Senate
27 May 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1997

PETITIONS

Family Planning

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present 4 petitions from 137, 256, 19, and 213 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.

Overseas Development Assistance

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

Reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP; and

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 25 citizens of Australia:

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

Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Tertiary Education Allowances

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition from 19 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned students and staff at Christ College respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Government Tertiary Educational Allowance Scheme, be raised from $30 per week to $48 per week.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick will carry out this petition.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Immigrant Teachers

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 19 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and Senators of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned students and staff of Christ College and State Colleges of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That Teachers recruited outside Australia by the Victorian Education department have their income taxation exemption for the period of their stay in Australia cancelled.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Planning

Senator PRIMMER:

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

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The 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.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Australian Heritage Commission

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of Phillip Island Conservation Society respectfully showeth that: there is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

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

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

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

That a proper balance between the Government’s 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 Sim.

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Allowances

To the Honourable the President and Senators of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned students and staff at Christ College respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Government Tertiary Educational Allowance Scheme, be raised from $30 per week to $48 per week.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick will carry out this Petition.

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

Petition received.

page 1998

NOTICES OF MOTION

Retirement Age of Commonwealth Court Judges

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

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

That-

The following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report:

Whether the Constitution should be amended to provide that judges of Commonwealth Courts should be required to vacate their office upon the attainment of a fixed age.

2 ) The Committee report to the Senate as soon as possible but not later than the first sitting day in November 1976.

Employment Opportunities for Musicians

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

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

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for inquiry and report-

The maintenance of levels of employment for musicians by the Australian Broadcasting Commission with particular reference to:

The continuance and growth of symphony and other orchestras;

The extension of training facilities for musicians; and

The need for the creation of employment opportunities for music graduates of conservatoria and colleges of advanced education.

page 1998

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1998

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. In view of this statement of the Minister in answer to a question on 27 April this year: There will be no double tax. I repeat: There will be a single tax’, will the Minister inform the Senate whether or not the Government has received legal advice as to whether such a tax is consistent with the prohibition against discrimination between States contained in section 51 (ii) of the Constitution? If so, is the Minister prepared to table that advice? If not, was the Minister’s statement made on the assumption that the policy would not be legally challenged?

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

– There are 2 aspects to Senator Wriedt’s question. The first is the querying of my statement that there will be no double tax. Let me reply to that to put at rest a great deal of the questions raised by the Opposition in recent weeks. The decisions made and communicated to the February and April Premiers Conferences were emphatic and were known to the Australian Labor Party, that is, that in the first stage of revenue sharing under federalism there would be no capacity at all for the States either to make rebates or to impose surcharges. That has been known to the Australian Labor Party and the Premiers and the statements they have made implying that what would happen in the coming year would be a rise in State surcharges must be emphatically wrong.

It is true that the Commonwealth Constitution imposes upon the Commonwealth the responsibility to ensure that there shall be no discrimination in taxation as between the States. I have received from time to time verbal advice that if the Commonwealth were to be an agent to collect a surcharge imposed by a State or to cause a reduction by way of rebate allowed by a State it would not be discrimination since the Commonwealth itself would be imposing a tax which was non-discriminatory as between the States. I am not aware of the existence of a written legal opinion but since this matter is of importance if one exists I will get it and give it to the Leader of the Opposition.

page 1999

QUESTION

REPORT ON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and concerns the Jackson report on manufacturing industry. I ask the Minister whether this report was in 4 volumes of which only volume 1 has so far been published. Is volume 1 in fact a summary report? Does volume 2 contain extensive economic data and do volumes 3 and 4 contain the report of various consultants relevant to the Committee’s work? Is the Minister able to give an assurance that volumes 2, 3 and 4 will be published at the earliest opportunity? Is he able to give an indication of when that might be? If it is not likely to be in the near future, is he in a position to give any indication of the reasons for the publication of this important material being held up?

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

-It is correct that the Green Paper on manufacturing industry prepared by the committee chaired by Mr Jackson is a 4-volume report and that volume 1 is the main report containing recommendations, summary and conclusions. Volumes 2, 3 and 4 contain statistics and supporting studies. Volume 2 contains statistics relating to descriptive and diagnostic chapters of the paper. Volume 3 contains reports of studies commissioned by the committee in relation to various general aspects of the committee’s investigation. Volume 4 contains details of studies of economic and social aspects of 7 selected industries.

Arrangements for the printing of volumes 2, 3 and 4 are well advanced and they will be released as bulk copies as they become available from the Printer. It is expected that volumes 3 and 4 will be available around 3 1 May, and midJune in the case of volume 2. The Senate is well aware of the fact that we have announced the preparation of a White Paper on the whole of manufacturing industry and its interrelationships. We have called for submissions on that. At the moment I am not at all impressed with the number of submissions coming in and I think it may well be necessary to ask again for people who feel that this is a matter of importance to make their contributions because it would be no good everybody snivelling some years from now that the job had not been done properly.

page 1999

QUESTION

JAPANESE CIGARETTE LIGHTERS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and refers to a report in a Canberra newspaper yesterday about an imported Japanese cigarette lighter which has the unfortunate tendency to explode in people ‘s hands. The report refers to the success of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council in preventing the sale of this in Canberra. Mr King, of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council, was reported as follows: a major petrol company had been planning to market the lighter through its Canberra outlets. After an approach from the council, the company decided to divert the lighters from Canberra and sell them elsewhere.

I ask the Minister: Will he ask his colleague to please ascertain which petrol company is involved and to which unfortunate parts of Australia the sale of this lighter has been diverted? Will he consult the Minister for Customs to prevent the importation of this lighter and will he inform the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council that it has a responsibility beyond Canberra to protect the citizens Australia from such explosions?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This seems to me to be a strange way for a major petrol company to be selling its product around Australia. I pick up the point that the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council has a responsiblity beyond the Australian Capital Territory border to protect the citizens of Australia. This would be consistent with the approach that one might expect from the national capital. But seriously, it rather looks as though this is a dangerous item. If this is the case and the lighter was discovered in the Australian Capital Territory to be a dangerous item, I do not see why the balance of Australia should be subjected to it. The citizens of the rest of Australia are no less important than the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. I regard this as a matter of importance. I am glad that it was raised with me. I shall certainly talk to the responsible Minister about it and see what the Department of Customs can do about it.

page 1999

QUESTION

INTEREST ON TAX REFUNDS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer by saying that yesterday we heard the Minister for Social Security indicate that the Government was examining monthly payments of child endowment because the Government felt the money should be put in the hands of those to whom it belonged as soon as possible. I ask the Minister: In view of that attitude, will the Government examine the possibility of adding interest to the refunds made after 1 July by the Taxation Office at the same rate as the Taxation Office charges interest on overdue payments? In other words, if a refund were made at the end of August would 2 months’ interest be added to the amount of the refund? Also, if the Taxation Office objects to an item that has been deducted by a taxpayer but eventually refunds the deduction on that item- incidentally, that refund is often made as much as a year or so after the objection is raised by the taxpayer- will the Government also consider adding interest to the refunded amount so that the taxpayer is not disadvantaged?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator takes me back into my own family history. My father, I think in 1935, wrote a stinking letter to the Taxation Office rather along the same lines as the honourable senator has mentioned, saying that if the Taxation Office held his money, why did it not look after it for him? On the other hand, when the Taxation Office wanted his money, it was very difficult with him. Be that as it may, I take the point that the honourable senator raises. I think that all I can really do is to refer the matter to the Treasurer and to suggest to him that he might have a heavier influence on the Taxation Office than Senator Townley and I have.

page 2000

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– In addressing my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications I refer to the recently announced cuts in the Budget for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I ask the Minister: Is it not normally the responsibility of a statutory commission, such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, to determine how its own budget- be it reduced or otherwise- will be spent? I accordingly ask the Minister further: How were specifications of how the Australian Broadcasting Commission was to make cuts as mentioned in the statement by Mr Robinson arrived at? How did specifications come to be directed to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the effect that improvements to station 2JJ were to be deferred, that the improvements to station 3ZZ in Melbourne were to be deferred and that the frequency modulation licences for Perth and Brisbane were to be delayed? I further ask the Minister: Were not all these subject matters appropriate to be dealt with by the inquiry into broadcasting and television because they affect the situation of listeners in both Perth and Brisbane, for example, and in Melbourne and Sydney in relation to the 2 stations I mentioned?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As the question has many facets and involves seeking information as to why the responsible Minister took certain steps, I ask the honourable senator to put the question on the notice paper so that a definitive answer can be given.

page 2000

QUESTION

TRADE WITH THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade whether he has seen reports of yesterday’s statement by the Prime Minister to the officials of Commonwealth countries and the Commonwealth secretariat now meeting in Canberra. I add that, as a regional councillor of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I have seen in recent days something of the significance of the parliamentary activities of the Commonwealth. I note with approval the Prime Minister’s statement that the Commonwealth is no ghost of empire but exists for practical reasons. I ask the Minister: Has the Government recently made any strong representations to the British Government to honour its promises by breaking down trade restrictions of the European Economic Community, or are any such representations planned? Does the Government propose to seek the co-operation of other Commonwealth countries that export primary products, some which are developing countries, in order that the EEC may assist in improving world economics and not acquire greater power and dominance?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I read what the Prime Minister said. I was immensely pleased when I read it, because this brings up a question of considerable importance to us all. Around the world and in our own country we have people who have an instinctive hope and wish that there will be international free trade. At the moment that is a dream unrealised. Nowhere is it more unrealised than in the European Economic Community, which Britain has joined. Its member countries, as a community, are heavily protecting their own industries and the people who work in them. At the same time they are seeking free access for their products all round the world and denying us access for many of our products. This reminds me very much of the conversation in Vienna between the two Ks- Khrushchev and Kennedy. The general attitude expressed by Khrushchev was in something like these terms: What is mine is mine, and what is yours is to be negotiated ‘. The Prime Minister is quite correct to take an Australian position in regard to this huge trading bloc with the opportunity to have our products entering it fairly and realistically.

Senator Georges:

– It is a bit late.

Senator COTTON:

– I do not think so, because while the honourable senator’s Party was in government for 3 years we had almost total silence in the exercise- except for expensive visits by the Prime Minister to ruins and historical sites.

page 2001

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I refer the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs to his answers this week concerning local government finances. He stated that the Labor Government made available only $79.9m in untied grants to local government. Will the Minister agree that this sum was determined by that Government consequent upon recommendations it had received from the Commonwealth Grants Commission as a result of inquiries it had made into the financial needs of local government? Is the Minister also aware that, whereas he says that next financial year an amount of $ 140m will be made available by this Government to local governments, the Australian Council of Local Government Associations on 9 April last issued a statement saying that it seeks for local government purposes at least 2 per cent of income tax revenue, amounting to about $200m, which must be in addition to the present specific purpose grants which local government receives?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The answer to the first art of the question is yes, I am aware that the 79.9m was a figure which was adopted by the previous Government in consequence of recommendations by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I also am aware that my own Government has made available $ 140m which is 75 per cent greater and which therefore will give to councils a much wider spread since this amount will satisfy local government policy by giving a direct grant to all councils and will allow an amount at least equal to that for the previous year, cost escalated, by way of equalisation. I am aware that the Local Government Associations have suggested that 2 per cent would be a desirable figure for such an amount. Indeed, it is normal for all interested parties to put in their bids for those amounts. It is rare in any government, of course, that the bids made and the realisations happen to intertwine.

The Local Government Association has indicated to me that while it would have sought 2 per cent, it understands the circumstances of an economy turned into chaos by previous bad government decisions which necessitate 1.6 per cent. It understands also that associated with the evaluation of the $140m is the attempt by the Government to produce economic stability and therefore to overcome inflation in local government costing, both in recurrent and capital works. The Association understands the immense significance of 2 things: Tax indexation, which will help its own employees and help right throughout the cost structure and, not the least of all things, the redistribution of wealth to the poor. There is a major welfare factor in local government responsibility, and local government bodies thoroughly applaud the historic decision to redistribute wealth so that the poor, for whom they have great concern, can be given very great help.

page 2001

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Senator KILGARIFF:

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This morning the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the newspapers reported that Aboriginal land rights legislation had been introduced into the House of Representatives. Is that correct? If not, what is the present situation in regard to the legislation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

-My understanding is that it is correct that the land rights legislation has been introduced into the House of Representatives.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, it is intended to be.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It is intended to be. I will check the actual state of the legislation at the present time. I know that it is ready for introduction and I feel sure that all Australian people will welcome it. I know that the Aborigines have had some anxiety over the introduction of the legislation, and its early introduction- if it has not been introduced already- will be welcomed by all people in this country.

page 2001

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I refer to the specific assurance given by both Senator Carrick and the Minister he represents that there would be a very close examination of all environmental hazards associated with the impact of the Concorde aircraft on Australian skies before a decision was made. I respect the Minister’s sincerity. But I now ask him how his credibility can stand up to the fiercely partisan statement made by the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, in Melbourne last Friday when he said that without any doubt the Concorde is coming. I know that statement was made at a luncheon put on by the aviation tycoons at the Windsor Hotel. I ask the Minister: How can we combat that partisan statement in view of his honest promise to the Senate?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– What I did say, and what I recall my colleague Senator Ivor Greenwood saying, was that there had been and would continue to be detailed technical studies undertaken by various departments of the Government into the potential environmental impact of Concorde. As the honourable senator knows, there were ample opportunities for doing that during the proving flights on which many honourable senators from both sides of the House were privileged to travel. Australia has had the opportunity at first hand to gather a mass of technical data on Concorde over the whole of the continent of Australia, and the people of Australia have been able to see Concorde and to evaluate it. The understanding I have from my colleague Senator Greenwood is that that technical data was being made available to the Ministry of Transport, and I have no doubt that it has been made available although I am not cognisant of the total impact or details of it. I am not aware of any partisan statement by the Minister. My recollection is that the Minister indicated that he has decided that Concorde should be allowed to come to Australia.

Senator Jessop:

– He agrees with Charlie Jones.

Senator CARRICK:

– The interjection is pertinent. The Minister apparently shares the viewpoint of the previous Labor Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones. It is fair to say that no greater environmental impact study could have been made than that which was carried out in the United States where in recent years an immense study has been done into the whole technical and technological factors involved. It is significant to note that as a result of that study no environmental factors of any imperative nature had been raised in America. Whilst there may be some limitation on airports for various purposes, Concorde at this moment is flying into the United States and into other parts of the world. I am unaware of any adverse environment factors at all arising out of that. Nevertheless, because the matter is of such importance I shall refer the question to the Minister and urge upon him that the widest gathering of knowledge from the practical experience of Concorde throughout the world be made.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. I refer to an interview which I gave to the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Melbourne after the Jamaican conference. I point out with all due respect to Senator Carrick that therein I placed the emphasis on health. I was concerned not about the decibel readings in the southern hemisphere but about the incidence of skin cancer brought about by the dispersal of the ozone in the upper atmosphere. I have hammered the health aspect again and again. Have health reports been sought in the light of last week’s terrifying article in the Australian on the increase of skin cancer in the southern hemisphere?

Senator CARRICK:

– Over the years there has been a great volume of questioning and a great volume of information put forward as to whether or not Concorde, by its supersonic and high altitude flights, would affect the upper atmosphere and the stratosphere, and whether it would in fact affect the infra-red and ultra-violet structure by a variety of ways and means. My instinctive recollection is that the volume of scientific advice comes down on the side that this would not be so. Nevertheless this matter is important, just as it was important to analyse the effect of radiation, whether natural or from bomb explosions, upon the people of the world. As the honourable senator will know, it is far more dangerous to live at Canberra’s altitude than it is to be exposed to the radiation from all bomb tests. It is far more dangerous to travel from Canberra to Perth each week and it is far more dangerous to use a wristlet watch than it is to be subjected to other exposures. But these are elective things. The honourable senator talks about something that is compulsive upon the world and I take the matter seriously. I think everybody must. I shall invite the Minister for Transport to talk to the Minister for Health to see whether we can get something of an authoritative nature to make available to the Senate.

page 2002

QUESTION

URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT

Senator JESSOP:

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources and refer to the possible establishment of uranium enrichment plants in Australia. Can the Minister say whether any decision has been made with respect to the siting of such plants? Is the Minister able to say whether the South Australian Government has shown any interest in siting one of these plants in that State? If so, what sites have been suggested?

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

-Senator Jessop was kind enough to alert me that he would be asking a question of this nature. I have therefore obtained from my colleague the Minister for National Resources in the other place the following answer:

It is the objective of the Government to encourage the processing of Australia’s mineral resources as far as is economically practicable. Prima facie there appear to be promising economic returns from the enriching of Australian uranium prior to export. Various States, including South Australia, have indicated interest in the establishment of enrichment plants.

In my statement to the House on 25 February 1976 on my visit to Japan, I said that I had confirmed with the Japanese that the joint Australia- Japan uranium enrichment study agreed in November 1974 should proceed. I expect that discussions with other countries, particularly possible suppliers of technology, will also take place in parallel with the joint Australia-Japan study. Any decisions on the setting up of a uranium enrichment industry, including matters such as the siting of an enrichment plant, would nave to be based on thoroughgoing studies and the economic and commercial viability of the investment would, of course, have to be established.

page 2003

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION FEES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I ask: Does the decision concerning the partial reintroduction of university tuition fees for certain categories of students represent the first step in the restoration of university fees for all students attending tertiary institutions? Is the establishment of a selective scholarship scheme to replace the tertiary education allowance scheme contemplated? Is there any proposal under the Government’s federalism policy that may involve the devolution of total financial responsibility for tertiary education back to the States?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is emphatically no. It is not intended that the proposal now under investigation to impose certain fees on a limited number of second degree students in universities should in any way jeopardise the principle that first degree, combined degrees and end on degrees should remain free of charge to the students. I point out to the honourable senator that the number of students involved will be relatively small and that we will investigate, when we seek the proposals, the means of ensuring the minimum of hardship. Many of these students will be operating from institutions, organisations or industries which could be quite capable of paying the fees. So we hope that the impact upon a student himself or herself will be slight or non-existent.

There is no intention to do anything to replace the tertiary education allowance. It may well be that the investigations that we have started upon on the question of student loans will lead in the future to our being able to bring about a student loans scheme which would be a supplement to but in no way a diminution of the tertiary education assistance scheme. There is in existence at this moment a small scheme- I think it was introduced by the previous Government; if so, I applaud it-involving a few million dollars that have been made available to universities for hardship loans which the universities call maundy money. It works well and is a very valuable supplement. There is no intention under federalism of the Federal Government abdicating its overall responsibility for education in Australia. Federalism brings about a copartnership between the Commonwealth and the States.

page 2003

QUESTION

PURCHASING COMMISSION

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is an office of the Purchasing Commission currently operating within the jurisdiction of the Department of Administrative Services? If so, can the Minister say how many employees are involved and what instructions have been issued to other departments and statutory authorities requiring them to direct their purchases through it?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Yes, the office of the Purchasing Commission is running as a division within my Department and, pending the outcome of the Bland report, it will continue to do so. I do not have the number of employees available here, but I will obtain it for the honourable senator. I think that I ought to obtain for him a definitive answer to his third question, rather than just spin the details off the top of my head, because there are some authorities which are directing their purchases through the Commission and some authorities which are not, under certain guidelines laid down by governments over a period of some 20 years.

page 2003

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator HARRADINE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to a report in the Australian Financial Review this morning which indicated that economy measures now being widely canvassed within the Australian Broadcasting Commission include rationalisation of the Commission’s 6 orchestras, with the possible dismantling of the Hobart Symphony Orchestra and the possible elimination of the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra. My simple question is: What can the Government do to ensure that the ABC does not cut these worthwhile institutions?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-In responding to Senator Harradine ‘s question I do not wish to pre-empt in any way the response I gave earlier to a question in which an honourable senator sought some information as to why the responsible Minister in another place had made certain decisions. Consistent with that, because the areas covered by the 2 questions overlap, let me say this: The first perspective we must have is in regard to the magnitude of the cut imposed. As honourable senators may recall, in recent months we have had a complete distortion of the magnitude of what amounted to a $1.3m cut- imposed for the remainder of this financial year. The honourable senator may recall that it was alleged by many people and by many propagandists that this would result in the dismantling of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that there would be sackings of permanent public servants. The dust has settled. There has been no sacking of any permanent public servant.

I want to put the matter in perspective. The budget of the ABC, from memory, is $128m, which is $4m to $6m- something of that quantumsmaller than its budget for this year. We have to place in perspective what that means. Already I read in the newspapers that some 1200 staff will be sacked. Day by day we hear about the dismantling of the ABC. We have to relate this to the fact that the economies imposed upon the ABC are no more than those imposed on many of the great programs throughout the whole of Australia, and in many cases they are less. So, the ABC is not being asked to do anything that other departments and institutions have not been asked to do. It is not being asked to do anything more than, shall we say, the departments of education in all States were asked to do last year when the Schools Commission bid was chopped back by $43m. I noticed that there was no tenderness then. I believe that the true situation is that we must await what the Commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission do when they look at their budget. We must place the matter in perspective. We must be careful of the propagandists who say ‘Do not do as I did; do as I say’, because they themselves cut expenditure widely but now see vice in such cuts.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Mr President, I wish to ask the Minister for Education a supplementary question. Has the Government the power to direct the Australian Broadcasting Commission to ensure that the cuts take effect in areas considered by the majority of the public to be useless and of an experimental nature?

Senator CARRICK:

-As I understand it, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a statutory corporation and is given the freedom of a statutory corporation in order that it may produce objectivity of decision-making and comprehensive and adequate programming. To the extent that the Broadcasting and Television Act in its specific sections enjoins the Australian Broadcasting Commission to produce adequate and comprehensive programming there is, of course, a legislative power and responsibility from this Government to the Commission to carry out its duties. If it were aberrant in that it would be responsible to the law of the land in that regard. I should say, because I neglected to do so in my response to the first question asked by the honourable senator, that I would share his implied worry if the cuts were made in vital things while trivia remained undealt with. Of course, I applaud his interest in these various orchestras. For my own part I await with interest to see the priority orders of decision-making and whether in fact the low priorities are given the first economy cuts.

page 2004

QUESTION

RE-ENTRY OF SPACE HARDWARE FRAGMENTS

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the attention of the Minister for Science been drawn to newspaper reports that a piece of satellite caused a bushfire in the southern tablelands of New South Wales on Monday night. Is it true that space junk can cause bushfires? If so, how great is the risk of a major bushfire from this cause?

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

– I have seen reports in newspapers associating a bushfire in New South Wales with fallen space hardware. I have also noted other reports stating that the space object was by no means a cause of the fire. From discussions that I have had I understand that the latter would be correct. My advice is that, whilst objects falling from space burn on re-entering the earth’s atmosphere, they are basically cold when they reach the ground. After having passed through temperatures of about minus 70 degrees there is little possibility of their being able to create such a fire. I understand that there is an international agreement covering this matter, lt relates not only to the rescue of astronauts but also to the return of objects which are launched into space. Australia signed this agreement in 1968 and I believe that it is soon to be ratified. Parties to the agreement are bound to attempt to find the fallen space material, establish the country of origin and return the material. The country of origin is responsible for any damage caused.

page 2005

QUESTION

MIGRANT TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to the paper which she circulated yesterday about a review of the migrant telephone interpreter service. I ask the Minister: Can she give any information about the representations which were made by members of the Interpreters Advisory Committee of South Australia detailing their area of criticism of the service in South Australia? I understand that details of this criticism were submitted to the Minister and also presented to the South Australian Government. The criticism comprised the complaint that the system of selection of interpreter translators was inadequate, that the interpreter translators were not recognised as professionals- and the members of the Committee provided some recommendations in respect of that matter- and that when the interpreter translation service was established in Adelaide the ethnic composition of the panel of full-time interpreters was not thoroughly considered. As I have found no reference to those matters in the paper which the Minister circulated and as I understand that similar submissions have been made elsewhere, is the Minister in a position to give any information regarding this question?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not in a position to give specific answers to the questions that have been raised, but with regard to the telephone interpreter service in South Australia, the honourable senator would know that the languages most frequently used are Yugoslav, English and Greek. It is interesting to note that in all centres except Adelaide assistance most frequently sought relates to medical matters and general information inquiries. In Adelaide, the general information and social security inquiries are the most important matters which are concerned with the service. I shall have a more thorough and up to date investigation of the South Australian experience and give information to the honourable senator in the terms of the question that he has directed to me.

page 2005

QUESTION

INCOME TAX CONCESSIONAL REBATES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to Senator Cotton in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. I do so following statements that medical and hospital benefits contributions will not be tax deductible. I ask the Minister: As there appears to be some doubt in some quarters as to whether premiums on accident and sickness policies as well as life and endowment insurance policies will continue to be tax deductible, will the Minister clarify the position?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The concessional rebate which is allowable under section 159(r) of the Income Tax Assessment Act in respect of life assurance premiums includes premiums paid by the taxpayer in the year of income for insurance against sickness of or personal injury or accident to the taxpayer or his or her spouse or children. The allowance is, together with all other payments to which this section applies, limited to the overall maximum of $ 1200.

page 2005

QUESTION

WAGES POLICY

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. All honourable senators will be aware that the Prime Minister was interviewed on Monday Conference this week. The Prime Minister was asked this question by Mr Moore:

Now is your strategy to reduce real wages, the standard of living of the workers?

Mr Fraser replied:

It is a question of rates of growth. Over the past 3 years there has been a substantial shift in real wealth away from profits, away from business into wages and real wage’s have increased. As a result of that, there has been less profits.

I ask the Minister: Can any interpretation be placed on the reply from the Prime Minister to that question other than that the Government’s whole economic strategy and the thrust of that strategy are designed to reduce wages and salaries of all employees?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am surprised that the honourable senator takes that view. As I understand what the Prime Minister was saying, he pointed out that if there are to be real increases in wages and living standards in Australia these will come about only by an increase in the real wealth. What we have seen over the last 3 years is often a fictitious increase brought about by a highly inflated economy, pushing more and more taxpayers into higher and higher tax brackets. It is somewhat illusory. People imagine that they are better off because their incomes have risen by a certain percentage but in fact their take-home pay has not risen much at all and the cost of goods and services is rising enormously.

As I understand it, the policy of this Government is to make the cake bigger so that everybody can have more of the cake. It is not of much use for everybody to want more and more of a smaller and smaller cake. I think this is what has happened over the last 3 years. I thought that it was admitted even by the previous Labor Government that one of the number of causes of unemployment in this country was lack of business confidence and lack of business investment, most of which came about through lack of profitability in the private sector. Whether our opponents opposite like it or not, the great employer of people in this country is the private sector and not the public sector. Unless there is a profitable, expanding, well based private sector, there is no hope for the wage earner in this country because all he will do is work temporarily for a company which finishes up going bankrupt and as a result he ends up on the dole. Until we again get the private sector profitable, confident and expanding, there is no hope for the workers of this country.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that there is a need to reduce real wages so that profits may be increased?

Senator WITHERS:

-I am sorry that the honourable senator is so obtuse. What I have been saying is that the real wages of workers will increase in the same ratio as productivity increases. What we need is a bigger cake so that we can have a greater share of it. The honourable senator and his Party are wedded to the idea that all you need to do is to bankrupt the private sector and print money.

page 2006

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: ENCOURAGEMENT OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. I refer to the Governments policy, stated during the last election campaign, to seek ways to encourage private enterprisebased industries and business to locate in Canberra. I refer also to the recent expression of confidence by the Minister for the Capital Territory that work to be undertaken in the Australian Capital Territory by the Government in 1 976-77 will encourage private sector activity. In view of measures announced last Thursday and limitations on the growth of the public sector, which has special significance in the Australian Capital Territory, what measures is the Government taking or what measures are proposed to encourage the growth of the private sector in the Territory?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I believe there should be the greatest of confidence in the ability of people to invest and expand their interests in the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure that the Minister for the Capital Territory appreciates the honourable senator’s interest at all times in seeing that the area for which he is a senator provides an opportunity for private enterprise development. Under this class of government it is for private enterprise to make its own decisions on how it will invest and what expansion there will be in any State.

I reiterate my view that the Australian Capital Territory represents an enormous attraction for investment. Canberra is a city which will be growing and is obviously one of the most outstanding developments in the Australian community. I understand that the Minister for the Capital Territory will be having talks shortly with the Australian Capital Territory Employers Federation about the building and construction industry and opportunities which might be created for it in new fields of activity. The honourable senator may recall that the Secretary of the Australian Capital Territory Employers Federation indicated last Friday that he was not entirely pessimistic about the future but said that the greatest care must be exercised in apportioning what is available so that it is reasonably allocated within the building and construction industry. With Canberra continuing to grow at the rate of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent per annum, I feel certain that the honourable senator and all those who are interested in the development of this city can have the greatest confidence in the future.

page 2006

QUESTION

BLAND COMMITTEE REPORTS

Senator RYAN:
ACT

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: How many reports from the Bland Committee have now been completed? Which departments or bodies do these completed reports consider? In view of the vital interest of all Australians in these reports, and the special interest of many Australian Capital Territory citizens who are employed by the Australian Government, when does the Government intend to publish the reports?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Bland Committee is not one of the committees which come under my jurisdiction as the Minister for Administrative Services. It reports direct to the Prime Minister. Therefore, I will have to seek the answer to those 3 questions from the Prime Minister.

page 2006

QUESTION

REPORT ON NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Social Security whether the Government has received the second report of the Hancock Committee on national superannuation? If not, when does it expect to have it? Will the Government then table the report for public discussion as did the Labor Government in 1 974?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Government has received what it calls the first report. There was an interim report which was dealt with by the former Government but I have recently received the first report of the Hancock Committee. I will be tabling it in the Senate. I think the printed copies will be available about 2 June. I shall be tabling that report at about that time. That is regarded as the first stage of the Hancock superannuation inquiry’s report. The second stage of the report is expected by the end of this year. But somewhere in the first week of June I hope to have the printed copies of the first stage of the report to enable me to have it tabled in both the Houses of the Parliament.

page 2007

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FINANCES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– By way of preface to my question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I should like to point out that Government members have constantly reiterated that the States will not have to impose additional taxes to adjust their finances as a result of the Federal Government’s policy. I should just like to draw the Minister’s attention to a statement by the Premier of Tasmania, in which he said that the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, has perpetrated a fairly substantial confidence trick on the States, designed to give the impression that services can be maintained by the Commonwealth’s withdrawing from activities without the States imposing additional taxes. I ask the Leader of the Government: Will he draw the attention of his colleagues- particularly his Senate colleagues from the Labor States- to the fact that the Premier of Tasmania intends to do all that he can to persuade Tasmanian senators to protect the interests of the State by calling the bluff of the Fraser Government on financial cutbacks?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– If one ever heard nonsense spoken, there it was. Where were all those Labor Tasmanian senators in the last 3 years, trying to protect the rape of Tasmania by creeping centralist socialism in this place? What did they do then? They all caucused and came in and put their hands up like good little boys. For Mr Neilson- if that is the honourable gentleman’s name- to talk that sort of stuff at this stage does him no credit. Was it Mr Neilson or his predecessor who complained about the previous Prime Minister walking all over Tasmania in hobnail boots? Is that the expression?

Senator Wriedt:

– No, he did not say that at all. Just be careful. You have it wrong.

Senator WITHERS:

-Well, who said it? Somebody said it. Honourable senators opposite are now saying that the Tasmanian Premier did not say that. This has been alleged by us time and time again and this is the first time I have heard it denied. But when did the 5 Labor Tasmanian senators ever rise in their wrath? Oh no, they cheered and cheered and cheered. This question does not say much for the honourable senator. What happened at the last general election? We had 5 out of 5 Tasmanian Liberals elected to the House of Representatives and all the Labor Party could muster was 4 out of 10 senators. That indicates what the Tasmanians think both of the Labor Party in Canberra and the Labor Party generally in Tasmania. If Mr Neilson does not like what he agreed to at a previous Premiers Conference, why does he not hold an election and take the matter to the Tasmanian people?

page 2007

QUESTION

FAMILY LAW COURTS

Senator MISSEN:

– In addressing my question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral I refer to the growing delays in the hearing of applications under the Family Law Act, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales. In view of the removal of some doubts by the High Court and the establishment of the basic validity of the Act, can the Attorney-General give an assurance that there will be additional appointments of judges to the family courts at an early date to meet the present critical situation?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think I can give that assurance. I know that the Attorney-General has a number of appointments in mind and that he is anxious that the workload be relieved as early as possible. But I shall seek further information from the Attorney-General as to the number of additional judges he has in mind, the States concerned and the dates of possible appointments.

page 2007

QUESTION

TASMANIA: TRANSPORT

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask Senator Withers a question in view of his political answer to the question asked earlier. I do not intend to involve myself in politics but I ask the Minister: In view of the generosity of this Government towards Tasmania, will he give an undertaking to the Senate that he will confer immediately with the Minister for Transport and, if need be, with the Treasurer, to ensure that this Government makes a decision on the Nimmo report, which at least recommends that benefits be given to Tasmanian transport equal to and not less than those benefits instituted by the Labor Government?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I hope that this Government will do more for Tasmania, in the way of transport, than its predecessor did. Whilst our predecessor may have given some money here and there, its mad economic policy, which pushed wages up and up, almost wrecked the Tasmanian transport system. I assure the honourable senator that my colleague the Minister for Transport has the Nimmo report under very active consideration. I know that he is working very hard to bring about enormous improvements in relation to the problems of Tasmania. We do not go around talking; we just go around acting and fixing up the mess which we inherited from the past 3 years.

page 2008

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I note that in March the Minister instigated a review of the Sydney telephone interpreter service. Will, she inform the chamber whether this very worthwhile service will be extended and, if so, to what extent?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– We did undertake a review of the Sydney telephone interpreter service. I believe that information I have already given to the Senate this year has made that plain.

Senator McLaren:

– Information was given this morning.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I was about to say that because I believe that the telephone interpreter service is of interest to all honourable senators I released a statement with regard to it. In answer to the question Senator Walters asked with regard to the service in Sydney, I point out that we reviewed this matter and determined that it was a very valuable service. I think the statement I released indicates that. The migrant interpreter service is constantly under review within my Department and by me. We had plans to extend the service to Wollongong, Canberra and Hobart, subject to having funds approved in the Budget this year. I hope that our constant study of the matter will enable the extension of the service to be undertaken. I assure honourable senators that I believe that it is a very useful and worthwhile service and one which should have our support. I will endeavour to obtain funds to continue the service and to extend it wherever that is decided to be necessary.

page 2008

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. In some respects it is similar to questions asked earlier by Senator Button and Senator Harradine. Bearing in mind that people in the sparsely populated areas of

Australia are almost entirely dependent upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission for radio and television services, will the Minister seek from the responsible Minister a guarantee that the financial cuts imposed upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which are in the vicinity of 17 per cent in real terms, will not deprive these people of their only regular and continuous link with the rest of Australia? Specifically, will the Minister ask his colleague to withdraw his order to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to defer the installation of translators which would provide a better service in the country?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I acknowledge that for many people in outback and remote areas of Australia the Australian Broadcasting Commission service is the only service available. Therefore it is of very considerable value to them. Any withdrawal or serious denial of that service would be harmful to them. I shall direct the attention of the Minister to that and also invite him to direct the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to it when the Commission is preparing its priorities within its budget. I am not aware of any instruction regarding the deferment of the installation of translators. I shall convey the substance of the honourable senator’s question to the Minister.

page 2008

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GEORGES:

– It has become the practice of all parties in this place to distribute questions at question time. These are questions which honourable senators feel need to be asked. I make this personal explanation because I wish to suggest that all honourable senators who receive such questions should check the information upon .which they are based. I was caught in the situation of asking a question without checking the information which reflected upon the ANZ Bank, and I seek this early opportunity to correct that error. I have received a letter from the ANZ Bank which refers to a question I asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources (Senator Cotton), and I will withdraw that question from the notice paper. The letter states:

It has come to my attention that you asked a question relating to ANZ Bank in the Senate on May 1 9.

The purpose of this letter is to point out that there were several serious errors in your reference to this bank on that occasion.

First, Stocks and Holdings Pty Ltd is not a subsidiary of or controlled by this bank. The bank has no equity interest in this company.

Second, ANZ Bank has no equity interest in any company or venture involved with the development of a uranium prospect near Georgetown in Queensland.

We would appreciate your prompt correction of these errors in the Senate.

May I also bring to your attention that at least one major newspaper, the Adelaide Advertiser, followed up your question with editorial comment. This unfortunate publicity is a further reason why we would appreciate prompt correction of your original statement.

I realise that in due course those false references would have been corrected in the answer to the question. I sought the information upon which the question was based and I noticed that the error occurred because ANZ Nominees Ltd holds a substantial shareholding. Everyone knows that ANZ Nominees is merely a cover for one or a number of persons and is not necessarily a holding of the ANZ Bank. Having checked the information, that is clear to me. I therefore apologise to the bank for the error and I apologise to the Senate for any incorrect information I may have given.

I also say that on one occasion, as Opposition Whip, I distributed a question to Senator McLaren. For a long period of time Senator McLaren has been advocating the need for a club room for women visitors, especially wives, who come to this place. Unfortunately, he was handed a question to ask which seriously reflected upon the establishment of such a room and, quite unfairly, he came under severe criticism about something for which he had fought for a number of years. The moral of that story is that honourable senators should check the information contained in any questions they are given.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Do not ask a question prepared by anyone else but yourself.

Senator GEORGES:

-No. In answer to that interjection, it should be realised that there are a number of questions that ought to be asked by the party on a particular day.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are making a confession.

Senator GEORGES:

– I cannot see any reason why that ought not to be done. All the questions cannot be asked by one person on one day. Time and opportunity would not allow it. Therefore it is reasonable for questions to be distributed. All I am saying is that honourable senators should check the information.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-(New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce)- Mr President, I was the responsible Minister in the absence of the Leader when the question was asked. I remember it well, and I think I said that I had reservations about the reference to the ANZ Bank and Stocks and Holdings Pty Ltd. However, I rise to say that I compliment Senator Georges for a very dignified and good performance.

page 2009

WHEAT RESEARCH ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Wheat Research Act 1957,I present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 31 December 1975.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McLAREN:

– I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2009

LITERACY AND NUMERACY IN AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-(New South WalesMinister for Education)- For the information of honourable senators, I present a report entitled Literacy and Numeracy in Australian Schools’. Because this matter has had some fairly wide publicity and because it is of some importance, I seek to make a brief statement relating to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

– This document is an overview, prepared for participant schools, of the results obtained in the reading, writing and numeration tests which were part of the largescale survey research project entitled A Study of Reading, Writing and Number Performance of 10 and 14 year old Students in Australian Schools which began in February 1975. The Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education- now known as the Education Research and Development Committee- commissioned the Australian Council for Educational Research to undertake the research, following a request by Mr Race Mathews, then M.P. and Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties.

The Select Committee had been made aware that there was little Australian evidence to support claims that are made on the literacy and numeracy levels of Australians. The project’s purpose was therefore to provide soundly based evidence of the performance of certain basic skills of Australian primary and secondary school children. Since this is the first occasion on which a survey has been undertaken across Australia, including both primary and secondary school levels, all States and mainland territories, and government, catholic and independent systems, the results are of extreme interest. The project tested the reading, writing and number skills of 10-year old and 14-year old children throughout Australia. During October 1975, approximately 7000 children from each level, at 600 schools, completed the appropriate tests, and answered a short background questionnaire. Teachers also completed a questionnaire. A letter was sent to parents requesting their cooperation.

The results and analyses to date are contained in two interim reports entitled Literacy and Numeracy in Australian Schools- First Report and Literary and Numeracy in Australian Schools- Second Report. These are being published through the Australian Government Publishing Service, and should be publicly available in about 6 weeks time. Pre-publication copies were made available to the Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties, and 2 copies were placed in the Parliamentary Library. A final report, which will make a more detailed analysis of the data, is expected at the end of 1976, and will then be published. The report, based as it is on a single testing program, cannot be used to answer questions about changes in standards for the subjects tested, but only to give the 1975 position for the age levels involved. To answer questions about changes would require regular testing with appropriate time intervals in between, such as has been undertaken in the United States through the National Assessment of Education Progress. I have asked the Education Research and Development Committee to examine the complex problems involved in any such program of national assessment.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I seek leave to propose a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2010

WESTERN REGION OF MELBOURNE: LIBRARY NEEDS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and for the information of honourable senators, I present an urban paper entitled A Report on the Information and Library Needs of the Citizens of the Western Region of Melbourne.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I seek leave to propose a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MELZER:

-I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2010

COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 122 of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971-1974, I present the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-I seek leave to propose a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2010

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINES AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BONNER:

-I wish to make a brief statement about the reasons why it is necessary to ask for an extension of time. The Select Committee was appointed for the purpose of completing the consideration of, and reporting to the Senate on, the environmental conditions of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the preservation of their sacred sites. This reference had been examined by the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Social Environment appointed during the previous session.

The Select Committee has been meeting regularly to consider its draft report, which is now approaching completion. The major chapters have been dealt with, but several important ones remain to be completed, together with the final preparation of appendixes and supplementary material. The wide range of issues to be considered has been enormous and presents great complexities, and it has been necessary to study and assess a vast amount of material. Furthermore, continually occurring developments have brought the need for much revision of material in the closing stages to ensure up-to-date knowledge. We have found that all this work cannot be completed in the time originally allotted. For the purpose of enabling us to present a comprehensive and thorough report of the kind warranted by the importance of the terms of reference, we seek the extension now proposed. I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BONNER:

-I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2011

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-I present the fifty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances relating to Australian Capital Territory Ordinances containing substantive legislation.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2011

CADET TRAINING SCHEMES

Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– by leave- Mr President, honourable senators will recall that the Government undertook during last year’s election campaign to reintroduce schemes for the training of Army, Navy and Air cadets which our predecessors decided to disband. We also undertook to review the overall cadet training system. In January this year the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) announced that he had instructed the Department of Defence to draw up proposals for a new scheme. He also invited interested organisations and individuals to submit proposals. More than 1000 letters and submissions containing constructive suggestions were received and these have been considered, along with the advice of Service and civilian advisers. Account was also taken of the report on the Army cadet corps by the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces- the Millar Committee report.

I am now able to announce to the Senate details of a new scheme which each Service should have in operation by September this year. Three factors were important in shaping this new scheme. The first is my belief, and I am sure this is a belief shared by all honourable senators, that we have an obligation to do all we can to encourage young people to develop the qualities of leadership, discipline, self-reliance and loyalty which the previous cadet training schemes fostered. Secondly, the Government wishes to see greater involvement of schools and the community generally in cadet training. The third consideration was one of cost. In a period when the Government must rigorously examine every facet of its expenditure the cost-effectiveness of expenditure at this level on cadet training obviously demanded close scrutiny. This is particularly so at the present time when priority in defence expenditure must be given to equipment and the infrastructure essential to an adequate basis for expansion of our defence capability.

The cadet schemes which existed until late 1975 cost upwards of $ 12m a year to administer. This was a heavy charge on the defence vote in terms of the very limited contribution made by cadets to defence preparedness, including the community goodwill they created and interest in the Services by way of recruiting. The scheme which the Government has approved retains the essential virtues of cadet training while at the same time seeking to ensure the maximum efficiency within the resources available. It will encompass both school and community sponsored units. Features of future Commonwealth financial assistance are: Provision of appropriate military uniform; full Defence Force support for annual camps of up to 7 days for all cadets- at these camps rations, accommodation and equipment will be provided; reimbursement of up to an average of $ 10 per cadet to schools and sponsoring authorities for travel costs associated with annual camps; provision by the Navy, Army and

Air Force of 141 regular servicemen and some 20 Department of Defence civilian staff to supervise and provide assistance in the running of cadets; Commonwealth compensation cover; and payment of annual allowance to cadet instructors.

Under the new scheme, the Navy, Army and Air cadets will retain their individual identity- a desire which was strongly expressed in the submissions of individuals and community groups and is shared by the Government. This is stressed in our decision to adopt a common aim for all 3 organisations, which has been formulated bearing in mind the fact that the organisations will be funded from the defence vote, and that the public submissions received strongly favoured the maintenance of a military flavour in cadet activity. The aim is to be as follows:

The common aim of the Australian Services cadet schemes is: by predominantly voluntary effort, better to equip young people for community life by fostering initiative, leadership, discipline and loyalty through training programs also designed to stimulate an interest in a particular Arm of the Defence Forces.

Besides introducing a common aim the Government has also decided that there should be a greater degree of commonality among the 3 Services cadet schemes, particularly in the nature of the Commonwealth assistance. The Army cadet corps will retain the school as the basis on which cadet units will be formed. The main change from the previous scheme will be that under the new scheme schools will have greater authority and responsibility in the running of their own units. This desideratum has been expressed in many of the submissions which have been received. Initially there will be a ceiling of 32 000 on the number of Army cadets and cadet/officer instructors, which is roughly the same as the number in the previous scheme.

All schools which had Army cadet units prior to the previous Government’s decision to disband them will be invited to re-establish their units, if they so desire; although in the case of state schools they first must obtain the approval of the State government. Second priority will be given to schools which did not previously have cadet units but which now wish to form a unit. At a later date consideration will be given to the formation of ‘open units’ not attached to any school but drawing membership from the general community. These ‘open’ units would be located with Army reserve depots. Schools which wish to form units must have a minimum of 70 boys willing to join. This figure is considered to be a costeffective mininum size for a cadet unit.

Under the previous scheme a number of schools had units with numbers below this minimum. These will be given the opportunity of increasing these numbers. Units will be based on a company and platoon organisation. Each unit will be under the command of an officer selected by the school, and other officers of cadets will assist at a ratio of one for each 20 boys. Schools will be responsible for the administration and training of their own units, including the issue and care of uniforms and other equipment provided by the Army.

Because of safety and security problems modern rifles will be issued to cadets during annual camps only where appropriate Regular Army personnel and conditions will be available to ensure the necessary supervision and control. However, obsolete or modified weapons may be issued to schools providing their security arrangements are adequate. In these circumstances it will be the responsibility of the school to provide the approved armouries. As a result of the greater independence given to schools in this new scheme, a considerable reduction of Regular Army support will be possible. This will permit a major scaling down of the costly former Cadet Brigade/Battalion Headquarters structure. Nonetheless, Regular Army support will continue. About 100 officers and other ranks will provide guidance and administrative support to school units, and ensure that uniformly high standards are maintained. In addition part time service of regular servicemen will be engaged in such things as stores issue and maintenance.

The new Air Training Corps structure will consist of over 100 flights totalling some 6000 cadets and cadet-officer instructors, which is approximately equivalent to its previous strength. About 30 regular officers and airmen will continue to support this new structure; a considerable decrease from the 115 previously. As with the Army the ATC essentially will be responsible for its own administration and the role of regular RAAF personnel will be that of guidance, support and overall supervision of standards. Air cadets will receive the same training as before providing them with a range of practical skills associated with flying- navigation, meteorology, air traffic control etc.

The Naval Reserve Cadets system will continue. A ceiling of 4000 cadets, which is an increase of about 1500, will enable the Navy to maintain a similar proportion of cadets, compared to Service strength, as the Air Force. The total number of permanent naval force personnel supporting naval cadet units will remain at eleven as under the previous scheme. Naval cadets will also receive the same training as before which includes small boat safety, trips to sea on naval ships and navigation.

Both Navy and Air Force Cadets will receive weapons training under the same conditions as Army Cadets. As with Army units the Air Training Corps and Naval Reserve Cadets will rely heavily on volunteer instructors, trained by the parent Service. This will provide a very rewarding part-time activity for men who wish to become involved in an active and stimulating form of youth work which the Government believes is essential to the character building of Australian youth. Cadet officer- cadet instructors will be paid an annual allowance. The level of that allowance and the conditions under which it will be paid is a matter that will be examined by the established defence machinery for pay and conditions of service. Cadet service for girls will be given consideration after the new scheme is properly established and then the Government would welcome submissions on this.

Mr President, this new scheme retains the best features of the previous scheme, but will achieve them at a lower cost. At current prices the scheme will cost approximately $7. 6m comprising $5.77m for Army Cadets, $1.19m for the Air Training Corps and $640,000 for the Naval Reserve Cadets. This is a substantial amount but represents a reduction of some $5. 5m on the previous scheme at current prices. I believe the community support necessary to make this scheme a success will be forthcoming, and once again cadet training will make a worthwhile contribution to the physical and mental development of Australia ‘s young people

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I move:

Briefly, I think it ought to be understood that this proposal does not honour the promise that the Government made before the last Federal election, which was that it would recommence the cadets training scheme. This scheme is a revised one. It will cost less than half of what the previous scheme did, and it is being introduced on an entirely new basis. It ought to be noted that a number of modifications have been made to the previous scheme.

This proposal refers to the increased responsibility which now will fall on schools in relation to the organisation of the cadet corps. Also, as has been pointed out, a cost saving will be achieved by reducing Army support in respect of the scheme. Two of the related matters in the scheme apply to the number of boys required to form a unit. Previously, fewer than 70 boys could form a unit. I also note that there will be certain restrictions in relation to the support given at Army camps and for travelling allowances. I think that a lot of people expected the old scheme to be restored. The previous Labor Government was forced to abandon the previous scheme on a recommendation by the defence Services so that they could use better the $12m or $ 13m which was provided for school cadet corps. With those brief remarks, and because of the time, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2013

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BILL

Motion (by Senator Cotton) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision for and in relation to Industrial Research and Development, including the payment by the Commonwealth of Incentive Grants.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

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

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill, to amend the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967-73 and to introduce the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976, was foreshadowed on 4 February 1976 when I announced that a new and more cost effective incentive scheme would replace the existing system of incentives. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to terminate the existing grants scheme and replace it with a new program of incentives to operate from 1 July 1976. This program is designed to further the technological development and efficiency of Australian industry by the encouragement of industrial research and development. The program will be administered by a statutory authority, the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board. I will explain the structure and functions of the Board at a later stage in this speech.

The present system of industrial research and development grants was introduced in 1967. It provided, for the first time, a direct incentive to Australian manufacturing and mining firms to increase their own expenditures on research and development. The Act was subsequently amended in 1972 and 1973 in order to improve its effectiveness and to contain the escalating costs of the program. The current scheme has, therefore, been in operation for a period of 9 years. The Government has decided that although the current incentive has been reasonably successful, it is now appropriate for a new program of incentives to be introduced which will permit a more effective use of public funds allocated for the purpose of stimulating industrial research and development. In addition, the complexity of the current scheme has inflicted substantial administrative workloads on the companies seeking assistance, as well as on the administering authority, the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board. We have therefore reviewed the present Act and have decided that the best course is to terminate the present incentive immediately rather than let it run its course until June 1977 when it would otherwise have expired. Accordingly, 1975-76 will be the final grant year to which payments under the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967-73 would relate, and the new incentive will operate from 1 July 1976.

Since the introduction of the incentive, grants of the order of $ 104m have been made to some 1800 individual companies. In respect of the first year of the scheme- 1967-1968- grants were made to 460 individual companies, compared to 1300 companies receiving assistance in 1974-75. As well as stimulating more companies to undertake more research and development activities, the scheme has been effective in a broader context. It has increased the employment opportunities for qualified and skilled research workers in this country. We believe continuing Government support in this important area will help to ensure that the services of such personnel can be retained for the benefit of Australian industry and the nation generally. The experience of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has been that, during the currency of the program, a marked improvement has been observed in the willingness, capability, and variety of firms interested in developing and applying new and improved technology originating from Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation research.

The Government recognises that technological innovation, leading to new and improved products and processes, and hence to greater efficiency and better resource utilisation, is basic to the competitive position of Australian industry. Industrial research and development is a key input in the process of technological innovation and, accordingly, there is a strong case for continuing government encouragement and support for such activities. Also, there is the need to avoid over reliance by Australian firms on the acquisition of overseas technology and know-how and thus to minimise the extent of any associated franchise restrictions on our export markets or products.

For a variety of reasons, Australian companies often face difficulties in financing research and development activities from their own resources. The comparatively small size of Australia’s domestic market and the competitive pressures to reduce operating costs in the short term tend to restrict the availability of internal funds for research and development by firms. Smaller enterprises- although frequently in a position to obtain returns from research and development activities, which in relative terms compare favourably with the returns obtained by large corporations- often experience particular difficulty in obtaining finance for their research and development work.

We believe that there now exists in this country an effective research and development capability that can be utilised to improve the competitiveness of our industrial sector. This in turn will contribute to greater real income growth for the nation as a whole. However, we have come to the view that Government support for industrial research and development should in future be provided on a more selective basis. This will involve an evaluation of the relative technical and commercial merit of projects submitted by companies for assistance. Such a procedure should help in maximising the benefits accruing to the nation from a given level of financial assistance from public funds.

In this regard the Government agrees with the conclusion contained in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Examiner’s Report on Science and Technology in Australia that the decisive criterion for government aid should be the firm’s quality and its ability to carry innovations through all their successive stages from research to commercial success. However, the Government also acknowledges the fact that account must be taken of the special needs of those firms, predominantly small to medium sized, that are still not carrying out systematic research and development activities, or those which have not yet achieved a basic capability in this area of endeavour.

Therefore, it is proposed that the new program will provide 2 elements of support to meet the needs of these 2 situations. It is proposed that there will be a system of grants designed to encourage companies, whose research and development activities are either non-existent or at an ‘infant’ stage, to commence and develop an involvement and basic capability in industrial research and development. The second element will consist of grants to companies which are given in relation to particular research and development projects. These grants will be introduced to provide assistance to companies which have already achieved a basic research and development capability.

In relation to commencement grants the Bill provides for companies to be entitled to annual grants of up to 50 per cent of a company’s eligible research and development expenditure, subject to a ceiling of $25,000 per grant year. The rate and ceiling to apply to any particular grant year will be determined annually in the Budget context. In the 1976-77 grant year the Government intends to limit the entitlement to the lesser of 25 per cent or $15,000, because of the serious budgetary situation.

The proposed definition of eligible expenditure outlined in the Bill is significantly different to that applying to the current scheme. To date eligible expenditure has been calculated on the basis of the increase in research and development spending over a base period. Under this requirement, assistance provided under the Act fell off markedly after the first year or two for those companies that could not or did not want to increase continuously their research and development spending.

The primary purpose of the new incentive is to encourage companies to commence systematic research and development activities. This will enable them to develop an appreciation of the importance of research and development and consequently, build up their industrial research and development capacity and capability. It is the Government’s aim to concentrate assistance on those kinds of expenditure most directly associated with industrial research and development so that basic research and development activity is assisted, rather than incidental associated activities. Accordingly, eligible expenditure will cover net spending m the grant year in question on salaries and wages of research and development personnel, on research and development plant and equipment, prototypes and on scientific and technical reference material. I emphasise that assistance will be given on the basis of net expenditure, not increases in expenditure as has been the case since 1 967.

Certain limits have been placed on the amount of assistance that would be available to companies under the commencement encouragement section of the program. The objective of these grants is to help companies to the stage where they can appreciate the benefit of conducting systematic industrial research and development. A period of 5 years is judged reasonable for this purpose. Accordingly eligibility for commencement grant assistance will be limited to a 5 year period. Further, since some companies have already received assistance under the present Act there is a need for transitional provisions to ensure that reasonable equity prevails as between companies. Therefore the maximum grant level which will be available to any one company over the 5 years will be subject to reduction by the amount of assistance already received under the present Act. Moreover, a company, or group of associated companies, would be ineligible for a commencement grant if its total research and development expenditure in the 8 financial years prior to the first grant year for which commencement grant application has been made exceeds $250,000.

I will now turn to the project grants element of the Bill which is to form the main thrust of the Government’s new incentive. The Bill provides for a system of project grants designed to give support for firms with established research and development facilities to undertake specific lines of industrial research and development.

The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board will be empowered to provide grants in relation to specific projects. The Government will provide funds annually to the Board which will allocate the available funds to companies after evaluation of the technical and commercial merits of the research and development activities proposed, and the contribution such projects are expected to make to the national interest. Unlike the commencement grants, companies will have no legal right to assistance except where the Incentives Board has entered into an agreement with the company. The Bill will also enable grants in the form of progress payments to be made in accordance with the agreement which will need to bc concluded between the Board and the company concerned. Progress payments will be conditional on the Board being satisfied at each stage as to prospects of the overall success of the project. A number of constraints will operate to ensure a reasonable distribution of available funds between companies, and that only those projects worthy of support in the national interest are assisted. Subject to these, the Board will be enabled to provide a rate of grant in individual cases which it judges to be compatible with inducing the company concerned to carry out a particular research and development project which would otherwise not take place, or be delayed. The maximum overall rate of assistance for any one project over its life will not normally exceed 25 per cent of the research and development expenditure on the project but in the first year of the project, when the risk element is highest, the rate could be up to 50 per cent. Grant payments will be limited to $250,000 per annum per company or group of associated companies. However, the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be authorised to approve grants exceeding $250,000 per annum in respect of projects recommended by the Board as having exceptional merit. In the administration of the project grants element, the Board will also be required to pay due regard to total funds allocated to it for grant purposes in the Budget context, as well as constraints imposed on its powers to enter into financial commitments in respect of future grant years. The selection by the Board of research and development projects for grants will retail the consideration of a number of criteria. These include the prospects of improvement in resource utilisation; the competitiveness, efficiency and export performance of the firm and industry concerned; the resultant advance on the technology currently employed in Australian industry; and whether the project is likely to attract a satisfactory level of support from the applicant company itself within a reasonable time span, without the provision of government assistance. Other factors taken into consideration will include the nature and suitability of a company’s research and development resources to be employed on a project, and the ability of the firm meaningfully to exploit the results of the research and development, either by itself or through arrangements with other organisations. The Government recognises the need for the incorporation of safeguard clauses and conditions in project grant agreements to protect the Government and the public interest. Companies will be required under the Act to give an undertaking to exploit in Australia the results of the industrial research and development for the benefit of the Australian economy. Where a company receiving assistance fails to proceed with commercial exploitation of the results of a project, or decides to terminate the research and development program, consideration will be able to be given to the Government acquiring the rights to any results of the research and development that has been undertaken. Where projects supported by the Government lead to industrially and commercially profitable ventures, the authority would be empowered in certain cases to draw up royalty arrangements commensurate with the proportion of the risk borne by the Government.

As under the existing grants scheme, firms eligible for grants must be companies incorporated in Australia and have been engaged in Australia in the manufacture of goods or mining operations in the relevant grant year or within a reasonable period thereafter.

We believe it is vital for private industry to be reasonably assured of continuity of Government support for industrial research and development if the incentive is to be meaningful and effective in stimulating a build-up of research and development staff and facilities. Accordingly, it is proposed that the new program of incentives will operate for an initial period of 5 years from 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1981, with the last year of a period covered by a project grant agreement to be a year ending before July 1984. It is envisaged that a review of the program should be concluded before expiration of the new legislation and in time for any new support measures to proceed immediately on expiration of the proposed program.

The approach I have outlined should ensure the build up in the private sector of a competent industrial research and development capacity. It will be Government policy to ensure that this capacity is utilised to the greatest extent possible. Although the Government has its own research facilities in certain areas the Board will be empowered to act as an executing agency to facilitate or arrange the contracting out of public interest research programs to industry where the Government’s own facilities are inadequate or do not exist

It is envisaged that in all such cases the Board would carry out such a role only after receiving specific instructions from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, lt is also envisaged that when such directions are given specific funds would be provided over and above the funds allocated for the 2 elements of the incentive scheme that I have outlined earlier.

Having described in broad terms the proposed new program of incentives for industrial research and development, I shall now outline the proposed administrative arrangements. The administering authority will be required to undertake a greater degree of qualitative evaluation of projects for which grant assistance is sought than is required under the present Act.

Therefore, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board and its supporting staff structure will be constituted to equip it with the necessary skills to carry out its task. The administrative arrangements are set out in detail in the Bill. I should mention in particular that the reconstituted Board will consist of a full time Chairman and not less than 2, or more than 4, part time members appointed by the GovernorGeneral. Provision will exist for a part time Advisory Committee to the Board, not exceeding 8 members, to be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The Board will be required to report annually to the Minister on its activities in the immediately preceding year. The report will list the companies receiving grants and the amounts concerned. Without breaching commercial confidentiality, the areas of manufacturing and mining operations covered by grants and the nature of project grant assistance will also be included in the reports, which will be tabled annually in both Houses of Parliament.

The Government is confident that this new program of incentives will provide support more closely oriented to the needs of industry and the national interest. Financial assistance in the form of project grants will be provided to Australian companies involved in industrial research. This should result in the development of new or substantially improved products and processes which offer good prospects for commercial exploitation in the domestic and export markets. Companies also will be encouraged to commence and develop industrial research and development activities through commencement encouragement grants. The Government believes that this 2-pronged program of financial assistance represents a more cost effective means of promoting the technological development and efficiency of Australian industry.

I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 2017

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it desired to postpone or rearrange business of the Senate?

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 be postponed until Thursday, 3 June.

page 2017

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL SUPPORT FUND) 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 present this Bill on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in the House of Representatives. It may be appropriate to have it incorporated in Hansard if my colleagues on both sides are agreeable.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill authorises the ratification by Australia of the Agreement establishing a Financial Support Fund of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That Agreement was signed by OECD member countries, including Australia, in Paris on 9 April 1975. The Bill also contains provisions to enable Australia to fulfil its obligations under the Agreement.

The concept of the Financial Support Fund had its origins in the period immediately following intervention of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the world oil market in 1973. This intervention had very serious consequences for non-OPEC countries. It transferred real income from these countries to oil producers. In the process, inflation was aggravated, recession deepened and balance of payments positions of non-OPEC countries deteriorated. The initial balance of payments effects were particularly striking. The OECD countries, which recorded a collective surplus on the current account of their balance of payments of US$2½ billion in 1973, experienced in 1974 a current account deficit of US$33 14 billion. The current account surplus of OPEC countries rose by more than US$60 billion between these years.

In order to assist countries to deal with this new economic situation, the United States Administration and the secretary-general of the OECD independently made similar proposals in late 1974 for the establishment among industrialised countries of a financial safety net in the form of the Fund. It was felt that, with substantially higher oil prices, the large increases in current account deficits of the developed countries would not necessarily be matched by the investment of OPEC financial surpluses because of the concentration of such investments in relatively few countries. The Fund was designed to assist in recycling financial flows between the developed countries.

Initial discussions on the establishment of the Fund took place in the group of ten major industrial nations. In January 1975 the discussions were widened to all OECD member countries and Australia participated actively in the negotiations after that date. Early fears in some quarters that the Fund was confrontational, and would aggravate relations with oil producers, proved to be unfounded and a major dialogue was established between developed, developing and oil producing countries in December 1975. The Fund has come to be seen as a sensible instrument of financial co-operation among the developed countries during the process of adjustment of those countries’ economies necessitated by the increases in oil prices.

Although the combined external deficit of the OECD countries fell markedly in 1975, the basic rationale of the Fund remains valid. Most of the reduction in deficits was attributable to the effects of recession on demand including demand for imported oil. A return to more normal economic circumstances will increase the scale of the external financing problems which the Fund was created to deal with. In any event, some countries continue to run substantial deficits notwithstanding the fall in the OECD-wide deficit.

In essence the Financial Support Fund is intended to encourage and assist its members to avoid unilateral trade restricting measures and to follow appropriate domestic and international economic policies. The Fund will serve, for a limited period, to supplement on a last resort basis other sources of credit to which members encountering serious economic difficulties have had recourse.

Let me now describe the basic features of the Financial Support Fund. Membership is open to all OECD countries. Each OECD country has a quota which determines its maximum financial liability and is the basis for determining its borrowing rights. All OECD countries have signed the Agreement and, assuming all subsequently ratify it, the total size of the Fund will be SDR 20 billion, equivalent to about SA18.5 billion.

Australia’s quota is SDR 300 million, that is about SA275 million, or 1.5 per cent of the total. The Agreement will enter into force either when ratified by countries having 90 per cent of total quotas or by ratification and unanimous agreement of at least 15 countries having 60 per cent of total quotas. Signatories have until 31 May 1976 to ratify the Agreement on founder member terms. The agreement also provides that signatory countries may ratify after that date in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be established by the governing committee of the Fund.

Members may be eligible for loans, with a maximum repayment period of 7 years, if they are encountering serious external financial difficulties and have made fullest appropriate use of reserves and existing multilateral credit facilities. Loans will be conditional on the borrower’s following economic policies needed to redress its external financial situation and being willing to subscribe to the general objectives of the Agreement. In particular, borrowers will be required to follow appropriate domestic and international economic policies, including adequate balance of payments policies and co-operative policies to promote increased production and conservation of energy.

The Fund may grant loans for a period of 2 years after the Agreement enters into force. A decision to grant a loan up to an amount equivalent to a borrowing member’s quota will require a two-thirds majority of the governing committee, on which all members will be represented. A member seeking to borrow beyond quota would require higher majorities and, eventually, unanimity.

Two methods may be used to finance loans. Under the first method there would be calls on each member to provide, at its option, either a direct contribution or a guarantee to enable the fund to borrow its share of funds on its behalf. Under the second method the Fund itself would borrow on the collective guarantee of all members. Contributions for each member will be proportional to their quotas.

The provisions of the Fund Agreement are drawn up in such a way that there is virtually no circumstance in which there need be a direct budgetary impact. Should the Fund borrow on the collective guarantee of all members it would in all likelihood utilise overseas markets, in which case there would be no impact on members’ budgets. Should Australia be called on to provide, at its option, either a direct contribution or a guarantee, Australia could elect to have the

Fund borrow on its behalf in overseas markets. In the unlikely event that funds were not available in overseas markets, Australia would have the choice of allowing the Fund to borrow in the Australian capital market, or of making a direct contribution, which would require a budgetary appropriation. In this latter case- which is, as I have indicated, extremely unlikely to arise- any funds lent would be protected from exchange risk and would earn a reasonable rate of interest.

Amounts borrowed by the Fund would be met, as they mature, from repayments by borrowing participants, although there would be a contingent liability for Australia in the form of a guarantee on borrowings by the Fund. As a member of the Fund, Australia would be able in appropriate circumstances to borrow from it. However the Fund is a last resort facility and, in circumstances where Australia sought to borrow, we would need to show that we had utilised our presently substantial unused borrowing capacity elsewhere- for example in the International Monetary Fund. In accordance with normal practice, legislation would be required for any borrowing by Australia from the Financial Support Fund.

The Government sees the main value of the Fund in terms of its capacity to help maintain healthy trading and financial relationships between the major countries. Australia, as a major trading nation, has an important interest in a smoothly operating world economy free of the economic upheavals which unfortunately have characterised the recent past. The Financial Support Fund will help to avoid the imposition of damaging restrictions on international trade, production and employment. This can only be of benefit to Australia.

The Financial Support Fund Agreement also represents an important exercise in international economic co-operation among our major trading partners and allies. Australian participation in the Fund will be a demonstration of our support for a significant initiative to help ensure that world trade and monetary stability are not disrupted while countries are adjusting their economies to changed circumstances. According to the latest information available, 10 countries have already ratified the agreement and a further three are in a position to do so. The remainder of the membership hope to be able to do so by the end of May. The Government believes it is desirable for Australia to do likewise if possible. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 2019

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT 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

-! move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I suggest that as this is a Bill which the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has read in the House of Representatives it might be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill and two others I shall shortly introduce mark the commencement of personal income tax indexation in Australia. These indexation measures are a turning point in taxation policy in this country. They are among the most important and far reaching tax reforms ever introduced into this Parliament. Indexation is to apply to tax on incomes of the year 1976-77 and its effects are to be reflected in pay-as-you-earn deductions from salaries and wages as from 1 July next.

The Bills are also related to other aspects of the policy package the Government is presenting. They deal with aspects of the better and fairer system of family assistance, and reductions in Government expenditure, that are elements of this package. I have elsewhere explained the concepts on which personal income tax indexation is based. Nevertheless, I think that in this speech, which is related so directly to the subject, it would be appropriate for me to reiterate some of my earlier remarks.

There is no doubt that the effects of inflation combined with a progressive income tax rate scale are demonstrably unfair to taxpayers. For example, an employee sees wages increased, but if they merely keep pace with inflation he knows this does not maintain real income after tax. Without indexation of the income tax rates scale, the wage increase forces the employee into a higher tax bracket. The higher tax has the effect of reducing real income. It is, of course, not only wage and salary earners that are caught up in this interaction between extra money income and the tax scales. Business people are just as much affected.

In broad terms, personal income tax indexation seeks to avoid these situations mainly by providing for income tax brackets in the rate scale to be adjusted in an appropriate way for inflation. In the Bills I am presenting the income brackets in the tax scale are being adjusted by 13 per cent. As already explained, this represents the increase in the average level of the consumer price index for the year ended 31 March 1976 over its average level in the preceding year, as reduced by the effects of indirect taxes. Other countries use the consumer price index on a corresponding basis as the measure for tax indexation. As a simple example of what is achieved by this form of indexation we can 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 $5000 and $10,000. If the same person had an income of $1 1,300 in 1976-77, that is, an increase of 1 3 per cent, the marginal rate on the extra $1,300 would, without indexation, be 45c in the dollar. With indexation the rate on the extra $1,300 will stay at 35c thus reducing tax on it by $ 130. Not only that, the taxpayer will make savings from indexation of the brackets lower down the scale. That is what indexation is mainly about. But, as I mention later, certain tax rebates are also being indexed upwards and this will mean further savings for many taxpayers.

Turning now to the technical provisions of this bill, I should say firstly that the tax rebate to be allowed for the maintenance of a spouse, a daughter-housekeeper or a housekeeper is to be increased from $400 to $500 for 1976-77. The sole parent rebate is to be increased from $200 to $350. If these 2 rebates had only been indexed they would have become $452 and $226 respectively. The Government believes, however, that in these 2 areas indexation alone would not have gone far enough, bearing in mind other changes which are being made, and has accordingly increased the rebates by considerably more than the indexation factor. The rebate for an invalid relative is to be indexed so that it becomes $226 instead of $200. Similarly, the rebate for a parent or parent-in-law will become $452 instead of $400. The general rebate of $540 is to be indexed by 1 3 per cent and will thus become $610.

It is not proposed at this stage to index certain other tax allowances. The most important of these are payments for life insurance or superannuation for which the present limit is $1200, education expenses for which the present limit is $250 per person, and rates on private dwellings for which the present limit is $300. We are not alone in limiting indexation in this marginal way. For example, the Mathews Committee discloses at page 205 of its report that Canada restricts indexation to personal exemptions and the tax brackets. The report states that in Canada standard medical and charitable deductions are not indexed, nor are deductions for employee expenses or contributions to pension and retirement funds.

The Government is committed to on-going indexation and the legislation provides accordingly. Explicitly, it states that indexation for financial years following 1976-77 is to be based upon upward movements in the consumer price index during the 12 months ending on 3 1 March of the previous year, excluding increases resulting from indirect taxes. The precise indexation factor is to be determined on these guidelines by the Treasurer. The indexation factor is to be applied in years beyond 1976-77 to all elements of the system that are being indexed for that year. For this purpose it is proposed that the spouse ?.”d sole parent rebates, although actually substantially increased for 1976-77, are to be regarded as having been indexed.

I should mention specifically there is to be indexation of the element of the zone A and zone B allowances which is related to rebates for maintenance of dependants. Although, as I shall refer to later, the Government’s new proposals for better and fairer family allowances entails the withdrawal of tax rebates for children, this will not exclude them from the basis for calculation of the zone allowances. In effect, the dependants rebate element in the zone allowance will be continued as if all the relevant rebates were still in existence and were being indexed at the 13 per cent rate.

Before I pass on from the indexation proposals I should mention 2 other matters, one affecting the separate net income provisions associated with dependants rebates and the other affecting provisional tax payable for 1976-77. At present the maximum amount of separate net income a dependant may have without reducing the rebate allowable is $150. This amount is to be increased to $170. As regards provisional tax, it is to be borne in mind that it is payable for 1976-77 on income for 1975-76. Provisional tax is the equivalent for self-employed people of PA YE deductions for employees. The difference is that employees pay on current income while self-employed people pay on income lagged one year behind. When, as is now proposed, there is a change in tax rates specifically attributable to general inflation of incomes there is, in the Government’s view, a strong case for not applying the indexed rates in determining provisional tax when the incomes themselves are not indexed for that purpose.

This is so because the tax is being calculated on income of the previous year and it would involve a sort of ‘double counting’ to apply the indexed rates scale in determining it. For these reasons it has been decided that provisional tax for 1976-77 will be charged on 1975-76 incomes at 1975-76 rates. Allowance will, however, be made for increased dependants rebates and zone allowance, where they are relevant, and the child dependant allowances that are to be abolished will not be allowed. 1 have spoken elsewhere of the Government’s proposals for an improved scheme of family allowances and pointed out the reasons for the consequential removal of the rebates for maintenance of children from the income tax law. The Bill effects this removal which, of course, will apply for the first time in assessments based on 1976-77 income. It will not affect assessments for the current year, 1975-76. The final matter dealt with by the Bill is associated with the Government’s firm commitment to reduce government expenditure. It deals with the taxation of certain social security payments. In 1976-77 and subsequent income years it is proposed that particular social security benefits be included in assessable income and thus made subject to income tax. Service pensions available to ex-servicemen and women between the ages of 60 and 65 and 55 and 60 respectively are to become taxable for 1976-77. These pensions are the equivalent of age pensions which are already taxable. In fact, service pensions are now exempt from tax while the recipient is under the qualifying age for an age pension. As soon as that age is reached the pensions become taxable. This is an anomalous situation which the Bill will eliminate.

Also to become taxable are widows pensions and supporting mothers benefits. Widows pensions are, subject to a means test, paid at the same rates as age pensions. As age pensions are taxable, it is anomalous for widows pensions to be outside the tax net. The supporting mothers benefit is analogous to the widows pension and is to be treated in the same way for tax purposes. Finally, unemployment and sickness benefits are to become taxable. The present exemption from tax of this form of income gives rise to serious anomalies. It is usually received for short periods and its exemption from tax can make a recipient of it better off than a person who has worked all the year round and received the same total income, not including any unemployment or sickness benefits. The Government does not believe that this could possibly be viewed as a right result and proposes that it should no longer occur.

In conclusion I mention that the Government has deemed it prudent to proceed with indexation of the personal tax system at this time rather than await the outcome of a review of the system. Our indexation of the present system is evidence of our strong commitment to indexation- which we regard as urgently necessary. Technical aspects of the Bill are discussed in an explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable senators.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 2021

INCOME TAX (RATES) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I take this opportunity to address a few comments on a subject which is not directly related to the subject matter of the Bill. I had been hoping for some time for an opportunity to address to the Senate some comments on meteorological services. 1 was proposing to do it at the time of consideration of a document which was to have been discussed under general business some time over the past several weeks. The document is entitled Towards New Perspectives for Australian Meteorological Services’. It is a most interesting document and I commend its reading to those honourable senators who have some interest in the subject. I will not go deeply into the subject at this stage, although one could do so because it is a matter which concerns the daily lives and operation of a wide range of our human activities.

I want to take the opportunity to read into the record a letter which I have received and which I am sure the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) would find of very great interest in his endeavours to make a proper assessment of the importance of meteorological services and particularly of the need to retain the system which has operated until quite recent times of giving direct reports of actual weather conditions at strategic locations through the agency of the Australian Broadcasting Commission by way of radio broadcasts from Melbourne or Hobart. People who listen to these broadcasts and who are critically interested in this subject can make their own determination as to what the reports really mean to them rather than having to rely on the system of weather forecasting which gives somebody else’s interpretation of what those weather reports may mean.

This is a very important subject to the whole of Australia but 1 suggest that it is of greater relevance to those of us who live in Tasmania and who operate businesses, particularly fishing enterprises, in Tasmania. I was very pleased yesterday to see the acknowledgement by the Minister for Science of the special relevance that this subject has to Tasmania. I do not want to delay the Senate to any great length but I think it is important that I should read into the record a letter which I received from the Richey Fishing Co. Pty Ltd, which is now based at East Devonport in Tasmania. On 20 April 1976 Mr R. R. Richey, who was the Managing Director of the organisation, wrote to me. He addressed the letter to Senator D. Devitt, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. The letter read as follows:

Dear Senator Devitt,

Further to our previous discussions on the need for the continuance of actual weather broadcasts from Melbourne Radio and Hobart Radio, I would like to give you some idea of the extent to which fishermen have grown to rely upon this source of information.

You will well know from your yachting experience that Bass Strait can be a very vicious and dangerous area of water. It is also one of the most prolific fish catching areas in Australia. Because the periods of good weather are limited, fishermen must make use of every available hour in which to ply their trade. This means that in order to be on the fishing grounds to utilise the good patches of weather, they must leave on the tail end of the last blow in order to arrive in the fishing grounds at a time when the fishable weather is just commencing. Likewise to fully utilise the period of good weather they must delay their departure from the grounds as late as possible before the onslaught of the next change.

I would like to point out that fishermen have only succeeded in making a success of operating in the Bass Strait area by their ability to estimate the fine Tine between workable and dangerous weather.

This fine line is defined by close attention to barometers, practical experience in seamanship and above all else the receiving of actual weather observations from surrounding observation points, particularly those points to the west.

With all due deference to the ability of the meteorological bureau I say that its forecasts are not good enough and that without actual weather observations a true picture cannot be formed by fishermen. This picture must be a clear one. You must bear in mind that the safety of the skipper and crew of a fishing boat and the welfare and future of their families depends upon making satisfactory catches and returning to port safely. This can only be done if prior knowledge of the actual approaching weather, as distinct from forecast weather, can be ascertained.

Another point I would like to make at this stage is the fact that having put their gear in the water, fishermen are committed to a lengthy period of time in recovering it. This varies from one type of fishing to another. In the case of a shark meshing boat this time is about four hours and the cost of gear about $5000. If trapped by sudden or unexpected weather the skipper has to decide whether he can recover the gear and still get himself into shelter or whether he will abandon the gear and run for shelter. From my experience he will endeavour to recover the gear and often at great risk.

You may remember the old American saying of the cowboy days ‘The Colt 45 won the West’. I say with all sincerity that actual weather observations has won Bass Strait for fishermen in allowing them to operate with a reasonable degree of safety and a maximum number of fishing hours.

On this subject I could speak non-stop for half an hour in making my point piece by piece. It is difficult in a letter to do this. However, I do ask you to take into consideration my 30 years of fishing and Search and Rescue work in Bass Strait as a claim to reasonable experience. Also that I have been a Justice of the Peace in Victoria and Tasmania for 1 6 years which I hope will be taken as a reasonable proof of integrity.

I would like to assure you that I am personally 100 per cent sincere in asking you to do your utmost to correct this unfortunate mistake in discontinuing these observation broadcasts.

If you can achieve this, you will be preventing a great deal of worry and anxiety in fishermen’s families and I honestly think that from time to time, the loss of life.

Yours faithfully, R. R. RICHEY Justice of the Peace.

I wanted to read that into the record because I think it represents the view of one of the foremost fishermen in Australia. This man served in the Second World War as a fighter aircraft pilot and after the War he engaged in the fishing industry. Then I think he devised- certainly he has refined and almost perfected, I would imagine- the system of aerial spotting for fish catching. So not only is he very sensitive to weather patterns so far as his flying activities are concerned, but this is combined of course with his interest in the safety of his crews and his equipment in the pursuit of this industry which is a very important one to Tasmania. We have only just scratched the surface, I think, of the fishing industry in this part of the world. I believe that this is borne out by the fact that we have international operators in those waters to the west, south and east coasts of Tasmania. Japanese fishing fleets and, from time to time, Russian fishing fleets are there. I am anxious to see that we as Australians develop and foster that industry in our own interests.

Unfortunately, because of the hazards of the life of the fishing folk, coupled with the difficulties from time to time of the supply of crayfish and swimming fish, at the present time the industry is very depressed in Tasmania and a great number of fishing trawlers are up for sale. I think this is a sad thing because we find that the international operators are still going. I believe that they are still expanding their fleets and increasing their operations while we who, I suppose you could say, are virtually the rightful owners, are diminishing our activities in that area. I think that any intervention which would diminish the opportunities cf people to engage in that industry or would dissuade them from pursuing it is to be deplored. In fact, anything that we can do to reverse the situation and to restore those people’s confidence ought to be undertaken. We must look again at the issue. I have been assured in the comment made yesterday by the Minister for Science that in fact a critical look at the situation is being undertaken in the hope that perhaps some special provision might be made.

I am conscious of the problem myself because I am sometimes out in those waters. I do not have to go there- it is not my livelihood. I do so sometimes because I enjoy it. There are other occasions when I make a critical judgment that I will not go out there. But these people are engaged in an industry and in the earning of a livelihood. I think that they are engaging in something which we ought to be encouraging because it is part of the life and activity of Australian people. The fact that we are shortly to establish a maritime college, for instance, has a relevance in this total scene. There we will be the training of mariners in the art of taking ships to sea, whatever the field of operation in which those ships may be engaged, be it in the commercial trade, in fishing or something like that. I can envisage that in time to come, with a proper approach to this whole matter, we may find people coming out of those colleges sufficiently trained and, perhaps after getting some experience with the international operators, being able to build up again the fleet of Australian trawlers so that we can take advantage of the great potential that exists around our coast line.

I am conscious also of this danger factor. I do not want to overplay the matter. We are dealing with human beings, realistic people, and we must have some regard for what happens to them in the course of their lives. We must realise that the fishing fleets of Tasmania operate both on the west coast and on the east coast. The fishermen follow the seasonal patterns of the fish and the changes of weather patterns. There are occasions when the fishing fleets operate on the west coast of Tasmania. I suppose there would be wilder waters in other parts of the world, but I think the west coast could hold its own in terms of the demands which it makes upon the physical resources, ability and skill of people operating the boats. It would make as tough a demand as would any other part of the world.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Roaring Forties.

Senator DEVITT:

– Yes, because of the Roaring Forties to which Senator O’Byrne has just alluded. The weather comes right from Cape Horn, from Tierra del Fuego. One has to see this area to realise just how hazardous it can be. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate to refer briefly, in passing, to the fact that at certain times of the year Tasmania becomes a yachting mecca. We have the Sydney-Hobart yacht race at Christmas time. We have another race from Queenscliff in Victoria to Devonport in Tasmania, which I have become very interested in and actively associated with. In quite recent years there has been another race down the west coast of Tasmania. Senator Rae was one “of the participants in that race last year. That west coast can be a mighty hazardous area for boats, especially small boats. If the winds get up to 60 miles an hour- this is not uncommon there- it takes a very skilled mariner to get the boat to fight its way 0Ka lee shore in weather like that. In fact, the west coast of Tasmania is a lee shore on those occasions.

All in all, and not wishing to weary the Senate with a great oration on this matter, I suggest that the situation is quite serious. The mere question of economics must not be permitted to prevail or to take a dominant position in the overall judgment as to what is the right and proper thing to do. I simply say to the Senate that we have evidence from perhaps one of the most experienced fishermen in Australia. I know that his views are completely and totally supported by other operators of trawlers and fishing vessels around the Tasmanian coast. I know that he has very strong support from the families of those people. Those of us who are closely associated with the Tasmanian sea learn with deep regret from time to time of accidents occurring at sea with loss of life. Never a year goes by without some happening of this kind taking place in the wild waters off the west coast of Tasmania, in Bass Strait or in some other area where people go to sea to earn their livelihood.

I appreciate this opportunity to direct my comments to this matter. I know that the Minister is not unsympathetic. I am happy to acknowledge that fact. If there is any way at all to reverse the decision to diminish or to discontinue onthespot reports, I hope that will be done. The areas from which one get these reports are very limited. As I say, we have a totally exposed west coast of Tasmania. Therefore, opportunities for reporting from places to the west are limited. We rely on reports from South Australia, from the Victorian coast and from other means, such as aircraft, for feeding the information into the system so that these very experienced people who are critically concerned to interpret these reports- they have done this well over the years -can continue to have the opportunity to assess for themselves the weather pattern and to make their very fine judgment on whether they will put to sea, and so that the fishing industry, depressed as it is at the moment, may be permitted to go on with the minimum of disadvantage because of the use of any means or activities of human beings which can make it easier for these people to pursue their occupations. I thank the Senate for its indulgence.

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

– in reply- I respond briefly to Senator Devitt on behalf of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster). I would like the honourable senator to know that the Minister knew that he was going to make this speech and of his interest. The Minister has had his officers listening to what the honourable senator has said. I must say that I found the subject most interesting and, with the honourable senator, I regard it as a matter requiring earnest attention.

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 suggest that, with the courtesy of the Senate, 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 is a technical measure made necessary by the proposed move into indexation of the personal income tax. It is supplementary to the Bill to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act which I have just introduced. The Bill will, in effect, establish a standing measure setting out the rates of tax applicable to individual taxpayers for 1976-77 and subsequent years of income. The rates declared in the Bill reflect those declared for 1975-76 indexed by 13 percent.

The Bill also provides- in the terms I have described in my earlier introductory speech- for the means of automatic indexation of those rates in subsequent years according to the criteria that I have mentioned. The indexed rates it declares will be applicable in 1976-77 and subsequent years only if an Act to impose them in respect of each year is passed. A separate Bill which I will shortly introduce will impose the indexed rates for 1976-77. An explanatory memorandum on the Bill is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 2024

INCOME TAX (INDIVIDUALS) 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:

As this second reading speech has already been read in the House of Representatives, I suggest that it be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill is also supplementary to the Income Tax Bills I have earlier introduced. It will impose tax payable by individuals and trustees for 1976-77. As I have already explained, tax is to be imposed at the rates declared for 1975-76 indexed by 13 per cent for inflation. This means that the 7 steps included in the existing scale are to be changed so that the lower and upper limits are 13 per cent more than in 1975-76. For example, the 1975-76 bracket of $5,000 to $10,000 in respect of which a marginal rate of 35 per cent is payable becomes $5,650 to $1 1,300 for 1976-77. Tax in the bracket up to $5,650 will be 27 per cent, so that the slice of income between $5,000 and $5,650 will be taxed at 27 per cent instead of the 35 per cent that would have applied if there had been no indexation. The flat 50 per cent rate payable by trusts assessed under section 99A of the Income Tax Assessment Act is not being changed. Rates of tax for a financial year are not customarily imposed until the Budget sittings.

The early imposition in this instance is of course due to the Government’s wish to get the beneficial effects to taxpayers of the indexed rates scale and rebates into the pay as you earn system as from 1 July. The Bill does not impose rates for 1976-77 for companies or superannuation funds. An explanatory memorandum setting out technical explanations of the Bill is being circulated for the assistance of honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 2025

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1975-76

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 26 May.

The Schedule.

page 2025

QUESTION

GROUP A

Department of Administrative Services

Proposed expenditure, $26,223,000.

Department of Defence (Rent)

Proposed expenditure, $3,485,000.

Parliament

Proposed expenditure, $8 19,000.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $6,92 1,000.

Department of National Resources

Proposed expenditure, $2,5 13,000.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $ 14,342,000.

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $81,61 4,000.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I continue my remarks from last night, when I was detailing to the Senate the difficulty I experienced in getting information that I required. I do not think I had gone on to give the rundown of the way in which I had been misled. I want to carry on from where I left off. I was talking about endeavouring to get a breakdown of the places visited by the Governor-General on his trip to Europe for which the extra appropriation was sought. I refer to another area in which I was misled. I do not blame the officers for this at all. When I asked for a manifest of the VIP flights to be tabled in the Senate, I found that it had to come from the Department of Defence. I wanted to query the cost of those VIP flights in relation to the Governor-General. So I left my questions until Estimates Committee A came to the Department of Defence. We had gone past the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. When we got to the Department of Defence and I tried to pose the question, the Ministerincharge told me that I should have raised the question under the appropriations for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

So I have to ask those questions today in this place, as I was misled there and in relation to many other facets. I want the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) to tell me the cost of the VIP aircraft which is used by the Governor-General. Having looked through the manifest, I find that, in many periods daily and sometimes except for a space of only a couple of days, the Governor-General seems to be continually in the air. I remember that some years ago, when we were in Opposition, we questioned the use of cars by the previous GovernorGeneral and the mammoth costs involved. Senator Withers remarked then that it appeared as though the Governor-General of the time was running a grand prix. Looking through this manifest, it would appear that the present Governor-General is flying around Australia like a pigeon with 4 wings. He is in the air more often that he is out of it.

I ask the Minister whether he could obtain a breakdown of the costs involved in keeping VIP aircraft in the air for the Governor-General. When Mr Nicholls in another place put a question on notice recently it was very easy to get the relevant costs for the Prime Minister and Ministers of the previous Government. Mr Nicholls asked for the costs incurred by the new Ministry over a certain period of time, but the answer provided went back over a long period. Hansard of 25 May also gives the costs of flights made by the Prime Minister and Ministers of the previous Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

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

– The honourable senator has asked about the cost of VIP aircraft used by the Governor-General. I cannot give that information in a definitive sense but I will seek it. As I understand it, a vote is given to the Defence Department for the cost of running what is generally termed the VIP fleet.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is 34 Squadron.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is 34 Squadron, is it? The vote in the Defence estimates is for the maintenance of that squadron. Do not hold me to this, but I understand that a number of years ago the Government- I do not know which government it was- put down a costing per hour for each of the different types of aircraft. I do not know whether that was done in the time of Prime Minister Holt or Prime Minister Gorton.

Senator Bishop:

– It was done during the time of both Prime Ministers.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Bishop, who used to table the manifests, would be able to give Senator McLaren a lot of information about this matter. I suggest to Senator McLaren that perhaps he should buy Senator Bishop a beer afterwards and get some real information. I will obtain the present costings and Senator McLaren can have a look at them. I think it is so much per hour for each type of aircraft. I do not know whether the department actually costs out each aircraft on that hourly basis, but I will seek the information.

I take this opportunity to apologise to Senator McLaren for not being here last night when he raised some other matters, Again he feels that he was given the runaround. He was seeking information on a repairs and maintenance item for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. As I read yesterday’s Senate Hansard and the Estimates Committee Hansard, and Senator McLaren will correct me if my memory has failed, he was seeking certain information. He went to the meeting of the Estimates committee dealing with the Department of Construction and sought some advice there. Evidently he did not get a terribly good answer, either in the committee or later, as I understand the burden of Senator McLaren’s complaint last night. At page 1988 of Hansard he said:

Another thing which I wanted to pursue came under the estimates of the Department of Construction.

Senator McLaren went on to ask why he could not get an answer. My colleague Senator Missen interjected, and then Senator McLaren said:

Of course the answer is not worth a crumpet-

And I think that is fair comment -

I wanted information.

The honourable senator then asked a number of specific questions:

Who authorised the work? What is the cost of the work? What is the purpose of the work?

I have not been able to obtain the answers to those 3 questions but I will seek them. The item to which Senator McLaren was referring, repairs and maintenance, covers the repair and maintenance of buildings and the contents at Government House, Admiralty House, Kirribilli House and the Prime Minister’s Lodge. The appropriation last year was $122,800. Senator McLaren asked who authorised the work. I will have to find out in a definitive sense, but I assume that as the $122,800 was included in the previous Government’s Budget it must have been authorised by the previous Government. The repairs and maintenance- that is what the item is called in the vote- to those 4 structures were authorised by the previous Government, which allowed a sum of $122,800 in its Budget to carry out the work.

Senator Webster:

– If you come up with that answer, it will be the wrong answer for Senator McLaren.

Senator WITHERS:

-Let us do it my way. I take it from the explanatory notes that the $9,000 now being sought is to complete the work which was authorised previously and for which the previous Government made an appropriation of $122,800. As I read the notes, $7,500 is mainly for wages and there is another $1,500 which evidently is for the provision of a warning bell and repairs to the roof. That appears at page 13 of the explanatory notes. I will seek information as to who actually authorised the work. As it is in the vote for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet I imagine that it must have been the previous Prime Minister who agreed that the repairs and maintenance which are being carried out at these 4 residences should be done. That is an assumption, and I will have to seek a definite answer.

Senator McLaren then asked: What is the cost of the work? We know that the cost of the work for the 4 buildings is $139,800 or thereabouts, lt is fair enough that Senator McLaren should ask how much was spent on each of the 4 buildings because that is what the vote is for. I will seek that information for him. He then asked: What is the purpose of the work? Again I will have to seek that information in relation to each building. I will obtain it as early as possible. I cannot guarantee that I will be able to get it today. Senator McLaren asked 3 specific questions in relation to that particular vote and I will obtain the answers for him as early as possible.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I thank the Minister for promising to provide the answers to the questions I asked. If the Minister will cast his mind back to the meetings of the Estimates committees in the Budget session last year when the Labor Party was in Government, he will remember that day after a series of questions on expenditure was posed. Our Government was good enough to provide the answers before we came into the Committee of the Whole. It is over a week since I first posed this question. I know the explanatory notes state that certain moneys are appropriated for certain jobs, and I wanted to probe and find out if in fact that was the case. The answer I am now given that the information will be obtained is not much better than the answer I was given the other night, which did admit that work was being carried out. Surely if the Department of Construction is able to say that work is being carried out it must also be possible, without beating around the bush, as the chairman of the committee said, for Senator Webster to spend 10 minutes on the telephone to get the particulars of the work. Surely if a department admits it is carrying out work it should know what work is being carried out, why it is being carried out, where it is being carried out and what it is for.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They estimated it before.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course they estimated it. Why can we not have the answer? If I cannot get the answer now it means that this estimate will be passed and I will have no redress if I am told at a later date that the answer could not be obtained. I will have no redress and that is why I want the answer. Surely there must be some officers here today from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who could provide the Minister with an answer on this particular work before we pass these estimates.

I posed some other questions last night about the cost of cars, and again I got what I referred to as a bit of a run around. As I said, I went to the meeting of another committee to try to ascertain whether the debt incurred by Mr Sinclair, which Mr Daly said was owed to the Government, had been paid. I thought it would be covered by the Department of the Capital Territory. As the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) has said often, Canberra cars are not under his jurisdiction. But when I went to the committee dealing with the Australian Capital Territory, having let the matter go through the other committee, I was referred back to the committee dealing with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. That is my complaint, and in that connection I wish to refer to an answer given by Mr Darke of the Department of the Capital Territory to a question I asked about whether Mr Sinclair’s debt had been paid.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WITHERS (Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate)- I have a report which is of great interest to a lot of honourable senators, to the Parliament generally and to the public. I received it only last night and I would like to table it.

Progress reported.

page 2027

QUESTION

GRANTS COMMISSION

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

– I ask for leave to table a report concerning the Grants Commission.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Grants Commission’s special report on financial assistance for local government. The report was presented to me last night. It is being tabled today to allow for its consideration at a meeting of Commonwealth and State officials to be held tomorrow. Due to the limited number of copies available, reference copies of the report have been placed in the Senate Records Office and in the Parliamentary Library. I expect further copies to be made available in the next few days. I thank the Senate for its courtesy in allowing me to table the report which has been anxiously awaited by the Parliament and by local government. I think some 20 copies are available in the Records Office and on Tuesday next we hope 200 copies will be available for distribution to honourable senators.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to move a motion arising from the tabling of the report.

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 continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2027

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1975-76

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– When the sitting was suspended for lunch I was addressing myself to group A. I was referring the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) to an answer that I had been given. I sought information during the Estimates Committee’s examination of the proposed appropriation for the Department of the Capital Territory regarding an unpaid debt which the previous Government claimed Mr Sinclair owed it. In answer to my question Mr Darke said:

Yes, that is right. In this particular case we have supplied information to the Department of Administrative Services, but I am not aware of the stage of negotiations or whether recovery has been effected.

I would like the Minister to tell me when he replies whether that debt has been recovered. Although he claims he has no jurisdiction over government cars in the Australian Capital Territory, the Department of the Capital Territory states that the matter has been referred back to his Department. That is another illustration of unfortunate confusion. I have other matters to which I want to refer under this Department, but perhaps the Minister could answer this question first. Perhaps he may have been able to get that information during the luncheon adjournment.

Senator Withers:

– I am hoping to get it shortly.

Senator McLAREN:

– Have we the Minister’s assurance that we may get the information some time today?

Senator Withers:

– I am hoping to get it.

Senator McLAREN:

– I think I should reiterate what Senator Wright said. Having been a previous Minister for Works and knowing how the Department works, he told Senator Webster the other day that 10 minutes on the telephone should get the information. I hope the Minister can get me an answer concerning the debt. The other matter which also comes under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet- I sought information on this the other day- relates to the disbanding of the River Murray waters working party. To keep this matter in proper perspective I will quote a short statement which was put down while the Estimates Committee was considering expenditure by the Department of National Resources. The Chairman said:

A short statement from the Department of National Resources has been circulated which I shall read to the Committee.

He went on to say that consequent upon the administrative arrangements order of 22 December 1975 the Department of Minerals and Energy was abolished and the main functions of that Department were transferred to the new Department of National Resources. The water functions of the former Departments of Environment and the Northern Territory were transferred to the Department of National Resources. He further went on to say that the principal matters dealt with were evaluation and balanced development of mineral, water and energy resources, and water is what I am interested in. It ties up with my question concerning the disbanding of the

River Murray waters working party. Senator Withers told me that he could not give me an answer. It was said that although the River Murray Commission comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister he had not real authority because it is a statutory body. I accepted that at the time and said that I would find other means of ascertaining the information. I wanted to know who ordered the disbanding of the River Murray waters working party? On what date was is disbanded? Why were the Ministers of the 3 State governments which were involved with the working party not consulted before the body was disbanded? I could not pursue that further with Senator Withers. I asked Senator Withers whether there was any way in which we could question why the working party had been disbanded. Senator Withers said no. I had been told previously that this was so because the body was a statutory body.

I want to refer to a lengthy debate dealing with statutory authorities which took place in the Senate on 2 December 1971. It is referred to in the Australian Senate Practice by J. R. Odgers at page 369. Mr Odgers writes:

A new development in 197 1 was the moving in the Senate of motions based on the reports and recommendations of the Estimates Committees. For example, Estimates Committee B reported that it was of the opinion that whilst it may be argued that statutory corporations are not accountable through the responsible Minister of State to Parliament for day to day operations, they may be called to account by Parliament itself at any time, and that there are no areas of expenditure of public funds where these corporations have a discretion to withhold details or explanations from Parliament or its committees, unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise.

He then goes on to say:

On 31 May 1972, the Senate referred to the Standing Orders Committee the matter of Estimates Committees meeting in private session. The question has arisen in Estimates Committee B whether information of a confidential business nature concerning a statutory authority might be taken in camera in order to protect its confidentiality.

In my view there was nothing in the question which I posed which involved confidentiality. My query did not concern business dealings with private enterprise. The fifth report from the Standing Orders Committee concerning in camera evidence before Estimates Committees was tabled in the Senate in September 1972. Its findings were:

The Standing Orders Committee has considered the matter and recommends that any decision with respect to any Estimates Committee taking in camera evidence should be made only by the Senate itself upon receiving a special report from that particular committee.

It is quite evident from those few words- I have not read them all in order to save time- that any statutory body is responsible to the Parliament, and that means to the Senate. I was quite in order in seeking information, in view of what I read from Mr Odgers ‘s book and in view of the finding of the Standing Orders Committee of which Senator Magnus Cormack was the Chairman and Senators Cavanagh, Anderson, Murphy, Rae, Wilkinson, Withers and Young were members. Of course Senator Withers, having been a member of that Committee and having been the Minister in attendance at the Estimates Committee, must have known that he could have given me the answer I wanted to the question that I posed and that he could not hide behind the fact that it was a statutory body. I again pose the question.

Senator Withers:

– Where is the appropriation in the Bill for the River Murray Commission?

Senator McLAREN:

-The Minister for National Resources is responsible, as was pointed out in the statement read to the Committee by the Chairman of the Committee.

Senator Withers:

– Wait a minute. Where is the appropriation? We are talking about the appropriations.

Senator McLAREN:

– The Chairman of the Committee, Senator Sim, told me that I could canvass this matter in the Committee of the Whole, and that is what I am doing. That was the Chairman’s ruling.

Senator Withers:

– Tell me the line that you are talking about.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am talking about the proposed expenditure of the Department of National Resources.

Senator Withers:

– On which page?

Senator McLAREN:

– I have only the Hansard report before me at the moment. If Senator Withers will bear with me I will get it. It is at page 38 of Document A.

Senator Withers:

– Where is the reference there to the River Murray Commission?

Senator McLAREN:

-The River Murray Commission is not mentioned there, but because of a re-arrangement, as was pointed out in a statement to the Estimates Committee by its Chairman, the River Murray Commission now comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister for National Resources. Months ago I asked in the Senate under whose authority the River Murray Commission working party was disbanded, why it was disbanded, who gave the authority and when was it given, and I never received an answer to it. That is why I am now pursuing the matter. Surely I am entitled to know that. As I have pointed out, none of the Ministers of the various States which were party to that agreement was consulted. An announcement just appeared in the Press. The first thing that Mr Corcoran, the South Australian Minister and Deputy Premier, knew about it was when he read about it in the newspapers. Yet his Government is a party to that agreement. Surely goverments cannot work in that way. Why have we not had some consultation? That is what I am pursuing.

As I have shown by quoting from Mr Odgers’ book and Hansard ofl December 1971, 1 am entitled to seek that information. The Minister cannot hide behind the screen of a statutory body. I have sought that information in the proper manner. 1 sought it by way of asking a question in this Parliament when we resumed after the election. I have not been provided with an answer to it; so I have had to pursue the matter here. As I pointed out last night in my opening remarks the quality of its water is of great importance to South Australia. Money is involved. Surely we are entitled to know about these things. Perhaps the Minister should answer that 2 questions before we get too bogged down. I have some more questions to ask.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– If I am to be threatened with more speeches by Senator McLaren I might depart.

Senator McLaren:

– I am not threatening you. I will carry on if you like.

Senator WITHERS:

-Do that. Mr Temporary Chairman, Senator McLaren has asked a series of questions about Government House. I am in some difficulty over this matter. If Senator McLaren looks at the notice paper he will see that his colleague, Senator Colston, has placed on the notice paper question No. 644, which is basically about the same matter. I have an answer to that question, which has been approved by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), to put down next time answers to question on notice are put down. If I were to give Senator McLaren the answers to questions that Senator Colston asked some time ago I think I would be treating Senator Colston reasonably unfairly. That is why I have said that I will seek the information.

I must admit that I am in somewhat of a dilemma. I do not know when Senator Colston put question No. 644 on the notice paper. I will take a guess and say that he put it there on 1 8 May. I have the answer to it, which has been expedited, to put down on the next day of sitting.

I do not know whether I should pre-empt Senator Colston by in effect giving the information to another honourable senator who has asked in the Committee stage of this debate a question on basically the same subject, unless Senator Colston is prepared to allow me to do so.

Senator Georges:

– The Minister seems to be taking a very narrow view.

Senator WITHERS:

– I do not know about that. Some honourable senators could be very angry if another senator asks and receives a reply to a question on a subject similar to that on which they have placed a question on the notice paper and have not received a reply.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I wish to comment on what the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) has said. I have just looked at this question and I think as far as the Minister is concerned that, as it is a matter of the expenditure of public moneys, this should be one occasion when such a situation should not arise. Senator McLaren has pursued this matter with great vigour and at great length both here and at the Estimates Committee level. When the Estimates Committees were set up they were supposed to clear the air insofar as the seeking of information is concerned so that we could then come back into this chamber and expeditiously pass the various groups of estimates without a great deal of debate. There have been two or three instances of our being bogged down in this respect. I remind the Minister that in his early days here I held up the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Air for some 10 days while we tried to trace an expenditure of $10. We finally found that it had been spent on a push bike for some Arab in the Middle East, but we did find what happened to the $ 10.

Senator Withers:

-At a cost of $5,000.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It might have been done at some cost, but the expenditure of public moneys has to be open to public scrutiny and we have to take this opportunity or the opportunity that is afforded to us under the forms of the Parliament to try to do that. Even though Senator Colston has a particular question on the notice paper, I think the information sought by Senator McLaren is of such great importance insofar as this Parliament is concerned that, with great respect, I would suggest that if the information sought by Senator McLaren is not made available then that section of this group of estimates ought not to be passed by this chamber. I say that because I believe that the Standing Orders provide for that sort of thing, as do custom and practice. I hope that the few remarks I have made might relieve the mind of the Minister to the extent that we are not going to castigate him if he breaks a little from custom on this occasion. Alternatively, as Senator Colston is in the chamber, perhaps Senator Colston could ask the Minister the question now and, if the Minister has the reply, he could give it now and honour would be satisfied all round.

Senator Withers:

– That is not the point that I was getting at. I think Senator Georges knows what I am talking about.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Yes, and I am a little concerned that we may accept something here which may limit our questioning in the future during debates on the Estimates and in particular in the Committee of the Whole. If there happens to be a question on the notice paper concerning a subject on which information is being sought we should give preference to that question and the honourable senator who asked it and perhaps not give the required information to another honourable senator who may also be seeking it until the first honourable senator is given it. I think that it would be fair enough to acknowledge that the question is already on the notice paper and that the Minister has an answer which the Minister will give to the honourable senator who happens to be asking for the information in the Committee of the Whole while acknowledging that the information is being given in response to a question previously placed on the notice paper. But surely we are not going to fall into the situation, especially as we now have a couple of honourable senators who are prolific questioners insofar as questions on notice are concerned, where, because a question is on notice, no information is going to be given until the honourable senator who has placed a question on the relevant subject on the notice paper is given an answer to it. I think that the courteous thing to do would be to acknowledge the asking of the question and to give the answer at the appropriate time, and this happens to be it.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– The parliamentary practice where there is a question on a particular subject on the notice paper has been not to allow it to be followed up by the asking of another question by any other honourable senator in the chamber. That has been the practice right throughout. If Senator Colston indicates that he is prepared at this stage to have his question answered today it is an entirely different matter, but I think that the practice has been such that it would be discourteous to Senator Colston if at this stage we were to override what has been the practice in this place by giving an answer to a question asked by one honourable senator that is directly related to a question previously placed on the notice paper. I take on board the point that Senator Georges has made and the problems which occur within Estimates Committees. Perhaps this is something that the Standing Orders Committee could look at. But at this stage, while it is parliamentary practice, I think that we should abide by the forms of the chamber. If Senator Colston agrees today to this question being answered, it is an entirely different matter; but I think we should extend the courtesy to Senator Colston as well as abide by the practice of the chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– The point involves a matter of courtesy. If the Minister, in replying to any question, discharges the matter of courtesy, he can proceed. Senator Colston, who asked the question and in respect of whom the matter of courtesy arises, is present in the chamber. He may care to take up the matter in the Committee debate. However, I think that we are getting bogged down unnecessarily. The Committee is seeking information.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to clear up a point in regard to what Senator Young just said. If we adopted his proposal, that would leave the way open for every figure dealing with expenditure to be totally hidden from the Parliament for up to 5 years, if necessary, except for the fact that that would go beyond the term of a Parliament. If a government wanted to suppress information, the obvious thing for a government senator to do, regardless of which party constituted the government, would be to place on the notice paper a blanket question covering every item of expenditure just before Budget time or just before the Estimates were presented. Then, no other questions could be replied to by Ministers because they all would be covered by the precedent to which Senator Young has referred, that is, having them all formally placed on the notice paper by way of question. Mr Temporary Chairman, I would like to hear you rule on that. This debate is being recorded in Hansard and what is said may be used as a big stick in the future by somebody who does not want to disclose something. A Minister may say: ‘Sorry, we cannot answer that. There is a question concerning that subject on the notice paper. We would break precedent; we would be doing all the wrong sorts of things’. Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise that point for your ruling.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-Mr Temporary Chairman, I imagine that

I must say what I wish to say by way of speaking to a point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– No, you may speak in the Committee of the Whole.

Senator COLSTON:

-I thought that there was a point of order before the Chair.

Senator Withers:

– No, there are no points of order before the Chair.

Senator COLSTON:

-I have not heard all the debate. I heard some of it in my room and that is why I came back to the chamber. I am not quite sure whether what I am about to say will resolve the situation. I would like to make it clear that I do not wish information to be withheld from the Committee because of an answer that might be coming to me. So, if the answer to my question can be given to this Committee, I am quite happy for that to happen.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

- Mr Temporary Chairman, it is on that understanding, and that understanding only, that I read the answer. I might say that, irrespective of what has gone before, I personally will stick to the rule; when an honourable senator has asked a definitive question I am not prepared to answer a question on the same matter from another honourable senator without the original questioner’s consent. I acknowledge what Senator Colston has done. I thank him for his courtesy. I imagine that normally the consent will gladly be given. Senator Colston’s question is a little more deliberate, but basically it is the same as Senator McLaren’s question. Senator Colston asked:

Is the Department of Construction currently engaged in extending the Governor-General’s study at Government House in Canberra by two feet; if so (a) how many men are engaged in this project, and what is the expected time of completion -

There is an answer to that question, but that is not the question that Senator McLaren was asking. Basically, what Senator McLaren was asking related to the second part of the question, which was:

  1. what is the estimated cost of the alterations to the study -

Senator McLaren is not interested in that; this is what he is asking: and of any other alterations to Government House that are currently in progress.

I think that Senator McLaren is chasing the answer to that question. Senator McLaren asked about any other alterations, apart from the 2 feet on the study, that are currently in progress. The answer to Senator Colston’s question is as follows:

The Department of Construction is not currently engaged in extending the Governor-General’s study.

That relates to the honourable senator’s first question. Then we come to the answer to the second one:

Early in 1975, when the previous Government was in office, the study was extended by 8 feet by incorporating an existing verandah. The cost involved was $12,500.

I think that gets Senator Colston’s question about the Governor-General’s study out of the way. The other question was: and of any other alterations to Government House that are currently in progress.

That is basically what Senator McLaren is asking. The answer to that question is as follows:

Alterations that are currently in progress at Government House involve the extension of a sitting room by removing an inner wall to incorporate an existing corridor, repairs to ceiling, walls and floor, and re-carpeting.

I imagine that that is as a result of removing the wall- -

The estimated cost of these alterations is $ 1 9,000.

The accommodation is being altered to bring the sitting room of the principal guest suite up to a size and standard appropriate for the important guests who are accommodated there from time to time.

I think that this morning I adverted to the fact that the expenditure of the great bulk of the money would have been approved by the previous Government, because the appropriation was included in its Budget. We are now seeking only some $7,500 for Government House, Admiralty House, Kiribilli House and the Prime Minister’s Lodge. Senator McLaren asked 3 questions last night. He asked: Who authorised the work? It must have been the previous Government. He asked: What is the cost of the work? We know that the cost of the work is $19,000. He asked: What is the purpose of the work? I think I have given the purpose of the work. I again thank Senator Colston for his courtesy in allowing the answer to the question to be made available.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have received the answer which I sought. Of course, what prompted me to ask that question was the great play that has been made by the Government of its cutting of expenditure. I was concerned, as are many other people in Australia, as to why other capital works can be suspended, yet the Government can find $ 1 9,000 to proceed with works at Government House. I am not concerned about whether it was authorised by the Government of which 1 was a supporter. We authorised a lot of other work which as been cut out or frozen. This appears to be one particular piece of work that is exempt because it happens to be at the Governor-General ‘s residence.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– You cannot have a wall half completed.

Senator McLAREN:

-It was not half completed. It was there. The work was not even started. That is why I wanted the date of the commencement of the work. I do not think I have been given that. However, I have received the information I wanted. The other question that I posed to the Minister was: What has he done to recover the debt owing by Mr Sinclair for cars? Can he answer that question?

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I have not the information on hand. I will seek it and give it to the honourable senator as early as I can. I do not think that it involved much money.

Senator McLaren:

– It was $2,600, 1 think.

Senator WITHERS:

– There was some dispute between Mr Sinclair and the previous Minister for Administrative Services. As 1 understand it, the previous Minister never took any action to recover the money.

Senator Webster:

– He just did it for a publicity stunt.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not think he ever sued for it or attempted to deduct it from Mr Sinclair’s emoluments. As I understand it, Mr Sinclair said at the time that he was entitled to incur that debt. The Minister said that he was not. They just sat like a cat and dog meowing and barking at each other. I think that is where the matter was and that is where it stayed. I imagine that it is still in that stalemate position. 1 will attempt to get the information for the honourable senator at the earliest possible time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am pleased that the Minister has given me that answer. As I have stated, Mr Darke said that the matter had been referred to the Minister’s Department for investigation. Apparently, it has not come across his desk yet. I still have not received an answer to another question I posed. It was in relation to the disbandment of the River Murray working party, which comes under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Senator Withers:

– Which line?

Senator McLAREN:

– There was no line for this. I think that I explained to the Minister a while ago what the position was. The Chairman of the Estimates Committee made a statement prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence by the Committee. I have lost my piece of paper on this matter. However, I have already explained the position to the Minister.

Senator Withers:

– Which appropriation?

Senator McLAREN:

– It came under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Senator Withers:

-Which line?

Senator McLAREN:

– It came before Senate Estimates Committee A.

Senator Withers:

– Which line?

Senator McLAREN:

– As I pointed out, there was no line for this expenditure because of the shifting about of the responsibilities of various departments. I have made a mistake. The River Murray Commission comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for National Resources.

Senator Withers:

– Which line in the estimates?

Senator McLAREN:

– There is no line in the estimates and this is what concerns me. This is why the chairman of the Estimates Committee told me to raise this matter in the Committee of the Whole. Surely sufficient warning has been given, from 18 May to today, to get an answer for me. How often do I have to repeat the reason why I seek the information? I will repeat it again if it has not sunk in.

Senator Webster:

– Until the rooster crows many times.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Webster says it is like a rooster crowing. I do not care what he says. If I have to put a particular point of view in this Parliament I intend to put it and I will not be fobbed off by some inane interjection from Senator Webster. I desire this information and it is buried away in the Department of National Resources. As has been pointed out, a member of Parliament is entitled to get an answer to a question. The matter cannot be covered up by saying that the River Murray Commission, which is responsible for the River Murray Waters Agreement, is a statutory body because as I have pointed out, 4 governments entered into the contract in regard to that agreement. The River Murray working party was disbanded without consultation with the other 3 State governments. The State Government about which I am concerned is the one in my own State of South Australia. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, the first that the Deputy Premier of South Australia, Mr Corcoran, knew of the disbandment of this body was when he read about it in the newspaper. He contacted me and asked me whether I would raise the matter in this Parliament. I did so on either the first or second day when this Parliament resumed in February. I still did not have an answer to that question when I went into the hearings of Estimates Committee A on 18 May.

I pursued the matter. I accepted the word of the Minister at the time that he could not give me an answer because it was a statutory body. But I have done some research since, with the help of the officers of the Parliament. It has been drawn to my attention that one cannot hide behind the point that I cannot get an answer to my question because it concerns a statutory body. That matter has been resolved and the answer should be given. Public money was used in setting up this River Murray working party. I want to know for the information of the people in South Australia and of the people who depend on good quality water why the River Murray working party was disbanded, who made the decision and when was it made. I asked the question first on 1 8 May and we are now nearly to the end of May. Why can I not get an answer?

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I do not wish to be difficult, but if Senator McLaren turns to page 46 of the Hansard record of Estimates Committee A hearing on 18 May 1976 he will see that the following is reported:

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr Chairman, is there anything embodied in the statement you have just read which would cover the River Murray waters working party which has been disbanded? Does that come within that category?

Mr Thompson The River Murray Commission is responsible to the Minister for National Resources but not to the Department. We have no funds appropriated in these Appropriation Bills for the Commission.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is an independent statutory authority.

Senator McLAREN:

-I take it then, Mr Minister, that there is no way that we can question -

Senator WITHERS:

-Not really, lt is difficult to do so if you cannot relate your remarks to an item.

Senator McLAREN:

– There is no way that we can question as to why the working party has been disbanded?

Senator WITHERS:
Senator McLAREN:

-We will have to find other means.

Senator WITHERS:

– You will have to find other means, Senator McLaren, of raising that matter.

Senator McLAREN:

– You are making it hard.

That is what this matter is all about. Without wishing to get into a procedural wrangle, might I say that I am here to answer questions about a further appropriation of $2,513,000 which my colleague in the other place seeks for the Department of National Resources. I know it is a standard practice that under a department’s vote one can ask questions about any matter relating to that department. I have always understood the procedures in this place to be that unless there is an item in the estimates relating to a statutory corporation, one cannot ask questions about the activities of that statutory corporation. If there were in these estimates a vote of $1,000 or $100 or $ 1 for the River Murray Commission, Senator McLaren would be quite entitled to continue with his remarks. But as we are not seeking an appropriation for the River Murray Commission, for the life of me I do not know why Senator McLaren has raised this matter. There is no appropriation in the Bill for the River Murray Commission.

I have no information as to who owns this River Murray working party. Was it owned by the Commonwealth Government, by the River Murray Commission or by an agreement entered into by the State Ministers? All I know is that there was a group around known as the River Murray working party. Mr Temporary Chairman, I keep asking the question in relation to the matter raised by Senator McLaren: Where is it in the estimates? Where is the vote of the Parliament in this Bill which concerns the matter which the honourable senator raises? For the life of me, at this stage I cannot see where the Parliament is being asked to appropriate money for the River Murray working party. I think that unless the honourable senator can show that there is an appropriation somewhere for either the River Murray working party or the River Murray Commission, with respect, he really is not dealing with these appropriations.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– Order! I refer the Committee to Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice which, at page 339, states:

At the Committee stage of an Appropriation Bill, discussion must be relevant to an item in the schedule . . .

As the Minister has pointed out- I have not heard argument to the contrary- there is no item in the schedule which relates to this matter. I understand what Senator McLaren is seeking. With respect, he is seeking information about an item which for our purposes today does not exist in the schedule.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I accept what you say, there is no item there. Of course there is no item because the River Murray working party has been disbanded. I have said that on the first or second day when the Parliament resumed sitting in February. I asked in the Senate why the River Murray working party had been disbanded, and I have not yet been provided with an answer. The only avenue open to me was to go along to the hearing of Estimates Committee

A and through the Chairman of the Committee, seek some information from the Minister and the officers of the Department of National Resources.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Order! Senator McLaren, I understand the matter which you are pursuing, but I am sure you will recognise that as the Committee is placed at the moment, there is no way in which you can seek information about the item to which you have referred because for our purposes it does not exist. I take the liberty of pointing out to you that there are available a number of other forms of the Senate, including speaking on the first reading of money Bills, which you may use to press this point. It is true that you personally may not be satisfied with what has happened up to now, but I suggest to you, with respect, that there are and there will be other opportunities for you to press with vigour the point that you are now emphasising.

Senator McLAREN:

– Thank you for your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman. I give notice that unless I receive an answer to the question which I asked months ago, I will take the first opportunity to explore this matter.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

Mr Temporary Chairman, may I just impinge on the general argument? I have been a member of Estimates Committees and of the Committee of the Whole for many years, but 1 have never struck an occasion, in the life of former Ministries or in the life of our Ministry, when background information relating to an item was not given. In regard to this matter, it seems to me that it is a very clumsy way in which to hold back information from the honourable senator. The information about what happened to the River Murray working committee might easily have been revealed by one of the officers of the Department of National Resources. I certainly do not accept as a general ruling for the future the view which has been expressed because in the Committee of the Whole we have always been given relevant and irrelevant information.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-In case we are creating some sort of precedent here, 1 draw the Committee’s attention to a decision of the Committee of the Whole, which is reported at page 827 of Senate Journal record No. 142 of 2 December 1971. The following appears in the record:

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), by leave, moved- That the Committee is of the opinion that, unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise, there is no area of expenditure -

And I take it of no expenditure- of public funds by Statutory Authorities which cannot be examined by Parliament or its Committees, and in this regard confirms the opinion expressed in the Report to the Senate by Estimates Committee B . . .

Actually, I think the decision was made at one stage in this place that we could examine the whole range of expenditure provided for in an appropriation and move away from the strict limits of the items which for the time being might be laid down in the Estimates. I ask you to recall, Mr Temporary Chairman, the frustrations that we in Government felt last year when the Estimates came in for most thorough scrutiny by members of the then Opposition. On one occasion the Estimates Committee of which I was Chairman was virtually investigating the finer detail of the day-to-day running of departments. Then Opposition members insisted that that was their right. I should say that Senator McLaren had the right to insist also under the previous rulings and decisions of this chamber and on the basis of that previous example set by some of those who are now in government.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I wish to make some remarks of a similar nature, but I also wish to ask two or three questions concerning this division. Before I ask the questions, I point out that what Senator Georges has said is true. In the years when I chaired an Estimates Committee, I think that we were very fair in making available to members of the then Opposition all the opportunities that could be provided to enable them to ask questions even if they asked the same question 5 times and held up the passage of the appropriation legislation.

With respect to the ruling which has now been given that Senator McLaren cannot obtain this information by way of a simple reply on the matter, is it possible to deal with it under some specific heading? It occurs to me that, if this body has been abolished, it might be possible to deal with this subject under subdivision 2, item 04- Computer services. Somebody could press a button and we might get the reply back in a hurry. Without being too facetious about the matter, I think we would all be helped considerably if the Minister could unbend and relax a little and get that information while the debate continues. I wish to follow that remark by asking one or two questions. Mr Temporary Chairman, do you want me to deal with these separately, line by line, or should I take them across the board to save time?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– I suggest you deal with them across” the board but that you be good enough to point out to the Minister the items involved.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I shall. I refer first to division 431- Division of National Mapping, subdivision 2, item 04- Map printing, for which $30,000 is sought. That seems rather a great deal of money to be carried over. Could I have an explanation? I turn next to division 432- Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics and under subdivision 2 refer specifically to item 09- Contract investigations, for which the nice round sum of $100,000 is sought. Could I have a statement as to what ‘Contract investigations’ means? I turn finally to division 436- Australian Atomic Energy Commission under subdivision 1 of which, relating to the Atomic Energy Act, an amount of $574,000 is sought for ‘Running expenses’. There is a lot of running in that sum. The Minister might be able to give me brief explanations on each of those expenditures.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I wish to take up a point made by Senator Keeffe. Let me make it quite clear that last year when we were considering the Estimates it was pointed out specifically to those honourable senators who were members of Estimates Committees that they had to be able to relate their questions to specific items as they appeared in the Estimates. After all, when we are considering the Additional Estimates, it is quite clear that certain items will not appear if no extra appropriation is being sought. I would not like it to be thought or even suggested that there has been some movement away from what was the established practice. I have had some concern about the issues raised earlier by Senator Georges but I think that is another question. On this specific matter I think there is no question that past practice is being followed. I cannot accept the assertion made by Senator Keeffe.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is the

Minister in a position to reply?

Senator Withers:

– I am still seeking an answer to the questions asked by Senator Keeffe. I have sent a signal out for the answers. If I receive them shortly, I shall intervene so that we may come back to that matter.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-Mr Temporary Chairman, I seek your guidance on a question that I asked previously concerning the VIP flight manifests. When the Minister answered me, he told me that there was a formula set down and that the cost was so much an hour. What I am seeking from the Committee of the Whole is the cost of those VIP flights made by the Governor-General. In the cross-fire, I was told that the Department of Air or the Permanent Air Force had an appropriation in that respect. When I raised this in relation to the Department of Defence, the appropriation for which was considered by the Estimates Committee in question, I was told that I should have asked about it during consideration of the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I seek that information under division 230- Australian Defence Force, and specifically under subdivision 1, item 03- Permanent Air Force, for which $9,518,000 is sought.

I wish to know what portion of that amount of money can be attributed to the VIP flights which were undertaken by the Governor-General. A quick perusal of the manifests which have been tabled- and they only go up to the early days of February of this year- reveals that in the 10 months for which information is available the Governor-General has made 90 flights in and out of Canberra. That averages out at 9 flights a month. That is more than two a week. Some of them occur day after day. I am seeking the cost of those flights. I want that to be lined up with the formula which the Minister stated a while ago. He said that Senator Bishop knew all about it. I do not want to get that information from Senator Bishop who is now in Opposition. I want to get it from the Government. Senator Bishop has not the back-up staff to be able to do that work.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The honourable senator has the manifests. He can work out the hours from them. I will supply him with the cost per hour for operating each aircraft. The honourable senator can then work out the total sum for himself. I think that where matters are within the public record honourable senators who are now supplied with research assistants ought to start doing some of this work for themselves. I said I would obtain for the honourable senator the figures as to the cost per hour per aircraft. I shall obtain that information for him. He has the manifests. I have not. If the honourable senator likes to work through them and determine what the cost has been to fly every Minister around this country, that is for him to do.

Senator Keeffe:

– He might finish up with $2m more than you have. Then you would really be in trouble.

Senator WITHERS:

-Good luck to him, if he can do that. Let me say again with respect to the vote for the Department of Defence, having looked at it quickly I thought that a separate and absolute vote was provided for the operations of the VIP flight. I cannot see in the Supplementary Estimates that we are seeking further money for No. 34 Squadron. Unless the honourable senator can show me where the item occurs, I cannot take the matter further. I am not trying not to give information. Senator Bishop used to present the VIP manifests as fast as he could, which is what I am doing. The costs of operation per hour are public property. I just do not have them in my possession at the moment. The honourable senator is quite entitled to have both. We are not trying to hide information. I would be interested to know where the honourable senator sees a supplementary appropriation in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) in respect of No. 34 Squadron.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Do I understand, Minister, that, according to these Additional Estimates, additional expenditure is not being sought for that vote?

Senator WITHERS:

-I cannot see it. I cannot answer unless the honourable senator can show it to me.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I refer to division 230- Australian Defence Force, subdivision 1, line 03 -Permanent Air Force, for which an additional appropriation of $9,5 1 8,000 is being sought.

Senator Withers:

– But subdivision 1 deals with salaries and payments in the nature of salary.

Senator McLAREN:

-Yes. Well, the people who fly these aircraft have to be paid a salary. That would tie the matter in there. If the Minister is going to supply me with the number of hours the aircraft concerned were in the air or on the ground in transporting the Governor-General and can give me details of the cost per hour of using those aircraft -

Senator Withers:

– You can get that from the manifests.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course I can work it out. I am not that stupid. If you give me those figures, that will allow me to work it out. I cannot work it out from these manifests which give only the dates of the Governor-General’s departure from Canberra. The days and the dates are set out. There is nothing about hours. If the Minister can tell me the hours and the cost per hour, I will certainly work the details out. Have no worries about that.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I think I ought to say something. I said that I would supply information as to the cost per hour.

If Senator McLaren can work this matter out from the manifests, good luck to him. I do not know actually where the Royal Australian Air Force details this expenditure. I will need to seek that information. As far as I know, the RAAF supplies the manifests. An appropriation is made for this purpose. How often an aircraft is away, to which area that is charged if anybody is in it, how much is charged, whether a charge is made against training time or how much is charged against other aspects, I do not know. I will need to seek that information. I will seek it for the honourable senator and give it to him as soon as lean.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– May I assist the Minister? He does not know whether the Royal Australian Air Force can work out the cost. Somebody was able to work out the cost, as I pointed out earlier today, of flights of members of the present Ministry and also, going back over a long period of the previous Ministery because all the costs are listed in the Senate Hansard of Tuesday, 25 May. The cost in respect of each person is there. If the Government could have those figures inserted in Hansard in answer to a question on notice, surely it can give the same information to me. The answer to that earlier question did not suggest to the member who asked it ‘we will give you the cost per hour and the number of hours engaged and you can work it out for yourself. The cost there is given in dollars.

Senator Withers:

– Is that in respect of motor cars?

Senator McLAREN:

– That is overseas travel and, of course, there would be a lot of aircraft cost involved. In compiling these figures the Government must be able to incorporate the amount of time in the air and the cost.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Reverting to what I said about the VIP fleet, if Senator McLaren looks at. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76, division 504 on page 93 in respect of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, he will see a reference to the conveyance of the Governor-General, Ministers of State and others by the Royal Australian Air Force and Department of’ Transport aircraft. It shows that the cost involved for the RAAF was $1.2m and for the Department of Transport $20,000. That was under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and I am sorry if I misled the honourable senator the other day. It is money from the vote for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which is paid to the

RAAF. In a previous Appropriation Bill the previous Government evidently appropriated sufficient based upon past experience to more than last out this year and that is why in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) we are not seeking more funds.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2037

QUESTION

GROUP B

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development

Proposed expenditure, $1,747,000.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

Proposed expenditure, $7,589,000.

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $799,000.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $6,8 1 3,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The matter I raise is on a different plane. The appendix in the document we have before us is headed ‘Reference 76/ 1653’ and it anticipates the procedure for supplying certain answers. On the top of page 2 of the appendix, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) will look at the document, it is simply stated that replies to Senator Mulvihill ‘s questions Nos 2 and 3 have been prepared by the Department and are expected to be signed by the Acting Minister in the near future’. I do not know whether the Minister could hazard a guess at the definition of ‘in the near future’.

The other matter that I want to raise, with all due respect to the line formula, is that the Minister’s advisers will recall that I sought information from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations as a matter of some urgency. There is a group of girls in Sydney doing a course at a business college under the National Employment and Training scheme. In addition to doing shorthand and typing- I would like this matter drawn to the attention of senior officers of the Department because the course finishes on 5 June- they get a sort of certificate which claims that they are proficient telephonists. Honourable senators will know that the qualification for someone seeking a job as a telephonist is the PMG examination in December or January. There was a surplus of people who did this examination last year. I want to get from the Department an assurance that none of those girls who finish on 5 June will have any false ideas about the certificate they get from the business college.

I have in mind a couple of girls- Chilean migrants, who were dispossessed in a factory and have taken up this course. I want to make sure that employers recognise the certificate of competency as a telephonist which these girls will receive. The reason why I have resurrected this matter is that 5 June is the deadline- that is when the course finishes- and I want to make sure that when they go to an employer they will not be told that this credential from the business college will not be accepted. I will not name the college but Senator Baume and his colleagues will know the one I am talking about.

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

– I can recall the observations made by Senator Mulvihill at the meeting of Estimates Committee B. The officers of this Department were extremely good and I think were complimented on the way that they behaved. I would have thought that they had satisfied that query of Senator Mulvihill. If it is not mentioned in the Committee’s report and has not been satisfied the matter will be directed to the Department’s attention and will be attended to.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I raise a question relating to administration under the Attorney-General’s Department. In the explanatory notes at page 3 we find that the additional requirements over and above what was appropriated last year are due to an increase of 1706 man-days over the previous financial year and an increase in the cost of maintaining a prisoner from $15.27 to $20.55 a day. I ask: What has caused the increase in the cost of maintaining a prisoner over that period of 6 months? I ask this because expenditure on prisoners is possibly in respect of only housing, clothing and feeding them. The cost of $20.55 a day is some $143 a week and is what the average lawabiding tradesman gets to take home to make the same provision for himself and family.

The interesting point is that if this increase is in respect of food, clothing and shelter then over this period of time these costs have increased in excess of the increase in wages. In this appropriation there is full application- in fact, overapplication of indexation for inflation. While the Government is prepared to give to a prisoner the right to full indexation, it does not apply the same principle in its application to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of award wages. What is the reason for the increase that has occurred?

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

– In the absence of all the papers I should first of all observe that what I am doing is taking care of this area of estimates which does not normally belong to me. I will do my best to cover the points raised by the honourable senator. I take it that he is referring to division 165.3.05.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. I am talking about the maintenance of the prisoners. This would be under administration on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum.

Senator COTTON:

– The reference item is division 165.2 of which there is no dissection. In order to get some consistency I indicate that I am referring to page 3 of the explanatory memorandum. We are talking about the additional requirement which here is stated to be due to an increase of 1706 man-days over the previous financial year and an increase in the cost of maintaining a prisoner from $ 1 5.27 to $20.55 a day. Is it that area to which the honourable senator was directing his remarks?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes. Is that in relation to food cost?

Senator COTTON:

– The adviser from the Department does not have the answer to that question. From my best recollection I cannot really help very much. I have some information in my mind about the Australian Capital Territory area. I suggest that the adviser go away, get on the telephone and find out.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

page 2038

GROUP C

Department of Industry and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $39,774,000.

Department of Overseas Trade

Proposed expenditure, $ 1,7 10,000.

Department of the Treasury

Proposed expenditure, $9,617,000.

Department of Primary Industry

Proposed expenditure, $2,360,000.

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

– I should like to make an observation as I was responsible for Group C. The departments that I represented within Group C appreciated the way in which the Committee’s work was conducted. They found the inquiries of value to them all. They did their best to support the inquiries by providing information immediately or subsequently as fast as possible. I think that the officers from the departments produced the sort of information Senate Estimates committees should get and produced it quickly.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2039

GROUP D

Department of Education

Proposed expenditure, S 1 5,328,000.

Department of Transport

Proposed expenditure, $28, 157,000.

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Proposed expenditure, $6,11 2,000.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I refer to Division 655 and Division 662, which relate to the Department of Transport. I refer also to the announcement made by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) in the following terms:

The Australian National Railways Commission will withdraw its twice weekly freight service between Darwin and Larrimah in the Northern Territory but will continue with the co-ordinated road/rail service to Darwin, which will be able to provide a faster and more regular service.

I ask firstly whether the total vote has been adjusted in any way to meet these changes and decreases in the operations of the railways. Also, is the Minister for Industry and Commerce able to give me now and, if he cannot give it to me now, will he supply me with, information on the effect of the reductions in the twice weekly freight services. I am really asking what services presently apply, how passenger services will be affected and to what extent generally engineering and train operating staff will be affected. The first question is this: Does the vote in any way reflect the decision of the Treasurer which was announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce last week?

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

– I remember the observation contained in the Treasurer’s statement which I read in this place on his behalf concerning the Darwin and Larrimah service and the substitution of a road-rail service. I imagine that this vote does not reflect that. These are additional estimates to take us to the end of June. It is unlikely that that particular decision would have made any impact upon this particular vote but the Senate Hansard will have to be referred to. The responsible Department, of which I am not in charge, will have to be asked about this matter. Unfortunately I shall have to get the answer to the honourable senator in writing.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I ask the same question in respect of the review which is going to take place with regard to the Adelaide-Crystal Brook railway project. You, Mr Temporary Chairman, would remember that all parties took part in the discussions in the Parliament to get this railway going. The agreement consummated was presented to the Parliament in due course. The Treasurer’s statement was to the effect that the Government had decided to ask an independent committee to inquire into the Adelaide-Crystal Brook project and the options available. What I am asking firstly, is again whether the present vote in any way reflects or anticipates any cutback in the activities presently being carried out in respect of the construction of this line which was approved by agreement between the State and Commonwealth Governments and ratified by this Parliament.

Also, would the Minister for Industry and Commerce be able to supply, as soon as convenient, the guidelines for the inquiry? For example, will the inquiry consider an alternative route? The Minister no doubt will remember, because he took part in answering many questions on this, that the decision to build the present railway and the route of the railway was determined following a long argument presented by the Maunsell and Partners report. I think that subsequently some discussion and disagreement took place between the States and the Commonwealth but the report was accepted. It was a firm report. I imagine that the Minister will not be able to supply the information I seek now, but would he supply it as soon as possible?

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

– I think that we ought really to get information from the responsible Minister on this particular matter, that is, from the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). Strictly speaking, the matter is not related to the consideration of additional estimates, which really relate to the balance of money requirements for the financial year ending 30 June 1976. Nevertheless, the query is legitimate although it really lies in a separate area. I think that if the honourable senator would not mind I should get something quite precise about this. I do not want to answer these sorts of questions on the basis of my knowledge of the subject as this could lead to inaccuracy.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2039

GROUP E

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $20,86 1 ,000.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $7,02 1 ,000.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $7,692,000.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $999,000.

Department of Repatriation

Proposed expenditure, $17,1 42,000.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Subdivision 4 of Division 120 in the appropriation for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs requires an additional appropriation of $5,000 for salaries and allowances for members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. The explanatory memorandum informs us that this additional appropriation is for the purpose of an election in the Northern Territory to a seat in the Legislative Assembly. It was thought that the vacancy would take some time to fill and it was not considered to make allowance for a salary for that position in the appropriations. However, when the nominations were called for a person was elected unopposed and it did not take the long time it would have taken to fill this vacancy if an election had been held during the wet season. Therefore, the requirement to pay this member’s salary came on earlier than expected.

The point I wish to raise is that no provision has been made for increased salaries for members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. From memory, I believe that these salaries have not been increased since 1973 and the salaries have become unrealistic today. The last time that I approved an increase as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I stated that the next proposal for an increase would have to go to the Remunerations Tribunal for its decision. I am informed that the NACC has asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) to arrange for a case to be submitted to the Tribunal for an increase in their salary and that they were informed that a regulation would have to be drafted by the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) before the matter could go to the Tribunal. But the Attorney-General has not provided that regulation yet and therefore their case cannot go to the Tribunal.

I asked Senator Guilfoyle, as the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, on 23 March whether anything could be done to give these people wage justice. Senator Guilfoyle, I believe, told me on that occasion that she would take the matter up with the Minister to obtain an answer. To make sure that the issue was not forgotten I put question No. 570 on the notice paper. It read as follows:

When will the Minister provide an answer to the question asked by Senator Cavanagh on 23 March 1976, relating to a review by the Remuneration Tribunal of salaries and allowances payable to members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee.

I am still waiting for an answer to that question. We now have extra appropriations to last to the end of June and no provision has been made for extra salaries to be paid to the members of the NACC. So I take it that the Government does not intend to permit the Remuneration Tribunal to give consideration to a claim by these 4 1 people that they are entitled to a salary increase. May I ask why these individuals are being neglected? It is not a question of asking for wage increases; it is a question of getting a salary for them which is justified according to their term of office, their duties and the expenses they incur. They are prepared to make their own application.

The other point I want to raise relates to the vote for administration. As a result of the Laverton Royal Commission there is the necessity for the provision of Federal Government money in order to carry out the findings. I believe that at the present time a Queen’s Counsel who acted for the Warburton tribe is at Warburton seeking instructions from the Aborigines who were locked up on 5 January 1974. He is advising on whether they should take civil proceedings against the police for wrongful arrest and detention. The fee of that Queen’s Counsel is being paid by the Western Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. I believe that the vote of the Service is such that it does not permit the hiring of such counsel for the purpose of taking action, if it is thought desirable, on behalf of those who were wronged in that incident.

Has the Department made any provision to carry out the terms of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on the Laverton incidents? Much more has to be done in the future to obtain better relationships between the Aborigines, the European citizens and the police force at Laverton. The recommendations involve the following: A legal aid service should be set up at Laverton. The building of houses at Laverton should be accelerated in order to house Aborigines. The reserve at Laverton should be shifted so that it is closer to the town and so that there can be integration of Aborigines and Europeans. If this happened we would not get the incidents which occurred in that town last year. This all takes money. I ask: Is there provision in these supplementary estimates for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Laverton incident, insofar as they can be carried out by the Federal Government? If not, is it intended to do anything about the findings of the Royal Commission; or will nothing be done until after the new appropriations are produced?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have no information in regard to the first matter, which involves a requirement of additional salaries for members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. It will be understood that the additional appropriation of $5,000 was required to cover portion of the extra cost resulting from the early appointment under this item. As far as the additional salaries and the referral of this matter to the Remuneration Tribunal are concerned, I have no information. This matter was not raised at the Estimate Committee hearing. I am unable to give the response which I would like to give to the honourable senator. I understand the matter with regard to the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) and the action that would need to be taken. I am unaware whether that has been negotiated between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Attorney-General. I suggest that I obtain that information for the honourable senator or arrange for an officer to come over this afternoon to give him the information with regard to the increase in salaries for members of the Consultative Committee.

I am aware of the question which he asked me in March. I referred it to the Minister concerned. I have noted his further question, No. 570. I agree with him that his interest in this matter warrants the provision of information. I shall endeavour to provide the information through an officer coming over this afternoon to discuss it with him, or I shall see that the honourable senator gets an early answer to his question which was placed on the notice paper. With regard to the other matter about the provision of legal aid and costs which are required to assist in carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, particularly as they relate to the Laverton incidents, no item specifically has required additional appropriation. I can only assume that any funds which are required for that matter are in hand. I shall have this specific issue raised to determine what action has been taken with regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I share with the honourable senator regret over the Laverton incidents and all the matters which could arise from those incidents if satisfactory negotiations, instructions and other considerations are not taken into account. I am afraid that 1 cannot give the specific information on behalf of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. 1 am prepared to facilitate these matters, particularly the question on the notice paper and the other matter which was raised this afternoon.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– My remarks deal with immigration. They are covered by Division 360, the administrative division. I assure the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) that at the end of this brief speech I shall ask to have matters incorporated in Hansard. That will give the officers a chance to track them down. The Minister will appreciate that but for the clash of certain committee meetings I would have been able to attend. I know that with Mr Dempsey in the vanguard I probably would have received this information across the table. Could I get details of the staffing of our immigration offices at Madrid and Paris? I find from my files that, while Rome, Athens and Belgrade are, in the main, very efficient and are backed up by Central Office staff, Madrid and Paris- Paris in particular- are not. I have a case which involves a Mr Pires. I inform Senator Cavanagh that he is a Builders Labourers Federation activist. His fiancee is a guest worker in France. There seems to be an abnormal delay in this case. I shall give the Minister the spelling of the names.

The other 2 matters deal with the overall staffing of the Department and its severance from the Department of Labor. I feel that some matters have been unduly slow. I am sure Senator Lajovic agrees with me on this matter. Senator Guilfoyle will recall that the other night- I think, in an adjournment debate or in the first reading debate on a money Bill- I mentioned that there was concern among ethnic communities in Sydney. There seems- I use the word advisedly- to be a lack of uniformity. A girl in Yugoslavia, a tourist to Australia, is invited to Belgrade to be interviewed. I am talking now about the Slovene community. They do not cavil at this. On the other hand, there were a couple of happenings in Sydney. Other tourists came here from Thailand and they were involved in a vice ring. I have been waiting since 17 February for an answer to question No. 7. 1 am not in the same position as Senator McLaren, that is, in a demarcation dispute with Senator Colston. This is a Mulvihill show right through. I ask that the answer to question No. 7 be expedited. I think Senator Lajovic is nodding his head. We know that some of the Yugoslav and Italian tourists say: ‘We do not mind being interviewed’. But they ask: What went wrong in Bangkok? I know that there can be on occasions a demarcation dispute with the people in the Department of Foreign Affairs who issue passports. All we want is the same modus operandi to apply in Bangkok as in Belgrade.

Another matter, which I need to have incorporated in Hansard, relates to the last statement which was made by Mr MacKellar about the immigration program for 1976-77.I want to link 2 paragraphs in this document. The first paragraph states:

Some critical gaps remain in the labour force and these gaps are inhibiting new employment opportunities.

I know that my Western Australian colleague, Senator Mcintosh, doubts that this is so in his State. I want these 2 extracts incorporated in Hansard. The next paragraph states:

There is provision in the program for employer nominations for semi-skilled and a limited number of unskilled workers . . .

Against that background of tradesmen, semiskilled workers and unskilled workers, I ask for the permission of the Committee to have 3 documents incorporated in Hansard. One document is a letter from the Associazione Lucana which is an Italian sub-group, if I may put it that way, in the Evans electorate. The association complains about a certain submission in relation to people who have been defined as bricklayers. There is a letter from the Department saying that these people do not measure up as bricklayers. There is a letter from their Italian employers, D. and C. Dileo, concrete contractors, which states that after the arrival in Australia of the 2 migrants D. and C. Dileo would undertake to employ them as bricklayers. I am not going to run foul of Senator Cavanagh, who knows the building industry better than I do. My escape hatch is on the second page of the Minister’s statement, which refers to nomination by employers for semi-skilled workers. In essence at the worst they meet the criteria of the Minister’s second paragraph. I would relate that to certain Spaniards here who are doing building work on archways where there would be a tradesman and about 4 assistants. I know of no reason why building trade unions in Sydney would object to these nominees. I have documented this case simply for the future credibility of the Minister’s statement and also to remove a lot of misunderstandings. I regard the second paragraph as being very important. It is easy to define qualifications in the main building trades but it is more difficult in classifications covered by the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association and by the Australian Workers Union in certain fields.

I talked to Senator Cotton about another matter, and I would say to him that people who work on oil rigs in drilling operations are normally FEDFA or AWU operatives, and that could apply also to land based jobs. That is where we get into a lot of difficulty. I can name Yugoslavs and Greeks who are working on oil rigs in the North Sea. Commensurate with language and safety, I cannot get the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to clarify whether we have enough Australian FEDFA and /or AWU operatives who perhaps have not had experience in the North Sea to fill jobs when offshore drilling expands. Perhaps it is the other way round. Without labouring the matter, I ask that extracts from pages 1 and 2 of the Minister’s statement be incorporated in Hansard, as well as the 3 documents relating to the 2 La Rossa brothers. I would be happy if I could get a reply on that matter within 10 days or a fortnight. I think the Minister did take a note of question on notice No. 7, as well as the point about staffing in Paris and Madrid. I seek leave to incorporate the documents.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– I take it that all the documents are capable of incorporation in Hansard?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Yes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is being sought for the incorporation of certain documents in Hansard. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

Extracts from Press Releases from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Some critical gaps remain in the labour force and these gaps are inhibiting new employment opportunities’. Mr MacKellar added.

There is provision in the program for employer nominations for semi-skilled and a limited number of unskilled workers to be recruited provided that the employers concerned have made satisfactory and genuine efforts to recruit such workers in Australia.’

& C. DILEO

Concrete Contractors-Exposed Aggregate House Alterations 27 St Albans Street, Abbotsford, 2046.

Telephone: 831-1085,83-4712

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

That at the arrival into Australia of Mr Pietro La Rossa and Salvatore La Rossa we undertake to employ them with our firm as bricklayers and their jobs will be permanently.

Yours faithfully,

DI LEO.

Associazione Lucana 92 Ramsay Street.

Haberfield, N.S.W. 2045

Tel.: 798 5199 5th May, 1976.

The Hon. Senator,

Mulvihill, 12 Floor, Australia Centre,

Chifley Square,

SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2000.

Dear Senator,

Re: Application for admission to Australia for Pietro La Rossa (single) and Salvatore La Rossa and Family

Further to our letter of the 4th March, 1976 we have received no reply in this regard.

Mr La Rossa has received a letter from Department of Immigration, which we enclose.

Would you please make representation and see if those applications could be approved.

Thanking you for your interest and wishing you all the best.

Yours faithfully,

Associazione Lucana

Di Giacomo,

Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

The Commonwealth Centre

Chifley Square

Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 1 1 May 1976.

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

I am writing in reply to your representations concerning the nominations for the admission to Australia of Mr and Mrs Salvatore La Rossa and family and Mr Pietro La Rossa from West Germany, submitted by Mr Donato La Rossa of 5 Rowley Road, Five Dock, and which had not been approved.

Following your representations the nominations have again been examined. However, I am sorry to have to tell you that it has again not been found possible to approve them, as the nominees do not come within the categories at present being accepted.

I should explain that the existing family reunion policies cover spouses, minor dependant children and aged or dependant parents of persons already living in Australia. Apart from these, certain professional and sub-professional workers, craftsmen, principally in the metal and electrical fields, and some others with special skills in short supply only, can be taken up at present.

In this instance the Senior Migration Officer in Cologne has determined that the nominees cannot be regarded as qualified tradesmen in Australian terms and that, therefore, it has not been found possible to approve their nomination. In view of this decision I regret that it will not be possible to proceed further with these nominations.

Yours sincerely,

W. AUSTEN

Regional Director

Senator J. A. Mulvhill,

Australian Parliament Offices,

Australian Government Centre,

Chifley Square,

SYDNEY. N.S.W. 2000

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I assure the honourable senator that I will draw attention to the remarks he has made. I believe that the Minister would be grateful to hear from him about building trades qualifications in view of the statement made by the Minister with regard to the program for 1976-77. As far as question on notice No. 7 is concerned, I regret that Senator Mulvihill has not had an answer. I believe that the matters raised in the question are important and that a reply should have been facilitated before this date. The other matters that have been drawn to our attention I think are of interest, and the Minister will be grateful to have Senator Mulvihill’s interest. I take it that the letter from D. and C. Dileo, the concrete contractors whom the honourable senator mentioned, is also included in the statements incorporated in Hansard]

Senator Mulvihill:

– Yes, there is an authority from them about undertaking to employ the 2 men.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I wish to thank Senator Mulvihill for his interest in the Government’s immigration program.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– Included in the considerations of Estimates Committee E were the Northern Territory health services, and I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) for the care she gave to obtaining answers to a number of questions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– To which division are you referring?

Senator BAUME:

– Division 330, subdivision 3, Department of Health, is the one to which I am addressing myself specifically. One of the problems about the Northern Territory is that it is an area for which the Government has direct responsibility. It is therefore an area to which I always direct a certain amount of attention in relation to health services. As the Minister has been kind enough to make clear to me in answers to questions throughout the year, the Government has inherited a very bad situation from the last Government with regard to staffing in the’ Northern Territory health services. I would remind the Committee that there has been a very grave shortage of medical personnel. In answer to a question about doctors which I asked in March of this year, the Minister pointed out that in an establishment of 55 medical staff in Darwin there were 19 vacancies. That points up the very serious situation which exists in the health services available to the citizens of the Northern Territory.

My concern arises because such a situation affects the right to medical care of the people who live in the Territory, who have already had enough to put up with from natural disasters in the last year or two.

The provision of health services in the Northern Territory depends on a lot more than doctors.

It depends on a whole range of health personnel, as well as physical resources, but it is the health personnel about whom I am concerned at the present time. The Estimates Committee addressed itself particularly to division 330, subdivision 3, item 03, which provides for grants for the employment of nursing staff.

One of the questions that arises every time we examine the Northern Territory situation is that the salaries paid there, following the anomalous situation that was allowed to develop when wage indexation was introduced, have not been competitive with salaries paid in other parts of Australia. One of the reasons why doctors cannot be attracted to the Northern Territory is that the salaries are not up to the standard that obtains south, east or west.

When the committee reached this item relating to the employment of nursing staff, the obvious question to ask was what are the salaries of nursing staff in the Northern Territory and whether they are competitive with salaries payable, say, in Queensland or Western Australia. I think it is important that the answer the Minister obtained is made known to this Committee. At page 9 of the report of Senate Estimates Committee E it is indicated from extra information provided by the Department of Health that it is not only medical salaries that are not competitive. The salaries of nursing staff are not up to the salaries payable in the adjoining States, that being another problem which this Government inherited from its predecessor. The salaries in question have been set out and I think they should be placed on record. For a trained nursing sister, who is the backbone of a health service in an area like the Northern Territory, the upper limit in the Northern Territory of $8,219 is only just above the lowest limit of salary paid to the same person in Western Australia. Again, the Queensland salaries run to an upper limit which is some $300 or $400 above those paid in the Northern Territory. The salary range for a sister in the Northern Territory is $6,988 to $8,219. When that is compared with the salary range in Western Australia, an adjacent area, of $8,039 to $9,161, it is no wonder that we have inherited a situation which makes it difficult to attract the people we want into the Northern Territory.

I appreciate the difficulties the Government has, committed as it is to wage indexation. With arbitral bodies operating within the wage indexation guidelines, the Government has found it difficult to upgrade the salaries paid. I am aware of the very strenuous efforts that have been made in some cases to seek work value studies to try to do something about the non-alignment of salaries in the Northern Territory health services. I urge the Minister, who has been very kind in helping me with information about medical salaries and about the steps being taken to upgrade them, to draw to the attention of her colleague the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) the salary differential which applies to nurses. I also urge the Minister to seek some early way of making nurses salaries in the Northern Territory at least competitive with those which apply in Queensland and Western Australia.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support the previous speaker, Senator Baume, and to make a few brief remarks in relation to the salaries of medical staff, particularly nursing sisters in the Northern Territory. I support what Senator Baume has said. This aggravating and annoying situation has been going on for years in the Northern Territory. Salaries, particularly of nurses and sisters, are below the level in other States. This also relates to the salaries of professional staff. The result is that the Northern Territory is always looking for staff. In fact there have been many campaigns in this last year to try to bring more sisters to the Territory. The low salaries have aggravated the difficulties of medical services in the Northern Territory with the result that in some areas wards have had to close down. I have inspected them myself.

I could go on at length dealing with this situation. I know that Dr Gurd, who is the Director of Health in the Northern Territory, has on many occasions approached the Government and the Commonwealth Public Service Board. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) appreciates the situation. I understand that after these long protracted submissions to the Commonwealth Public Service Board the matter is now in the hands of an arbitrator. I hope that in the next few weeks a decision will be made to pay adequate salaries to the nurses and other professional staff in the Northern Territory. I am sure that when adequate salaries are paid many of the health facilities in the Northern Territory will alter. Perhaps we will be able to get specialists to come to the Northern Territory to look after the people there, whether Aboriginal or white. The Northern Territory at the moment is sadly lacking in professional people.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– We had an interesting discussion about this matter in the Estimates Committee. We were indebted to honourable senators who made a contribution to that discussion. Senator Wheeldon made very interesting comments and drew our attention to the difficulties. Officers appearing before the Estimates Committee stated that the matter was before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for determination. The case is supported by the Department of Health. I think it would be agreed by all that what has been said with regard to the disparity of salaries for nurses in the Northern Territory has made it extremely difficult for us to have the level of medical and health service that we desire for the people of the Northern Territory.

The matter is at present before the Commission and it has the support of the Department of Health. With the remarks of our colleagues this afternoon, I think the matter has been fairly placed before the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann). We hope that the outcome of the case before the Commission is such that the disparity will be overtaken and that there will not be that problem of securing desirable staffing strength for the hospitals and other medical services in the Territory. I shall draw the attention of the Minister to the discussion this afternoon. I hope that the discussion will give him an understanding of the urgency and the support he would have in facilitating an increase in salaries for medical officers and medical staff generally.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2045

GROUP F

Department of Science

Proposed expenditure, $5,648,000.

Department of the Northern Territory

Proposed expenditure, $8,858,000.

Department of Construction

Proposed expenditure, $ 14,372,000.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $5,914,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I address my remarks to the Department of the Capital Territory, divisions 2 10 to 2 1 3 and in particular to division 210, subdivision 3, item 06 which deals with social welfare. I do so because this morning’s Canberra Times attributed to me and also to the Government policies seemingly based on mistakes and misconceptions. The Canberra Times sought to base upon one answer given to an Estimates Committee of which I was the Chairman a whole line of reasoning that is most lopsided, superficial and irresponsible. I remind the Senate that Mr Bruce Wright, the City Reporter, in the Canberra Times of 7 May drew attention to the fact that the statement of Government receipts and expenditure in the

Australian Capital Territory last financial year showed a deficit of $28 1 m, which is $ 100m more than the deficit shown in the previous year. The contributor, Mr Bruce Wright stated that even after exclusion of expenditure on capital works there was a shortfall of receipts over expenditure of $74m last financial year. I am treating the figures as round millions and leaving out the decimal points. He went on to say that the Department of the Capital Territory had said in a foreword that the statement did not clearly express the real picture because expenditures and related revenues could not be matched. I think that the foreword of the official statement on receipts and expenditure shows to me a lamentable incompetence not in administration only but also in accountancy which any institution other than this Parliament would not tolerate. Those statements of Mr Bruce Wright can be seen in the official statement of the Department of the Capital Territory.

Mr Bruce Wright goes on to inform us that the expenditure on Department of the Capital Territory general services rose from $23. 9m in 1973-74 to $33m last year; Department of Education general services rose from $3 1.5 m to $50.9m; and Department of Health general services expenditure rose from $ 15.6m to $27. lm. The official document shows that the total expenditure for the Territory is $349m- a good round sum for a small community and a developing city whose residents, I expect, are on an income level unmatched in any other area in Australia. The total expenditure is $349m. The total receipts are $67m. Listed under receipts are $9.6m in general rates. This is the contribution that the general rates of Canberra make to the huge expenditure of $349m. Last year $ 1 .5m was spent on this item of social welfare. This year, after budgeting for $l.lm, a supplemental appropriation of $414,000 was asked for, bringing the total to $1.5m. The Committee was of necessity dealing with that matter briefly on account of time, but I should think that all members of the Committee would consider that, from the point of view of the estimates being supplementary estimates, they dealt with them adequately. In answer to a question by Senator Kilgariff about the increased subsidy required for houses provided rent free to community organisations we were told by a departmental officer that there were 4 additional houses, and they were referred to. Then I, as the Chairman of the Committee, asked:

Does the Social Security Department, to your knowledge, have a parallel program for making buildings or housing available in any other city or large town in the Commonwealth?

The officer said: 1 am not aware whether they have or not. But I do know that they are aware of the houses that we have provided because they very often give grants of assistance to the organisations which use the houses.

Senator Ryan said:

Local councils perform this kind of function and we do not have a local council here. I know of local councils that have made houses available for similar purposes in other States.

I, as the Chairman, then said:

And they rate their citizens for the purpose.

Senator Ryan said:

The citizens of the Territory are also rated.

I said:

No, the national exchequer provides the Territory finance.

That was an elliptical way of saying: ‘Really you are not saying that you depend upon your rates here. The national exchequer provides the real finance- 95 per cent of the finance- here.’ The particular line and item we were dealing with has been asked to be appropriated out of the national exchequer. So that the claim by Senator Ryan that the rates provided finance for this was denied on two counts: Firstly, that the amount that the rates provide in the Australian Capital Territory is $9m out of $349m; secondly, the specific item to which we were addressing ourselves was being appropriated out of the national exchequer.

The same contributor who made a disclosure about the Territory accounts on 7 May this morning contributed an article entitled ‘Policies seemingly based on mistakes and misconceptions’ and pivoted the whole allegation that there was a misconception underlying the Government’s policy in relation to Australian Capital Territory finances upon that elliptical statement of mine that the national exchequer provides the Territory finance. The previous statement by Senator Ryan was that the citizens of the Territory also were rated. The citizens of the Territory are rated to the extent of $9m, providing that contribution to an expenditure of $349m.

If this newspaper correspondent had read through the Hansard report he would have seen that we devoted ourselves to another item, namely, land rent, which was abolished in 1970. I- not merely a visitor to the A.C.T. but a senator who has been here for nearly 27 years- have had attributed to me a failure to appreciate that after great contention land rents were abolished and rates were substituted. Actually in a subsequent pan of the examination of these estimates we questioned the officers closely on the justification for leaving outstanding from as long ago as 1970 land rents to the extent of, I think it was, $2 1,000 or $31,000 due, on a statement given to us, by identifiable companies easily ascertained and which, except one which it was said had gone into liquidation, should be solvent. This showed, I would have thought, that the whole Committee and not merely myself understood that the land rents had given way to rating. Yet on this pinhead of error this newspaper, presenting the news that is absorbed by the citizens of the Australian Captal Territory, suggests that therefore the Estimate Committee’s consideration of the Government’s provision of funds and the Government’s recent decisions on finance were based upon misconception and error.

Let me draw to the attention of the Committee and to those who are interested other aspects of the estimates that we are considering. Under the heading ‘Australia 75 Festivals’ a loss was incurred which, in addition to the $288,000 already provided from four different government sources, now requires an appropriation of $3 1,000. With regard to the city omnibus service, the government subsidy increased from $ 1.8m in 1973-74 to $3.6m in 1974-75. We were told that the loss on the government omnibus service in the Australian Capital Territory this year is expected to top $4.3m. Nevertheless the number of vehicles has increased from 200 in 1973 to 347 in 1976 and the number in the self-drive vehicle fleet has risen from 1510 in 1973 to the present level of 2009. We are cheerfully submitting to a loss on an annual basis that is computed to be $600,000 because of what is called in the records the interference of a union blocking timetables for the omnibus service which otherwise would have been capable of making up those losses. These are the things that the Parliament should consider. It should not be guided by this obviously erroneous understanding of one line in the estimates of the Department that has given rise to a screed in the newspaper of the dimension of 6 columns on half a page.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise to make some comments concerning division 829 of the estimates for the Department of the Capital Territory, which relates to capital works and services. I refer firstly to sub-division 5.05, which relates to the working capital advance.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– I think that that comes under another Bill, Senator McLaren.

Senator McLAREN:

– Are we not dealing with the items as a whole? Senator Wright was talking about the Department of the Capital Territory.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-That is true. But we are now dealing with the items under Group F. They are to be found on pages 18 and 19 of the Bill.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I want to make some brief comments in regard to the estimates that were considered by Estimates Committee F. My comments relate, in the first place, to the Northern Territory. I notice from the evidence that was given to the Committee that there had to be some savings to assist in finding extra finance for expenditure in the Northern Territory. While the Committee members were not in a position to debate the savings, where they had been made was indicated clearly. They came from various parts of this year’s vote for the Northern Territory- local government, general welfare, transport and many other items. It is unfortunate, when there is such a huge increase in the expenditure and the finance required, that the money provided is taken up mainly in increases in wages, increases in salaries and increased appropriations to the postal authorities for telexes, telegrams, telephones, etc. I believe that the Northern Territory has suffered somewhat because of this.

It is fortunate that in the proposed additional expenditure an extra $ 13m is being allocated to the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, Of course, this is a rise and fall matter. Because of increases in costs that have taken place throughout the year, some $ 13m was required to enable the DRC to carry out its projects for this year. This money was made available by the Government earlier in the year. Also in the home finance scheme there was a shortage of funds for various reasons, including the extra demand from the people of Darwin either to rebuild homes or to build new homes. Extra finance was required. After a somewhat difficult period in the early part of this year, funds were made available so that the projects could continue. I think we can anticipate now that there will be some 550 homes- possibly up to 700 or 800 homes- for which finance will be required in the future. It has been indicated that applications for finance for homes can be processed up until 1980. This means that anyone who wishes to have financial assistance to rebuild a home in Darwin must make application by the end of this calendar year. They can then draw on the funds up until 1980. 1 think that this has been of great benefit to the people of Darwin.

However, because of various savings made in the Territory, the civil works programs have suffered. This has caused some hardship and has been detrimental to the Territory. I hope that we will see civil works programs released for the Northern Territory in the near future. In fact, it is no secret that I have approached the Government on many occasions, asking that civil works programs be released. No matter what happens now in the release of those contracts, no expenditure can take place in this financial year. One must realise that the Northern Territory is entirely dependent upon the Federal Government. We do not have a State-like structure or a buffer structure as the States have. As we are entirely dependent on government for finance, any cut by government has immediate effects in the Territory. I think that approximately 85 per cent of projects in the Northern Territory are undertaken from government finance and 15 per cent from the private sector. The position is slightly out of balance.

I notice further on in the vote for the Northern Territory that some extra funds had to be provided for the Police Force. This is because of the recent changeover. The Police Force once came within the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. It was transferred to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. It then went from the Attorney-General’s Department to the Department of Police and Customs. Now, under the latest arrangement, with the setting up of a portfolio of Minister for the Northern Territory, the control of the Police Force will revert from the Department of Police and Customs to the Northern Territory portfolio. So extra funds are required. Despite this- this could be taken as a criticism- the fact remains that over the years the Northern Territory Police Force has lacked sufficient funds and equipment. I must say that it was rather ironical for me, as a member of a Senate Estimates committee for the first time, to observe the position in regard to the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. The same Committee dealt with the estimates for the departments responsible for both police forces. In the Northern Territory there is one police boat. That is situated in Darwin and has to do many things. In the Australian Capital Territory there are 7 police boats. I think this is an odd situation that there should be more police boats on Lake Burley Griffin than on the northern coastline of Australia.

I was concerned to see the additional funds that were required in relation to one section of the Australian Capital Territory. The amount of $400,000 was required this year under division 210.3.10 which relates to the Transport Trust Account. I agree with the statement in paragraph 3 (b) (iv) of the report by the Chairman of Estimates Committee F, in which he referred to:

The alarming fact that timetables proposed to ensure economies in the bus service were not able to be implemented because of ‘union interference’ and resulted in a loss of savings of $600,000 in a full year.

In effect, the vote of $400,000 had to be made available by the Government to offset this loss which resulted, as has been plainly indicated by the officials, from union interference. The Chairman also pointed out that the Australia 75 Festival held in the Australian Capital Territory also incurred a loss. To my mind, the evidence shows that there was a lack of control and negligence in the arranging and running of that Festival.

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

– I have been impressed over recent years by the fact that the Senate plays such an important part in the investigation of the financial proposals of the government. It is the only chamber of the Federal Parliament which examines the Estimates in the way that we are examining them at the present time. At the outset of my remarks on the estimates which were considered by Estimates Committee F, I note that perhaps not sufficient emphasis can be placed upon the work of Senate committees, particularly of Senate Estimates Committees. We have a completely unique system. It is one of which I, as a Minister, you, Mr Temporary Chairman, and all honourable senators must be proud.

In the examination of the Additional Estimates by the Estimates Committees in the last few weeks and by the Committee of the Whole yesterday and today, the point that has been brought out and emphasised not only to the Ministers but also to the officials and the Government is the great importance that we place on the proper control of the financial arrangements of government. I believe that honourable senators have done a great public service for which they must be responsible and which they have a responsibility to perform. It is a vital service, particularly in the economic circumstances which prevail today. I hope that that scrutiny of the Estimates will continue.

I believe that the published report of Senate Estimates Committee F has played an important role in drawing the Government’s attention to some of the weaknesses that were brought out by Senator Wright, the Chairman of Estimates Committee F. Senator Wright knows that I acknowledge the leading part which he must play and which he did play in the scrutiny of these particular additional estimates. This afternoon he has drawn attention to several areas in these additional estimates which concern him and other members of the Estimates Committee. I must say for my own part that I doubt whether

Senator Wright was satisfied with the responses that he received from the officers. This was not necessarily because of any omission on the part of the officers but because there was perhaps a lack of information about the various areas to which he referred.

Again this afternoon Senator Wright referred to the problems which concerned what appeared to be the management of the bus situation in Canberra. He disclosed the losses that were incurred by the Australia 75 Festival, and again expressed criticism about land rents in Canberra. In regard to the last matter, it can be said that the general statement of receipts and expenditure for the Australian Capital Territory is prepared as a requirement under section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. That statement was tabled in the Parliament earlier this month. Basically that statement brings together the total expenditures on both capital and operating costs. I think that Senator Wright’s comments about the contribution that is required of residents of the Australian Capital Territory may have been a little harsh. The local citizens in the Territory pay rates to meet the cost of municipal type services. These rates are at a level which I believe is comparable with the level of rates paid by citizens in other capital cities. Canberra citizens also pay State type rates, such as motor registration fees and other licensing fees which are applicable in Canberra.

Senator Wright:

– Have you got the amount of general rates that they pay? Was I correct in identifying the amount as $9.5m?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will ask the officer to give that figure to me. The point I was making is that it must be acknowledged that in the Australian Capital Territory the city investment is very much in the hands of the Commonwealth Government. We find that structures, parklands and other areas that may be considered rateable in a State are not rateable in Canberra, and this makes it difficult to make a comparison as to what rate citizens in Canberra should pay. In response to the criticism about the amount of rates which residents of the Australian Capital Territory pay, I believe it is reasonable to comment that local citizens here pay rates to meet the cost of municipal type services and that these rates are at a level which is comparable with the level of rates paid by citizens in other capital cities.

Of course, it must also be acknowledged that a citizen in the Australian Capital Territory is an Australian ratepayer and as such contributes to the cost of the development and the administration of Canberra, as do the other citizens of the Commonwealth. But having said that, I hope that honourable senators who sit on Estimates Committees will ever be alert and will suggest criticism that is fair and proper in relation to the accounts that are presented by the various departments. It is very difficult to have a full understanding of the Government’s accounting procedures, and it is only with the experience which perhaps comes with the great service that Senator Wright and other honourable senators have given to the Senate that honourable senators are able to understand not only the accounting procedures but also the presentation procedures.

In this regard I express some apology to Senator McLaren who came to the hearing of Estimates Committee F in good faith, seeking an opportunity to have answered questions which he, as a senator, wanted to ask, and had a right to ask. Of course, it is difficult for any reasonable person to follow the procedures where expenditure under the Prime Minister’s Department perhaps should have appeared under the Department of Construction, or expenditure under the Department of Construction perhaps should have appeared under the vote for the Department of Defence. Perhaps some examination could be given to the question whether the Commomnwealth Government’s accounts could be presented in a different form. That is a matter which again has attracted the attention of honourable senators over the years, but not much progress has been made in that regard.

Senator Kilgariff raised before this Committee some detail regarding expenditures in the Northern Territory. He played a considerable part in the procedures of Estimates Committee F. I believe that he raised in this chamber today mainly those questions which he raised before the Estimates Committee. I content myself by saying that I have been very pleased to be associated with this debate. I have noted the comments that have been made, particularly by Senator Wright, by way of criticism which is not unjustified in certain areas of expenditure by the various departments.

The officers have handed directly to Senator Wright the answer which he sought to the question that he asked. With the Committee’s approval, I will read it into the record. Senator Wright wanted to know what was the amount of the general rate. At page 28 of the document Statements of Receipts and Expenditure for the Australian Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1975, the figure shown is $9,650, 144.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 7- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2049

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1975-76

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to speak to division 829-Capital Works and Services, and to refer specifically to subdivision 5 item 5- Working Capital Advance (for payment to the Australian Capital Territory Transport Trust Account), for which an additional appropriation of $875,000 is sought. At the Estimates Committee hearing I asked a question concerning the cost of using private taxis. 1 was provided with the answer that the sum of $24,684 represented a 5 per cent ongoing cost for administrative expenses on the total bill which was paid to private taxi companies. The Chairman of that Committee, Senator Wright, said that on a rough estimate the amount involved would be $400,000. Having done some arithmetic since, I find that according to my reckoning the total bill would be $493,680. Adding that to the $24,684 which represents a 5 per cent ongoing cost, we find that $518,364 is being paid by the Government for the use of private taxis in lieu of government cars.

Senator Webster:

– How did you get to that figure-by adding 5 per cent?

Senator McLAREN:

– We were told by Mr Darke, the departmental officer concerned, that 5 per cent was the ongoing cost. That is onetwentieth of the total bill. I think it was Senator Wright, the Committee’s Chairman, who interposed that that would be about $400,000. Mr Darke said: ‘Yes, that would be about the amount’. If we multiply $24,684 by twenty, we get $493,680. That is $93,680 more than the Committee believed the amount to be. That is on my reckoning; I may be wrong. But it was agreed that it was at least about $400,000. If my figures are correct, the amount is $493,680. We add to that amount the ongoing cost and the result is a figure in excess of half a million dollars which, as I said before, is an astronomical amount to be paying out for the use of private taxis instead of government cars.

In talking to people in the Australian Capital Territory, we find that many of the government car drivers have been put back into the pool. Many of the passenger car drivers have been put back on buses. Some of them are working in the garage as leading hands although they are expert drivers. Another aspect which concerns me is this: While the Government is paying out this amount of money for the hire of private taxis and people who may be described in some cases as temporary-permanent drivers are going back to areas of work where a lesser degree of expertise is required, we find that some of the people driving private taxis part time in fact are permanent public servants on very high rates of pay. They earn extra money by driving taxis after hours. They are doing government employees in the car pool out of work.

In fact, in some cases they are doing their own workmates out of work. I was told of one instance last year of a girl who was working back late. She does the pay slips for one department. She ordered a taxi to go home. Who should be driving that taxi but the head of her department. We were in government then. I am not blaming this Government entirely for that state of affairs. But it appears to me when an additional appropriation of $875,000 is being sought that there is something wrong and that this Government is probably escalating the hiring of taxis. Government cars which are on strength and which we should be using are standing idle. Government car drivers are being put to work in the garage. Surely there is an answer to this problem.

I see that Senator Cotton is smiling. He will recall that some years ago I put a question to him seeking to ascertain the difference between the charges for taxis to the Government and charges to private individuals. I referred to that question the other day. I do not know what went wrong in the system but I do not think Senator Cotton was ever able to get an answer for me. I placed that matter on the record; I thought something would be done to rectify that situation. Apparently that too is still going on.

I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that we are paying out this enormous amount of money to private taxis. This is not really a saving when we consider that the morale of government drivers is falling. Probably there are some drivers who do not do all that they might do but, in the main, government drivers give a good service to members of Parliament and to public servants. For the life of me, I cannot see why these drivers should be stood down or put back into jobs of lesser responsibility following a government decision to hire taxis instead of using government cars. As I said, in some cases we find that heads of departments are driving those taxis after hours to pick up money. Heads of departments and other people occupying high departmental positions should have enough to do in their own jobs without going out to drive taxis and thus deprive some of the pool drivers of work. I hope that the Government in its wisdom will see whether this system of using taxis can be cut out.

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

– Madam Chairman, it is very pleasant to see you in the chair. Senator McLaren was not a member of Estimates Committee F but he served a very useful purpose for other honourable senators by coming along and raising various points. I appreciated his being there and, as I have said before, I was somewhat disappointed that answers to the questions he asked could not be given to him immediately. The point in relation to taxis that he just raised was one which caused some concern at the Committee meeting. The first point I want to make in this regard is that the management of transport services for a body such as the Commonwealth Government is most intricate. The honourable senator will realise that in every State we have an enormous problem in the management of all types of vehicles from motor cycles to the heaviest equipment. An obligation rests with departments, who at times argue very strenuously that they do not wish to be tied to this system, to scrutinise closely not only the method of charging but also the method of decision making for the purchase of new equipment, the maintenance of vehicles, ongoing services and, in these times, the maintenance of adequate staff for the very difficult service to members of Parliament, although this is a small corner of the total service.

It was pointed out at the Committee meeting that the requirement for private taxis has been brought about through the seeking of efficiency in a service which is often required into the early hours of the morning and which is unusual in terms of the provision of particular transport for its customers. Some figures were presented to the Committee and I regret to say that an incorrect figure was given to Senator McLaren. Undoubtedly he and the Committee made some calculations of their own at the time. I regret that the honourable senator was misled. I think it was basically brought about by a comment being made off the cuff by an officer in reply to a question asked by Senator McLaren in relation to what the $24,000 payment meant. We found that in the item dealing with the Australian Capital Territory Transport Trust Account there was provision for taxi administration on-cost. The figure was taken out of the air and I may have misled the officer in some way because we decided that there was an overhead cost applying to the hire of taxis to cover administrative costs of the Department. We thought that five per cent was added when the Department was billed for the work. That is normal procedure. However, I regret to say that the on-cost figure should have been 10 percent.

Senator McLaren should not be disturbed about it because the calculation he made amounting to nearly half a million dollars as the cost borne by the departments is not correct. Of course, the 5 per cent on-cost is an ongoing administrative cost incurred by the Department when hiring outside taxis to cover clerical work and telephone calls. This overhead charge should have been given as 10 per cent. It is purely an interdepartmental charge of the Australian Capital Territory Transport Trust Account. I am notified that taxis carry out about 20 per cent of the transport work in the Australian Capital Territory. The present staff of drivers is fully occupied although some 20 drivers have been transferred to buses to keep the buses running. The honourable senator will know that we discussed the increase in the year to 30 June 1975 in the number of buses and in the staff required to give the service that the Government at the time required. With limits on travel imposed for economic reasons since early 1976, the percentage of work allocated to taxis has been reduced.

I shall go over some of the figures that Senator McLaren had in mind. In the case of taxis used by the Australian Government, the payments totalled approximately half the figure that Senator McLaren was misled into calculating. The real figure would be nearer $280,000 which was paid during the year 1974-75 to private transport providers. The Department of the Capital Territory charges an on-cost of 10 per cent, and this figure should be noted as correcting the earlier figure given to Senator McLaren, which gives rise to the figure of $24,684 shown in the balance sheet. The reason for the mathematics not balancing is the adjustment of rates during that year. I think there is little else I can say to the honourable senator. I am glad to have had the opportunity to correct that figure.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I seek a little clarification in respect of the matter raised by my colleague and the answer given by the Minister for Science (Senator Webster). I understood the Minister to say that there was need to transfer some 20 drivers from the car pool to the bus service because of the increased demand for staff in that service. Was this the real reason or was it that a ceiling was placed on the number of persons employed by the Department in the exercise of what I would call dubious economies. Whilst taxi services are being used, the Department has a great capital investment lying idle- 30 to 32 cars at a time-in the garages. If the transfer was made to achieve economies it was certainly dubious economics. I ask the Minister: Was the transfer of the 20 or thereabout car drivers to the bus depot for the purpose of servicing the increased demand there because of the ceiling placed on employment in the Transport Operations Section or was it a combination of that and dubious economies in reducing the use of car drivers and in using taxi services instead?

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I thank Senator Webster for the explanation he has given but it still has not satisfied me, for the reasons I have already pointed out, in relation to what took place. To my mind the 20 drivers in question who have been transferred to the bus services could well have been kept on strength and, with the unemployment situation which exists in the Australian Capital Territory, we could have recruited more drivers for the buses.

As Senator Brown has just pointed out, there is some area of doubt as to whether this is a fictitious way of keeping the ceiling of unemployment level down. One of the reasons the unions fought for many years to get long service leave for employees was to encourage those people to stay in the job and to be contented in the job they were doing. If the Government is going to adopt an attitude of relegating drivers of high proficiency to work in a garage and then use the services of private taxi companies to carry out the work which the drivers should have been doing it will be creating discontent.

As Senator Webster has pointed out, a certain amount of money was used for this purpose when we were in Government. I should like to say to Senator Webster that had I known that that was going on- had I been on a committee where I could have found that out- I would have objected just as strongly then as I am now. I am not trying to criticise unduly the present Government because I am pleased to have been informed that this is not anything new. I think that Senator Webster did say that the use of taxis has decreased since January. I think that I asked the officer who appeared before the Estimates Committee to give me a breakdown of the figures. I cannot find the request in Hansard but I think 1 asked for a breakdown of the cost of the taxis that had been used over the last 5 years. If those figures can be supplied at some time it will be a useful exercise for myself and other senators to look at the exact amount of time for which we use private taxis to do the work that our own staff and our own cars ought to be doing.

I think that the Government must do something to uplift the morale of the drivers because- I am not going to name anybodydrivers are discontented that public servants who are on full pay with all the remunerations to which they are entitled can do part time work driving taxis when the drivers themselves could be doing this work. I hope when the Minister for Science reads Hansard and takes on board the remarks that I have made that the Government will do something to ensure that our own drivers and our own vehicles are employed fully. Then if it is necessary in an emergency to bring in a private taxi company I am sure no one would have any objection.

Last night when I went out from the Senate I do not think that I saw one government car but there was a line of taxis from the door at the Senate side of Parliament House which stretched nearly to the front of Parliament House. Our own drivers must have been home when they could well have been driving their cars. Yet we had a fleet of taxis to take senators home. I hope that in the future something can be done and that when we see the Estimate papers we will be able to see clearly what we are paying out for private taxi hire as against what it is costing us for our own government cars.

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

– We had quite a debate on the matter raised by Senator Brown in the Estimates Committee. I am advised that page 161 and thereafter of the Hansard record of Estimates Committees C, D and F on 20 May will give some of the basic information the honourable senator is seeking. When the honourable senator raised this matter a moment ago he used a term which I had not used. He used the term ‘waste of resources’ or something like that. It was an inappropriate word and I had not used it in my comment.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– The term I used was ‘dubious economy’.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Well I think there could be argument about ‘dubious economy’. I may view the way that a bus business or a hire car business should be managed differently from the way that the honourable senator does. I think that we are dealing here with a basic philosophy and I think that the thrust of the 2 honourable senators who have spoken probably is that they would wish to see the government employed drivers and the investment that the Government has in vehicles being fully utilised. I was pleased to be advised that private contractors had been used less since a date in December than they had been used previously. I hope that that overcomes all the worries that the 2 honourable senators had in their minds about that matter.

I acknowledge what Senator McLaren said. Only one government car was outside when I went out late last night and all the rest were private taxis. My understanding is that no driver can resume work unless he has, I think, a 9-hour break. I do not doubt that unions have pressed for just that. It is probably the reason that we have found that government cars were not utilised last evening. I am advised that the transfer of drivers to buses occurred because bus drivers who retired were not replaced due to restrictions that exist at the moment. To keep the bus service going, as was required, and to provide some uplifting of the service, drivers indeed were transferred to that particular work. With regard to the point raised by Senator McLaren on the use of taxis, I am advised the situation is in accordance with the assurance that was given to the honourable senator during the hearing of the Estimates Committee that the exercise on the use of taxis will be carried out for the month of May. Apparently that assurance appears on page 1 79 of the Hansard record of the Estimates Committee hearings.

There is one other point. I am advised that it was not so much increased demand as the limits necessary on employment and the resignation of drivers that made these transfers necessary. The objective at present of controlling inflation flows into all areas and employment limits on bus drivers are necessarily included. The people of Canberra have a good bus service. To withdraw this is impossible as at present there is no private bus company to provide an alternative. The transfer of 20 bus drivers just maintained the bus service at its original level. I do not know whether there is any point that I have missed in relation to the comments made by either Senator Brown or Senator McLaren. If there is they may raise it again.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise because I was remiss when I spoke previously. I want to place on record that at no time have I blamed departmental officers for any answers that they have given to me when I have questioned them in Estimates Committees. I know that the officers are not in a position to defend themselves. Whenever I query anything I am querying the government, whether it be the Government of which I was a member or the Government which I oppose at this particular time. The officers cannot be held responsible. Senator Webster did say that an officer first mentioned the amount of $400,000. I should like to correct him there. I hope that Senator Wright does not take umbrage because he, as Chairman of the Estimates Committee, made a quick calculation and said:

Does that indicate that your taxi charge is of the order of $400,000?

Mr Darke said:

Yes, $400,000.

So the officer might have been prompted. I did not query the figure at the time. One could not do a quick mathematical calculation in one’s head at that stage so I accepted the figure. It was only afterwards that I sat down and worked it out. So I am not blaming Senator Wright or Mr Darke who stated the figure of $400,000. It was a round figure and I think it was accepted on all sides. I should like to place clearly on record- I think all honourable senators would be of the same mind- that I do not hold departmental officers responsible for statements that they make to us. No doubt they are under instructions from Ministers as to what they can say. That $400,000 could have been a slip of the tongue by Senator Wright and caught on to by Mr Darke. I made a quick mental calculation myself and thought that that was the right figure. But I went away and did some simple arithmetic and came up with a different figure.

I think this has been a useful discussion and it may clear the air. As I said earlier, I am not blaming the present Government for the use of taxis because I have now been informed officially that we were doing the same thing. But I do not condone it. In my view taxis should not be used, for the reasons that I have outlined. I hope that when we consider the Estimates the next time around there will be no queries about some of our drivers being downgraded and that we will be making full use of all the vehicles that the Government has on strength.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2053

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Is it agreed that these 2 Bills be taken together in a cognate debate? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Senate is debating the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1976 and the Customs Amendment Bill 1976. Let me say at the outset that my colleague Senator Button was to handle these Bills on behalf of the Opposition, but very suddenly he has been called away. Therefore, the task has been allocated to me. The Opposition does not oppose either of these Bills; but I take advantage of the debate to point out shortly one or two matters. Firstly, let me say that in the last months of the Whitlam Government I was the Special Minister of State. In that ministerial responsibility I became very much aware of the great and very valuable work of the chairman and members of the Industries Assistance Commission. I do not say that at all times I personally agreed with its reports; but certainly I came to the conclusion that its reports were delivered to the Government on a very objective basis.

I think it is probably as well for me to state again where the Australian Labor Party stands on tariff policy. Basically, as a political party wc want to ensure the maximum use of Australia ‘s resources. Ours is not a policy of development merely for the sake of development. Our policy is to have regard at all times to the best use of our resources. The Labor movement has always said that a tariff decision automatically must be a political decision. We do not believe that it is for government to shelter behind recommendations or reports of a body such as the IAC. That body is charged with the responsibility of making objective reports on matters which are referred to it by government. Once that objective report has been received by the Government, it is up to the Government to make the political decisions arising from that report. When we were in government we developed, in conjuction with the IAC, a policy of making the reports public and of seeking comments from various sections of the public on the reports so that we could take all matters into consideration when the political decision was made. I understand that the present Government is continuing with that line of approach as far as a great number of IAC reports are concerned.

On behalf of the Opposition, I draw to the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) the fact that there is some industry concern about the Customs Amendment Bill. I, my colleague Senator Button and, I assume, a number of other senators have received telegrams today. One telegram was from Mr John M. Petterson, the managing director of L. Wolkenberg Pty Ltd- an importer and distributor of Fitzroy, Victoria. Just within the last half an hour I have received another telegram, similarly worded, from a Mr Sam Webb, the managing director of the Webb group of companies of Carlton, Victoria. For the sake of the record and to draw the matter to the attention of the Minister, I should read the terms of the telegram.

Senator Cotton:

– You may incorporate them, if you like.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to incorporate one of the telegrams in Hansard.

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

Msst. Senator John Button

Parliament House Canberra A.C.T.

Imperative you realize implications of Customs Amendment Bill 1976 as they are not apparent in Bill. Is in inflationary in the extreme. Values for duty will be substantially increased because packages and buying commission and uncertainty as to correct value for duty. Typical major item increase in vfd is 15 percent. Hardship will result from arbitary value for duties being advised by customs depanment up to 1 2 months after goods sold. Ensure bill is deferred until suitable amendments are made. Letter and further details in mail. . . John M. Petterson Managing Director L. Wolkenberg Pty Ltd Importers and Distributors 374 Nicholson Street Fitzroy Vic. 3065

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 thank the Minister. I understand that, as well as receiving these telegrams, my colleague Senator Button has had a communication from the Victorian Chamber of Commerce expressing its concern. The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Senator Greenwood) explained in his second reading speech that the Bill replaced the existing provisions with a new system of valuation based on the internationally recognised Brussels definition of value. We naturally understand that there is logic in this. But, as far as Australian importers are concerned, the effect could well be an increase of an average of 15 per cent in the duty on imported goods. Our suspicion is that industry is not fully aware of this situation and that the Department has not had much success in communicating the effects of the legislation to importers in spite of the circulation recently, by the Department, of the Australian Customs Valuation Handbook which, I think, in fair terms, could not be described as being the most lucid of documents.

There are 2 other points which I should make about this Bill. Firstly, the lawyers advising the Opposition suggest that the Bill is rather badly drafted. It is said that the great skills of the parliamentary draftsmen were not used to draft it. In fact, it is suggested that it was drafted in the Department. According to statements made to us, there are considered to be ambiguities in the drafting. Secondly, in spite of the claims made to the contrary by the Minister, there appear to be no satisfactory appeal provisions in the legislation. We suggest to the Government that it should give careful consideration to those aspects of that Bill.

The basic effect of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill is to give legislative recognition to tariff changes which were made by the Whitlam Government. If honourable senators sitting on the Government side vote for this Bill, I suggest that they must accept responsibility for it. I believe that they will vote for it. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. If honourable senators on the Government side vote for it, then they must be agreeing with the tariff policies which were set out by the Labor Government in its last Budget. A number of the proposals of the Whitlam Government are becoming fashionable. We hope that in voting for this legislation honourable senators opposite will have the good grace to cease criticising a number of aspects of the tariff policies of the recent Labor Government. Having made those comments, I say to the

Minister and to the Senate that the Opposition does not oppose the passage of the 2 Bills.

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

– I suppose one could say that if the day comes when political parties stop criticising each other the moon will have turned into green cheese. Senator Douglas McClelland has been here long enough to know that his wonderful proposition that the millennium will come and we will sit down together peacefully without criticising each other is not going happen in his time or in my time, much as he would like to dream about it, and I would like to accompany him in that dream. The legislation is not opposed. Indeed, it is supported. The remarks Senator Douglas McClelland made about the Industries Assistance Commission I think were fairly made. Like Senator Douglas McClelland, I admire the work the IAC seeks to do. While I agree with some of the things it does, I do not agree with all of them, and that is natural in human life. The Commission has an opinion and its job is to give that opinion.

Senator Douglas McClelland raised certain queries. Those queries have been noted by the incorporation in Hansard of a particular query raised in a telegram. As the honourable senator fairly mentioned, a lot of the problem is tied up with the Brussels nomenclature, and the department has been trying earnestly to get the change thoroughly understood. I think it has done a first class job. Senator Douglas McClelland would be more than aware that in these circumstances, no matter how hard the Government and the department try to get the message through, to consult people and to get the people’s understanding, on a lot of occasions when these matters have been accomplished one is met with a loud collection of complaints: ‘Nobody told me’. It is very difficult. The department has done its best and so has the Government.

It is not a fact that the Bill was drafted in the department. It was drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel. The question of rights of appeal will be taken into account by the responsible Minister. As to the claim that this Bill brought forward by the current Government contains an automatic defence, ipso facto it includes all of the tariff policies of the previous Government, that is a piece of total hallucination. It does nothing of the kind.

Question resolved in the affirmative. (Quorum formed)

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

page 2055

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McLAREN:

-During the debate at the Committee stage on the Estimates, inadvertently I used the wrong words, and it may have been on more than one occasion, when I was referring to part time taxi drivers. I referred to departmental heads when what I meant was heads of sections or section heads.

page 2055

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Notice of Motion

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP

– By arrangement with Senator Douglas McClelland, I seek leave to give notice of a motion relating to participation by the Commonwealth Parliament in the Australian Constitutional Convention.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

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

That the Senate agrees that the Commonwealth Parliament participate with the Parliaments of the States in the continuing work of the Constitutional Convention established to review the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and accordingly resolves:

1 ) That, for the purposes of the Convention-

a Delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament consisting of sixteen members of the Parliament take pan in the deliberations of the Convention, of whom six shall be members of the Senate and ten shall bc members of the House of Representatives;

the six members of the Senate comprise two members of the Liberal Party of Australia, one member of the National Country Party of Australia and three members of the Australian Labor Party:

That-

three Senators, two being members of the Liberal Party of Australia and one being a member of the National Country Party of Australia, nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate: and

three Senators, being members of the Australian Labor Party, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, be members of the Delegation:

That the Prime Minister be the Leader of the Delegation, and the Leader of the Opposition be the Deputy Leader:

That a member of the Delegation cease to be such a member if-

he ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament;

the House of the Parliament of which he is a member terminates his appointment; or

he resigns as a member of the Delegation by writing addressed to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires:

That where, because of illness or any other cause, a member of the Delegation is not available to attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the Convention, the Leader or senior available member of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate an alternate member (being a member of the House of which the firstmentioned member is a member) and the member so nominated shall be a member of the Delegation for that meeting, or that part of that meeting:

That, in the event of a member of the Delegation ceasing to be such a member, the Leader of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate another member (being a member of the House of which the first-mentioned member is or was a member) to replace the first-mentioned member:

That the Leader of the Delegation from time to time make a report for presentation to each House of the Parliament on matters arising out of the Convention, and that the Deputy Leader of the Delegation may make an accompanying report.

page 2056

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2056

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

First Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I wish to take this opportunity to make some comments about certain social security benefits. In making these comments, I want to point out what I think is the grave departure from practice that exists at the moment whereby certain people are not able to receive social security benefits when they deserve them. It seems to me that not only must social security benefits be made available on paper; they must also be made available actually for persons who are in need. I have been astonished, as I think a lot of my colleagues have been, by the number of people who come to my electoral office seeking assistance in relation to the non-receipt of payments or because of other undue delays. Usually I am able to assist these people and their problems are rectified fairly early. But the basic question is this: Why should a person have to come to a member of Parliament to have such things rectified? Why should a person who obviously has a need be required to wait for a benefit to which he or she is legally entitled? I have recently learned of a case where a person who was eligible for unemployment benefit did not receive any unemployment benefit. The person is now back at work and still has not received the benefit to which he is entitled.

I have had a recent personal experience which has shown me that there are basic deficiencies in the methods available for getting money quickly to persons who are in need. I will state the case with which I have had experience. A friend of mine, whom I have known for many years, was recently involved in a very bad accident. He is a self-employed person. In the course of his selfemployment he was so badly injured that it seemed for some time that he might not live. While he was in hospital I- as a friend, not as a member of this chamber- offered to help his wife make a claim for sickness benefit for him. In making that claim I found out some of the deficiencies which obviously are occurring when people make similar claims. As far as I can ascertain, the form which was submitted to obtain a sickness benefit for this person was received by the Department of Social Security in Brisbane on 12 May. After it had been perused by certain people it was sent off to the field staff on the same date, 12 May.

The claimant was not well enough to fill out the form. It was signed by him but had actually been filled out by another friend of mine on the claimant’s behalf after getting certain answers to questions from him. After the form had been filled out I perused it. I made some investigations which involved interstate telephone calls to make certain that some of the information on the form was correct. After having done so I submitted the form to the Department of Social Security. As I have said, it was received on 12 May and perused, I think, by staff who usually make assessments and sent to the field staff on the same date. It was sent to the field staff because some more details that were not on the form were required in regard to the claimant’s income. As I said, he was a self-employed person. It was necessary for the field staff to find out his normal rate of earnings by looking at his books or consulting persons with whom he had contracts.

I inquired on 2 1 May of the progress or otherwise of this claim because at that date my friend had received no benefit. When I inquired on 2 1 May, which was 9 days after the form was sent to the field staff, I was told that the claim was still with the field staff office; no action had been taken on it at all. In other words it had been with that office for 9 days with no action being taken. It seems that if a person is to receive a benefit when he needs a benefit there should not be an undue delay like that. Earlier this year I asked the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) questions relating to the average waiting time between application for and receipt of a number of benefits. For sickness benefit, I was told, the average time between lodgment of claim and payment was 6 days. For this particular claim more than 6 days- the average timeelapsed while the file just remained dormant in an office. Later on in the answer to that question I was told more than half of the applications for sickness benefit are paid within 2 to 3 days of lodgment. Delays in the processing of the remaining cases which give rise to the higher average time are usually brought about by claimants providing insufficient information on their claims.

It seems to me that the average waiting time has been unduly extended in this case, and perhaps in other cases, because of the time the file spent in the office. In this case someone put down the person’s income on the form. I think the amount was $120 a week. But because he was self-employed the Department could not accept this information, or so it told me, without checking his books or finding out from people with whom he had contracts what his average weekly earnings were. If his average weekly earnings were less than the sickness benefit payable he would not be paid the full benefit. It was for this reason that the file was at the office. There was nothing more that I could do until the field staff had taken action. When I spoke to the field staff I was told that there were some other aspects also that had not been answered. I will come to that later. The main aspect was income.

The point I want to make is that the file was dormant for 9 days. I do not know how much longer it would have been dormant if, on behalf of the person, I had not asked why the file had remained dormant for so long. An officer in the Department of Social Security said: ‘We would do better if Mr Fraser gave us sufficient staff to do the job’. If that is the case it seems to me that we are providing benefits but we are not providing sufficient staff so that people can get their benefits on time and when they need them. Not only did he say this but also he said: ‘We do not have enough transport to get out to these people. We have had some of our cars taken away from us’. What is the use of having benefits if this statement is correct? It is no wonder that some people become frustrated and filled with despair.

I have even read in newspapers from time to time of people who allegedly have not received a benefit and have gone out to obtain money by unlawful acts because they needed to feed their families. This should not happen in Australia. If a benefit is payable it should be paid as quickly as possible. I am happy to say that in this case the benefit is now payable. I made inquiries this afternoon and my friend’s wife will receive a cheque tomorrow. I am also happy to say that he is out of his serious condition and he will recover, but this is not really the point. The point is that I have had experience of seeing what some people go through when they try to get a benefit. I would not be surprised to learn that if I had not made a query about this last Friday the file could still be on that table waiting for a field staff officer to go and see the person.

I make some other comments in relation to the form that is used to claim for sickness benefit. I do so because I think that perhaps my comments might be helpful. I said earlier that a friend of mine completed the form for the claimant and the claimant signed it after perusing what had been written. I perused the form and actually made some investigations as to certain aspects of the form. Even after the form had gone in there was one other piece of missing information. This missing information, I was told, would not have held up the claim normally but it was going to be checked out when the field officer went out to find out about the person’s income. I imagine that officers from the Department of Social Security will read in Hansard what I say. I suggest that they have a look at the form from question 1 1a onwards. If they had had experience of having a lot of claims confused because of the layout of the form they might consider a somewhat different layout which could easily be devised by someone who has some knowledge of form design.

Finally, I reiterate that I believe that there is not much point in having benefits if there is insufficient staff to ensure that the benefits will be paid when they are due. I suggest that the Government should take steps to rectify this situation.

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

– in reply- I am always interested when somebody comes into this chamber and takes advantage of an occasion like this to make a series of allegations which are not proven. There is a way in which an honourable senator should go about such a matter. He should produce specific details in chapter and verse and see that the responsible Minister in this place or the other place is given the details. Something will be then done in relation to the matter. Senator Colston has made a series of allegations. They may be correct and they may not be correct. He has given me no evidence with which to approach the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). I would like him to give me some evidence if he can, otherwise I will make a general complaint to the Minister on his behalf.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1 964- 1 974 to provide for the introduction of a further component to the livestock slaughter levy of $1 a head on cattle slaughtered on and after 1 July 1976. The proposed levy is designed to offset the Commonwealth contribution to national endemic cattle disease eradication programs in Australia through the operation of a trust account, which will be established under the terms of the complementary Bill, the Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1976. The only national cattle disease eradication campaign presently in operation is that for brucellosis and tuberculosis. No other is presently in contemplation.

The national brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign was commenced in 1970. At that time the Commonwealth Government contribution was by way of direct grants to the States from Consolidated Revenue. The previous Government introduced the meat export charge legislation, which, in the case of exports of beef and veal, raised 0.6c per lb for recoupment of the Commonwealth Government’s contributions to this campaign. As honourable senators will know, legislation was recently passed to suspend this charge.

The Industries Assistance Commission has drawn attention to the inequities of the export charge for brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication and its replacement by the slaughter levy proposed in this Bill has the support of industry organisations. Reference to the complementary Bill indicates that a national cattle disease eradication trust account will be established into which the moneys resulting from this levy will be paid. I wish to stress, that, at the present time the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign is the only one that will be financed in this way. However, the trust account has been given a wider name so that should, in the future, there be a further national eradication campaign for some endemic cattle disease the same principles and arrangements will operate. I wish to remind honourable senators of the importance of total eradication of these 2 diseases from the national herds, particularly in view of their importance in maintaining overseas markets for livestock, meat and dairy produce. In accordance with the Government’s wish to simplify printing styles in legislation the Bill also contains some formal amendments. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Mr President, we have reached the interesting stage where I have just delivered a second reading speech on this Bill, and a related Bill- the Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1976- previously was taken to the second reading stage. I suggest that it may be appropriate for the Senate to debate both Bills together.

The PRESIDENT:

– That course will be followed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-The Opposition agrees with the proposition put forward by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator Cotton). It does so not only because that is a sensible way of dealing with Bills which have a common purpose but also because it supports the legislation. The Livestock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill flows from the passage of the Meat Export Charge Amendment Bill 1976, which lifted the 0.6c per lb charge for meat inspection and disease eradication imposed by the Labor Government and replaces that levy with a $ 1 a head slaughter levy for all cattle slaughtered after 1 July.

The $1 a head slaughter levy will raise approximately the same amount of revenue as the 0.6c per lb levy raised previously, although it applied only to exports. The $1 a head slaughter levy is now to be carried by the whole industry. I think we recognise that there is some virtue and equity in the legislation to that degree. The levy has been imposed to offset Commonwealth funding of the national endemic cattle disease eradication program which is designed primarily for the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. The complementary Bill that we have now agreed to debate cognately- the Livestock

Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Billseeks to establish a national cattle disease eradication trust account from which this program will be funded.

I think it has to be said, and said many times, that the future of Australia’s beef and dairy export markets depends to a very large extent upon the success of the brucellosis and tuberculosis campaign. To that extent, of course, this legislation has to be regarded as being vital to the maintenance of our export market. The only criticism that the Opposition would make of the legislation is that it does not apply the $1 a head slaughter levy until 1 July, although the 0.6c per lb levy was lifted on 1 March. I understand that this will have the effect of forgoing about $2.5m in revenue which, if it had not been passed back to the producers, would have remained with the exporters. So it is a rather nice gift from the Government without any request, as far as we are aware, being made for it. We believe- this is the point of criticism- that the $1 a head slaughter levy should have been applied from 1 March. But the Opposition does not oppose the principle implicit in the legislation.

The Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill is a machinery measure. Naturally we also support it. The purpose of this Bill is to establish a trust account into which the moneys raised by the levy for disease eradication will be paid. The revenue from this levy will be used to augment a Commonwealth contribution towards the eradication of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis in the Australian cattle herds, which is a very desirable objective from every point of view. Of course, the Bill also lays down that the Minister for Primary Industry may authorise payments from the fund to the States for disease eradication or to the Commonwealth for the same purposes.

I think it should be said very briefly that the problems of the beef industry ought to be the concern of the whole community. I am sure that they are the concern of the Government, as they are of the Australian Labor Party. The state of the industry is causing considerable concern. A drop in beef exports has taken place. In the peak year 1972-73 approximately 574 000 tonnes were exported. The last figure that I have been able to obtain seems to indicate that there has been a drop of something like 155 000 tonnes, which is a very considerable drop, in the export of beef. So, whilst this legislation has the very desirable effect of eradicating disease and meeting the very high standards upon which the overseas buyers insist in relation to the Australian production, it is clear that the nation is facing a very acute problem in relation to its export markets. Every effort must be made to improve the sales of our beef. It has to be said that during that peak period when beef production rose very considerably the farming community was encouraged to expand production. To the degree that it did so, it is now suffering very considerably from the fall-off in international demand. Of course, the prices for cattle in the subsequent 2lh years have fallen rather dramatically. Whilst some efforts have been made by the previous Government and the present Government to stabilise the market position, particularly in Japan, the United States of America and Canada- the countries to which we principally export- we still have a very grave problem of providing some stability in the beef industry.

This legislation has to be seen as only a part of a process of meeting the very important standards that have been imposed by those overseas countries which require our beef. Although much has been said to the contrary, I think I ought to say that governments come and go and sometimes they get a great deal of blame for the sort of situation in which the Australian beef industry now finds itself. Of course, the belief has been created in the rural communities that the previous Government was not very much concerned with legislation similar to that which we are now discussing or that it was not very much concerned about the state of the beef industry. I think that it ought to be put in the record that the previous Government did accept some responsibility for assisting the beef industry at the time when the downturn was taking place in the export markets. For example, in December 1974 some $20m was made available to allow the Commonwealth Development Bank to expand its lending to seriously affected beef producers. That was in the period after the peak. It was the period of the downturn which has continued. Unless we are able to make very considerable inroads into the export markets, we will have a continued problem facing the Australian beef industry.

A few months after that- in March 1975- the Labor Government decided to provide a loan of $3m to the Australian Meat Board to assist it in making export sales. Whilst one recognises that at the moment there is some criticism of the Australian Meat Board, I think it has to be said that it is a body- just as the Senate is- which has endeavoured to fulfil its functions. Perhaps it has not always done so to the satisfaction of the producers. Nevertheless, I believe that some of the criticism is not necessarily justified. The Board has sought to meet the different situations and variations which affect our beef industry and which have occurred in overseas countries. A month after we made that $3m available, the Labor Government made another $ 19.6m available, to match State allocations for carry-on funds for beef producers. Despite all that assistance from government and despite the passage of legislation such as we will pass this evening, the beef industry is still in a very difficult position. Much more will have to be done to bring about some stabilisation of the industry.

I recall that when I was the chairman of a subcommittee of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices we conducted an inquiry into meat prices. I draw the attention of the Minister to some of the important recommendations which we made but which my Government did not take up. I suggest that those recommendations represented a consensus view of the members of the Committee. We carried out a fairly fundamental determination of the problems as we saw them at that time. Notwithstanding the price impact of that report, there were other recommendations which we felt and which I certainly still feel would be of value for the Government to look at from the point of view of improving the general production methods and the classification of meat as an important part of maintaining and developing our exports. On behalf of the Opposition, I assure the Government that we will give a speedy passage to these Bills.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Madam Acting Deputy President- I understand that is the correct title- I congratulate the Opposition for supporting the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Livestock Slaughter Levy Collections Amendment Bill which we are debating cognately. Senator Gietzelt has explained the Bills adequately. I have been asked by my Whip to speak briefly as we have a very large legislative program ahead of us. So I will not worry the Senate with a great deal of verbiage.

I would like to outline to the Senate the urgency of this brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication program. It has an extreme degree of urgency for 3 reasons: Firstly, many of the countries to which we export our meat, particularly the United States of America, have programs for the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. The United States has forecast that it will complete its program by ‘.983. It is fairly logical to assume, particularly if beef is in large supply all over the world, that importing countries would prefer to take meat from those countries that are free of these diseases. Thus, an extreme degree of urgency attaches to this matter. The second point is the serious effect of these diseases on cattle production in Australia. Brucellosis causes abortion in cattle and is a disease that is transmittable from cow to cow. Tuberculosis causes death and serious loss of production in cattle. The third point I would like to make is that the disease presents a quite serious public health hazard. Brucellosis can be transmitted to humans as undulant fever and tuberculosis can be transmitted to humans in the form of bovine tuberculosis.

The history of eradication in Australia is rather a chequered one. Our Tasmanian friends have put the rest of the States in Australia to shame in this area. They began an eradication program in 1930. Tasmania is now considered completely free of these 2 diseases. Western Australia began its program long before 1970. The latest report I have is that in that State the brucellosis incidence is about 0.2 per cent and the tuberculosis incidence is about 0. 1 per cent. I could be parochial, but I have to be honest and state that the main reasons for the success of these programs is the Bass Strait and the Nullarbor Plain. These 2 fortunate geographical features prevent a free interchange of cattle between States and make any eradication program much easier.

It is rather sad that the other States of Australia are far behind in this program. In 1 970, at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, an animal health committee was formed to co-ordinate a nation-wide campaign. The Federal Government at that time agreed to supply matching money to the States in the triennium 1969-72. Since that triennium, the percentage of money provided by the Commonwealth has been increased quite considerably. In 1973, as Senator Gietzelt outlined, a 0.6 cent per lblevy was imposed on export cattle. We are now debating the imposition of a $ 1 a head slaughter charge to replace that levy. As I said before, the situation as to this eradication program is quite variable as between States. To save the time of the Senate, I would like to quote from the Industries Assistance Commission report on brucellosis and tuberculosis, which is dated 10 April 1975. It is stated that Queensland expects to be provisionally free of these diseases in 1985 and to be completely free of them in 1995. New South Wales hopes to be provisionally free in 1980 to 1982, Victoria in 1980 to 1981, and South Australia in 1985 in pastoral areas and in 1981 in non-pastoral areas. Western Australia hopes to be provisionally free of these diseases in 1980 and the Northern Territory also hopes to be provisionally free of them by that date. Honourable senators would appreciate that this is getting alarmingly close to, if not beyond, the date when the United States expects to be free of the disease.

Since 1972 the Commonwealth has expended S25m on this program, and the States themselves have expended $ 12m. It seems logical to me that now is the time when much more effort and action should be put into this program. Beef prices are low, so compensation for the slaughter of cattle would cost a great deal less than would be the case if beef prices were higher. There is a record number of cattle in Australia at the moment. As everybody knows, cattle prices are disastrously low. So that would be an added reason to concentrate on a massive slaughter program. Also, many private veterinarians have little or no work to do. This is logical when one thinks about this matter. If a cow costs, say, $50 to be treated and is worth only $30, there is not much logic in getting a veterinanian to look at a cow. For that reason, a large number of private veterinarians in Australia could be used to a greater extent than they are being used now in this eradication program.

In my opinion enough Commonwealth finance is being expended on this program at the moment. The information that I have received from several State authorities indicates that this is so. But there are many serious deficiencies in the way in which this eradication program is being handled in several States. I should like to detail for the benefit of honourable senators the way in which the department in Western Australia is handling the program. The key was farmer education. I think that this was the most important thing in the whole program. The public relations exercise that is being undertaken by the department in Western Australia is extremely successful.

All cattle producers understand the necessity for and the urgency of this eradication program. They embarked on a tail tagging program which allows the animal that is diseased to be identified at the place of slaughter and traced back to the owner. This puts the identification program in train. They started inoculating when strain 19 was first developed. Now they are using only the new vaccine 45/20. In Western Australia they consider that the incidence of brucellosis has now been low enough for the last two or three years to allow them to embark on a quite extensive program of test and slaughter. This ties in with a quite lavish, in some instances, compensation program. In fact, unsubstantiated information that I have received indicates that about one-third of the herds in Western Australia have reached the certified or accredited stage, which means that they are completely free of disease.

The deficiencies which I mentioned previously and which I consider should be overcome if we are to succeed in this rather urgent program relate, firstly, to the method of administration of the finance that is allocated to this program. It has been estimated in one State in particular, in respect of which I have quite a bit of information, that 75 per cent of the money allocated to this program is used just in administration. That State adopts what is considered in Western Australia to be a completely unco-ordinated approach. It does not use the local services of the farmer organisations or the veterinarians anywhere near enough. What seems ridiculous to clear-thinking people is that the people in this State will work for two or three years to achieve a clean herd of cattle, free of any disease, but then they will place no restriction on the introduction into that herd of what could be diseased cattle. So they immediately nullify any good work that they have done.

It is also considered that in some cases the valuations which the department places on these cattle are completely unrealistic. In fact, one grazier in this State to whom I was speaking recently considered that it would pay him to have his whole herd declared diseased and even injected so that he could be paid for the cattle a price which would be much higher than he would otherwise receive. Probably the most serious anomaly is that in several States there is a serious lack of farmer education. Farmers just do not appreciate the seriousness of the problem. It is a serious problem, and I should like to suggest that this Government should watch the position very closely. Although the administration of this eradication program is handled by each State, it is not of much use for our friends from Tasmania or Western Australia to have cattle free of the disease when, because cattle production is considered to be a national enterprise, they are prevented from exporting cattle because of the ineffectual programs carried out by the other States. I strongly commend the Bills.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– Madam Acting Deputy President, I wonder whether I should even bother to speak on these Bills because I suppose that everything that can be said about them has been said. As has been stated, the 2 Bills are designed to allow the implementation of the $ 1 per head levy on cattle slaughtered. The money received from this levy will be used for the anti-tuberculosis and antibrucellosis campaigns. I am not quite clear on one point, and perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) when he replies to the debate can indicate the correct position. I believe it is stipulated that the levy will be payable only on cattle killed over a certain weight- perhaps 200 lb. As I say, I am not clear on that point.

It is expected that the levy of $ 1 per head on cattle slaughtered will return roughly the same amount of money that was collected under the previous legislation which provides for an export charge of 0.6c per lb on beef and veal. As Senator Thomas has said, some States have advanced much further than others in the eradication of both these diseases. He also said that Tasmania is now declared provisionally free of both diseases, and I think that the State is to be congratulated for that. Victoria is provisionally free of TB. New South Wales and the non-pastoral areas of South Australia are deemed to be provisionally free of TB. Western Australia, south of the Kimberleys, is deemed to be provisionally free of TB, as are some areas of Queensland.

Tasmania stands out alone as being provisionally free of brucellosis. In order to be provisionally free of the disease, the percentage of reactors in the State herd must be below 0.2. One of the interesting things about Tasmania- I presume that the situation is still the same; I know this was the situation for many years- is that it was impossible to send to Tasmania or for Tasmania to import a beast that had been inoculated with the anti-brucellosis strain 19 vaccine. There have been arguments amongst cattlemen about the rights and wrongs of the strain 19 vaccination. I have heard many farmers argue that once they gave that vaccine away their losses due to brucellosis dropped. There may not be any scientific explanation for it, it may have been a fluke. But in the case of Tasmania, I suppose that because it got its number of reactors very low it did not want to risk reintroducing the disease by allowing in cattle injected with the strain 19 vaccine.

The Top End of the Northern Territory is considered to be provisionally free of brucellosis as is most of Western Australia. Queensland, from Cape York Peninsula to roughly the tropic of Capricorn, is also considered to be provisionally free. That points up the fact that with respect to both diseases, but particularly tuberculosis, there are quite extensive areas of the Commonwealth which are now deemed to be provisionally free. But looking at the spread of the national herd we realise that there are still millions and millions of cattle in areas that are far from being provisionally free. Possibly more than half of our national herd is in New South Wales and Victoria where brucellosis is endemic. If we are to clear our herds of both of these diseases, but particularly brucellosis, the campaign must go forward as rapidly as it can; otherwise, as Senator Thomas pointed out, we may strike rather great difficulties with our export markets. .

The incidence of contagious abortion is worldwide. It was pointed out some five or six years ago in a report by an expert committee of the World Health Organisation that the disease is found around the world, in goats, sheep, water buffalo, pigs, yaks, reindeer, caribou, and even polar bears. One form of the disease was found in dogs in America. Interestingly enough, for more than 20 years a vaccine has been available in the U.S.S.R. for the vaccination of persons occupationally exposed to this disease. That is the only country of which I know where that is done. What the results of that campaign have been I do not know.

As has already been said, in human beings the disease which is called contagious abortion or brucellosis in cattle becomes undulant fever. It is particularly prevalent among meat workers, meat inspectors and veterinarians. Quite a large number of veterinarians have infected themselves accidentally with this disease in the process of vaccinating cattle by missing the beast and hitting themselves with the needle in the finger or in the arm. They have contracted undulant fever.

Senator Baume:

– It is a most unpleasant illness.

Senator PRIMMER:

– It is a most unpleasant illness as Senator Baume probably would know, if anybody would know. However, I wish to correct a statement that was made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) in the other place on 29 April to the effect that approximately 70 people a year died from this disease. My investigations lead me to believe that such is not the case. This may have been a misunderstanding or bad use of words by the honourable member. It may well be that 70 people a year are reported as contracting the disease. That aside, it does have very serious effects on the health of any person who happens to contract it. In dairy herds, as I well know, the disease causes a great loss of production. It can lead to a particularly high incidence of calf mortality.

In conclusion, I trust that this program will be stepped up. If it is to be stepped up, particularly in my own State, I hope that the Victorian Government will give some consideration to the re-opening of the Victorian inland meat works. The meat works at Bendigo is still closed, I think. That would be an ideal situation in which these cattle could be mass slaughtered and removed from the scene very quickly. As the shadow Minister for Agriculture, Senator Gietzelt, has said, we on this side of the Senate wish the Bill a speedy passage. God bless the Government and the Department in their endeavours.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I support the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the legislation to set up the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account. As has been said by many speakers, quite a lot of action has taken place throughout Australia in the last few years on the eradication of tuberculosis and brucellosis. However, despite the fact that the Government is very aware that the eradication of brucellosis is most necessary and although we saw Government action to take away the export levy some weeks ago and now the setting up of a Trust Account to pay for the eradication through slaughtering fees, I feel that Australia is in a very dangerous and possibly crucial situation with regard to brucellosis. The reports from the Industries Assistance Commission on beef and on brucellosis and tuberculosis spell out very clearly that if we are not aware of or do not heed the recommendations that have been given, Australia in a few years time could be in a much more serious situation than we consider we are in now.

In the present situation we have the pastoral industry in very dire straits. This has been brought about mainly through lack of markets in Europe, Japan, America and other countries. At the same time as this lack of markets has occurred we have seen in some areas of Australia extremely good conditions with the result that there has been quite a big build-up of stock. The situation to my mind is very crucial now. It is crucial because of the economic situation that the pastoral industry is in. I will speak on the Northern Territory as that is the area of which I have more knowledge than of other parts of Australia, although I realise that in some States the incidence of brucellosis is quite high. In the Northern Territory there has been quite an active brucellosis eradication scheme for a considerable time with the result that we now could say that in the top end of Australia some areas are more or less provisionally brucellosis free, although admittedly there are some pockets. Coming down through the Territory there are other areas in which there is more brucellosis than one would like to see.

However, while the Government, whether it be the Federal Government itself or the Department of the Northern Territory which is responsible for the Northern Territory and eradication there, has provided funds and as a result there has been considerable activity, the danger that exists now in the Northern Territory, as I have said before, is poverty within the industry. When I say ‘poverty’ I really mean poverty because there are many stations in the Northern Territory that are on the brink of bankruptcy. No longer do we look upon a person who owns a pastoral lease as a cattle king. He is an unfortunate person with whom disaster has caught up for many reasons. In the Northern Territory now there are many cattle leases that have caretaker managers. As the term ‘caretaker manager’ implies, the rest of the staff on the station has gone, employees are practically nil and this caretaker manager sits at the station with possibly the owner or some other person doing a bore run.

The maintenance, the good housekeeping, of the station has gone and as a result of this poor housekeeping, which has been forced on the owner, there is no stock or herd management. One can see that if there is no stock or herd management, although the Government has allocated funds for the eradication of brucellosis, the cattle owner, the person who should be mustering, is in no position to implement an eradication program. In fact, in the Northern Territory, and no doubt in Queensland and Western Australia too, the days of good handling and mustering of herds have gone by. They have gone by for very many reasons. For example, while there is a lack of markets the costs that I have described on other occasions have caught up with the pastoral lessee. To take cattle out of the Northern Territory to market costs some $30 to $34 a head and when one looks at the market prices these days one can easily imagine the situation which occurred last year on some occasions when the owner of cattle had to send a cheque to make up the difference between the market price and the cost of getting the cattle to market. In addition we have had increases in the price of fuel and labour.

The warning I give to government is this: While the Government is prepared to substantially assist in the eradication of brucellosis, it must look on the other side to the producer and assist him to get back once again into the way of good housekeeping on his station. I suggest that the Government should look further at the various recommendations made in the IAC report on beef. The meat export charge has been suspended. That is good and I will give an instance in a minute or two of how it will have some effect on the Territory. However, it is most desirable, as was recommended, that there should be a regular review of the carry on requirements of beef cattle producers. We should consider also the desirability of a reference on long term assistance for the beef industry. At the moment, possibly as a result of IAC recommendations, there are short term interim payments, carry-on finance, but in the Territory this amounts to some $ 1 5,000 and is only a drop in the ocean in terms of what is required. At the same time rural reconstruction has been carried on to a degree and one sees now that, as was announced last week, $65,000 is to be made available to the end of this financial year. Admittedly that is only 4 to 5 weeks away.

Senator Wright:

– What do they call rural reconstruction in the Territory?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Rural reconstruction is a word given to an endeavour to reconstruct the debts of a pastoral lease because over the years the lessee has got himself into a lot of difficulty. He has borrowed money from the stock agent and, as we know, some of those interest rates can go to 14 per cent. One could imagine that if one borrowed some $40,000 to $50,000 or morethere are many with heavier overdrafts than that -and was paying 12 per cent to 13 per cent interest and was not producing at all so nothing was coming in, not gradually but very quickly one would be getting further into the red. Then if the Government comes along and helps to a degree with short term finance and one also goes to the bank for finance, one would finish up with something like 2, 3 or 4 mortgages. So to my mind rural reconstruction is the ability to reconstruct a debt on a pastoral lease to enable the producer to continue.

Senator Georges:

– It is not a bad idea.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– It is a good idea.

Senator Georges:

– Provided you give it also to small businesses that get into the same trouble.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I think I made the point a little while ago that when I am talking of the pastoral owner and the pastoral lease I am not speaking in terms of cattle kings because this is not the day of cattle kings. I am talking about people in the Northern Territory but obviously there would be people in similar situations throughout Australia. These people are more or less small operators who have been battling on through the years. When there is a drought the prices are up and when seasons are good the prices are down and the producers cannot get rid of their cattle. So we are talking these days of people who used to be looked upon as the richthe cattle kings- but who are now in a difficult situation. Let us not dwell on that too long. Let us look at the effect upon Australia.

There is no doubt that whilst our pastoral industry is in poor shape now, the time is going to come when we are going to be extremely reliant upon it. Once again the various countries of the world, be it Europe, Japan or America are going to be markets for our products. But there is a real danger that when this demand picks up again and these countries want to see a flow of beef in their direction we will not be in a situation to send beef to them, not because we will not have beef but for the simple reason that we will have allowed our pastoral industry to get into a sick situation. As I say, it is getting into that situation now.

We have not carried out a balanced eradication program to rid ourselves of brucellosis and we will find ourselves in a situation where other countries of the world will be brucellosis free and will not import cattle from Australia. I say that that will mean the ultimate collapse of our primary industry. So I think that there is every reason for us now, while we have time, to be aware of the situation.

As previous speakers have said, already some States are free of brucellosis. Tasmania is free but New South Wales and Victoria have problems. Other places are free. But we must make a concerted effort throughout Australia to rid ourselves of this very big problem. Of course, people who live in Tasmania and in Western Australia, where they do not have this problem, perhaps do not see how serious the situation is. But the fact is that their cattle will not be sold overseas as having come from Western Australia or Tasmania. Their cattle will be labelled ‘Australian beef. Even though those States might be free of brucellosis and other parts of Australia may not, beef exported from Western Australia and Tasmania will be exported under the same label as all other Australian beef.

I am most keen to see assistance given to the pastoral industry. I am not talking about handouts. I do not think the pastoral industry wants handouts but I do think that if we are going to keep the industry going and to have it balanced so that it can participate in this eradication we will have to get them onto a financial basis. Not only do we have to reconstruct loans but we have to look also at abattoirs throughout Australia, whether they be inland or on the coast. We have to see why they are not viable. Probably most of them are not viable because they are outdated.

They need to be upgraded and automated to keep down labour costs. I shall restate what I said on 1 7 March 1 976 during the debate on the Meat Export Charge Amendment Bill, when I indicated what it could mean to, say, the Northern Territory if we took away the beef export levy. I compared that levy with the slaughter fee of $ 1 a head that is now being introduced. My comments, which appear in Hansard, were as follows:

I think that the Bill will assist to some degree. I shall give an indication of what it could mean to the Northern Territory beef producer. I think this comparison is accurate. It is a comparison taken over S years between the costs of a beef producer in the Northern Territory on the abolition of the meat export charge and on the forecast slaughter levy of $1. This is a comparison over the period 1969 to 1975. With the total turn off of 190 000 head of cattle, the estimated number for export would be 1 13 000. Taking the average bone-out weight of 300 lbs per beast, the export charge per head would have been $4.80. So on a basis of 1 per cent the total revenue would have been $546,000.

That would have been the slaughter fee payable to the Government. I continued:

Assuming that 119 000 cattle are slaughtered, with the levy at $ 1 per head the estimated saving to the Northern Territory producers per annum would be only $427,000. That amount would be spread out over the Territory.

So one can see on making that sort of comparison that there would be a saving for the producer of a little under $500,000 over some 5 years and over 500 000 miles. I do not think that we should get particularly excited about that but nevertheless it is something that does assist the producer.

Many people have pointed out the serious situation that is before us. I too lend my voice and urge the Government that once and for all we should have a very strong eradication program. It is all very well for governments to create funds for the eradication scheme. But the Government must now look at the other side and ensure that the people in private enterprise who are producing beef are able to participate in the scheme. If they cannot participate in the scheme they are going to go down- they are going to go bankrupt. I say that people in the Northern Territory are going to go bankrupt this year if they are not assisted. They do not want handouts. They want their debts reconstructed. If these stations were to go into bankruptcy and have a caretaker manager they would have a herd without management, a herd breeding without control, a herd on the loose. In that situation there would be absolutely no way of carrying out vaccinations and of eradicating brucellosis. The situation is serious.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-The Bill that is being considered by the Senate now is designed to institute the change foreshadowed by the Government in March, I think it was, this year when it suspended the previous export levy charges for brucelloris and tuberculosis eradication and for meat export inspection services. From the comments just made by Senator Kilgariff I am not sure whether he is aware of the fact that this particular Bill deals only with the previous 0.6c export levy for tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication. The figure that he quoted of $4.80 per beast of 300 pounds dressed carcass weight clearly applies to the total meat export inspection and the tuberculosis and brucellosis levy, which would have produced a total levy of $4.80 per beast, as the honourable senator said. If the honourable senator is clear on this it was not indicated in his speech. I do not know whether he recognises that this particular levy per head slaughtered which is proposed is a replacement only for the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication levy and not for the combined levy which applied prior to 1 March.

Given the necessity of sustaining a tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaign and the justice of the notion that the industry ought to contribute substantially, if not entirely, to the cost of that campaign, it has been argued- I think there is some rationality behind the argument- that it would be fairer to impose a levy on all cattle slaughtered rather than simply on that component of total slaughtering which is exported. Although there is something to be said for that, I think one must repeat some of the reservations which I have and which the Industries Assistance Commission had about the effectiveness of the suspension of an export levy in terms of transferring income to the industry.

The point has been made before that in an extreme buyer’s market- surely no one imagines that the international beef market currently is anything but an extreme buyer’s market- it is probable that any export subsidy will be received not by the Australian producer or even the Australian exporter but by the foreign buyer. As yet, no decisive evidence is available. Given all the other variables which could come into operation and the relatively minor magnitude of that levy, it would be difficult ever to prove a decisive case. The figures which are available with respect to price changes are for between February and March of this year. The importance of those dates is that the levies-that is, the one relating to this Bill and the other relating to the meat export inspection service- were suspended on 1 March. If the suspension of those levies had been effective in terms of rising prices received by producers or exporters, naturally that could be expected to show up in higher saleyard prices. I have in front of me a table which was prepared by the Library statistical service. It shows an index of average monthly prices for beef at principal livestock markets in Australia right through from January 1975 to 1976. 1 shall seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard at the conclusion of my speech. The table shows that from February 1975 to March 1975- that is, last year when there was no change in the levy- there was a price increase in the livestock market in every State, whereas from February to March 1976, and in the latter month the levy had been suspended, there was a major fall in 2 selling centres, that is Sydney and Brisbane, a major rise in Melbourne and no significant change elsewhere.

I am not arguing that these figures demonstrate decisively that no benefit at all was received by Australian exporters or beef producers as a result of the suspension of the levy; but, whatever credibility can be attached to those figures, they certainly suggest that the benefit of the levy was received by the overseas buyer rather than by the Australian seller. Those figures might not prove anything decisively, but they lean very heavily towards the view that the overseas buyer was the beneficiary, not the Australian seller. I notice that in today’s West Australian a member of the Australian Meat Board, Mr J. P. Dempster, appears to corroborate that interpretation. The newspaper article reports Mr Dempster as stating:

Australian exporters are cutting the throat of the nation’s meat industry by selling beef at discount prices to Japan.

Later the article states:

Mr Dempster told the Commission that exporters were ruining the Japanese market in a bid to earn diversification entitlements to sell meat to the United States.

In other words, to the degree that the provision of free export inspection services- that is tantamount to an export subsidy, of course- has made it possible for exporters further to undercut prices for Japan, Mr Dempster seems to believe that this is what has happened.

The beef industry not only encompasses specialist beef producers but also is integrated with the Australian dairy industry. At the moment the dairy industry is in severe economic trouble, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the dramatic collapse in the market for skim milk powder caused by the accumulation of stocks in the European Economic Community. Notwithstanding that perhaps substantially unforeseeable factor, the problems of the dairy industry go back for many years and could not be said to have been unforeseeable. Claude Forell, in an article in the Melbourne Age of 20

May 1976- that is, last Thursday- in relation to the Australian dairy industry and its current problems had this to say:

Most dairy farmers are sturdy, hard-working and eager to stand on their own feet . . .

My contempt is for the self-seeking, short-sighted agropoliticians of the dairying industry and the vote-grubbing bush-whackers in our State and Federal Parliaments.

Later in the article he said:

The plight of the dairy farmer has been building up for decades and none else is more culpable for it than the cynical extortionists of the Country Party and their fellow-travelling backwoodsmen in the Liberal Party.

The reason is plain. These politicians would sooner have a multitude of struggling small farmers foolish enough to vote for them than relatively few prosperous farmers who might not vote for them or would be numerous enough to maintain their power base . . .

We have to include extravagant irrigation schemes, which cost the community a fortune it could never recoup, boosted land values that encouraged farmers to buy in at prices they couldn’t afford, and added to farm surpluses and surplus farmers.

Then there were the closer settlement schemes, some of them disastrous, most of them unnecessary, all of them expensive. Until recently, the Victorian Government was still opening up more land for dairy farms- when elsewhere farmers were going broke by the score!

He has put very succinctly the situation and the role which has been played by the Victorian Government, in particular, over a long time towards making inevitable the dairy industry’s present problems. I have only this comment to add to Mr Forell ‘s excellent assessment: I discovered just this week- I was staggered to make this discovery- that as late as this year people were allocated new dairy farms at Rochester in Victoria under the aegis of the State Government through its land settlement scheme. People were being placed on irrigated dairy farms at Rochester this year, when blind Freddy should have been able to see that any scheme or policy which expanded the production base of the dairy industry was precisely the opposite of what was needed. Can anyone imagine a situation more absurd than that which has been not only countenanced but also engineered by the Government of Victoria? Problem dairy farms are being created at Rochester. Irrigation water is being supplied to these new problem dairy farms at about half its true economic cost. Subsidised fertilisers are being used to produce pastures and ultimately to produce butter, which is extremely difficult to sell at a margin, and skim milk powder, which currently the Australian Dairy Corporation is attempting to flog off in Japan as stock feed. Could anyone imagine a more absurd situation than the one I have just outlined, engineered by the Liberal Government of Victoria, no doubt with the enthusiastic support of the Victorian Country Party, although it is not in a coalition government. The final absurdity, of course, is that these people belong to the political parties which claim some special competence in the area of economic management.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-Mr President, at a cattle growers’ symposium in Rockhampton recently I raised the question of brucellosis eradication with one of the leaders of the industry in the area. I was told that at present they did not have time to worry about brucellosis eradication because they were fighting for survival. I would question the priorities of people who think that way. I am prepared to admit that the cattle industry is fighting for survival, but I believe that it is the brucellosis and tuberculosis situation which will determine whether or not the fight is won or lost in the long run. We are in a race for survival in the world markets and we are playing in a game where the winner takes all. The Bill before the Senate will provide $8m to $10m a year which, with the State government contributions, will be made up to an amount of something like $20m. The Minister has promised a compensation allowance as well, so that anybody who is in the grip of brucellosis eradication can be assured that he will be compensated adequately and that the system is going to be carried through. If we lose this race, the whole market has gone. We are rapidly reaching the stage where the world markets will not only want but demand clean meat. That requirement will come, make no mistake, and we have got to work out whether, when the time comes, we will be ready.

Senator Thomas referred to the current situation of high numbers and low values. There is no doubt that now is the most oportune time possible to go into a heavy eradication program. It can never be done cheaper and it can never be done to better advantage. The current rates of infestation seem very low, but they are a little misleading. The Industries Assistance Commission report of 10 April 1975 shows that in New South Wales the average prevalence level is about 2 per cent; in the Australian Capital Territory prevalence is low; in Victoria the Department of Agricul ture is working on figures of nil to 3 per cent; in South Australia the State average is 1.8 per cent; in the Northern Territory it is less than 2 per cent; in Queensland it is greater than 2 per cent; Western Australia is virtually free; and Tasmania is classified as free. But those figures still represent a lot of infestation and we have got to get rid of it. Very soon the world markets are going to show the difference between clean cattle and unclean cattle, and that position will apply whether it is for beef or for livestock. As a major cattle producing country, Australia must be ahead of its competition if it is to retain its proper place. We have to be ready or we will suffer the consequences. It is very easy for any of our major trading buyers suddenly to say that as from such and such a date all meat will come from brucellosis and tuberculosis free countries.

We have to consider where we stand in comparison with some of our competitors. The same IAC report indicates that in New Zealand the eradication campaign commenced only in 197 1 , when 4.3 per cent of their dairy herds and 1 . 1 per cent of their beef herds were infested. They are working to see that the test and slaughter campaign will be extended to all cattle by 1977. In the United States the campaign was commenced in 1934. It was accelerated in 1 954, and now over 99 per cent of the cattle population is brucellosis free. The eradication program is due to be completed by 1983. In Canada eradication began in 1956, following a series of strain 19 vaccinations. At that time, 80 per cent of the cattle were in areas of 0. 1 per cent infestation or less. In Eire 6 counties have been declared free and voluntary eradication has been encouraged, but is not yet compulsory. In the United Kingdom in 1960-61 the prevalence was 2 per cent and work has been proceeding on the problem ever since. Complete eradication is expected in 10 to 15 years. In the Netherlands the test and slaughter program was commenced in 1958 and has reached a stage where it is now less than one in 10 000. In fact, it had reached that stage by 1970 and it is still reducing.

We have to ensure that what we do is kept ahead of those sorts of countries. It is interesting to note that while we will be spending something like $20m this year on our eradication campaign, the United States will be spending $ 1 50m. That is what we are up against. As I said before, the first there wins, and as far as Australia is concerned, we must finish ahead of the United States because that is where the greatest risk lies. It is my opinion that the present problems suffered by both the beef and dairy industries are as nothing compared with what they will be if suddenly there is a brucellosis problem which causes blockages in our markets. I think we have to look at our live cattle marketing at this stage and see where we stand. With the immense cattle population we have in Australia, since 1967 we have averaged between 0.03 per cent and 0.2 per cent of the world’s live cattle trade. It should be remembered that France carries 1 3 per cent to 1 4 per cent of the trade, Mexico 13 per cent, the Federal Republic of Germany 9 per cent, Ireland 8 per cent and Poland and Canada 4 per cent each. In other words, 6 countries have over 50 per cent of the total trade while Australia, which is one of the world’s major cattle producing countries, lies fiftieth. People in the industry are satisfied that they could build up the trade to export over 1 million cattle a year, and with the sort of cattle which that trade would largely cover we are talking of business of the order of $500m.

There can be no doubt that Australian stud stock is as good as the best in the world. It has a great reputation. It is strong, it is well bred, and it is welcome anywhere in the world. We have to do all we possibly can to see that the market is expanded, and again I would point out that clean cattle will dominate the world market. In both traditional and Australian breeds, there are no better cattle than we have here. Recently I made representations to the Government for financial assistance to aid in a world promotion for Australian shorthorn export breeders. A world shorthorn fair has been organised by the breeders for the time of the Sydney Show next year. Stockbreeders of all types from all over the world will be invited to meet at the Sydney Show. It is a tremendous opportunity for us to get right into the front window of the world cattle market with the people who really count. Regrettably, at this stage financial assistance for the promotion has not yet been forthcoming. I am still working on it. I hope that the Ministers concerned will be aware of this and I trust that at both Federal and State level we will be able to get some assistance to ensure the success of the operation.

Let me return to eradication. Eradication is definitely not a government matter only. We have to make sure that the growers play their part in the field. Most of the eradication has been carried out with some passive opposition from the farmers. In some areas, of course, it has been done with every assistance. We have to get the farmers to realise that they are very much part of the program and that the whole success of the operation depends on their complete cooperation. It is now when we are down to this small hard core that remains that the hard work begins. It is the cattle out in the back country that will keep us from being clean for quite a while if we do not look out. Now that we have the best scheme of detection and adequate compensation it is possible for all people to participate.

I have been associated with the eradication program since the very early 1930s when my own family was dairying. My family farmed one of the first 3 farms in Tasmania, I believe, to go into voluntary test and slaughter. I remember the days when, the program being voluntary, there was no compensation. I remember seeing about 80 per cent of our cows leaving the property at the beginning of the season. We had to carry on with a rather slender period ahead. I know what it is all about. I am glad that the system has changed and that compensation is now payable. I was also involved through the Agricultural Department in 1955-56 when the compulsory program was in full swing. I remember a time when in the area in which I lived over 3 000 cattle were destroyed in a month. I have seen the great hardship and the great losses that go with this. The greatest loss of all is the loss of a lifetime’s breeding that goes with infestation of this sort. One of the last big losses in our area was a herd of Herefords which it was claimed had been pure in the same strain since the 1880s. Every one was destroyed. In spite of all these questions, the system is well worth while. It has to be encouraged and given every chance.

Tasmania is provisionally clean in both tuberculosis and brucellosis. We look forward to capitalising on the advantages we hope that that gives. I have to give great credit to the Tasmanian Agricultural Department and to the directors and staff of that organisation who in very difficult times did a most difficult job very well and were able to sell the program so well to the farmers of the area that we have the result that we were promised in the 1930s. I commend to every State Government and to the Commonwealth Government that we get on and get the job finished. We are rapidly running out of time. We have no more than 10 years to be able to take our place where we belong at the head of the world cattle market. Do not let anybody underestimate the potential liability that hangs over us all the time. I commend the Bills to the House.

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

– in reply- I note that these Bills are not opposed and therefore it will not take a lot of time to make one or two comments about the matter under review. It has been very well dealt with. I believe this was an interesting debate particularly for somebody like myself who has been involved in the cattle business for quite a while and who is a stud cattle breeder and a farmer in his own right. Some people have referred to today’s prices and how disastrous they are. I do not want to go into it at any great length except to say that what was stated was perfectly true and it is something which I am afraid we will have to bear for the time being.

I have always been a believer in primary industries in which I have been involved in one way or the other most of my life. Whatever else a primary producer does he stays in the game. He does not give up. He does not turn his back on it. He tries to carry on. Historically in Australia those who stay in the game in the primary industries in the chosen field of their endeavour manage as a rule to come good, but that does not mean that they are not entitled to government assistance and not due for government help when the occasion arises. The Australian economy rests a great deal on the basic stability of its primary industries which are subject to fluctuations in seasons, market hazard, disease and all those kinds of problems. Those of us who have been engaged in this brucellosis program for a while know what we have been talking about. Many honourable senators here have obviously studied it carefully and have a deep and personal involvement. In our stud cattle operations four or five years ago we determined on a program of total eradication which we have succeeded in achieving. It takes a lot of work and it causes a lot of worry. It is a lot of trouble, but it is well worth doing for the very good reasons mentioned by many of the speakers this evening.

We are a tremendously large beef cattle exporting country in the way of processed beef but not in live cattle. The live cattle export position referred to by Senator Archer is interesting. Some of the figures, I think, may well need examination on the basis that some of the countries have common borders and the exports may just be transfers over the border. Undoubtedly we have not succeeded very well in live cattle export except for certain animals of high value in the stud cattle world. We have been a great meat exporting country and it is perfectly true, I believe, that in due course if we have not eradicated brucellosis from our meat scene solid restrictions will be placed against us in meat buying countries and preference will be given to those countries which are able, in effect, to supply meat that is free of these sorts of problems. There are various estimates of how long we have to achieve these results. It may be 4 years, 5 years or perhaps 10 years. I would not like to say. But I am sure of one thing: This is a good and sound proposal, lt is being taken up seriously. The sooner we can guarantee the Australian scene free from brucellosis and tuberculosis the better for all concerned.

References were made to some of the problems of the industry. One does not want to diverge too much except to say that one of the things that the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing found, as was revealed in the Green Paper, was that there was a fairly serious need for improvement in the whole of the meat processing area in Australia. This area was one in which the Committee was not very impressed with industrial safety, and the overall efficiency of the factories and plants. That is something to which I think we should give more attention as a nation as time goes on. Comment was made on the relative State levels of brucellosis infection. I listened with great care. I was most impressed to hear the story of Tasmania. Not only has a very good job been done there but also it is equally possible to maintain Tasmania as a safe enclave because of its isolation from the rest of Australia. It may well be that Tasmania has a substantial future as an animal exporting State. I believe that we will increasingly find these problems of disease of one kind or another affecting very much the export capacity of given nations. In Australia it is quite likely, I think, that Tasmania may find itself in a fairly singular position because of its high level of control and its isolation that guarantees that control.

I must say that I am rather doubtful about the level of infection that is said to have been reached in New South Wales. I would be very surprised indeed if 2 per cent is the figure. I should think it would be much higher. I think States like New South Wales and Queensland may yet not really know the level of their brucellosis infection. But that is only an observation; I do not want State Ministers springing on the telephone tomorrow saying: ‘What the hell do you know about it?’ I do know something about it and 1 doubt very much whether the level of efficiency is quite what it is hoped it is. I am not in doubt about Tasmania or Western Australia. They have singular reasons why their levels are particularly good. I hope they keep them up. I hope we all keep it up. In the end the exercise is designed for us to be able to say as Australians for Australia: ‘There is no brucellosis. There is no tuberculosis. You may buy our meat without any worries. You may buy our live cattle in the same way’.

Senator Gietzelt expressed some concern about the level of beef and veal exports. I thought he might like to have the recent figures in this respect, which show that for the 8 months ended February 1976 the exports of beef and veal were 361 000 tonnes or 100 000 tonnes above the levels for the year earlier. That is interesting. I had thought that that was so myself. That is a good achievement when one considers the difficult marketing conditions that have existed over the last 2 years.

Senator Thomas drew attention to the need for farmer education. That is of very great importance. One tends to forget one’s involvement in these things at an earlier stage, but a long while ago there was a group of us involved in thinking about this sort of situation and there was a very strong case then, as there is a strong case now, for a pilot farm or a demonstration farm that is supported by the State and Commonwealth departments and the research bodies to be located in the farming areas so that the farmers in those areas can have access to the latest techniques and know-how. There is no doubt in my mind from what I saw in America and some of the countries of Europe that there has been much more progress made with the demonstration or pilot farm as an exercise in helping farmers to learn better techniques and better methods. I think that New Zealand is better at it than we are. I think that we have something to pick up here from Senator Thomas. The officers of the Department will have some regard to that aspect.

Senator Primmer was quite correct when he spoke about the weight limit for the payment of the beef levy. The levy is expressed on cattle over 90 kg dressed weight. There are one or two factors which perhaps should be mentioned in response to the concern expressed by Senator Kilgariff about the level of assistance that the industry needs. Firstly, the Government decided recently to provide $ 18.5m to the campaign for compensation in the States and the Territories for 1976-77, compared with the $8. 7m provided in 1975-76. That relates to compensation payments to producers. Secondly, the Government has the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on assistance to the beef industry in its hand and it is being subjected to very detailed and careful consideration. It should be borne in mind that the situation may have changed somewhat as to market conditions and opportunity since the report was produced, but the basic factors of the report are under detailed consideration. The Government has, as honourable senators know, changed recently the criteria for eligibility for unemployment benefit to assist primary producers.

I do not think there is much more that one can say about this matter. It is a subject which I am sure many honourable senators could debate for much longer, but there is other work to do.

Senator Chaney:

– Hear, hear!

Senator COTTON:

-I know that Senator Chaney has been bursting to speak about the industry for quite some time, but he will have to restrain himself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2070

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2070

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 8 May, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I rise simply to indicate the Opposition’s non-oppostion to this legislation and to do no more than that. We are dealing with a very minor Bill- a Bill of very minimal substancebecause the formation of the Public Accounts Committee itself has been determined. This Bill seeks to establish reciprocity between the Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee. I dare say that one could dwell on the possible differences in the charters of both of those committees, especially the Public Accounts Committee, with which we are much more familiar and which is provided for in the Public Accounts Committee Act. We do not know precisely the manner in which the Expenditure Committee is going to operate in practice, but it would appear that there will be areas in which there will not be a commonality of activity. Nevertheless there will be a great deal of common inquiry by these committees. The mutual exchange of Chairmen obviously will be of benefit to both committees. Therefore the Opposition will not oppose the Bill.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– In joining in this brief debate on the Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill 1976I speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee who is very junior in service on that Committee. It is a pleasure to see in the Senate tonight certain honourable senators who have had long service on the Public Accounts Committee and who have been very senior members of it, one at least having been Chairman of that Committee. It is desired, however, that I should briefly make a couple of points that are of relevance at the present time.

The Committee was interested in the report that was brought into the Senate yesterday, which made certain suggestions as to the possible future role of the Public Accounts Committee. Doubtless that report will be discussed in due course and the members of the Public Accounts Committee will have a view to express. There are those who feel that the Public Accounts Committee has a real value for the Parliament and the people. We would not like people lightly to accept that the Public Accounts Committee should disappear or should be radically altered without considerable thought.

Senator Wriedt has stated, I agree with him,that this Bill in itself is a minor one. It seeks to make the Chairman of the new Expenditure Committee ex officio a member of the Public Accounts Committee. To that proposition there can be no valid objection. It is also intended that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee should be ex officio a member of the Expenditure Committee, although this does not require an amendment of the Act. There are several other minor and consequential amendments. The Public Accounts Committee Act comes up for discussion in the Parliament only very infrequently. So, on an occasion such as this it is worth making a couple of points. This is an extremely hard working Committee. I am informed that since 1 March 1973 the Committee has held over 170 meetings, including over 60 public meetings, and that during this time it has considered a vast amount of material. The reports of the Public Accounts Committee are the most frequently sought reports from any committee of the Parliament within the Commonwealth Public Service.

We acknowledge the broader issues that may arise from the consideration by the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System as to what the future role of the Public Accounts Committee might be. We wish to state also that we ourselves are constantly examining the Public Accounts Committee Act. There may be instances in which we would like to propose certain other amendments. The Committee was anxious that we should place on record the fact that, while we heartily endorse the present changes to the Act, we see this as a particular action to meet the requirements of the new House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. In no way does it take the place of our own Committee’s review of the Public Accounts Committee Act, a review that we are carrying out at the present time; nor does it preclude our seeking further amendments should we think it desirable.

Finally, I place on the record the fact that we see the present action not as one of the major revisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act which may appear from time to time but as something which has been done to suit the convenience of the Government in getting its new Expenditure Committee under way. We would be grateful if the Senate took note of this point. We emphasise that the present amendment is a minor one to which we have no objection but which in no way precludes a possible desire on the pan of the Public Accounts Committee to seek further amendments to its Act in due course.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank both Senator Wriedt and Senator Baume for their support of this Bill. I am quite certain that the Standing Committee on Expenditure, which has been launched in the other place with high hopes, will fulfil the hopes of those who launched it. I thank the Senate for its support of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2071

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill, the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Amendment Bill and the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Amendment Bill propose to extend the existing scheme for apple and pear stabilisation which has operated from 1971 to 1975 and are designed to cover the 1976 export season for apples and pears. The purpose of the 1 97 1 apple and pear stabilisation scheme was to reduce the social and economic disruption to the industry at a time of declining profitability. The scheme was intended to provide some measure of security to on-going growers during an adjustment stage. The cost was estimated at approximately $10m over a 5-year period. However, as the scheme developed in that period the Australian Government’s liability finally reached $14.3m. In the 1971-75 period, export apple growers experienced continued downward pressures on their incomes, primarily from costs associated with growing, packaging and freight. This, coupled with changes in exchange rates and increased competition in traditional markets, caused the Australian Government to introduce special measures to raise the level of price support for the 1974-75 crops.

I pause at this point to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that, in respect of most of the Bills on which I have spoken in the Senate over the last several weeks, the Labor Government was associated with assistance to the rural community. Credit for this has never been properly attributed to the previous Government’s acceptance of the problem and desire to give financial assistance. Special assistance was provided by the Australian Government and by some State governments on a dollar for dollar basis in respect of at-risk sales to Europe. This amounted to $2.80 a box in 1974 and $1.60 a box for the 1975 apple crop. Of course, it must be pointed out that there is a disparity in those figures. The subsidy on the lower level in 1975 was in anticipation of higher returns expected for apples in Europe. Despite the high level of price support, however, the export of apples to European and North American markets declined by 47 per cent in that period from 1971 to 1975. In the same period, pear exports also declined by some 30 per cent. Of course, this is what is happening in all our rural industries.

The Industries Assistance Commission was called in by the Labor Government to carry out an extensive survey of the apple and pear industry. Its report recommended, subject to the acceptance of certain reconstruction schemes, the continuation of the current produce-based scheme on an interim 2-year basis, that is, for the 1976 and 1977 crops. So, in the light of that, we support the legislation. However, that support is not unequivocal and is not without some basis of criticism as to what should be the responsibilities of restructuring and improving this industry. The IAC recommendation in respect of applesnamely, that the price support under the scheme for 1976 be $2 a box for a maximum quantity of 2 million boxes- is the basis of the amendment to the Act and is as far as this Government is prepared to go. The Opposition accepts the proposed amendments, which cover the immediate crops, even though we believe that there is a need for restructuring the industry and improving market prospects. The main effect of the stabilisation scheme to date and the special assistance given from time to time has been to provide income support to apple growers and, to a lesser extent, pear growers who now face a rapid decline in prices of fruit sold on our traditional overseas markets.

Government support is, of course, product based and in the circumstances is favouring the larger and wealthier growers. As I have said many times in recent weeks, the question of need is an integral part of Labor Party philosophy. The Henderson report on poverty specifically points to the growing problem of the rural poor. From 1960 onwards, it is estimated, one fruit grower in six has been poor. As the survey showed, in Kentucky, northern New South Wales, 40 per cent of those interviewed in the preparation of the Henderson report were and can be categorised as being in the poverty zone. Annual profit margins of $90 an acre on farms of 30 to 40 acres of trees show the degree of poverty in that region and the need for government assistance. Clearly the problems are immense, and the Whitlam Government was acting in the best interests of all those in the industry when it commissioned the IAC to report on the industry in 1974.

It has to be pointed out that the export of apples and pears accounts for nearly half of the fruit produced- 40 per cent of apples and 50 per cent of pears. It has also been pointed out that Tasmania, Western Australia and Victoria are particularly affected by any change in the export of apples and pears, although after further examination I believe that problems also exist in Queensland. However, there is not much hope that the export market will improve. I should like to draw the Senate’s attention to the March 1976 issue of the publication The Fruit World and Market Grower, which clearly is related to this industry. I quote from it a statement made by Mr Jurgen Wolf of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation when speaking at a London conference in February of this year. He said:

There is a danger of a fundamental market imbalance developing in the international fruit trade. In the case of apples and pears, the main problem has occurred in Europe. Although temporary improvements could be noted in some years, the production potential was still larger than present prospects for consumption. Further efforts to reduce surpluses are, therefore, essential in Europe.

He went on to point out that production is rising faster than import demand in those consumer countries, and as a result price levels were not profitable enough for producers. So here again we have the problem of markets. It is not a problem of production; it is a problem of markets. I am afraid that more and more governments, political parties and communities have to concern themselves with the problems of marketing. The marketing prospects for overseas exports are not good, and this highlights the need for restructing the whole apple and pear industry, taking into account particularly the regional influences that the industry has in specific areas of our country. Of course, if we were to move in any unilateral or dramatic way it would have disastrous effects on those particular regions.

The Apple and Pear Board, the grower organisations and the Australian Labor Party all accept that the apple and pear stabilisation plan, including these 2 Bills, does not provide the answer to the long term problems of the industry. As the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has said in its summary, the industry is examining various aspects of restructuring, including possible assistance which might be available to growers under the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act implemented by the Commonwealth Government through State government organisations specially set up for the purpose.

It seems to me that the conservatives have had many years to effect changes in these rural industries that would remove the insecurity of unstable income for farmers. Their failure to do so indicts them for their piecemeal and inadequate approach. This legislation which we support, however, should be seen as being an interim measure, leading to a more positive approach to solving, as far as is practicable with our resources the immediate problems of the industry. The legislation provides that the maximum level of price for pear support be limited to 80c a box and that the maximum quantity eligible for support be 1 400 000 boxes. The support- this is what the legislation is about- will be confined to at risk sales to Europe, including the United Kingdom and North America. The legislation also brings the language in the existing legislation into line with the terminology used within the industry and as approved by the Metric Conversion Board; that is, the term ‘reputed bushel’ is now replaced with the term ‘reputed box’. The Government is duty bound to express its attitude and policy towards the fruit growing industry. In the 23 years that the Liberal-Country Party Government was in power before 1972- in fact, it was in the dying days of that year- fruit growers began to suffer because of the failure of the Government to make decisions or to formulate worthwhile longer terms plans for the industry.

What has to be realised by this Government is that fruit growers do not want a handout. A Bandaid is not the cure. What is required is support based on a sound plan. Either fruit growers have to obtain a viable return for their efforts based on sound economic principles or a way out has to be provided for these hard-working members of the rural community to re-establish themselves in other fields. Stabilisation of export returns- a policy advocated and continued by the Government in isolation- does not provide an answer when it serves to promote production in the absence of a market. All it does is encourage people to tread water and exacerbates the problems besetting the industry. It must be remembered that it is an industry which contributes 5 per cent or 6 per cent of gross value products and only 1 per cent of rural export returns.

The Labor Government in its short term of office, aware that the hard-working fruit growers required more than a product based subsidy, instigated the IAC to look into the problems in detail and to make recommendations. Of course, in the period in which we were in office, from 1972 to 1975, appreciable amounts of money were funded to the industry. Following the revaluation of the Australian dollar in 1972, emergency adjustment assistance was provided for the industry based on growers’ average annual exports in the 2 calendar years 1 97 1 and 1972. Total payment to fruit growers on the postrevaluation system was about $ 1.65m. Additional supplementary grants of $1,000 were made available to farmers experiencing extreme financial difficulties. This was again based on the principle of need.

The net assistance given by the Australian Government under Labor was $2.73m in 1973 and $ 1.98m in 1974. In addition to stabilisation payments the Australian Government joined on a State for State basis with the Tasmanian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments in providing special assistance to growers exporting at risk to the United Kingdom and other European markets in the 1974 season. This committed the Australian Government to a maximum of $2.6m though the final cost was $2.1m which, on the matching grants basis with the States, totalled $4.2m.

The IAC in its report on the industry dated 1 6 January 1976 and presented to the Parliament on 27 April 1976 determined the ‘fruit growers and regions under greatest pressure are those which have been most directly oriented towards exports’. Of course, that is the area where the assistance ought to be directed. To subsidise export production in the absence of probable or even possible markets is not coming to grips with the problem and is reprehensible if it is not part of an overall scheme to assist regions and people employed in the industry. I believe that the Government can be criticised for sitting on the IAC report for 3 months and then not promoting discussion on it in the community, in the industry or in the Parliament, or not in strict terms acting on it as it was recommended to do, preferring to abide by the interim measures proposed by the former Government which were designed as stop-gap measures to assist people and regions pending a closer analysis of the problems and the detailed examination by the IAC.

The fruit growing communities, especially those in regions such as the Huon in Tasmania, the pear growing area of the Goulburn Valley in Victoria and Stanthorpe in Queensland, will be only further disadvantaged by this Government’s failure fundamentally to tackle the problem. These regions and people require assistance and direction. Reconstruction assistance is long overdue, and the IAC’s recommendations that such assistance needs to be mainly orientated to communities and regions rather than products cannot be ignored. What cannot also be ignored is that low returns for fruit growers’ labour and investment is not to be cured by the adoption of new technology or larger production. Again I refer to the statements in publications and country newspapers, which are continually being distributed in rural communities, which stress the need to increase production.

In the fruit growing industry there is only limited scope for cost reduction by these means. The other side of the equation has to be looked at. The producers are victims of an imperfect system where because of the ‘givens’ in the market and the projected market based on the existing situation, the more efficient they become or the more they produce the less they obtain per unit of production. No better illustration of the harshness of the existing market system can be found than producers having to bury their produce for lack of a market and our near Asian neighbours having large sections of their populations die of hunger. I should like to refer the Senate to the publication entitled ‘Commodity Bulletin’ which is issued by the Division of Marketing and Economics of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. Recently it carried out an examination of apple prices and marketing margins. Whilst it did not reach final conclusions, I think it has to be said- here I quote from an article written by G. A. Forsythe- that:

In evidence presented to the Industries Assistance Commission Inquiry into the Apple and Pear Industry, a number of witnesses expressed concern at the degree of efficiency achieved in the determination of prices at both the wholesale and retail levels of the marketing chain.

As I said several days ago, and I stress again, we need to become involved in a proper examination of the marketing system. Specifically, these 3 claims can be distinguished:

  1. Imperfections exist in the competitiveness of the wholesale market. For example, prices do not reflect quantity changes, and comparable lines of fruit do not receive comparable prices.
  2. The magnitude of retail margins is excessive.
  3. There is no parallel relationship between wholesale and retail prices.

Mr Forsythe goes on to say:

Despite these claims, no witness provided empirical evidence in their support. The assertions therefore purport to be no more than qualitative assessments or mere observations. This is largely due to the lack of reliable and sufficient quantitative data.

It is an indictment of governments that at this stage when we have recognised the tremendous problems of marketing, we have not the sort of data available to us that would enable us to make an intelligent judgment about the price structure and about the return to the grower.

If we look at the table which is provided in this agricultural document we find, for instance, that for Granny Smith apples in 1970, a grower received 38c a dozen. The wholesaler sold at 42c a dozen with a margin of 4c a dozen. Those apples were retailed at 104c a dozen. In 1975, the grower received 56c a dozen, which was an increase of 18c a dozen in the 5-year period. The wholesaler’s margin increased by 5c a dozen. But where was the retail margin? It had increased by 25c a dozen. So the final figures for 1975 Granny Smith apples were 56c a dozen to the grower with a margin to the wholesaler of 5c a dozen taking his price to 61c a dozen with, finally, the retailer receiving 129c a dozen. This is a matter that needs to be examined by the Government. If we are to have any price support scheme and if we are to have any stabilisation and restructuring, clearly there is a need to look at the market.

A decision also should take into consideration a more national determination of land use throughout Australia. This may well require that areas considered valuable fruit growing areas be maintained and non-productive areas not promoted. Whilst Tasmania, for example, is disadvantaged by freight and handling costs to the large domestic markets of the capital cities, this cost may well be less than the actual cost to the community of starting new fruit growing areas which are closer to these markets but which are less appropriate for fruit growing and more appropriately maintained as wilderness or developed for other publicly beneficial purposes.

Senator Wright:
Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At the moment, the reports indicate the futility of following just a produce based subsidy policy. It has to be said that the Pitt Street farmers and the Collins Street farmers are exploiting and speculating in these areas and qualifying for certain government assistance whilst other fruit growers are being disadvantaged by their activities and are suffering as a result of not basing themselves on the need concept. I repeat: At the moment the reports indicate the futility of following just a produce based subsidy policy.

Part A of the IAC report on page 4 states:

More help can be given to the people concerned at much less cost to the nation if it is not given by way of assistance to production. The futility of product based support as an adjustment measure is illustrated by a Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimate that in 1973-74, despite direct production subsidies averaging more than $ 14,000 a grower, net farm incomes of Tasmanian apple producers averaged less than $6,000. Assistance to growers was absorbed not only by production costs but also by costs of marketing and low export returns.

Clearly no better case for rationalising the industry can be made. Clearly the Government has to consider longer term factors not based on just narrow present market policies. Clearly the people of these regions require more than just stabilising of export returns.

The IAC also has assessed the FRS schemethat is, the fruit growers reconstruction scheme or the tree-pull scheme- and has pointed out its shortcomings, namely-

The level of assistance is tied directly to the area of trees removed and is only indirectly related to welfare needs through a means test provision.

It added:

The scales of payment for tree-pull assistance do not always encourage the removal of the feast productive trees or orchards.

It continued:

Alternative uses of fruit trees are not encouraged under the scheme.

Alternative recommendations are made based on the objectives of achieving efficient resources adjustment and the personal well being of the growers. The main recommendations are summarised at page 5 of the report. These are:

The establishment of Area Redevelopment Authorities (ARAs) in fruit growing regions facing major adjustment problems. The provision of special adjustment counsellors to service these authorities by alerting individual fruitgrowers to and helping them deal with, the problems of change. Adjustment finance, on concessional terms for the first 3 years, to aid fruit growers in these regions with the reconstruction of their farms or to establish themselves in other activities or lifestyles. Such credit to be provided in situations where commercial credit cannot be obtained.

The Government has to make decisions, I suggest. It has reports and information before it from a variety of sources, not just the IAC report though I have been largely referring to that report as it is the most recent, not because it resulted from a Labor Party initiative. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has indicated in answer to a question addressed to him in the House of Representatives on 28 May this year that the Government in fact has not accepted in full the IAC’s report preferring to provide an additional assistance in conjunction with the States to alleviate some of the hardships befalling fruit growers because of the export market shortfalls in returns. If the Government refuses the IAC recommendations and prefers to continue the interim measures which were put into operation by the Labor Party pending- I stress that point- the full IAC report, why did this Government refuse to support the Tasmanian fruit growers when asked to by the Tasmanian Government?

The offer was made to the Minister, Mr Sinclair, by the Tasmanian Labor Government to extend additional cover other than the stabilisation scheme on 340 000 boxes of apples on a dollar for dollar basis with the Commonwealth. This would have brought expenditure up to what was spent last year. The Federal Government refused this offer and the Tasmanian Government is extending the scheme on the basis of $2 a box to be paid entirely by the State Government on only 170 000 boxes. It is an indictment of this Government that in view of its assertion that it is rejecting the IAC report it was not more receptive to the proposal put forward by the Tasmanian Government. To declare subsequently that assistance is to be provided for an additional 500 000 bushels in conjunction with the States only illustrates the ad hoc nature of this Government’s policies.

The Government has to make decisions relating to the apple and pear industry. It is unconscionable to leave the fruit growers of Australia in their present untenable position. I would prefer to be supporting positive proposals by this Government in view of the information made available to it as a result of the activities of the Labor Administration and not to rely on band aid cures which the growers do not want. With respect to any positive proposal that this Government may come up with, I can assure the Senate that we will do everything within our power as the Labor Party and as the Opposition to view objectively and to take into consideration the opinions of and the problems facing the growers and the consuming public alike. The real indictment of this Government is that decisions can bc made to place rural industries on the road to recovery but this Government refuses to make them. Might well it be said that farmers and people living in rural districts feel totally disenchanted with a Government which purports to represent them but fails to do so. Rhetoric aside, the record of the Labor Party in 3 years was far more constructive. Delay in decisionmaking will not assist in re-establishing the viability of the fruit growing industry or those directly involved with the industry. The Opposition supports the interim measures and calls upon the Government to take the essential restructuring steps to place this industry on a firm and viable basis.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-We have listened to Senator Gietzkel who some six or eight weeks ago was appointed by the Australian Labor Party as its shadow Minister for agriculture. He has shown tonight that some research officer has gone through certain records. He has in effect read a speech which is a gobbledegook of nonsense and socialist ideas.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You have been doing that for years.

Senator WRIGHT:

-He advocates for this industry its final destruction and the conversion of orchardists into a welfare retinue for future help by government. I rise because the Bill mainly is for the extension of the export stabilisation scheme for the fruit industry, a scheme which operated from 1970 to 1975. It is a curious quirk of the mind whereby Senator Gietzkel who is new to agriculture and has never taken an interest in -

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to order. Senator Wroot knows well -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! What is the point of order?

Senator O’Byrne:

– My point of order is that he is referring to an honourable senator as Senator Geitzkel when there is no such senator as Senator Gietzkel. I ask Senator VVroot to pronounce his name properly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator WRIGHT:

-After that maniacal intervention I hope that we can pursue the discussion without the further intervention of such nonsense. I am entitled to put a proposition with regard to this industry in a manner that might be understood by rational members of the Senate. Senator Gietzelt or Gietskel or however we pronounce it, by a remarkable quirk of mind almost as tortuous as that of the ex-President, finds that a stabilisation scheme that commenced in 1970 was the product of the Labor Government. So new is he to his shadow portfolio that he does not know that that scheme was introduced in 1970 during the period of the Liberal-Country Party Government at a time when I was a Tasmanian Minister and had a considerable part in the promotion of that scheme. That scheme was referred to by Senator Wriedt, when he became the Minister for Agriculture, at a meeting of orchadists at Huonville as the most generous scheme for agricultural development of the many schemes that then assisted agriculture, to the great regret of the Labor Party. So let us have it in perspective.

A 5-year scheme expired last year and this Bill seeks to extend it for one year. For my part I give support to that but the scheme as expanded is late and insufficient. However, insofar as Senator Gietzelt pronounces a proposition whereby the industry is to be destroyed and the orchards made over to wilderness, he is falling to the hypnotism of what I think is a very short-sighted report of the Industries Assistance Commission which advocates that this scheme for 1977 should be for a reduced volume of fruit and not at the meagre $2 a case as the extension for this year provides but reduced to $ 1 a case. That is an extension through the IAC of the socialist outlook which would add to the industry an Australian redevelopment authority consisting of socalled agricultural guidance officers to advise the orchardists how they should redevelop their orchards into wilderness and get out into the industrial retinue of the unemployed which grew almost to Army proportions while the Labor Party, the Whitlam Party, was in office. So much for the scheme -

Senator O’Byrne:

– You old con man. Confidence trickster. Schemer.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! There is too much interjection. Senator O’Byrne will cease interjecting.

Senator WRIGHT:

-So much for the scheme the Labor Party would have for the destruction of the apple industry. I rise in this debate claiming to be heard because it was my great privilege when I entered politics in 1946 to enter as a representative of the electorate in which the Huon Valley was then a most important component. Anybody who knows that Valley and its productivity through the apple and pear industry will know that one of the most dismal and melancholy insights into Labor policy is Senator Gietzelt ‘s advocated conversion of those orchards into wilderness.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise to order. Senator Wright is entirely misrepresenting what Senator Gietzelt said by saying that Senator Gietzelt said that instead of the development of new orchards they would be better left as wilderness for the people. I think Senator Wright, and I say it generously, has misunderstood what was said. At no time did Senator Gietzelt say that depressed orchards should be turned into wilderness.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

There is no substance in the point of order. I cannot have the debate being interrupted in this way. Senator Wright is addressing the Chair and I ask that he be heard with respect and in silence. There have been too many interjections.

Senator WRIGHT:

-The report of the Industries Assistance Commission puts on record that Tasmania produces approximately one-third of all Australian apples and pears and supplies twothirds of the apple export trade. More than 50 per cent of the apple crop is sold overseas and about 80 per cent of this is exported to Europe. The industry employs about 2 per cent of the total population of the island and contributes 1 1 per cent of the gross value of Tasmanian agricultural production. So anybody who purports to represent Tasmania has a duty to represent this industry in this place because every element in the domestic market conduces to diminish the apple industry in Australia. The leading speaker for the Labor Party referred to our disadvantage from the point of view of freight but did not refer to the fact that the new containerisation method of shipping excludes the Tasmanian apple trade. That coupled with the outrageous conditions obtaining in the coastal shipping trade of Australia precludes us from ever regaining our proper part of the Sydney market that used to sustain a third of our production before the war. The quarantine regulations that Victoria applies guards its Melbourne market against us. The consequence is that we, the producers of a third of Australia’s apples, are left to find a market on the export market for two-thirds of that production.

The employment provided by this industry in Australia numbers directly over 1000 people and the employment generated by the industry, even in its diminished proportion, is in the vicinity of over 4000 people. That is after the remarkable achievement of” the Whitlam Government when its agricultural policy was guided by Senator Wriedt. There are figures stated in table 3 on page 30 of the Industries Assistance Commission report, which I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Senator Wriedt:

– What, the whole report?

Senator WRIGHT:

-No, table 3.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) Order! Senator Wright, are you seeking leave for incorporation in Hansard.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Yes-of table 3.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Leave has been sought for the inclusion of material in Hansard. Is leave granted?

Senator O’Byrne:

– No.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There being dissent, leave is not granted.

Senator WRIGHT:

-The table shows that the number of growing farms in the export States have been reduced over the period 1 969 to 1 974. In Victoria the reduction was from 873 farms in 1969 to 498 farms in 1974; in Western Australia from 1 133 to 566; and in Tasmania from 938 to 528. That is not a bad performance, is it, in the destruction of an industry presided over by the Whitlam Labor Government? The outcome was expressed by Senator Gietzelt tonight. When wc look at the indices of prices for apple and pear production as outlined in table 1 of the Industries Assistance Commission report we see how prices in the industry have diminished. This has occurred not mainly because of the depletion in prices in the overseas markets and certainly not by reason of a reduction in the domestic markets, but by reason of the transport costs, the freight charges, the exchange position and the labour costs which rocketted under Labor. The ratio of export prices received to those paid in the export industry from 1971 to 1975 reduced from 100 down to eighty-six. To give a fuller explanation of that, Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard table 1 of the Industries Assistance Commission report, which contains a small number of statistics.

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

Senator WRIGHT:

-We then go on to consider the average net incomes of farms by States in relation to the large apple and pear farms. In 1971-72 the average net income in Tasmania was $2,199. These are the wealthy farms of whose prosperity the Labor speaker complained. In 1972-73 the average net income was $7,670, in 1973-74 it was $5,939 and in 1974-75 there was an average loss of $954. So the depleted production, depressed by the costs that Labor created in the labour market and in freights- air freight in particular- has threatened almost with extinction the apple export producing States. Our industry has been reduced by about 50 per cent. Therefore, unless a stabilisation scheme is urgently and adequately provided for the industry it will reach the stage where it is not sustainable as an industry. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear that the idea that the Industries Assistance Commission report puts forward, that this industry is to be further reduced is one that I shall feel bound to oppose to the very uttermost of any authority I have while I have a seat in this Parliament.

On reading this report I find that the whole trend is to reduce the production of the industry so as to phase it out for the want of markets. But so far I have not found a single reference to the potential of a possible market in Japan. So the Australian re-establishment authorities that are going to be sent around as advisors to this industry will have no idea that if we could overcome the quarantine regulations of Japan in relation to the coddling moth that exists in some States of Australia we would open up a market for our produce that in the year 1976 would be more ample and more receptive than we have ever had in Europe during the whole 70 or 80 years in which we have been trading with Europe. With that possibility and the expansion right around the Pacific that has developed in the adverse circumstances of the last 6 or 7 years we have this miserable purblind attitude of destroying this beautiful industry that means so much to Tasmania but which is now at very great disadvantage due to the load of costs that have been inflicted upon it in the form of freight and labour charges during the term of the Labor Government. The only suggestion the Opposition advanced tonight was that we should ease these growers out of the industry and let them join the army of unemployed, as was recommended by the IAC.

I want to show just what is the burden of cost from the point of view of freight. Freight on the export market is the greatest factor militating against the industry, rising from what used to represent about 20 per cent of the product to representing now over 50 per cent of the product. I recall that in 1974-75 under a Labor government the idle time paid for on the Australian waterfront cost $8.3m. In the year in which we have taken office this will probably rise to $ 1 3m or $ 15m. Of course, Labor supports that and begrudges support to an industry of the dimensions I have mentioned for the production of fruit and for the development of the country.

In 1974-75, $8.3m was spent on idle time. This year the amount will be of the order of $ 13m. On redundancy- that is to say, reducing or reconstructing the stevedores on the waterfront, or buying them out of their lifetime sinecures- up until April of this year an expenditure of $8.3 m was incurred. Since that date, to procure the resignation of some 200 of these gentry there has been an expenditure of $2.5m. In addition to that, the cost through 1974-75 was $4.3m. Translated to the fruit industry, this means that last year the cost of lifting one box of apples from the wharf shed into the ship at ordinary time was 60c a case. At weekends and on Sundays, into which most of the work is pushed because of the overtime rates waterside workers receive, shifting apples from the wharf to the ship cost $ 1.20 a case.

If the orchardists of the Huon Valley were able to get a net profit of $ 1 .20 a case for growing and picking, they would never be in need of this stabilisation scheme. We should bring into perspective the cost of stabilising this production and assisting these producers as against that enormous waste. Let me bring the argument right home. This afternoon we discussed an omnibus trading loss in Canberra of $4.3m for the year. Of that amount, $600,000 was caused because of union interference in the application of timetables which would have made a saving in the industry. Those are the advantages that Labor gives the Huon orchardists. Those are the matters which are threatening the destruction of the apple trade for the Huon.

Senator Gietzelt referred to a figure from the Industries Assistance Commission report, saying that the cost of this subsidy in one year- I think it was 1974- was $13,000 per farm. I must take one minute to put on record an assertion which I hope will eradicate that nonsense from the IAC thinking. If we distribute the assistance which was given under this scheme, even in Tasmania, in the year 1973 the figure, on the basis of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics report, is $3,487 per farm. If we bring that into proper perspective and consider the degree to which that benefit, although it is paid directly to the Tasmanian orchardists, really is paid to prevent the Tasmanian production coming on to the Melbourne and Sydney markets and in order to send it to the export market, we find that it averages out on a proper basis at a benefit per farm in 1972-73 of $l,876-not $13,000, as the people in the Industries Assistance Commission would have us believe. They have erroneously taken up one snippet of record and retailed it for the purposes of their report.

Let me conclude by stating one or two propositions which will bring this scheme into perspective. The effective rate of protection for this industry in the 3 assisted States, according to the BAE report, was 8 per cent, compared with the only available estimates for all farming industries as far back as 1967-68 which was 18 per cent. The figure for all manufacturing industriesI ask my colleague Senator Cotton to note- was 18 per cent. My authority for that is found in volume 4, page 15 of the BAE report. On the same authority, the cost of the tariff for protecting manufacturing and secondary industry in Australia is nearly $3,000 per farm. Paragraph 1 7 of the BAE report states that in the absence of discounting the unusual protection which was given to this industry in 1973-74, the export apple and pear industry has not received levels of effective protection which are as high as those received by some other industries. The report further states:

The main conclusions drawn from these results are that, excluding the large one-off grant of 1973-74, a very exceptional season, the main form of assistance has been from the apple and pear stabilisation scheme. This assitance has. however, roughly compensated the disadvantages imposed on the industry by the tariff. On average, the apple and pear industry appears to receive less protection than many other rural and manufacturing industries.

I turn to another report- the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission for 1973-74. At page 51 honourable senators will find the assessed average nominal rates of assistance to rural products set out in order. Apples and pears are second from the bottom of the list. The order is: Butter, 74.6 per cent; cheese, 53 per cent; tobacco, 63 per cent; dried vine fruits, 50.5 per cent; wheat, 7.5 per cent; rice, 5.7 per cent; sugar, 5.3 per cent; and apples and pears 4.6 per cent. Barley is the lowest, at 0.5 per cent. Those figures are taken from the annual report of the IAC. Yet a section of the IAC has delivered a report saying that this scheme should be projected for the apple industry next year at a reduced rate and at a positively starvation price of $ 1 a case. I conclude by saying that if there is any effort to translate that into legislation everybody who purports to represent the apple industry in Tasmania must resist it to the uttermost of the authority which election to this Parliament gives.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Having listened to Senator Wright for the umpteenth time make the speech which he makes every year- I do not think he really believes what he is saying- we come back to the realities of the proposition which is before us. It is essentially an extension of the apple and pear stabilisation scheme, which of course is of very great interest to Tasmanians. I do not mind at any time a member of the Senate coming here and arguing a case for his particular area or State where there is a logical and fair case that can be argued, but I object to anyone in this place from either side coming in and making speeches for parochial domestic consumption for the sake of making it read well in that particular area. That is what we have listened to from Senator Wright every year when the apple and pear stabilisation legislation has come on.

Senator Walters:

– You just do not know him.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Senator Walters, with great respect, I do not think you would know the difference between a Democrat and a Geeveston Fanny. It would be my suggestion to you that you acquaint yourself a little more with the details of the industry before you interject. When you get on your feet, perhaps you can tell us the difference between a Democrat and a Geeveston Fanny. I might mention that there are many varieties of fruit in the Tasmanian industry.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They are delicious.

Senator WRIEDT:

-They are all exportable and some of them are delicious, as Senator O’Byrne just said. The fact is that the Tasmanian fruit industry is a victim of what is known as the free enterprise system. It is as simple as that, and if the great apostles of free enterprise on the other side, such as Senator Wright, who during the last few minutes has been castigating the socialist cause and those who would opt for some sort of sanity and rationality within these industries, really believe in what they espouse in relation to free enterprise they would accept the fact that this industry is a victim of that free market force. I wish that Senator Wright would be as honest as some of his colleagues. Even before the Labor Party took office in 1972, steps were taken by the previous Government, as Senator Wright well knows, by the then Minister for Primary Industry, who recognised the declining nature of that industry, not only in Tasmania but essentially there.

I must correct Senator Wright, unless his memory is better than mine. I do not remember making such a generous statement in Huonville about the stabilisation scheme, but I do not doubt that I said something along the lines which I will say now. It was a step in the right direction because it helped so many orchardists who were unable to help themselves and whom the market could not help. At least Mr Sinclair had the courage and the honesty of purpose to introduce a system of reconstruction which was necessary and which we continued, liberalised and expanded. That was not to the discredit of our Government any more than it was to the discredit of the previous Government. Since then I think even this Government has further refined that scheme. The reality is that it is necessary to do it.

It is all very well to go on deceiving the fruitgrower in the southern part of Tasmania, in which I am just as involved as Senator Wright and Senator Walters. I would much rather go on to tell them the truth of what we believe ought to be done by the people in this Parliament who have got enough backbone to tell us what they feel is the truth, without conning them with false words and false hopes. It is the Senator Wrights of this Parliament who have been doing that for years. Thank goodness there are a few people on both sides of the Parliament who have got the decency and the honesty to tell the people in the industry that there are certain changes that have got to be made. I do not think there is anything more reprehensible than for a politician, for the sake of winning a few lousy votes, to con people, deceive them and delude them about what the future holds.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must not impute improper motives or reflect upon another member of Parliament.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I accept your rebuke, Mr President. I must confess I was provoked by remarks that were made earlier by Senator Wright, particularly against Senator Gietzelt. The reality is that the Tasmanian industry is a victim of the free enterprise system. The markets are the key and the markets are declining. One only has to go to an orchard in the west of Sydney to see how much easier it is for them to produce in the light of the market that is on their doorstep, how much easier it is for them compared with a grower in southern Tasmania. The cards are stacked against them, there is no question of that, and for that reason they are entitled to get certain support which will either keep the viable ones in the industry or assist those who cannot be viable to get out of the industry. This program has been continued for some years now by the previous Government and the government before that. I think it is fair to say that this Government will continue with the same basicapproach.

There is not much else that can be done. I can recall in 1973- and perhaps the position is not entirely without hope- discussing with the Russian Trade Minister the possibilities in Siberia. He told me that they could take a lot of our apple juice in eastern Siberia, where of course there is a big population of about 40 million people, with large industrial centres and so. But as he pointed out, Australia’s trade balance is hopelessly outweighed against Russia. At that time the balance was about 80 to one in Australia’s favour and against the Soviet Union. As the Trade. Minister indicated, if it was possible for Australia to import produce from Russia, mainly in the manufacturing sector, we would be able to find a ready market for apple juice from Tasmania.

That is a very fine concept, but it is not so easy to bring it to fruition because of the need to import products which traditionally have come from other sources, notably Japan. Again, Senator Wright criticised the efforts made to get exports into Japan. It is just not right for anyone to come here and talk like that when the Minister himself knows, on the advice of his departmental officers, the sort of problems we have had and the efforts that have been made by both sides to open up that market and to get the problem of disease accepted by the Japanese.

I really had no intention of coming into the debate, but as usual Senator Wright provoked me. I want to restate the points made by Senator Gietzelt in the light of the offer made by the Tasmanian Labor Government. It is all very well to be critical of any aspect of a government here in the federal sphere in respect of the apple and pear industry, but the Tasmanian Labor Government made an offer to this Government a month or two ago to extend the cover, I think to 5 10 000 cases. This Government rejected that offer. In view of this Government’s policies, one could almost say that if it sees something else as being more important than further support for the fruit industry in Tasmania, it is up to this Government to make that decision. But to criticise the Labor Party, even though we took the initiative, is completely wrong and intended to be misleading.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Of course it is. It is dishonest.

Senator WRIEDT:

-It is certainly intended to be misleading. It is wrong for the impression to be created that the Labor Party has no interest in this industry. Of course we have an interest, but we recognise the realities, as I am sure the majority of Senator Wright’s colleagues- that is the rational ones he talked about at the beginning of his speech- also recognise them. Instead of trying to score political points off each other in this debate, we ought to accept the fact that there are things that can be done for the fruitgrowers, mainly in southern Tasmania where the need is greatest. I believe that we can help, particularly in the light of experience over the last few years where both Labor and Liberal governments have been working towards the same basic goal of trying to help those who do need help in getting out of the industry and creating whatever viability we can for those who can remain in the industry. For those reasons, the Opposition does not oppose the legislation.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I support the Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill 1976 with some reservations, for I am aware that the proposed assistance to be given to orchardists in my State is barely a survival subsidy and nothing more. I take exception to Senator Wriedt’s inference that Senator Wright was insincere. Senator Wriedt obviously does not know the honourable senator or he would never make remarks like that. There is one senator in this House who is never insincere and that is Senator Wright. He knows the apple orchard and the apple industry better than anyone else in this chamber, and he is never insincere in this respect. As regards the difference between a Democrat and a Geeveston Fanny, I will tell Senator Wriedt because obviously he does not know. A Democrat is red all over and very good for cooking. A Geeveston Fanny is yellow, slightly flecked with red and very good for eating.

It is time we in Australia made up our minds about where our priorities lie, whether we are prepared to support our primary producers who supply 46 per cent of our nation’s products or whether we will abandon our rural sector and make the people try to chase the mighty dollar in the big cities which have unemployment. Whether we like it or not, our priorities must first lie with the necessaries of life, to see our countrymen fed, clothed and sheltered. If we abandon the rural sector- that 7 per cent of our people- then the 93 per cent, along with New Zealanders who are the best fed and cheapest fed people in the world, will wonder what has happened to them.

Senator Georges:

– Are you saying the 7 per cent will feed the 93 percent?

Senator WALTERS:

– In this country, yes, Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

– Sounds like Eric Butler to me.

Senator WALTERS:

-The honourable senator would not know about it; that is very obvious. We have been so thoroughly spoiled in this wonderful land of ours that we forget that the food we are given that we take as our God-given right has been bred, fed and cultivated and harvested by the sweat of that 7 per cent. We forget that although $175 a week is our average wage, the farmer, with his 70-hour week- ours is a 35 to 40-hour week- is not in some cases even getting as much as the unemployment relief, a sum which is calculated, as honourable senators know, for temporary measures. In case honourable senators think I am exaggerating, the average annual income of a farmer in the Huon Valley has been estimated at $3,000.

Senator Georges:

– That is his taxable income, is it?

Senator WALTERS:

-That is his real income, yes. Next year the position will possibly be worse because a lot of the farmers have in desperation used the last of their forests and sold to the wood chip industry. I stress this average, which shows that what I was saying about some of the farmers working a 70 to 80-hour week and not earning as much as unemployment benefits is not an exaggeration but a fact of life. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who has recently made it possible for those families to apply for and receive relief from her department.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What a big consolation!

Senator WALTERS:

– It is some consolation, Senator O’Byrne. If honourable senators like to ask why the farmers stay on the land the answer is simple. They are men of the land. They love the land. There is nothing else they are fitted for. Let us face the cold hard facts. Where would they get employment if they sold their properties? Who would buy the properties and for how much? It is heartbreaking to go down to the Huon or the Tasman Peninsula in our State. If any honourable senators opposite still think we pay our farmers too much I will issue an invitation to them and take them down to see the results of the tree-pull scheme in 1973-75 when 40 per cent of the trees were grubbed out, stacked in the paddocks and burned.

Senator McLaren:

– Who introduced that treepull scheme? What Government?

Senator WALTERS:

– It is an absolute disgrace; it is a most appalling sight. I do not care who introduced it. It is the most appalling sight I have ever seen. The Industries Assistance Commission, after recommending a $2 subsidy for 2 million cases for 1976, is now recommending a $1 subsidy for 2 million cases for 1977. Senator Wriedt and the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Gietzelt, are saying that we ought to accept this and phase out our industry.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is your Government.

Senator WALTERS:

-No. It has not accepted the S 1 subsidy for 2 million cases and it will not accept that recommendation from the IAC.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You will be crossing the chamber on this, senator.

Senator WALTERS:

-We will see, Senator Mulvihill. That would be the finish of a $ 1 9m export industry in Tasmania, a finish to an industry that has been built up over 3 generations. Through no fault of their own, heaven knows, these orchardists are probably the only people left who have worked as hard as their grandfathers worked and for as many hours. It is no fault of their own that they are being cast aside by the Commissioners of the IAC. As Senator Wright says, every Tasmanian will take every step in his power to make sure this does not happen. The Government did not abide by the $2 subsidy for 2 million cases recommended for this year. We have already promised, along with the States, an increase of 500 000 cases. I hope that these cases will not be tied to the European market but will be given to the new markets that are available in Asia and America.

We will have nothing to do with this phasing out. As I have said, this year’s subsidy was barely a survival subsidy. It, in itself, has spelled the death knell of a lot of the small orchardists. As Senator Wriedt says, in the long term this might be all right for those orchardists. However, some of these orchardists and Australians must have just a little faith in the apple industry. A short time ago the wool market was at an all time low and the farmers were encouraged to get out of wool and get into beef.

Senator McLaren:

– Who did that? Mr Anthony is the one who encouraged it. It was the coalition.

Senator WALTERS:

– I am not saying who encouraged them. I do not care who encouraged them. If the honourable senator will listen to me I will explain to him the point I am trying to make. They were encouraged to get out of sheep and encouraged to get into beef. However, there were enough men who had enough faith in the wool industry and enough faith that wool was the best fibre that man would ever know, and who stuck by the industry. They fought through the hard times and now once again the wool industry is worth $9,235m. How would it have been if these courageous men had not had faith in their product. Of course wool is a different matter. Wool is able to be stored while apples will deteriorate. Similar action cannot be taken. In our State we have enough men who have faith in the apple industry. All they are asking the Australian people to do is to give them the necessary backing for just a few years to enable them to prove that their faith is justified and that the apple industry will become viable and an asset to our country.

There is a suggestion abroad that continually to subsidise an industry that is not a going concern is a ridiculous proposition. That is what Senator Wriedt was saying tonight. What is a going concern? Let us take the automobile industry as an example. Here we have another industry that is very important to our country. We produce annually 429 700 vehicles for our home industry and only 4277 assembled cars for export. Automobile production is worth $137m to our export industry. That is because unassembled cars and spare parts are included in the figure. All this is accomplished by the protective tariffs that are applied to imported cars and which are paid for by the Australian consumer. That is done because we need the automobile industry. We need the employment it creates. There are men who have the faith to believe that given time and a little technology we will soon have more competitive prices and the tariffs can be reduced. That, as honourable senators know, applies also to many other industries, but I would like to continue with the automobile industry.

The Industries Assistance Commission’s report estimates that the tariff rate of 45 per cent on completely built up vehicles results in a net subsidy of the equivalent of $4,000 per employee not only of the manufacturers but of the component suppliers as well. Perhaps that brings the subsidies granted to the primary producers into perspective. In 1974-75, $2,875,634 was paid out in subsidies to the apple and pear industry. There were 359 apple growers who could have received those subsidies. So the average subsidy to an apple employer, if you like, was $8,000. Is $8,000 to one employer really too much? I wonder how many employees those apple growers employed. It would be a lot more than two, if we compare them with the car manufacturers who get $4,000 per employee.

We need the primary producers not only for the employment they create but also because we need to eat. We need to eat for our very survival and we need to realise that. If we look upon them in any lesser light than we do our automobile industry we will have in our land the situation where food will become a luxury, where the average Australian will not know what a balanced diet is all about. Our protein will have to come from imports. Our children will not know what fresh apples and fresh milk tastes like. We in Australia have the cheapest balanced diet in the world. I have in front of me figures compiled by the Legislative Research Service from information contained in an article in the Financial Times, London, of 5 January 1974, in which the cost of a balanced food basket is compared to the average weekly earnings of a construction worker, a bank clerk and a secretary living in selected cities of the world. The earnings of these selected occupations were taken into account, as the average weekly earnings is not used as a basis in all of those countries. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table that I have. It gives the details for the 3 occupations but I will talk only about the construction worker to make my speech clear.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WALTERS:

-The cities that have been taken into account are Sydney, New York, Montreal, London, Paris, Rome, Dusseldorf -

Senator Keeffe:

– It sounds like an advertisement for Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes.

Senator WALTERS:

-The other city is Wellington in New Zealand, which will bring the matter closer to home for the honourable senator. I will now discuss the comparison in relation to a construction worker’s wage. Here, for the sake of clarity, as I have said, I will leave the others for honourable senators to read in Hansard. In Sydney the basket represented 7.8 per cent of the worker’s weekly earnings. In New York it was 9.3 per cent; in Montreal it was 8.7 per cent; in London it was 25 per cent; in Paris it was 33.8 per cent; in Rome it was 34.2 per cent; in Dusseldorf it was 34.61 per cent; and in Wellington, New Zealand, it was 15.4 per cent. I repeat that the figure for Sydney was 7.8 per cent. Is it any wonder that our farmers are crying out for a little support when 93 per cent of our population is eating better and more cheaply than anyone anywhere else in the world and at the farmer’s expense.

Senator Georges:

– Oh!

Senator WALTERS:

– Yet honourable senators opposite, as Senator Georges is about to do, say -

Senator Georges:

– I have not said a word yet.

Senator WALTERS:

– You were about to say: Oh, go on! ‘ Anyway, with Senator Georges’ unfailing regularity, I do not doubt for one minute that he will be saying: ‘The wealthy farmers’. I have heard him say that so often.

Senator Georges:

– I have not said a word about the wealthy farmers. I am just about to say something about the poor farmers of Stanthorpe, and they happen to be apple farmers. They are at the mercy of the Tasmanian apple farmer.

Senator WALTERS:

– It will not be long before the superphosphate bounty is mentioned and there is talk about ‘the wealthy farmer’. Anyway, the average real income per farm in 1 975-76, Australia-wide and not just orchardists, is $4,700.

Senator Georges:

– That is the taxable income.

Senator WALTERS:

-Just a minute. It is just half of the average weekly earnings of the Australian population.

Senator Georges:

– But what about the -

Senator WALTERS:

– Just a minute. It is just a little over the $4,000 we so happily give for each employee of the automobile industry. All this brings me back to what we are going to do about assisting the apple and pear grower in Australia. As I have said, all we need is a little bit of faith to establish new markets.

Over the past 10 years the European markets have been declining rapidly Ten years ago the apple and pear industry provided 22 per cent of Tasmania’s total exports. By 1974-75 it had fallen to 4. 1 per cent. As the European markets dwindle the American and Asian markets are starting to become a reality, even though Senator

Gietzelt will not agree with me here. However we have left our move a bit late and our competitors have taken advantage of this. Our apple growers are not businessmen and the markets must be sought out for them. Here is a large area for improvement. Our marketing system must be more efficient but, to do the marketers justice, 1 point out that it is very difficult to compete with our main competitors in New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina for those countries have just had devaluations and therefore can sell their fruit at a far more competitive price. I am not suggesting that we should devalue our currency; but I am suggesting that we should take this into consideration when we are talking in terms of assistance. There must be reasonable help for the industry for a period of three to five years so that the orchardists can plan. They are the most efficient marketers in the world. They need to plan their production. It takes 15 years for a tree, once planted, to reach its full bearing capacity. So, how can we expect a farmer to plan his orchard with no knowledge of how he will be treated by the Government next year? He must be given confidence to go ahead and fight for those Asian markets.

At the moment assistance has not been given to establish those new markets. I hope that this will be remedied by the support in respect of the additional 500 000 cases of apples of which we have spoken. This is the greatest area for help that will give long term benefit. The sooner assistance is given to establish new markets, the sooner this subsidy will be reduced. One must look also to long term assistance, such as the establishment of a rural bank for long term borrowing at better than bank interest rates, which is essential to our rural sector, and a farm reserve fund to which primary producers may subscribe without their money being taxed unless it is withdrawn in the same year and subscriptions to which would earn interest at the rate earned by money invested in short term government securities. The deposit, when withdrawn, would be taxed along with the income of the farmer for that year. Of course, this is a long term benefit only and none of our apple orchardists would have the money to contribute to such a fund now. These 2 long term objectives are part of our Government policy. I am looking forward to the implementation of those objectives at the first opportunity.

Another area in which we can assist is that of unemployment. Our apple growing area has the highest unemployment rate in the State, and that is in a State which itself has the highest unemployment rate in Australia. So, as honourable senators can see, the position is absolutely critical. I believe that the average Australian wants to work and that he finds it degrading to take a handout without having earned it. If that is so- I believe it is- perhaps the Department of Social Security could pay the unemployment benefit and let those receiving it spend perhaps 2 days working for the orchardists or other farmers who, under a means test system, can prove that they no longer can afford to employ farmhands. This scheme could be extended to additional days if the farmer could afford to add to that benefit. I realise the pitfalls associated with the implementation of a system such as this; but I do not believe that these problems are insurmountable. It would serve both parties, the farmer and the unemployed. The scheme bears looking into. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to investigate the practicability of this scheme.

We have seen on television, read in the newspapers, heard on radio and seen at first hand the tragic methods that have been resorted to by farmers who have been unable to sell their stock. We see farmers, who have been the most conservative, placid and hardworking members of our community, rising up and threatening to block the roads, to withhold their produce and to take action of which they normally would never have any part. We must be prepared to back them. Unless we do, we should be equally unprepared to back any other industry in this country that cannot stand on its own 2 feet in equal competition with industry in the rest of the world. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– It took Senator Wright to inject some heat and perhaps excitement into the debate, which led to an extra speaker from our side speaking in the debate and which now constrains me to make my most brilliant speech in the space of 2 minutes. I believe also that Senator McLaren has a point of explanation to make in the debate. I wish to say a few words on behalf of the apple growers of Stanthorpe. For some time I have been given an interest in this area by certain representations made by the apple growers of Stanthorpe. As a result, I arrived at the conclusion that the greatest enemies of the stability of the apple and pear industry in Australia are the farmers themselves. The failure to agree to a proper marketing procedure within Australia is creating difficulties within the industry.

I would like the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) to foreshadow when we are likely to see the very important legislation which will assist this industry within

Australia. I refer to legislation which will establish the apple and pear marketing corporation, which would have been established many months ago if it had not been for the division within the industry which set the Stanthorpe apple grower against the Tasmanian apple grower. I have found that in this industry, as well as in the dairy industry, the internal divisions prevent those marketing and export reforms that the industry needs. I would have liked to indicate to Senator Wright, who I believe is to be one of the last of the great imperialists, and to his supporter, Senator Walters, that, if the Liberal and National Country Parties in opposition and in government had accepted that Great Britain would enter the European Common Market and had reorganised themselves and the industries which they support, this industry that we are debating tonight would not be in the difficulties it is in at the present time. Costs are going up. But costs are not going up only in Australia. They also are going up overseas. It is the barriers which have been set up against Australian industry by the European Common Market which have to be faced.

Senator Walters:

– What about New Zealand?

Senator GEORGES:

– If I may say so, New Zealand industries accepted that Britain would enter the European Common Market and they adjusted to that. In Australia, of course, the Government plays politics with our industries. The Government does not recognise those people who take advantage of it, especially the shipping conferences. I am prepared to say that Senator Wright and Senator Walters would not support taking the opportunity to use Russian vessels, which offer cheaper freight rates, because there would be something wrong in Australian apples being transported in Red ships. I believe that they would even object to that. I find myself being enticed away from my original resolution to speak for only 2 minutes. I notice that the Government Whip has given me the gong, and I conclude my remarks.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I enter into this debate for a very short time. It will spoil my week, because Senator Wright and I have been getting on famously this week. It is the best week we have had for being in agreement. Senator Wright commenced his speech by making some very disparaging remarks about our shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Gietzelt. I think his words were that Senator Gietzelt had been in the job for only 6 weeks and had to depend on some research officer to write his speeches. I take umbrage at Senator Wright for saying that, because Senator

Gietzelt has the full backing of the Parliamentary Labor Party in his shadow Ministry and he has also got the full backing of the Parliamentary Labor Party Resources Committee of which I am privileged to be the secretary. So far as we are concerned, he is applying himself to the job in a most capable and dedicated manner. I recall that when Senator Wriedt first became Minister for Agriculture the same sort of uncomplimentary remarks were directed at him by honourable senators opposite. But Senator Wriedt proved himself to be one of the most able, capable and popular Ministers for Agriculture that this country has seen.

I think that Senator Wright’s remarks really meant that because Senator Gietzelt did not have a farming background he could not handle the position. Senator Wright must have a very short memory, because I recall many years ago when Mr McMahon became the Minister for Primary Industry, much against the grain of the members of the National Country Party. But Mr McMahon turned out to be one of the most able- if not the ablest- Minister for Primary Industry that the Liberal-Country Party coalition ever had.

I wish to correct a misrepresentation which Senator Wright made against Senator Gietzelt. Senator Wright said that Senator Gietzelt in his speech advocated that we should do away with a lot of the apple orchards and turn them over to wilderness. He did not say that at all. I will quote the paragraph from Senator Gietzelt ‘s speech when he was talking about the decision that should be taken to help the apple industry. He said:

A decision should take into consideration a more national determination of land use throughout Australia. This may well require that areas considered valuable fruit-growing areas be maintained, and non-productive areas not promoted. Whilst Tasmania for example is disadvantaged by freight and handling costs to the large domestic markets of the capital cities, this cost may well be less than the actual cost to the community of starting new fruit-growing areas closer to these markets but which are less appropriate for fruit growing and more appropriately maintained as wilderness or developed for other publicly beneficial purposes.

I point out to Senator Wright that Senator Gietzelt did not say that we should tear down existing orchards and turn them over to wilderness. He said that we should not be bringing into production non-productive areas or areas which would be less productive than present fruit growing areas. He said that those areas should be left as wilderness, and of course that is only commen sense. I will wind up as I know that we want to get these Bills passed and we are not opposing them. I think that it could be thought by people who read Senator Walters’ remarks that the

Labor Party and the members of the Labor Party are opposed to people on the land. I remind Senator Walters that there are in the Parliamentary Labor Party many people who have been primary producers and who are well aware of the problems that farmers face. We have a lot of sympathy for the average farmer-not for the big Rundle Street farmers or the Pitt Street farmers because they are not farmers, they are investors.

We have every sympathy for the man who lives on his farm and who produces on the farm. We gave those people every assistance while we were in Government, and we will give them every assistance when we come back into government in 1978. People on farms in country areas are just as much entitled to decent living standards as are members of Parliament, judges, people on boards of directors and others. Our sympathies lie with these people on the land and we will do all we can to uplift their living standards. Senator Walters can be assured that we will do that.

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

– in reply- Mr President, like other notable speakers in this debate, I speak for my own particular interest. I speak on behalf of the Oberon valley apple growers, of whom there are none left. All we have at home are 2 fruit trees. The crows and the galahs get most of the fruit. That seems to remind me of fairly recent events. I have listened carefully to this debate, which has been a cognate debate. No objection is offered to the Bills. Despite the noise coming from the Opposition, I get the impression that a reasonably bipartisan approach has been adopted to this legislation which deals with an extension of the stabilisation scheme.

There are one or two comments that one might usefully make before the night draws on much further. Senator Gietzelt criticised the delay on the pan of the Government in handling the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on the fruit growing industry. The report was recently made available to the fruit growing industry. I believe that the industry’s comments on the report are still coming in. Therefore they are still being prepared for consideration by the Government. The level of stabilisation support for apples that has been recommended by the IAC for the 1977 season, to which both Senator Wright and Senator Walters referred, has still to be considered by the Government. It is certainly mentioned in the report. It is still a matter for very detailed consideration.

The export of apples to Japan is still precluded because of the prohibition imposed by the Japanese Government on the entry of Australian fruit. The Australian case for a relaxation of this prohibition is still under negotiation with the Japanese Government. Those who have done some work in this field- Senator Wriedt and others obviously have studied the matter- know that it is complex and that there is very strong resistance to Australia ‘s case in Japan.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is like Victoria with Tasmanian potatoes.

Senator COTTON:

– This is very often the case between one country and another and of course between one State and another. In some instances this happens between Australia and New Zealand.

Senator Georges:

– They use quarantine laws as a tariff barrier.

Senator COTTON:

– As Senator Georges says, without any doubt these things are the various devices that are used to shut out other people’s products. Quarantine laws, health laws, and excise laws are some of the various devices that are used. Senator Georges asked what has happened with the proposal to amend the form of levy for funding the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. Discussion on the form of this levy is being held with the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association at the moment.

As I said when I began my speech, it was agreed that this is a subject which should not be opposed. The debate has been a cognate one. At one stage in the debate it was suggested that this was a measure which was brought in by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government, endorsed and expanded by the former Labor Government, and now is being carried on by us. Therefore, it ought to be a measure which has the broad support of the Parliament. Nobody who has spoken has been other than fully sympathetic towards the problems facing apple growers, particularly those in Tasmania who have a substantial disadvantage because the distance which they are away from their market results in increased cost of production and increased shipping costs.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2087

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2087

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2087

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Roads Act Amendment Bill 1976. Acts Citation Bill 1976.

page 2087

SOCIAL SERVICES 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

I ask for leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. The speech is in identical terms with that which was read in the House of Representatives by my colleague, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt).

The PRESIDENT:

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

The Bill gives effect to part of a Government decision which will be of far-reaching benefit to a very significant number of people who are amongst those most in need of financial assistance. It will do this by substantially increasing family allowances for families. Under this Bill it is proposed to increase payments to $3.50 a week for the first child, $5.00 a week for the second child, $6.00 a week for the third and fourth children and $7.00 a week for each other child.

The following table compares existing rates with those proposed in the Bill:

Another significant change proposed is that students will be brought into account in the assessment of the total amount of family allowance payable, as if they were children under 16 years of age, and the rate payable for them will be determined according to their position in a family. The rate now payable for students, i.e. $1.50 a week flat, will be increased to a minimum of $3.50 for the eldest or only child in the family; if there are two student children in the family the rate payable for the second student will be $5.00 a week. This will overcome the existing anomaly that, upon a child reaching 16 years and becoming a student, the total amount payable increases in one and two child families but decreases in families where there are more than two children. In addition, the age limit beyond which family allowances cease to be payable for students is to be increased from 2 1 to 25 years.

Other proposals which will broaden the eligibility conditions for payment are-

  1. children of alien fathers will no longer be disqualified on nationality grounds;
  2. payment will in future be made to a person presently ineligible if a child is dependent on the claimant or spouse and the claimant or spouse is a resident of Australia as defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act.

The new rates of family allowances will apply from 1 5 June and will be available for payment in respect of instalments due on 13 July 1976. Because of the administrative arrangements applying to payment, many people paid by cheque will receive the higher amount on 29 June 1976.

People who are receiving family allowances when the new rates come into operation will not need to apply to receive the higher payments, but claims will need to be lodged by those who will become eligible to receive payments under the new eligibility conditions. For example, where a student is above the age of 2 1 years, a new claim will need to be lodged. The Department of Social Security has no way of re-activating claims which have already expired. General publicity will be given to the new conditions of eligibility. The proposals outlined arise from a review of the manner in which assistance for families is now available. Most families receive assistance for children under 16 years of age and students by way of child endowment and personal income tax rebates. However, the benefits that are available to some taxpayers by way of tax rebates for children do not apply to some 300 000 families whose incomes are insufficient to enable them to take advantage of those tax rebates. The Government regards it as of first importance that these families who, as a class, are those most in need, should receive the additional financial help which this Bill will provide.

The redistribution of income described is possible as a result of the parallel Government decision to abolish personal income tax rebates for children and students. Increases in the sole parent rebate and the rebate for a dependent spouse will be of benefit to all single income families which are subject to taxation. For such families they will more than offset any reduction in assistance for children arising from the substitution of increased family allowances for personal income tax rebates. The abolition of tax allowances for children and large increases in family allowances were recommended by Professor Henderson in the First Main Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. The report of the Taxation Review Committee under Mr Justice Asprey also saw advantage in a change of this kind.

The increases in family allowances will take effect at virtually the same time as the payasyouearn schedules of tax instalments are adjusted to take account of the withdrawal of rebates for children and students. The actual impact of the withdrawal of tax rebates on paypackets themselves will also be reduced because of the effects of tax indexation. The new proposals will increase the annual cost of child endowment by $785m to $ 1,020m a year. This additional cost will be offset by the abolition of taxation rebates for children and students. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2089

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY ASSESSMENT 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 leave be given 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, in association with other Bills I shall shortly present, introduces the health insurance levy and other taxation arrangements necessary to implement the modifications to Medibank. I announced these reforms to the Senate on 20 May 1976, and as I indicated then and now re-affirm, the universal cover provided by Medibank is being retained. The levy and associated arrangements do not mean anything else.

In brief, a health insurance levy of 2.5 per cent of taxable income is to be imposed. It will be payable by Australian residents who do not have appropriate cover for themselves and their families with a registered private insurance fund, or through payment of a premium to Medibank. The legislation proposes a basic rate of levy on the taxable incomes of taxpayers. But there will be an exemption from the levy for that part of an income year in which a person has appropriate cover for both hospital and medical benefits with a registered private insurance fund or through a premium paid direct to Medibank. The cover must extend to any dependants of a person for the exemption to be available.

Payment of a family contribution will provide exemption for each member of a 2-income family. Exemption from the levy will also be granted to repatriation beneficiaries who are entitled to full free medical and hospital treatment under the repatriation system and who have no dependants, or who have dependants who are also so entitled. Repatriation beneficiaries who are entitled to full free medical and hospital treatment, but whose dependants are not so entitled, will have the basic rate of levy reduced to onehalf of the ordinary rate. These people will not, however, be subject to any levy if their dependants are covered through payment of appropriate private insurance or Medibank premiums. Defence force personnel will be eligible for relief from the levy on the same lines as is proposed for repatriation beneficiaries.

A person will be treated as a dependant of a taxpayer if he or she is the taxpayer’s spouse or child under 16 years of age, and the taxpayer contributes to his or her maintenance. A child of the taxpayer who is aged 1 6 or more but less than 25 and who is a full-time student will be treated as a dependant if his or her income is not above $1073. In making these reforms, the government has been concerned to ensure that people with relatively small incomes should not in any event be called on to pay the levy. The method we have chosen to achieve this is to allow people who pay no income tax because their concessional rebates exceed tax calculated at scale rates to apply the excess rebates against the levy.

As a result of this and the other changes in the income tax system which I have just mentioned, a taxpayer entitled to a full rebate for a spouse will not be liable to pay the levy if his or her taxable income is $4,299 or less. A single taxpayer will not be liable to pay the levy if his or her taxable income is $2,604 or less. These low income reliefs, and the fact that levy payable will bc graduated according to income, demonstrate that our reforms have given recognition to the circumstances of the less well off sections of the community. The levy, where it is payable, will be collected through the income tax system, but shown as a separate item on notices of assessment.

People who insure privately, or who pay a premium to Medibank or who are eligible for exemption as a repatriation beneficiary or serviceman or woman will lodge a certificate from the body concerned with their tax returns. This will provide a basis for granting them exemption from the levy. A declaration by an employee to an employer that he or she is covered in one or other of these ways will mean that PA YE deductions made from the employee’s salary or wages will not include the levy.

All the modifications proposed by the Government are to come into operation on 1

October 1976. In consequence of this, the rate of levy to be applied on assessment to taxable incomes for 1976-77 is to be three-quarters of the full year rate. The basic rate of levy on 1976-77 taxable income will therefore be 1.875 per cent instead of the full year rate of 2.5 per cent. People who qualify for exemption from the levy for the 9 months from 1 October 1976 will be granted exemption for the full year. Qualification for a shorter period will give proportionate partial exemption.

So that PA YE deductions incorporating the levy will approximately match the end-of-year levy liability, the rate of levy to be incorporated in PA YE deductions from 1 October 1976 is to be the full year rate of 2.5 per cent. Provision is also being made for the withdrawal of the existing concessional rebate for contributions to hospital and medical benefits funds. This will apply to all contributions made for insurance packages which qualify for exemption from the levy, and for all other hospital and medical benefits insurance payments made on or after 1 October 1976. All the provisions of the Bill are explained in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated for the information of honourable senators and it remains only for me at this stage to commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2090

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY 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:

Again I ask for leave for the second reading speech to be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. ( The speech read as follows)-

When introducing the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill I outlined the basic features of the Government’s scheme for introduction of a health insurance levy. The Health Insurance Levy Bill declares the basic rate of levy. For 1976-77 this will be 1.875 per cent of taxable income, i.e., three-quarters of the full-year rate of 2.5 per cent. As I mentioned in my speech on the first Bill, the rate will be reduced by one-half for certain repatriation beneficiaries and Service personnel. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2090

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) 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:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · New South Wales · LP

( 10.56)- I move:

I ask for leave for this speech also to be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This short Bill is of a technical nature. It is needed because the proposed health insurance levy will be collected through the income tax system and is for many technical purposes to be treated as an income tax. In substance, however, the levy is a payment for health insurance. It will be paid only by people who do not have insurance with a registered private insurance fund and do not pay a premium direct to Medibank. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate to treat the levy as an income tax against which people who have income from foreign sources may credit foreign tax. The amount to be paid for medical services should not be reduced in this way. The Bill, which I commend to the Senate, ensures that the levy will not be so treated.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2090

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate

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

-! move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

In doing so, I congratulate the Senate on a sterling performance.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

- Mr President, responding to those remarks, I ask the Government to notice that we have allowed the first reading of a money Bill to go through without debate. That is some indication of the co-operation that the Government may expect next week.

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

– in reply- Mr President, we appreciate the courtesy extended to us by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

page 2092

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Overseas Loan (Question No. 181)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have negotiations on behalf of the Commonwealth Government now been completed for a $30 million loan in Germany.
  2. Will such a loan from overseas increase the money supply in Australia, and thus to some extent counteract the effort which was made to reduce liquidity by the recent use of Savings Bonds.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. I refer the honourable senator to the Press Release by the Treasurer on 4 March.
  2. No. It is the payment of moneys from the Government’s accounts to other sectors in the Australian economy, not the receipt of moneys into the Government’s accounts, that adds to the money supply in Australia. The Government’s outlays in Australia will not be increased because of the overseas borrowing: the borrowing will, however, result in a lower level of borrowing by the Government from the Reserve Bank and /or a higher level of Government deposits with the Reserve Bank than would otherwise be the case. Overseas borrowings do, of course, add to Australia’s international reserves.

Aboriginals: Unemployment (Question No. 501)

Senator Colston:

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

How many persons of Aboriginal descent are currently unemployed in each State and in the Northern Territory.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The numbers of Aboriginals registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service in each State and in the Northern Territory as at the end of March 1976 were:

Broadcasting System: Inquiry (Question No. 539)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who will be conducting the inquiry into the Australian broadcasting system announced by the Minister on 1 3 April 1976.
  2. What expertise do persons conducting the inquiry have for assessing the needs of the Australian community in broadcasting.
  3. Who are the interested parties referred to in the Minister’s statement that will be invited to make public submissions, and will they include representatives of consumers.
  4. Have any invitations been issued to interested parties: if so, in what form were they issued, if not, will such invitations include public advertisements.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The inquiry will be conducted by Mr F. J. Green, Secretary of the Postal and Telecommunications Department. He will be assisted by senior departmental officers including:

Mr E. J. Wilkinson, First Assistant Secretary, Radio Frequency Management Division

Mr R. T. Lord, First Assistant Secretary, Broadcasting Division

Mr K. R. Sievers Assistant Secretary, Television Branch Mr P. B. Westerway- Assistant Secretary, Radio Branch

  1. There is a considerable degree of experience and expertise in the broadcasting industry and in broadcasting matters accumulated amongst the senior officers who will be involved in this inquiry.
  2. The interested parties who have been invited to make submissions to the inquiry include employer and employee organisations with any relevance to the industry, Government departments and instrumentalities who have an interest in the field, television and radio stations, public broadcasters, production houses, record companies, distributors, radio and television representation groups, research organisations, industry associations, individuals with an interest in broadcasting, public interest groups and people who have in the past made known their interest in the broadcasting field.
  3. Over 900 letters of invitation to make submissions have been sent out to the groups and individuals mentioned above. These letters have set out the terms of reference of the inquiry and guidelines for the preparation of submissions have also been supplied.

In addition advertisements have appeared in the press on a national basis inviting submissions from any member of the public with a view to express on the Australian broadcasting system.

Broadcating System: Inquiry (Question No. 543)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is an inquiry into the Australian broadcasting system to be conducted by officers of the Department of Post and Telecommunications.
  2. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, (a) who arc the officers appointed to conduct the inquiry, (b) how long has each been a permanent member of the Public Service.

    1. what are their academic or broadcasting engineering qualifications, and (d) why was no member of the Australian Broadcating Control Board appointed to sit on the inquiry.
  3. Will the Minister make public any reports that are presented to him as a result of the inquiry.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) The inquiry will be conducted by Mr F. J. Green, Secretary of the Postal and Telecommunications Department. He will be assisted by senior departmental officers including:

    1. Mr R. T. Lord- First Assistant Secretary, Broadcasting Division
    2. Mr E. J. Wilkinson- First Assistant Secretary, Radio Frequency Management Division
    3. Mr K. R. Sievers- Assistant Secretary, Television Branch
    4. Mr P. B. Westerway- Assistant Secretary, Radio Branch
    1. b) Mr Green has been a permanent member of the Public Service for 41 years. In the case of other departmental officers mentioned above:
    2. 3 years

    3. 39 years
    4. 2 years
    5. 1 year
    1. F. J. Green-B. Com.; R. T. Lord-Nil; E. J. Wilkinson -M.I.E. (Aust). C. Eng, F.I.R.E.E.; P. B. Westerway-B. Ec. (Hons); K. R. Sievers- N.Z.I.S., F.A.I.M.
    2. Cabinet decided that, in order to ensure a rapid completion of the inquiry, it should be allotted to the Postal and Telecommunications Department. However, it was assumed that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board would be making major submissions to the inquiry.
  3. 3 ) The reports that will come to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications will be presented by him to Cabinet and it will be Cabinet that makes the ultimate decision regarding the dissemination of such reports.

Ethnic Broadcasting (Question No. 555)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With regard to the questionnaire circulated to ethnic communities by the Consultative Committee on Ethnic Broadcasting under cover of a letter dated 12 April 1976, (a) what in question 1 (a) is meant by the expression ‘an organisation’ . . . ‘operated by the Government’; (b) what in question I (b) is meant by the expression ‘a government organisation’; and (c) what in question 1 (c) is meant by the expression ‘a government-owned organisation’.
  2. Is any form of government organisation to be involved in ethnic broadcasting; if so, would it have statutory independence of any government department.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) For all three options (a), (b) and (c) nominated in the questionnaire, the organisation could be either a statutory corporation like the ABC, a wholly government owned company such as Commonwealth Hostels Limited or a component of an existing body such as the Radio Australia Division of the ABC.

The essential difference between (a), (b) and (c) relates to their costs and the possible methods of funding. Option (a) would be an operation wholly funded by government grant. Option (b) would differ from option (a) to the extent that the operating costs would be diminished through unpaid services rendered by members of the ethnic communities and perhaps part of the revenue would be provided through the ethnic communities and/or some advertising. In option (c) all (or part) of the revenue would come from advertising, sponsorships or related commercial activities.

  1. The Government considers it of particular importance to ensure that there be proper balance in the program content of ethnic broadcasting, regardless of the form of organisation established. None of the approaches to the future structure of ethnic broadcasting currently under consideration envisages control by a government department.

The Philippines: Australian Imports Ban (Question No. 582)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Philippine Government imposed an across the board ban on all new Australian imports; if so, when was the ban imposed.
  2. ) If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, what reasons did the Philippine Government give the Australian Government for imposing the ban and for how long will it remain in force.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)No

Taxation (Question No. 605)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is the Treasurer aware that Australians are being induced to subscribe to Rydge ‘s Business Magazine with the offer of a free book entitled The New Ways of Reducing Executives’ Tax, written by Mr Sam Cullen, F.A.S.A.
  2. Has the Treasury studied the book concerned; if so. are the recommendations contained in the book within the Income Tax laws and regulations.
  3. Does Treasury recommend the book to all Australians in order that they may minimise the payment of income tux.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 have seen some of the publicity relating to the work in question.
  2. The work has not been studied.
  3. It is not the function of the Treasury to recommend the purchase of such a work or, for that matter, any other book.

Scientific Research: Electron Microscope (Question No. 686)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

Will the Minister undertake to make available the funding required for a million volt electron microscope for use in the many aspects of scientific research, particularly in the fields of material science and mineral chemistry since such research is greatly hindered because of the lack of access to such an instrument in Australia.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I am advised that a million volt electron microscope together with the necessary ancillary and supporting equipment and housing could cost well in excess of$1m. Associated recurrent expenses for maintenance and staffing might be perhaps $250,000 per annum.

Even at times less stringent economically than the present, the question of such expediture on a single item of research equipment, no matter how valuable a tool it may be in certain fields, necessarily raises the question of priorities for research in science.

I believe that I would not be acting responsibly as Minister for Science were I to recommend funding for a million volt electron microscope unless it was demonstrably among the highest of priorities that such an instrument be available in Australia.

Financial Assistance for Western Australia

Senator Cotton:
LP

– On 1 April 1976, Senator Walsh asked Senator Withers a question without notice concerning:

  1. whether the Government of Western Australia had sought either direct or indirect Federal assistance for certain purposes or protested about a certain increase in Australian Stevedoring Industry charges;
  2. b) the date on which the submissions were received; and
  3. whether the Federal Government has replied to them and, if so, in what terms.

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

  1. Port Hedland Cyclone Damage

    1. Yes.
    2. On11 December 1975 the Premier of Western Australia wrote to the Prime Minister seeking Commonwealth support under the present natural disaster assistance arrangements for the provision of a range of measures for relief and restoration purposes following the severe damage caused to Port Hedland by Cyclone Joan on 8 December. The Premier again wrote on 24 February 1976 supplying further details and making some additional requests. A grant of $ 1.5m was not requested by the Premier. This amount relates to the State’s base expenditure amount which, under present natural disaster relief arrangements, is to be paid by the State out of its own resources on agreed relief and restoration measures, with expenditures beyond that for these purposes being borne by the Commonwealth in any one financial year.
    3. In reply to the Premier’s requests the Prime Minister has agreed that the Commonwealth will support, subject to established natural disaster relief arrangements with the State, expenditures by Western Australia in relation to the costs of:
    1. provision for the relief of personal hardship and distress;
    2. certain emergency measures, including air transport of emergency food and clothing;
    3. concessional loans to primary producers;
    4. restoration, to pre-disaster standard, of State Government assets damaged or destroyed by the cyclone; and
    5. restoration, to pre-disaster standard, of local and semi-government authorities’ assets damaged or destroyed by the cyclone, subject to a contribution by each authority equal to 25 per cent of the total cost, or $25,000, whichever is the lesser amount.

The present best estimate of the total cost of these approved measures is a little over $6m, of which about $5m is expected to be expended in 1975-76; with the Commonwealth’s contribution, therefore, estimated at around $3. 5m.

  1. Western Australia Rail Services

    1. There is no record of representations by Western Australia during the last few years for upgrading of rail services.
    2. and (c) Not applicable.
  2. Gascoyne Carnarvon Water Supply Scheme

    1. Yes.
    2. Assistance for the scheme was first sought by the Premier of Western Australia in September 1972. The Gascoyne Carnarvon project was also included in Western Australia’s submission under the National Water Program lodged on 10 September 1975. The estimated cost of the project in that submission was $6.6m, although no specific amount of assistance was sought in relation to it. The Premier also wrote to the Prime Minister in relation to this matter on 1 7 September 1 975 and 6 January 1 976.
    3. The previous Government advised the State on 15 August 1975 that Commonwealth assistance for the project would not be provided. The Premier asked that this decision be reviewed on two occasions- in September 1975 and again in January 1976. He was advised on 18 March 1976 that the matter would not be reconsidered.
  3. State Shipping Service to Darwin

    1. There is no record of recent representations by Western Australia on this matter.
    2. and ( c ) Not applicable.
  4. Australian Stevedoring Industry Charges

    1. There is no record of representations by the Western Australian Government to the Commonwealth Government concerning increases in stevedoring industry charges at north-west ports of Western Australia.
    2. and (c) Not applicable.

Trade Practices Act: Review (Question No. 661)

Senator Ryan:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated cost of the committee reviewing the Trade Practices Act.
  2. How many people are involved and what are their salaries and/or sitting fees.
  3. What are the estimated administrative expenses.
  4. What are the total estimated travel costs and allowances.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. $36,897-including all salaries of public service officers engaged in the review.
  2. The Committee comprises five members, including one public service officer. In addition one officer from the Trade Practices Commission acts as a consultant to the Committee. The Secretariat servicing the Committee comprises five public service officers, including one stenographer, one typist and one clerical assistant.

Sitting fees for the Committee are estimated at $4,770. Total salaries of all public service officers mentioned above is estimated at $17,539.

  1. $3,074.
  2. 511,514.

Opposition Leaders’ Staffs (Question Nos. 618-21)

Senator Chaney:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many members are there on the Leader of the Opposition’s personal staff.
  2. What are (a) their names, (b) designations, and (c) salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary Public Servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been employed by the Leader of the Opposition.
  6. Are these advisers and consultants full-time or parttime and what are their names and salaries.
Senator Withers:
LP

-The honourable senator has asked for the the same information in respect of the personal staff of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I now supply the following information, prepared by my Department, in response to the honourable senator’s questions: (1), (2), (3) and (4). Details as at 21 May 1976 are listed in the table below. Where staff members are permanent officers of the Public Service, the Departments from which they are seconded are shown in the table.

  1. and (6) Nil.

Australian Broadcasting Control Board (Question No. 482)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
  2. ) What is the term of their appointment.
  3. When was each member appointed.
  4. What is the date of expiration of the members’ terms.
  5. What qualifications and general experience does each member possess.
  6. What previous experience in the radio and television industries does each member possess.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 May 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760527_senate_30_s68/>.