Senate
25 May 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

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

page 1835

PETITIONS

Family Planning

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 65 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 the Family Planning Association and similar organisations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and wellbeing of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, give urgent consideration to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisations to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Stuart Highway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 103 citizens of the Northern Territory:

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

That the re-aligning of the Stuart Highway at Pine Creek in the Northern Territory as recommended to, and confirmed by Parliament will bring financial hardship to Pine Creek particularly from the Tourist trade as the proposed route by-passes the township.

Your petitioners must humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should- As it can be shown that a realignment of the Stuart Highway on the western perimeter of Pine Creek township is of no extra cost in the overall project, and that this alignment would meet the specifications of the National Australian Highway code, the Federal Government is respectfully requested to review the siting of the Stuart Highway at Pine Creek, Northern Territory.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Planning

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, from 700 and 1 60 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:

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 the Family Planning Association and similar organisations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and well-being of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisations to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and first petition read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Heritage Commission

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of Leeuwin Conservation Group and Western Australia Electors 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 thereare 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 organizations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community ‘s case against the exploiter.

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

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

Petition received.

Schools Commission

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 the Federal Government implement the June, 1975 Report of the Schools Commission so that:

  1. The present level of Federal Government Education Expenditure is increased to the level recommended by the Schools Commission.
  2. The role of the Schools Commission as an independent statutory authority free to make its own assessment of the needs of Australian Education is maintained.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the Schools Commission.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Family Planning

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 the Family Planning Association and similar organisations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and wellbeing of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, give urgent consideration to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisations to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

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

Petition received.

Electoral Act

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

That whereas every citizen has the right to take part in government through freely chosen representatives the provision of the Electoral Act compelling voters to mark preferences for all candidates in Senate elections is an unwarranted interference with the right of the voters to choose freely.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate will take immediate steps to havethis unjust compulsion removed from the Act.

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

Petition received.

page 1836

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1836

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO THE STATES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. In the light of the economic statement made by the Treasurer on 20 May this year, it is clear that payments from the Commonwealth to the States during 1976-77 will show an absolute increase of about 11 per cent or 12 per cent which will amount to a decrease in constant value dollars. I ask: In view of the Minister’s previously unqualified assurance to the Senate that total payments to the States in the next 3 years will increase in constant value by more than 58 per cent, how does he propose to honour his undertaking to the Senate?

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

-I take it that Senator Wriedt, when referring to payments to the States, is referring to Commonwealth reimbursement to the States, that is, the untied grants. If so, the arrangement made at the Premiers Conference, as announced, was that the minimum amount the States would get by way of untied reimbursement grants this year would be that which would have been yielded by the formula of the Whitlam Government as updated by a betterment formula.

Senator Wriedt:

– I am referring to total payments.

Senator CARRICK:

– Do you mean total payments, including specific purpose grants?

Senator Wriedt:

-I am referring to total payments.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am not aware of the overall figure because a number of decisions regarding the total payments of specific purpose grants have been reserved for review. A number of reviews have to be made as yet. Of course decisions will have to be made in the August Budget. I cannot answer specifically in terms of percentages, but if an additional answer can be given I will refer the question to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to get the information.

page 1836

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question also is directed to Senator Carrick, in his capacity as the Minister for Education and as the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I suppose that I ask the question out of personal interest and in my capacity as the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on

Education and the Arts. I refer to the announcement concerning the cutback in expenditure for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Can the Minister give an assurance that this will not affect the service programs and other programs that have been established over many years, especially on the regional networks and particularly on the rural networks? Will the Government also take into account the special relationship between the Australian Broadcasting Commission and several particular fields of the arts and ensure that if programs are to be reduced they will not be eliminated? Is it envisaged that the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s role in the education field is to be abolished? If so, will the Minister please make representations for such reconsiderations as are possible?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The determination of the level of funds available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the year 1976-77 was the subject of consideration by the Government in recent weeks. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications did announce last Thursday evening that the total amount for 1 976-77 for the Australian Broadcasting Commission would be of the order of $ 128m. That does represent a cut in the actual level of expenditure for this year and in the expectations of the Commission. It should be understood that to overcome the grave deficit inflicted by the previous Government it has been necessary for virtually all programs of expenditure within the Commonwealth purview to be pruned. The Australian Broadcasting Commission must take its place in that. If there is a cause, it lies in the disastrous economic policies of the previous Government.

As a statutory corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is charged with the responsibility for its own management. The Commission, not the Government, will decide how it will spend its $128m and how its programs will be balanced. There is no doubt at all that these matters will be under close scrutiny in the coming weeks. Nevertheless, Senator Davidson has raised a series of important matters regarding various programs. I will direct his question, through the Minister, to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, with the request that serious consideration be given to the comments he made.

page 1837

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I preface it by reminding the Minister of recent Government statements that it was proposed to implement, as a matter of priority, legislation granting Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. Is it a fact that the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Country Party members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly have combined to wreck the draft legislation, which now may not be available for consideration by this Parliament until the Budget session? Does the Australian Government no longer consider the Northern Territory land rights legislation as a matter of urgency.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I am not aware of the timetable with regard to the introduction of the land rights legislation for Aborigines, but I am quite sure that the assumption that the Minister for the Northern Territory and members of the Country Party have combined to wreck the legislation is inaccurate. I will ask the Minister about the timetable for the introduction of the legislation and see that the honourable senator is advised.

page 1837

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: MATERNITY LEAVE

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, by stating that in the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975 approximately 4400 women employed under the Commonwealth Public Service Act commenced maternity leave, at a cost of approximately $7m. Does the Minister have any idea of the current position? Does the Government plan any modification of the maternity leave provisions of the Act?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I believe that this question should be addressed more appropriately to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters. I have no information on the question, but I will endeavour to obtain some if my colleague has no information at present.

page 1837

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I draw her attention to the social welfare policy statement issued by the Liberal and Country parties in October 1975 which indicated an acceptance and an endorsement of the Australian Assistance Plan. I also draw her attention to the Press statement on the same program issued by Mr Chipp, the caretaker Minister for Social Security and honourable member for Hotham. I refer to a speech made as recently as 5 May this year by the honourable member for Hotham, in which he said that the Government is ‘morally, politically and I believe conscientiously bound to it’. He was referring to the Australian Assistance Plan. In view of these firm commitments to the AAP, can the Minister explain why the Government has decided to transfer the operation of this program, which after all did not cost a great deal of money, to the State governments? Will the Government give special financial assistance to the States to fund this program?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Senate may be aware that last week I issued a statement to the effect that the Commonwealth Government was prepared to undertake responsibility for a transition stage of the Australian Assistance Plan by paying for 12 months, to a level of $3m, the salaries of those people who presently are engaged in it and by providing a sum of $2m to enable those projects which were in progress to be completed. It was believed by the Government that the States would more appropriately be able to develop the Plan in the way in which they considered desirable. But we wished to avoid at all costs the dismemberment of the plan without some transition stage.

When discussing the matter with State Ministers last week, I undertook that in addition to providing funds for the forthcoming year we would also make available our officers beyond that year if their expertise was required to hand over the plan to the States. Some State Ministers have already made announcements with regard to their acceptance of this arrangement. Indeed, the Victorian Minister has said that he is pleased to have the opportunity to develop the plan in his State in his own way. I would expect that when other Ministers returned to their Cabinets they would discuss the matter. I am now awaiting from them a report on the outcome of their discussions so that we will be able to transfer the Australian Assistance Plan to the States, if they desire it. Our objective with regard to providing this finance at this stage is to enable the States themselves to discuss with us further any arrangements which they may wish to undertake. I am awaiting the outcome of those discussions which I would assume will flow back now that the Ministers concerned have been able to take the matter back to their own Cabinets.

Senator GRIMES:

– I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister for Social Security. Do I take it from her answer that the Government has no financial commitment beyond the transition stage to fund the Australian

Assistance Plan? Will the discussions that she intends to have with the States after the Ministers have spoken to their various Cabinets include discussions on future financial commitments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It could well be that discussions that originate from State Ministers could lead to any matters that may be appropriate being raised. I believed that it was important when talking to the Ministers last week to give them an indication of the extent to which the Federal Government was prepared to fund the Australian Assistance Plan in this Budget and arising from future plans and developments we would see what the next stage would be. I undertook that officers would be available. I have undertaken to have discussions with the States on a continuing basis. Arising from those discussions, we may be able to determine some of the matters which have been raised by the honourable senator.

page 1838

QUESTION

ADELAIDE TO CRYSTAL BROOK RAILWAY

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. The Treasurer stated in his economic statement delivered last Thursday night, when dealing with transport:

The Government has decided to ask an independent committee to inquire into the Adelaide-Crystal Brook railway project and the options available.

He then went on to say:

Reports on these matters are expected within 2 months. In the meantime, expenditure and new commitments in these areas will be kept to a minimum.

Has the Minister seen reported innuendoes by the Deputy Premier and others in South Australia that the Federal Government is abandoning the Crystal Brook-Adelaide railway? Is this correct? If so, how does it align with the Treasurer’s statement? Will the Minister clarify the position?

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

-The Treasurer’s statement is accurate, truthful and correct. I was in South Australia on Friday and on Saturday morning and am aware of the comments by the Deputy Premier of South Australia to which the honourable senator has referred which contained innuendoes and inaccuracies. What a great pity it is that a Deputy Premier cannot even take the time to read the statement by the Treasurer and get himself up to date.

page 1838

QUESTION

MEDIBANK PREMISES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative

Services. Does the property section of his Department make arrangements for leasing of premises that are used in the various capital cities and urban areas of Australia by Medibank? Now that it is proposed by the Government to introduce another form of health insurance, has any survey been made of the future building requirements of Medibank? If so, is it intended to cut down on the building space at present allotted to the organisation?

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I imagine my Department does make such arrangements. It arranges not only purchases but also the leasing of premises. No survey has been made but we will cut space wherever we can to save the taxpayers’ money.

page 1839

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information in addition to that which I gave to the Senate last week with regard to the availability of vaccine. I think at this stage it would be understood from my remarks that there is a considerable time to be taken in the development of the vaccine that is required. I think it is fair to say also that there has been an unprecedented demand for flu vaccine this year. I think many people are unaware that not all medical opinion supports the claim that injections of the vaccine are of absolute necessity to the large numbers of people who have been drawing on the supplies of the vaccine. I will obtain whatever further information I can from the Minister for Health and make it available to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and to the other members of the Senate.

page 1839

QUESTION

WHALING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to Senator Cotton in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I submit it to the Minister because this happens to be International Whaling Week. I ask the Minister whether he can advise the Senate how Mr Sinclair, the Minister for Primary Industry, explained Australia’s current whaling policy in relation to the endangered species tag that does apply to some varieties of whales, in view of the criticism at the weekend by Mrs Lee, a Friends of the Earth campaigner, which was quoted extensively in Sydney? I ask the Minister further whether he can say whether the halfway house stance adopted at the 1974 International Whaling Commission conference has achieved its objective? Also, what line will the Australian delegates take at the London IWC meeting in June? Who will be our representatives?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-Due to the foresight of the honourable senator, I am particularly strong on whales in International Whaling Week. I have consulted the expert on whales at the other end of the building and I have the following data to give to the honourable senator. The Minister for Primary Industry respects the Friends of the Earth attitude towards whaling operations and has explained to Mrs Lee that to ensure adequate conservation of whales it is the Commonwealth Government’s policy to follow the advice of the International Whaling Commission’s scientific Committee. This Committee comprises the world’s foremost scientific experts on whale biology and populations. The management regime now adopted by the IWC followed introduction of Australian initiatives at the 1974 meeting and commenced to operate this season. The Scientific Committee keeps the status of all whale populations under constant review and it was on the basis of the Scientific Committee’s recommendations that the various conservation and management regimes now applying were introduced.

The only responsible way in which to handle this question is to accept the advice of the acknowledged scientific experts in the field, given that the overriding objective is preservation of all species of whales on a global basis. The Australian delegation to the meeting of the IWC next month has been instructed to follow the advice of the Scientific Committee in respect of the application of moratoria to any species on a global basis or to individual stocks which are endangered, as well as the application of appropriate conservation and management measures to ensure that those stocks being harvested are not endangered. The official Australian representatives will be:

Mr A. G. Bollen, Leader: Head of the Fisheries Division of the Department of Primary Industry

Mr W Ryan:

– Alternate: Representative of the Department of Primary Industry at the Australian High Commission in London.

Dr K. Radway Allen, Scientific Adviser: Chief of Division of Fisheries and Oceanography, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Mr J. L. Bannister, Scientific Adviser Director of Western Australian Museum.

page 1840

QUESTION

DARWIN RADIO TRANSMITTER

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it true that the Telecom Australia cable to the Radio Australia station on Cox Peninsula near Darwin was damaged late last year and has yet to be repaired? Is the Minister aware that reports have circulated saying that over 1000 gallons of special oil is being pumped into the cable and is leaking into Darwin harbour every day at a cost of over $300 a day? Can the Minister comment on these reports and give an assurance that if they are true the situation will be rectified immediately?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Because this is an important matter I have sought some information and advice on it. My understanding is that Radio Australia transmitters on Cox Peninsula were severely damaged by Cyclone Tracy. Since then transmitting has been carried out from Carnarvon in Western Australia. In December 1975 it was reported that one ofthe 2 submarine cables to the Darwin transmitting station, which is under maintenance, had been damaged. The estimated cost of repairing the cable could be as high as $300,000 while the replacement cost is $500,000. Application was made by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the Treasurer for funds to commence repair of the cable, and approval has now been given for the first stage of the repair of the cable at an estimated cost of $100,000.

In the meantime oil is being pumped into the cable at a cost of $300 a day. This will continue until the first stage of the repair is completed. The oil seeps into the harbour but the level of pollution has not been regarded as significant, although it is not desirable that the seepage should continue any longer than necessary. The seepage rate is estimated to be about 25 gallons a day. Of course, all oil seepage ought to be avoided if possible. It is expected that the Department of Construction will be requested to make arrangements for the first stage of the repair in order to commence the work in July of this year. The estimated time for completion of this stage is 30 days to 40 days. Whether the further stages of repair are proceeded with is a matter to be determined by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and the Treasurer when a decision is made about recommencement of Radio Australia transmission from Darwin.

page 1840

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention ofthe Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs been drawn to statements issued in Canberra on the weekend by local government spokesmen in which regret is expressed at the cutback in Federal funds to local government from 2.2 per cent of personal income tax in the Budget for 1975-76 to 1.5 per cent in the current economic proposals? Is it a fact that the spokesmen have indicated that the Government’s decision will mean a further increase in local government rates at the end of 1976? Can the Minister explain how the Government made such a decision, as any increase in taxes or indirect taxes by other governments must surely fan the fires of inflation, thus negating the Government expressed economic objectives?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am delighted that Senator Gietzelt asked me this question. I can answer it at first hand, having spent almost the whole of yesterday with the Federal body of the Local Government Association. I am very happy to tell the Senate that in general terms the Local Government Association applauded strongly the new federalism policies of the Federal Government. It did so without qualification. That view came from the Federal body of the Association yesterday. I am very happy to be able to correct the honourable senator’s mathematics because we are referring to untied grants to local government amounting to $140m, as announced last Thursday. That amount can be compared to the amount of $79.9m which was made available as untied grants by the Government which the honourable senator supported. Therefore, I am delighted to be able to inform the Senate that this Government has increased untied grants by 75 per cent, from $79.9m to $ 140m.

I go further and say that this will allow the promise made by the Federal Government to be fulfilled completely so that there will be a quite significant per capita grant to all councils in Australianot just to some- in addition to equalisation payments. There is no reason why their projected level for the following year should not be at least the upgraded value of those of the previous year. So, contrary to the honourable senator’s report that there is an expression of gloom, there is an indication that local government will be able to abate its rate increases from the 35 per cent average increase that was caused by the Whitlam Government to the possible modest 5 per cent announced this morning. That is not a bad abatement. Local government expressed to me yesterday its clear understanding that the primary reform that is necessary for local government is a return to economic stability because the economic instability created by the previous Government has virtually wrecked the cost structure of local government.

page 1841

QUESTION

RAILWAY STOPPAGE

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, relates to the Australia-wide 24-hour stoppage of trains which occurred yesterday. In view of the major disruption to the economy resulting from such stoppages and the hardship inflicted on those unfortunate Australians who rely exclusively on rail transport for urgent medical or hospital appointments, will the Minister take steps to prevent any similar stoppages which cause so much inconvenience, loss and hardship to so many Australians?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think all responsible Australians will regret very deeply that yesterday there was a nation-wide stoppage of transport and also will regret the reason for it. I think also that all responsible people will applaud the very responsible statement by Mr Jack Egerton who has come out rejecting the need for the strike and taking a very balanced attitude. I do not want to exacerbate industrial relations in Australia. The important point is that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is looking towards a responsible view on this whole question. The matter was one in which a particular supervisor refused to allow the movement of, I think, sulphur or another commodity to the Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd Mine. The ACTU has pointed out the need for us all to look at the Ranger inquiry. Mr Egerton has come out saying that the proper and properly supervised mining and transportation of uranium in Australia is safe and justifiable. I hope and believe that this view will be accepted by trade unionism throughout Australia.

page 1841

QUESTION

SURF LIFE SAVING CLUBS

Senator COLEMAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I preface it by stating that concern is being expressed throughout Australia at the curtailment of funds given to sporting bodies. My personal concern at the moment is for the surf life saving clubs which operate on our coastline and whose members contribute their time and expertise to the safety of all people who use our beaches. These clubs existed by way of an occasional State grant, private donations and private fund raising until the advent of the Labor Government, when substantial grants were made available. In view of the role which these clubs play in making our beaches safe and the desperate financial situation in which some now find themselves, will the Government give consideration to reviewing this area of funding or at least to guaranteeing a sympathetic hearing of representations from these bodies in an endeavour to ensure that all clubs receive assistance in obtaining essential equipment? I also make the point that this matter should be regarded as urgent if all clubs are to be catered for adequately before the advent of next summer.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think everybody would regret any necessity for a cutback in funds made available to such outstanding public and voluntary bodies as the Surf Life Saving Association. To correct the honourable senator’s history, I remind her that, as I recall it, the first government donations to life saving associations came from governments of Liberal faith, first on a State level and then, I believe, on a Federal level. So I think that an acknowledgement of the services given by life saving bodies has been made in a very practical way by this Government at its various levels of activity.

It must be a matter of regret that some vital activities do suffer a necessity for cutback, but this must be done against the background that the economy was put into jeopardy by the former Government. In order to achieve economic stability- the previous Treasurer said that this was necessary- a deficit of $5000m must be substantially reduced. That simply means that the technique that the previous Treasurer said that his Government undertook last July and August but in fact did not undertake had to be undertaken, otherwise, using the former Treasurer’s own words, in accordance with the formula of the previous Government, there would have been an exacerbation of unemployment and inflation. I shall convey to the Prime Minister the need for this Government to review at the earliest opportunity the whole question of support for surf life saving organisations.

page 1842

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, relates to the Government’s announced intention to make financial assistance available by way of family allowances on a scale of generosity not previously seen in Australia. I ask the Minister: Will these measures direct cash resources to families in greatest need, as recommended by Professor Henderson in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty? Is it not a fact that this will be the first major initiative by any government to recognise in an economic sense the major productive nature of the role of home makers in Australia? Is this not one of the most radical redistributive welfare programs ever promised for this country?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is a fact that the statements that have been made by the honourable senator are accurate and that the family allowance system which has been announced will be a major source of income to families. I hope that the system will be beneficial to the children of Australia.

page 1842

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to Senator Carrick, relates to the question asked by Senator Gietzelt on the subject of local government financing and takes on a greater relevance because of the answer given earlier by Senator Carrick on the basis of decisions which were made at meetings of local government authorities during the weekend. I ask the Minister: In view of the quite categorical statements by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that local government will be better off under the present Government than under Labor, what would be the basis of the warning by the President of the Municipal Association of Tasmania, Councillor Mooney, reported in today’s media, that municipal rates will rise by 30 per cent in the next financial year because of the Federal Government’s inadequate provision of financial assistance to local government under these new financing proposals? Why would such a damaging statement, if untrue, be made by an endorsed Liberal candidate for the next Tasmanian State election?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I did not see the reported statement. I did see the reported statement, published widely by the Federal body of the Local Government Associations, which said that in fact rates may have to rise by 5 per cent. That, I take it, is the authoritative statement. I again remind Senator Devitt, since he sees horror in the projection of a rise of 30 per cent, that under his Government the average rise over the past 2 years was 35 per cent. So he gains no benefit from his attempts on that score. He asks what is the justification for the claim that local government is better off. First of all, untied grants for local government for the coming year will be 75 per cent higher. Equally, the tax indexation which the Government has set about, together with its very enlightened family allowances, should bring about a situation of resisting the upward spiral of wages. If there can be an abatement of the wage and price spiral then local government will be conferred a major blessing in that its costs, both in recurrent and capital grants, can be substantially palliated. Those are 2 thrusts: first of all, the certainty that for the future local government will have what its federal body claims as a major policy, that is, a fixed percentage of personal income tax revenue available to it each year and capable of being recognised; and secondly, for the first time in 3 years a major attack on local government’s greatest problem, namely its cost spiral.

page 1842

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. As a background to my question I read from the Fairplay International Shipping Weekly of 25 March 1976:

With wages that are grossly inflated by every conceivable standard and operating manning standards 2 decades out of date, the maritime unions make masochism out of shipowning and were it not for political protectionism there would not be a single Australian-flagship operating today. But shipowning is a statutory duty for the Australian National Line, so it must grin and bear it, while the taxpayer, as usual, makes up the difference.

How does the Government see the future of both Australian shipbuilding and shipowning under these circumstances?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is a tragic fact that primarily due to the militancy, the loss of working time, the strikes and the go-slow of the Australian maritime unions Australia has virtually costed itself out of the shipping transport business. No State in Australia has suffered more detriment than Tasmania. I therefore acknowledge the basic reason for Senator Archer’s question. It is true that because of the high costs, largely contributed to by industrial disruption, the threat in the shipbuilding area- this is more within the portfolio of my colleague Senator Cotton- becomes greater and greater each day. By comparison with the rest of the world Australia today is costing itself out of the ability not only to build ships but even to repair ships. If

Australia is to keep a capacity in this regard and to operate an Australian national line at all the primary job is to abate the militancy, the go-slow and unnecessary strikes, and get Australia into a situation where transport freights are competitive and the people of Australia can then have a fair deal. It is “noteworthy that a Tasmanian Labor senator, Senator Grimes, expresses cynicism about this matter. It is as well to understand that it has a major impact upon Tasmania.

page 1843

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator WRIEDT:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs in the light of the answers which he gave concerning Federal Government assistance to municipalities. Will the Minister qualify and put on the table of the Senate a statement which shows the reduction in Government spending on the Regional Employment and Development Scheme in 1976-77 and on the area improvement program and the proportion of the specific payments to the States which otherwise would have gone to municipalities or for municipal work in 1976-77, in order that we can then look at the net effect on the municipalities’ capacity to spend in the coming financial year?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It shows the almost aphasic short memory of the former members of the Whitlam Government that they seek to suggest that this Government cut back the RED scheme. It does seem to me that it is well to remind the Australian public that the major cutback, and the decision to abandon the RED scheme in its time, came from the Whitlam Government. Let Senator Wriedt not play politics with these things. Previous questioners asked for a comparison of the direct untied grants as between the Grant Commission grants of $79.9m and the $140m untied grants. There are numerous other specific purpose grants, many of them as yet under review, others to be matters for budgeting. Therefore it is not possible at this moment to compile a table of specific purpose grants.

Senator Wriedt:

– You mean it is not convenient.

Senator CARRICK:

– It is not convenient for Senator Wriedt to remember that his Government abolished the RED scheme. Let him keep a convenient memory. I repeat that today the Government is cutting back because of the mayhem created in the economic system by the Labor Party.

page 1843

QUESTION

TARCOOLA TO ALICE SPRINGS RAILWAY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to that part of the Treasurer’s fiscal policy statement dealing with railway projects in South Australia, which have been the subject of deplorable misrepresentation by the Deputy Premier, Mr Corcoran. I draw the Minister’s attention to that part of the statement referring to the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway line, which stated:

There is also to be a review of the construction standards and costs of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway project.

I ask the Minister: In view of the contribution of such construction projects to employment and the vital importance of this line to South Australia and the Northern Territory, will he give me an assurance that Government action in this matter will not interfere with the progress of the railway, which is of particular urgency in view of the disgraceful state of the old railway line and of the roads connecting these areas?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Jessop is quite correct in saying that members of the South Australian Labor Government recently have seen fit totally to corrupt and misrepresent the stated policies of the present Federal Government, particularly with regard to the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway line. It is true that the Government has undertaken to review the project, and that will be done. Because the matter is of such importance in every aspect, I will direct it immediately to the attention of my colleague the Minister and ask him to give a direct reply.

page 1843

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY STAFF

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and arises out of the 2 Dorothy Dixers asked by Senator Young and Senator Jessop on the same matter.

Senator Withers:

– You used to get enough of them asked of you. You ought to be able to recognise them.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do recognise them and I give credit to the preparation and asking of them. Is it misrepresentation, or have instructions come from the Federal Government that the railway staff in South Australia has to be reduced by 264 personnel by 30 June? Due to the rundown of employees as a result of that direction, will it be necessary for the remaining work force to work increased shifts to handle increased traffic? To meet this reduction in the work force, is a large proportion of railway work being let to private contractors? Was it a condition of the Commonwealth takeover of the South Australian railways that no employees would be disadvantaged? Is not the reduction of staff, with the consequent increase in shifts to be worked, a repudiation of that undertaking given at the time of the take-over?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– What Senator Cavanagh has described is the abysmal state of the permanent ways and rolling stock of the South Australian railways and the massive deficit that was incurred under the supervision and administration of a former Labor Government which sought to opt out. He described conditions which applied at the time of the transfer of the South Australian railways to the Commonwealth Government. I am unaware of any such figures as suggested by Senator Cavanagh. I am unaware also of any such sanctions as he mentioned. I will direct the question to the Minister for Transport to seek information for the honourable senator.

page 1844

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE CHARGES

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the report of the State Minister for Health in Tasmania, who is indulging in a campaign to create feelings of panic in the citizens of that State by suggesting that everyone could be paying up to $1,000 a year for health insurance and that hospital fees for a woman having a baby will cost her $500, if the State agrees with the new proposals? Can the Minister allay the fears of the community by a denial of these irresponsible statements?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not seen the statement of the Minister for Health in Tasmania. I think it will be understood by all that the options with regard to the new Medibank program or the private insurance program will not mean that any person will pay up to $1,000 a year. The four options available mean that a person will be paying a maximum of $150 in the case of a single person or $300 a year for family coverage if he decides to remain in Medibank. If a person chooses to take out approved private hospital and medical insurance with a private health insurance fund the amount payable, which is yet to be determined by agreement with the private health funds, is expected to be approximately $350 a year for family coverage. I can allay the fears of the citizens of Tasmania if they were expressed in the terms that have been outlined by the honourable senator.

page 1844

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE CHARGES

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Does the Minister representing the Treasurer agree that the new Medibank arrangements will persuade many people on higher incomes to rejoin the private medical funds and pay the premiums charged? Does the Minister agree also that these charges will increase the consumer price index and thus result in a higher and not a lower rate of inflation? Is not Mr Fraser ‘s outstanding weakness his determination to apply direct principles irrespective of the economic consequences?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I was listening very carefully to the question asked by Senator McAuliffe. I think he has drawn a series of incorrect assumptions. If he examines the Treasurer’s statement he will find a reference to the exclusion of certain items of indirect tax increase. As Senator McAuliffe is entitled to this respect from myself and the Treasurer, I would like to obtain a definitive answer for him.

page 1844

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY RAILWAY EMPLOYEES

Senator KILGARIFF:

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. As the Government has indicated its intention for economic reasons to close down the Commonwealth rail link between Darwin and Larrimah in the Northern Territory, and as some 200 or more employees will have to be reestablished elsewhere, probably interstate, will the Government assist these employees, as for the majority of them the Northern Territory is their home, by giving them assistance in finding employment in other government departments in the area or by giving them sufficient time to reestablish themselves outside the employ of the Government? As housing is at a premium in the Northern Territory will the Government allow these employees to remain in their own homes until they find other accommodation? Will the Government keep all rolling stock and equipment in the Darwin-Larrimah area for use, if required in the future, in reactivating the line for use by industries developing the top end of the Northern Territory?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Following the announcement in the policy statement on Thursday, I sought from my colleague the Minister for Transport information on this matter, among others. He advises me that the Australian National Railways will do all possible to find alternative employment for employees displaced from the North Australia Railway, either in the Northern Territory or on other parts of the Australian National Railways system. Finalisation of arrangements to withdraw services will take some time, and employees will be able to remain in railway accommodation until this is done. I will convey to the Minister the honourable senator’s attitude regarding housing and housing problems. The honourable senator, I think, asked questions about rolling stock and other equipment. I am advised that rolling stock and other equipment released from the North Australia Railway may be able to be put to good use on other parts of” the Australian National Railways system and should be so utilised rather than remaining unproductive in Darwin.

page 1845

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that, in answering a question put to her during her recent appearance on Monday Conference about the role of the Government back benchers’ committee on health and welfare, the Minister replied that consultation with the health and welfare committee is a constant matter? She said:

They are the committee that work with me and on whom I rely for a great deal of advice and consultation.

In view of this apparently close relationship between the Minister and the Government back benchers’ committee on health and welfare under Senator Baume from New South Wales, can the Minister explain the statement by the honourable member for Hotham, reported in the Press on 24 May 1976, that the first news he, as a member of this committee, had of the Government’s intention to foist the Australian Assistance Plan on to State governments was the Minister’s Press statement of 21 May 1976 which was issued in Darwin?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I can explain the statement; but let me say, firstly, that what I said on Monday Conference is accurate. The committee is one with which I work very closely. I will be meeting with the committee tonight. I met with the committee a week or two ago. There is a continuing basis of consultation between members of the committee and myself. Mr Chipp ‘s not being aware of the Government’s announcement until it was made in Darwin is explained by the fact that all the announcements made by the Treasurer last Thursday were made without direct consultation, as to detail, with the various policy committees of the Government. The policy committees have been consulting with me with regard to the Australian Assistance Plan. The detail of the announcements made by the Treasurer was not a matter of consultation in those terms.

The announcement with regard to the Australian Assistance Plan was made in Darwin because I pointed out to the Treasurer and to the Cabinet that this matter was on the agenda for the meeting with State Ministers in that city and I thought it appropriate that they should be aware of the Government’s decision prior to any announcement being made by the Treasurer. It was to extend that courtesy to State Ministers that this was not announced by the Treasurer with the other economic measures which were announced last Thursday. I spoke to the honourable member for Hotham this morning. He understands that explanation. I hope that, as a result of the discussions which I will have with the committee this evening and after I have a response from the States with regard to the Australian Assistance Plan, any misunderstanding that the honourable member for Hotham may have had will be cleared.

page 1845

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. I refer to a meeting of Commonwealth and State Housing Ministers held in Canberra yesterday. The State Ministers are reported to have expressed some optimism about the future of the home building industry in the States but serious concern about the outlook in the construction industry generally. In view of decisions relating to the Australian Capital Territory announced last Thursday, can the Minister indicate firstly the outlook for the home building industry in the Australian Capital Territory, and secondly the prospects for the construction industry generally in the Australian Capital Territory?

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

-The growth rate of Canberra will be affected by the slow down in Public Service growth. There must be some adaption to the resulting reduced demand. For instance, there would be no point in pressing on with a construction program if completed houses, offices and other facilities were to he idle. The fact is that the National Capital Development Commission next year will spend more money than it is expected to spend this financial year. The predicted allocation of funds for Commissioner of Housing loans, when added to the substantial funds available from banks, building societies and other institutions and the National Capital Development Commission house construction program, will give a substantial continuing base to the housing-building industry sufficient to meet likely demand.

The Minister for the Capital Territory has indicated that he is prepared to make land available to private enterprise to pursue investment and building programs and to encourage private industry as an alternative to Public Service industry. There is no reason to suppose that private enterprise when it has made its own judgment in this matter and about the future of Canberra, which is still a very fast growing city, will not continue to make a substantial investment in Canberra’s continuing building program. The Government is very strongly committed to the future of Canberra. I refer the honourable senator to the public statements that have been made by the Minister for the Capital Territory within the last few days.

page 1846

QUESTION

COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen the annual report for 1975 of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd in which mention is made of the offices of the Society in Salisbury and Bulawayo and also to the presence of a director for Rhodesia on the southern Africa board of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd which, as the Minister would know, is a society incorporated in Australia with its head office in Melbourne? Does the Minister know whether the carrying on of life assurance business by an Australian company in Rhodesia is in breach of the United Nations’ decisions on sanctions against Rhodesia to which Australia is a party and which this Government has said it will uphold? If it is, what action does the Government propose to take on this matter?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator may be surprised to know that I have not read the annual report of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. However, I shall direct the question to my colleague in the other place so that we can obtain an answer to the honourable senator’s other 2 questions.

page 1846

QUESTION

TELEVISION SERVICE FOR LEIGH CREEK

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. On what date did the Government issue instructions for the cancellation of the order for the television transmitter which was scheduled for delivery before the end of this calendar year and which would have enabled a television service to go to air at Leigh Creek in South Australia by the middle of the year 1977? If the Minister is unable to provide me with an immediate answer will he undertake to endeavour to provide me with the information before 8 p.m. today.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware that, in fact, such an order was cancelled and if it was, on what date this occurred. I shall seek the information and I shall be happy to give it to the honourable senator by 8 p.m. today if I can but in any event I shall do so as soon as possible.

page 1846

QUESTION

SOFTWOOD FORESTRY AGREEMENTS ACT

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, refers to the Press statement from that Minister dated 20 May concerning the economies being undertaken in his portfolio and specifically to the reduced financial allocation under the Softwood Forestry Agreements Act. Is the Minister aware that although the reduced Commonwealth allocation to the States represents a 25 per cent reduction over that of last year, the effect of that reduction in my State will be at least a 50 per cent reduction in the area of new plantings? Is the Minister aware that this will come about by the stipulation of the Minister for Primary Industry that of the total $6m allocation only $2m will be for new plantings? Will the Minister give some consideration to the removal or modification of the $2m limit on new plantings so that the States, particularly my State of Tasmania where the forestry industry plays such a big role, will not be hamstrung by Canberra?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am not aware of the detail that the honourable senator mentioned in the application ofthe decision referred to by him. But I do have a personal view expressed long before ever I came into this place that Tasmania particularly was a State well suited to have a softwood afforestation program. It seemed to me to lend itself particularly well to that undertaking which would be quite important to the economy of that State and would perhaps over the years do something to redress the lack of opportunities in that State. Therefore, I have taken what the honourable senator has said quite seriously. I shall direct it to the Minister with a request for information for the honourable senator.

page 1846

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator GRIMES:

– Yes. During question time, Senator Carrick in answer to a question from Senator Archer, I believe, made the statement that I was expressing cynicism when he discussed the problem of transport as it affected Tasmania. I wish to point out first of all that I said nothing as I was not sitting in my seat and, in common with all good senators, I would not interject from a seat which was not my own. If the honourable senator was referring to the expression on my face, let me assure him for future reference that the expression was the result of a combination of boredom at the tedium and length of his answers and disgust at the blatant cynicism he expressed in his statements- a cynicism which he developed in the years when he was known as the ‘gnome of Ash Street’.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr President, I too wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator GEORGES:

-Yes. My personal explanation follows on what Senator Grimes had to say. In fact, I was the person who interjected. If you recall, Mr President, I was alongside Senator Grimes at the time. It would be quite unfair if a question asked of and answered by Senator Carrick were to go to air with the giveaway or throwaway insult which he directed towards Senator Grimes. The purpose of my interjection to which possibly Senator Carrick could have responded more suitably was that the National Line is in difficulties and that one of the reasons for those difficulties, as I interjected, was that in Queensland the National Line is not allowed to operate intrastate. That was my interjection when Senator Carrick insulted Senator Grimes. It was an insult, I believe. I put it to you, Mr President, that as a result of these personal explanations that question and answer should not go to air in the re-broadcast this evening of Senate question time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The objection should have been taken immediately the utterances were made.

Senator Georges:

– May I speak to that?

Senator Wright:

– No.

Senator Withers:

– No.

Senator Georges:

– May I make a personal explanation then?

Senator Withers:

– No; you have had it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I call Senator Georges on a personal explanation.

Senator GEORGES (Queensland)-I point out in respect of what I have had to say that I could not raise it by way of taking a point of order at the time because there was no basis under the Standing Orders to take such a point of order. It could only -

Senator Chaney:

– That has not stopped you in the past.

Senator GEORGES:

– It has not stopped me in the past, but as a result of what has happened in the past I have learnt my lesson. I realise now that I must raise these matters at the end of question time by way of a personal explanation. Mr President, I ask you to reflect on what I say and to consider carefully that the question and the throwaway by Senator Carrick in answering the question were a grave reflection on Senator Grimes, especially in his own State. For that reason I submit that having heard the personal explanation from Senator Grimes and having accepted my responsibility for the interjection you perhaps should rule that the question and answer should not go to air in the re-broadcast of proceedings at question time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The re-broadcast is always processed according to the rules laid down, and they shall be applied in this instance as at other times.

page 1847

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S YEAR

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian National Advisory Committee for International Women’s Year.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MELZER:

– I move:

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1847

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGED PAYMENTS TO MARITIME UNIONS

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions. Due to the limited number available at this time reference copies of this report have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1848

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

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

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table copies of the legislative proposals introduced by the Government to give effect to the Government’s economic decisions outlined to the Senate last Thursday by Senator Cotton, who is the Minister representing the Treasurer, together with a copy of the second reading speeches made in the House of Representatives relating to the Bills. I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1848

DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 15 of the Dairy Produce Act 1975 I p resent the annual report of the Dairy Produce B oard for the year ended 30 June 1975.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GIETZELT:

– I move:

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1848

MEAT EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 1 3 of the Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1973 I present the annual reports on the operation of that Act for the years ended 30 June 1974 and 30 June 1975.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GIETZELT:

– I move:

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1848

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972-74I present the annual report of the Australian Wool Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1975. The interim report of the Corporation for 1974-75 was tabled in the Parliament on 2 March of this year.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GIETZELT:

– I move:

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1848

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on files and rasps.

page 1848

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on other electronic equipment.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

– I move:

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1849

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A, together with the Hansard record of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee B

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B, together with the Hansard record of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee C

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee C, together with the Hansard record of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee D

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee D, together with the Hansard record of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee E

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee E, together with the Hansard record of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee F

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee F, together with the Hansard record of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1849

DEFENCE

Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– by leave- I make this statement on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). As the Opposition may wish to debate it fairly quickly and as it relates to some extent to the financial proposals announced by Mr Lynch last Thursday, perhaps Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Bishop could give consideration to the debate on this statement being held at the same time as the cognate debate on those other matters.

Senator Wriedt:

– I will seek leave to make a statement.

Senator WITHERS:

-Apparently Senator Wriedt is handling the matter.

There has been a significant run-down in the defence capability of Australia in the last 3 years. This has not been the fault of the Service Chiefs or of the defence advisers to the country. The fault is to be properly laid at the feet of the Labor Government. Defence preparedness under Labor was given a low priority. Apathy to defence problems was a distinguishing feature of the Labor Administration. For the nation the consequences have been hazardous. Nothing in history encourages the view that a country can secure protection by being casual about its responsibilities. That lesson Labor ignored. It is one this Government will respect. The consequences of Labor neglect have been at once widespread and grievous. Forward planning for new equipment did not receive the support it plainly needed. Training activities were heavily restricted. Financial restraint was no longer an expression of discipline. It became a symbol of lack of interest. The effects were not to be disguised. The operational capability of our Services was diminished. So was the morale of those who served.

On assuming office the Government resolved that the state of affairs with respect to the nation’s defences would not be tolerated. The Government is firmly determined to ensure that defence planning and preparedness are restored to their proper role. I am authorised by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to say it is his expectation that he will, in the present session, make a statement to Parliament which sets out the Government’s broad attitude to the world environment in which this country must shape its policies and its relations with other countries. Meanwhile, I may observe that the singular feature about contemporary Australia is that it is passing through a fundamental period of transition with respect to its defence obligations. It would be absurd to pretend that those obligations are declining- that there is a spreading of some imaginary benevolence. Our world is not one of peace and tranquility; it is exposed to a great array of aggressive forces; it is daily becoming more acquainted with the elements of violence and cruelty. We will share our responsibilities with our major allies. That is a proud attribute of nationhood. We accept, however, that we will take the prime responsibility for our own defence- the defence of Australia and its national interests.

It is against that background that I inform the Senate that the Government has decided to embark on a defence program which will involve the expenditure in real terms of more than $ 12,000m in the next five-year period- and the acquisitions will create additional financial commitments carried forward into the later 1980s. The Government reached its view that an expenditure of S 12,000m is needed to give the country a credible defence capacity after receiving reports from its advisers. These reports detailed our present military capabilities, their limitations, and the extent to which they need to be developed or varied as we move from the 1970s into the 1980s.

On the advice available to it, and corresponding with the long lead times for major equipment and construction, the Government has concluded that the greater portion of the sum to which I have referred should be spent in the last 3 years of the five-year defence program. This is not to mean that growth of expenditure in the first 2 years will be insignificant, despite the need for restraint as part of the Government’s overall financial strategy. On the contrary, there will be sizeable increases in real terms in the amounts spent in these 2 years over those for the current year under Labor’s budget. In particular, for the forthcoming year 1976-77 there will be an increase in real terms of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent over spending in 1975-76. In terms of the Budget next August this will mean a Budget provision for defence in the region of $300m above the expenditure approaching $ 1,900m expected to be incurred in 1 975-76.

There will be an immediate increase in the level of Service activities. This will allow increased fleet steaming time, including greater participation in exercises. Flying hours for all Services will be increased. Training activities in all Services will be stepped up permitting higher standards to be achieved and the development and practice of techniques of combat, command, control and logistic support. The Government’s defence advisers are deeply involved in determining what priorities and what options should be included by the Government within the fiveyear defence program with respect to equipment, manpower and facilities in the present state of technology and on the present outlook.

Precise advice on types and quantities of equipment will be provided as the correct year of decision approaches, in the light of military needs and taking advantage of latest technological information and contractual opportunities. There will be no premature decisions. Modern defence involves very complex and expensive technologies. It is not enough to have a firm resolution to defend. There must exist the technical capacity to do so. Moreover access to modern defence equipment involves very long lead times in securing that equipment.

In the last 6 months the Minister has approved a number of equipment acquisitions for the Australian Services including the purchase of the British Rapier surface-to-air guided missile system, the ordering of additional Leopard tanks from the Federal Republic of Germany, the selection of the landrover as the replacement vehicle for Army’s light truck fleet, and air defence radar control and reporting facilities for the Royal Australian Air Force. In addition he expects to be able to announce very shortly the successful contractors to undertake project definition studies for the new class of patrol boat to be acquired for the Royal Australian Navy. These craft will supplement and in due course replace the existing attack class.

Arrangements are being made for Australian industry participation in all of these proposed acquisitions. It has long been accepted that the defence preparedness of Australia will include the availability of strong and competent industrial support for defence needs. However, it is some years since a complete study has been carried out of the capability of Australian industry to provide the industrial back up required by the Australian Services now and in contingent circumstances.

Consequently, the Minister has requested that the Defence (Industrial) Committee report on the ability of Australian industry to provide industrial support for the Services with emphasis on the support of equipment, production of consumable and minor capital items and the ability to cope with an intensification and diversification of this activity. This important review was launched yesterday. The Defence (Industrial) Committee is chaired by Sir Ian McLennan and has as members senior industrialists and top level Service and civilian staff from the Department. For the purpose of this study the Defence (Industrial) Committee has been augmented for the period of the study by the appointment of a number of industrialists who are leaders in their field. I record the thanks ofthe Government and of the country for the work they have already done and are in prospect of doing.

The Government intends that increased provision be made for the development of defence infrastructure, including the modernisation of naval dockyards, improvements in air fields and related support facilities, and in accommodation and educational and training facilities. The Government has already decided to accelerate the rate of construction of works at HMAS

Stirling, Cockburn Sound, Western Australia, in order to facilitate commissioning of that establishment in 1978. The Minister expects soon to announce what further works are necessary in order to increase the defence capability of this important Naval base.

The Minister has stated the Government’s intention to produce a White Paper on defence. That undertaking is repeated. The White Paper will be available for parliamentary debate and public discussion during the Budget session this year. By that time considered advice on the equipment, manpower and fixed defence facilities in Australia, contemplated for decision during the 5-year program period, will be ready for Government consideration and incorporation, as appropriate, in the White Paper. At a time when the nation faces serious economic difficulties, a decision to spend substantial sums of money on defence in the next 5 years does not make the resolution of those difficulties any easier. The Government freely acknowledges that fact. It accepts, however, that the first obligation which falls upon Government is to ensure the safety of the country and its people.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

– Normally we would move to take note of the statement and place it on the notice paper for debate at a later stage. Of course, it is my intention to place the matter formally on the notice paper in the event that other honourable senators wish to debate it. But in view of the unnecessarily provocative and inaccurate comments which are made in the statement I feel bound to make some comments. Senator Withers, who has just read the statement, finds that a matter of some amusement. I do not think the defence of the country is a matter for amusement. It is a matter for the Government of the day to exercise its discretion as to how best to provide finance for the armed forces. I accept the fact which is set out in the last paragraph of the statement which states:

A decision to spend substantial sums of money on defence in the next 5 years does not make the resolution of those difficulties any easier.

Just prior to that it states:

At a time when the nation faces serious economic difficulties . . .

I accept that. The Government has economic difficulties, many of which have been created by its own foolishness and are only exacerbated by the statement put down by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) last week. But notwithstanding that, a government does have enormous problems in providing sufficient finance for defence at the present time because of the enormously complicated and expensive nature of the equipment. Therefore, in my view, it ought not to be a matter for the party political muck-raking exercise that we see now in a ministerial statement. There is a time and place for that in debate. I accept that, as we all do. But one would assume that in a ministerial statement in which a program for a 5-year period is being outlined, a government would accept a measure of responsibility and state its case more clearly than this case has been stated.

I take exception to some of the remarks contained in this defence statement, particularly those which suggest that the Labor Government regarded defence as of secondary importance. Let us consider the first aspect of this statement. In the first of the 5 years dealt with in the document, we are told that defence spending will increase by $300m a year. On my calculation, that represents a 15 per cent increase over the $ 1,900m allocated in the current financial year by the Labor Government. Can 1 5 per cent be called a significant increase? That is in money terms, and inflation alone takes up that much. So to talk in terms of extra steaming time for the Navy, extra exercises for the Army, or further flying time for the Air Force does not fit in with the first year’s allocation which it is claimed will be the case under this program. In the second year, apparently there will be a similar increase, only matching inflation. Then we are told that perhaps after that there will be some improvement in the amount of real finance available to the armed forces.

It is quite misleading to suggest that these problems which have arisen in relation to financing defence arose only in the 3-year term of the Labor Government. Two of the items mentionedthe Leopard tank and the replacement vessels for the Attack class naval vessels- were decisions taken by the Labor Government, not by this Government. Yet in this statement we are led to believe that this is something which has been decided by the Fraser Government. That is absolutely incorrect. If one considers the Leopard tank episode, and 1 raise this just for the record, it was the Liberal Government which in 23 years did not bring one new tank into Australia.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The old Centurions.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Exactly, we were still using the Centurion tanks that had been ordered by the Labor Government in the 1940s. Yet these people claim that they want to upgrade and do all these wonderful things in their first five minutes in office. They will find that they will not be able to do that because of escalating costs. Capital expenditure, of course, has increased, but the operating costs of all this equipment have gone up enormously. Again, it was the Labor Government which increased the proportion of finance for capital requirements for the armed forces- I think in 1974- by something like 100 per cent, although Senator Bishop would be better qualified to speak on those figures than I am. But certainly significant progress was made. As to the question of morale, we are told at page 2 of this document that during the time of the Labor Government the morale of the armed Services was at its lowest ever. Again, the facts refute that. During the time the Labor Government was in office, re-engagement rates in the defence forces were markedly higher than in the last year of the McMahon Government. In fact, in 1972 the Navy replacement rate was as low as 42 per cent but by 1975, in the last year of the Labor Government, that rate had increased to 70 per cent.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– One of the first things we did when we came into office was to review completely the old Defence Forces Retirement Benefit Fund.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Exactly. As Senator Douglas McClelland pointed out, under the Labor Government facilities and conditions for members of the armed forces were improved greatly. Repatriation benefits and all those other things were greatly improved, and that was reflected in the re-engagement rates of members of the armed forces. I do not wish to debate this statement at length now because it will be debated later, but I would remind the Government that under the Labor Government the proportion of gross national product being spent on the defence of this country was higher than the average of that being spent by all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If this Government is prepared to maintain at least that level of commitment to the armed forces it will be doing this country a service. Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not that will be the case in the 5 years ahead. Without any further debate, Mr President, I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Senator WITHERS (Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate)- I move:

I put the matter in those terms so that if honourable senators wish to advert to the paper in the debate to follow points of order will not be taken.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1852

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

- Mr President, I ask for leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1975-76.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

That motion sounds complicated, but I understand that by that means, after the first reading of the Appropriation Bill has been concluded, the Senate will be able to debate the second reading speech, the Treasurer’s statement put down by Senator Cotton, the statement put down by Senator Carrick, and the other second reading speeches on Bills that I have put down. It will be a cognate debate so that honourable senators can range far and wide over the whole area.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Basically, the Opposition agrees with what Senator Withers has said. I must say that in discussion this morning with the Government Whip it was agreed that the Senate would pursue the general outline Senator Withers has just stated but that in the substantive debate on the other Bills spokesmen for the Opposition would relate their remarks to specific Bills if they so desired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1852

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-I ask for leave to make a statement concerning the notices of motion standing in my name and in the name of Senator Wright under Business of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WOOD:

-The first two notices of motion relate to the Australian Capital Territory Misrepresentation Ordinance 1975 and the Australian Capital Territory Manufacturers Warranties Ordinance 1975. In its fifty-third and fiftyfourth reports the Regulations and Ordinances Committee recommended the disallowance of these two ordinances on the ground that they contained substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment. The Committee also considered that the Misrepresentation Ordinance trespassed unduly upon personal rights and liberties by creating a criminal liability for misrepresentation and reversing the onus of proof. Two members of the Committee dissented from the Committee’s recommendation that the ordinances be disallowed on the ground that they contained substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment.

After the presentation of the reports, section 6 of the Misrepresentation Ordinance, which created a criminal liability for misrepresentation and reversed the onus of proof in a prosecution for an offence, was repealed. It is pleasing to note that the validity of the Committee’s criticism of that section was recognised by the Minister.

After discussions, the Committee and the Minister for the Capital Territory agreed to the following: Firstly, that the ordinances would be repealed; secondly, that the Senate would be asked on motion of the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory to refer the ordinances to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 30 September 1976, and that should that Committee recommend any amendments to the ordinances they would be remade with those amendments; and thirdly, that the Committee would recommend to the Senate that it be authorised to revise its charter so that it will no longer apply to Australian Capital Territory ordinances approved by the Legislative Assembly the Committee’s fourth principle relating to substantive legislation.

Action has been taken by the Minister to carry out the first 2 parts of this undertaking. In relation to the third point, I would like to say a few words of explanation. In 1959, with the concurrence of the Senate, the Committee ceased to scrutinise ordinances of the Northern Territory. The reason for that decision was that the partly elected Legislative Council of that Territory had power, conferred by statute, to make ordinances for the Territory, and such ordinances were no longer subject to disallowance by either House of the Parliament.

The situation in the Australian Capital Territory does not correspond to the situation in the Northern Territory at that time. Although there is now a fully elected Legislative Assembly in the Capital Territory, it is itself established by ordinance and not by Act of the Parliament. It has no power to make ordinances, which are still made by the Governor-General with the advice of the Executive Council, and are still subject to disallowance by either House of the Parliament.

While the Committee therefore would not be justified in withdrawing altogether from the scrutiny of Australian Capital Territory ordinances, the Committee considers that it would be proper for it to cease to apply to ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory the fourth principle which it adopts in scrutinising regulations and ordinances, namely, that they should not contain substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment. The committee proposes to continue to scrutinise Australian Capital Territory ordinances and to apply to them its other 3 principles, namely, that they should be in accordance with the statute; that they should not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; and that they should not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative rather than upon judicial decisions. The Minister for the Capital Territory has stated in a letter to the Committee:

I welcome the Committee’s continued scrutiny of A.C.T. legislation to ensure that they are in accordance with the statute; that they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; that they do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative rather than upon judicial decisions.

I expect that the Committee will be presenting a report in the future in which it will formally seek the concurrence of the Senate with the proposed course of action.

The third notice of motion relates to amendments of the Australian Rifle Club Regulation. The Defence Act empowers the making of regulations relating to the formation and management of rifle clubs. The Committee doubted whether regulation 13 of the amendments was authorised by the Act, particularly one provision which appeared to exempt any member of a rifle club from State liquor licensing laws when supplying or selling liquor to other members of rifle clubs. The Minister for Defence has obtained the opinion ofthe Attorney-General on the amendments, and has given an undertaking that the provisions relating to liquor will be amended so as to make it clear that the exemption from State laws applies only to canteens conducted in connection with rifle shoots. This was the original intention ofthe regulations.

The fourth notice of motion, which is in the name of Senator Wright, relates to certain amendments of the Air Navigation Regulations. Senators will be aware that the tariffs charged by airlines are controlled under the Air Navigation Act and the Air Navigation Regulations. The purpose of the amendments was to protect Qantas Airways Ltd against price-cutting disguised in complex marketing scheme such as package tours. The Committee was concerned with 2 provisions in the amendments- one which required holders of licences under the regulations and travel agents to keep detailed records and another provision which empowered officers to enter premises and examine records. The Minister for Transport has undertaken to amend the regulations so that the requirement to keep records will be limited to two years, and the power to enter premises will be subject to a requirement of a reasonable belief that an offence against the regulations has occurred. In view ofthe undertakings given by the respective Ministers, I withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motions numbers 1, 2 and 3 standing in my name. On behalf of Senator Wright, and at his request, I also withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 4.

I would like to make a few comments in connection with that statement and, in particular, to the Australian Capital Territory regulations of which notice of withdrawal of disallowance has been given. I am now serving my 27th year on this Committee and my 20th year as the Chairman. Throughout the whole of my term on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances the Committee has conducted itself in a completely parliamentary manner and in the highest traditions of the Parliament. During that time the Committee has never considered anything on a Party political basis. Honourable senators on that Committee have performed their functions in the best possible manner. It is to the credit of the Senate that so many fine honourable senators have been members of that Committee.

I have noticed how many Ministers, even in the previous Government, have as senators served on this Committee. Therefore it was with great regret that I learnt that the Labor Party had made a Party decision in regard to the

A.C.T. regulations. During the years that Labor senators have served on this Committee they have given the very highest standard of service. During the time that the Labor Government was in office, Labor senators on this Committee were to be admired for the way in which they formed their duties. They did not make any decisions on Party lines. This was a great asset to the Committee. It was with great regret that I learnt that a Party decision had been made in relation to whether the Committee would be supported on its original motion, which has now been withdrawn. So far as I am aware, it has always been the right of honourable senators to make that decision. It is to the credit of the Senate, no doubt because of the work of this Committee, that it has consistently supported the Committee in its deliberations. I can assure honourable senators that all members of the Committee, during the years I have been a member of it, have given considerable thought to whatever action they have taken. The Committee is serviced by a top legal man from outside the Australian Capital Territory.

It would be regrettable if Party decisions were to be made in relation to the work of this Committee. I feel so deeply about it that I hope this will be the last occasion on which we will hear anything about such a course being followed. I would not want to serve on the Committee if, in any shape or form it was to be made a Party committee. In making those comments I have in mind the very great service that has been rendered by all honourable senators. As I look across the chamber, I see that there are many honourable senators opposite as well as honourable senators on this side of the chamber who have served the Committee well.

page 1854

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

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

– I seek leave to move a motion for a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, in accordance with the undertaking given to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley).

The PRESIDENT:

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

Motion (by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and that the final report ofthe Committee upon the matters be presented on or before 30 September 1 976:

The alterations of the law made by the Misrepresentation Ordinance 197S, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 40 of 1975, and as amended by the Misrepresentation Ordinance 1976 contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 17 of 1976; and

The alterations of the law made by the Manufacturers Warranties Ordinance 1975, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 41 of 1975.

page 1855

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT 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:

I suggest that it may be appropriate to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill will give effect to a number of important taxation proposals that have been announced by the Government. Provisions relating to the new investment allowance are the outstanding feature of the Bill, just as the allowance itself is an outstanding feature of the Government’s program for getting the economy on the move again. I remind the Senate that, from 1972-73 to 1974-75 the share of private non-dwelling investment in total expenditure on gross domestic product was 10.7 per cent, the lowest recorded share for at least 20 years. The new investment allowance is being introduced as a decisive and far-reaching incentive to industry to invest and, at the same time, to create jobs; in other words, to repair the damage which has occurred during the past 3 years. On the other side of the ledger, by reducing government expenditures and lightening the burden of personal taxation, we shall be putting more money into the private citizen’s pocket to spend as he wishes, so that investment and private consumption can move forward together.

The strong action taken by the Government to curb inflation will, of itself, significantly contribute to a recovery in investment spending, but it is clear that, in the absence of taxation incentives, any such recovery in investment would be a drawn out process. This, in turn, would mean that any recovery in general activity would result in the relatively early appearance of supply shortages and in a consequent return of demand inflation. It is the Government’s objective to bring forward a recovery in investment as quickly as possible and it is for this reason that the tax incentives contained in this Bill are unprecedented in their coverage and extent.

But the Government is also concerned to bring about a greater degree of consumer spending in order to lift company cash flows and, consequently, business ability to finance investment. The reining in of inflation will lift consumer confidence and unlock much of the build-up in precautionary savings which has occurred in recent years. There are now signs that both business and consumer confidence is strengthening. The evidence is that investment, particularly in manufacturing industry, has begun to move ahead and demand, as reflected in retail sales and vehicle registrations, is turning up.

There are 3 other general comments I want to make about the new investment allowance. Firstly, it will be available for a period that is both lengthy and certain- up to June 1983, initially at 40 per cent and subsequently at 20 per cent. Secondly, unlike the earlier investment allowances it will apply over a wide range of industry and will not be confined just to manufacturing and primary production. Thirdly, again unlike the old allowances, the new allowance will be available for plant acquired under leasing arrangements as well as for plant that is bought outright or under a hire purchase agreement. It has been the Government’s wish and expectation all along- with the position of smaller businesses particularly in mind- that the benefit of the allowance provided in respect of leased plant be passed by lessors through to the lessees who actually operate the plant in productive use. The special provisions contained in the Bill to apply to leased plant have been drawn up with this end in mind.

As announced previously, the new allowance will apply to capital expenditure on acquiring new, but not second-hand, plant or equipment that is ordered on or after 1 January 1 976. Tax deductions available by way of double or normal depreciation on eligible plant will, of course, be additional to the investment allowance. Plant constructed on a taxpayer’s premises will attract the allowance if construction by the taxpayer commenced on or after 1 January 1976 or if a contract for construction of the plant by an independent contractor was entered into on or after that date. During the first phase of the allowance- from 1 January 1976 to 30 June 1978- the deduction will be 40 per cent of eligible capital expenditure. A 20 per cent deduction will apply for the second phase running from 1 July 1978 until 30 June 1983. A 12 month’s period of grace for installation of plant ordered during either phase will be available so that unforeseen delays will not necessarily deprive taxpayers of an expected benefit.

To be eligible for the allowance, plant and equipment must qualify for depreciation for tax purposes and be used in Australia solely for the purpose of producing assessable income. So that the allowance will be directed towards investment that will have the greatest stimulatory effect on the economy, individual items of plant costing less than $500 will not be eligible for it. The allowance will apply in full to the entire cost of individual items of eligible plant that cost $976 or more and will be shaded-in for items that cost between $500 and $976. The scope of the allowance has been adequately covered in earlier statements made by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and is set out in detail in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated for the information of honourable senators. I do not, therefore, propose to go into further detail about it in this introductory speech.

The introduction of the new investment allowance makes it necessary to withdraw the double depreciation scheme which the previous Government brought in; the Bill accordingly will limit double depreciation to eligible plant installed no later than 30 June 1976. Plant or equipment that qualifies under the double depreciation scheme and that is first used, or installed ready for use, by 30 June 1976 will continue to be depreciable at double rates until its cost is fully written-off for income tax purposes.

It is widely accepted that the investment allowance is a great improvement on the scheme which is being terminated. The double depreciation scheme is too drawn out in its effects. Its full benefits take time to work out and its impact on business cash flows lacks the immediacy and fullness that the investment allowance will confer. Beyond the obvious deficiencies of doubled depreciation, I should point out that the scheme was never a permanent feature of the former Government’s policy. It was never brought before this Parliament as anything other than a temporary measure. In consequence, it served largely to compound the uncertainties created by our predecessors’ stop-go economic policies. Right up to the change of government no assurance was provided that doubled depreciation would extend beyond the period of the present financial year. By contrast, the investment incentives provided for by this Bill are long term and will act as a firm basis for investment planning by business.

Another matter dealt with in the Bill also is designed to assist business in the present difficult financial circumstances. This is the decision the Government had made to defer, until the date for payment of final assessments, the instalment of company tax that would have been due for payment in February 1976. The Bill makes provision to this effect and it provides also that instalments of company tax are not to be payable during the 1976-77 financial year in respect of 1975-76 income. Accordingly, the whole of the tax payable by a company on its 1975-76 income will become due in one amount towards the end of the 1976-77 financial year.

I come now to amendments proposed in respect of the conditions which must be satisfied for interest payable on convertible notes to be an allowable tax deduction. Convertible notes can often be a useful instrument to an enterprise that wishes to raise funds for expansion and development, particularly an enterprise that still has to establish its capacity to pay an attractive rate of dividends or one that is not well known to potential equity investors. But it is sometimes forgotten that a convertible note issue involves not only the issuing enterprise and the noteholders but also, if the interest on the notes is deductible, the general revenue. The interests of the general revenue, in particular, can often be overlooked. This was the case in the period up to 1960 when notes were issued that were only formally distinguishable from shares. It was customary then for noteholders to have no real choice about converting their notes into shares. Automatic conversion was virtually the rule and this meant that the revenue bore the cost of deductions for interest payments that were, in all but name, dividends on deferred share issues.

The Government of the day reacted to this situation with measures which virtually closed off the issue of convertible notes. With the passage of time, however, conditions were developed, in consultation with financiers, that were seen to strike a reasonble balance amongst the various interests involved. Since 1970, interest on convertible notes has been allowable- provided that these conditions are satisfied. With experience since 1 970 as a guide, the Government believes that further relaxtions can appropriately be made. We will retain safeguards against a return to pre- 1960 tax avoidance practices but our changes will be of advantage to enterprises that wish to expand or develop and prefer the flexibility of convertible notes to either pure fixed interest borrowings or immediate share issues.

There are 4 changes proposed, each of which will apply to convertible note issues connected with loans made on or after 1 January 1976. A minimum borrowing period- now of 7 yearswill no longer be required. Companies will be allowed much greater freedom in setting the times when noteholders may exercise an option to convert their loan into share capital. Companies will not be as restricted as they have been in the past in varying the terms of conversion as the period of the loan progresses. And, finally, it will be permissible for the rate of interest on locally raised convertible loans to vary in line with interest rates prevailing from time to time on relevant markets. This is already the case with loans raised abroad.

The Bill also gives effect to the Government’s recently announced intention to exclude certificates of deposit and other securities issued after 12 April 1976 by government-owned banks from the range of securities that may be taken into account in ascertaining whether a superannuation fund or life assurance company has satisfied the ‘30/20’ investment rule in relation to its assets. The income tax benefits available to a superannuation fund or a life assurance company which maintains the ‘30/20’ ratio in relation to its assets are discussed in detail in the explanatory memorandum I have circulated. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure continued support from the life offices and the superannuation funds for loan raisings by Commonwealth, State and semi-government authorities and to remove the competitive advantage that the government-owned banks would otherwise have over other banks in seeking funds for commercial purposes. I propose shortly to introduce a separate Bill to make a parallel amendment to the superannuation legislation that was recently considered by this House. This amendment will make similar changes in the provisions governing the investment of the Superannuation Fund for Commonwealth employees.

The Bill also provides for some major changes to the scheme, introduced by the previous Government, under which a tax deduction is allowed for home loan interest when certain tests are satisfied. The Government considers that that scheme was far from soundly based. For one thing, within the net income limits the deduction was available regardless of the proportion of a person’s income which home loan repayments represented. Thus someone who took out a loan years ago could still obtain tax relief even though home loan repayments had over time come to represent only a small fraction of the person ‘s income. The Government regards this as inefficient and wasteful and as not getting to the core problem- which is the deposit gap. A would-be home buyer could get little comfort under the present scheme from the thought that he would be assisted with his interest payments on a home loan when he found it difficult or impossible to save enough to put down a deposit. The Government’s program of assistance to home buyers does get off on the right foot. On the one side, there is to be a new and more generous home savings grants scheme to assist in bridging the deposit gap. On the other side, consistent with our election undertakings to support the home loan interest tax deduction scheme, this scheme will be kept in being but in a way that we consider looks better to the realities of the situation.

The realities are that it is the move into the first purchased home that is the key step, and that the relative burden of servicing a loan is normally heaviest during the first few years of the loan. Once in their first purchased home, taxpayers can normally be expected to be assisted in any move to second and subsequent homes- whether the move is made for employment or private reasons- through gains on the sale of the first home.

Again, as incomes rise the burden of servicing a loan can normally be expected to show a comparative reduction: The hump passed, the need for assistance out of general revenue diminishes. That is why, under the amendments proposed, interest deductions will be allowable after 30 June 1976 only in respect of first homes and during the first 5 years of the loan to acquire that home. Other aspects of the scheme are not being changed.

The last of the major proposals in the Bill relates to the valuation of trading stocks of winemakers. When the special stock valuation provisions applicable to wine and brandy producers were repealed in 1973, the producers were faced with difficulties in paying off the tax of earlier years that had been deferred through the operation of the provisions. The previous Government allowed a period of 5 years for paying off the deferred tax, but this is now seen to be insufficient time. We gave careful thought to the producers’ position in the months preceding the election and said that, on being returned to office, we would review the taxation arrangements that apply to wine and brandy stocks. The provisions I shall shortly mention have been decided on after frequent and close consultation with industry representatives.

The tax deferred in the past is not to be forgiven. We had made no commitment on that score and forgiveness would not have been the appropriate step. But we propose that producers will have a more extended period to pay off the deferred tax. This should ease their liquidity problems considerably in the coming months. The industry will also benefit when stock adjustments along lines recommended by the Mathews Committee are determined for the Budget. At that time, the basis of stock valuation to apply to the wine and brandy industry for future income tax purposes will be considered along with the basis to apply to other industries.

In introducing this legislation I take the opportunity of laying to rest a belief which has been evident in some public discussion that the general stock valuation provisions ofthe law that now apply to the wine and brandy industry, along with other industries, in some way lead to tax having to be paid in respect of unsold stock still maturing in producers’ cellars. This is just not the case. If stock is valued at cost- and most producers adopt that basis- no tax is payable on the stock until it is sold because no profit arises on it for tax purposes until it is sold.

Other provisions ofthe Bill deal with some formal matters associated with changes in the names of departments and the like and I do not think I need to discuss these now. The Bill is large and not uncomplicated but so are the subjects and situations with which it deals. I have circulated an explanatory memorandum on it and it now remains only for me to commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1858

SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 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:

I suggest that the second reading speech be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

As foreshadowed in my second reading speech on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1976, when referring to changes in the range of securities for the purposes of the 30/20 investment rule, I now introduce the Superannuation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. The Bill makes consequential changes to the definitions of Commonwealth Securities’ and ‘Public Securities’ in the Superannuation Act 1 976.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1858

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) 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:

I suggest that the second reading speech be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill will provide legislative authority for the entry into force of comprehensive double taxation agreements with the Netherlands and France. The agreements were signed recently and deal with all substantial forms of income flowing between Australia and the other 2 countries. Neither of the agreements can enter into force until all necessary constitutional processes are completed both by Australia and the other country. For Austrafia, this Bill will, when assented to, complete the processes required of us.

Double taxation agreements have 2 principal functions- the elimination of international double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. The former involves the apportionment by one means or another of the relevant taxation revenue between the contracting countries. There are various means of achieving this apportionment. Some income is taxed only in the country of residence; other income is taxed only in the country where it has its source. The country of source may agree to limit its tax on some items of income and, where both countries do tax particular income, the home country of the taxpayer allows a credit against its own tax for the amount that is paid to the other country. Such revenue sacrifices as one country or the other makes are to be seen in the light of the favourable impact that these agreements have on trade and investment flows, and on the improvement of more general relationships between countries. And, it is often overlooked that, where a country in which income originates does reduce its rate of tax on an item of income, the home country will also be levying tax on the income.

Each of the new agreements is along the lines of Australia’s modern agreements, that is, those negotiated or renegotiated since 1967. The previous Government had agreed to the substance of the new agreements, and 1 think that only a brief description of their principal features is required from me in this introductory speech. Under both agreements, Australia is to reduce its withholding tax on dividends flowing to the other country, from 30 per cent to 15 per cent of the amount of the dividends. In converse circumstances, the Netherlands and France are to reduce their rates of dividend withholding taxcurrently 25 per cent in both countries- to 15 per cent. I mention that profits out of which dividends are distributed by Australian companies to foreign shareholders bear the company tax rate of 42.5 per cent, so that, with withholding tax at the rate of 1 5 per cent, the total Australian tax on each $ 100 of distributed profit is $5 1 . 12. That is a not unreasonable contribution to Australian revenue by shareholders living in the other countries.

Both agreements specify a limit of 10 per cent on each country’s tax on interest and royalties flowing to the other. For Australia, this will mean no reduction in our interest withholding tax which is charged at a rate of 10 per cent by our taxation law. For royalties flowing to the Netherlands and France, our tax will be limited to 10 per cent of gross payments, instead of tax at general rates on net royalties. France will reduce its withholding taxes on interest and royalties, normally 25 per cent and approximately 19 per cent respectively, to 10 per cent. The Netherlands does not generally tax interest and royalties paid to residents of other countries but the limit of 10 per cent would apply if it taxed such income in the future.

Both agreements contain measures for the formal relief of double taxation of income that would otherwise be taxed by both countries. In such cases the country of residence of the taxpayer is obliged to provide the necessary relief. Generally, income which may be taxed in full in the country of source will be exempt from tax by the country of residence while, in the case of income that is taxed at reduced rates in the country of source- dividends, interest and royaltiesthe country of residence will tax the income and allow credit for the tax of the country of source.

A unique feature of the French agreement, which relates to the French system of taxing company profits and dividends, is worthy of note. Under this provision, the French Government will in specified circumstances make a payment to Australian shareholders in French companies of an amount equal to a special tax credit normally payable only to residents of France. These payments will be treated in Australia as dividend income and included in the assessable income of the recipient accordingly. Apart from the provisions I have mentioned, the 2 agreements contain the usual provisions- common to double taxation agreements- relating to the taxation of business profits, visiting businessmen and employees, public entertainers, students and pensioners, etc. A memorandum containing much more detailed explanations of technical aspects of the Bill and of the agreements is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1859

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1975-76

First Reading

Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I was given the call to speak in this debate just before the adjournment question was due to be proposed last Wednesday night. On the motion for first reading of this money Bill I desire to make some protest at certain answers to questions on notice. While I could protest at many answers, I refer particularly to 2 answers. I have been seeking some information about matters in Australian political life. I am not helped by the responsible Ministers who could give some information. I am concerned greatly at the terrorism which is raising its head in Australia. I think it is most appropriate to remind the Senate that last weekend 2 bombs or apparent bombs were left in or near the home of Mr Neville Wran, the Premier of New South Wales. Although they were possibly harmless, I think that was done to create fear or to get the Australian community panicky. I was most concerned at the events of last November and December when 3 letter bombs were sent through the post. One exploded and injured 2 public servants in Queensland. I was most anxious that everything be done to find those who sent them and the purpose behind sending them. I was most anxious to learn whether the bombs were sent by Australians or by some forces outside Australia.

The Senate will remember that during the Address-in-Reply debate I disagreed with Senator James McClelland ‘s opinion that the Governor-General was carrying on a Une of deceit of the Australian Labor Party right through. I had accepted the Governor-General’s sincerity up to the stage of the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. I believe that some force made the Governor-General alter his mind between when he telephoned Senator James McClelland and when he dismissed the Government. I tried to find out what forces might have been operating or might have had control. I was concerned about a publication by a Mr Brian Toohey in one of the journals of Australia. As a result I put on the notice paper this question:

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

The reply was:

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

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

I recognise that in the main that has been the policy; but there have been exceptions. I think one exception was during this session when Mr Ellicott said that while it was not usual to disclose the activities to refute some false information he would give an answer on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. In my question I was seeking not so much information on the activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation but information on the activities of the Central Intelligence Organisation, which is a foreign organisation. We are under no obligation not to disclose whether it made representations for the cable to be sent and, if it did, how the cable got into the hands of the journalist. The answer, in effect, was that the Government will not tell. I think it can be inferred from the answer that there may be some validity in the accusation that forces outside Australia were operating. The then Government was dismissed in unusual circumstances. Whether there was outside influence or not, we know that Mr Rupert Murdoch played a prominent part in both the dismissal of the Government and the subsequent election campaign.

Senator Webster:

– Is he the man who gave $60,000 to your Party?

Senator CAV ANAGHIn 1972?

Senator Webster:

– Yes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Thank you for your interjection, Senator Webster, because it stresses my point. Do we live in a democracy in which the people elect the government or is it sufficient for Mr Rupert Murdoch to decide which Party will form the government by giving $64,000 to the Labor Party in 1 972 when it became the government and by not giving that amount to it in 1975 but giving a greater amount to the Liberal Party of Australia? Regardless of whether that money was sufficient to decide the outcome of the election in 1975, there were other forces at work. A strong campaign was being conducted. Was it a campaign to create terror in the minds of the Australian electors and to create a panic situation in which they would carry out the dictates of some unknown person in order to change the government?

I am appreciative of an article published in the National Times of 12 April 1976 about the New Guard. It points out that semi-military organisations were established in Australia when there was a threat to the Establishment of Australia or when there was some militant action by unionists when Labor was in power. This raises the question whether we can maintain a government of change without force when militant organisations on all occasions have been formed by those not supporting the Labor Party. The National Times points out that in 1923 the White Guard was organised by Sir Brudenall White. It was a secret quasi-military organisation. Sir Brudenell White was the retired Chief of the General Staff of the Australian Imperial Force. In 1929 a Labor government was elected, there were 14 per cent unemployed and the Who’s For Australia League was formed in Sydney; in 1931, this was absorbed into the All Australia League. In 1930 in Melbourne the League of National Security was formed. General Sir Thomas Blarney was one of the leading figures. In 1930, at the time of the Scullin Government, the Australian Citizens League, later to be known as the All Australia League, was formed. This League was formed in the office of J. B. Were & Sons, stockbrokers. I have recollectionsthis was about the time of my entry into politics- of the Australian Citizens League having armed forces on the wharves at Port Adelaide at the time of an industrial dispute involving the waterside industry throughout Australia. Armed civilian personnel were there to protect those who were working despite the union ban involving work on the waterfront. In 1930, Jack Lang was elected Premier of New South Wales. This posed a threat to the moneylenders of Australia. At that time, the Old Guard was known as the Movement. Its activities were so secret that its name could not even be used. Its chairman was Mr Robert Gillespie of Gillespie Flour Mills. He was also a director of the Bank of New South Wales and an elder of the Wahroonga Presbyterian Church. In charge of finance was Mr P. R. Goldfinch, general manager of Colonial Sugar Refineries. Colonel Somerville, Secretary of the Royal Agricultural Society and Colonel Bertram, Secretary of the Royal Sydney Golf Club were in charge of military strategy for the organisation. The article states:

These were the secretive, semi-military movements that created the atmosphere for the foundation of the New Guard which eventually became the largest and most potentially dangerous private army in Australia ‘s history.

It can be seen that on every occasion when there was a threat to the Establishment we have had some semi-military organisations formed, to use force if necessary, to stop the continuation of the progress of democracy in Australia.

On this occasion the Governor-General dismissed the Government. Then 3 bombs were sent through the mail. One was sent to Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, one to the caretaker Prime Minister and one to the Governor-General. The printing on these letter bombs was similar; in fact, it was identical. They were special bombs, not ones that anyone could send. Mr David Smith, the Secretary to the Governor-General, is reported in the Daily Telegraph of 22 November 1975 as saying in relation to the letter bomb sent to the GovernorGeneral:

The letter bomb is a mate to the other two which were found.

The handwriting was the same and the device was practically the same.

It could be assumed that whoever sent that bomb sent all 3 bombs. The Sun-Pictorial of 21 November 1973 stated:

The Federal Police Assistant Crime Commissioner, Mr Davies, said experts were working on the handwriting of both letter bombs.

This was before one was sent to the GovernorGeneral. The article continues:

On both bombs the letters increased in size and the writer used an unusual ‘K’

This was a similarity. As I say, not everyone could make similar letter bombs on which there was similar handwriting. Special apparatus had to be used. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 November 1975 stated:

Handwriting experts are examining 2 notable characteristics of the address labels on the letter bombs sent to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, yesterday.

They are concentrating on the fact that the letters in both address slips started small and grew larger as the writing progressed.

Also the writer had baulked at the letter K which appeared in both addresses.

The address labels themselves had been printed on white paper and then stuck on to buff-coloured envelopes.

The Assistant Commissioner of the Australia Police, Superintendent J. D. Davies, said the police hoped someone would recognise the unusual printing.

The article goes on to state:

The Brisbane bomb was posted from Drummoyne, and the Canberra bomb was posted from Five Dock, both on Tuesday.

I understand that those locations are close to each other. The Australian of 20 December 1975 carried the heading ‘New clue narrows letter bomb search ‘. It states:

Special figures that can be ‘read’ by a ‘magic eye’ have yielded an important new clue in the mystery of who sent the pre-election letter bombs.

The letters were found to belong to no known typeface. But the figures were recognised when shown to Mr Jack D’Arcy, managing director of Saztec Equipment Pty Ltd, distributor of the Hitachi optical scanning system, as similar to the Opscan system which is the only system in Australia which can use special hand written figures.

All other systems in Australia ‘read’ only figures typewritten by computers.

The hand-written figures designed for Opscan are almost unknown to the general public.

An Opscan expert, Mr Allan Richardson, of the distributor, Australian Datatronics Ltd, yesterday identified the figures used on the labels as being similar to the figures used in the Opscan system.

The search for the bomber may now be narrowed to around an estimated 100 people used to writing the special figures.

They are people, mainly clerks, proficient in writing the figures, used in the Opscan ‘magic eye’ system developed by the Optical Scanning Corp., of the U.S.

So, the search is narrowed down to about 100 people who could possibly have printed the lettering associated with those 3 bombs.

Attempts were made to discover who had sent the postal bomb delivered in Brisbane. Various opinions were expressed. The Sydney Morning Herald of 20 November 1975 reported:

A Queensland union leader believes Brisbane’s mail bomb blast could have been set up by the National Party.

The Trades and Labor Council Secretary, Mr Fred Whitby, said yesterday that he believed it was staged deliberately to create a backlash against the Labor Party and whip-up hysteria’.

In the same article there was a statement by Mrs Flo Bjelke-Petersen, the wife of the Queensland Premier. It stated:

She replied: ‘I suppose it’s the radical communist extremists in some of the unions.

She accepted that the bomb had been sent from that source. Three bombs were sent from the same originating point and there are differences of opinion as to who sent them. Honourable senators must remember as I have already read out that there has always been an extreme terrorist organisation from the right which has been created to act at times when there has been threat to the establishment in Australia. In addition to those 3 bombs, there were other fake bombs or bomb hoaxes which were sent through the post and caused concern to the police at the time. One report in this respect appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail and stated:

Police and postal security officers were concerned last night at the number of ‘hoax’ letter bombs detected in Australian post offices.

An Australian Post official said some of the ‘mock letter bombs’ obviously had been posted to test the postal security system.

One letter had been addressed in the same style of printing depicted on the bombs to the Queensland Premier (Mr Bjelke-Petersen), the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) and the Governor-General (Sir John Kerr).

This letter had been posted at Drummoyne to a Brisbane address.

This fake bomb was addressed and posted at the same place as the bomb which was sent to Mr Bjelke-Petersen. The article continued:

The spokesman said the hoax letter bombs had caused highly-skilled technical staff to be put on alert.

A police investigation was carried out to determine the origin of this hoax bomb.

With my interest in this matter, I placed a question on notice. It was in these terms:

  1. Did Commonwealth Police, in November 1975, investigate the posting in Sydney of a package addressed to the Editor of the Brisbane newspaper the Sunday Sun.

Honourable senators will know that the Sunday Sun is one of the Murdoch group of newspapers. My question continued:

  1. Did the investigation disclose that the package which contained no explosives was deliberately made up to resemble the packages containing letter bombs as posted to the Governor-General, the Queensland Premier and the caretaker Prime Minister.

The answer to both of those questions was yes. The Commonwealth Police did investigate the bombs sent to the Murdoch newspaper, the Sunday Sun. This package, the police saw, had been made up deliberately to resemble the previous bombs. There were 2 points of identification in respect of those bombs. Further security measures were required. The Government admitted that that was correct. My question on notice continued:

  1. Was it established that the package was posted by the Chief of Staff of the Brisbane newspaper the Sunday Sun who made a special trip to Sydney for the purpose of posting this package.

The answer supplied was:

  1. No. It is not known who posted the letter but it was established that it was posted under arrangements by the newspaper concerned to test the effectiveness of the Australian Postal Commission’s mail screening procedures.

In response to my question asking who posted the letter, I was informed that the Government did not know but that that prototype bomb was posted under arrangements made by the Sunday Sun, to its address in Brisbane.

The next part ofthe question that I asked was:

  1. Were the police concerned with the close similarity in the printing of the address on this package to the printing on the 3 packages that contained letter bombs.

I received this answer:

  1. Yes. There was a similarity between the printing on the letter and that on the 3 letter bombs and, at the request of the Australian Postal Commission, the Police conducted an investigation. In the course of that investigation the Police received information indicating that the letter had been posted to ‘test the system ‘.

The last part of my question was:

  1. Was it on the instruction of the Attorney-General that no charges were made.

The answer was:

  1. No. As the law then stood and presently stands, the posting of such a letter constituted no offence. Consideration is being given to amendment ofthe Postal Services Act 1975 to make appropriate provision for such matters.

My complaint is this: Three real bombs were posted. A fake bomb not containing any harmful material but with handwriting sufficiently similar to justify an investigation was posted at the same place as two of the real letter bombs. It was posted from the same district as the other bombs. Because the Commonwealth Police were told that this was done to test the screening facilities of the postal authorities, the identity of the person who posted the parcel has not been discovered. The police did not seek to interview, to question or to interrogate any person. No interest was shown in finding out who posted the letter.

If the Sunday Sun was not guilty of any other posting, at least it may have used the same agent for posting its parcel as posted the other bombs. No question arises that the posting of the fake bomb was arranged by the Sunday Sun and was sent to it in Brisbane as it wished to test the screening procedures. With the suspicions which justify complaint concerning the activities of the Murdoch crew in regard to this election, more investigation is warranted. While no query is raised about questioning the person who posted that bomb, nothing appears in the reply that I have received to suggest who addressed that fake bomb. What is required in this respect is action by the Brisbane Sunday Sun through a person who has access to and knows the method of operation of the machine and scanning system from the United States to which I made earlier reference. I think there is more to be discovered and that this matter is worthy of a bigger investigation.

The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 December 1975, under the heading Doorknock came at 5 a.m communist couple claim, reported one police search activity in this way:

Two members of the Australian Communist Party claim that police investigating last month’s letter-bomb incidents gave them ‘the 5 a.m. doorknock treatment’.

Mr Michael O ‘Loughlin, Federal research officer for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union, said yesterday the raid was politically motivated.

He said the 3-hour search of his residence and at least one other, starting at S.30 on Friday morning, was an attempt to link the bombing with the political left.

The matter is carried further in an article in the Tribune of 28 January 1976, which reported:

Police are continuing their harassment of Libby Barratt and Mick 0’Loughlin who were subject to a dawn raid by 20 police on November 28. The police have kept the house raided under surveillance by unmarked police cars.

On Tuesday, January 20 the street in front of the house was blocked by S police cars, one a paddy-wagon.

Most of the police were in plain clothes except for the director of the operations, decked out in full police regalia.

Following a conference in the street, the whole convoy moved off. The house was under observation earlier that night, and a friend living nearby reported that someone visiting him had been followed home by a police car.

The earlier raid was allegedly looking for evidence to link residents of the house with the letter bombs sent to Kerr, Bjelke-Petersen and Fraser. This was a clumsy effort to intimidate and discredit the CPA, the left and the workers’ movement generally.

Having some knowledge of the way in which the police operate, I know that they never went to the premises mentioned in that article with the desire to harass members of the Communist Party. Obviously they had been supplied with some information which made them think that the people at these premises were suspect. So there was the raid at these premises. Here we have the situation in which some people are trying to lay the blame on the extreme Right and some are trying to lay the blame on the extreme Left. But there is evidence of a similarity regarding these matters that has not been fully investigated.

Although the Minister has given a reply to my question, I think this matter necessitates a further statement. While not asking for secret police information about informers and so on to be given, I ask, with all respect, that as much as possible of the police report on the investigation of these letter bombs be tabled in this Parliament because I do not think that members of this Parliament are satisfied that everything has been done in this matter. I think that members of Parliament have accepted the fact that because the police are trailing up some left wing members of the Communist Party or somebody else, the general public is satisfied that the police are doing their job. One has to look at the forces which throughout history have been arraigned for the violence which they have shown against the progressive movements which have sought to alter the system in this country. I thank the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not propose to speak at length. I wish to raise a fairly important matter while we are debating the first reading of this Bill because there may not be another apportunity in this sessional period to discuss the subject matter of my contribution. I refer to martin fishing in north Queensland waters and to the depredations in the industry that are being caused by Japanese longline fishing. The urgency of the matter is highlighted by the imminent renewal of the Australian- Japan Fisheries Agreement of 1970. This agreement is due for renewal on about 27 November of this year. So there is still sufficient time to do something about this matter, but if my remarks are held over until the Budget session time will have run out on us. Briefly, the agreement allows for Japanese fishermen to use longlines for the catching of fish on the Australian continental shelf margin. These are technical matters associated with the agreement. It also allows Japanese fishing vessels port access for the replenishment of supplies and fuel requirements. Basically, these people are supposed to be catching tuna and mackerel, but the catch is indiscrimate and includes many other fish species, including bill fish- marlin, swordfish, sailfish, etc.

Recently one of the senior officers of my office spoke to a number of game fishermen at Cairns and, in particular, to the president of the Cairns Game Fishing Club, Mr Jock Izatt. All these people have expressed concern over the activities of the Japanese longline fishermen and the effect that their fishing activities are having on the local fishing industry. There are 3 main species of marlin in northern Australian waters- the white marlin, the blue marlin and the black marlin. The majority of these are found outside the shallow water reefs in the deeper waters of the continental shelf margin. It is here that the Japanese longline fishermen operate. Very little is known about the marlin ‘s life cycle. Very little research has ever been undertaken on this species. I think that I have mentioned in this chamber previously that Queensland is the only State in Australia that has never carried out a proper survey of the fishing and the general water life around the coast of the State. As far as we know, there is not even a skeleton of the marlin to be found in any Australian museum.

In Australian waters the marlin have some of the world’s highest concentrations of heavy metals, such as mercury, cadmium and selenium; hence they are not available for domestic consumption in Australia, but the Japanese catch and consume vast quantities of Australian marlin annually. The marlin game fishing industry in Australia is steadily becoming a big money earner, especially from tourists, and if the marlin or the marlin food supply is fished out, our tourists and our game fishing industry will suffer a great deal. I am not a great lover of game fishing, but nevertheless if this Japanese activity is to continue, and it will, something ought to be done to protect this tourist industry. It is imperative that a systematic program of research of the marlin ‘s life cycle and habits be instigated immediately. It is equally imperative that the Japanese and other longline fishermen be subjected to a strict quota system. I strongly suggest to the Government that when the Agreement comes up for renewal particular attention ought to be given to these 2 aspects. The Australian marlin fishing industry has engaged in selective catching of marlin, and I have some statistics applying to the industry at Cairns in north Queensland for the 10-year period from 1965. There are 3 lines of statistics, and in order to save the time of the Senate I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- Is leave granted?

Senator Cotton:

– Leave is granted, but I hope that the courtesy is extended to us on future occasions.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I note the remarks of the Minister. I think it is a 2-way traffic. From time to time when leave is refused to Opposition senators to incorporate material in Hansard, obviously from time to time we refuse leave to Government senators to incorporate material in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Leave is granted for the incorporation. ( The document read as follows)-

Senator KEEFFE:

– Once an angler has caught his first marlin he rarely takes a fish less than 1000 lb in weight, or unless it looks like being a record. In this way the local game fishing industry is pursuing a rather plausible conservation policy tempered with realism. The tagging of the smaller fish has allowed for the study of movement patterns of the marlin. To date fish tagged in Cairns have been recaught as far east as the Solomon Islands, as far north as Wewak and as far south as New Zealand. Most of the tagged fish have been recaught by Japanese longline fishermen. The Cairns Game Fishing Club has increased its operations since its inception in 1965 but has continually pursued a sensible policy of conservation. I have here another table and I know that the Minister will be tolerant and allow me to incorporate it in Hansard. It consists of 2 pages of figures and there is nothing in it about which one could quarrel.

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

REVENUE TO CAIRNS FROM THE CAIRNS MARLIN GAME FISHING INDUSTRY FOR 1965-1975

1965-1975: Estimated cost of international travel to Australia by overseas game fishermen- $860,000- most in the last 5 years. 1972-1975: Estimated internal travel-$600,000. Average length of boat charter- 10 Average number of charters per boat per season- 8. Average cost of boat charter per day-$200-$225. Total charters paid for 1965-1975 period-$ 1,750,000.

Salaries per captains and crew of charter boats since 1972-1972: $108,000 for 14 boats; 1973: $144,000 for 16 boats; 1974: $243,000 for 22 boats.

Fuel. Average charter boat uses 80 gallons of fuel per day (for 100 day season) except for 40 days of the season where the mother ships are involved; then the boats only use 40 gallons per day. Average fuel consumption for martin fleet peryear-603,000 gallons.

Maintenance Costs. Average maintenance cost per boat-$4,000 per annum for 1965-1975 period-$4 10,000 spent on boat maintenance; mostly in last five years.

Value of Boats-up to January 1975 the value of the Cairns Martin Fishing Fleet was $3,084,000. The average cost of a martin fishing boat has increased from $12,000 in 1 965 to $99,000 in 1 974. Most boats are either built in Cairns or Innisfail; the 10 per cent that aren’t are built in other parts of Australia.

Incidental Costs. New fuel installation^ 120,000; New boat slipways- $70,000; New berths and wharves- greater than $200,000.

Other incidental costs such as accommodation of fishermen, car hire, food, drink, etc., contribute well in excess of $200,000 per year to Cairns City.

Senator Withers:

– You can incorporate your speech if you like.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I realise that Senator Withers is anxious to get on with Government business. In order to confuse him, I indicate that we are anxious to get on with Government business, too. We do not want the Senate still to be sitting on 1 July. The table will indicate that this industry represents a multi-million dollar business, and it is a very large money spinner for the city of Cairns. If the martin industry suffers from indiscriminate catching by longline fishermen, Cairns and Australia will loose this multi-million dollar industry, as did Florida in the 1960s. The same sort of thing happened in Florida with the fishing out of the big game fish. There was indiscriminate catching of all types of fish which resulted not only in disposing of the younger fish but also the clearing out of their food supplies.

Some of the Japanese longlines have been traced and followed at sea for lengths in excess of 48 kilometres. These lines have hooks at approximately every 2 metres and are suspended by floats at regular intervals. Such lines are capable of exploiting fish at shallow, moderate and deep water levels. The ex-naval commander of the Cairns based flotilla, Mr Mike Aston, has been one who has frequently witnessed the length and nature of these longlines. The Japanese do not deny that they catch enormous quantities of Australian fish, including martin. It is therefore most imperative that when the fishing agreement comes up for renewal later this year, a strict quota system on the size, sex and number of martin allowed annually be enforced. This is required if we are to protect the species and also our local martin industry.

To do this it is equally imperative that immediate steps be taken to research the life cycle and style of the martin so that we can understand just how far we can exploit this resource without damaging it. If man does not understand the workings of nature and then does not learn to work and live within the bounds of nature, we will find that this planet, once bristling with such a variety of life forms, will become a dead and dormant place. I know that to Government senators that might sound a fishy argument. However, to the people of north Queensland, particularly those in the Cairns region and the other game-fishing areas, it has a two-fold effect. We want to preserve in some way the tourist industry in that locality, but most of all we want to preserve our own fish colony. We believe that there is a responsibility on this Government, when renegotiating the agreement, to take particular note of the points I have outlined.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

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

I present Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1975-76 which is the first of the 2 Bills which, taken together, comprise the Additional Estimates for 1975-76. The second Bill, which I shall introduce shortly, is Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1975-76. In these Bills, Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys, additional to those appropriated under Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1975-76, totalling $506,201,000. Of this total $344,430,000 is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and $161,771,000 in Appropriation Bill (No. 4). The Bills seek parliamentary authority to make payments, under specified heads of expenditure, the need for which has arisen since the Budget was prepared, but for which the appropriations provided in Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1975-76 were insufficient or for which no provision was made in those Acts. The amounts included in the Bills are needed to meet commitments made by the former Government as well as commitments made, for essential and unavoidable expenditures, under the authority of the present Government.

While it is necessary to provide further appropriations to meet certain expenditures which we consider to be inescapable, I am pleased to be able to say that savings under other annual appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund are expected to total $478.2m. Honourable senators will be aware that it is not possible to transfer and apply those savings towards appropriations which must, of necessity, be supplemented. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has circulated a paper entitled ‘Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations’ which details the particular division, sub-division and item of Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1975-76 under which savings are expected to be made. These savings will be achieved largely as a result of restraints imposed by the Government since it came into office.

Before I go on to speak about the main items that make up the additional appropriations being sought, there are a few observations I should make so that they can be seen in proper perspective. On the face of it, the fact that we are seeking additional appropriation authority of $506m at a time when we are pursuing a vigorous policy of expenditure restraint may appear somewhat incongruous. That impression would be quite wrong. The truth of the matter is that our efforts to rein back expenditure from the rocketing trend on which it was set by the Labor Government are beginning to bear fruit. It is, of course, not to be overlooked that when we embarked on our policy of restraint following the election in December, expenditures in this financial year were already largely pre-determined. By that time, it was all too abundantly clear that, if things were left to take their course, expenditures this financial year would be greatly in excess ofthe Budget estimates. That prospect has been decisively and dramatically changed.

For those expenditures financed from the annual appropriations the net effect of the additional appropriations I am proposing and the savings we now expect to be realised is an increase of $2 8m on the expenditures provided for in Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2). This stands in stark contrast to the situation last financial year. The additional appropriations approved then totalled $ 1,241m, against which savings concurrently announced totalled only $ 136.8m. The net increase then compared with the Budget Appropriation Acts was thus some $ 1,104m. But to get the full picture one needs to go beyond the changes from the figures in Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2).

Looking across the whole range of expenditures, the prospect now is that, as a result of the action we have been taking to rein them in, total Budget outlays in this financial year are likely to be less than the former Treasurer estimated that they would be when introducing his Government’s Budget on 18 August 1975. In comparison with the prospect that faced us when we assumed office that is a remarkable change to have achieved. It is also remarkable in terms of any comparison with previous years, particularly given the rate of inflation which we inherited and which has been exerting strong upward pressure on expenditures this year. One would have to go back a long way to find a year when outlays were in fact less than the Budget estimated- last year actual expenditures exceeded the Budget estimate by a staggering $ 1 ,700m.

I now mention some ofthe factors which have led to the need to seek the additional appropriation authority at this stage. The most significant of these is increased rates of salary payable to government employees. Although the former Treasurer estimated that $150m would be required to meet salary increases throughout the year, and that figure was reflected in his estimate of Budget outlays, it was not included, in conformity with normal practice, in the Appropriation Acts. Parliament is now being asked to appropriate $88.9m for the payment of the increases which have been granted since the Budget was prepared. But for the staff ceilings we have applied a substantially greater amount would have been required. $25.7m is being sought to meet increased post and telegraph tariffs. The increases were announced in late July- early August but allowance was not made for them in the provisions for expenditure by Departments included in Appropriation Act (No. 1 ) 1975-76. Formal appropriations are also required for several departments as a result of the rearrangement of departments and functions which was approved by the Governor-General soon after the Government came into office. These appropriations, which total $4 1.6m do not add to expenditures as the equivalent appropriations of certain former departments will be under-spent. The Bills also contain clauses, similar to those included in Appropriation Acts (Nos 3 and 4) of 1972-73, the purpose of which is to validate certain expenditures necessarily charged to the appropriations of the former departments during the transitional period.

A further $8 5.1m is required for the Department of Defence- $43.9m for salaries and payments in the nature of salary- which is part of the amount of $88.9m for salary increases which I have already mentioned; $ 12.6m for administrative expenses; $20.2m for equipment and stores, including their repair and overhaul; and $8. 3m for other defence services. $3 1.6m is sought for ship construction- purchase of ships, under the Department of Industry and Commerce. However, related revenue will amount to $ 1 9.2m and the net increased outlay on ship construction will be $12.4m. $5.1m is sought for other repatriation benefits, mainly for increases in fees for specialists, medical officers, dentists, chemists and ambulance services. $5m is required for grants to eligible organisations under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act to meet increased costs under current contracts. An additional $ 18.5m is sought to meet increased losses on the Australian National Railways Commission, arising primarily from increased costs which have not been offset by increases in revenue. The major losses of the railways are incurred in the South Australian and Tasmanian regions. The increased provision to meet these increased losses will be offset to a large extent by a reduced capital expenditure by the ANR.

As I have said, this Government will have chalked up a notable achievement if- as now appears likely- outlays in 1975-76 can be held below the Budget estimate. It will, moreover, mark the first real brake on the mad growth in government spending over the past 3 years, and all that entailed. We will- and must- continue with this most searching review of all areas of government spending in 1976-77 and the years beyond: It is a central element in the Government’s overall economic strategy to restore economic prosperity by curbing inflation and reviving the private sector- and private initiative. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator COTTON:

– There will now be a cognate debate on this Bill, the Appropriation BUI (No. 4), the Treasurer’s fiscal policy statement which I gave in the Senate, the defence statement and other statements made by other Ministers. Senator Wriedt will be able to direct himself to the whole range of these matters and we all will listen fascinated.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am not under any illusion that Senator Cotton will listen to my speech fascinated. I hesitated in rising because I assumed that he and Senator Withers would wish to have it placed on the record that we are now moving from the Appropriation Bills into the wider area of the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) last Thursday. It is that statement and associated matters to which I direct my remarks.

The statement that was delivered here last week was an indication of the Government’s intentions and its alleged grappling with what it sees as the economic problems of the country at present. Before we get involved in that debate it is important to look at the scenario in which this country finds itself and the events over the past few months, indeed the last 12 months, in order to get a total picture of the context in which this statement was made. It seems that the Government has an obsession with one thing- the deficit. There are, of course, associated matters, such as wages policies, Medibank levies, child endowment and various rebates which will no longer apply under the taxation system, to which my colleagues will address themselves individually during the course of the debate. However, it is important for us to understand the reasons why we find ourselves in this position.

It is claimed that the Government must reduce the deficit in the forthcoming Budget. The Treasurer’s statement purports to say that the deficit Will be less than that which the Government inherited. It is true that last year the Labor Governement found itself in a position in which it was necessary to stimulate the economy by means of additional government spending. I am quite sure that this Government, just as much as the Labor Government last year, has no desire to see the deficit increased to the extent to which it was increased last year. However, as has been said and as was said at the time, the choice before the Labor Government was either to take that course of action or to hold off and maintain the deficit at a greatly reduced level and then to watch unemployment in this country grow at a much faster rate than it has and to see the confidence of the private sector further undermined. For that reason the Labor Government was obliged to invest and to spend considerably more money than it otherwise would have invested and spent. In order to understand that position fully, we would need to go back further, but I believe that that is not what we ought to do. We ought to look at the position inherited by the present Government and try to understand the rationale behind the Treasurer’s statement.

Essentially this Government wants to take away from any future Federal government the right and the machinery to implement national programs and national policies. That proposition is quite clear and cannot be debated. It was made clear before the election that the Federal government had been given too much power and that more of that power should revert to the States. In other words, the general centralist philosophy was to be rejected and the machinery which had been established to grapple with so many of the national problems in fields such as education, health, roads and regional development had to be brought down as much as possible, or destroyed as much as possible, under the federalist policies of this government. The Treasurer’s statement begins that process. It is not overstating the position to say that the power of a Federal government is to be largely dismantled. This was made quite clear at the Premiers Conference in February by the then New South Wales Premier, Sir Eric Willis. He said then that the fundamental philosophy behind federalism was to ensure that, in the event of a future Federal Labor government, that government would not have the power to do the things which we set out to do in 1 972. The whole purpose, therefore, is to transfer much of that responsibility, cost and administration back to the Sates.

One could argue the correctness or otherwise of the respective arguments in that debate; but I do not think there is any point in doing so, because the Government has made a firm decision and it will go ahead, no doubt, to pass back to the States a great deal of the responsibility which the Federal Government normally has held. At the same time it will pass back to the private sector a great deal of the expenditure in what we call the public sector. I will say more about that in a moment. Also, there will be a very distinct move by the Government to exercise control over wages as part of the program allegedly to limit inflationary pressures. We know that under the Labor Government there was an increase in the proportion of Federal moneys being absorbed by the public sector. That was to be expected in view of the very big increase in our expenditure in a whole range of areas but notably in areas such as education and social security. However, it at no time exceeded 31 per cent of our gross domestic product. Despite the fact that in comparable countries w; see such expenditure representing more than 3 1 per cent of gross domestic product, we still have this Government obsessed with the need to reduce that percentage. I often wonder whether, if it was increased from 25 per cent to 3 1 per cent over the 3 years of

Labor government, someone on the Government side will now tell us what the present Government considers to be the proper proportion ofthe nation’s income that should be spent in the public sector. Will the Government give us an undertaking that it will reduce that proportion to the 25 per cent that existed in 1972? If it will do so, will it tell us in what areas the massive cuts which would make the present cuts pale into insignificance would need to take place? A 6 per cent shift in our gross domestic product from the public sector to the private sector would mean a vast reduction in public spending, that is, spending at the Commonwealth level. Of course, it is intended to pass part of that back to the Statesthat is understood. But does the Government realise the enormous gamble it is taking?

Are we to accept the philosophy from here on, that those areas of public expenditure which benefit all sections of the community are to be cast aside and we are to revert to the ‘every man for himself philosophy of the Workers Party, for example? Are we going to reintroduce a system that discriminates against the weak in favour of the strong? If a person cannot afford to give his child the education that he feels his child should have, is that child to be deprived of that education? After we have established what I believe the overwhelming majority of Australians accept as a good principle- that is, equal chance in education for everybody- is that to be thrown away? Are people to be treated as numbers and not as human beings? I think it is fair to concede that there are arguments in favour of the acceptance of a greater measure of responsibility by the individual and by the States. But it is quite apparent that this Government is hell bent on taking that philosophy to the extreme. If this is allowed to go on indefinitely we will become a society in which it will be a case of ‘every man for himself and ‘if you cannot keep up with the rat race, you miss out’. Despite the protestations by Ministers that the Government is going to look after people and to do this and to do that, I do not believe that it will. Even if the Government intends to do these things, the machinery within the system that it has established will not allow it to do so- that is the difference.

When in government we instituted programs to provide for those less able to provide for themselves. We knew that what we were doing was not going to be easy and was going to create big financial problems for us. But the concept is the important thing. As time goes by this Government is going to find that it will not be able to do the things that are required to be done for the more needy in the community if it continues with its present program. The Government says that it is anxious to encourage spending and consumer confidence. This is a very different story from the story we heard towards the end of last year and it is different, of course, from the actions of the Government at the beginning of this year.

When we were in government the LiberalNational Country Party coalition claimed that it was necessary for investment to be increased in the private sector. We as a government argued in the latter days of 1975 that a recovery must come about through increased consumer spending.

This Government now concedes that it was wrong in its approach. It has moved away from the so-called investment-led recovery and the emphasis now is on the consumer-led recovery. For the same reason we as a government saw the need to maintain the level, and indeed to increase the level, of government spending. The present position is that despite the very generous investment allowances which were provided by the present Government early this year the private sector has not availed itself of those allowances. It is not likely that it will do so until such time as confidence is resumed amongst the consumers of Australia. As I have said on previous occasions, we find that this commitment goes ahead as far as 1984. Probably in 1984- a significant year, I think, in the minds of all of us- or well before that year, we will find that the policies which are being initiated today will bring about great problems.

The Government insists that damage is being caused by increased wage demands. I am always fascinated by the emphasis being placed on wage demands and not on incomes. People on higher incomes, including ourselves as members of this Parliament, never seem to be the target for dampening down the demands that we make tens of thousands, indeed, hundreds of thousands, of other people in the community who are on high incomes also are just as anxious, it seems, as the lower paid workers to increase their share of the national income. Until such time as there is a genuine equity in increased incomes throughout Australia, no matter at what level of income, we will always have a problem of continuing pressure for increased incomes.

I notice that the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, indicated in his speech that he thinks that tax indexation will reduce the demands and the pressure from the unions. He is going to learn that it will not do so and he is deluding himself if he thinks that it will. I cannot understand the fascination that seems to go with tax indexation as some sort of panacea for the unions in their wage demands.

Tax indexation simply means that at the time of its application there will be an increase in the take home pay in exactly the same way as there was an increase in the take home pay when we re-scheduled the tax scales in 1975. That increase in take home pay was absorbed into the pay packet and became the norm. The increase in take home pay as a result of tax indexation will do exactly the same. But tax indexation will not reduce the pressure on wages and incomes any more than the restructuring of the tax scale did because the lower paid workers are entitled- in fact, the trade union movement is entitled- to ensure that they receive at least their proportion of the increasing prosperity of the community. I feel that the proposition that tax indexation will reduce the pressure for increased wages will be rejected almost unanimously by the trade union movement, no matter how appealing on the face of it tax indexation might be. I do not entirely discredit the concept of tax indexation. It has value and we do not oppose it. But to assume that it is going to be the answer to pressures for increased wages is a delusion and I believe that it will be found to be a delusion before many months have passed.

The Government statement has almost an air of dishonesty about it. It claims that $2600m has been cut from the forward estimates but identifies only about $ 1600m of those cuts. Presumably there will be further cuts. In fact, it is impossible to find where the totality of the alleged $2.6 billion cuts will be made. On reading the statement and taking all the figures into account a cut of something in the area of $ 1 ,000m is suggested. Of course, it is a very devious measure to use forward estimates to make this evaluation because we do not know what the forward estimates were. Presumably the Government finds that the easiest way in which it can express the various comparisons. It claims that it will reduce the rate of growth of taxation but in fact, as we know, taxation has been transferred to the States. Despite the assurances which have been given in this chamber by the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, Senator Carrick, the States will find that their revenues are not going to be maintained at the levels that obtained over the past 3 years. If the States can get a 12 per cent increase this financial year from the proposals announced in this statement I believe that they will be doing very well. If the Government is to maintain the commitment that has been given here by the Minister responsible for Federal affairs some massive additional payments will have to be made somewhere. Just how these payments are to be made and in what form remains to be seen but the commitment is quite clear and the Government will need to make those payments during this coming financial year.

It is claimed that holding down expenditure in the public sector will in some way dampen inflation. But holding down expenditure in the public sector necessitates the transfer of responsibilities from the Commonwealth to the States. On the figures announced it appears that we will have a deficit in excess of $3000m. Last year the then Government’s deficit of $2 800m was described as appalling. Yet we find the Government now budgeting for a deficit which in fact will almost certainly be larger than the amount for which we budgeted last year. It is not easy for any government to overcome the dilemma of reducing that expenditure and at the same time maintaining the prosperity in the community which we all wish to see. From all accounts the reaction of the private sector is one of very great uncertainty. The reason might be that businessmen know the effects of large government cuts in the economy. Because of contractual obligations and for a whole range of reasons government reductions of that nature will have an effect on business.

So it appears to the Opposition that here is a gamble of major proportions. It may be that the gamble will come off but I believe the odds are that it will not and we will find ourselves caught in a much more difficult position. Even though, on paper, it might look better in 12 months’ time, in fact, those elements which are essential to overcome the present problems, particularly the reactivating of confidence in the private sector, will not come about. In the broad sense the decision allegedly to redistribute income among consumers is not an equitable arrangement. We see the increase in child endowment, which we do not oppose. There is much benefit in that, particularly to the large family. Of course, the taxation benefits will be removed and combined with the tax indexation we are left about even after we take into account the Medibank levy. In the lower income groups it is highly unlikely that we will see increased spending power. In the higher income groups, particularly those with larger families, unquestionably there will be a benefit. But that is not where we need the increased spending capacity either on an equity basis or on an economic basis. So we are left with the position that ordinary Australians- the great majority of Australians- will not be able to consume more as a result of the proposals contained in this statement. Of course, the business community will take cognisance of that fact. With an 80 per cent capacity in the private sector at the present time it is extremely unlikely that the slack will be taken up.

I know that this will be a long debate. Probably every honourable senator will wish to participate in it so I shall confine the remainder of my comments to education. I am extremely concerned at what has taken place as a result of last Thursday’s statement because, no matter how much it may be dressed up, the fact is that this Government has made it quite clear that it is opting out of eduction. That is not in the total sense, but it will not continue the same level of involvement as we had over the 3 years we were in office. The statement made by Senator Carrick identifies the 4 main areas of education expenditure, namely, universities, colleges of advanced education, technical and further education and the schools. The amounts mentioned in that statement total $ 1,569m. In no way can that expenditure match the appropriations in the last year of the Labor Government which totalled $ 1,8 1 lm. It is interesting to consider that in some way these figures have been dressed up in December 1975 prices. It seems to me that this has been done in order to make the figures look as acceptable as it is possible to do.

If we look at the reality, at what was put aside or appropriated under the last Labor Budget, we find that an amount in excess of $200m more was made available to Australian education. Yet we are told that in real terms the expenditure on education is increasing. The States will realise very quickly that no matter what hopes may have been held in the past few months, under these new policies they will have to bear the higher proportion of these payments. Today it was interesting to listen to the comments of Senator Carrick on local government. I know how easy it is to cite a figure of $ 140m going to local government where only $80m went last year. Let us remember other factors such as the special purpose payments which are made to the States and which eventually flow through to local government, and the Australian Assistance Plan. If honourable senators examine these payments a little more deeply they will find that what appears on the surface is not the true position. The same remarks apply to the educational proposals. We will see a net decline in the Federal payments to the States in the education field. This decline will have to be taken up by the States.

A great deal more will be said about the whole thrust of this Government because the great debate which this country has now entered into as a result of these policies will be extremely complex. These complexities will not be worked out for a matter of weeks or even months. Pitfalls will appear, no matter how good the intention may have been, which were not envisaged in the early stages. They will reveal themselves in time. The States will then realise the sort of problems they will face. Taking the statement as a whole, I think it is fair to say that no matter how much the Government may try to give the impression that this is an equitable arrangement- one could almost call it a Budget and be entitled to do sowhich has been entered into, time will show that it is not. It will not have the reactivating effect on the economy which all of us would like to see. I have no doubt that in the August Budget we will see further cuts taking place which will further reduce the confidence of the business community which is a critical factor in reactivating the economy.

I assure the Government that the Opposition will use every means to expose the weaknesses in these new policies and that federalism will remain the central and continuing issue. We will be debating this issue in two or three years’ time when this statement is forgotten because federalism is at the heart of what was said last Thursday night. It will be our job and intention to ensure that the weaknesses are exposed at every opportunity.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-We have had an interesting and quite thoughtful speech from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). It is quite obvious that he has given some deep thought to the issues raised in the statement made last Thursday. It is therefore surprising that he has chosen to overlook some of the even quite obvious and simple answers to the questions which he raised.

I commend the Government on the approach which it has adopted from the time it has taken office and which it has continued in the statement which we received last week. The problems in Australia are clear. The most urgent problem is simply recognised and expressed. It is getting our economy back on to some sort of even keel. There are the problems of providing jobs for people, of stopping the ravages of inflation as it applies to individual citizens and as it affects the future of our nation as a trading nation. I am a little surprised at the allegation made by Senator Wriedt that the Government has moved away from an investment-led recovery to a consumerled recovery. The Government recognises that both areas are important in the eventual recovery of the Australian economy.

Senator Wriedt made some allegations in relation to the investment allowance and said that businessmen just are not taking it up. I do not know on what basis the honourable senator makes that allegation. The allowance is a quite recent one. Some special provisions were made for the first 6 months of this year to give a particular incentive, but the allowance will be ongoing and will provide very valuable encouragement to business to expand in order to provide more jobs through its expansion, directly and indirectly, in the goods and services that it will purchase in the form of investment. No evidence was presented by Senator Wriedt, and I know of none, which would indicate that his allegation is well founded. Certainly it has been my experience that whilst people with investments to make initially asked many questions and sought clarification of some areas, they welcomed the initiative and have shown every sign, so far as I am aware, of intending to take up the investment allowance.

We need both types of recovery- investment and consumer. In that context it is interesting to look at the Government’s intentions in relation to public spending. The Minister representing the Treasurer in this House last week made several references to this, and I should like to refer briefly to a couple of short passages from the speech that he made. At page 1796 of the Senate Hansard the Minister said:

The measures which will shortly be outlined will enable the Government to regain control of the national Budget- a task which is essential to the attack on inflation and unemployment and returning the private sector to its rightful role.

Senator Wriedt chose to interpret that as meaning that the Government was not going to only cut back as has been announced already this year but cut back further and further in the future. He pointed out that the share of public sector spending had risen in 3 years from 25 per cent to 3 1 per cent and he invited the Government to nominate the figure for which it is aiming. He asked the question: What will be future areas of cuts? If the Government is successful in stimulating the private sector, as I believe it will be, many of our problems in the public sector will be overcome.

One of the great difficulties created for the Government in the last 3 years of socialist government was the accelerating imbalance effect that the Labor Government’s policies had on the economy. As its policies gained momentum, as inflation spiralled, as it made no attempt to move into its areas of responsibility in the industrial sector and as wages took off like a rocket, it became impossible for significant sections of the private sector to survive. The Treasurer last year indicated that one of the sources of great difficulty for the Government in its deficit and in its budgeting was that it could not collect the amount of income tax it might have hoped to collect, that previous projections of tax income were wrong. Because the Labor Government through its many policies hit the private sector so hard, the Government hit itself. It reduced its potential for collecting money in the form of taxes from businesses and from individuals. Accelerating unemployment and the snowballing effect that that had last year could only compound the problem, and that alone would have meant that the proportion of public sector spending would grow.

It is the present Government’s intention to stimulate the private sector in a way that will provide jobs for Australians, in a way that will add to the country’s productivity and, as a consequence, will result in more money for the Government to spend in the public sector because it will collect more tax through more people being employed. A revival of the private sector is essential if the Government is to pursue its programs. I should have thought that many people in Australia now had finally realised that a strong private sector is important if a government is to carry out programs which are considered socially desirable. I should have thought that many people in Australia now understand far better than they had understood three or four years ago that the Government purse is not a bottomless pit and the bottomless pit financing, as indulged in by the Labor Government, particularly in its first 2 years in office, is a disaster for the economic fabric of the country. There is a limit to the Government’s resources. Certainly it can go on building up larger and larger deficits. It can do that in theory, but eventually the chickens come home to roost. The fact is that to a large extent in 3 short years Labor wrecked our relative trading position with other countries, and I personally believe that the damage done in that area in some cases will take anything up to 10 years to mend. The previous Labor Government set us back in some areas to where we were 20 years ago and 20 years of wise policies and hard work on the part of individual Australians went by the board. It is that sort of mending that has to be undertaken by the present Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said many times that if Australians want more Government spending, if they want more programs, if they want to expand programs which exist currently and if they want the introduction of new programs, they must realise that the country must produce in such a way that governments can expand and introduce programs without causing the sort of disruption from which we suffer presently. As I said before, stimulation to the private sector will be the key to enable us to do that. Increased productivity is the assurance for future generations of Australians that they will live in a better country. The sort of advances that were made in the 20 years before the Labor Government in terms of real standards of living and in terms of Government programs, new and expanded, in themselves are the proof of what I am alleging.

I welcome the Government’s program. I welcome it as showing that this Government intends to protect the weak, to keep what protection there is and to expand it in other areas, and as showing that the Government is prepared to take on the difficulty of planned and orderly growth.

Senator Wriedt:

asked whether the Government was going to introduce a new system of the law of the jungle, and he referred to the Workers Party. I am glad he made it quite specific that he was referring to that Party, whose policies I and the Liberal Party reject. We recognise that for all Australians to have a decent life and to have equal access to the opportunities that are offered in this country, then some disadvantaged people need assistance. There has been provision within the Government’s policies, from the time it came into office, to provide that assistance to disadvantaged people. We must protect the weak firstly through controlling inflation. Last week Senator Cotton said that we must regard that as our first priority, as indeed the previous Treasurer, Mr Hayden, said last year when he made his Budget Speech. He indicated then that control of inflation had to be the first priority of any Federal government, and with that we agree. He also said:

It is not possible to provide more and more government services or transfer payments from the Budget without ultimately having to pay for them through cutting back aftertax earnings by increased taxes.

That impinges on what I said previously, but it also indicates that if we are to maintain reasonable protection for the weak we must recognise that that protection falls within that general framework and the way it is supported.

The Government has indicated that it will make 6-monthly increases in pensions, and the first increase due to be introduced since the Government came into office has already been given. I have heard no criticism, and I hope I hear none, of the Government’s intention to tax certain pensions on the same basis as the age pension is currently taxed. People are not silly. It is not only people in politics and in Parliament professionally who are aware of what actually goes on in the community. When decent hardworking people who hold down jobs all year round and work hard all year round see that certain individuals in the community can work for a number of months of the year and earn a very large sum of money, taking into account the length of time that they work, and can then go on the dole and receive a tax-free income for the rest of the year, they realise that they are being done’. They know they are paying taxes, in working 52 weeks of the year in order to support people who choose to work for only a short period of the year. The people who choose to work for only a short period of the year may fall into one of 2 categories. It may be that they are employed in seasonal industries and their employment lasts for only a limited period during the year. Or it may be that they have deliberately taken on high-paying jobs in certain areas and have received, in a few months, a very high income and have then chosen not to work again for the rest of the year, knowing that they can live on their ‘fat’ combined with a certain taxfree income from the Government in the form of the dole.

That is not a fabrication or a fiction. I know it to be a fact in the case of many young men in Queensland, particularly those who work in the construction and the mining industries where huge sums of money, more than the annual wage of many people in our community, can be earned in perhaps 6 months. It is because of people in the second category who do not seriously attempt to get work and who would choose to live, as I said earlier, off their ‘fat’ and on a taxfree income that the Government must set up machinery to make sure that that additional income is not tax free. Many supporting statements have been put on this matter. It has been pointed out that people in an income bracket of about only $ 100 a week are not affected. There is a slightly higher range in which, given the fact that the persons concerned may have dependantssay, a wife and 2 children- their normal deductions at income tax time would cover whatever tax they would pay on that additional payment from the Government for the rest of the year.

I warmly welcome the decision of the Government to transfer some of its resources to the area of real need. It will never cease to be a matter of amazement to me that the Whitlam Government did not take any notice of the Henderson report as it dealt with family allowances. The previous

Government was fond of pointing out that certain suggestions contained in the Henderson report had been implemented. Why it chose to overlook the family allowances it never chose to explain. It is interesting that it has taken a couple of days for some political commentators to realise one of the most important effects of the family allowance. It was stressed last week that the new measure would mean support for families who are really in the low income bracket. Figures relating to the number of families on low incomes have been referred to. There are about 300 000 low income families with about 800 000 children. In total, more than one million people were not benefitting from assistance through the tax system. The children and these families will now benefit.

The previous system was of no assistance to low income families. I must query a statement made by Senator Wriedt. He said that low income families will come out about even. I dispute that. I suggest to Senator Wridet that the evidence suggests that low income families will benefit very much. People in a low income bracket who pay little or no tax will not, of course, be paying the Medibank levy. They will still have all the benefits which those who pay the levy receive. They will be receiving the family allowance for their children free of tax.

The previous tax deduction system was of no benefit to the low income family. It benefited only the middle class and the wealthy. Only those who were paying substantial amounts of tax could benefit from the deductions. It makes far better sense to introduce non-taxed family allowances of a substantial nature, as recommended by Professor Henderson, to make sure that the poor families really do get some benefit. All the evidence shows that these families are large families, migrant families or families with only one parent. These people have been in a very poor situation indeed. They will get real assistance to meet their problems of rearing, properly caring for and educating their children.

Another aspect which took the political commentators a little while to recognise- it was recognised after a couple of days- is that the Government has given some measure of recognition to the role of the woman in the one-income family where there are 2 parents. In that situation it averages out; the loss of tax deduction is about equal to what is paid in family allowances. The simple fact is that income has been redistributed from husband to wife. Since family allowances are paid to the woman, it is income for her. Since the tax rebate is paid to the man in all those cases, it is a loss of income for him. So it is a redistribution of income from husband to wife. This is particularly important in the case of the many families in Australia where young children are being reared and where the wife and mother decides that the best role she can play, in relation to the welfare of her family, is to remain at home and not go out into the work force. Our country has always freeloaded on these women. They have been women who have looked after children, who have made a real contribution to the economy in a diverse number of ways but who have never received proper recognition. I am glad that the Government did not just chose to increase the dependant’s allowance but to give some recognition to the meaningful role played by the woman in this situation by introducing the family allowances system.

The other matter that I would like to mention is education. I cannot mention all aspects of the Government’s proposals because we have agreed to limit our time. As I said earlier, to my mind the key of the Government’s policies in the statement of last week is that we have set out to protect the weak, we have set out to transfer government resources to areas of real need and, just as importantly, we have set out to introduce some basis of reasonable planning in all areas of government activity. It was not really an introduction of reasonable planning in the education area; it was a re-introduction. The previous Government chose to abandon the triennial system of funding last year. It chose to do so abruptly and this has had a drastic effect on certain areas of education planning. The facts are that in the tertiary education area, where a long lead time is necessary for the employment of new staff either for new positions or to replace staff who retire, universities and tertiary institutes were in a difficult position when it came to staff planning. They did not know beyond the current educational financial year just what they would be getting.

I was a little puzzled again by some of Senator Wriedt ‘s comments. I should have thought that it was quite reasonable to give a basis of comparison on the 1975 figures. The fact is, of course, that education budgeting is done on a calendar year basis. I understand that the figures used were December 1975 figures. December 1975 would seem to be a reasonable base on which to talk about calendar year planning for education in 1976 and 1977. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) and the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in their statements made it clear that the increase in spending will be in real terms as against money terms.

They are the terms with which we have to concern ourselves while inflation remains high. We are not opting out of education, as Senator Wriedt said. We have re-introduced long range planning in education on a slightly different basis- a basis which is well known, which people are familiar with and which operates elsewhere. Instead of fixed triennial planning, there will be rolling triennial planning whereby the commissions will be informed of the minimum figures that the Government will spend as the minimum amount of planning on which it can count. There will, of course, be room for such additional expenditure as the Government sees fit to make on the basis of cases put to it and given the overall economic situation at the time. This has advantages for the Government because it means that it can plan on a line more in keeping with its own annual budgetary problems. It has certain benefits for the community. I suspect that some educationists will complain about it, although I know that many will not. I suspect that some will take the point of view that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and realise that, while under the previous fixed triennial system they knew how much money they would have over a 3-year period, now they will know a minimum amount over a 3-year period, with room for addition at the edges. That announcement will be made only 6 to 12 months before the year in question, Some will not like that.

There were many disadvantages educationally and for the community under the old system. One of them was that when promised money 3 years in advance the universities and the colleges- as well as the schools to a lesser extent, because they are a newer experience- did not move as quickly as they could have in some cases. The result was that if their planning got a bit behind they had nothing to lose. If it was not possible to put up a building in the first year of a triennium they knew they could do it in the second year because the Government was committed to that expenditure for them. If the reasons were ones under their control- in some cases they were; it was just because of sloppy planning on their part that they were not prepared to proceed when they should have been- they knew they would get away with it. This way the Government has a far better chance of knowing what capital expenditure will be undertaken in the next financial year with money allotted to education.

The new system will give the benefit of educational flexibility. In this day and age the need for new courses or the need for existing courses can change rapidly. In 12 months a course which may appear to be well established in a university can suddenly go into a very sharp decline, and the prospects for the future of that course can be brought into question. On fixed triennial funding nothing can be done about that. The courses continue. They continue as part of educational- and, in some cases, personal empires- because it is good for certain individuals that the courses continue. The courses do not continue for any particular good educational reason. Under those circumstances there are benefits to the community in the rolling triennium as outlined by the Minister. It will mean that we can move continually 3 years ahead on basic planning, instead of from time to time looking 3 years ahead.

There are many issues in the Bills and in the statements which will provide endless fascination to the Parliament and to the public. In the interests of proceedings with the debate I must now cut short my contribution. I welcome many areas of the Government’s initiatives, not just the ones to which I have confined myself. I see in the Bills and in the statements a chance for this country to grow again and to re-establish itself as possibly the most desirable country in the world in terms of prospects for and real wealth of its citizens.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– It is proper that the Parliament should be debating the economic program which this Government is now seeking to apply to the Australian people. It is proper that we should take the initiative because it seems to me that there is a desirability for the community at large to debate the economy and the economic package which this Government suggests will cure all things in Australia. I see the debate in the Parliament as only the beginning of a debate which must take place throughout the nation- a debate something akin to the debate about Vietnamand in which all sections of the Australian people, particularly those who have a social conscience, will begin to understand the vagaries and difficulties that go with government policies and government legislation. People will begin to understand what happens when we have a government of the nature of the one in Canberra which believes in cutbacks in public sector activity and believes that by the simple mechanism of boosting private sector activity all the ills that beset the Australian people, in town and country, will suddenly evaporate. We welcome the opportunity to take issue with the Government only because it gives us an opportunity to present out point of view here in the first instance. Then we may take that point of view outside into the community so that the community can understand what is happening as far as the economic policies of this Government are concerned.

I remind the Senate that a year or so ago, when the coalition parties began to undermine public confidence in the Labor Administration and began conspiring to bring about the defeat of that Administration, they did so on the basis that they had a formula to cure inflation, a program which would get this country moving and a program which would alter dramatically the economic face of this country. Yet what did Mr Lynch and Senator Cotton say? They said that the program which they presented to the Parliament last Thursday evening represented the culmination not of a year’s activity, from the time when they were undermining public confidence in the then Government, but of 5 months’ work which began on 14 December. When they were using every means at their disposal to bring about the defeat of a properly and legally constituted government, they were doing nothing to understand the basis upon which the economic policies of the Whitlam Government were operating. What were the basic features of our economic policies? They were concerned with a proper allocation of resources. They were concerned with an alleviation of poverty. It ill becomes a senator such as Senator Martin to criticise the Labor Government because we did not do more about child endowment, when the pack of hounds with which we had to contend in our 3 years of office always criticised any activity which we initiated to bring about a better allocation of resources in this country. Each time we moved to upgrade social security payments, each time we moved to improve the quality of life, each time we moved to place this country on a sounder economic basis we were criticised by honourable senators opposite. Therefore, it ill becomes a senator to suggest that because we did not pick up the tab in respect of child endowment we should be criticised, as Senator Martin suggested this evening.

There is no doubt that the economic package which is placed before the Australian people as a panacea or a complete answer will be proved to be nothing other than a damp squib. It is a dishonest package. It is a spurious package. It is a package which will not achieve its objectives. It is a package which clearly will bring about an increase in unemployment. It is a package which has no possibility of succeeding in boosting business confidence. It is a package which will exacerbate rather than cure inflation. It is a package which will increase the problems in the State government areas. It is a package which will create problems in the area of local government.

Yet we are told by the principal spokesman for the Government that these measures will enable the Government to regain control of the national Budget. For the last several weeks we have been regaled, as from a gramophone record, with talk by Senator Carrick to the effect that transmitting back to the States and local government a proportion of income tax is decentralisation and federalism. Yet the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) suggests that it is necessary to regain control of the national Budget, a principle which we in this place discussed only a few weeks ago, on the eve of the election in New South Wales.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GIETZELT:

-Before the suspension of the sittings I mentioned the differences that the former Labor Government had with the then Opposition- the present Government- in regard to the question of resource allocation. Those differences still exist. Of course, we have been fed the story that all one has to do is shift resources from the public sector back to the private sector in order to get that essential stimulation within the national economy. We make no secret ofthe fact that the former Labor Government set out philosophically and legislatively to bring about a redirection of resources. This was because we believed that in the whole of the post-war years there was a need to catch up in terms of community facilities and to tackle the very important areas of need that were identified to the Parliament by the various commissions and in the reports on poverty.

I think it has to be said that the conservative forces generally and the Government in particular have been conned into believing- they now believe their own propaganda- that by the simple mechanism of reducing public expenditure and putting more money into the pockets of individuals they will achieve a miracle and bring about economic revival. No nation has been able to solve the grievous problems within the capitalist economies by such a simple process. When we consider that there is a growing awareness of the problems of conservation and preservation and different consumer habits within the advanced industralised countries, it seems to me that the Government is ignoring, as is industry, the changes in attitudes that can now be identified within our community. I found one quotation which perhaps put the position better than I would be able to put it. It is from a book entitled Design With Nature by Ian McHarg. He says:

There is an increased awareness of the need to manage resources. There is a widening certainty that the gross national product does not measure health or happiness, dignity, compassion, beauty or delight, and that these are, if not all inalienable rights, at least worthy aspirations.

Of course, that expresses pretty well what the Labor Government sought to implement in its 3 years of office which commenced in 1972. Obviously, the community was concerned about these issues because we won office in 1972 on the basis of the quality of life issues. These were issues in the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne which were sufficiently large in 1972 and 1974 to place and keep a Labor Government in office. The Labor movement is still committed to this goal of a better life for the ordinary people of Australia. Therefore it is a matter of regret that the Government has sought in the manner in which it has done simply to suggest, as Milton Friedman and some of the other bourgeois economists in the Western world have suggested, that all one has to do is to reduce the demand for wages and the whole economy will immediately begin to generate and produce the desired result. The facts are that there are changes in consumer habits, that there are problems in the market place and that there are problems in international trade. There are things outside the immediate influence of the national governments. Multi-national corporations are able to make decisions related to their understanding of economic matters. Whether or not they relate to national economies is quite incidental to them. We are confronted with an attempt by this Government to suggest that we need to help the economy by simply getting some stimulation within the private sector and by endeavouring to produce some sort of arrangement, package or deal which the trade union movement will accept.

It seems to me that the Australian people have a right to know the full effects as well as the strategy behind the economic statements which have been presented to the Parliament last week. On Monday of last week the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sought to highlight some aspects of a statement upon which he said the Australian people should accept his interpretation of the economic path to be followed in this country. On Thursday night Mr Fraser gave us some of the bad news as well as the good news. The overall impression that he tried to create from the point of view of the Australian public was that this package would, in fact, bring about the essential stimulation of our economy. Whilst we can personally and politically applaud the increases in child endowment, we have to draw attention to the fact that with removal of the tax deductibility for children this does not achieve the very objective which the Government said it sought to achieve. I have done some arithmetic.

It would appear to me, for example, that a person with 10 children in receipt of average weekly earnings, who would benefit greatly from the child endowment payments, would lose more than he would gain under this new package deal because of the loss of the tax deductions to which he was formally entitled. If the objective is to put more money into the hands of the consuming public, it fails to be realised. The package does not bring about consumer demand. It does not solve the problem of over production which is a feature not only of our secondary industry but also of our primary production. Whilst talking of production in the simple way which conservatives generally operate in the area of economics, I wish to refer to an editorial in the Land newspaper of Thursday, 20 May 1976. Dealing with the Government’s package deal, the editor states:

But what all Australians, and particularly the trade unions, must recognise, is that there cannot be any real increase in our standard of living unless there is a real increase in production.

The plain facts are that we have reached the stage of over production in most of our primary industries. Surely no one would challenge that statement. That is not our problem. Our problem is finding markets. Our problem is distribution. Similarly, this can be said about our secondary industry. One has only to go to one’s letter box, pick up a newspaper or watch television to appreciate the great advertising splurge which hits the consumers wherever they turn as producers seek to sell the goods. The Government, endeavouring to present some form of economic coherence in its program, seeks to stimulate consumer demand. But the Opposition submits that the Government’s economic package does not produce that situation. As one of the newspapers- I think it was the Melbourne Ageindicated last Friday, about 57 per cent of all taxpayers were worse off as a result of the measures announced last week. That was that newspaper’s assessment of the position according to its interpretation of a Treasury hand-out. Whilst we admit that there has been some recognition of poverty in the Government’s proposals, I cannot concede and I do not think that any genuine Government senator can concede that by giving those people living on the poverty line a few extra dollars per week- there are quite a substantial number of them, as the Henderson report indicates- that this will bring about that miracle of economic recovery.

I turn to the Henderson report on poverty. We pay tribute to the McMahon Government as the Government which caused an inquiry to be made into poverty in Australia. But what does that report say? It was the conservative parties that set out the terms of reference for that poverty inquiry. The report says:

Poverty is not a personal attribute. It arises out of the organisation of the society.

There is no doubt that there are weaknesses within the society that create and maintain the degree of poverty that exists. Whilst there is some last minute recognition by the Liberal and Country Party Government of poverty and it has taken some steps in the right direction in this economic package, the fact is that this action will not bring about that essential stimulus which is necessary in the economy because there are operating factors which are beyond the powers of” government, and certainly beyond the powers of this Government.

One must go back into history to look at the way in which the market itself developed and how the establishment of the market was one of the principal ingredients in the development of capitalism and the overthrow of the feudal society. I suggest that governments as well as the community ought to be having a look at the market. Certainly I make the very strong submission as well as having the conviction that it is in the market place where the distortions take place in respect of the production and distribution of our goods. But, be that as it may, I think we must say that this package, this deal, represents in our view an attack upon the real wages of the salary and wage earners. In fact this package will not put more money into the pockets of those persons to bring about the necessary stimulation of the consumers within our community.

One has only to examine statements that have been made by Government spokesmen and to see the dilemma in which the State Premiers now find themselves in the area of CommonwealthState relationships and the dilemma in which local government finds itself to appreciate that there will need to be a very great increase in the immediate period of indirect taxation as well as establishing new forms of taxation in the States and by the States.

As Mr Wran so aptly put it last evening, if Mr Fraser believes his policy and if by wage indexation and tax indexation his objective is to put more money into the hands of the consumer, the trade unionist, the man in the street and the purchaser, it would be wrong for State Premiers to institute a new form of State taxation because that would take money out of the pockets of those people. Yet we have been told that that is what is proposed in the new federalism policy, in the federalism about which we have been regaled at great length in this place in recent weeks. We are told that federalism in fact will be the way out for State and local government and that transferring to those areas of government the right to collect money and to spend it is the philosophy that ought to be applied. So, if that philosophy has any basis at all, it does mean that taxation will increase at other levels at a time when, according to Mr Fraser, the whole purpose is to put more money into the hip pocket. 1 challenge the whole premise upon which this economic policy is structured. I cannot believeand I am sure that a proper analysis ofthe economic package will reveal this fact- that transferring, for example, $ 100m which would otherwise be spent by the Australian Government into the pockets of 50 000 different consumers throughout Australia- those same dollars which would have been spent nationally in the social welfare program, the urban program or in the sewerage program, or by transferring those funds to a State for its health scheme- or by putting it into the pockets of 10 000, 20 000 or 50 000 individuals, will have any sort of stimulative effect on our economy. It is too simple. It is Friedmanism to a point of absurdity. In countries where that sort of philosophy and legislative follow-through has taken place we find economies which are in an even worse state than the Australian economy is. To suggest therefore that it is wrong for governments to spend money in providing basic community facilities and to meet the needs of the people, and to claim that such action is inflationary, certainly begs the question which requires greater examination than the Government parties are giving to it.

Let us take for example what was said today by Senator Carrick in response to a question that I raised with him concerning local government finance. I do not want to say anything disrespectful of Senator Carrick. I am not a scholar, an officer or a gentleman if I use certain words and say that he lied to the Parliament in his reply to me today in response to that question. Leaving that aspect aside, I certainly believe that he misled the Senate when he replied to that question from me today about local government finance. He did not say, for example, when we were talking about the cut-back in public spending- and I have raised this matter before- that the expenditure of funds which finish up at local government or State government levels is less inflationary than if those funds are spent at the national level by the Federal Government or any of its statutory authorities. But, in respect of the amounts of money which are now to be made available to local government, Senator Carrick has suggested that the Australian Government will be spending more money in this area. That is certainly the impression that he created in reply to a question from me in the first instance and then in reply to Senator Devitt and subsequently to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt).

He was trying to create the impression that the Government would spend more money in the area of local government funding. Is he seriously suggesting that, if that is done, that is not inflationary? If I were to accept his view that that was the situation- of course it is not, but if I were to accept that point of view- why is it that Government senators will not tell me that that local government dollar is less inflationary than the Commonwealth dollar? They have never yet been able to convince me or in any way to come back into the debate to point out the absurdity of that point of view.

Let me mention again this matter of local government to which I referred previously. Senator Carrick went on to say that there had been an increase of funds. He was making great play about the increase of funds from the Commonwealth to local government. These funds were to rise from $79m which the Labor Government provided in its 1975-76 Budget to $140m which will be provided in the current economic package. It is part of the forward Estimates. But Senator Carrick did not tell the Senate that last year the Australian Government gave to local government $230m, both in tied grants and in untied grants. He did not say therefore that there was a shortfall of approximately $90m to local government. It is true that a great proportion of those funds was made available in specialised ways including the Regional Employment Development scheme, certainly in the area improvement programs and certainly under the Australian Assistance Plan programs. It was in that other assistance which was provided that direct funding was made available for specific purposes from the Commonwealth Government to local government. Senator Carrick has tried to create the impression in his false and misleading way, in a lying way, in a way -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must not use that language in respect of another honourable senator, and he knows it.

Senator GIETZELT:

- Mr President, I bow to your ruling. Senator Carrick certainly created the impression that more money was being made available to local government. That is not true. There is no substance in that statement. The

AAP program has been dismantled. It is true that we ourselves had dismantled the RED program, but all the other area improvement programs have been set aside by this Government. The amount of $140m which Senator Carrick said this Government is to make available to local government in the next financial year and which is an increase of $60m on the amount made available last year still represents approximately $70m less than we paid to local government in 1975-76. Therefore, we have to look very carefully at the criteria upon which this Government seeks to build up its ideological position on the economy. We have to look very carefully at the statements which are being made by Ministers because they are misleading statements. They do not accord with the true position.

Senator Carrick endeavoured to create the impression that the Labor Government was responsible for the very great increase in local government rates that has occurred during the last two or three years. The Labor Government gave more money to local government than any other government in Australia’s history, including the present Government. In fact, in 1973 the Labor Government made a breakthrough in respect of local government. For the first time national funds went direct to local government. This had never happened previously. Therefore, it is most unfair and misleading for Senator Carrick to suggest that the vast increase that occurred in local government rates is attributable directly to any deficiency in any economic policy which had been pursued by the previous Government during the last 3 years. If the Labor Government had not made available the sort of money it did to local government during the last two or three years rates would have increased by a figure greater than 35 per cent; they would have increased by hundreds of per cent. So we are entitled to say that this economic package leaves very much to be desired. It is a mechanical and illogical package that will not work. It will exacerbate unemployment, inflation will not be curbed, and by the time the Budget comes down we will see the disastrous effects that the package will have upon the Australian economy.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-The ministerial statement which is at present being debated by the Senate is the most important document which has confronted the Senate thus far in the life of the Thirtieth Parliament. In opening my remarks I wish to refer to a short passage from my maiden speech in the Senate. It appears on page 214 of Hansard of25 February 1976 and it states:

There are, of course, grave problems confronting the nation at this time. I suppose one must say that the 2 greatest problems we are facing are the twin evils of inflation and unemployment which are stalking the nation and ravaging the economy to such an extent that it is a matter of urgency for all of us to apply ourselves to the mammoth task of halting those evils and getting the country back on its feet.

Senator Gietzelt has just told the Senate that the aim of the Labor Government during its term of office was to produce a better life for the ordinary people of Australia. The people of Australia passed judgment on the performance of that Government on 13 December last. I can only say that the Labor Government’s efforts, as history has proved, were a dismal failure.

Tonight we are debating a package which is designed to get the nation back on its feet. In the short time at my disposal tonight I want to deal in detail with the various measures which the Government proposes to achieve this objective. The first and most important of these proposals is tax indexation. As the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) said in the other place, this is a reform of far reaching importance, because from the time we have had the affliction of inflation in this nation- it has been too long as all honourable senators will agree- whenever there has been a rise in wages the main beneficiary has been the Commissioner of Taxation. I think that this point has been vividly illustrated in a number of areas. It was brought home to me some time ago when a university professor in Victoria received an increase in salary. His salary was being subsidised by one-third by the Commonwealth Government. By the time the increase in salary and the increased tax had been worked out, the Commonwealth finished up getting more money back than it was putting in. That is the sort of situation which occurs under the existing system.

To define tax indexation briefly, it simply means that there is no increase in the tax rate when additional income accrues to the taxpayer. Because Senator Gietzelt, in particular, has some difficulty in grasping the principles of the Government’s proposals I think they are worth repeating. Senator Gietzelt said that our proposals will not put more money into the pockets of consumers. I repeat the words in the statement as reported at page 1 8 10 of Hansard of 20 May:

Take a person who had a taxable income of $10,000 in 1975- 76. In this case the marginal rate of tax for 1975-76 is 35c in the dollar on the amount of income between $5,000 and $10,000. If the same person had an income of $ 1 1,300 in 1976- 77, that is, an increase of 13 per cent, the margin rate on the extra $1,300 would, without indexation, be 45c in the dollar.

That is because the present rate for incomes over $10,000 is 45c in the dollar. The statement continues:

With indexation the rate on the extra $1,300 will stay at 35c thus reducing tax on it by $ 1 30.

The simple fact is that that will mean that the taxpayer has $130 a year more in his pocket. It will mean that he has $130 more to spend. A number of people have said to me in recent times and in not so recent times on this question of tax indexation that it is what is in the pay packet that ones takes home that matters, that that is what the average Australian looks at. The tax indexation proposal is an attempt by the Government to give every Australian taxpayer who is on a rising income more money in his pocket. Unfortunately one of the facts of life with inflation is that almost every taxpayer, apart from the primary producer, is on a rising income.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The endowment will not be in the pay packet.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I am coming to the question of endowment. I will deal with the question of endowment if the honourable senator will allow me to continue. The increased endowment payment will give more money to the average Australian, too.

Before I leave tax indexation I want to reaffirm the facts about take-home pay. Despite what our friends opposite say- they can argue about this whenever and wherever they like- tax indexation means more take-home pay for the Australian worker.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And you put on a Medibank levy to take it back again.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I will deal with Medibank, too. We also propose an increase from $400 to $500 in the rebate for a spouse, a daughterhousekeeper or a housekeeper. That is another incentive and will mean more take-home pay. The sole parent rebate is to be increased from $200 to $350. Indexation applies to rebates for certain other dependants, including invalid relatives, parents and parents-in-law.

Although I was proposing to deal with them anyway, ibr Senator O ‘Byrne’s benefit I turn to the family allowances. I congratulate the Government for recognising the family as the basic unit of society. Our Government stands for the preservation of the family.

Senator Keeffe:

– You could have fooled us.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

- Senator Keeffe is not easy to fool. In respect of family allowances the Government has dealt generously with all people in Australia on low incomes, including Aborigines. The aid goes to the area of greatest need. Although this has been said before, I want to say it again because people such as Senator

O’Byrne do not understand it. If Senator O’Byrne will listen I will explain to him that those in need get the real benefit under this scheme. We concede that the taxation deduction for children has been lost to the taxpayer. However, if the Labor Party had been aware of the advantages of this reform it would have introduced it. It is a matter of some comment that it did not do so. This reform is benefiting the very people who the Labor Party says are its supportersthe people on low incomes, the underprivileged and the people in greatest need.

The plain fact is that the taxation rebate is worth nothing to the man on $100 a week because he is non-taxable anyway. I will not read all the figures, as they are recorded in Hansard; but I refer to the taxpayer on $ 100 a week. Under the family allowances his wife- I agree that she is the person to whom it ought to go- will receive in respect of her 4 children $20.50 a week instead of $5.75. If the husband is on the breadline which, I suppose, today we would call $100 a week, the rebate is no good to him; so in terms of hard cash that family will be $15 a week better off. Yet we have Senator Gietzelt saying that this reform will not put more money into the pockets of consumers. The figures show that 300 000 Australian families will be better off under this proposal. They include Aboriginal families and families who are on incomes of $ 100 a week or on the so-called minimum wage or slightly above it. Families with 6 children will be $23 a week better off, which means that the family with $100 a week coming into the household will have a further $23 or 23 per cent more money coming in. Of course, not all families have 6 children but every one of those 300 000 families will be better off. There will be more money to spend. Yet Senator Gietzelt had the temerity to say that a man with 10 children would be worse off under this scheme. He is no longer in the chamber -

Senator Wright:

– On his arithmetic.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– On his arithmetic. I thank Senator Wright. There is another important factor in the package deal proposed by this legislation, and that is that it will stimulate the economy. It is notorious that Australians with families spend their money; they do not put it away. As a result, our Government has the hope and expectation that these measures will stimulate the economy.

The third important matter in this package deal is Medibank. We have heard a great deal about Medibank and we will hear a lot more about it. There are 2 things I would like to say, and I would like Senator Keeffe to listen. It ought to be stated that there is no way in which the Australian economy or any other economy can survive without some form of contributory scheme. Labor thought it was in Utopia for 3 years, but the people of Australia brought it back to reality in December last. A cost of $2,000m is quoted in respect of Medibank. That is 6.4 per cent of Budget expenditure. We cannot spend the whole of the revenue on Medibank, particularly when the people of Australia- I am not talking about the people who will still receive Medibank -

Senator O’Byrne:

– You told them you would not do anything about Medibank.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-That is all right. The people of Australia in the pre-Medibank days were accustomed to contributing to friendly societies, hospital benefit associations and so forth for this kind of cover. Even in those days the person who did not contribute was like the man who drives an uninsured motor car. He risked his assets. Any prudent person insured himself and paid the cost of insurance. He was prepared to pay for it.

Senator Keeffe:

– What if they could not afford it?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I am coming to that. Fortunately, I would say that everybody in this chamber could afford to pay, but there are certain Australians who cannot afford it and they will be looked after.

Senator Keeffe:

– About 30 per cent of them.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– If the honourable senator will listen to me he will learn that they will not have to pay any more than they pay now by way of tax. The man on $ 100 a week will be no worse off. The second point I want to make is that Medibank facilities will still be available to every Australian. It is true that there will be options -

Senator Keeffe:

– Did you say ‘auctions’ or options’?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Options. Any Australian who wishes to remain in Medibank will be perfectly free to do so, and the Government will look after him. As I said earlier, a health scheme has to be contributory. I do not know how our friends opposite expected to pay for Medibank without a levy, unless that is why they had such a huge deficit. They embarked on schemes without looking at how they would pay for them. In the long run, when the Government spends money the taxpayer pays and it does not matter very much whether he pays by way of a contribution or levy or through general revenue, because the money has to come from somewhere. Our

Government is looking after the poor, the underprivileged and those who cannot afford to make a contribution, but it is saying also that those on an income of over $9,000 a year will be required to make a contribution. As I have said, they can either make that contribution and stay in Medibank or they can opt to go into a medical benefits organisation and thus have the hospital and the doctor of their choice. This gives them the freedom of choice which is implicit in the philosophy which we on this side of the chamber espouse. In providing that freedom of choice we are doing no more than we promised the electors of Australia on 1 3 December that we would do. The Age newspaper set out the costs today. I do not think that they are very frightening to anyone. The basic medical cover plus free standard ward hospital care costs 2.5 per cent of taxable income to a maximum of $5.80 a week if a person stays in Medibank. The basic medical cover plus intermediate ward care in a public hospital costs 2.5 per cent.

Senator Keeffe:

-Why do you not get it incorporated? We have all read the Age.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– All right, if the honourable senator is prepared to have these figures incorporated in Hansard I would be happy to do so, Mr President. But I do think that the figures bear repeating. The point I want to make is that in an attempt to frighten the people of Australia all sorts of incorrect statements are being made about what Medibank is going to cost. The contributory system will cost them basically no more than they were paying before Medibank was introduced. I continue with the figures quoted in today’s Age newspaper. Basic medical cover plus intermediate ward care in a public hospital will cost 2.5 per cent of taxable income plus about $2.80 a week for a family, payable to a private health fund. Basic medical cover plus private ward care in a public hospital, which would be enough to cover some private hospital ward care, will cost 2.5 per cent of taxable income plus about $4 a week. If a person were to opt out of Medibank this coverage would cost a little over $8 a week.

The final category applies to basic medical cover plus private hospital cover for charges of up to $86 a day. This is the fee charged in Victoria now. I am not aware of the figure for other States but one must be realistic and realise that today medical services cost money. Wages have escalated by 100 per cent and the cost of all other services in hospitals have escalated, so this is a figure which is applicable today. Within that category if a person stays in Medibank it will cost him 2.5 per cent of taxable income plus about $5.60 a week or, if he opts out of Medibank, $9.50 to $10 a week. So if any parliamentarian wants to opt out of Medibank it will cost him something like $500 a year for the best medical service he can get in Australia- the medical service of his choice. I do not think that anyone could complain about that.

Finally, in the time allotted to me, I wish to say a few words about education. I want to congratulate the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) on the details of his proposals which were disclosed in his statement to the Senate. We heard Senator Wriedt saying: ‘The Minister is opting out on education’. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a difficult financial climate- in a tight budgetary situation- the Minister for Education has produced a remarkable document which actually increases the expenditure on education above the expenditure of the previous Government on education. The important thing about the education program is that we will be returning to triennial funding. We will have a triennial program on a rolling basis as distinct from the fixed basis which existed prior to 1976. Of course, our friends on the other side of the chamber when in government finished up in as bad a situation in respect of education as they did in other areas. They had to opt for a single year program in 1976; they could not go on with the triennial program. The Minister has now given us a triennial program.

Having sat on a government education committee in recent weeks and having heard the views of the people of the Schools Commission and of other experts in the field of education I want to say that all these people indicated that they considered the triennial system to be the only one. They considered the rolling triennial system to be good because it preserves some elasticitysome provision for changing circumstances in various courses. It is important for an education program to be for 3 years because there cannot be a stop-go POliCY from year to year in education. The fact is that there will be an increase in real terms of $47m in expenditure by the education commissions in 1 977. 1 do not have the time to cover the detail canvassed by the Minister. It is only under triennial funding that educational institutions can engage in the planning which is necessary to ensure the efficient utilisation of resources over the whole field of education. I commend the statement to the Senate as a major step and as a first instalment towards putting Australia back on its feet.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Leader of Senator Tehan ‘s Party, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), made 2 famous statements during the general election campaign. One was that he aimed to ‘put Australia back on its feet’. Obviously Australians must be suffering from rickets because they cannot even kneel. The second claim was that: ‘We will put on the lights’. Either nobody can find the switch or the bulbs have all blown. I must pass a couple or remarks on the comments made by a couple of honourable senators from the Government side who have spoken in this debate tonight. One was Senator Martin, who made a thoughtful but very superficial speech. I do not need to make further comment on that. The speaker who has just sat down either ought to have sacked his research officer or, alternatively, if he has carried out his research himself, he ought to reread some of his material. He went to very great pains to tell us why we needed some sort of contributory scheme in order that Medibank might survive. In this Parliament, and in this chamber in particular, when the Labor Party when in government wanted to introduce a 1.35 per cent levy, the people on the other side of the chamber blocked Bill after Bill which was introduced to impose this levy. They did not allow the legislation to go through. But now they are prepared to charge a 2V4 per cent levy. It is like the super taxes that Mr Fraser imposes every time he picks up a biro. We heard also from the honourable senator who preceded me in this debate, Senator Tehan, that prior to Medibank everybody in the community was covered for medical care. He knows that he is telling a blatant untruth and nothing else. Up to 30 per cent of the people in this country, particularly the migrants and the Aborigines, did not have any cover at all and they died -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Keeffe! You know that you must not charge any honourable senator with telling lies. An untruth is a lie so that word must be withdrawn.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Sir, I never used the word lie’. If you are under the impression that I used it I shall withdraw it. I used the word ‘untruth’, which I understand is a parliamentary word. I applied it to the honourable senator on the other side of the chamber because he made an incorrect statement. There are thousands of people in this country -

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– You read Hansard tomorrow.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is all right for the honourable senator. He is one ofthe landed gentry. He is a wealthy man and can afford to pay a thousand dollars a year in some club. He probably pays it into 10 clubs, including his medical clubs. But many thousands of people in this country had no cover at all and died as a result because they could not afford medical treatment. The Government proposes to create exactly the same situation again. It proposes to force people outside the universal cover that the Labor Party established. I think that the universal cover was fair enough. But that is not the sort of thing the Government wants. It wants the companies to wax fat and to indulge in real estate purchasing and it wants to help the doctors. At a later stage in this Parliament I will expose doctors who have acted as thieves in the community. Senator Tehan knows that they are acting as thieves. They were people who, like the honourable senator, were opposed to Medibank. But they were prepared to be common, garden thieves and to fill in three or four requisitions a day in order to rip the money off Medibank. They are the honourable senator’s friends. He approves of them. Do not let us fiddle around. Let us be honest about this. The honourable senator is not even being honest.

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, I suggest that we would be much happier and the debate would be improved if Senator Keeffe moderated his language and behaviour slightly.

The PRESIDENT:

-Moderation in language is always necessary in this chamber. I call Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr President. I am sorry that the Minister is a little upset about this. One problem about Ministers on that side of the Senate is that they can never stand the truth.

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I think we have just about had enough of Senator Keeffe. If he wants to go on like this and if he persists in it then the consequences in due course will be on his own head. We do not need to have this kind of debate. There is no need for it. There is no help in it. Why does he not calm down?

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out to honourable senators that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. They must be maintained. I call Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr President. I appreciate your advice. I am not even angry. But if Senator Cotton keeps probing me like that I might get angry.

Senator Cotton:

– Oh, for goodness ‘ sake!

Senator KEEFFE:

-Now, Senator Cotton, do not get upset about the matter. I am not trying to be angry with the honourable senator. I realise it has been a long session and that we are all getting a bit tired. Let us have a look at some of the other things which Mr Lynch put into his document. One of the first things he will do is tax the service pensioners. I assume that honourable senators on the Government side are happy about that. Servicemen served in various wars on behalf of this country. It was governments which honourable senators opposite supported which in every instance sent them to war. The Government told them that they would be looked after when they came back. Now the Government is happy to do the sort of things it said, before it sent servicemen away, that it would not do. The final comment I make in relation to our friend on the other side of the Senate, Senator Tehan, is that he said that people subscribing under a contributory scheme would pay no more than they paid before the introduction of Medibank. That is not true. He went on in the next breath to say that people would be paying up to $500 a year. Under the old system which was introduced by the Labor Government, had we been allowed to use the contributory system or the levy system the most that any politician would have paidthey are on a pretty high income-would have been about $100 plus. Now, of course, the honourable senator is quite happy to think that the payment will be $500 plus. But I ask: What about people outside who are not on the incomes we receive?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– They will not be paying $500.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Does not the honourable senator care about them at all? Of course he does not care about them. I suggest that if he stopped his rather inane interjections we would probably get on with the debate in a much more conciliatory manner. I say that the motives behind the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) are not clear. Incidentally, his statement is like the present Prime Minister’s campaign statement in 1975. Neither of them knew what they were going to do. Neither of them now knows what they are going to do. Presumably, the Treasurer’s statement is designed to improve business confidence so that the inflation rate will decrease because consumers will go berserk and this will lead to a recovery from the inflationary situation which we now face. But it is more likely that the proposals contained in the Treasurer’s statement will have the opposite effect on the nation’s economy. After we get over the first few weeks of excitement or euphoria or whatever we like to call it- particularly in relation to tax indexation and increased child endowment- we will find that consumers have not been stimulated into spending their money and that unemployment has increased with the massive cutbacks. This is precisely what the Government is doing.

The people in the Northern Territory will be the first to suffer.

Senator Kilgariff:

-They have been suffering for years.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Of course they have been suffering for many years. But under the Liberal Government they will suffer twice as much. I hope the honourable senator enjoys it. Child endowment and tax indexation in themselves are largely illusory. As I mentioned a moment ago, the severe Medibank levy which the Government is about to impose will remove the benefits of Medibank except at the bottom and the top of the scale. Senator Tehan was very careful to refer only to the bottom of the scale. What he did not mention was that people at the top of the scale will be even better off.

These are the results which the proposals in the statement will cause in the community. There will be increased unemployment as a result of the drastic reduction in public expenditure, especially in the construction industry. There will be no positive effects on consumer confidence. The Government may slow down inflation but it will be at the expense of consumer confidence and employment. We know that West Germany was able to reduce its inflation rate, but it was at the expense of building up unemployment to about 3 times the original figure. The Government’s proposals will have drastic effects on the outer suburbs which are largely dependent on industries such as building and construction and on local government projects and transport. All of these industries have suffered in the Lynch statement. There will be massive unemployment and stagnation in the Northern Territory due to the $50m cutback. I do not know whether Senator Kilgariff can give us the exact amount because it has been carefully hidden in the Lynch statement. If he is privy to the amount of cutback in the Northern Territory- I forecast that it will be not less than $50m- then maybe he will tell the chamber at a later date. I suspect that Mr Lynch will not tell the National Country Party of Australia anything.

There will be a major downgrading of important and essential services to and in the cities such as transport, local government, building and construction, decentralisation and land development. There will be increased land development speculation and this will increase the cost to the home buyer. What one pays for land is the base cost when one is building a new home. We have seen that in the Australian Capital Territory. Under a Labor Government land costs assumed a respectable proportion of the total cost but now the Government is trying to stimulate land development so that people will be charged, just for a little home block, money which they cannot afford. We will be back to the stage where the Government will demand that the female in every married couple will go on the pill for 5 years so that the married couple can cope with repayments by having 2 incomes. But under the Government’s system only one of the couple will have a job anyway because that is the ambition of the Government. There will be massive cuts in the States’ specific purpose grants. There will be an introduction of double taxation by the States. It does not matter what the Government calls it. The Government has introduced it, so that financial assistance grants do not fall below the level outlined by the Whitlam formula. Even in the Northern Territory double taxation has been introduced. Apparently the Country Party senator for the Northern Territory approves of this. There will be increased rentals and charges right across the board. I have not heard the honourable senator for the Northern Territory say one word against these proposals. From his silence one can assume that he approves of them.

The limited time that we have in this debate is rather unfortunate because a whole lot of things ought to be exposed. The policy of the LiberalCountry Party Government on economic matters is simply to decrease inflation. By that the Government will create a large pool of unemployment. The Government has now introduced wide-ranging stipulations in relation to whether a person can get unemployment benefit, and as a result many people in this country are actually starving. We had a lady in my office the other day who was offered some $8 or $9 by the local children’s services because the Government had set such rigid controls on her that she was taken off the supporting mothers’ benefit. Does that worry honourable senators? Of course it does not.

The Government will go to any extent to create increased unemployment. It has aggravated this situation by deciding at this very crucial point in our history to increase the immigration intake over the next 12 months. But the cutbacks, while increasing unemployment, will not have the desired effect of encouraging the consumer to spend his way out of the recession. In fact, quite the opposite will occur. People who are on a weekly wage will not be prepared to spend even a major proportion of that weekly wage because they will not know what the Government has in store for them tomorrow.

I want to refer to two or three of the areas for which I am responsible on behalf of the Opposition. In the course of my remarks I will ask for leave to incorporate some documents in order to save time and I hope I will receive the cooperation of the Senate. In relation to the Bureau of Meteorology- and already we know so little about weather patterns- the Government has decided to cut down. I was interested in a newspaper report today which stated that a spent rocket shell nad crashed and set up a large bushfire. The reason nobody knew it was there was that the radar was closed down for the night. In the first 6 months of this Government’s regime we had cyclones in Queensland and we did not know when they were coming because things were closed down. The Government wanted to save money at the expense of lives and tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage. Does that worry the Government? At some time in the future when everything is closed down overnight and at the weekend other objects might fly in from the atmosphere and the Government will not know what has happened because probably it will not be around when it happens.

In the Northern Territory the massive cutbacks will lead to financial and economic stagnation. I know that the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory, with some 15, 16 or 17 Country Party members, is quite happy about it. Those members are not a bit interested in whether there is massive unemployment. They are not a bit interested in whether the reconstruction of Darwin goes on. Those are not the things that really worry them. What they are worried about is being able to take possession of Aboriginal lands and prevent the passage of the Bill through this Parliament. They are worried about re-establishing the beef market. The decision to make the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly implement increases in electricity, water and sewerage charges, stamp duties and motor vehicle registration, as well as a few other things, will place a great burden on people already living in very harsh and isolated conditions. If that is not a subtle way of introducing double taxation, then I hope the honourable senator for the Northern Territory will tell me what is.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I will.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I know. You are probably quite happy about it. You can afford to pay it, but think of a few workers around the Territory who cannot afford it. Are you worried about them or not?

Senator Kilgariff:

– No, I am just worried that you do not understand.

Senator KEEFFE:

– You are not worried about them; you have agreed with that. In addition, by subscribing to the infamous Lynch document, you have also proved that you are quite happy about rentals being increased, as well as other charges at the Federal level.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I think you are a poor shadow Minister.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Are you happy about all the capital works being deferred? Are you happy about the construction of the school in Alice Springs being deferred? If you are happy about those things, I hope that you will say so publicly. If you are not happy about them, I hope you have the courage to get up and say you are not happy.

Senator Wright:

– There are fully 4 supporters behind the Deputy Leader.

Senator KEEFFE:

-One of these days we will deport the honourable senator to the Northern Territory, particularly to the Alligator River, and I hope that a big crocodile gets him. Let me say that the sorts of things to which I referred before the interruption are going to impose further hardship on the people of the Northern Territory. I know that my colleague Senator Robertson is most upset about it, and I hope that the Country Party senator and that man in the other place affectionately known as Silent Sam will also be heard to protest on this occasion. The other field where this Government has decided to impose massive cuts- on the figures disclosed to date, not less than 26 per cent and probably not less than 50 per cent, when the final figures are known- is in the field of Aboriginal affairs. Let me read to honourable senators what Mr Bob Ellicott, now the Attorney-General but then the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, said in a telegram which he forwarded to many Aboriginal leaders and to all Aboriginal communities at the taxpayers’ expense. This is one of the promises that the leader of the then caretaker Government, or whatever it was, made to the then Governor-General- I suppose he is still the Governor-General- when he said that the caretaker Government would not interfere. This very expensive telegram was sent, and I will refer to 3 sentences contained in it. It was said that there would be no cuts in the Aboriginal Affairs budget or in Aboriginal programs. It further stated:

Under a Liberal-Country Party Government Aborigines will be better not worse oft”.

Still further, Mr Ellicott said:

Urge Aborigines to vote Liberal-Country-Party on December 13.

After promising them all those things, what is the Government doing today? It is starving the kiddies on the settlements; it is starving the Aborigines of the settlements. There is a program to sack almost every black employee in the head office in Canberra of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and yet the Government says that it is helping them. This would be about the most racist government that this country has ever seen, and there were some racist governments prior to 1972.

I want to make brief reference to an item which appeared tonight on A Current Affair, and this is symbolic of what is happening in the community. I am delighted that Pastor Sir Douglas Nicholls has been appointed as the new Governor of South Australia. It is a tribute to his integrity, it is a tribute to his ability as a man, and it is a great tribute to the Aboriginal people. But tonight on A Current Affair- I think that is the name of the program- a character asked a question about whether Sir Douglas and Lady Nicholls would be able to cope with their social functions. The fact that they are black does not mean that they cannot cope. I know both of the Nicholls very well indeed, and they can cope much more completely and with much greater dignity than many people on the other side ofthe chamber. If that is the sort of symbolism that is portrayed on behalf of the Government, then no doubt Government senators approve of what was said on that television program and they ought to be ashamed of it.

Yesterday I made a fairly short Press statement in relation to cuts in the Aboriginal Affairs budget. Today the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) in a moment of great excitement denied my allegations that the Aboriginal Legal Service would disappear as a result of the Government’s economic measures announced last week by the Treasurer. Mr A. A. Nicolson, Area Officer, Eastern, for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, said in a letter to the Aboriginal Legal Service on 10 May 1976:

I am concerned, however, that in the present economic climate the Aboriginal Legal Service (N.S.W.) is unlikely to be able to afford to maintain an entirely separate service for its existing clients independent of the existing legal assistance scheme.

That bears out what the permanent head of the Department said only a few weeks ago in one of the Sunday newspapers, when he intimated that there was a desire to include the Legal Service in one of the existing Government organisations. That is not what the blacks of this country want. They want a legal service what will give them particular attention because of the indignities they have suffered over the last 200 years.

Senator Kilgariff:

-The last 3 years.

Senator KEEFFE:

– In the last 3 years of Labor Government the Aborigines, for the first time in this country, were treated as human beings. Now the Government is reducing them to a position of indignity because people like the honourable senator, who is one of the representatives of the Country Party, exploited the blacks for 200 years. The honourable senator wants to go back to that system. I am ashamed of him, and I did not think that he would ever make a statement like that in a public place. In the few minutes remaining to me I wish to refer to the recent leak in the Murdoch Press about the Redfern housing project. As far as I am concerned, the Hay Committee is a useless committee. It is merely building up a propaganda machine so that by progressive leaks the people who today comprise the Government of this country can get wide public opinion on their side for the cutbacks that they are dying to introduce in Aboriginal Affairs. I wish to quote instances from South Australia which indicate quite clearly that money has been well spent in this area and homes built at a price cheaper than it costs to build homes for whites. At Coober Pedy 1 1 -square concrete houses cost $28,000 to build and dugout houses cost $10,000 to build. I ask honourable senators to compare this with the average cost of $40,000 for a white man’s home. In- addition 9 Aborigines are employed in the construction of houses. Eight houses have been built at Oodnadatta at a cost of $15,000 each. Three Aborigines were employed in this construction. If anybody wants to search the record these figures can be proved. At Davenport outside Port Augusta 14 homes have been completed at a cost of $29,000 each. At Ernabella 1 5 houses have been built at a cost of $18,000 to $20,000 each, depending on the size of the house. Yet the coalition parties choose by a planned leak to rubbish the Redfern scheme. The figures that were quoted are not true.

Before finishing my speech I shall refer to the Aboriginal Legal Aid Office. It was established by volunteers and by some of the best legal practitioners in this country. There is obviously a plan by the Government to dispose of it as soon as possible. Whether this is to be done to look after private practitioners who need the money I do not know. I have here a number of statutory declarations setting out some complaints against police at Menindee in New South Wales. I believe that this ought to be recorded as one ofthe areas of need. I also have a statement which has been signed by 3 ladies from the Menindee caravan site which sets out complaints against police. I hope that we can keep the Aboriginal Legal Aid Office because for the Aboriginal and Island people it is one of the essentials. In order not to take up the time of the Senate and as there is nothing obscene in the statutory declarations or the statement I ask that they be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Menindee Caravan Site The Senate Parliament of Australia Canberra

We three women, undersigned are residents of the Menindee Aboriginal Caravan Site. We speak for and on behalf of ourselves, our families and the Aboriginal people of Menindee.

Late last Friday night 16th April 1976 our homes were threatened by a drunk policeman, casually dressed, assisted by two of his local mates. He pointed a pistol directly at a harmless drunk and a sober and respectable mother without any need or cause.

It was very frightening that this could happen to us in our homes and very dangerous because somebody could have been shot for no reason at all.

We feel very concerned because this type of behaviour only happens against Aboriginal people.

We are writing to the Parliament about this because there is nothing else we can do. Whenever we complain about a policeman’s behaviour nothing happens.

We hope that the Parliament will look into the matter and help us get a fair go.

Yours faithfully, Margaret Philip Pam Williams Yvonne Sloane (No. 135)

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Margaret Philip of Aboriginal Caravan Site, Menindee, Home Duties in the State of New South Wales do solemnly and sincerely declare that

On Friday night 16th April, 1976 at the Aboriginal Caravan Site Menindee I saw Constable Bernard Brougham out of uniform and unsteady on his feet point a gun at the head of Larry King.

Larry King was entering the caravan quietly and without disturbing the peace.

The Constable together with two non-policemen who were travelling in a police van arrested Larry King for drunkeness on the Aboriginal Site.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1900.

Philip

Subscribed and declared at Menindee this 5th day of May one thousand nine hundred and seventy six before me

Form 177

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Ron Riley (elected Member of the New South Wales Aboriginal Advisory Council and Aboriginal Lands Trust) of 206 Wills Street, Broken Hill in the State of New South Wales, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

On Friday 16th April 1976, about midnight at the Aboriginal Caravan Site, Menindee I saw Constable Bernard Brougham point a gun at Larry King and Pam Williams.

There was no disturbance or breach of the peace to warrant such action by the police.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1900 (as amended).

Ron Riley

Subscribed and declared at Sydney this 14th day of May one thousand nine hundred and seventy six before me (No. 135)

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Yvonne Sloane of Aboriginal Caravan Site, Menindee, Home Duties in the State of New South Wales do solemnly and sincerely declare that

I saw Constable Bernard Brougham point a gun at Larry King on Friday night 16th April 1976, at the Aboriginal Caravan Site.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1900.

Yvonne Sloane

Subscribed and declared at Menindee this 29th day of April one thousand nine hundred and seventy six before me (No. 135)

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Pam Williams of Aboriginal Caravan Site, Menindee, Home Duties in the State of New South Wales do solemnly and sincerely declare that

On Friday night 16th April 1976, at the Aboriginal Caravan Site, Menindee, I saw Constable Bernard Brougham swing Larry King around and point a gun at his back.

The Constable then pointed the gun at me while I was standing at the door of my caravan and asked me some questions about a car.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1900.

Pamela Williams

Subscribed and declared at Menindee this 29th day of April one thousand nine hundred and seventy six before me

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank you, Mr President, and I thank the Senate. There are a massive number of things in the Lynch document which make it one of worst and most obscure financial documents that has even been presented in this Parliament. We do not know what the cuts are in Aboriginal affairs and health. We do not know what the cuts are in grants to the States. We do not know what the cuts are in education, because nobody is telling and I forecast that we will not be told until these cuts are implemented or are about to be implemented. The Government ought to come clean. Honourable senators opposite should tell the constituents or voters of this country- the people who formerly supported them, the small majority in terms of percentage which voted for them on 13December 1975- the nature of these cuts. They ought to come clean and tell the people what they propose to do. I forecast that if an election were held tomorrow they would not survive because they pulled the political wool over the electors’ eyes prior to 13 December by fear tactics and everything that goes with them and now they are trying to do so by financial fear tactics. But they will not succeed. As far as I am concerned it is Labor in 1978, and honourable senators opposite are finished.

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

– When listening to speakers on the other side I noted one thing which I have found continually since I joined this chamber, namely, that we constantly hear phrases like social conscience, quality of life and equal apportunity. It seems to me that members on the other side of the House reckon that they have a monopoly on social conscience and that they have a monopoly to establish quality of life. I feel that they are constantly talking about conscience as they have a guilty conscience. They have a guilty conscience because they did not do anything during their 3 years of office for those most in need.

Socialists all over the world talk about a conscience and how aware they are of the social needs of people underprivileged in every aspect. The fact is that all their talking is nothing but a facade; it is nothing but a Potemkin village. They are trying to tell the people that there is something behind the Potemkin village, but when the people come to that Potemkin village they find nothing behind it. I am proud that I chose Australia as my new home. The Australian people have shown that they have seen through the facade of socialist jargon and socialist theatre. They showed on 13 December clearly what they think about the so-called quality of life under socialism.

Let us look a bit afar and at the quality of life in socialist countries. Who has ever seen anyone happy in the Soviet Union? Who wants that kind of quality of life? Has any honourable senator ever been to Sweden and seen the quality of life there? Sweden has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

Senator Grimes:

– That is nonsense, and you know it.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-It is a fact which the honourable senator can read in any book on Sweden today. Have honourable senators seen the quality of life in Yugoslavia? Why is it necessary for a socialist regime that practices equal opportunity to allow 600 000 to 700 000 of its men in their best ages to go to work for the capitalist exploiters? Why do these men not stay in a socialist paradise? Why do they go to western Europe to be exploited by the capitalist exploiters? There are no answers to that. These are the facts. Honourable senators opposite talk about equality of opportunity. They talk about migrants being industrial fodder. Who prevents migrants from becoming skilled tradesmen? Who else but the trade unions, the great so called protectors of the migrants? Some of them, I must admit, are very favourably inclined to migrants, but many of them hinder any migrant who has no qualifications.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Your mates were burning them in the gas ovens.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- Order! I ask Senator O’Byrne and Senator McAuliffe, who are interjecting, to allow the speaker to proceed.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-The point is that they do not allow migrants with skills brought from their old countries to exercise their trades and they make them industrial fodder.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They were burning them in the gas ovens- millions of them.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I will name honourable senators if they do not keep silent.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA · ALP
Senator Young:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I heard Senator O’Byrne refer to Senator Lajovic as a fascist. Unless Senator O’Byrne makes it perfectly clear that he did not, I will ask that he be named. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy Chairman, I ask Senator O’Byrne: Did you or did you not call Senator Lajovic a fascist?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! I have been asked a question. Senator O’Byrne did interject. I was trying to catch the word. Now that Senator Young has mentioned it my mind is clear that the word was fascist. I ask Senator O ‘Byrne to withdraw it.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I did not call him a fascist.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. The word that Senator O’Byrne used by way of interjection was not fascist, which would have been directed of course to the speaker. The word that he used was ‘fascists’. He used the plural. In using the plural -

Senator Wright:

-Why should the Chair be bothered with this nonsense about plural or singular?

Senator Georges:

– If honourable senators opposite want to object individually to being called fascists, by all means let them rise and do so. Senator 0 ‘Byrne used the plural. By using the plural he was not directing his remarks against Senator Lajovic. ‘Fascists’ is the word Senator O ‘Byrne used. I think Senator Young has taken the wrong point of order. He should have been listening more carefully.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order or a point of explanation. As the debate was developing Senator Lajovic was pointing out how much better some countries in Europe were than others. I pointed out by interjection, which was of course disorderly, that the Europe from which he came was a fascist Europe and that the skills of many people there were the skills of burning people in gas ovens. These people were fascists. I am quite entitled to refer to that.

Senator Wright:

– This is only a speech to interrupt our speaker.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I was challenged by Senator Young. I am raising a point of personal explanation or a point of order.

Senator Wright:

– This is ridiculous. This is not a point of order. The honourable senator is out of order.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You go on with it then. You are out of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- Order! I have had an explanation from Senator O’Byrne. It is quite clear in my mind that the way in which the expression was used indicated that Senator Lajovic was a fascist. I ask Senator O’Byrne to withdraw the remark.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He did not use it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I am saying that he did.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I did not say it, and I will not withdraw it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder! I am giving my interpretation. As far as I am concerned, the way in which it was said clearly indicated that it was meant to refer to Senator Lajovic.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I object to your interpretation, Mr Acting Deputy President. I did not say it in relation to Senator Lajovic. I referred to the people whom he was building up, the ones he knew in Europe.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Will you clearly deny that you intended it to refer to Senator Lajovic?

Senator O’Byrne:

-I deny it, yes.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTUnder those circumstances the request is withdrawn.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– The Government’s initiative last Thursday is proof that a non-socialist government cares for people in need while the socialists only talk about it. Socialists all over the world are the same. Australian socialists are no exception. They preach an ideology which has no substance. The people realise that when the socialists get into power. The picture of that beautiful paradise about which they preach is soon shown to be not so nice.

The increased family allowances announced by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and their effect on underprivileged families, I feel, are one of the most important steps that this Government or any government has taken. It will have a great effect on migrant families. The Henderson report showed clearly that migrants are one of the underprivileged classes in Australia. It is a fact that one in 4 children born in Australia after the war has at least one parent who was born overseas. If 800 000 children will benefit by the increased family allowances, that means that 200 000 children of migrants will be among them. No government has done that before. Therefore I congratulate the Fraser Government on this step.

There is another subject about which I would like to talk, and that is the function and role of ethnic radio. Some people call it a foreign language broadcast. A very talkative journalist said in the newspapers today that we are talking in tongues. A big argument is developing about the pro and contra of ethnic radio as such. This journalist said that it is a big political blockbuster because there is a real danger of division in the Australian community. If there is division in the Australian community, it was brought about artificially by the previous Government. We did not have any divisions of class or race until the advent of the great leader who wanted to save Australia and to make Australia another socialist state. This is the field of the socialists. They want to divide everyone, to make divisions in the society. That is their objective. Ethnic radio, foreign language broadcast, or whatever it is called, is here to stay. I am sure of one thing: It will be better, and it will serve the initial purpose of setting up such stations. Many stations are broadcasting in a foreign language.

Senator Messner:

– The Adelaide station is a community effort.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-I believe so. An ethnic radio station performs 2 functions. The first is for migrants in general. The second, I feel, is for native Australians. I would like to speak about each function individually. The first function is for migrants. I feel that the role of ethnic radio would be directed mainly to new arrivals from overseas. They should be told in their own language about the Australian way of life, about the services which the Commonwealth Government provides and about the numerous facilities which are provided by local, State and Federal governments. I feel that the second major function of ethnic radio would be in the learning of the English language. I must criticise very strongly the Australian Broadcasting Commission which has over the last 25 years broadcast an English lesson at a quarter past six in the morning. I would like to know who has ever learnt a foreign language at a quarter past six in the morning. I feel that a certain percentage of the time allocated in ethnic radio to each ethnic community, especially for those who have arrived in Australia recently, should be devoted to the teaching of English by their country men who speak their own language. It is absolutely useless for somebody to tell a non English-speaking migrant what is a glass of water or a glass of wine. The migrant does not understand what the person is talking about.

The third objective of ethnic radio should be to maintain the link with the Old Country. I know that there are certain gentlemen who say that there should not be any link with the Old Country. However, I would like to see such gentlemen go overseas and not know one word of the language in the country to which they went. How long would they be able to enjoy themselves, not hearing one word of English? That is the third objective which ethnic radio should encompass. Another aspect should be directed to long-established migrants in this country. Again, in this direction the link with the Old Country should be emphasised. Everyone likes to listen to the music from the Old Country, irrespective of from where they come. I am sure that at least one honourable senator opposite would like to listen to the Scottish pipes. I am sure that somebody else would like to listen to a song sung in his native tongue. Migrants like to listen to the traditions and cultures of their former countries. It must be an objective of ethnic radio to enlighten migrants about the facilities which I have mentioned previously.

I would like to make this point: It is important that ethnic radio continues because nobody can understand the loneliness of women who are unable to speak English, who are at home all day and who crave for the broadcast in their own language. Another suggestion that I hope will be taken up is that each hour broadcast in a foreign language would include a segment broadcast in the English language. That would fill 2 purposes: First, it would enable the young generation of Australians born of migrant parents who do not speak their own language to learn something about their old countries. It would also give an opportunity to the Australians in general to find out the traditions, customs, music and literature from the other countries which today are not well known. It would help anyone who travels to the Continent to be able to understand the countries to which they travel. It would make those people interested enough to listen more tolerant of new Australians. I am sure that there will be much criticism of ethnic radio. People will say that we should learn English and speak only English. But when you travel to a foreign country, you want to hear news from your old country. I know that when I travelled overseas I was aghast to find out that nobody ever mentioned Australia in the newspapers of France, Germany or Italy. I imagine that the same thing is happening to so many new arrivals in Australia. They do not receive any news from their old countries.

In conclusion, I would like to say this: I hope that we will have first-class ethnic radio broadcasts. But I hope also that there will be no politics in it, whether they be Australian politics or politics from the old countries. It is very easy to bring up old quarrels and feuds by quoting from the wrong history book or by playing the wrong musical item. I hope that the new ethnic radio which will be formulated in the near future will take care of all those problems. It is important that we do not make for more animosity among different ethnic groups in this country. It is important that we forget our old animosities because we are in Australia. I am sure that with the Fraser Government we will be able to build a country full of freedom which will give expression to the wishes of every Australian.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– We have just listened to a speech by Senator Lajovic which, except in the opening remarks, has done nothing but heap abuse upon the hospitality ofthe Australian people. Senator Lajovic has a very short memory. He forgets that it was an Australian Labor government which offered the hospitality of this country and of its people to the migrants from the European countries and other areas. It was under the guidance of the late Arthur Calwell, the then Minister for Immigration, who has been praised from all sides of politics, even by Sir Robert Menzies, because of his actions as Minister for Immigration. Yet, tonight Senator Lajovic has tried to belittle the Australian Labor Party and to use the Senate as a platform to heap abuse upon the hospitality of every Australian. I think that when he reads his speech tomorrow he will regret that he made those remarks. He also stated that the Australian Labor Party had set out to divide the Australian people. The honourable senator’s remarks tonight have done more to divide the people of this nation than any remarks I have ever heard uttered. He deliberately set out to divide the people and to decry the hospitality of the Australian people. Senator O’Byrne, who had an illustrious Air Force career, who suffered in the horror camps in Europe as a prisoner-of-war to protect people like the honourable senator opposite and who fought for their freedom, rose tonight to take issue with the remarks by Senator Lajovic. The Acting Deputy President and Senator Young asked Senator O’Byrne to withdraw the remarks which he made against the people who had -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- Order! Senator McLaren, you must not cast a reflection upon the Chair.

Senator McLAREN:

– I did not cast any reflection. I am only repeating what was said here in trying to belittle Senator O’Byrne whom I am proud to have as a comrade on this side of the Senate. I am proud to have him as a comrade for the efforts that he put in to defend not only the freedom of Australians but also the freedom of people like Senator Lajovic.

I rise tonight to express my grave concern and my great disgust at the manner in which this Government has drastically cut finances for a great number of essential services in this country. There was a firm commitment on the part of the Whitlam Government which this Government gave an undertaking to honour to the electors when it was seeking their support at the election on 13 December last. The present Government obtained that support. But we now find tht promises made last year mean nothing this year. Let me refer to some quotations from the now Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) which were made during that election campaign. These I have taken from a transcript of a speech that he made on Sunday, 30 November 1975, at Croydon Park in Melbourne when he was endeavouring to get the support of the electors of this country. He did obtain that support. I have taken out 3 different quotations which are pertinent to the remarks I intend to make this evening. The first quotation from the present Prime Minister is:

Who do these people really care for?

He was referring to the Australian Labor Party:

  1. . the people they have betrayed or themselves?

We know from the legislation which has gone through this Parliament that the Prime Minister cares for himself. We have to look only at the superphosphate bounty. One of the first pieces of legislation that the Prime Minister’s Government introduced into the Parliament was that legislation so that he could be a recipient of the taxpayers’ funds. I turn to the second quotation. He said:

Australia needs a government of inegrity and responsibility.

That is what the Prime Minister said. Remarks which I will make later in my speech will prove that there was no integrity in Government senators sitting opposite. The third quotation reads:

Australia needs a government that really cares about people.

Statements such as these no doubt led many people to believe that the Prime Minister was sincere when he made those remarks. This applies particularly to people in country areas.

The present Government, when in Opposition and in Government, has always claimed to be the champion of country dwellers. The Government has persuaded many country people that the restoration of the superphosphate bounty was the complete answer to their needs and to all the problems faced by people in country areas. The restoration of that superphosphate bounty would solve those problems. As has been explained by other speakers and by me, the only people who benefit from that restoration were the wealthy section; the poor farmers received nothing- perhaps $ 140 a week.

Following the statement delivered on Thursday last by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), many thousands of country dwellers have now realised that on 13 December 1975 they exchanged the substance for the shadow. It was very truly said, many, many years ago- I think it could have been said by Mr Churchill when he was Prime Minister of England- that it is possible to fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but one cannot fool all the people all the time. The Government will remember that famous statement with great clarity when next the electors have the opportunity to voice their opinion through the ballot box as, several weeks ago in New South Wales, we saw electors do when they rejected the policy of the present Federal Government.

Mr President, I wish now to deal with a statement by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) in respect of television translator stations. I want to quote from his statement on that matter. The purpose of my remarks tonight is to deal with the matter of television translator stations. We find that that famous statement by Mr Lynch which was put down in this place by Senator Cotton on Thursday night last was followed by a statement by the Honourable Eric L. Robinson, Minister for Post and Telecommunications. As time is short and we are limited in our remarks, I will be able to quote a small part only from that speech. Mr Eric Robinson said:

The Government has decided that a number of broadcasting stations and television translator stations on which engineering planning and design had been proceeding will now be deferred. This will affect a number of communities where there is presently no reception or where reception is unsatisfactory.

Those stations, however, on which work has already commenced or where financial commitments have been contracted will continue.

That is the crux of the matter on which I wish to make my remarks this evening. The residents of the coal mining town of Leigh Creek have for many, many years been trying to obtain a television service. They have been patient in the extreme and have gone through all the proper channels to obtain a service. But their patience and their long held hopes were dealt a shattering blow last Thursday by the announcement by this Government of the deferral ofthe establishment of television translator stations.

My hope is that the last sentence that I quoted by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications will be the one emphasised by the Government, that is:

Those stations, however, on which work has already commenced or where financial commitments have been contracted will continue.

I would seriously hope that Leigh Creek will not find its television translator station shelved after all the work that has been put in to try to obtain that service for the people who live there in isolation.

As late as the 13th of this month I was able to inform the residents of Leigh Creek that they would have a television service by June of next year. I made that statement following information that I received from the Telecommunications Commission. All honourable senators will know-and I know that I have bored some of them in this respect- that I have consistently endeavoured to secure a television service for Leigh

Creek since I have been in this chamber. The chronological order of events which have taken place over a long period in respect of this matter should be placed on the record. To place those events on the record, let me quote from a statement which I received from Mr Connolly who is the Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. This was contained in a letter written to me on 22 May 1975. He said:

Dear Senator McLaren,

Further to our telephone conversation this morning, I am enclosing a summary of events to date concerning the provision of television service to Leigh Creek.

I will read this summary of events into Hansard so that people who are not conversant with the battle that has been put up over the years will be aware of the fight not only by members of the Labor Party but also by members of other parties in endeavouring to obtain a television translator service at Leigh Creek. The document is headed: Summary of Events to Date Concerning Provision of Television Service to Leigh Creek. The summary reads:

During the period 1970-1974, IS separate approaches were made to either the Minister or the Board requesting adequate television service for Leigh Creek. These representations were, in the main, from various members of Parliament on behalf of residents ofthe town and also on behalf ofthe Far Northern Development Association and Leigh Creek Combined Union Council at Leigh Creek.

The representations were generally replied to on the basis of the difficulties which exist in providing TV service to remote and sparsely populated areas, where the cost involved in relation to the population which would be served is prohibitive. Reference was made to the fact that the likelihood of ever achieving a total coverage of the population of Australia would seem to rest on the future prospects of the introduction of satellite television on an economic basis, but it was doubtful whether satellite transmissions suitable for direct public reception would become a reality before the 1980s. The replies did mention the possibility of ‘repeater’ type operations, but it was pointed out that the costs associated with this type of operation are also quite considerable.

In 1972, the Board arranged for a senior engineer of the Board to attend Leigh Creek to explain the difficulties and answer any questions which might be forthcoming from interested people in the area.

Let me give credit here to Senator Jessop because I have been told by him that he was the person at that time who made that effort to get the engineer to visit Leigh Creek. The statement continues:

In March 1973, following representations from the Premier of South Australia -

I interpose that that was Don Dunstan: . . the Minister explained the difficulties in relation to Leigh Creek, and mentioned that a second class service could be provided by the establishment of a videotape repeater station’, as has been carried out at a number of mining settlements in Northern Australia, provided the employer (The Electricity Trust of South Australia) accepted the obligation in view of the settlement’s importance. The costs to be borne by the employer would consist of establishment costs of approximately $50,000, with annual operating costs of $30,000 to $40,000.

Following the deputation from Mr L. Wallis, M.P., and Senators D. Cameron and G. McLaren -

I interpolate that Dr Neil Blewitt was with us on our visit to Leigh Creek on that occasion: the Minister, on 10 April 1974, again wrote to the Premier of South Australia, pointing out that the economic difficulties mentioned earlier still precluded the provision of TV service to Leigh Creek by the normal means, namely, a series of microwave repeaters northward from Port Augusta.

The Minister indicated that he was unaware of any development in the alternative suggestion made to Mr Dunstan earlier that the Electricity Trust of South Australia might be prepared to provide the necessary funds to finance a repeater type television station at Leigh Creek, and sought the Premier’s views on the suggestion and whether the necessary assistance towards establishing such a station would be available through the Trust.

Subsequent advice indicated that the Electricity Trust was interested in following up the proposal and that it would like to discuss the matter with the Board. Senator McLaren subsequently wrote to the Minister for the Media indicating that bearing in mind other departments besides the Electricity Trust had personnel stationed in the Leigh Creek area, and could be expected to share some of the cost of establishing TV at Leigh Creek, he had written to all Ministers, both State and Federal, who have an interest in the area, with a request that an officer from their respective departments join in the discussions between the Board and the Electricity Trust with a view to reaching a satisfactory arrangement for TV for the Leigh Creek area. The Minister for the Media then asked the Board to convene a meeting at a time suitable to all.

I want to give credit here to Senator Douglas McClelland who at that time was the Minister for the Media. He will verify that I beat a path to his door, as well as asked questions repeatedly in the Senate about what he was going to do to give a television service to the people in that remote area.

As we are on a time limit I will have to abbreviate what I wish to say. I will break it down to this: Following those negotiations that I was happy to arrange in co-operation with Senator Douglas McClelland, and later with Dr Cass who became Minister for the Media, agreement was reached in South Australia whereby the Electricity Trust of South Australia would fund, I think, an amount of $60,000 towards the capital cost of the television transmitter to Leigh Creek. The Federal Labor Government agreed to fund the remainder of the cost which I think at that time was less than $50,000. On 17 July 1975 I received from the Deputy Premier, Des Corcoran, a letter in which he said:

The matter concerning provision of Television to Leigh Creek is quite a complex one.

I have accordingly written to my colleague, the Minister for Mines and Energy, asking that he provide every assistance to you in this regard.

I feel that he is in a better position to co-ordinate any efforts by the South Australian Government to provide Television for the people of Leigh Creek.

That was in response to my request. A letter of 2 1 November 1975, which was addressed to me from the Premier in South Australia, Don Dunstan, stated:

Thank you very much for your work to obtain the necessary approvals for the extension of TV services to Leigh Creek.

I know that you were very instrumental in Retting the necessary Commonwealth support to establish the station, and we were very pleased to add our State money to the undertaking.

As I have said, the Electricity Trust agreed to come to the party and fund in excess of 50 per cent of the cost of the television transmitter.

Then on 10 December last a Press statement was issued by Senator Withers who was Acting Minister for the Media in the caretaker Government. No doubt it was put out as a political ploy to help the Liberal candidates in South Australia. It stated:

After 18 months’ negotiation a television service is to be established at Leigh Creek in South Australia.

I already knew that because my colleagues in the Whitlam Government told me, but Senator Withers put out this statement. It continued:

Announcing this today the Minister for the Media, Senator Reg Withers, said that the problem in providing television for Leigh Creek- an isolated mining community-had been the very great per capita costs involved. These would have been much greater than for any other television service so far establishedin Australia, and the previous Government had so informed the South Australian Government.

After a great deal of negotiation a formula has been agreed to by which the Electricity Trust of South Australia would make a cash contribution of $60,000 towards the cost of establishment, besides providing the site, buildings, and operating staff for the station.

The station will be a repeater-type, similar to those which have been established by mining companies in remote areas, the Minister said. Programs will be made available on tape by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and replayed some time later than their original transmission.

Senator Withers said that the Electricity Trust’s acceptance of the proposal had just been brought to his attention, and he had given his formal approval immediately so that planning for the new station could be started immediately.

The dateline is Canberra, 10 December 1975.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It had been approved 6 months earlier.

Senator McLAREN:

– As Senator Douglas McClelland has reminded me, it was approved 6 months earlier by the Whitlam Government. On 2 April of this year I received from Des Corcoran, the Acting Premier of South Australia, a letter in which he said:

I have received information from the Prime Minister that the proposal to provide television to the Leigh Creek community has now been approved.

The Prime Minister has asked that the Australian Telecommunications Commission proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible.

I have posed several questions to Senator Withers since we became the Opposition, but in answer to a question on notice from me Senator Withers said, as reported in Hansard of 7 April last:

On 2 March 1976 and again on I April 1976 Senator McLaren has asked without notice for information concerning the installation of a television service at Leigh Creek in South Australia.

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

1 ) Planning for the proposed repeater station at Leigh Creek is well advanced. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has supplied final technical operating requirements to Telecom Australia which is now finalising its cost estimates based on those conditions.

It is expected that funds will be requested in the estimates for the financial year 1976-77.

If funds are made available Telecom Australia would expect to complete the installation of the transmitter by the end of that financial year.

That, as I said, is the answer that I received from Senator Withers on 7 April, yet on 2 April the Acting Premier of South Australia had written to me and stated that the Prime Minister had agreed to the proposal. That must have occurred sometime in March because the letter was dated 2 April. There is a conflict. First, I received an answer to my question which stated that subject to funds being requested, the project would go ahead this year. Yet Mr Fraser, the Prime Minister, had written to the Acting Premier in South Australia saying that he had approved of the proposal. This concerns me. Leigh Creek is a coal mining town in South Australia and is responsible for supplying coal to the Port Augusta power station which supplies most of the electricity in South Australia. The coal miners at Leigh Creek are so concerned about the long delay in this matter, going back now for some 1 6 years I think it would be, since they first tried to get television- Mr Connolly’s letter refers to 1970, which is 6 years ago, and long before that I have correspondence from the Premier in South Australia indicating that moves about this matter had been made- that they have now decided that if they do not get a definite promise by the middle of next month, on top of what the Prime Minister has already outlined, they will curtail coal shipments to Port Augusta. That means that the people of South Australia possibly could be put on power rationing during the year.

Senator Jessop:

– That would be a stupid thing to do, would it not?

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Jessop says that that would be a stupid thing to do. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, these people have been patient to the extreme for many years. Promises have been made. Only on the 13th of this month I contacted the Telecommunications Commission and was given, whether rightly or wrongly, certain information which I relayed to the people of Leigh Creek, which was that the transmitter was on order, that it would be delivered before Christmas of this year and that the television station would go to air by the middle of next year. I hope that the Leigh Creek transmitter station will come within the category mentioned in the statement of Mr Robinson, that is, that works which have already been commenced will be continued. If this transmitter station does not come within that category, I make an urgent plea to the Government to reassess the position and to see that these people at Leigh Creek are given the television service that they so much deserve.

They are a community of about 1000 people who live 150 miles north of Port Augusta. There is not an all-weather road to Leigh Creek because the bitumen ends at Hawker. There is only a passenger rail service to Leigh Creek but it is not a daily service. There is an air service to the area. The people in Leigh Creek have not got proper communications with the outside world. They have pleaded with governments right back to the time before we became the Government. They pleaded with our Government. They have pleaded with myself, with Mr Laurie Wallis and with Senator Cameron when we went to the area to do something for them. As I have pointed out, I have done everything possible to ensure that these people get the service that they deserve. I gave credit to Senator Jessop for being involved in this matter in the early days. If this is to be a matter that is to be taken up in Senator Jessop ‘s own Party room, I hope that he, in his wisdom, will speak up loudly for the people of Leigh Creek. This matter should not be a political football. We should be prepared to give these people a television service; they are entitled to it. We do not want to see industrial action take place because this Federal Government cannot provide the miserly sum of about $46,000 to get this thing off the ground. I am making the plea again that the Government reconsider any decision it may have made. I am not saying that it has made a decision. I asked Senator Carrick today whether the transmitter had been cancelled, and tonight I received a letter from him. For the information of the Senate, although I might be imposing on somebody else’s time, I should read this letter into Hansard. It states:

You asked me today on what date did the Government issue instructions for the cancellation of the order for the television transmitter which was scheduled for delivery before the end of this calendar year and which would have enabled a television service to go on air at Leigh Creek, South Australia, by the middle of the year 1977.

I have made inquiries and I find that there has been no cancellation of any orders for television transmitters, either on the part of Telecom Australia or the Postal and Telecommunications Department from whose Budget allocations the funds would come for such a transmitter.

I take that letter to mean that the transmitter which I was informed had been on order for Leigh Creek is still on order; that the delivery date is still as I have been informed, that is, before the end of this calendar year; and that the television station at Leigh Creek will go to air before the middle of next year. I again make this plea: Do not let the people of Leigh Creek suffer because of a miserable pittance of $46,000.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I begin by referring to the comments made from the other side of the chamber in respect of Senator Lajovic. I express my utter disgust at those remarks, attacking him and the statements he made. I think it is a disgrace that we should be forced to listen to attempts to denigrate a man who has risen to the top in his community and found his way into the Parliament of this Commonwealth.

I would like to comment now on some of the most important aspects of the legislation before us and particularly on the statement made by Mr Lynch last week. Firstly, I refer to a couple of matters which Senator Wriedt mentioned in the context of tax indexation. He said that this in no way will reduce the pressure of wage demands emanating from the trade unions. He said that they will want to share the growing facilities and finance in the community. Surely the trade union movement, as has been clearly evidenced, already is sharing with all the other people of the Commonwealth in the greater amount of public funds spent on education, health and welfare and other matters to the detriment of the Budget. This has resulted in the deficit we have today.

We have also heard comments thrown at honourable senators on this side of the chamber in regard to the so-called argument about whether we are having a consumption-led recovery or an investment-led recovery. For some reason or other honourable senators opposite cannot get it into their thick heads that obviously we are talking about a consumption-led recovery in advance of an investment-led recovery. We noticed on coming to power that one of the significant things that had been happening in the community was that stocks held by various businessmen had been falling over the last year or so. Those stocks have continued to fall. Retail sales have started to pick up in the last three or four months, as is evidenced by the latest statements as at the end of March and continuing into April. When those stocks reach levels at which businessmen feel they need to be replaced, this will give rise to a need to re-employ and to spend more money on plant and hence will lead to an investment-led recovery. This is the ultimate and long term approach in solving the economic problems of this country. The Labor Government in its period of office destroyed investment in this country because it removed incentives for people to invest.

I would like to dwell on tax indexation, which has not been commented on very much by the Opposition for a number of very good reasons, one of which is that it recognises the great courage of the Government in introducing this measure from 1 July this year. We said in our policy speech that we would introduce tax indexation over a 3-year term. In fact, it is being introduced as a whole in the first year. What it will mean is a 13 per cent reduction in taxation in the 1976-77 year, applying from 1 July. For the edification of honourable senators opposite, I wish to comment on some of the features of the Mathews recommendations in respect of tax indexation and the system which is to be applied. We know that there are 3 different methods by which indexation could be implemented on personal tax scales. The first is to adjust taxation rates. That, of course, disrupts and disturbs the initial setting of the various rates of tax which have in them a social and public welfare content. The second is to adjust downwards the incomes of taxpayers at the end of each year in such a way that they receive the benefits of the continuing tax rates. Obviously this is arithmetically difficult and would involve great administrative difficulty. The third method, which has been adopted by the Government, is to adjust the taxation brackets. This is the simplest method and the method adopted by most overseas countries. It means adjusting the tax scales by applying the rate of increase in the consumer price index to the tax brackets appearing in the tax schedules. We will have in this country a system which is world recognised and in which there is a great deal of social justice. This does not apply to the other two methods I have mentioned. Furthermore, the Government will be adjusting the rebates presently allowed for dependants and the general rebate.

There is one other aspect of this matter that I would like to mention, and that is that when the consumer price index factor is applied each year it will be calculated so as to remove the effect of indirect taxation on the CPI. Obviously, when we are talking about the effect that will have on public revenue, that comes off one side and goes on to the other and will not have an overall effect. It is quite clear that to build that into the system would really only falsify the total picture and probably would lead to greater consumer price index increases and would be recovered in due course from public welfare payments anyway. The Mathews Committee did not recommend that in its report, but only because it felt that the Bureau of Statistics was not able to adjust its figures and certainly had no legal authority to adjust its figures for the exclusion of those indirect taxation figures.

Perhaps I should look now at some of the reasons for the introduction of this very important measure. As people move into higher wage brackets obviously they will move into higher tax brackets. This is particularly evidenced by figures I would like to quote of average earnings in 1971-72. During that year tax payable on an income of $4,862 represented 1 5.8 per cent of earnings. The marginal rate on the top part of that income was ofthe order of 33.3 per cent. In 1974-75 average earnings had reached $7,696 a year and the tax as a percentage of those earnings had risen from 15.8 per cent to 17.3 per cent and the marginal rate had risen from 33.3 per cent to 38 per cent. Quite clearly the effect of that would be to drive the ordinary employee to seek higher and higher wages to compensate for the amount going to the Government.

It has the effect also, of course, of producing unlegislated revenue for the Government which is over and beyond what might be expected by way of productivity and increases arising from increased employment. In fact, if we apply the figures I think we shall find that in the 2 years from 1972-73 to 1974-75 had productivity and employment been taken into account taxation would have risen by only 15 per cent. But over that period taxation collected by the Commonwealth as a result of rising personal incomes increased by 6 times that figure- by 90 per cent over the 1972-73 year. Obviously governments have a vested interest in the continuance of that sort of system. The object of this particular system is to make governments honest and to make them legislate for the taxation increases which they intend to impose on the people.

Another factor that arises out of the application of these principles is that by adjusting the taxation brackets we retain as closely as possible rates that are relative to income levels. That is, we will have built in a system of social equity which will ensure that at any point of time people on low incomes will be taxed least and those on high incomes will be taxed most. We ensure that that system remains relative and that people do not move up the scale where they will be taxed at levels which they cannot afford. So the basic equity in the system ties in with the other principles that we have been espousing in other parts of the package.

Probably the most important area which will be assisted by tax indexation is that of the stability of this economy of ours. Honourable senators opposite have contended that probably this effect of rising income tax is deflationary. I do not know whether they want to see this system introduced. But it is interesting to see that it was stated in the Mathews report that in times of high unemployment and depressed demand rising taxation can promote a type of cost inflation spiral over and above demand inflationary spirals. I think that we have seen a classic example of that in the situation that has applied since 1973 when wages really took off in this country. We have seen also examples of unions retaliating against unindexed taxation increases and applying their weight towards the implementation of tax indexation. In fact, it was made clear in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’s statement in April 1975 that the Commission supported the introduction of this scheme.

Another thing that probably is highly significant in the context of inflation is that taxation receipts will be spent by the Government, thereby increasing the marginal propensity of the Government to spend that money and, coming back to the old argument that we have often heard, thereby crowding out private sector expenditure and lowering the propensity of private people to spend. Therefore, without the introduction of this procedure and this new practice we can see that the economy would be slower to recover because the Government would be taking a larger share of the total cake. Quite clearly then tax indexation is a measure aimed at producing the results which we are all looking for- an improvement in the level of consumer demand in this country, leading to investment recovery which is around the corner as a result of other measures which the Government has taken, particularly in respect of the investment allowance.

We all know that tax indexation is not perfect. The system does have built into it a means of fiscal drag. That is, some 12 months or so passes before the application of the adjustment at the end of each financial year. That means, of course, that people have enjoyed wage increases and suffered tax increases during that 12-month period and have had no adjustment for it. We know that but, as was spelt out in the Mathews report, any other system that was adjusted, say, on a monthly or quarterly basis has significant difficulties administratively. Probably it would introduce other costs into the system which would make it extremely dificult to implement and, indeed, would outweigh the benefits we would be getting otherwise.

There is only one other matter that I should like to mention and that is in regard to some of the expenditure outlined in the statement that is on the credit side. I am referring particularly to education. We have seen that in 1977 universities will get a 2 per cent increase in their budget on a real basis, as well as an additional $2m for capital expenditure. Colleges of advanced education will receive an additional 5 per cent, technical and further education institutions an additional 7 per cent, and schools another 2 per cent on a real basis. I think it is very sensible also for the Government to be diverting money to vocational areas of employment as we are critically lacking in skilled labour in the community. I think that this will be tremendously important as the economy picks up in the coming months when more skilled workers will be required for the years ahead.

We know that a change in educational preference has occurred over the last few years, when more emphasis has been placed upon education towards bachelors of arts degrees and other such degrees than has been placed upon providing plumbers, electricians, carpenters and so on, who are now in short supply. This reflects a waste of resources which we hope will be counteracted as the economy picks up. I should like to conclude by congratulating the Government on its measures. I indicate quite clearly that I am fully behind its undertakings as set out in these proposals and I support the Bills which are before the Senate.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– 1 should like to use the opportunity presented to me tonight to draw to the attention of the Senate the significance to the residents of the Australian Capital Territory of the economic statement made by the Government last Thursday night. In summary, the significance of that statement is increased unemployment and increased hardship of one kind or another for every family and for every resident of the Australian Capital Territory. There is no economic rationale in what was decided for the Australian Capital Territory, no new job opportunities, no consumer confidence and certainly no stimulus for business. I speak on these matters not only because of my concern as an elected representative of the people of the Territory but also because I think that the way in which the Government handles the situation in this Territory is a pretty good test of what sort of economic management it really can offer this country.

This Government came to office on the promise that it would manage the economy. There is no more direct way in which it can do this than the way in which it can do it in the Territory where it has no State government to have to liaise with before it can introduce any measures. If we look at the employment situation we see that unemployment is raging in the Australian Capital Territory and can only be expected to increase as a result of the measures announced last Thursday night. For comparison I shall read out the figures for last month’s unemployment compared with the figures for one year before that. In April 1975, 116 adult males were registered as unemployed and in April 1976 the number was 655. In April 1975 adult females registered as unemployed numbered 130 and in April 1976 there were 381. In April 1975 unemployed junior males numbered 89 and in April 1976 there were 450. In April 1975 there were 147 unemployed junior females and in April 1976 the number was 519. These most recent figures do not reflect the true picture because of the stipulations regarding married women who, in many cases, do not register as unemployed because they cannot draw unemployment benefit. The figures do not take account of the extent of unemployment among the young because young people who are not able to move elsewhere to look for employment cannot be registered for unemployment benefits. There are many young persons, particularly under the age of 17, who are genuinely unemployed in this Territory but whose parents do not wish them to leave home at this stage and whose unemployment is not reflected in those figures.

In addition to this, the apprenticeship situation is quite drastic here. The number of apprenticeships available for young persons was very much lower this year than in previous years. Again, this is a direct result of the Government’s policy in this Territory and, in particular, its effect on the construction industry. The situation with the National Employment and Training scheme is well known. It is no different in the Territory from what it is in the rest of Australia. Many of these people who are unemployed have no opportunity to train for employment. Probably in the Territory we have a worse situation than the overall national figure suggests. There is one vacancy for 12.5 unemployed. The decision of last Thursday night will maintain the artificially rigid restrictions on the Public Service. This means that there will be no new employment opportunities for those presently unemployed. There will be no employment opportunities at all for those young persons who normally would have gone into the Public Service. There will be no opportunity for the kind of training which the Public Service offered to school leavers.

Turning to the construction industry, the Government has decided to cut $25.7m off the funds available for the National Capital Development Commission for the development of the Territory. Of course, this means even greater unemployment particularly in the building and construction areas. For example, last week a Canberra firm which is completely Canberra based and has been operating here for about 15 years-Colless Bros (Holdings) Pty Ltd- had to close down because there were no more contracts for which it could tender. It had to put 25 workers off. These were men who, in most cases, had been employed for several years in this Territory and who had their homes here. I cite that example but it is not the first and it certainly will not be the last. Big construction firms operating in the A.C.T., such as Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd and Citra Constructions Ltd were, at the beginning of the year, each employing about 600 men. Now they are down to 200 men. All of the remainder are unemployed with no possibility of employment resulting from last Thursday night’s decision.

In the Canberra Times of 22 May Mr Alex Hastie, the Executive Director of the Australian Capital Territory and Southern N.S.W. Housing Industry Association, predicted that up to 50 per cent of those at present employed in building and construction in the A.C.T. would be out of work in 12 months’ time as a result of the Treasurer’s Budget cuts. I remind the Senate that the construction industry employs 33 per cent of people in the private work force. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley), in making his statement regarding these cuts, said that he hoped private enterprise would come in to the Territory and take over the kind of building and construction work which was formerly being done through NCDC contracts. The very reverse is happening as a result of these measures. Private enterprise is leaving the Territory. Any firms which have big branches elsewhere are pulling out completely. They cannot possibly afford to have expensive plant lying idle here. They cannot get any return on their investment. They are putting off the workers in the A.C.T. If they are big firms they are pulling out. If they are small firms they are going broke. There is no way in which these measures will encourage private enterprise.

The Minister for the Capital Territory still does not seem to have grasped the interrelationship between the public and private sectors in the Territory, particularly in the building and construction industry where Government contracts stemming from the NCDC are let out to private contractors. There is a direct relationship between the public and private sectors. To talk of these measures, which are forcing private enterprise to go broke and to go out of the Territory, as if they could possibly attract private enterprise shows an absurd lack of realism in the desperate situation which faces us. Possibly there are a couple of areas of building where private enterprise could come in by itself without Government contracts and build. One of those areas would be home building- or it would be if the Government had introduced any reasonable measures to enable people to buy homes. But the reverse is the case.

If we look at what has happened with building and home purchasing arrangements generally we find first that the Government building of houses will be cut by half. We find that interest rates on the purchase of Government homes which had been low at 4 per cent to 5 per cent for the very low income earners in our community will be increased to 9V4 per cent. We find that Commissioner for Housing loans which had already been restricted in their application by this Government have been reduced from $2 5m to $ 12m. So people are forced to remain in rental accommodation. What do we find there? We find that rents will be increased. Rates are going up and land owners who are letting out properties for investment naturally pass the increasing rates on to the tenants who no longer have rent control to give them any kind of protection. As well as this, home owners and tenants will be facing increased electricity charges as a result of last Thursday night’s decision.

When we turn to public transport we find another series of inexplicable measures which seem designed to punish the people of the Territory rather than to boost public transport or to provide any sort of service which the people might need. Fares will go up. The free bus service for school children will be cut out. New vehicles which are needed to provide the extended services the need for which has been caused by the growth of Canberra, and which are on order, for the most pan have been cancelled. Services will be reduced. As some sort of compensation for this attack on the public transport system which is already facing extreme difficulties the Minister for the Capital Territory tells us that he will encourage the availability of taxis. Are we to presume from this that parents are to use their new child endowment to send their children to school by taxi? Are we to presume that pensioners are to go to the hospital for their medical services by taxi? Are we to presume that people working in such places as hospitals, in factories at Fyshwick and as office cleaners, are to go to work by taxi? That certainly seems to be the intention of the Minister. He is reducing the bus service and suggesting that the availability of taxis will somehow compensate for the reduced public transport system.

Community facilities are desperately needed in the new suburbs of Canberra but they will not be built. I do not know whether many honourable senators have seen very much of Canberra, other than the handsome areas surrounding Parliament House. Out in the new suburbs in the Woden Valley, Tuggeranong and the Belconnen Valley we have a lack of services which would compare with the worst of the outer new suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne. Community facilities are desperately needed there. They will not be provided at all. We were told this without any compensatory suggestion.

Senator Wright:

– 1 think you are romancing.

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Wright suggests that I am romancing. Unfortunately, that is not the case. At some times it seems to me that what is happening is in the realm of fantasy rather than in the realm of reality. However, all the points I am making are taken from 2 statements. One was made by the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, and the other was made by the Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Staley. I am not surprised that the honourable senator regards them as unrealistic. I certainly do. Nevertheless, they are the measures intended to provide some sort of economic management for the Territory. Although the Government has made great play of the fact that the education budget has not been reduced significantly, when one turns to the Territory one finds that the $8m needed for the construction of new schools has been withdrawn and that the building of those schools will be postponed indefinitely. Again, that may not strike honourable senators from interstate as such a terrible thing because Canberra has a reputation for having very good schools and good school buildings, but given the nature of the growth of Canberra, the absence of new schools in many cases means the absence of any schools. It is not as though there were other schools to which the children could go.

I turn to another subject which of course is of as much concern to the residents of the Territory as it is to residents elsewhere in Australia. I refer to the Government’s intentions with respect to Medibank. Medibank had become accepted by Australians as a national health insurance scheme which was working efficiently and providing universal health cover in a very satisfactory way. Since the announcements of last Thursday night I have been besieged with inquiries, with questions such as these: What sort of provisions will there be for the chronically ill? Will private health insurance funds be expected to take over or can people stay in Medibank? How can people get specialist care if they do stay in Medibank? Who are the people who will be forced out of Medibank? What will the private funds charge? If most people do stay in Medibank, where are the funds for increased public hospital services to come from? Indeed, at the moment public hospital services can barely cope with the call on their facilities. If people are to stay in Medibank in large numbers there will be need for much greater investment in public hospital services, and there is no indication in Mr Hunt’s statement that that will be forthcoming.

Will the premium, which is to be some sort of alternative to the levy, be tax deductible? Why is a system of universal health insurance which is working well going to be disbanded at such an early stage- one might say at the very stage when it had started to work efficiently and provide the sort of service it was intended to provide? What is the economic rationale for this interference? How can the Government claim that the new Medibank measure is an economy measure, a measure which will reduce the cost of Government health services, when the Government cannot possibly know at this stage what its new measures will cost because it cannot possibly know how many people will stay in Medibank and how many people will opt out? The Government appears not to know whether the private funds will require government subvention. If the private funds do continue to require a government subvention, where is the great saving it is claimed that these measures will achieve?

As yet there has been no reasoned explanation of these matters from Government spokesmen, and the effect on the community, and I speak particularly for the community of this Territory, is total confusion. In the case of people with large families or families with chronically ill members, there is very great anxiety. In the Australian Capital Territory we have the specific problem of the health centres, which were operating in a very economic and efficient way to provide a range of health services to the community. One of the new centres at Kambah has decided that it can take no more patients because the expected additional resources needed to provide additional services in a rapidly growing suburb have not been provided by this Government and there is no indication of when they will be provided. The problem of salaried specialists at our public hospitals continues. Although Senator Baume managed to score a debating point from me when I raised the subject the other evening, he cannot claim that the problem has been resolved. Those specialists who have resigned have not been replaced. The future of access to hospitals by private specialists has not been resolved, and those people in the Territory who have opted, and opted very heavily, for salaried specialist care have no way of knowing whether that care will continue to be available to them.

Senator Walters:

– Did you make an apology to the AMA?

Senator RYAN:

– No apology needed to be made to the Australian Medical Association. Although the honourable senator claimed that that meeting of the Australian Capital Territory Association did not represent all the doctors who were members of the ACTMA, and that indeed was the case, it was the case because the people organising the meeting refused to send notices of the meeting to doctors working as salaried specialists or working in health centres. That is the kind of manipulation of the community’s need for health services which has been carried on by some elements of the ACTMA in Canberra.

I have found, as have many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber, one measure in the new provisions which we do praise. That is the measure to increase child endowment. By itself, that is a very admirable measure, and I might even say it is one which could have been introduced earlier. However, when one looks at the other things that are going to happen to women in need one cannot feel particularly sanguine that their position is going to improve greatly. The supporting mother is to have her pension taxed. The availability of the National Employment and Training scheme has been reduced so that many women who are halfway through a training course will be forced to withdraw through lack of financial support and because this Government changed the terms under which they were undertaking their studies. No jobs are available for women seeking to support themselves or their families. Unfortunately, and I say that genuinely, the higher expenses for every family as a result of these measures will undermine to a great extent the benefit of increased endowment.

I was not going to bring up the question of migration tonight, but as it has been the subject of debate I feel I must comment on the quite incomprehensible decision of the Government at this stage to increase immigration to a target of 70 000 persons. How can the Government justify bringing 70 000 migrants to this country when we have the highest rate of unemployment for many years, when we have a cutdown in all the services which migrants need and when we have a drastic cutdown in housing? I consider that it is the most irresponsible action possible to bring to this country people who have an expectation of reasonable living standards when they cannot be housed, when health sevices are in a mess and when there is no employment for them.

Senator Martin:

– Are you sure of that?

Senator RYAN:

– If there is employment then I think at this stage it should be given to those currently trying to support families on the dole. Although there is some question of introducing a work test, it seems to me very unrealistic. I have heard already from the immigration office in London that they are being plagued with inquiries from people who want to come to Australia because they have heard that immigration is going to be increased. Although I agree with a lot of the things Senator Lajovic said about the difficulties faced by migrants in this country, those difficulties are being faced because migrants were brought here with inadequate assistance in matters such as English language, housing and social assimilation, and they were exploited by employers as cheap factory fodder. I cannot understand- and I would be most grateful for any elucidation of this policy by members of the Government- why at this particularly drastic time we are bringing migrants into the country when we cannot provide them with the services to which they are entitled.

In conclusion, I want to mention only one other matter, that is, the cut in the budget for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I was fairly sceptical when the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) announced the inquiry into the ABC, following denials by various members of the Government that such an inquiry was about to take place. I was particularly sceptical because it was to be a private inquiry, and although members of the public, employees of the ABC and so on could make submissions, the inquiry was to be conducted in private. Therefore there would be no way of knowing what sort of evidence was received and what decisions were to be made until after they had been made. Now there is to be a cut of $6m, which in real terms is a 1 7 per cent cut, in the budget for the ABC. It seems to me that that decision in fact has pre-empted the inquiry into public broadcasting in this country and there is no reason to expect that the community will fare well out of such an inquiry.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– The purpose of this financial statement and the moves made by the Government at this stage is to bring about financial control and stability to Australia. In 1971 inflation was running at a minor degree but in 1973, because of the irresponsible over-expenditure of the Labor Government, inflation stampeded. In this period it has been said that the country has had an overexpenditure of some $5 billion- something that the taxpayers of Australia cannot afford. It is very timely that the Fraser Government has had the courage to make financial cuts to bring about stability.

What has happened in the last few years since 1973? We have heard much from the other side about the effect on the people of Australia. Inflation has meant increased prices and increased wages. The family man, the working man, has found that his wage cannot buy the goods that it used to buy. So he has pressed for additional wages. We have seen the cat chasing the tail for the last few years. Workers have asked for more money. They have got more money, but because the workers have moved into a higher income bracket, most of that money has been taken by the Government. What has this meant to the family? It has meant that the more money it has earned the more tax the Government has taken and less money has gone into the family pocket. This has meant hardship for the Australian worker. In many cases it was found that one income in the family was insufficient. So the wife went to work and there has been this continuing chasing of sufficient money to keep the family going. In many thousands of cases this has meant tensions and pressures within the family. There have been breakdowns in families. In many cases we have seen not only a breakdown between the husband and the wife but also the effects of these tensions and pressures on the children.

In the last few years the worker of Australia has gone from hardship to hardship. This overexpenditure which caused inflation has been carried out without any apparent responsible action by government. It is my belief that there are many people in the Australian Labor Party- I do not say all- whose intention it is to do their utmost to break down the economic structure of Australia. It has been said in many places that their aim is to bring the financial structure of the country into chaos. What would happen if this country were brought into a state of chaos- and we were well on the way? Our way of life, the Australian character, private enterprise would be destroyed. Out of those ruins would come about a type of life that we do not want. There is a type of socialism rampant in the world today. I again suggest that until this Government came to office we were well on the way to joining that type of socialism. As I have said before, it has been most hurtful to the people of Australia.

Senator Georges:

– You were the people who stopped the cash flow. You did a good job of undermining the economy while we were in government.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The honourable senator talks about cash flow. Perhaps I should refer to the Northern Territory, with which I am very familiar, for a few minutes. I will talk about cash flows and what Labor policy did to the Northern Territory from 1973.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What did they do to the Northern Territory?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– When Labor came to power I say that there was a deliberate policy to forget the people of the outback and to pander to people in areas of mass population. Immediately Labor came to power it set up the Coombs Task Force to inquire into what cuts and savings could be made in Australia. A lot of those cuts were directed at the minority people, the people of the outback.

Senator Georges:

– What did this financial statement do?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– We will look at the financial situation. First of all the Labor Party gave away the principle that people in the outback had the right to live like people on the Australian seaboard. The Labor Party took away that right. It did so in the first place by taking away assistance given to reduce the cost of food items and materials in the outback. It took away freight assistance, and it took away the fuel equalisation scheme under which people of the outback of Australia paid 3c more for fuel than people on the seaboard. What was achieved by taking away the fuel equalisation scheme? The price of fuel in the Northern Territory has gone up. The highest figure that I know at present is $1.20 a gallon.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What have you done about that?

Senator KILGARIFF:

-Something will be done when finances are brought into correct proportion. This has affected the working people, the Aboriginal people, the community generally in the Northern Territory. It has affected the industries of the Northern Territory. The pastoral industry is affected because of the high costs. Admittedly, to a degree there is a lack of markets.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Ah!

Senator KILGARIFF:

-But the markets are coming good now, Senator. A lot of producers will not recover. A lot will go under because of the high maintenance costs which exist now. The costs of materials, fuel and all such things are forcing the producers out of business.

Tourism is another industry in the outback of Australia. Many people are very reliant on the tourist industry. It received a body blow several years ago when the Labor Party brought in its cost recovery policy which to quite an extent is directed at the people of the outback. Transport is necessary for the people of the outback. The cost recovery policy has almost priced tourism in the outback out of any semblance of competition with other places. I refer now to mining. We note the costs that have been brought about by the irresponsible Labor Government in taking notice of the Coombs report. Once again fuel prices have gone up and rail prices have gone up. In the last 2 days we saw that the Northern Australia railway is going to be closed because it can no longer be an economic proposition. Do honourable senators know why this has happened? Labor’s cost recovery policy resulted in freight rates being increased to such an extent on the Larrimah-Darwin line that the viable mining industry at Francis Creek was forced out of production. It made mining for the company uneconomic. Why should the company continue?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why do you not reverse it?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The honourable member asks why we do not reverse the policy. The first thing this Government has to do is bring about financial stability. I expect that, if Australians co-operate in the plan that has been put before them now, in the next year there will be financial restrictions, but after that there will be an easing and Australia will be back on its feet again.

Senator Georges:

-That is wishful thinking.

Senator KILGARIFF:

-Acually this is quite realistic thinking, provided the Government is given a go. Once again I just quote the Northern Territory scene. The cash restrictions and the financial restrictions did not happen when this Government came to power. They happened last year, when I was a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I was able to oversee the preparation of estimates and the problems that departments had. In July-August last year there was insufficient money for civil works programs. So the departments were asked to make various cuts to save money, which they did.

Senator Cavanagh:

– In December they had further cuts.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– This happened in July-August. By then the damage had been done. Damage had been done to Aboriginal people because the money for the Aboriginal councils on the various settlements had been cut off, despite the fact that they had been promised money. I have some sympathy for Senator Cavanagh because, as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, he was brought into a situation that was extremely difficult. His predecessor went mad with the money. He had absolutely no idea of what money was all about. He thought he was Father Christmas. He was producing the cargo cult in Australia. Everybody sat down, opened his mouth and waited for the next handout. The system absolutely collapsed. Senator Cavanagh was asked to come in to straighten out the situation. I must admit that he did his best.

We heard much tonight from Senator Keeffe, the shadow Minister for the Northern Territory. He appeared to be knowledgeable. If he is not knowledgeable, I would say he is misleading the people of Australia. Admittedly there are cuts in the Aboriginal field, but the cuts ultimately will be to the benefit of the Aboriginal people. Under the previous Government, over $100m was allocated to the Aboriginal people for various things- education, housing, improvements in settlements and so on. The Government said: We have given $100m-odd to the Aboriginal people’. It was flag-waving. I do not know that it really worried about how that money was spent.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It produced a lot of houses.

Senator KILGARIFF:

-It did not produce a lot of houses. I shall lead on to that matter. That is why the Hay investigation has come about. I think something like $6.4m was allocated for Aboriginal housing. There was practically no benefit to the Aboriginal people. There was no guidance, no assistance. This money was frittered away, with the result that now Aboriginal people have very little housing.

Senator Keeffe:

– Your friends got most of it.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– That is a moot point. Whose friends were they? If the Labor Government was not prepared to oversee the expenditure of this money and if it allowed this money to be wasted in various ways, whose friends got it? I suggest that if any friendship is tied up in this sort of deal it should be tied to the Labor Party. If not, why did not the Labor Government take action to ensure that this money was not wasted? The result is that now Aboriginal people are suffering. Some houses have cost $60,000 and $65,000. This money was spent in various places. There was not any benefit to the Aboriginal people. There was no employment. They were not allowed to participate. Very few houses have been built. So it is only right that this Hay investigation take place.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The houses have been built, and you know it.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Very few houses have been built. The Hay report will show a very sorry story. After that story is told, action will be taken by the Government to put the matter on the road again. I hope money will continue to flow. Some money is flowing this year for Aboriginal housing. I hope that the amount will be increased. Aboriginal people will be able to participate in their own housing programs, instead of the contractors doing it without there being any benefit to the Aboriginal people. This housing program by the Abonginal people will mean more employment for Aboriginal people. As no money has trickled into the Aboriginal community, Aborigines have had to sit down and watch these houses being built in their communities. Admittedly, in some places there was a reasonable program, but overall there was a collapse. It meant no work for the Aboriginal people. So they have been paid unemployment benefit- sit down money, as they call it.

Senator Keeffe:

– Your Government has sacked them.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– They have not been sacked. Money is flowing through. I am talking about the lack of opportunities for Aboriginal employment as a result of this $10Om being poured in. It has resulted in tremendous waste and no advantage to the Aboriginal people.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What about the housing at Finke River?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Hopefully, that will survive. That is in tremendous difficulties at the moment.

What has been the effect of the Government’s measures on the North Territory? Since last year there has been considerable difficulty in the building trade. There has been a further allocation of money recently to the Darwin Reconstruction Commission and through the home finance scheme. That funding has meant a reasonable amount of money flowing into Darwin. The Minister for the Northern Territory ( Mr Adermann) has stated that in next year’s Budget the amount of money will be increased. I am not minimising the problems. The building industry is in difficulties. It is in difficulties for various reasons. One of the reasons is that the Northern Territory has not any State-like structure which can act as a buffer against situations such as the one we are facing now. The Northern Territory, in its present stage of growth, is too dependent on the Federal Government. I am not minimising the problems in the Northern Territory.

Debate interrupted.

page 1903

ADJOURNMENT

Environment- Company Retrenchments -Australian Capital Territory: Government Policies

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.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I raise a matter concerning obligations that the Australian Government has undertaken in relation to conventions on wetlands and migratory birds. My comments are centred on the electorate of Lowe in New South Wales, where I live. I know that the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, will take note of the submissions which concern the Homebush Bay region of the Parramatta River. This is a somewhat sentimental journey because a few years ago this matter was covered by the Senate Select

Committee on Water Pollution, under the chairmanship of Senator Davidson, when we first undertook a survey of pollution problems. As in the case of most other waterways throughout Australia, in this instance there has been understanding of the problems and, of course, there have been improvements. The story I am about to relate commenced with an article which appeared in last week’s Western Suburbs Aeroplane Press, a newspaper with an extremely civic conscious editor. It carried a small article about this region which is virtually in the heartland of an industrial area. It is a small oasis in which there were quite a number of ibis, egrets and eastern swamp hens. This was a feature of the article which I shall have incorporated in Hansard at the end of this speech.

I went over to the area on Saturday and inspected it. I confirmed that it was in existence. I then saw the Town Clerk of the Strathfield Council. The dilemma that the Council faces is that this area is bounded by a stormwater channel and a typical suburban council tip. The Town Clerk is a very cautious man. He listened to my advocacy of environment protection procedures and then pointed out that his council would be up for a six figure expenditure in regard to future tipping. I take the story a stage further. Senator Carrick would well remember that at the commencement of the last election campaign he and I were invited by a very trendy Australian Broadcasting Commission radio station to speak on conservation. We reached agreement in relation to environmental and conservation problems. While I may have wanted centralist activity from Canberra, he took the attitude that there should be a partnership with the States. I am making the point that there can be tripartite arrangements with the Strathfield Council as a component of Sydney local government. Mr Crabtree is the Environment Minister in the New South Wales Government. I shall deal with the Australian Government’s position in much more detail.

The annual report of the Department of Environment was tabled last week in the Parliament. I shall also have pages 1 1 and 12 of that report incorporated in Hansard at a later stage. I wish to make this important point in relation to the bipartisan attitude: The previous LiberalNational Country Party signed the wet lands convention in Iran on 2 February 1971. Subsequently, the Whitlam Government signed a migratory bird treaty with Japan in February 1974. It is significant that when we dealt with the national parks legislation which, too, was approached on a united front- I know that a number of honourable senators opposite were participants in the debate- nobody pushed the line as to what extent the State governments would co-operate. We left that matter to see whether calmer counsels would prevail. I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will be visiting Japan in the near future. Since Australia is a signatory to the migratory bird treaty, naturally he is concerned to be able to convince his hosts that that treaty is not just a scrap of paper. I say that in adopting a fair approach. I know that we find our federal system irksome. But I am simply making an appeal to Senator Carrick tonight. I think that he will accept it in the spirit in which it is given. We may have established one or two beach heads so far as wetland regions are concerned.

The Mayor of New York of several years ago, Mayor Lindsay, believed in this pocket han.derchief concept, whether it be for a fauna reserve or a small park. I believe that in this tripartite approach a lot can be done. The Macquarie University has undertaken to do a survey. As Senator Carrick knows the western suburbs well he might well say to me that Mr Crabtree or our own Federal people were talking only about a small oasis but we may survey the whole of Homebush Bay. A moment ago I said that there could be a centralist approach. I do not want to frighten the Minister or anyone opposite. Professor Castles, the professor of law at Adelaide University, on one occasion said to me that where there is a will there is a way. He said that the Australian Government could acquire land allegedly for defence purposes and then could claim that it wanted to use the land for something else. I am not suggesting that in this case for one moment, as the Minister would be aware. But I know that on one occasion a great American President, President Roosevelt, had a clash with the United States Army over an artillery range. He simply signed a presidential order and allocated the area as a habitat for the whooping crane. That might be an extreme case, as the Minister would appreciate.

I speak now for the Strathfield Municipal Council, the ornithologist who took the time to discover that habitat, the average citizens of the western suburbs, the honourable Clive Healey, MLC, also a resident in the area and I say to Senator Carrick that I am not unaware that we are in a tight economic situation but I honestly believe that if we can galvanise the Maritime Services Board and possibly the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board we can get somewhere. To take the matter a little further, if we are to have a gigantic unity ticket we could involve quite a number of firms in the area such as

Philip Morris Ltd, the tobacco people. On television they talk about their Australian attitude. There are one or two other firms in the area who could possibly help.

I think I have given the details of the case. I have always believed in short term victories. I do not believe in looking for a massive campaign. 1 honestly believe that if the Department of Science wildlife people can get in touch quickly with Mr Crabtree we can get the Council on side and may be able to preserve this area. It is only a small area. However, I think that is what life is about- these small victories. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the article out of Aeroplane Press which outlines the actual area that is involved and also pages 1 1 and 12 of the annual report of the Department of the Environment for 1974-75.

The PRESIDENT:

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

ALDERMEN WILL TAKE A GANDER

Migratory birds have found a feeding ground in the Homebush Bay area and the aldermen of Strathfield Council have decided to have a look at it.

A Carlingford man recently wrote to the council stating that Strathfield was fortunate to have the Homebush Bay area within its boundaries.

Mr A. Davis, of Carlingford, told council that of particular interest to him was the area bounded by Powells Creek, the Electricity Commission Substation, Mason Park and the new tip.

In this area there is a small swamp which is a vital link in the feeding grounds of many beautiful and varied birds.

I thoroughly recommend that the Aldermen visit the area and observe the bird life there,’ he said.

It includes Ibis, Egret, Duck, the Eastern Swamp hen and many others.

There does appear to be some dumping occurring at the Homebush Substation end of the swamp which if allowed to continue will jeopardise the swamp as a feeding and resting place for migrating birds.

The Homebush Bay area must be the last wilderness area in Strathfield and I therefore urge that you preserve it at all costs for future generations.

You might also give consideration to naming the swamp and placing suitable signs around it giving details of its use and name.

The report submitted by CS1RO indicates the funding needed to carry out the survey and the desirable involvement of other authorities to complete the task successfully.

Ecological Survey of Australia

The Department is co-ordinating the Ecological Survey of Australia which seeks to assemble data on the nature and distribution of ecosystems of the Australian environment. A data storage and retrieval system will be established to provide a sound base for:

The selection of areas for consideration as national parks and reserves’, the assessment of the extent to which existing parks and reserves include representative examples of the major plant communities, wildlife habitats, ecosystems and landscapes; the assessment of long term changes in flora and fauna; and the ecological background for other and more detailed studies of natural biophysical resources.

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND CONVENTIONS

Australia is party to, or working towards ratification of, a number of international agreements and conventions designed to promote nature conservation. Signatories to such treaties are required to legislate, if necessary, to ensure observance of their terms, and to reciprocate agreed protective action with all participating countries.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

Parties to this Convention are obliged to police trade in species of wild fauna and flora which are listed as endangered under the Convention.

The Convention will come into force on 1 July 1975. Ratification by Australia depends upon legislative amendments likely to be completed during 1975. Meanwhile the relevant administrative procedures in regard to imported wild fauna and flora are carried out in the spirit of the Convention.

Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of Australia for the Protection of Migratory Birds, Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment

Australia and Japan signed this Agreement in February 1974, pledging to take special protective measures to ensure the preservation of species of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction. The treaty lists sixty-six species of birds known to migrate between, or which are common to Australia and Japan. The range of birds covered by the Agreement is extensive and includes the Japanese snipe, warblers, species of egret, frigate-bird, plover and muttonbirds.

Ratification of the Agreement is dependent upon the promulgation of Regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which will allow Australia to implement its commitments under the Agreement.

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals

The Convention for Conservation of Antarctic Seals is applicable at present to six species of seal including fur seals and the South Elephant Seal. Ratification of the Convention was dependent upon passage of the National Wildlife Conservation Act 1 975. The process of ratification is now under way.

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat

The purpose of this Convention is to provide protection for wetlands because of their cultural, scientific and recreational significance. The need to conserve them as areas providing essential habitat for migratory birds, which form a common biological resource of several countries, is a paramount consideration under the Convention.

To meet a requirement of the Convention Australia has designated the Cobourg Peninsula in the Northern Territory, which provides key habitat for waterfowl, as a wetland of international significance.

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

On 22 August 1974, Australia became the fifth nationfollowing Egypt, Iraq, Bulgaria and the United States- to sign this Convention.

Parties to the Convention, which will come into force after twenty countries have ratified it, are obliged to preserve areas of objects of our cultural and natural heritage. Australia will be obliged to preserve natural features consisting of physical and biological formations which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific viewpoint, and geological and physiographical formations and natural sites of similar value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty.

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

The Australian Government considers that the conservation, development and management of Australia’s water resources must take place in a framework, not only of development and management of resources generally, but also to overall economic, environmental and social planning.

Throughout the year particular emphasis was given to the Department’s work in negotiating acceptance of the statement A National Approach to Water Resources Management as a statement of national policy and in having water quality assessment included in the National Water Resources Assessment Program.

NATIONAL WATER POLICY

The Australian Government’s statement on national water policy is intended to guide the future management of Australia’s- rivers, streams, lakes and aquifers- and the ecosystems associated with them, so as to enhance and protect, as far as possible, the total environment. The policy statement attempts to establish a framework for water resources planning in Australia and sets out specific objectives, research priorities and guidelines for a program of financial assistance to the States for water resources management and development. It also notes the need for public participation in these activities and the need to promote water use efficiency.

There is a general appreciation by water authorities of the desirability of considering alternative plans for resource development using approaches, such as multi-objective planning, to reach a balance between national economic, regional, social and environmental objectives. The policy statement, with some amendments, was accepted by all State Ministers with responsibility for water resources management. Endorsement of the statement by State Governments is expected soon.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I raise a question tonight concerning a large number of people in the Federal electorate of Mackellar in New South Wales. In a time of high unemployment, particularly in this electorate where the position of local employment particularly is causing concern, we find that Hanimex Pty Ltd, an Australian company, dismissed approximately 40 employees because- I quote the company’s spokesman- ‘insufficient orders made retrenchment inevitable’. These dismissals took place on 14 May and the complete afternoon shift of the company’s colour processing department was retrenched. These mass sackings came without the slightest warning. Orders at the factory have been up to expectation and it is usual that they increase after the school holiday period. As I said, these sackings came as a complete surprise because on 5 May, just 9 days before, the company had advertised in the local Press for additional photopress workers and additional people were in fact hired after that advertisement on 5 May. Also, while the 40 people were told on the Friday that they were being retrenched because of insufficient orders, the day shift that had previously been engaged on that Friday in exactly the same process was called in to work overtime on the Saturday morning. On the Friday afternoon, officials of the Miscellaneous Workers Union tried to persuade the management of Hanimex to postpone the retrenchments until all concerned could put forward their views. Suggestions were made that if retrenchments had to be made they should be made from both the day shift and the night shift so that those with greater needs for employment might be kept on. All these protestations were to no avail and the night shift in its entirety was dismissed that afternoon.

These dismissed employees then picketed the plant on the Saturday morning. It is generally believed by other employees of Hanimex that these people were dismissed because they supported the union against the company in particular disputes which were taking place. Mr President, I believe that these dismissals were wrong. I believe that they were designed deliberately to cause industrial strife. This matter comes before the Arbitration Commission in Sydney next Friday. I hope that the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, who is aware of the employment problems in this area of Sydney and who is no doubt aware that Hanimex, an Australian company, is a very large employer of local labour, takes note of these remarks tonight.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I listened earlier this evening with interest to Senator Ryan’s speech in the debate. I will respond to the points raised when I speak in the debate tomorrow. But by way of preface -

Senator Georges:

– I rise to take a point of order. The honourable senator will be out of order if he refers to an earlier debate this day.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Knight, did you say that you would respond to those remarks tomorrow?

Senator KNIGHT:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Very well. You may continue.

Senator KNIGHT:

– By way of preface I think it appropriate before I do that tomorrow and as the first sessional period of the 30th Parliament draws towards its close to refer to some of the undertakings made by the present Government during the election campaign last NovemberDecember, and to the implementation of those undertakings, particularly the most important of them.

I think perhaps the most important is the undertaking that we have given to proceed with constitutional change in the Australian Capital Territory. We undertook that, on coming to government, we would appoint a task force to examine the steps by which that change could be made. The task force was appointed shortly after the Government was elected in December. Members of the current Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory were invited to participate on it. But because of the time available to those part-time members, they have been unable to do so. Nevertheless, the task force has now prepared the report and it is to be considered by Ministers. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) has indicated that the Legislative Assembly will be consulted on this matter before any final decision is taken. So, we have taken the first steps towards implementing our undertaking to ensure that the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory does reach the stage where it has greater control in local matters while, of course, national capital aspects’ will remain the responsibility of the Commonwealth.

A further undertaking was that if returned to Government we would not proceed with the creation of an Australia Police Force which would incorporate the Australian Capital Territory Police. We took this view particularly in the A.C.T. because we have the highest regard for the A.C.T. Police and because there is a very close and, I think, important relationship between that police force and the community in the A.C.T. For those reasons and because there was an element of disadvantage to the members of the A.C.T. Police in the proposal to create an Australia Police Force, we undertook to ensure that there would be no amalgamation and that the A.C.T. Police would maintain its autonomy. That undertaking has been honoured. The Australian Capital Territory Police remain autonomous. We also said that the A.C.T. Police would be under the charge of the Minister for the Capital Territory instead of the AttorneyGeneral, as had been the case. We felt that that was more appropriate because of the special relationship which existed between the community in the A.C.T. and the A.C.T. Police. That promise also has been honoured and the A.C.T. Police now comes within the administrative arrangements order relating to the Minister for the

Capital Territory. I take the opportunity to compliment the members of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force for the effectiveness, efficiency and courtesy with which they carry out their duties in the Australian Capital Territory.

A further undertaking related to land policy. It is an area in which there was great and increasing confusion under the Labor Government. During the election campaign we said that we would introduce a partial auction system for land and that undertaking has been honoured. Under the new scheme one-third of the available land is auctioned, one-third is allocated directly to builders on a quota basis and the remaining onethird is allocated to individuals who are registered on a waiting list. We also undertook during the election campaign to allocate land on a preferential basis to first home buyers.

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. I am a little puzzled by what is going on here at the moment. I was under the impression that in an adjournment debate honourable senators could direct perhaps a grievance or some complaint to a Minister. At the moment we have what is in effect a propaganda exercise on the part of an honourable senator. It is virtually a statement which should be made by one of the Ministers in the normal time of debate.

Senator Bishop:

– I think he is replying to another honourable senator who spoke in the debate today.

Senator Georges:

– I do not know whether Senator Knight is replying to another honourable senator who spoke in the debate today.

Senator McLaren:

– He is replying to Senator Ryan.

Senator Georges:

- Senator Knight indicated that he was going to reply to Senator Ryan tomorrow. Perhaps he was in order in indicating that briefly before he went into his speech. What worries me is the fact that the honourable senator has launched into a subject which will lead to an answer from this side of the House rather than from a Minister. Matters raised in an adjournment dabate should be of the nature of a grievance that is to be answered by a Minister. Surely we are not now going to engage in a debate on an entirely new subject. Having listened to Senator Knight, I think that many of the things that he has said need to be answered. It is a quarter past eleven. I do not know whether it is in the spirit of the arrangement that was made today to enter into a fairly wide debate on what has been done, what has not been done, what was promised by the Government and what was carried out by the

Government in relation to the Australian Capital Territory.

The PRESIDENT:

– There has been no contravention of Standing Orders by Senator Knight. Matters raised in an adjournment debate need not necessarily be those for which there is a ministerial responsibility. You may continue your speech, Senator Knight.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I want to add to what Senator Georges has said by way of raising a point of order. I appreciate that you have given a ruling on it, but if honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber initiate a full scale debate at this hour of the night obviously they are going to provoke honourable senators on this side ofthe House to come into it. With very great respect to your ruling, Sir, and to the Senate I would suggest that the honourable senator should terminate his remarks. He has apparently made his point, and that is it.

The PRESIDENT:

– You are not raising a point of order, Senator Keeffe; you are commenting on one. I call Senator Knight.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I want to make it clear, Mr President, that I do not want to contravene any arrangement that has been reached. It is my understanding that I am not.

Senator Keeffe:

– We will put up 6 speakers if you want 6 speakers.

Senator KNIGHT:

-I think it is quite in accordance with Standing Orders for me to make a statement relevant to measures which have been taken in relation to my electorate. Is that denied to me in any way by Standing Orders? I say to Senator Georges that if I am acting in any way in contravention of any agreement entered into, I hope that he will make that point but I understand that I am not. I certainly do not want to act in contravention of any understanding that has been reached.

Senator Georges:

– In relation to the point which has been made, I raise a further point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it a point of order?

Senator Georges:

– It is a point of order, yes. It is not really covered by the Standing Orders, but I should have thought that if Senator Knight was going to make a statement tonight he would have at least given us foreknowledge of it because if we had had foreknowledge of it we would have made the necessary arrangements to enter into the debate that he has started. The adjournment debate, traditionally, has been one in which an honourable senator gets up and addresses a Minister but before doing so he informs that Minister that he will raise a particular subject matter. Here we have a situation in which an honourable senator rises and engages in the making of a statement which by its very nature, needs in some way to be rebutted by us. We should know that he will do this and also the nature of what he will say so that we can take action to supply the necessary speakers in the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, the appropriate time for discussion of these matters is not just now. You are not raising a point of order. I cannot but ask Senator Knight to continue his remarks.

Senator KNIGHT:

-Thank you, Mr President. I was saying that during the election campaign we also undertook to allocate land on a preferential basis to first home buyers. First home buyers are now allocated land under the new system at reserve prices. During the election campaign an undertaking was given also that Commissioner for Housing loans would be continued. Some reference to this has been made in the Senate, and it is a matter on which the Minister might respond. Senator Ryan made the point -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must not refer to a debate that has just taken place.

Senator KNIGHT:

– Because of reductions in the amount provided for Commissioner for Housing loans there was some concern in the community in the Australian Capital Territory that the loans might be cut out altogether. When this Government was elected to office the sum of $3m was added to those loan funds to ensure that they continued through this financial year. In accordance with the undertaking that we gave during the election campaign, Commissioner for Housing loans will be continued next year and an amount of $12m, together with funds flowing back from loans already outstanding, will be provided for that purpose. Because of limited resources available, these loans will now be means tested to ensure that people who need them most obtain them first.

I refer also to the sale of government houses. During the election campaign it was promised that the sale of government houses to tenants would be recommenced. The Minister may be able to confirm that this undertaking will be honoured. I understand from the Minister for the Capital Territory in another place that it is his aim and objective that this pledge, as stated by the Government parties during the election campaign, will be honoured as soon as administrative details are settled and the matter is finalised. Reference has been made frequently both within and outside this Parliament to the planning difficulties which have occurred in the Australian Capital Territory. There can be little doubt that one of the reasons for this has been that under the previous Government the National Capital Development Commission was placed under the control of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. During the election campaign we undertook that if returned to government the National Capital Development Commission would be under the responsibility of the Minister for the Capital Territory so it would be, as it was always intended to be, a planning body for the national capital.

Senator Georges:

– And you took away its budget.

Senator KNIGHT:

– Next year, as ought to be well known, the National Capital Development Commission will spend more money in the Capital Territory than it spent here this year. The NCDC, as the national capital planning body, is now solely responsible for the national capital and many of the planning difficulties, whether they be difficulties associated with schools, or health centres or simple landscaping problems in new suburbs, will be overcome with planning by the Commission.

Finally, I refer to one major general point which is important to this electorate, that is, the superannuation scheme for Commonwealth public servants. The implementation of a new superannuation scheme was a major plank in our platform during the election campaign, and it was one of the first major reforms introduced in the Thirtieth Parliament. I have referred to some of the major undertakings made by the Government parties during the election campaign and to the fact that those undertakings have been implemented or are in the course of implementation. I think it is important that I refer to some of them during the adjournment debate as is appropriate because they relate to measures taken by this Government during the first session of the Thirtieth Parliament. As I have mentioned already, I will continue these remarks in debate tomorrow and refer to other measures taken to rationalise and stabilise development in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I regret having to make this contribution, Mr President, but I want to say that Senator Knight is making a habit of speaking almost every night in the hope of making the regional news in the morning or having his statements reported somewhere near the funeral notices in the Canberra

Senator Knight:

– I take a point of order. Is it appropriate that the honourable senator make totally irrelevant comments such as those?

The PRESIDENT:

– Irrelevant matters may be discussed in the adjournment debate.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the honourable senator on the Government side can nominate the Standing Order against which I transgressed in making those remarks I would like to know what it is. I want to make these few remarks. The honourable senator wants to make parochial speeches every night and to hold up the time of this Senate when there are other important things to be spoken about. If he wants to do this when there are important matters to be raised in the adjournment debate then we can all do the same thing. We all come from a particular town, city or area and would be equally justified in making those sorts of statements.

Senator Knight:

- Mr President, I seek your clarification.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the honourable senator raising a point of order?

Senator Knight:

– Yes. Does Senator Keeffe regard the A.C.T. as unimportant?

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance to the point of order.

KEEFFE, James:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is futilefor Senator Knight to stand here and tell us what a grand job the Government he supports is doing for the A.C.T. In the 6 months that this Government has been in office it has put the A.C.T. back 10 years. It has undone a lot of the good work initiated by the Labor Government. The honourable senator can search the rule book for as long as he likes but he will not find a Standing Order to stop me saying what I intend to say. The Labor Party’s superannuation proposal was rejected by this Government. The honourable senator probably does not know about it. A lot of remarks were made about him by members of the Liberal Party because he was overseas at the time he gained preselection. I remember one of its members saying that he still hoped that the honourable senator might make the seat. One Liberal Party member told me the other day that he was prepared to bet that the honourable senator will not be here after the next election and that there would be 2 Labor senators representing the Australian Capital Territory.

Let us not be so parochial about these things. I would be the last person to object if the honourable senator spoke in the adjournment debate every night so long as he did not indulge in all sorts of trivialities. His criticism of the National

Capital Development Commission was totally unjustified. That group of public servants cannot defend themselves. It does not matter that they have to serve under Labor governments or Liberal governments. They did an excellent job under the Labor Government. It is quite unfair for the honourable senator to denigrate them under these circumstances. Those people cannot defend themselves in the same way that the honourable senator can defend himself under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

I also want to refute the statement that Senator Knight made about the great job that this Government is doing for home owners and home buyers in this city. By means of the legislation that this Government intends to introduce it is going to double the price of land for young people in the city. It is going to reduce the number of houses available and it is going to create an accommodation shortage. This Government already has created an unemployment problem. Let us be factual about these things. If Senator Knight wants to continue speaking every night of the week we are prepared to have him on. If he wants to stay here until daylight every morning that can be arranged also. What is more, we will make sure that quorums are called and that the Government maintains the numbers in this House until daylight every morning if the honourable senator wants to indulge in these parochial debates. I suggest very respectfully that if the honourable senator wants to speak about these parochial matters tomorrow, as he has already indicated he will, he ought to do so in the proper debating time of the Senate.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Four honourable senators have made contributions to the adjournment debate tonight. Let me address myself, as Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr MacKellar), to the matters raised by Senator Mulvihill. I personally, as a New South Welshman, am delighted to learn of the events at Homebush Bay and the discovery of the oasis for flora and fauna. I will not hold up the Senate tonight because I think we are all anxious to get home. The honourable senator has raised the question of how this matter can best be handled. I will direct it to the attention of the Acting Minister and seek his advice, and perhaps at some subsequent time I will deal with the various matters of federalism and centralism that the honourable senator also raised. I accept that these are important matters and I certainly will have them looked into.

Senator Sibraa drew my attention earlier, I thank him for doing that- to an article in the Press relating to alleged dismissals from Hanimex Pty Ltd. I have already drawn the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in another place to this matter. There was no specific knowledge at hand at the time and we are in the process of seeking it. I note that the matter is to go before the Industrial Commission on Friday. That limits any debate on the merits or otherwise of the matter. One hopes that it can be happily resolved. As to the contribution of Senator Knight, I will refer the point on which he seeks clarification to the Minister concerned and seek that Minister’s advice.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.33 p.m.

page 1911

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Refugees: Voluntary Relief Organisations (Question No. 27)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

Has the Minister examined the concept originally expounded by a former Minister for Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, M.P., which visualised the co-ordination of the operation of voluntary relief organisations in their component role in Australia ‘s future intake of all categories of refugees.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has indicated that in line with the Liberal and National Country Parties’ policy statement on immigration and ethnic affairs, the Government is committed to the active encouragement of immigration at a level and of a pattern which best suits Australia ‘s national interests.

Within this commitment provision exists for the entry of refugees and the concept originally expounded by a former Minister for Immigration, the Honourable C. R. Cameron, M.P., has been closely examined.

In the recent intake of refugees from Thailand the resources of voluntary agencies and related organisations were used and proved to be of great assistance.

The Minister has instructed his Department to develop a comprehensive policy proposal for dealing with refugee situations. This is being done as a matter of priority. At the earliest opportunity, he intends to arrange a meeting with interested bodies to discuss the approach to be adopted and the extent to which they can be involved at the operational level.

Arbitration Inspectors (Question No. 94)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) How many Arbitration Inspectors police Commonwealth Awards in New South Wales.
  2. Do any of the Inspectors speak a second or third language.
  3. What resources are utilised by the Inspectors if they lack an extra language and need to check a claim made by a migrant in cases where that person has a limited knowledge of English
  4. How often in New South Wales in the past six months have Inspectors sought the aid of the New South Wales Factory Welfare Board to improve amenities.
  5. What are the names of the Inspectors responsible for policing clothing trade awards.
  6. How many Inspectors operate in the female section of the printing industry.
  7. How often do Inspectors inspect amenities provided for female PABX operatives installing AWA components in metropolitan hospitals.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. A total of 27 Arbitration Inspectors are authorised to conduct inspections relating to federal award matters in New South Wales.
  2. No.
  3. The services of interpreters attached to the Translation and Interpreting Section of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are available to Arbitration Inspectors in New South Wales for the purpose of interviewing persons who have only a limited knowledge of English
  4. The Factory and Industrial Welfare Board is established under the New South Wales Factories, Shops and Industries Act. The Board, inter alia, recommends standards of welfare facilities and general amenities to be provided in establishments covered by that Act.

A large number of federal awards contain very limited, if any, reference to welfare and amenities, and employers in New South Wales respondent to such awards would be covered by the Factories, Shops and Industries Act in respect of welfare and amenities matters. Enforcement of the New South Wales Factories, Shops and Industries Act is the responsibility of the New South Wales Department of Labour and Industry.

However, some federal awards do incorporate the provisions of the relevant State industry amenities and welfare legislation, or provide that amenities should be of an ‘adequate’ of ‘satisfactory’ standard. In these cases, Arbitration Inspectors in New South Wales refer for guidance to the standards recommended by the Factory and Industrial Welfare Board. Where further elaboration on those standards is required, Inspectors liaise with the New South Wales Department of Labour and Industry. The necessity to undertake such liaison does not often arise, and no statistics are maintained of those occasions on which the assistance of the New South Wales Department of Labour and Industry has been sought in this regard.

  1. Arbitration Inspectors are allocated responsibilities on a geographical, rather than on an award, basis and attend to award matters applying to all industries within a particular allotted area. Consequently, no individual Inspectors are solely responsible for clothing trade award matters.
  2. See answer to(5).
  3. It is not clear to which particular classification( s) of employee, and their employer, the honourable senator is referring. It is, therefore, not possible to ascertain whether a federal award applies to the employees in question and, if so, whether that award requires the provision of a certain standard of amenities.

Arbitration Inspectors conduct inspections in response to complaints and on a routine basis. The Arbitration Inspectorate has received no complaints from persons involved in the installation of PABX systems or components in metropolitan hospitals. Routine inspections are directed toward establishments where employees covered by federal awards are known to be employed. Routine inspections are directed at all provisions of the award applying, rather than specific elements of the award such as conditions for females or amenities. Metropolitan hospitals have limited, if any, respondency to federal awards and routine inspections to such areas would not be frequent.

If the honourable senator has a particular case in mind, and wishes to provide me with some additional information, I will be happy to investigate this matter further.

Phosphate Exports (Question No. 172)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What arrangements, if any, have been made between the Commonwealth Government and BH South for the export or use in Australia of phosphate from the Duchess deposits in North Queensland.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

On 1 1 September 1975 BH South Ltd was given approval by the Commonwealth Government to export up to two million tonnes of phosphate rock each year over a ten year period. The approval to export was given subject to the Company’s undertaking to give priority to making up shortfalls in supplies for the local market if that situation should arise in future.

There have been consultations between BH South and Government officials on the possibility of domestic use of phosphate from Duchess. No arrangements have been concluded between the Commonwealth Government and the company in this regard.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Expenditure (Question No. 200)

Senator Wriedt:

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1 975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Minister representing the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 192 on 30 March 1976 [Hansard, page 892).

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 223)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Victorian Government last week agree to take over financial responsibility for 26 people affected by Federal Government cuts in the NEAT Scheme.
  2. Were these 26 people migrant teachers being trained in the English language so that they can teach in disadvantaged schools in Australia.
  3. Is the training and employment of migrant teachers an essential program worthy of Federal Government support.
  4. How many foreign language, or migrant teachers, in Australia are leaving their courses because of cutbacks in the NEAT Scheme.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) I have seen a Press report to the effect that the Victorian Government would provide additional assistance to a group of people undertaking an Ethnic Teachers’ Retraining Course at the State College of Victoria, Toorak.

The persons concerned have overseas teaching qualifications and experience and are engaged in a project aimed at upgrading their qualifications by means of a six month intensive English course, followed by a one year course of teacher training oriented to the special requirements of schools of high migrant density. The intention, as I understand it, is for the teachers to be employed as primary teachers at schools with high numbers of pupils from migrant families.

This course at Toorak is the only one of its kind in Australia. However, discussions are proceeding with a view to further courses at the State College of Victoria, and in New South Wales.

Assistance is provided under NEAT by way of allowances paid to participants in the course and for 1976 funds will be provided, also from the NEAT allocation, to meet costs such as salaries of staff conducting the course and various equipment and other special requirements.

I am advised that the course began in July 1975 with 29 participants, one has since returned to his country of origin and another was regrettably killed in a road accident, leaving 27 current participants. There have been no other withdrawals from the course.

At the State College of Victoria, Toorak, in addition to the course of 6 months intensive English followed by one year of teacher training, there was, during 1975, a part-time English course of 20 weeks duration for students with migrant backgrounds who are qualified for entry to tertiary institutions.

The commitment required from NEAT funds, and from the Commonwealth Department of Education, in respect of these two courses to date, is of the order of $ 1 76,000.

In this light the Commonwealth Government’s recognition of the importance of such projects is quite evident.

Regional Employment and Development Scheme (Question No. 299)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

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

Did the former Government obtain an opinion from the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor about the legality or otherwise of terminating the contractual relationships in individual projects under the Regional Employment Development Scheme before arrangements were set in train to abolish that Scheme; if not, why not.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The arrangements for termination of the Regional Employment Development Scheme were set in train by the previous Government. As far as I am aware, grants to sponsors were not seen as contractual relationships and the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor was not consulted.

Unions: Compulsory Membership (Question No. 300)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1 ) How many and which trade unions in Australia enforce compulsory membership for all those persons who work in particular industries.
  2. Which trade unions are known to be affiliated with and, therefore, make financial contributions to various political parties and, in each case, with which parties are they affiliated, and to which parties do they make financial contributions.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The Government is aware that a number of trade unions have a policy of 100 per cent membership ofthe employees who work in the industry for which the union has coverage. However unions are under no obligation to disclose their policies in this regard and information is not available as to the incidence of union membership of employees in particular industries. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides that in certain circumstances the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may direct that preference in employment be given to organisations or members of organisations. Special provisions exist to cover the position of conscientious objectors in situations where they work under an award which contains a preference provision. A survey of all federal awards which was conducted in February 1972 showed that at that stage 1 56 awards contained provisions for preference in employment to union members.
  2. There is no official information available as to affiliations of trade unions with political parties or as to financial contributions associated with such affiliations. The publication “A Handbook of Australian Trade Unions and Employees Associations” by D. W. Rawson contains results of private research into the question of affiliation of trade unions with political parties.

Apprentices (Question No. 337)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. 1 ) What inducements are offered by the Government to tradesmen to encourage them to take on apprentices.
  2. How many master tradesmen have received such inducements in the last three years.
  3. Has the Government considered granting reducing taxation deductions to tradesmen as a means of encouraging them to take on apprentices, as is done in the United Kingdom.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Inducements for employers, including tradesmen employers, are offered by the Government to encourage the employment of apprentices through the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme (NAAS). The Scheme provides subsidies varying between $1,248 and S 1,872 per annum in respect of those first year apprentices for whom the employer qualifies. In addition, the Scheme seeks to improve the training of apprentices by providing a subsidy of S4 per day in respect of apprentices who are given full time off-the-job training to approved standards.
  2. It is not possible to provide information in the required form. Employers claim the subsidy each quarter in respect of eligible apprentices. However, the number of employers (including tradesmen employers) whose applications for the incentive subsidy have been approved during the March quarter of the past 3 years is as follows:

Additionally, full time off-the-job training subsidies have been approved to employers on the following basis:

  1. In June 1972, the then Government considered the Scheme which is now operating and alternative inducements by way of taxation concessions. Following discussion with State Ministers for Labour it was decided it was more effective to pay subsidies to employers for the employment of apprentices.

Fire Safety Precautions (Question No. 380)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services the following question, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What action is being taken by the Government to see that the deficiencies in fire safety precautions that were reported in the 1973-74 Annual Report of the Australian Fire Board, and also observed during inspections undertaken in 1974-75, are corrected by Government departments and instrumentalities.
  2. Has the Board any power of direction to departments in such matters.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The reports by the Fire Board on inspections, including comments and recommendations, are issued to the establishments concerned, and the Board has found from its subsequent enquiries that its recommendations arc usually implemented.
  2. No.

Food Colouring Substance (Question No. 385)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Was Amaranth, the most common red food colouring in both the United States and the United Kingdom, banned in January 1976 in the United States market.
  2. Is this food colouring substance available, or has it been available for use in Australia, and what is the present position concerning the availability of any food colouring agents about which any doubt as to their safety exists.
  3. What are the present red colouring agents available for food which are known to be safe for human use.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Amaranth is one of the most commonly used red food colours throughout the world and to my knowledge is approved for use in foods in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
  2. Yes. Amaranth is currently permitted for use as a food colouring by legislation in alf States and Territories in Australia.

All food additives, including food colours, are maintained under continual review by the Expert Food Committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

There is no evidence, at this time, acceptable to the Food Committees to warrant the removal of Amaranth from the list of food colours permitted to be used in foods in Australia. This view is also held in Canada where all the documentation from the recent United States Study has been reviewed by the relevant authorities.

  1. In addition to Amaranth, the following red food colours have been approved by the NH & MRC for use in foods for human consumption:

Allura Red AC, Brilliant Scarlet 4R, Carmoisine Chlorazol Pink Y., Erythrosine, Alkanet, Alkannin Anthocyanin, Beet Red, Betanin, Carminic Acid, Cochineal, Crocetin, Crocin, Orcein, Orchil.

Aids for the Handicapped (Question No. 399)

Senator Knight:

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

What regulations or other provisions exist in the Australian Capital Territory for the provision of aids for the handicapped in (a) community facilities and (b) other buildings, such as shops and public transport.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Briefs issued for all community facilities in the Australian Capital Territory now contain provision for handicapped persons in accordance with the current Australian Standard CA 52 (Standards Association of Australia), i.e. access facilities, toilet and washroom facilities. There is no program at this time to upgrade existing facilities except as mentioned in (b) hereunder.

The Department of the Capital Territory is represented on the Interstate Standing Committee on Building Regulations which is currently considering the provisions to be written into the Australian Model Uniform Building Code to require developers to provide facilities for handicapped persons. The Australian Captial Territory Building Manual at present does not contain any special provisions for handicapped persons.

  1. Briefs for the construction of Government offices, national works and public buildings also contain provision for handicapped persons in accordance with current Australian Standard CA 52.

The National Capital Development Commission is progressively updating selected existing buildings to the above standard as hinds permit.

Provision of aids for the handicapped in shops is left to the discretion of the entrepreneur responsible for the design and construction of the building.

The National Capital Development Commission constructs ramps in the surrounds to shopping centres. In the case of the Woden Town Centre the Commission has completed an extensive remodelling to provide such access.

Special accommodation for the aged is sited and designed to allow for likely reduced physical skills of aged persons.

A proportion of the Canberra bus fleet facilitates access for those with limited mobility. All buses with the exception of AEC Swifts and Volvos have a wide doorway to facilitate entrance and egress. Leyland National and MAN buses have also been designed with a low step to facilitate access. The MAN buses have a vertical stanchion on every second seat to facilitate movement of the handicapped.

The Department makes reserved parking spaces available for handicapped drivers. Authorised disabled persons may have all day parking spaces reserved close to their places of work. There are some short-stay bays reserved in Civic Centre and Woden Town Centre for shopping and general purposes.

National Parks and Wildlife Reservations (Question No. 373)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) What were the respective acreages of National Parks and Wildlife Reservations at June 1970 in each State and Territory?
  2. What are the locations of such parks and reservations in each State and Territory?
  3. What additions have been made to the acreage of each park and reservation up to June 1 975?
  4. Have any specific Federal grants been made to any State Government to acquire land for the purpose referred to in ( 1 ) and what are the details of such acquisitions?
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) Attached is a table presented at the South Pacific Conference on National Parks and Reserves in Wellington, New Zealand in February 1975. The table details areas, by State and Territory, of National Parks and also of other Reserved Areas as at 30 June 1974.

State and Territory authorities are being contacted in order to obtain the required data to reply more specifically to questions ( 1 ), (2) and (3). I will relay the information to the honourable senator as soon as it becomes available.

  1. As of 6 April 1976 the following grants had been made to South Australia under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974.

To acquire Sections 6. 7, 62 and 95, Hundred of MacGillivray. comprising 2665 hectares at Murrays Lagoon for addition to the Cape Gantheaume Conservation Park, Kangaroo Island, at a cost of $ 1 1 5,0 14.

To acquire Sections 290, 329, 373 and 76, Hundred of Paringa, comprising 22S hectares for establishment of a Conservation Park on the Murray River at a cost of $52,200.

To resume the lease of Section 1 36, Hundred of Wangary, comprising 3358 hectares for addition to the Coffine Bay Peninsula National Park at a cost of 526,960.

Acquisitions for the balance of the $1,800,000 appropriated for 1975-76 are at varying stages of completion, and as the honourable senator will appreciate I am not in a position to give details of these land purchases until all necessary processes have been completed by the State Governments.

Federal Awards: Breaches (Question No. 429)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

Have all the employers proceeded against for breaches of Federal awards and of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1975 (vide Appendix D of the Australian Arbitration Inspectorate Report 1974-75) paid the fines imposed; if not, what firms have not paid fines.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Of the employers proceeded against for breach of Federal awards and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (as recorded in Appendix D of the Australian Arbitration Inspectorate Report 1974-1975), all except one have paid the fines imposed.

The exception is a Victorian firm, Lesock Service Station Pty Ltd, which has gone into liquidation with no assets and from which collection of the fine was not possible. It should be noted that the fine imposed against this Company was $200 rather than $20 as printed in Appendix D of the Annual Report.

Spent Nuclear Fuel (Question No. 430)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Has the Minister become aware of a new process for concentrating and consolidating radioactive wastes using inorganic cation exchange materials.
  2. Is the Minister aware of the process developed by Sandia Laboratories; if so, is the new process likely to have advantages for Australia in disposing of radioactive residues which require special disposal.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes; since Australia does not reprocess spent nuclear fuel the Sandia process has no direct application in this country.

Botany Bay Development (Question No. 434)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) What discussions have been held between Caltex Oil (Aust.) Pty Ltd and the Minister concerning the part of the $300m Kurnell Project which will be used for environmental protection purposes.
  2. Will the Minister confer with the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to see what role Caltex can play in rehabilitating certain foreshore bird habitat at Kurnell that has been despoiled over the years, due to overflow oil sullage.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

  1. 1 ) No discussions have taken place.
  2. 1 should be pleased to support an exchange of views on this matter with the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service if that were the wish of the New South Wales government.

In relation to environmental aspects of development of Botany Bay, I refer Senator Mulvihill to my response to a question raised by Senator Gietzelt on 8 April last. In that response I alluded to discussions which have taken place between myself and Sir John Fuller and Mr Punch in relation to what the Commonwealth might do in the Botany Bay area.

Union Elections (Question No. 447)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Government intend introducing secret ballots for the election of all officials of industrial organisations in Australia.
  2. Will the necessary legislation refer to both trade unions and employer organisations.
  3. Has the Minister, or officers of his Department, officially discussed these proposals with representatives of the trade unions and representatives of employer organisations; if so, when have these discussions occurred, and with whom.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government will be introducing legislation to give effect to its policy that elections in organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be by secret postal ballot under the supervision of the Australian Electoral Office. The cost of the elections will be borne by the Commonwealth. The Government’s policy has two main aims. The first is to encourage greater participation in elections in registered organisations by giving members a real opportunity to vote and by making it as easy as possible for members to vote. The second aim is to remove any deterrant to voting that might result from suspicion that elections conducted by the organisation are not, in fact, secret and that a vote against incumbent officials could result in victimisation. The ultimate objective is to have organisations that truly reflect the desires of their memberships.

Commissioner for Community Relations (Questions No. 464)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Did notice of a number of vacancies in the office of the Commissioner for Community relations in each State appear in the Australian Government Gazette on 18 December 1975.
  2. How many positions were involved, and when did nominations close.
  3. How many of these positions have been filled.
  4. What is the current level of staffing for the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations in each State.
  5. Are the positions advertised on 18 December currently the subject of an investigation by the Administrative Review Committee.
  6. 6 ) What effect has the delay in filling the positions had on the work of the Commissioner for Community Relations.
  7. How many cases are currently awaiting attention by the Commissioner for Community Relations.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 22 positions- applications closed 8 January 1976.
  3. None permanently. Some existing staff are filling several positions in a temporary capacity. Formalities for the permanent creation of the positions have not been finalised.
  4. Australian Capital Territory- 8 persons; New South Wales- 1 person; Victoria- 1 person.
  5. Yes.
  6. The Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations has responded to the needs of the community as referred to it.
  7. 55 complaints of racial discrimination are currently being investigated under the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

Mareeba Mining NL (Question No. 495)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Petroleum and Minerals Authority acquire five million one cent paid shares in Mareeba Mining NL in 1974; if so, did those shares revert to the Commonwealth of Australia when the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act was declared invalid by the High Court.
  2. Did the Australian Government loan $200,000 to Mareeba Mining NL in advance of calls.
  3. Was an additional loan of $300,000 advanced subsequent to that referred to in (2); if so, did Mareeba Mining NL use part of those monies to exercise an option it had over the Dianne Copper leases in Queensland.
  4. Did the Australian Government announce that it would spend $1.2m to help the Company develop the mine, and was an appropriation of $500,000 for this purpose included in the Budget for 1975-76; if so, has the present Australian Government failed to honour this commitment.
  5. When was any decision not to advance funds to Mareeba Mining NL for development of the mine taken, and by whom.
  6. Has the Company advised the Government whether it intends taking legal action against the Commonwealth over this matter.
  7. Has the Australian Government called up any loan moneys previously advanced to the Company.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Five million 50c ordinary shares, paid to lc on allotment, were issued jointly and severally to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority and the Commonwealth of Australia; following the High Court decision on the Authority’s legislation these shares devolved on the Commonwealth solely.
  2. The amount of $200,000 was advanced by the Petroleum and Minerals Authority as monies in advance of future calls. It was not a loan.
  3. Loan funds of $300,000 were advanced by the Petroleum and Minerals Authority prior to the amount referred to in (2). The total sum of $300,000 was applied by the Company to exercise an option to acquire the Dianne copper leases.
  4. In November 1974 the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr R. F. X. Connor, publicised the decision of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority to join Mareeba Mining

NL as a shareholder, to extend loan funds of $300,000 to the Company and to assist with further Dianne mine development; following the High Court decision on that Authority’s legislation, the Company continued discussions with Commonwealth officials on the matter of further mine finance. Funds provision in the order of $500,000 for purposes of this mine development had been included in the 1975-76 Budget. The form, extent and conditions applicable to that financing had been under some preliminary discussion during the latter part of 1975 but remained unfinalised, at lime of change of Government in November 1975. No contractual or legal commitments were entered into by the former Petroleum and Minerals Authority nor subsequently by the Commonwealth itself. On 22 December 1975 the Chairman of Mareeba Mining NL wrote to the Minister for National Resources seeking confirmation that Federal funds of $500,000 would be available during 1976 and made specific proposals in this regard.

  1. On 4 February 1976 the Minister for National Resources wrote to the Chairman of the Company to advise that the Government had decided not to proceed with further investment in Mareeba Mining NL and to divest its existing interests in the Company as soon as practicable.
  2. No.
  3. No.

Margarine Quotas (Question No. 511)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Has the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation requested the Government to abolish margarine quotas, subject to the proper usage of Australian vegetable oils.
  2. Has a formal submission on this subject been received from the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation.
  3. Have any other organisations or individuals made submissions on this matter.
  4. When is it expected that the Government will release its decision on any such proposal.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Oilseeds Committee of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation has announced that it will be recommending to the Australian Agricultural Council that, subject to proper labelling and the usage of Australian vegetable oils when available, all margarine quotas be removed from 1 July 1976.
  2. No.
  3. ) The question of production quotas on table margarine has long been a vexed one and representations have been submitted by many interested parties some favouring the abolition of quotas and some seeking their retention. The matter was also examined by the Industries Assistance Commission in its recent inquiry into the dairy industry.
  4. The question of production quotas on margarine is one for determination by individual State Governments although it has been traditional for the matter to be discussed at the Australian Agricultural Council before the level of quotas is varied.

Mareeba Mining NL (Question No. 533)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. Will the Minister inform the Parliament why the Government has withdrawn the $500,000 commitment to Mareeba Mining, a wholly owned Australia company, for the development of their promising Dianne and OK copper mines in North Queensland.
  2. Does this mean that the Government will, for the sake of a mere $500,000, allow this promising small but high grade deposit to fall back into the hands of foreign mining companies.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No legal commitments rest with the Commonwealth to contribute $500,000 to Mareeba Mining NL for purposes of mine development. While the former Labor Government had intended further investment in that company, as part of interests acquired through the former Petroleum and Minerals Authority, direct Commonwealth participation in mineral development in this way is contrary to the national resource policies of the present Government. Our clearly stated policy intention is to return the assets and interests of the former Petroleum and Minerals Authority back to private enterprise.
  2. If the company negotiates with foreign mining companies for purposes of mine developments, such arrangements would need to be consistent with the Government’s foreign investment policies.

Trade Unions: Registrations and Elections (Question No. 547)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. How many trade unions in Australia are currently registered with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
  2. How many of them elect their officials by secret ballot.
  3. What percentage of total trade union membership elect their trade union officials by secret ballot.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. As at 7 April 1976 there were 149 unions registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1 904- 1 976.
  2. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1976 provides in section 133(l)(d) that trade unions registered as organisations under the Act must provide in their rules for the conduct of elections for each office holder by secret ballot.
  3. The conduct of elections is presently the responsibility of the organisation concerned, except where application is made pursuant to section 1 70 for an officially conducted ballot. Consequently, there are no detailed figures available as to the number of persons voting in elections for office bearers of organisations.

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. SS3)

Senator Rae:

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

When can Senator Rae expect an answer to Senate Question No. 298 concerning the legality of abolishing the National Employment and Training System.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The answer to Question No. 298 appeared in Hansard on 4 May 1976 (pages 1509-10).

Aborigines: Health Survey (Question No. 567)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the results of a survey on The Physical Health of Aboriginal Adults in Bourke, New South Wales by Dr Max Kamien, published in the Medical Journal of Australia of 10 April 1 976; if so, does the survey conclude that 79 per cent of all Aboriginal adults in Bourke in 197 1 were in need of medical attention.
  2. What steps has the Department of Health taken since 197 1 to ensure the provision of more effective health care for the Aboriginal adults living in the Bourke area of New South Wales.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The provision of health care in the Bourke area of New South Wales is primarily the responsibility of the Health Commission of New South Wales. The Commission is concerned at the low health status of Aborigines in the area and attributes this to multiple deprivations in the socioeconomic sense, especially the high rate of unemployment and associated alcoholism. This situation will not be overcome by health means alone. However, with Commonwealth Government financial assistance, the Health Commission has endeavoured to take special measures to alleviate the health situation of the Aborigines in the area and these include the employment of a medical officer and of a nurse and full-time Aboriginal health worker. In addition, a community health nurse and a nursing aide, in respect of whom some Commonwealth funding is provided under the Community Health Program, and who operate out of Bourke, provide assistance as required. Special arrangements have been made to enable medical specialists to visit the area from time to time. Further, the introduction of Medibank with effect from 1 July 1975, has removed some of the financial constraints that might otherwise have restricted health care for Aborigines in the area.

Apart from these measures, I have already announced in February of this year the national campaign against trachoma and other eye diseases, which is to be undertaken by the Australian College of Ophthalmologists. This project is aimed at treating eye conditions in remote areas of Australia, including places such as Bourke in New South Wales.

Coal Levy (Question No. 573)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister received submissions from representatives of the Australian mining industry arguing that many mining projects will not go ahead unless the Australian Government removes the $6 a tonne coal levy and adopts accelerated write-offs for mine development.
  2. Is the Minister aware that at least nine draglines are scheduled for delivery to companies involved in Australian mineral exploration by 1980.
  3. What is the current minimum cost of a dragline.
  4. Does the purchase of a dragline represent only approximately 10 per cent of the all-up cost of developing a mining project.
  5. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, have the firms involved informed the Department of National Resources that they will embark on new projects in the next ten years, whether or not the Government alters the policies outlined in (1).
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Coal Association sent to me a copy of its submission to the Treasurer, in which, using calculations for two hypothetical projects, it is argued that new high quality coking coal projects would be no more than marginal propositions largely owing to the coal export duty and the nature of existing depreciation allowances.
  2. and (3) There is no requirement for companies to keep me informed of the engineering details of new mineral projects and I am unaware of the number and costs of draglines currently intended for delivery by 1980.
  3. See (3).
  4. See(2).

Tariffs: Trade Talks (Question No. 580)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, on 4 May 1976, the following question, upon notice:

  1. Is Australia represented at current trade talks in Geneva sponsored by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; if so, has the Chief United States negotiator at the talks, Mr W. N. Walker, proposed a 50 per cent to 60 per cent cut in tariffs by all industrial nations.
  2. What has been the Australian delegation’s response to this proposal.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Yes, Australia is represented at these negotiations.

    1. The United States, in the context of work to develop a tariff negotiating formula with as wide an application as possible, has tabled an in principle proposal based on the provisions of the United States Trade Act. This Act provides, inter alia, authority for a reduction in United States tariffs of up to 60 per cent in the course of the Multilateral Trade

Negotiations. The EEC and Japan have also suggested possible approaches and other countries have proposed variations to these approaches.

  1. Because considerable further work is necessary before decisions will be possible, Australia has indicated that an attitude to the proposals and suggested approaches cannot be determined until a number of important issues have been resolved. Examples are the questions of exceptions and the treatment of agricultural products.

Rural Reconstruction (Question No. 601)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Department of Primary Industry, as claimed in the Brisbane Telegraph of 28 April 1976, studying a suggestion that it purchase farms in financial difficulties and subsequently lease them to young people with an option to purchase; if so, has the Department consulted with State Governments about this proposal.
  2. If the answer to (I) is in the affirmative, when is it expected that the Department’s inquiries will be completed.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government, in its election policy, has undertaken to look for ways, through extension of rural reconstruction, by which approved applicants might lease farms for a period of ten years with an option to purchase at the end of that period. This proposal is currently being examined by my Department in the light of prevailing economic circumstances, and of advice obtained from State Governments based on their experience in this field.
  2. 2 ) I am unable at this stage to indicate when the proposal will be advanced in sufficient detail to enable consideration to be given to it by the Government.

Growth In Government Employment Under The Labor Government (Question No. 372)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the total number of new departments, agencies, commissions and other bodies created by the Labor Government between December 1972 and December 1975.
  2. What were these bodies.
  3. Which of these bodies duplicated functions undertaken by either Federal, State or local bodies.
  4. What number of employees did they employ in each of the three years.
  5. What was the total costs of each such body in each of the three years.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) The Labor Government made a great number of changes to the administrative structure and created many new departments, commissions and other bodies.

A number of new departments which functioned under the Labor administration, while new creations in name, had their origins in previously existing departments and authorities and were established as a result of changes in names, amalgamations and separations of functions.

A good deal of specific information on a large number of the administrative changes, including the creation of commissions and authorities of various kinds, made under Labor can be obtained from the statements made by the former Prime Minister on 31 May 1973 (Hansard, pages 3002-5. particularly pages 3002-3), 13 December 1973” (Hansard. pages 4729-58, particularly pages 4730-1 and pages 4738-40), 2 August 1974 (Hansard, pages 1053-9, particularly pages 1053-4), 5 December 1974 (Hansard, pages 4654-86, particularly page 4656 and pages 4679-80), 5 June 1975 (Hansard, pages 3435-57, particularly page 3438 and page 3450) and also from the former Prime Minister’s answers to questions on 23 August 1973 (Hansard, pages 383-97) and 4 March 1975 (Hansard, page 1031). Additional information on the various changes is to be found in the Public Service Board’s Annual Reports for 1973, 1974 and 1975.

In less than three years, the Labor Government amended the Administrative Arrangements Order on no less than 20 occasions compared with some 94 amendments in the preceding years since Federation. Many departments had their names changed, were abolished, created or amalgamated.

A disproportionately large amount of work and expenditure, which I am not prepared to authorise, would be involved in searching through all the records concerned, to identify and separate the details the honourable senator has sought in relation to both departments and authorities.

However, as the Prime Minister mentioned in a Press Statement on 9 February 1976, during the period December 1972 to June 1975, employment in the Public Service, excluding the Postmaster-General’s Department and statutory authorities, rose from 134 465 to 160 177- a growth of over 25 700 or 19 per cent in 2% years.

In regard to the order of the growth of costs under Labor, I refer the honorourable senator to the Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1974 which shows, in Table 4, that total expenditure on salaries and pay under annual appropriations for 1 972-73 was $1,229,820,000 while the corresponding Budget paper for 1975-76 shows, in Table 6, that the expenditure on salaries and pay in 1975-76 was estimated at $2,136,621,000. Even allowing for the inflationary trends over the period, the increase in the costs nevertheless remains very substantial.

Promotion of Australian Cattle

Senator Cotton:
LP

-On 28 April 1976 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. Has the Minister received from the Australian Shorthorn Export Association a request for an advance of up to $100,000 to assist in the promotion of Australian cattle on a world basis in Sydney in March and April 1977, and from which it is hoped to build a great new export field for Australian primary producers. If so, can the Minister advise whether support by way of grant, loan or both can be given and if so when, so that the organisers can proceed with finalising arrangements for the many overseas buyers already expected?

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

The Australian Shorthorn Export Association has in fact made simultaneous representations to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Overseas Trade and the Minister for Primary Industry, seeking financial support up to $100,000 for the staging in Australia of a World Shorthorn Conference in 1977.

The Prime Minister in his answer of 28 April 1976 has informed the Australian Shorthorn Export Association that it would not be possible for the Government to offer financial assistance of the magnitude sought, particularly in the current circumstances.

The Prime Minister has explained that the Commonwealth Government looks to Conference organisers to make efforts to obtain as much necessary finance as possible from their own resources and from other interested bodies, including State Governments where appropriate. However, the Commonwealth Government is prepared in certain cases to consider requests for assistance to bridge the gap between estimated income and expenditure incurred in the holding of international conferences in Australia. Conference organisers seeking this form of assistance should apply to the Minister for Administrative Services.

In addition, the Prime Minister has indicated that it may be possible to assist publicising overseas the proposed Conference in the publications of the Department of Overseas Trade and through the Trade Commissioner Service.

Taiwanese Fishermen (Question No. 579)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) How many Taiwanese fishermen are currently detained in Australia as a result of their vessels being seized by the Australian Government for illegally fishing in Australian waters.
  2. What ships are involved, and where are the ships and their respective crews being held.
  3. Does the Australian Government meet the living expenses of the detained fishermen.
  4. What has been the cost to the Australian Government of detaining crew members of ships seized for illegally fishing in Australian waters for each year since 1 970.
  5. Has any of this outlay been recovered; if so, by whom.
Senator Cotton:
LP

-The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) On 5 May 1976, there were no foreign fishing boats detained by the Australian Government awaiting legal proceedings. The following list shows details of four boats previously ordered forfeit by the Courts and awaiting disposal at that date by sale to their former owners at negotiated prices.

The crews were allowed to live aboard so as to be available to sail the ships home. The Australian Government supplies basic stores if necessary to supplement those on board, from the time of apprehension to the date on which the offer to purchase is accepted, when responsibility for all costs reverts to the purchaser.

Sale of the Fong Ta 1 is presently being negotiated.

  1. As at 5 May 1976 the unforeseen cost to the Australian Government of holding the four Taiwanese fishing vessels had been:

Costs of apprehension, prosecution and detention are met within the Estimates of the Departments concerned and are not separately identified.

  1. 5 ) Total identifiable costs to my Department for the prosecution of the masters and crewmen of foreign fishing vessels, detention of those vessels, the storage and disposal of forfeited property, and sustenance and repatriation of the crews, for each year from 1970 to 1972, have not been recorded separately. Those since that date are:
  1. The amounts in (5) are net of recoveries from operators of foreign fishing vessels apprehended. In addition, fines and the proceeds of the sale of forfeited property since 1.1.70 total (as at5 May 1976- including amounts due and contracted for):

Legal Aid (Question No. 488)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the expenditure by the Attorney-General ‘s Department on legal aid in Queensland during 1 974-75.
  2. What were the names of the legal firms in Townsville. Rockhampton, Southport and Bundaberg which received fees and what amounts were paid to each of these firms.
Senator Greenwood:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) In 1974-75 the expenditure by the Attorney-General’s Department on legal aid in Queensland amounted to $358,749 made up of $285,236 for salaries and administrative expenses of the Australian Legal Aid Office and $73,513 for payment of accounts of private legal practitioners to whom cases had been referred by the Office. During the year the Office entered into a commitment for the expenditure of $514,000, being the estimated cost of 3458 cases referred to private legal practitioners. In addition a Commonwealth grant of $160,500 was made to the Queensland Government to supplement existing legal aid schemes in Queensland.

Petroleum Search Subsidy (Question No. 419)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of implementing the Petroleum Search Subsidy for each year of its existence.
  2. What was the total expenditure on oil exploration in Australia for each of those years.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Payments under Petroleum Search Subsidy Acts (excluding Papua New Guinea)*

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 May 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760525_senate_30_s68/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant