we should have the most competent, efficient, dedicated and happy, if you like, Public Service. This is critical for the running of government. We want to attract the best talent that we can to the Public Service. We want a continuity of service amongst public servants. We need conditions which will induce public servants to remain in the Service. I suppose this is a different thing from that which applies to people generally in the private sector where there is a much greater movement of the work force than one finds within either the Commonwealth or the State Public Service. It was for those reasons that we felt it desirable in the national interest that we implement a superannuation scheme which would give the Commonwealth Public Service benefits which would justify the type of work and responsibility which it has and, at the same time, the inducement to remain within the Commonwealth Public Service.

Of course, the Labor Government was unsuccessful in its attempts to bring into force that superannuation scheme. Tonight we have before us the scheme which this Government has virtually imposed on the Commonwealth Public Service. I understand that after the change of Government there were discussions between this Government and the various unions which represented the Commonwealth Public Service. Presumably those unions had to accept as best they could in those discussions whatever they could get. The Government of the day- that is the present Government- made it quite clear that it was not prepared to bring in legislation which was as good as the legislation intended by the previous Government. Consequently, we have before us a Bill which goes some of the way to providing the sort of scheme which we felt was necessary. If we compare this scheme with some of the State Public Service schemes we find that the Labor Party’s proposal was not over generous. On the other hand, some State schemes are not quite as good. But this does not alter the basic proposition which I have been putting to the Senate. We were entitled to bring forward a better scheme than the one which existed in the past and which contained, in some instances, provisions which this legislation does not contain. I have a telegram which was sent to me by Mr Ken Turbet who is the chairman of the Combined Superannuation Co-ordinating Committee. He asks for the support of the Labor Party for the speedy passage of the Superannuation Bill 1976. The telegram goes on to state:

As you will be aware from last year Australian Government employees strongly favoured the introduction of the Superannuation Bill 197S. However because of hardships to existing contributors we would like to see the 1976 Bill providing for re-arrangements of benefits and contributions passed without delay. I have also asked the Government leader in the Senate to assist in the Bill ‘s speedy passage.

I intend to assist in a speedy passage. I do not believe that there should be a lengthy debate. Of course, that in no way inhibits any honourable senator from either side contributing as he sees fit. Nevertheless, on behalf of the Opposition I move an amendment which places on record our concern at the removal of certain advantages which obtained under the previous legislation. I move:

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, I second the amendment.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I rise to support the Superannuation Bill with some reservations because there are certain anomalies which have not previously been raised and which I hope the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) will investigate. I speak of superannuation when applied to the spouse’s pension. When referring to the term spouse’ for the purpose of the Act we find that a spouse is:

  1. a person who was legally married to the deceased person at the time of the person’s death and who, at that time, was living with the person on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis;
  2. a person who was legally married to the deceased person at the time of the person’s death but who was not living with the person on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis at that time, and who, in the opinion of the Commissioner, was wholly or substantially dependent upon the deceased person at that time;
  3. a person who was not legally married to the deceased person at the time of the person’s death but who, for a continuous period of not less than 3 years immediately preceding the person’s death, had ordinarily lived with the person as the person’s husband or wife, as the case may be, on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis.

There are other variations of these 3 main categories. But at no stage is a divorced spouse mentioned. We find that eligibility for a separated spouse is on the degree of dependency on the employee or pensioner, not on the number of years of contribution. We must all realise that a spouse who is simply living with and being supported by the employee over a period of years automatically and compulsorily assists in that employee’s contributions. I feel that there would not be a senator in this chamber who would not agree that if 5 per cent of an employee’s salary is taken in contributions the spouse- be it wife, mother or husband- shares in making those contributions by going without and often by going without in the area of personal economy. The fact that the contribution is so high- being intended to cover both employee and spouseprohibits the spouse from taking out insurance of his or her own.

This compulsory or assisted contribution is recognised in the new amended Bill in that if a spouse is receiving the widows superannuation benefit and then remarries that benefit is not discontinued but is continued until the spouse’s death. This recognises without doubt the spouse’s share in that contribution and it removes the eligibility from dependency to entitlement. If this is recognised then the dependency status of the spouse on its own has no basis but the years of assisted contribution should be considered also for the eligibility of this benefit. This would do away also with the injustice of a separated spouse being unable to prove the necessary dependency because the partner over a period of years has failed to maintain the spouse- sometimes in direct conflict with a court order- and the spouse has been forced to take up any type of employment available, either fulltime or part-time. This is the first injustice.

This brings us to the role of the divorced spouse compared to that of the separated spouse. There is no question in this Bill that the separated dependent spouse should be entitled to the benefit. But with the new divorce laws decreeing now that there be no necessity for fault to be proved, an employee may now divorce the spouse for no given reason. In fact, this sometimes does occur without the spouse’s being aware that things had reached such a disastrous stage in their marriage. So we can have the case of an eligible employee divorcing his spouse after 35 years of marriage and perhaps 30 years of combined contribution to the Superannuation Fund and, while continuing to support her with alimony, living in a de facto relationship with another partner for just 3 years or even less. Upon the employee’s death the pension benefit would go entirely to the person he had taken in a de facto relationship, thus leaving no support for the divorced spouse even though over 30 years the first spouse had contributed to the Superannuation Fund along with her partner. However, if after 35 years of marriage the employee separates from the legal spouse and, while continuing to support that spouse, takes on a de facto relationship, on the death of that employee the pension is snared, at the Commissioner’s discretion, between the supported spouse and the de facto spouse. This appears to me to be a grave injustice. It is covered in clause 1 10 ( 1 ) of the Superannuation Bill, which reads:

Where a person who is an eligible employee or a retirement pensioner dies and is survived by more than 1 person who is a spouse of the person for the purposes of this

Act- Ca) spouse’s benefit is payable to those persons, where the benefit is a pension, at such a rate as would be applicable if there were 1 surviving spouse only or, where the benefit is a lump sum benefit, that benefit shall be such amount as would be applicable if there were 1 surviving spouse only . . .

So we see that the benefit is divided between the separated spouse and the de facto spouse at the Commissioner’s judgment. Clause 1 10 ( 1) of the Bill continues:

  1. the benefit is payable to those persons in such proportions as the Commissioner determines or, where the benefit is a pension, as the Commissioner, from time to time determines, having regard to the respective needs of those persons and to such other matters as he considers relevant.

Since the introduction of the new divorce laws there is very little difference between a separated spouse and a divorced spouse: Both are supported by their husbands; in both cases the husband can live in a de facto relationship and so, upon his death, there are 2 spouses to share his benefit. I maintain that in this instance the divorced spouse is subjected to a great injustice. As we can see, the second injustice is easily rectified by the definition of a spouse being extended to include the divorced spouse. As I have said, these matters have not been raised previously in this chamber but I have raised them with both the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Newman) and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson). The matters affect the Minister for Repatriation in respect of his Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment Bill. He has indicated that he is very sympathetic and that he will have the matters investigated. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer has showed his concern also and is willingly having the matters investigated. These are just 2 of the anomalies that I should like to bring before the chamber tonight.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to support the Superannuation Bill 1976 and to support the amendment to that Bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt. As Senator Wriedt said in his introductory remarks, the issues involved in the Superannuation Bill have been well canvassed in both Houses of the Parliament, both earlier and during this recent session. I therefore do not propose to speak at length. I remind the Senate that the legislation prepared by the previous Labor Government was more beneficial to most public servants than is this Government’s legislation. Of course, the Labor Government acted in a very responsible way in the drafting and the introduction of its superannuation legislation. The Labor Government sought independent actuarial advice before introducing its 1975 Bill and I think it is unfortunate that it is not that Bill that we are to pass tonight but that it is the Government’s Bill which, although preserving some of the reforms introduced in the Labor legislation, does leave some groups of public servants at a disadvantage.

The first group that I mention is the group of contributors who, under the old superannuation scheme, contributed at a higher rate in order to retire at 60 years of age with full benefits. Under the new legislation they will be deprived of the opportunity to retire at 60 years of age with full benefit. I think that this is a most unfair situation with regard to those contributors. It is unfair in that many of them considered that in paying those higher contributions they were in fact entering into a contract with their employer, the Government- not any particular Government but with the Government that employed themand that that contract would have been honoured by whichever Government was in power at the time when they were due for retirement. That is not to be the case under this legislation. Those contracts which were entered into by the contributors at the age 60 retirement level of contribution will be broken and those contributors will be unable to retire at 60 years of age with their full benefits intact.

I should like to add that I think that this is an unfortunate omission in the Government’s legislation in that it is this Government’s announced and even, as we saw lately, successful intention to reduce the number of people in the employment of the Australian Public Service. Surely one fairly painless and logical way to have reduced the number of public servants would have been to permit those people to retire who felt at the age of 60 that they had given all that they had to give- who felt that they had come to the end of that aspect of their working life and that they would like to retire. Of course those people will still be able to retire but they will retire at some considerable financial disadvantage. I think that, particularly in the light of the Government’s announced policy to reduce the number of public servants, the decision not to provide for age 60 retirement on full benefit is very much to be regretted.

The second group of people who are not well provided for in this Bill are orphaned children, particularly of single parents who were contributors. In that respect, the Government’s legislation is no different from the old legislation. In both cases the orphans benefit cuts out on children reaching the age of 16 years, unless those children are full-time students. The Opposition had hoped that, in drawing up new legislation, the Government would have taken account of the anomaly, which seems to be almost discrimination based on class, whereby orphaned children of 16 years who are fulltime students may continue to draw a pension from their deceased parents’ superannuation but orphaned children of 16 years who go into the work force or, more significantly, wish to take an apprenticeship do not continue to have an entitlement. I cannot see any reason why a child who is continuing in fulltime education should have more rights than a young person who decides to take an apprenticeship. I draw the Government’s attention to that anomaly in the hope that, when formulating regulations, the Government will do something about eliminating it.

In relation to the 16-year old orphaned child of a single parent, there is the possibility of the child being without any support at all unless better provision is made for him. I hope that members of the Government are aware that many single parents, particularly single mothers, are pursuing a Public Service career particularly because it offers job security and therefore security for their children. I have been contacted by single mothers who are concerned that the failure of the legislation to provide benefits for children over 16 years might mean that their own children, if orphaned, would be in a very invidious position, and I hope that the Government will set about rectifying that anomaly.

The third case of persons who may be disadvantaged by the new legislation relates to divorded wives. Senator Walters has canvassed the issue at length, so I will deal with it briefly. I agree with the honourable senator that in some circumstances a divorced wife- that is, a wife of many years standing who is divorced when moving towards old age- could be disadvantaged by having no claim at all on the superannuation benefit to which she undoubtedly contributed in her years of child rearing and housekeeping. I do not think there is a simple solution to that anomaly. On this aspect of the Bill, I should say that the provision for de facto wives is a forward step. We should not be entering into a moralistic debate as to whether a former de jure or de facto wife has more right to a particular benefit. What should be taken into account is the position of the individual woman, the number of dependents she has and her ability to support herself. If she has no such ability and if she has dependent children, I would agree with Senator Walters that she should not be excluded from having some claim on the pension of her former spouse, a pension to which undoubtedly she has contributed. Again I would suggest that the Government take note of the possible disadvantage which may be suffered by a divorced spouse and, in drawing up regulations to this Bill, find some equitable way of determining the rights of a former wife.

I should like to add that divorced wives are only one group in a category of people who may have been wholly dependent on the contributor but who do not qualify for benefits. Another person in that category is the sister-housekeeper of a contributor, who may be just as dependent as a wife but who has no rights at all to a pension once her brother is deceased. Again, I think that this is a complex matter. The benefits have been drawn up to provide a pension for a spouse rather than for any other party, and perhaps that concept could be broadened to enable the contributor to nominate in his or her will a person who would be eligible to take the pension. I make this suggestion because I am aware of certain categories of contributors’ dependants for whom there is no provision in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will give further thought to those people.

On the other hand, in speaking in support of the Bill and of the amendment, I must say that the proposed scheme has some positive features. Firstly, I instance the provision which permits Provident Fund contributors to transfer to the superannuation scheme after 20 years as contributors. That is certainly an improvement on the Government’s original intention to require Provident Fund contributors to wait for 30 years. It will certainly be of benefit to those Provident Fund contributors who have been contributing for 20 years and who can now go into the full superannuation scheme. I commend that aspect of the legislation. There is another aspect of the legislation I would commend, and that is that it equalises the position of male and female contributors to the scheme. In that respect it is a progressive reform of the old legislation. It recognises that the female public servant should have superannuation benefits in exactly the same way as a male public servant has. The Bill also provides for a break in service for the female public servant if she wishes to withdraw from the work force for a number of years to have children. Again, I find that a most progressive step and I am heartened to find it included in the present legislation.

It is unfortunate that the Government has not seen fit to permit retirement on full pension at 60 years of age. It is also unfortunate that the

Government has not paid sufficient attention to particular categories of dependent personsorphans, former spouses, sister-housekeepers and so on- whose position is still not secure. But the Bill does include some of the original features of the Labor Party’s legislation, and for its provision for Provident Fund contributors and for women employees of the Public Service it is to be commended.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to support this Bill because I believe it represents a major modification and improvement of the existing superannuation provisions for Commonwealth public servants. Clearly, the existing scheme is unnecessarily complicated, having been pieced together over the past 50 years. It is enormously costly to administer and includes provisions that lead to considerable hardship or concern on the part of contributors. In saying that, I should refer to the telegram from Mr Turbett read by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) which referred to the wish of Public Service organisations that this Bill be given speedy passage because it will overcome hardships arising from the existing scheme. I believe that the Bill represents an important reform measure, and indeed one of the most important reforms that will be introduced in this thirtieth Parliament. It represents the result of extensive negotiations and discussions with Public Service organisations and representatives. I would therefore question the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that this scheme has been ‘imposed’, to use his word, on Commonwealth public servants. In fact, it is the result of very extensive discussions and negotiations. An undertaking was given during the recent election campaign that this would be one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the new Government, and this Bill represents the honouring of that undertaking.

The Bill includes several important new features which make it in fact a better scheme than we had undertaken to provide originally, and I shall deal with some of those features in the course of my speech. There may be some areas in which further improvements can be made, and I shall deal also with some ideas on that matter subsequently. I want to make the point emphatically that the Bill not only represents a much improved, more rational and more readily administered scheme than the existing one but also offers a sensible and reasonable scheme, given the resources at our command and taking into consideration the interests of the community as a whole. I think public servants, because they are dedicated to the service of the nation and the people of Australia, appreciate that point perhaps better than most people. I believe they are to be congratulated for taking that point of view.

Clearly there may be some problems associated with legislation as complex and as extensive as that before us. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Eric Robinson, who was in charge of the legislation in the other place, has given an undertaking that should problems emerge they will be considered and, where necessary, dealt with. In his second reading speech he said:

Should any shortcomings emerge as the new scheme gets into operation, the Government will, if it is appropriate, take action to remedy them.

I have had discussions over recent months with representatives of Public Service unions on some of the possible problems that may emerge. I believe that we will solve those problems through co-operation and discussion. I take this opportunity to commend the forceful but constructive way in which public servants and their organisations and representatives have approached discussion and debate on this vital question affecting 300 000 people who are in the Public Service and who are employees of the Commonwealth Government. I reiterate here the assurances I have given them that I will work to ensure that the interests of all public servants and their families are fully guarded by this Parliament and the Party I represent. I believe this Bill does just that.

Before going on to deal with some of the features of the legislation I take the opportunity to congratulate those public servants from the Treasury who have played an important role in preparing this legislation. The efforts of such dedicated and able public servants, I believe, too often go unnoticed or unnoted and I therefore record my congratulations and, indeed, my gratitude to them for the work that they have done.

My colleague from the Australian Capital Territory has already referred to some of the innovative features of this legislation, and I believe it appropriate to list some of those. First of all, there is the uniform 5 per cent contribution provision, with an option to contribute up to 10 per cent. There is a wider range of benefits and coverage available to a greater number of full time Commonwealth employees. There is provision for the scheme to be extended to part time employees. There are improved benefits for the spouse of a deceased contributor and the children and orphans of contributors. There is the provision for the refund of contributions, plus interest, on resignation from the Commonwealth

Public Service. There is provision for the preservation of benefits available after 5 years, rather than 20 years, of service. Clause 16 of the Bill, which deals with handicapped persons, is in fact a major innovation. Under the provisions of that clause handicapped persons can now go straight into the pension scheme as eligible employees. Membership of the scheme of Provident Account contributors and eligibility for full pension benefits after 20 years service are also provided. I emphasise that those people in the Provident Account at the moment will retain the right to opt to take the entire amount of their pension as a lump sum, as is now provided. It should also be pointed out, I think, that from 1 July there will be no Provident Account under the new scheme and that in fact all pensioners will be part of the overall scheme.

I refer also to the innovations relating to women public servants, particularly the introduction of equality of benefits and the preservation of benefits while the career of a public servant is interrupted for such reasons as the rearing of a family. Of course, the provision relating to part time employees is likely to have special relevance to women public servants.

Given these factors, I find it difficult to understand the reasons for the amendment proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition makes the point in its amendment that this legislation removes some important benefits now applying under the current Superannuation Act, thereby reducing the overall value of benefits for existing pensioners and contributors. That is not the case. In fact, it does not reduce benefits. It does introduce a number of important innovations. It does provide for improved benefits. Neither of the speakers from the Opposition side has given us one example of any benefit under the existing Superannuation Act which has been removed by this legislation. It is surprising that the honourable member for Fraser in another place, Mr Fry, should describe this new scheme, as he did in his speech in another place, as ‘a tragedy’. I think it is also to be regretted that he should suggest that the new scheme might lead to a less efficient Commonwealth Public Service. He said:

I have no doubt that the scheme will lead to a more expensive and less efficient Public Service for the people of Australia.

I believe a statement like that suggests a lack of confidence in the integrity and capacity of the Commonwealth Public Service and casts an aspersion on public servants from which I totally dissociate myself. It also misrepresents the impact and effect of the scheme which we are introducing. Mr Fry seems to forget that this Bill provides a very substantially improved scheme which has been accepted by Public Service organisations as such.

I would like to deal with some cases, including the question of retirement at 60 in particular, to illustrate the effect of this Bill and the new superannuation scheme. The Opposition has used every means, including an amendment which defies understanding, in an attempt to denigrate this legislation. Yet in a detailed table submitted by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) in another place setting out relevant benefits under superannuation schemes in the States as compared with this new superannuation scheme for the Commonwealth it is made clear that only contributors to the New South Wales scheme will be any better off than those contributing to the new Commonwealth scheme. It is especially significant, I believe, that of the examples of benefits for retirement at age 60 given in that table, only the lower income example for the State of New South Wales alone is better than that applying under the Commonwealth scheme. In all other cases, in all other States, the Commonwealth benefit is greater. I think we are indebted to the honourable member for Gellibrand for confirming the value of the scheme to which this Bill will give effect. I add one further point which is relevant to the table. It refers to the maximum contribution under the Commonwealth scheme as being 10 per cent, without any reference to the fact that that degree of contribution is optional and that only 5 per cent contribution is compulsory under the new scheme. He apparently makes no adjustment in the table for some of the contributor’s share being paid as a lump sum payment plus interest as could have occurred in the examples which are given. He thus probably understates the benefit under this new scheme which would be based on a 10 per cent contribution. This serves only to emphasise again the value of the new scheme to participants. To illustrate this point, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard the relevant figures to which I have referred in the form of a table setting out the benefits under various State schemes compared with the new Commonwealth scheme.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KNIGHT:

– I have referred already to some of the disparaging comments about the Commonwealth Public Service made in another place by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) in his speech on this Bill. I wish now to deal with 2 specific cases to which he referred, on which he gave misleading information, reaching as a result totally erroneous conclusions. I believe that this is unfortunate as it leads to great concern and anxiety in the community particularly the community which I represent in which there are 35 000 Commonwealth public servants. I believe that such misinformation should be cleared up as quickly as possible. The Minister responsible for this Bill in another place when responding to Mr Fry’s statement said that Mr Fry was apparently ‘misled by correspondence which he has received and from which he has drawn his examples’. But the honourable member for Fraser apparently did not even bother to check that information. I therefore sought more detailed advice from the Minister on these cases. This information is of great importance to many people who have expressed concern about retirement at age 60 under the existing scheme compared with the proposals introduced by this Bill. To clarify the situation, I quote from a letter on the matter that I received from the Minister. It reads:

You would be aware that on 6 April 1976 I responded in the House to Mr Fry’s comments on the disadvantages involved for the individuals in the two cases he mentioned. As I stated then, it is a gross distortion to compare the total pension with no right to a lump sum, as is available under the present scheme, with only the Government-financed pension under the new scheme without taking into account the additional pension or the substantial lump sum that is also available.

In both the cases mentioned by Mr Fry, he has stated that additional standard Government-financed pension would be available on retirement at age 60. However, for a member to Qualify for additional standard Government-financed pension he would need to have completed more than 30 years contributory service and not, as stated by Mr Fry, less than 20 years contributory service. Further, it would seem apparent from the percentages quoted in Mr Fry’s examples, that both individuals would have completed about 40 or more years service. The amount of contributions paid over a period of 40 years, and accumulated with interest over this period, would be in relative terms a substantial sum that will be available to purchase a significant contributor-financed pension. This additional pension has been omitted by Mr Fry in his comparisons.

Also, Mr Fry has omitted any reference to the supplement to the Government-financed pension that was designed to protect existing contributors in respect of any age 60 units they hold at 30 June 1976. I understand that a copy of a Treasury Paper on this pension supplement has been forwarded to you.

In summary, an existing age 60 contributor who retired at age 60 with more than 20 years contributory service will, under the provisions of the new scheme, receive:

Forty-five per cent of final salary as a standard age retirement Government-financed pension;

a Government-financed supplement of pension in respect of any age 60 units held at 30 June 1976 according to the formula outlined in the abovementioned Treasury Paper; and

additional age retirement pension: (A member may elect to receive in lieu of this additional age retirement pension a refund of his contributions plus interest.)

Where such a member has contributed for more than 30 years he will receive additional standard Governmentpension up to a maximum of 214 per cent for 40 years contributory service.

Because of its relevance to that letter, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard the Treasury paper referred to. It is a document referring to the impact of age 60 retirement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

NEW SUPERANNUATION SCHEME PENSION SUPPLEMENT IN RESPECT OF AGE 60 UNITS

The Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Eric L. Robinson, said in his announcement about the new superannuation scheme on 12 February 1976 that: Present pension scheme contributors will be protected in respect of any age 60 retirement units that they hold under a formula that will have regard to present salary, unit entitlement, age 60 units held, length of contributory service to date and prospective contributory service to age 59V4 years when, on average, age 60 unit contributions could be expected to cease.’

The formula will establish Government-financed supplements of pension for retirement between ages 60 to 65 in respect of all age 60 units held at 30 June 1976; these supplements will be payable in addition to the Governmentfinanced pension available under the new scheme.

The formula gives results that reflect the difference between: the level of Government-financed pension, expressed as a percentage of salary, for each age 60 unit under the present scheme; and the percentage of salary Government-financed pension under the new scheme on retirement between ages 60 and 65.

The difference is multiplied by the number of age 60 units held and the proportion (not exceeding 1 ) that actual contributory service at 30 June 1976 bears to prospective contributory service to age 59!6.

In any individual case the supplement will be larger for retirement at age 60 and will be less for retirement after that age as the new scheme pension percentage comes closer to the present pension scheme level. In most cases the breakeven point, i.e. when the supplement is nil, will be reached not later than age 65 although in cases where there has been long contributory service and/or salary is high it will be earlier; in a few cases it will be as early as age 60.

The formula will mean that persons who have completed their age 60 contributions or have reached age 59Vi by 30 June 1976 while still contributing for age 60 units, will receive on retirement full value for the Governmentfinanced element of age 60 units.

The supplement relates to the Government-financed element of pension only. The higher contributions that have been paid for age 60 units will provide a larger stake in the Fund at 1 July 1976 than if age 65 contributions had been paid. This larger stake will accumulate at interest until retirement and will be available as additional pension or, alternatively, as a lump sum.

Advantages of the formula are:

Age 60 contributors now paying high levels of contributions will not need to continue to pay those contributions to qualify for the supplement.

It will enable the early determination, after commencement of the new scheme, of the age 60 unit pension supplements that will be payable on retirement at or after age 60.

Administratively, the formula is relatively simple to apply and will not require the maintenance of age 60 contribution records until retirement.

The Formula

The pension supplement additional to the Governmentfinanced pension benefit will be an amount per annum ascertained in accordance with the formula-

Senator KNIGHT:

– As this analysis shows, the situation for those wishing to retire at age 60 under the new scheme is somewhat different from the position as represented by some people. The basic position was stated by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson) in the House of Representatives on 25 March in these words:

It is true that in the new scheme the full government financed pension is not available until retirement at age 65, but for persons with long service that pension is higher than the maximum government financed element of the pension available under the present scheme. Most age 60 contributors to varying extents would have attained higher government financed pension at age 60 under the present scheme if they maintained their age 60 unit contributions until their retirement. This, however, would leave them with a greatly diminished take-home salary in the years immediately preceding their retirement. The special age 60 unit pension supplement in the new scheme gives value for age 60 contributions to date. If age 60 contributions have been completed or the person has reached 5916 years it will give full value for age 60 units. The supplement will not require members to continue to pay high age 60 contributions until retirement. Finally, the Australian Government Employees Combined Superannuation Co-ordinating Committee accepts the supplement formula as a reasonable basis for dealing with age 60 units.

Because of the importance of this question of age 60 retirement and of the costs to contributors, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard, papers prepared by the Treasury setting out a number of cases and the amounts that would be required to be contributed at various levels.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Contributions to attain full Government-financed benefits at age 60.

To maintain their full entitlement to a full Governmentfinanced pension on retirement at age 60 under the present scheme, contributors are required to contribute for additional units as they become due.

Broadly for contributors, other than those on higher salaries an increase of $130 pa in salary requires contributors to contribute for another unit. Contributions in respect of each unit depend on the age at which the entitlement arises.

The following table illustrates the proportions of salary increases which an age 60 contributor to the present scheme would have to pay to maintain his entitlement to a full Government-financed pension on retirement at age 60.

In summary, the additional superannuation contributions required at ages 57 and above exceed the gross amount of salary increase. increasing rates of superannuation contribution in respect of salary increases, increase the overall percentage of total gross salary required to pay superannuation contributions to maintain full unit entitlement.

When the incidence of taxation is taken into account take home pay could be expected to reduce as a result of increasing superannuation contributions between ages 53 and 55.

The following are examples of the higher rates of contribution being made by persons approaching retirement to attain full benefits at age 60.

Examples

  1. . Second Division Officer ( Level 1 )- Male- Aged 58. Salary at 4 February 1976, $21,338 pa. Contributions: 41.7 per cent of gross salary.
  2. Third Division Officer (Class 1 1 )-Male-Aged 55. Salary at 4 February 1976, $18, 136 pa. Contributions: 24.6 per cent of gross salary.
  3. Third Division Officer (Class 9)-Male-Aged 57. Salary at 4 February 1976, $15,757 per annum. Contributions: 39.3 per cent of gross salary.
  4. Fourth Division Officer (CA6)-Female-Aged 59. Salary at 4 February 1976, $8,932 per annum. Contributions: 67.6 per cent of gross salary.
Senator KNIGHT:

– There are 3 other general matters on which I wish to comment. The first is the question of age 65 retirement. Needless to say, the new scheme will mean much better benefits for those retiring from the Commonwealth Public Service at 65 years of age. I have dealt at length with the position of those retiring at age 60 simply because of the many representations that I have received on that aspect and because so many people were concerned as to the impact of the legislation with respect to age 60 retirement and, in some cases, were apparently misled about it. I simply make the point that under the existing scheme on age 65 retirement, the best possible result for a contributor is to receive 70 per cent of his final salary as pension. Under the new scheme, the best possible result will be for a contributor to receive 72.5 per cent of final salary with the possibility of an additional lump sum payment. This, of course, requires a substantial period of service but well illustrates the improved benefits of the new scheme.

Secondly, there, have been many comments suggesting that the formula for updating pensions is inadequate. However, it is in conformity with the criteria now used for the updating of pensions. The calculations that one frequently sees on this question do not include the provision of a lump sum plus interest on retirement which obviously will become either a source of direct or indirect income to the recipient and thus should be included as a benefit when discussing the pension. Thirdly, I comment briefly on the question of contract or election to retire at age 60 under this scheme. My understanding is that under the existing scheme a public servant agrees to contribute at a certain level and to purchase units accordingly. No contract as to retirement age is entered into. In other words, the elections under the present Superannuation Act are elections to contribute on a specific basis, not elections to retire at specific ages. In response to my colleague from the Australian Capital Territory who spoke earlier in this debate, I say that the new scheme, as the tables which I have incorporated indicate, will encourage people in many cases, I believe, to retire at age 60 as she has suggested.

I think that one point must be made concerning this scheme, if only as a forewarning, as it is a matter which has rarely been raised in any public or parliamentary debate on this Bill. I refer to the fact that more than half of Australia’s Commonwealth public servants will find after 1 July that they will be paying higher contributions to the superannuation fund. This will apply particularly to younger members of the Public Service. These people at present may be paying considerably less than 5 per cent of their salary into the Superannuation Fund. They will be paying an increased contribution after 1 July. I raise this matter because it may cause some doubts later if people have not considered fully or have not been fully aware of the impact of the new scheme in this respect.

But this point has to be emphasised: The slightly increased payment at this stage will mean very substantially smaller payments later on in the careers of the public servants so affected. What may suddenly seem a disadvantage under the new scheme is a long term advantage for all contributors, as was indicated in the table to which I have referred already and which has now been incorporated in Hansard. I should make the point also that these increased payments or contributions by those who are currently paying less than 3 per cent of their salary in superannuation will be introduced progressively under the legislation over about a 2-year period.

I would like to refer to a couple of specific cases which I believe are of significance. The first relates to the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, the Northern Territory Police Force and the Commonwealth police. I received recently special representations concerning the impact of the new scheme on members of these police forces from the Secretary of the Police Association of the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Oldroyd, who is also the Assistant Secretary of the Police Federation of Australia. He raised a number of issues which concern particularly the level of contributions and the benefits available on retirement, particularly for those officers retiring at age 60 years. Mr Oldroyd said in his letter, and I would endorse his sentiments:

In no other industry is there a greater need to have a satisfactory pension scheme. My members are trained and orientated to police work and they are very restricted in taking other employment after retirement. We would claim that our members are called upon more than any other group to devote themselves to the needs of government and people.

I therefore took up this matter with the Minister who provided a reply which I believe answers the reservations expressed by the Secretary of the Police Association of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr President, I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard the text of the Minister’s reply on those issues.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Treasurer

Parliament House Canberra 2600

Senator J. W. Knight 6th Floor

City Mutual Building Hobart Place Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Senator Knight

I refer to your letter of 5 Apr 1 976 in which you enclosed a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Police Association of the A.C.T., Mr A. J. Oldroyd, concerning the new superannuation scheme for Commonwealth employees.

The new scheme is designed to be flexible enough to provide adequate benefits for the various categories of Commonwealth employees some of whom will have earlier maximum retirement ages than age 65, such as the A.C.T. Police Force. In the design of the scheme careful consideration was given as to the appropriate levels of Government-financed pension where retirement precedes attainment of age 65. One consideration was the level of benefits payable in other superannuation schemes in both the public and private sectors and in this respect the new scheme provides Government-financed benefits on retirement at age 60 that compare very favourably with the employer-financed share of benefits in most schemes in the private sector. Another consideration was that the younger the age at which a pension commences, on average, the longer it is payable. This of course means that it is more costly to finance pensions of a particular level commencing at younger ages than it is to finance the same level of pensions commencing at age 65.

It is true that under the present superannuation scheme most age 60 contributors, other than those on higher salaries, would attain higher Government-financed pensions on retirement at age 60 than under the new scheme, provided they maintained their age 60 contributions until their retirement. This however would leave them with little or no take-home’ salary in the years preceding their retirement. Recent experience has shown that relatively few contributors who could attain a Government-financed pension of 50 per cent of salary on retirement at age 60 have in fact done so. The new scheme Government-financed pension levels of 45 per cent of salary on retirement at age 60 after 30 years contributory service (20 years for most existing contributors) and 47’A after 40 years, will be higher in most cases than the actual levels of Government-financed pension that have been realised by contributors who have retired at age 60 in recent years under the present scheme.

Mr Oldroyd has mentioned the high incidence of invalidity retirement in the Police Force and in this situation benefits under the new scheme are no less beneficial than under the present scheme. It is true that invalidity pensions will be higher in most cases than the level of pension payable on retirement at age 60. However the younger the age a person is required to retire on invalidity grounds the less time he has had for advancement in the Police Force. Also, as pension is related to final salary at retirement, where a person retires before attaining age 60, his Government-financed pension will usually be lower than if he had retired at age 60 when he would have had the benefit of further salary increases.

On the question of contributions under the new scheme contributors will not be required to pay the high rates of contribution necessary under the present scheme in the years preceding retirement to attain full Government-financed benefits. One of the features of the new scheme is that contributors will only be obliged to pay 5 per cent of salary as compulsory basic contributions with the option to pay supplementary contributions.

Younger contributors presently paying less than 5 per cent of salary as contributions under the present scheme will be required to pay a higher rate under the new scheme. However under the transitional arrangements this increase to 5 per cent will be gradual. These contributors will, however, not have to pay heavy rates of contribution in later life as is presently the case to attain full Government-financed benefits.

In summary, I consider that the new scheme will provide members of the Police Force with attractive benefits on retirement and require reasonable levels of contributions.

Yours sincerely

ERIC L. ROBINSON

Minister Assisting the Treasurer

Senator KNIGHT:

– Finally, I would like to deal with the question dealt with by my colleague, Senator Walters, and also by my colleague from the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Ryan, namely, that of divorcees and the relevance of this Bill to them. The Bill, as it stands, makes special provision for distribution between a de facto and a separated legal spouse in the case of death of the contributor. In clause 1 10 of the Bill, the Commissioner for Superannuation is empowered, as Senator Walters pointed out, to apportion a benefit according to dependency. I believe that this is a very important principle which the Bill introduces. But it is one which does not carry through to provide for definition of a basis of dependency between a second legal spouse or a de facto spouse on the one hand and a divorced spouse on the other hand. But a divorced spouse during the time of marriage to a contributor in fact would have contributed to the scheme to allow for benefits to be provided later. In particular, it is recognised, as it always has been, that the pension for which contributions are made may well be a widow’s pension and special provision is made for this. Given these factors, it would seem somewhat inconsistent that no provision whatever is made for some portion of a pension to go to a divorced spouse on the death of a contributor. Under the present scheme and under the scheme proposed by this Bill, all benefits go to the legal wife or a de facto wife and none whatever to a divorced spouse. I therefore urge that consideration be given to amending the Bill to provide for some proportion of the benefits from a pension of a deceased contributor to go to a divorced spouse as well as to the legal or de facto spouse at the time of the contributor’s death.

I recognise, as my colleague from the Australian Capital Territory has mentioned, that there are other dependants who may be considered when looking at this aspect of the Bill or at possible amendments to it. But those issues have to be faced because I believe not to provide, as a minimum, for a divorced spouse may well be inconsistent with principles expressed elsewhere in the Bill. I have written to the Minister, Mr Eric Robinson, on this matter and I have received a reply from him in the following terms:

As you are aware, a divorced spouse has no entitlement to a spouse’s pension under either the present Superannuation Scheme or that proposed in the Superannuation Bill 1976. The new scheme provides benefits for de jure and de facto spouses and children living with the scheme member at the time of death or, if not living with the member, if they were substantially dependent on the member at the time of death. Where there is a member who has both a de jure and de facto spouse at the time of death and both were substantially dependent on him, the Superannuation Bill makes provision for the spouse’s pension to be apportioned between the two eligible spouse pensioners. In making a determination as to the relative shares, the Commissioner for Superannuation would have regard to the respective needs of those persons and to such other matters as he considers relevant.

No other persons, whether related to or dependent on the deceased member, are provided for by way of pension under the new scheme. Divorced wives are only one category of persons who might be wholly or in part dependent upon a member on his death but who do not qualify for pension benefits.

The question of extending spouses’ pensions in whole or in part to divorced wives raised a number of issues and implications which the Government would have to take into consideration. Any such extension would require amendment of the Superannuation Bill 1976 presently before the Parliament.

The Government has said that should any shortcomings emerge as the new scheme gets into operation, it will, if it is appropriate, take action to remedy them.

The last 2 paragraphs of the Minister’s response are of considerable significance. The second-last paragraph indicates a willingness, that the Minister has confirmed in discussions that I have had with him, to consider amendments; though it is recognised as I have mentioned already that considerable and substantial implications are involved in any such consideration. The final paragraph accepts that any shortcomings in the scheme will be remedied. I believe that this aspect of the Bill should be reconsidered with a view to amendment not only in accordance with what would seem to me to be the legitimate claims of those concerned but also in accordance with the principles expressed in the Bill.

I believe that this is a major piece of reform legislation. I support it wholeheartedly. I accept the fact that there may be defects and that these should be considered subsequently for possible amendment if necessary. Others may emerge as this new and very important scheme comes into operation. In supporting the Bill, I oppose and remain puzzled, to say the least, by the nature of the amendment moved by the Opposition. I believe that the amendment as it stands is irrelevant to this legislation. It is inaccurate in its reference to existing legislation. I therefore oppose it as firmly as I support this important legislation relating to superannuation for Commonwealth public servants.

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

– The Senate is undertaking a joint debate on 3 cognate Bills, two of which relate to the superannuation of Commonwealth public servants. Senator Wriedt observed that the new Superannuation Bill does go part of the way to what he and the Australian Labor Party would like. Accordingly, he has moved an amendment which, to say the least, does nothing for anybody and which does not seem to me to mean anything at all. I believe that Senator Knight has given the effective answer to it. There is no point in me taking up useful time in discussing an amendment which appears to mean nothing. Senator Wriedt mentioned that the Bill is not as good as some of the other superannuation proposals in the States. During an earlier debate on superannuation last year it was pointed out that some of the State schemes are rather extraordinarily generous. What the Commonwealth is looking to achieve is a rational scheme which is fair to both the people involved in it and the general body of Australian taxpayers.

It has been mentioned by Senator Wriedt and by other honourable senators that unions communicated with members on both sides of the Parliament urging them to give a speedy passage to the legislation with a view to having it in effect for those concerned by 1 July 1 976. It is therefore important that this debate be not prolonged beyond any sensible length. The work on framing a new superannuation scheme was commenced in October 1971. I mentioned this because the officers of the Treasury have been involved in this work for over 5 years. I should imagine that when it is all disposed of they will heave a hearty sigh of relief. From the association I have had with them in Opposition, in the debating processes, in getting information and in government I have found them to be most helpful, very thorough, very precise and accurate and always extremely well mannered and very cordial at dmes of great difficulty.

The report, which was the forerunner of this legislation and which was made by a committee organised in the Treasury, was finally tabled in May 1973 and it recommended a new scheme. In May 1975 a Bill was introduced which in effect went some way further than the recommendations in the Treasury report in the way of benefits. We of the then Opposition felt it was too generous. We directed our criticism to 3 principal areas. These have been mentioned in the second reading speech and I do not need really to mention them again. The Bill was then amended in the Senate by the then Opposition in these 3 principal areas. It was returned by the Senate to the House of Representatives so amended. The House declined to accept those amendments and set the Bill aside on 1 9 August 1 97 5.

In October 1975, after a lot of negotiation with unions and other people concerned, the Opposition announced a scheme which was in effect a compromise, and that was broadly accepted. It was an election commitment of the Liberal and National Country Parties when they went to the people of Australia in December. History has recorded quite accurately that this was part of our policy. It was a clear election commitment. We went to the people on that commitment. The Australian people voted for the Government and they voted for this part of its policy. Electors in the Australian Capital Territory also voted for it, and this is instanced by the election of Senator Knight as one of the senators representing the Australian Capital Territory and Mr Haslem as one of the members representing the Australian Capital Territory. It was clear, even in the Australian Capital Territory itself where a great number of people would have been affected by the legislation, that the Government, as a government, and the measure, as a measure and part of government policy, received support. Therefore it is quite clear that a mandate exists for this legislation. This Bill honours a commitment we made in our policy to introduce a solution to the problems of the old superannuation scheme. It accepts and recognises the mandate and the people’s wish to have this legislation.

The various changes that have been brought about are listed in the second reading speech. As I mentioned earlier there are 3 measures before us. I wish to refer in particular to Senator Knight who has given this matter the most intense and detailed study. I have seldom heard a person speak on a measure as complicated as this with such a depth of understanding and a recognition of the intricacies of the whole matter. As he quite properly said, the scheme was not imposed on public servants. It has been very carefully thought out and worked over. It is a good scheme, and he acknowledges it to be such. He has raised points about it and explained matters in detail that really do not need to be covered again.

Senator Walters was a little concerned about divorced spouses, new dependants and separated wives. The 2 points she raised will be examined by the Government and the Government will, if appropriate, take action to remedy any shortcomings in the legislation. Senator Ryan raised much the same issues and raised also the question of other dependants. I believe her queries were largely dealt with as I listened carefully to the speech of Senator Knight. We have looked at the questions raised by Senators Walters and Ryan on the eligibility conditions for spouses and children’s benefits, and these are the same as the conditions contained in the Bill which was introduced last year.

This matter was exhaustively worked over in both Houses last year and in the House of Representatives this year. The legislation has had solid treatment here this evening by honourable senators and in particular by Senator Knight. I do not feel there is any virtue in prolonging the debate on this matter. I cannot see any further queries that need answering. I say to the honourable senators who are present: The Government of Australia does not have itself fixed in concrete and if, as time goes on, elements are shown to be in need of adjustment, the Government will approach those problems with an open mind and be prepared to look at the situations as they develop. Accordingly, it will be clear to honourable senators opposite that we see not the slightest need for the amendment. We can see no sense in the amendment. We do not accept it. This Bill ought now be disposed of.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1500

SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 7 April on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to refer to clauses 25, 26 and 28. It will be seen that this Bill is a subsidiary Bill and is provided as an amendment to the existing Bill only because we are adopting the legislative form of keeping the old Bill in existence for the purpose of providing legal authority to continue existing pensions. The new Bill is to be the Bill on which pensions of those contributors who are becoming pensioners after 1 July will derive their legal right. Those pensioners who already have accrued rights under the old Bill will continue to have their rights under the old Bill. Clause 25 is directed to the male dependant of a deceased contributor under the old Bill. Under the old Bill that person was entitled to a five-eighths pension only if he were wholly or substantially dependent upon the deceased contributor. So, a Bill like this, designed simply to carry on the old ship for the purpose of providing the old pensioner’s legal right to float through the rest of his life, is being taken advantage of to give to those male dependants not merely a pension until remarriage or death, as is the entitlement under section 46 of the Act. The new Bill cuts out ‘until remarriage’. So that by virtue of saving the ship from the shipwreck of the new legislation we take advantage of it to give to the male survivor a pension not merely until death or remarriage but until death, whatever his circumstances and whatever the relative circumstances of the dependant. I would not like to state what the position is in reverse because, I think through a misunderstanding, it was my expectation that the Committee stages of both these Bills were to stand over. That is the first proposition in this Bill. But it does not stop there.

I ask honourable senators to examine clause 48 of this Bill. So diligently have the architects of this Bill been in favour of the beneficiaries as distinct from the revenue that where there is a case of a deceased pensioner’s spouse- say, the deceased died in 1970- who remarried in 1975 and therefore lost the pension, this Bill, forsooth, gives the Commissioner the power to resurrect that pension and, notwithstanding the remarriage, confer the pension upon the survivor, now remarried. Certainly the pension is not to operate before the date of the Commissioner’s direction on that point and certainly not earlier than 1 July. This resurrects the right, notwithstanding the remarriage, of the Commissioner to confer this right of pension on this spouse of the dependant, who, by remarrying some years ago, lost the right under the then legislation. It further states that the pension that the Commissioner will give will be at such a rate as he determines and it does say that he must be satisfied that the spouse, widow or widower, is in necessitous circumstances or that the restoration of the pension is otherwise warranted. The Commissioner has absolute right to determine the matter. No guide is set as to what considerations he takes into account to determine the quantum. He has the power to resurrect this right notwithstanding remarriage. I have taken, as an example, a recent date of 1975. The same would apply whether the remarriage took place in 1965 or before that.

The Commissioner is given the authority to resurrect the pension where he is satisfied that the widow or widower is in necessitous circumstances or when the restoration of the pension is otherwise warranted- that is, in necessitous circumstances or any other circumstances that the Commissioner thinks fit. We all know how those arbitrary powers are exercised. If we found them in regulations we would destroy them at once. But here they are in the Bill. My desperation is to think that a mere ark of a vessel for the purpose of continuing existing benefits is made the vehicle whereby to give extended benefits in the case of remarriages after 1 July, and the vehicle to resurrect rights that have become exhausted before 1 July in the case of remarriages that might have taken place many years ago. That right is to restore the pension where the spouse, having remarried, is in necessitous circumstances or in circumstances where the Commissioner otherwise thinks that restoration is warranted.

No committee of the Parliament has had the opportunity to consider why these words are put in the Bill. Surely that should be sufficient to alert the committee to the fact that this legislation needs a little further consideration. I say that because it is no technicality. I say it because if honourable senators examine the statement that the Minister has been good enough to provide to accompany this legislation they will find at page 57 a table setting out the cost of continuing spouses’ pensions on remarriage. It is the small sum, in modern conceptions, of $ 148m. That was actuarially assessed as the capital value of that benefit over the period which we are told, with eyelids rather expanded, may extend over 80 years. If honourable senators put themselves in the position of the actuary and assess this benefit they will assess it on the discount rate not of 12 ‘A per cent as operates today. If honourable senators examine paragraph 1 12 (2) at page 47 of the same memorandum they will find that the increase in the consumer price index would arise on the basis of 3.9 per cent per annum. It is operating today at about four times that rate. Honourable senators will then find that the costs are being discounted at the rate of 5% per cent. Then they will see that the figure of $ 148 m for the capital cost, even if it takes into account risks and probabilities over 80 years, in my simple estimation would mean that it would be $2m or $3m tapering down to less and less by discount factors over the sixtieth and seventieth years. I hope that my accountant colleagues will do me the goodness of checking me on that if I am wholly wrong. That is a little item that goes outside the scope of technicalities into the stage of real life. ‘

The other thing that comes into the stage of real life is that in 1 972-73 consolidated revenue was paying $62m for its Public Service employee pensioners under the superannuation scheme. Last year that figure rose by a modest 50 per cent to about $92m or $93m. But next year, if the present Act continues, that figure will be $ 1 50m. We were told that the cost of the scheme this year would be reduced- in one part of the explanatory memorandum by $3m and in another part of the memorandum by $5m. But my questioning today has elicited the fact that the cost of the scheme will be $ 1 50m. That is 150 per cent more than what the scheme cost 4 years ago. So I ask that there be deleted from the Superannuation Amendment Bill those clauses to which I have referred, which are taking advantage of the present Act to extend benefits that were never provided in the present Act and to resurrect other benefits. That means .that this Bill ought to be passed only without clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28. 1 was called to my feet completely on the hop.

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

– I have some observations to make about this matter which may be useful at this stage. Senator Wright, was good enough to mention this afternoon that there were one or two things that he needed to know about this Bill and the officials did what they could to help him by having a talk with him about these matters. However, various areas needed further attention. This evening I was waiting for Senator Wright to make his comments on this Bill, which he has now done. I am sorry that the debate has proceeded faster than Senator Wright perhaps anticipated, but when I listened to Senator Knight speaking I realised that he was doing a large part of the job that I would be called upon to do and I could see little point in repeating the excellent performance that

Senator Knight had put up in covering so many of the points that have been raised in the debate.

I would like to make one or two points to take this matter some part along the road. The first comment which Senator Wright mentioned this afternoon and which he again made tonight was that the present Act remains in force only as a basis to continue existing pensions. That is a completely accurate statement. His second point in effect raised a number of questions. He asked, firstly, why we should extend to spouses who will continue to be paid benefits under the present legislation improvements in entitlements and benefits that are being provided in the future under the new scheme. The principle is not a new one insofar as spouses’ and children’s benefits are concerned. In the past when improvements in spouses’ and children’s benefits have been payable under the superannuation legislation they have been passed on to the persons already in receipt of benefits. The principle was also embodied in the legislation which was before the Senate last year and on which the present Bills are based. It is, the Government acknowledges, a generous approach.

A further point that Senator Wright makes is that it is true also that the spouse of a female pensioner living with her at the time of her death would under the new scheme obtain a pension notwithstanding that he was a millionaire and had a substantial income in his own right. There is no distinction between the eligibility conditions applying to a spouse of a deceased female pensioner of contributor and a deceased male pensioner or contributor respectively. This recognises that married women are eligible for permanent employment with the Commonwealth Government and in other conditions of service receive the full benefits consequent upon such employment. It also recognises that an increasing number of households rely on the income of both the husband and wife.

Senator Wright raised a further point about the treatment of legal and de facto spouses under the legislation. Under the new scheme much greater weight will be given to dependency in determining who will benefit by reversionary benefits than has been previously the case.

Senator Wright:

– That is relevant only to the new Bill.

Senator COTTON:

-Yes. Broadly, a spouse, legal or de facto, who is not residing with a member at the time of death will need to establish substantial dependency to be eligible for a spouse ‘s pension. Dependency will be assumed if the spouse was living with a member at the time of death. In the case of a de facto spouse, dependency will be assumed if the spouse has been living with a member on a bona fide domestic basis for a continuous period of 3 years immediately prior to the member’s death. Subject to these qualifying conditions, there is no distinction drawn between legal and de facto spouses. Where a deceased member of the scheme has both a legal and a de facto spouse each eligible for benefits, the available spouse’s benefit will be shared between them having regard to their dependency on the deceased during deceased’s lifetime and any other relevant factors.

That may answer part of the concern that Senator Wright has expressed. But having regard to Senator Wright’s remarks to the Committee that he felt he had raised matters which needed further explanation in the interests of the Committee, and having regard to the fact that this measure has been long in contemplation, that it is extremely complex, that it was debated in depth last year, that it was amended, that it was lying around and has come back again in the belief that it is now the measure that everybody wants and that it is part of the commitment of the Government, I would not want Senator Wright or any of my other honourable colleagues to feel that the Government was not in any way prepared to make a full examination of the various elements of this Bill. I believe that these measures are very important. They are very fair. They are commitments, and they should be honoured. They are entitled to be carefully examined. I think that perhaps Senator Wright would like to have some more time at his disposal overnight to think about what he has said regarding his concerns and the answers that he has received. He may like to have some further detail. In all those circumstances and having regard to the importance of the measure, it would seem to me to be fair to Senator Wright and to the Committee if I now move:

That progress be reported.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) I am sorry. Under standing order 28 1 you cannot debate the question.

Progress reported.

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Committee have leave to sit again.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I think that it would have been wiser if the Government had indicated to us that it intended to take this course and to report progress. Surely Senator Wright has the ability- he showed it when he was on his feet- to continue the investigation tonight and not to delay this Bill any further. Earlier we expressed the opinion that this Bill should go through as quickly as possible. In fact, many honourable senators on our side of the chamber who wished to speak on this Bill did not do so because of the desire to have the legislation dealt with quickly. The course of reporting progress will mean that this Bill will not be debated further until tomorrow. Other business might intrude and perhaps we might lose another day before we deal with this legislation. I think that if we had been asked for our advice we would have suggested that Senator Wright should have been given sufficient time at the Committee stage to present his case in which I was very interested. I feel that he could have completed his case tonight.

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

– I will respond to Senator Georges and say that in these matters it is always my wish to be fair to everybody. I listened to Senator Wright when he came into the debate and it seemed to me he believed that he had not had time thoroughly to think about the matter, that he was raising new matter; and that that matter needed to be considered both as to the new material that he raised and as to the points that were able to be made fairly quickly for him in reply. It seemed to me from listening to him interject slightly that he had not really got to the point where he was fully satisfied. As I have said, I believe that the measure is important. It is far reaching. It is of consequence. I can see no harm- in fact I can see merit in it- in the matter being disposed of tomorrow after Senator Wright has had further time to think about the matter, after other honourable senators have had further time to think about it and after the advisers have had time to consider Senator Wright ‘s remarks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1503

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 7 April on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1503

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 April on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This Bill authorises the payments of grants to the States for government and non-government schools during the calendar year 1976 and provides for funds up to $43 lm to be paid to the States during that year. Of course, this amount will be supplemented by the provisions of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 which provides for an outlay of $45 m. Thus we are dealing with outlays totalling $476m. The Bill provides for expenditure on 8 categories of activity: Building and equipment projects and recurrent expenditure in government schools; building and equipment projects and recurrent expenditure in non-government schools; recurrent expenditure on migrant education; assistance for recurrent expenditure in nongovernment schools, disadvantaged schools and special schools; special education teacher training courses; and development of service activities. Subject to some minor changes to which I will be referring later, the Bill essentially is the Bill that was developed by the previous Government. During our term of office we established the Schools Commission, the purpose of which was to ensure the proper allocation of Federal moneys to the States for educational purposes. I will come back to that point at a later stage.

I should point out even at this stage that in 1974 the Labor Government provided $25 5 m and $497m in 1975 for these purposes. The funds which are allocated under this legislation are in accordance with the recommendations of the Schools Commission. In his second reading speech the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said:

These grants are, in the main, expressed in June 1975 price levels and will be supplemented by amending legislation Tor subsequent movements in costs.

In paragraph 3.25 of the report of the Schools Commission for the triennium 1976-78 there is the following recommendation:

  1. the Australian Government endorses the principle or compensation for the effects of inflation on both recurrent and capital grants on the basis of the Schools Price Index developed by the Commission;
  2. supplements to grants for inflation be made available on a regular basis.

I believe that the Minister should in the course of his reply to this debate- I hope he will- give an undertaking that that recommendation will be adhered to to ensure that the effects of inflation will be met by the Government in its payments. In this legislation there is a reduction in the amount available under the special projects program for 1976 from $5.2m to $3.6m. On a previous occasion the Minister explained that because of a late start in the program for 1976 it was doubtful whether the funds could be spent. It is true that there is a backlog of projects which could be commenced. Funding of the projects will run for more than one year and there appears to be no reason why a greater number could not have been commenced to ensure that the funds were spent. I think possibly the fact that they have not commenced has been a gesture to the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) rather than that there is justification for the reduction.

In the concept of the Schools Commission the central theme was the question of need. In the Schools Commission report it is said:

If all students who are capable are to attain at least a common minimum standard more school resources will be consumed by some students in reaching the standard than by others.

This concept is fundamental to the Schools Commission. It is imperative that we receive from the Government through the Minister for Education an emphatic confirmation that that principle will not be interfered with in either this financial year or subsequent years. The danger would be with deals. I do not like to use the word but possibly deals could be made between Federal and State governments whereby provision was made for educational expenditure which was not based on need. I believe it is wrong that we should allow ourselves as a Federal Parliament to permit anything to take place which might interfere with the concept which was enunciated by the previous Government. During the Committee stage I will be moving an amendment to clause 7 of the Bill in respect of this matter.

Another important aspect of the Bill is the transferability of authority to the States which was obviously envisaged by the Government. Presumably this is part of its decentralisation plan, but we ought to look at the implications of it. The Schools Commission was established to determine a balance in the allocation of resources and its views could be completely undermined by the attitudes of various State governments. Last week we had a debate in this chamber on the Government’s federalist policies. I believe it is important and pertinent to refer again to the principles with which the Government is involving itself in this transfer of more powers to the States. During that debate I quoted some passages from the research monograph of Professor Mathews of the Australian

National University, a person whom I understand the Minister regards as quite a competent authority in this area. Mathews spells out some principles which not only are pertinent in the light of the overall federalist proposals of this Government but also as they would affect specifically education and the transfer of responsibility to the States.

On page 2 of Research Monograph No. 4 he refers to intergovernmental grants and to the manner in which they can be made most effective and he states:

The application of this criterion would recognise that the federal government is best fitted to determine the pattern of expenditures in areas of national significance,- subject to the requirement that it has the information needed to determine priorities effectively.

That is a very important element in the matter with which we are dealing. He continues:

The states should be left with responsibility for resource allocation in functional fields where regional considerations are of greater importance, and local government authorities should have the responsibility for purely local decisions.

He goes on to state:

  1. . there is a need to entrust the decisions to a higher level unit of government with jurisdiction over the whole area affected by the decisions.

The principles spelt out by Professor Mathews are quite clear. I suggest that they are a warning to the Government that if it intends to proceed with the course which it has outlined whereby it will transfer authority to the States, not only under its general policies but specifically in relation to the Schools Commission and education payments, then it should recognise the difficulties it will experience and which the State governments will experience. Is the Schools Commission to be downgraded as a body? Over the last 3 years we have seen adequate representation on that Commission to ensure that all aspects of educational thought and responsibility have been included in the Commission. If this is to be the case then it is important that the Government should state quite specifically that it will develop some alternative consultative machinery between the States and the Commonwealth to ensure that there is an effective replacement of what will obviously be a reduction in the role of the Schools Commission.

On the matter of local priorities I shall read an extract from the speech of the Minister for Education. He stated:

It is the policy of this Government to establish as much flexibility and initiative as possible for systems and schools in using education grants. Decentralisation of decision making is desirable to permit maximum responsiveness and local involvement in education.

The Schools Commission report is pertinent to that comment. On page 10 of the report we find the Commission has this to say:

The Commission is anxious to accelerate the movement of a greater degree of decision-making power to regional and school levels. This movement has already begun in most school systems. However, the Commission believes that decisions made at these levels should be substantive rather than trivial, that they should be made in consultation with teachers, parents and senior students, and that unless, indeed, they give direct local power over spending they are not likely to be significant.

That is an extract from the report of the Commission. There appears to be no guarantee under this legislation that such moneys will be made available by State governments for this purpose. In fact, it would suggest that those funds would not be made available. For that reason, in the Committee stage, I shall move an amendment to clause 1 1 to ensure that certain funds will be made available for activities determined by the school. As I made the point earlier, the basic concern of the Opposition and, I believe, of the great majority of people involved in education in Australia is: What will happen to the needs principle of the Schools Commission?

Last Thursday in Canberra we had an education lobby. Overwhelmingly from the discussions which I had with many of the representatives I found a unanimous concern as to the future of the Commission and whether it would be kept in the basic role which it has now. I believe the Government ought to declare itself quite clearly and say whether it intends to destroy the independence of the Schools Commission by imposing its priorities on the Commission. I do not believe anything could be more disastrous than for the Government to try to steer the recommendations of the Commission in some way which may give greater power to the States or which in some way may fit into the philosophy of the Government which is contrary to the needs principle. During the course of the debate in the House of Representatives on this Bill a number of comments were made by Government spokesmen such as: ‘Too much money is being spent on education’, or ‘the salaries being paid are too high’. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that those comments by individual back bench members of the Government are not the policy of this Government and that it is prepared to go on accepting the responsibility which was initiated by the Labor Government in this area.

In relation to evaluation, the report of the Commission sets out the difficulties in evaluating the success of education programs and the steps that it proposes to take to improve methods of evaluation. The States have been reluctant to give a full analysis and to report back on these matters over some years. This makes the task of the Schools Commission all the more difficult. It is vitally important that if these evaluations are to be accurate and if they are to reflect a proper position which is being achieved by these various measures, this information should be provided so that there is not a waste of resources in certain fields because results are not being obtained. So accountability in evaluation becomes critical in all these matters of Commission expenditure. I want to keep strictly to the Bill tonight. I do not wish to range over matters though I suppose one could take licence and debate other aspects of education. I do not think that is pertinent to the debate tonight. We will be ranging over a much wider area in the future on the whole question of the role of the Schools Commission. But I stress how important we in Opposition regard the initiation of a new concept in educational responsibility by a Federal Government. This new concept which was adopted by the Labor Government must not be interfered with.

I have great concern, as I am sure many others in Australia have, that on so many occasions when questions have been asked and when the Minister has been invited to give commitments as to the Government’s proposals for the future, those commitments have not been as definitive as they might be. If for any reason at all, if simply for the reason of taking a different course from that adopted by the previous Government, whether it be for philosophical reasons which are inherent in Liberal Party philosophy- no matter what- and if we see the concept of needs destroyed or departed from by this Government we will see the greatest damage done to the educational system in this country that we could possibly imagine. I am sure that all across Australia there is this great concern that we will see a departure from this course. If that is to be the case, then the Government is obliged to spell that out now. When we were in government we were criticised for allegedly putting too much money into education to ensure that every child in this country- government pupil or nongovernment pupil- received the standard of education that the Commission sought. It would indeed be a great tragedly if this Government were to depart from that principle. I indicate in closing that during the course of the Committee stage I shall move amendments to those 2 clauses to which I have referred.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I rise to support the States Grants (Schools) Bill 1976 and in doing so I stress the importance of education to this nation. Education is now very big business in the economy of the country, the total vote being 10 per cent of the Budget outlay. The figure, I think, for 1975-76 is $l,908m which is larger than the defence vote and, I think, almost as large as the Medibank vote. I think that the importance of education to the nation is underlined by the fact that teachers and parents came here in such large numbers on Thursday last to press their case. They came from every State and from the Territories. I think that education is a topic which is very alive in the minds of the people of Australia today. So it is that we have this Bill.

Before proceeding to deal with the Bill I refer briefly to a couple of matters which were raised by the previous speaker, Senator Wriedt. I think that he was somewhat critical of the statement made by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech that decentralisation of decision-making is desirable to permit maximum responsiveness and local involvement in education. Might I suggest that we on this side of the chamber like to ensure that decision making in government is shared by the people who are close to the particular issue and who have their ears to the ground in the States and in the areas where the action is taking place? I think it is true to say that in education, as in other fields, it is not always possible in the rarefied atmosphere of Canberra to get to the meat of a situation or to have ears to the ground to know just what the people who are affected in a particular situation are thinking and doing and what their real requirements are. The statements made by the Minister in his second reading speech are consistent with our federalism policy and we on this side of the chamber stand by those statements.

Senator Wriedt referred also to the Schools Commission. I think that others on this side of the chamber recognise its importance. We do pay tribute to the work of the Schools Commission since it was founded as an independent and impartial body with the necessary expertise to advise the government of the day on these very vexed and complex problems which are arising in this very wide field of education.

Turning now to the Bill, this legislation does redeem the undertaking given by the caretaker Government in November last that there would be no reduction in financial assistance to schools as defined in the Bill as announced by the Labor Government. So it is fair to assume- and I think it has been stated-that the Bill is supported on both sides of the chamber. Of course the provisions of the Bill are consistent with the decision of the previous Government that the new triennium should not operate for the year 1976. Whilst we acknowledge the dramatic growth of the education budget during the first 3 years which, I think, motivated the previous Government as a matter of economic necessity to abandon the thoughts of a further triennium and to limit the expenditure to the year 1976 only, I think it is fair to say in a debate on a Bill such as this that the triennium system must be reintroduced. I think that this point has been stressed by the fact that so many teachers and parents were here last Thursday.

When we look at the various fields of educationtertiary, secondary and primary- we realise that it is fairly impossible to try to live from year to year. We are dealing with a subject in which vast amounts of public money are involved in buildings and institutions, particularly in the tertiary field with which this Bill does not deal. Planning has to be done for the engaging of staff, arranging for buildings, and the setting up of schools. As I said, I think that we have to aim at restoring the triennium system- to programming for 3 years- so that the government of the day, the people involved in education and the citizens of Australia will know where they are going in this very wide field.

Education in Australia today faces a challenge. There have been many changes, some of which have been posed by the Schools Commission. I think that a balance has to be struck between the basics, such as the 3 Rs- reading, writing and arithmetic. I and other people in the employment field who over the years have engaged in employing secondary and even tertiary students are somewhat concerned at the fall in the standards of some of the essentials of what I think are properly termed a ‘basic education’. I think that this bears some investigation when we look at some of the innovations in the programs that are being posed. I think that it ought to be said that the basics must be preserved, although it is recognised that there is a need for new methods, new curricula and innovations in various fields. One of the more exciting innovations is that of more parent and teacher involvement in the day-to-day educational process. The tendency is to involve the parent and pupil as much as the teacher in the educational process.

This Bill gives greater flexibility in the transfer of funds from one area of expenditure to another. Greater freedom is given to the States by the modification of the provisions relating to expenditure so that major items of expenditure only, both in the case of government and nongovernment schools, will need to be reported upon and expenditures which might be described as ‘ minor only ‘ will be made at the discretion of the States. This again, I think, is a move in the right direction because of the large expenditure in the education budget. It is an old saying that if you look after the pennies the pounds will look after themselves. The point I make is that the Minister has a very large portfolio and I think it is quite proper that the States should be given some discretion in various areas. Of course, the recommendations of the Schools Commission have to be balanced against this. I think that the Minister is concerned and ought to be concerned to see that the recommendations of the Schools Commission are carried out by the States. Some fears have been expressed recently by certain people in my State of Victoria, particularly in the field of disadvantaged schools, which is another area dealt with in this legislation and relates to one of the innovations recommended by the Schools Commission. If I might say so, it is laudable that steps have been taken to recognise that there are disadvantaged schools in the system. They are not only in the cities, of course, but are found also in the country areas of Australia. I think it is fair to say that the disadvantages suffered by such schools in the country areas are different from those in the city.

Concern has been expressed by people who are interested and who hold office in organisations in Victoria that although the Schools Commission can make firm recommendations the State Minister for Education might not necessarily carry them out. I think the Minister for Education is aware of that sort of situation and will take the steps necessary to ensure that when the Schools Commission makes a recommendation in respect of particular amounts of money for disadvantaged schools, in-service training or some of the other aspects covered by the legislation the funds do not become buried in the general revenue of the Education Department of a State but are used for the purpose for which the Schools Commission has recommended them.

Senator Button:

– You will seek the Minister’s agreement on that point? I hope you will seek his concurrence.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-Senator Button, I was speaking earlier of the importance of the Schools Commission in relation to education, and I think that what I have just said emphasises the point that it is not much good setting up an expert commission to make recommendations if somewhere along the line, particularly in the States, the recommendations are lost sight of. I am simply making the point that in this area there are some important innovations, some exciting new concepts, which to a large degree have emanated from the Schools Commission. In some sense, new ground is being broken in the implementation of policy and the provision of funds, and there is a challenge to the Department of Education and to the Minister in this new area, to ensure that the moneys are spent on the purposes for which they were allotted. Again, while the declarations relating to disadvantaged schools and the classes of people who will be eligible to take part in in-service training remain with the Minister, he will exercise those powers after consultation with the State Ministers. As I have said, both those concepts are of recent origin and constitute developments which, generally speaking, have the support of most people. They are still being developed, and I think we should pay tribute to the Schools Commission for its valuable work in this and other fields.

As I said before, the Bill is one which ought to be supported on both sides of the House because, in effect, it carries out the Budget proposals of the previous Government. In conclusion might I express the hope that there will not be a recurrence of the situation which the Government has faced in 1976, when expenditure over the previous 3 years had been of such magnitude, perhaps having been undertaken without regard to what might follow, that it was necessary to budget for one year only. I trust that in the Budget deliberations the Minister will be able to look ahead to a period of 3 years, if not immediately following the Budget then perhaps at some time during 1977.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Mr President, might I begin by congratulating Senator Tehan on some aspects of his speech, which I believe was truly appropriate to a house of review. I applaud many of the comments he made about the necessity for governments, either State or Federal, to give considerable countenance to the recommendations of an expert body such as the Schools Commission. I particularly commend the view he put that this Government should be guided by those opinions in its negotiations with State governments on matters provided for by this Bill. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) pointed out in his second reading speech the various aspects which are covered by this Bill and the fact that it is indeed part of a series of Bills, of which two at least have already been before the Senate, dealing with universities and colleges of advanced education. This Bill provides for the payment of a sum of more than $43 1 m to the States for the one-out year of 1 976 which is severed from the normal triennium to which we have been accustomed. The Minister noted a number of matters of importance in his second reading speech, but there are one or two which I am not quite clear about. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to mention them in order that the Minister might help the Senate, and me particularly, in relation to these sections of his speech.

At page 1248 of Hansard the Minister said that this Bill is the product of the former Government and that future programs will be determined in the light of our appreciation of priorities affecting Australian schools. I do not understand the meaning of that sentence in terms of the legislation now before the Senate, which reflects a Schools Commission view of the priorities or needs appropriate to Australian schools. I am confused by that terminology, in view of the Minister’s answers to questions in the Senate and in view of undertakings relating to the regard which the Government would have of the Schools Commission’s view of priorities and needs. The second point in the Minister’s second reading speech which confuses me is this statement:

The Bill does however reflect our intention to depart from the recent trend towards centralism in the administration of schools.

I seek the guidance of the Minister at a later stage on whether that is just a pious statement of ideology or where in particular the intention to which he referred is reflected in this legislation. For example, is it reflected in clause 7, which contains a new flexibility which was not present in legislation either of the former Labor Government or of the Liberal Government before that? Is that the section to which the Minister referred when he made the statement that the Bill reflects the Government’s intention to depart from a trend towards centralism in the administration of schools? The Minister went on to say, perhaps by way of explanation:

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.

I ask again whether that is a pious statement of intention or whether it is reflected in the Bill in any new way?

Debate interrupted.

page 1508

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

page 1509

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circul

Transport of Senator (Question No. 125)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

Is the Minister in a position to say whether Senator Knight flew to Perth on 6 February or 7 February 1976, and whether Senator Knight was driven in a Commonwealth car to the private address of the Member for Curtin.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not the Government’s policy to investigate movements of Senators and Members or to provide information about such movements unless an allegation is made imputing improper activities relating to the use of entitlements. As Minister for Administrative Services, it is not my intention to scrutinise or examine the movements of Senators and Members of the Parliament. Members of the Parliament are entitled to their privacy in pursuit of their duties without Executive interference.
  2. In this particular case I have asked Senator Knight if he has any objection to information being provided to you and he stated that he does not.
  3. Senator Knight arrived in Perth by train and not by air and was driven by taxi, not by Commonwealth car, to the private address of the Member for Curtin. Senator Knight has met the cost of the taxi which was booked through the Commonwealth Transport Pool.

Trade Unions: Amalgamation (Question No. 189)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

What are the obstacles in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which would preclude the Plasterers Union from amalgamating with the Building Workers Industrial Union?

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There are no provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act designed or intended to hinder amalgamation of organisations. On the contrary, Part VIIIA of the Act, which was incorporated under the 1972 amendments, is designed to facilitate amalgamation by specifying clearly procedures which need to be followed by organisations which propose to amalgamate. I know of no reason why the Operative Plasterers and Plaster Workers’ Federation of Australia and the Building Workers’ Industrial Union of Australia could not comply with the procedures for amalgamation set out in the Act provided those organisations and their memberships desire it.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Expenditure (Question No. 203)

Senator Wriedt:

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of Foreign 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 Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has advised that excessive time and effort would be involved in providing a comprehensive answer and accordingly would like to draw the senator’s attention to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a similar question No. 1 92.

Electoral Act: Court Proceedings (Question No. 226)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In the case brought by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer against Messrs Garland and Branson, did the Magistrate, Mr Kilduff, find that a prima facie case had been made, but thought that a jury properly directed would not proceed to a conviction.
  2. Did the Magistrate state that the difficulty was in the construction and interpretation of section 156(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
  3. Will the Minister give early consideration to clarify section 156 (b) of the Act so as to ensure that, in future, political personalities who have moneys to give to opponents in an election will know their lawful rights.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Kilduff CSM. in summarizing his conclusions said:

Now, it is my view that the evidence against each of the defendants has established a prima facie case but it is my further opinion that a jury properly directed would not convict the defendants and I propose to discharge both defendants’.

  1. The magistrate heard argument on the proper construction and interpretation of section 156 (b) and in his decision said that there was much force in the submissions put to him by counsel for the defendants.
  2. A review of section 156 (b) will be undertaken for the purpose of determining whether there is a need for clarification or alteration.

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 298)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

Did the new Government obtain an opinion from the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor about the legality or otherwise of terminating the contractual relationships in individual cases under the National Employment and Training System before arrangements were set in train to abolish that Scheme; if not, why not.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No arrangements have been set in train to abolish NEAT.

Alcoholism (Question No. 316)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) What action does the Government contemplate taking to bring assistance to those people suffering from the ravages of alcoholism in the Northern Territory.
  2. Will facilities be set up to assist these people by the use of detoxification units and overnight shelters.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2) I am aware that alcohol abuse is a serious and growing problem in the Northern Territory. During my recent visit to Darwin I had useful discussions on the matter with community leaders concerned with the problems of alcoholism.

Two specific proposals have been put to me for facilities for the treatment of alcoholism in the Northern Territory. The first is for the establishment in Darwin of a community based sobering-up facility with appropriate staff, and a pick-up service to bring people to the facility for treatment. This would be the equivalent to an overnight shelter.

The second is for a counsellor co-ordinator, for the Katherine Community Alcohol Treatment and Rehabilitation Program.

These proposals have received full consideration but in the context of the Government’s overall economic strategy an immediate Commonwealth financial commitment to their implementation is not possible. There are no plans at present to set up special detoxification units, which are seen as involving fairly intensive medical care.

Wool Sales (Question No. 320)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen reports of a statement by the Director of the Australian Wool Selling Brokers’ Federation, Mr B. D. Purvis, that the current dispute between storemen and packers and wool selling brokers has tied up $30m worth of Australian wool clip ready for export.
  2. What action, if any has been or was taken by the Federal Department of Employment and Industrial Relations over this issue.
  3. 3 ) What were the causes for the dispute.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Department has kept me fully informed and advised on the dispute, has maintained close liaison with the Department of Primary Industry, and has played a major role leading to the steps taken by the Prime Minister and myself to help bring about a resumption of work following the conference chaired by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 1 5 April.
  3. I am advised that dispute arose in relation to claims by the Federated Storemen and Packers’ Union on employers in the wool broking industry for.

    1. The maximum weight of a wool bale to be reduced from 204 kgs to 180 kgs.
    2. A wage increase of $9.10 per week for all storeman and packers in the industry.
    3. Parity of wages and conditions of employment between storemen and packers employed in container depots and storemen and packers involved in the containerisation of wool, which would involve, inter alia, wage increases of between $38 and $45 per week and a 35 hour week for the employees involved.

Tally Clerks (Question No. 327)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the existing registered work force of tally clerks in the ports of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Hobart?
  2. What were the comparative totals three years ago?
Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) Because there is no statutory requirement for the registration of tally clerks at Australian ports it is unclear what statistics the honourble senator is seeking. The only form of registration existing is that provided for in the Clerks (Shipping) Award 1974 which requires that a register of casual wharf clerks (tally clerks) be maintained in each port. In all major Australian ports, with the exception of Sydney, the register is administered by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. In Sydney the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations performs this function and currently has 272 casual wharf clerks on the register. However it should be pointed out that this figure is not indicative of the port strength because the register at each port only covers casual wharf clerks and not permanent clerks employed by stevedoring and container companies. Any further information would need to be obtained from the parties in the industry.

Australian Council for Overseas Aid (Question No. 345)

Senator Sim:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Council for Overseas Aid receive a Commonwealth Government Grant; if so, what is the amount of the grant.
  2. What proportion of the grant is used to assist in the publication of the Development News Digest.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes; An amount of $90,000 has been provided in the 1975-76 Budget to help finance the general administrative expenses of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA), and its educational activities. So far this year, $65,000 has been paid to ACFOA for these purposes. .
  2. The Development News Digest is published by the Education Unit of ACFOA about 4 or 5 times a year. Its aim is to encourage public awareness of the general situation and the most urgent problems of the developing countries and to provide a forum for a wide cross-section of opinions to be expressed on development issues. The cost of publishing the Development News Digest is met partly from sales, partly by contributions from member organisations of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, and partly from the abovementioned Government grant. It is estimated that approximately 4 per cent of the proposed total grant to ACFOA in the current financial year will be used to support the publication of the Development News Digest.

Aboriginal Settlements: Fire Board Reports (Question No. 378)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

How many Aboriginal settlements in the Northern Territory have not been inspected and reported upon by the Australian Fire Board.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Only the Bagot Welfare Settlement and Oenpelli Mission Settlement have been inspected and reported on.

Argentina (Question No. 466)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Has the Australian Embassy in Argentina been officially notified of the change of Government in that country.
  2. What is the Australian Government’s attitude to the new Government of Argentina.
  3. Has the Embassy made any inquiries as to the whereabouts and safety of the former President of Argentina.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Australian Government regards the relations which existed before the change of government in Argentina as continuing.
  3. In the early hours of 24 March, Mrs Peron was taken from Buenos Aires to a luxury government-owned residence in southern Argentina. She has been held there under guard ever since. In announcing Mrs Peron ‘s detention the new Argentine Government made a specific point of guaranteeing her personal safety.

Health Insurance Commission (Question No, 388)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) How many of the staff of the Health Insurance Commission have medical degrees from Australia or overseas.
  2. What positions do they occupy in the Commission and at what salary range are they paid.
  3. Are the best uses being made of the qualifications of these people.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Two.
  2. One occupies the position of Medical Director ($27,108) in the Commission’s Central Administration Canberra. The other occupies a position of Claims Officer, Grade 2 ($6,503-6,835) in the Commission’s office at Chatswood.
  3. Full use is being made of the qualifications of the Medical Director. Insofar as the Claims Officer, Grade 2, is concerned, I understand that his qualifications were gained overseas and he is not registered as a medical practitioner in Australia.

Pensions: Questionnaire (Question No. 410)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What is the full text of the standard questionnaire letter that the Department of Social Security sends to persons claiming a single person’s pension.
  2. Do several questions in this letter, relating to the separation of the respective parties, constitute an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1) The use by the Department of Social Security of questionnaires of the kind referred to by Senator Colston was discontinued earlier this year.
  2. Any questions which might be asked by letter or in interview about the separation of a married couple are necessary for the proper determination of that person’s claim.

Immigration: Reported Entry of ‘Bluebells’ (Question No. 435)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. Under what conditions did a person known as ‘Bluebells’, who was alleged in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph of 4 January 1976 to be a member of the Manson Family, enter Australia and at which overseas post was she interviewed before being given such permission.
  2. Will the Minister assure the Senate that the person known as ‘Bluebells’ is not allowed to use the current amnesty extended to illegal immigrants to remain in Australia to avoid her standing trial in the United States of America, so as to determine her participation, or otherwise, in the murder of actress Sharon Tate and four other persons in the actress’ Hollywood home.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Identification details of the person formerly known by the nickname ‘Bluebells’ have been obtained as a result of overseas inquiries. Those inquiries have disclosed that the person concerned is not wanted to stand trial in the United States for any offence.

There is no record of the entry into Australia of the person concerned.

Creation of an Overseas Aid Bureau (Question No. 442)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen criticisms by Mr John Coller Secretary of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, that the Department of Foreign Affairs will ‘smother’ any overseas aid bureau formed within it.
  2. Does the Government intend establishing an overseas aid bureau in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
  3. Will the bureau incorporate the existing Australian Development Assistance Agency.
  4. What stage have the proposals reached.
  5. Will the Minister reconsider the proposals in the light of the persuasive arguments against them provided by Mr Coller
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The proposed Bureau will carry out all the functions of the existing Australian Development Assistance Agency, and will be staffed almost entirely by personnel transferred from the Agency.
  4. Details of the organisation of the Bureau are still being worked out in consultation between officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Australian Development Assistance Agency and the Public Service Board. The new structure should be finalised shortly.
  5. The decision to abolish ADAA and create a new Bureau to administer the aid program within the Department of Foreign Affairs was taken after detailed consideration by the Government of all relevant factors; it will not be reversed.

Small Business Bureau (Question No. 446)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the National Small Business Bureau to phase out its Small Business Counselling Assistance Programme in New South Wales.
  2. What staffing and facilities does the programme currently have at its disposal.
  3. What has been the cost of maintaining the programme since its inception.
  4. Will the New South Wales Government’s new Small Business Agency take over all functions of the Small Business Counselling Assistance Programme.
  5. What arrangements have been made regarding the present staff and facilities attached to the Small Business Counselling Assistance Programme.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. The Small Enterprise Counselling Assistance Programme of the National Small Business Bureau is being phased out in New South Wales because the New South Wales Government is now providing a similar service. The phase out is-being carried out in full co-operation with the New South Wales Government’s’ Small Business Agency which commenced operation on 3 1 March. The decision to phase out the programme is in line with decisions reached between Commonwealth and State Ministers for industrial development for greater co-operation between the Commonwealth and State Governments to rationalise the services and assistance they provide to industry and commerce.
  2. The programme is operated from a leased office in Sydney. Its staff is made up of two permanent officers together with a receptionist/typist. When necessary counselling is provided to individual small businessmen by counsellors drawn from a panel of some 20 retired or semi-retired business executives.
  3. No separate costing is maintained for the operation of the programme.
  4. The New South Wales Government’s Small Business Agency operates a service similar to the Bureau’s counselling programme.
  5. Most of the Small Enterprise Counselling Assistance Programme Counsellors will continue to offer their services through the N.S.W. Small Business Agency. The permanent officers will be transferred to other duties within the Bureau when the phase out has been accomplished.

Southern Rhodesia: Sanctions (Question No. 449)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd currently import approximately 700 tonnes of ferro-chrome per month into Australia for use in steel-making process.
  2. Is most of this ferro-chrome obtained from the Southern Cross Steel Company in South Africa.
  3. Does some of the ore obtained from that company for use in Australia actually originate in Rhodesia; if so, does this constitute a breach of United Nations’ economic sanctions against Rhodesia.
  4. Will the Minister investigate this case to ensure that no breach of United Nations ‘sanctions has occurred.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. BHP has confirmed that it imports ferro-chrome on that scale.
  2. BHP has confirmed that it is.
  3. and (4) Relevant Australian customs requirementswhich are designed to implement the mandatory United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning sanctions against Southern Rhodesia- require importers receiving goods through Mozambique (as was the case in this instance) to present certificates of origin at ports of entry. Examination of the relevant certificates of origin has revealed that the imported ferro-chrome alloy was declared to be of South African origin. The Australian Government remains committed to implementing the mandatory U.N. Security Council resolutions concerning sanctions against Southern Rhodesia.

Political Parties and Candidates: Advertising (Question No. 452)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by each political party and candidate who represented political parties on newspaper and magazine advertising on a basis of (a) metropolitan dailies, (b) provincial papers, (c) suburban papers, (d) weekend newspapers, and (e) magazines, during the 1974 and 1975 Federal election campaign.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Details of the expenditure by each political party and candidate who represented political parties on newspaper and magazine advertising are contained in the returns filed in pursuance of sections 151 and 152 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is not proposed to make information from the returns available outside the relevant provisions of the Act.

In addition, returns giving details of expenditure by each political party and candidate on newspaper and magazine advertising, are filed by newspaper proprietors and publishers in pursuance of section 153 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As these returns are available for inspection, it is not proposed to make information from the returns otherwise available.

Darwin Housing (Question No. 359)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) Are many of Darwin’s residents Public Servants, and do quite a number of them have no adequate housing since Cyclone Tracy.
  2. What is the present position in regard to the waiting list for housing in Darwin.
  3. Is priority housing to be provided for, so called, executives.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) There are in excess of 3500 Public Servants in Darwin. Public Servants who were residents of Darwin at the time of the cyclone or who came to Darwin since, are living in various standards and types of accommodation. This accommodation includes caravans, demountables, repaired/rebuilt houses, new houses, flats or private accommodation.
  2. There are 233 families on the temporary accommodation list. Most of these families are living in caravans or private accommodation and are waiting for allocations of a demountable or better. There are 1316 Public Service families on the permanent housing list.
  3. Priority housing may be obtained for ‘key personnel’ by application to the Interdepartmental Committee on Housing Allocation. ‘Key personnel ‘ is defined as- an officer/employee who, if he is not allowed to function, causes a significant adverse effect on the functioning of a particular department’.

Darwin Prison (Question No. 360)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

Will the Minister inform the Senate when the new prison at Berrimah is likely to be ready for use, and what arrangements are being made for persons at present undergoing prison sentences in Darwin.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The time schedule for designing and building the new Correctional Centre at Berrima has a target date for completion in June 1979.

Currently people undergoing prison sentences in Darwin are accommodated at the Fannie Bay Gaol.

The situation has been aggravated by staff shortages resulting in the recent temporary closure of Gunn Point Prison Farm and the transfer of those prisoners to Darwin. As a result of a recent Government decision, action to recruit new staff has been implemented and the situation in Darwin will be eased when sufficient staff is available to reopen Gunn Point. It is hoped there will be a minimal delay in achieving this.

Northern Territory: Non-institutional Services (Question No. 362)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

What is the availability in the Northern Territory of noninstitutional services for the treatment of offenders such as (a) probation, (b) parole, (c) work release, (d) periodicdetention, and (e) any other modern alternatives, to institutional treatment.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Probation is available in the Northern Territory and it is expected that this type of correction treatment will be expanded progressively as the Probation and Parole Service develops.
  2. Parole is readily available.
  3. Work release is currently not available. Provision for accommodation facilities for work release programs is included in the Design Brief for the new Darwin Correctional Centre at Berrimah.
  4. Periodic detention will require legislative action in addition to staff and facilities. This form of treatment is not yet available in the Northern Territory.
  5. Such other alternatives as attendance centres, community work order releases, and programs particularly related to dealing with offenders within Aboriginal communities by those communities, are seen as being part of the development of a comprehensive community based system of Correctional Services. An examination designed to implement programs in these areas has commenced.

With the establishment of the Correctional Services unit in the Department of the Northern Territory, expansion of existing programs and the establishment of new initiatives in respect of adult offenders is proceeding within the limits of resources available.

Northern Territory: Persons on Remand (Question No. 363)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) What special conditions of confinement apply to persons being held on remand in the Northern Territory at the present time.
  2. When are the conditions likely to be improved if the conditions in the Northern Territory are not in accordance with the standard minimum rules.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Persons are confined on remand in the Northern Territory in accordance with the Northern Territory Prisons Ordinance. The situation at Fannie Bay since the event of cyclone Tracy has caused general overcrowding and limitations on such aspects as exercise and access to recreational and educational facilities.

Alice Springs has also experienced overcrowding as a result of transfers of some convicted prisoners from Darwin and there has been less opportunity for remand prisoners to engage in activities.

Generally the prison population in the Northern Territory has increased by one-third since cyclone Tracy. As well there has been a substantial reduction in staff with officers from Darwin moving out of the Territory. This wastage has not yet been replaced but recent action by the Government will enable early relief through recruitment.

  1. Special provisions for remand prisoners will be provided in the new Darwin Correctional Centre. In addition to the physical facilities, proposals for additional qualified staff will provide adequate programs for all prisoners, including persons on remand.

In the meantime the position is under constant review to improve the situation within the limits of available staffing and facilities.

Unloading of Ships at Darwin (Question No. 382)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Did two overseas ships, the ‘United Sailor’ and the ‘Bracciano’ arrive at Darwin Port on Thursday 25 and Friday 26 March 1976, respectively, but no unloading of these vessels was done over the weekend.
  2. Has a government owned ship, carrying perishable and other goods, now arrived in Darwin on its normal weekly call, and will its turn round be delayed because of the unloading requirements on the two ships referred to in ( 1 ).
  3. Will the Minister take appropriate steps to ensure that port organisation is improved, and that government owned ships will be able to maintain a proper schedule.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The overseas vessel ‘United Sailor’ arrived at Darwin and anchored at 5 a.m. local time on 24 March, berthed at 4 p.m. local time the same day and commenced discharge on 25 March. The vessel was idle over the weekend and recommenced discharge on 29 March and sailed at 9.30 a.m. local time on 1 April 1976. ‘Bracciano’ arrived and berthed at Darwin on 26 March at S.30 a.m. local time. She commenced discharge on 29 March.
  2. The Western Australia State Shipping Service vessel ‘Boogalla’ was due in Darwin at 7 a.m. on 29 March but did not arrive until 7 a.m. on 30 March. This vessel was two hours late departing Darwin but the effect on ‘Boogalla’ of the other two vessels being in port was minimal.
  3. During March 1976 there were 19 vessels worked in the Port of Darwin. Of these only one requested weekend labour and that was for two gangs for Saturday morning to enable the vessel to sail that day. This does not indicate that anything is lacking in Port organisation but rather that it is more economic to keep vessels idle than to pay high penalty rates over weekends.

I can assure the honourable Senator that priority in berthing and allocation of labour is given to the government vessels plying from the east and west coasts of Australia to Darwin and they are turned around as quickly as possible in order to maintain their schedules.

Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund Senator Webster- On 28 April Senator Robertson asked a question without notice concerning the delays in tabling the monthly reports of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund pointing out that the last report was issued for the month of January.

I undertook to seek an answer and I am now able to provide the following information:

The trustees of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund last met on 27 February 1976. Reports for February, March and April are now being prepared and, when formally accepted by the trustees, will be presented to both Houses of Parliament, and to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

The Final Report must necessarily await the formal winding up of the trust and disposal of funds currently held which amount to $869,011. This report will, of course, also be tabled in the Parliament.

Australian Institute of Marine Science

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– At question time on 28 April I undertook to see whether further information could be obtained for Senator Keeffe concerning the sale by tender of certain equipment and stores held by the Australian Institute of Marine Science at Townsville.

I am able to confirm that the equipment and stores were surplus to the Institute’s requirements.

I can add that the hull of the trawler he referred to had been twisted in heavy seas. The Townsville Harbour and Marine authorities would not permit it to operate outside 12 miles from port. It was therefore considered to be surplus to requirements.

The trawler is shortly to be replaced by a faster 38ft sampling vessel.

Similarly, the inflatable boats had received a battering in continuous work in mangrove swamps.

Flakes of rust had developed in the drums of diesel fuel referred to by Senator Keeffe and the Institute decided it was not economic to continue straining the fuel at cost to the Institute.

Electoral (Question No. 174)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What was the total cost of each of the 1974 and 1975 double dissolution elections and what was the cost of each election in each State and each Territory.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The costs of the 1974 double dissolution and 4 referendums and of the 1975 double dissolution elections were: 1974- $4.603m. 1975- $5.900m ($5.300m actual to date and $0.6m estimated as outstanding)

As four referendums were held in conjunction with the May 1974 elections, it is not possible to directly compare the recorded costs of the 1974 elections/referendums and the 1975 elections. Expenditure of $973,000 identifiable as directly attributable to the referendums has been excluded from the 1974 cost as shown above. However, indirect referendum expenditure cannot be identified because of the integrated nature of the elections and referendums on that occasion.

Also as elections are organised on a national basis, some expenditures are met centrally and records do not allocate those expenditures between the various States and Territories. With these provisos, the following table shows the expenditures incurred in each State and Territory.

Social Security Appeals Tribunals (Question No. 130)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many appeals relating to unemployment benefit were dealt with in each State this year by Social Security Appeals Tribunals.
  2. How many appeals were upheld in each State.
  3. How many appeals were dismissed in each State.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1) (2) and (3) Statistics showing appeals by category of pension or benefit are prepared on a quarterly basis only. Statistics for the March Quarter, 1976 are not yet available; however, figures for the period July 1975 to December 1975 are shown below.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Expenditure (Question No. 210)

Senator Wriedt:

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

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

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The above expenditure was incurred by the Department of Immigration for the period 1 July 1973 to 1 1 June 1974 and the Department of Labor and Immigration (Immigration Group) for the period 12 June 1974 to 21 December 1975.

The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was created on 22 December 1975.

Department of Construction: Expenditure (Question No. 214)

Senator Wriedt:

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of Construction 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 Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Departmental expenditure on works (capital and maintenance), and furniture and fittings on behalf of Commonwealth Government Departments and Authorities in each of the States and Territories for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and the estimated expenditure for 1975-76 is as follows:

The above figures do not include my Department’s running costs (staff salaries and administrative expenditures, etc.). The honourable senator will be aware of the changes over recent years in my Department’s activities and the task of identifying my Department’s expenditures in the particular State or Territory would entail time consuming investigation. I am therefore not prepared to authorise the time and expenditure that would be involved in dissecting these expenses on the basis requested.

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

Public Service: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 368)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Do staff ceilings for the Minister’s Department include a component of 579 persons for the staff of Ministers, Office Holders and Members of Parliament.
  2. What were the individual staff entitlements of the various Ministers, Office Holders and Members of Parliament which provided the basis for this ceiling component.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The staff entitlements which provided the basis for this ceiling component were:

It may be of interest that the staff entitlements in the above categories at 10 November 1975 were:

Government Advertising (Question No. 453)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth in respect of advertising in each of the categories of

Government Printing and Publishing Employees (Question No. 455)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. How many, and what are the categories of people employed in (a) the Australian Government Printing Office and (b) the Australian Government Publishing Service.
  2. How many tradesmen are qualified journeymen and how many are apprentices.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Government Publishing Service consists of three branches: the Management Services, Supply and Projects Branch, the Publishing Branch and the Printing Branch. The Printing Branch includes those people employed in the Australian Government Printing Office. Numbers and categories of staff employed in those branches at the end of March 1976 were:
  1. newspapers, (b) magazines, (c) broadcasting, (d) television, and (e) other forms of media, used during the financial years 1972-73, 1973-74and 1974-75.

    1. What has been the expenditure to date in each of the categories in respect of this financial year, from 1 July 1975 to 3 March 1976.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

Separate figures for newspapers and magazines are not readily available but the following figures are provided in respect of(l) and (2).

Total figures for the Australian Government Publishing Service are:

  1. Two hundred and seventy-seven (277) personnel are employed as qualified journeymen and fifty-five (55) as apprentices.

Fire Brigade Services: Postal Concessions (Question No. 381)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. Do the Department of Post and Telecommunications and the Department of Administrative Services jointly meet the cost of concessional rates for facilities provided by the Department of Post and Telecommunications to fire brigade services throughout Australia.
  2. What has been the amount made available for this purpose in each of the financial years since 1970-71, and what is the apportionment value for each State.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. No. Formerly the amount of the concession was shared equally by the Department of Administrative Services and the then Postmaster General’s Department. The concession was discontinued from 1 July 1 975. Following the

Industrial Statistics (Question No. 321)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

How many man-hours have been lost in Australia through (a) strike action; (b) lockouts; (c) sickness; and (d) industrial accidents, in each month since January 1 975.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (b) Official industrial dispute statistics in Australia are published on the basis of man-days rather than manhours. The Commonwealth Statistician does not distinguish between strikes and lockouts but publishes information in terms of industrial disputes which are denned as disputes involving stoppages of work for ten man-days or more.

The latest figures available since January 1975 are as follows:

  1. No information is available as to the number of manhours lost in Australia through sickness each month since January.

Shipbuilding (Question No. 431)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the future of over three thousand workers and their families directly, or indirectly, affected by the complete lack of forward orders placed with the Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd for ship construction at its Whyalla yards. formation of Telecom Australia, revised arrangements are being discussed.
  2. The total amounts of the concession from 1970-71 were:
  3. Did the shipbuilders warn the Labor Government in 1972 that the new policy of reducing subsidies would create difficulties for local industry.
  4. Has there been, as a result of the steep increase in world petroleum prices, a reduction in demand for ships resulting in over capacity in world shipbuilding and a price cutting war for existing orders.
  5. Will a gap of several million dollars exist between Australian prices for shipbuilding and those of the lowest overseas tenders even with the Australian Government subsidy.
  6. What is the relative productivity per man hour in the Australian shipbuilding industry as compared to the other major overseas tendering countries.
  7. Is the Australian shipbuilding industry disadvantaged by excessive industrial unrest resulting in higher contingency charges, and penalty payments for failure to deliver on contract dates.
  8. Would the future supply of ships to Australia be in jeopardy if the Australian shipbuilding industry closed down completely.
  9. Could alternative employment be found for persons displaced should the Australian shipbuilding industry cease to exist.
  10. Is it essential to maintain a shipbuilding capability in Australia for strategic purposes.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. I have been informed that if no new orders are received by Whyalla shipyard the future of the yard is in doubt.
  2. 1 understand that shipbuilders did inform the previous Government that the policy of reducing subsidy on large vessels would create difficulties for the local shipbuilding industry.
  3. There has been a reduction in demand for new ships resulting in over-capacity in world shipbuilding and a consequential reduction in ship prices.
  4. Overseas prices for some ships are currently lower than Australian prices after subsidy.
  5. This information is not available.
  6. Industrial unrest has in some instances slowed production times. Contracts usually provide for penalty payments for non-delivery on contract dates.
  7. , (8) and (9) These matters are being considered by the Government in the context of a current review of assistance arrangements for the Australian shipbuilding industry.

McKinsey Report (Question No. 462)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did McKinsey and Company, management consultants, recommend in a report that the Australia Council cut its staff by 20 per cent to improve efficiency.
  2. Was the Report commissioned by the Government or by the Australia Council itself, and what status does the report have.
  3. Will the report be made public; if so, when.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. I am informed that the McKinsey Report envisages some staff reductions in the context of recommendations for an administrative restructuring and rearrangement of functions of the Australia Council.
  2. The Report was commissioned by the Australia Council on 5 November 1975, and will be used by the Council in a review of its present operations and future direction.
  3. The Council agreed at its meeting on 11 April that copies of the report should be released publicly after the Council’s conclusions regarding the recommendations contained in the report had been submitted to me.

Department of the Capital Territory: Expenditure (Question No. 213)

Senator Wriedt:

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of the Capital 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 Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Expenditure was incurred by the Department of the Capital Territory in each of the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and is expected to be incurred in the year 1 975-76 in the Australian Capital Territory as follows:

Public Service Employment (Question No. 137)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

How many persons were employed in each Commonwealth Department at (a) 30 November 1975 and (b) 29 February 1976.

Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Public Service Board has provided the information sought, in the following tables.

It should be noted that the figures given in Table 1 for 30 November 1975 are notional (as a basis for comparison) to take account of the revised Administrative Arrangements of 22 December 1 975, since some of the present departments did not exist in their current form at 30 November 1 975.

Table 2 gives the numbers of full-time Public Service Act staff against departments as they existed at 30 November 1975.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 May 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760504_senate_30_s68/>.