Senate
9 March 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 5

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for the Northern Territory, the Hon. Evan Adermann, leaves Australia today to lead the Australian delegation to the United Nations water conference to be held in Argentina. He is expected to return to Australia on 27 March. During his absence the Minister for Science, Senator the Hon. J. J. Webster, will act as Minister for the Northern Territory.

page 5

PETITIONS

Australian Roads

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 67 citizens of Australia:

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

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 percent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide SO per cent of all funding for Australia ‘s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Roads

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 83 citizens of Australia:

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

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government long-term policy should be to provide 50 per cent of all funding for Australia s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $S,903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980/8 1, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Roads

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-I present 2 petitions similar in wording from 83 and 30 citizens of Australia:

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

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlay to 2.3 per cent

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government should totally finance national highways and half the cost of constructing and maintaining all other public roads.

That since current road funding arrangements have seen a deterioration in road assets, this backlog in construction and maintenance needs to be reduced by the Commonwealth Government undertaking to make a larger financial contribution.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Australian Roads

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 341 citizens of Australia:

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

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 percent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide 50 per cent of all funding for Australia ‘s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5, 903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Roads

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 283 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide SO per cent of all funding for Australia s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903 million of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

Petition received.

Australian Roads

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 9 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide 50 percent of all funding for Australia’s roads.

That at minumum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903 million of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

Petition received.

Australian Roads

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-On behalf of Senator Jessop I present six petitions similar in wording from 221, 131, 22, 32, 22, and 22, citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 percent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide 50 per cent of all funding for Australia s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903 million of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Taxation System

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

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

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

be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and

find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and

Require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

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

Petition received and read.

Parklands in the A.C.T.

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 95 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government take note:

That we are utterly opposed to the National Capital Development Commissions proposal to erect eighteen town houses on Block 3 of Section 107, Ainslie.

The suggested development would destroy one of the most attractive small parks in Canberra. Section 107, which has been developed and maintained as a park since the original subdivision of the area, provides a variety of opportunities for recreation and relaxation and contributes to the physical and mental health of many people who come to the park to exercise dogs, play games, or simply to enjoy the views and peaceful surroundings.

Town houses would be completely out of character with the existing residences in the area and their construction on Block 3 of Section 107 would alienate the major part of what is at present an invaluable community amenity.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take measures to have the entire area of Section 107 gazetted as parkland as a matter of urgency.

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 Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide 50 per cent of all funding for Australia ‘s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads. by Senator Young (2 petitions), Senator Withers and Senator Wriedt.

Petitions received.

Australian Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government should totally finance national highways and half the cost of constructing and maintaining all other public roads.

That since current road funding arrangements have seen a deterioration in road assets, this backlog in construction and maintenance needs to be reduced by the Commonwealth Government undertaking to make a larger financial contribution. by Senator Guilfoyle and Senator Webster. Petitions received.

Television Reception, Kojonup, Western Australia

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

Our petition is therefore, most humbly pray, that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take urgent steps to provide Kojonup with satisfactory television reception. Currently most Kojonup residents are forced to focus their television antennas to Bunbury, which is 150 kms away (as the crow flies). Mt Barker, which is the closest transmitter is 100 kms away, however, the terrain between Kojonup and Mt Barker does not allow satisfactory reception.

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

page 7

QUESTION

DEATH OF FORMER SENATOR H.G.J. CANT

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

-It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death last week of Hartley Gordon James Cant, a former senator for Western Australia. I ask for leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

The death of Harry Cant, as he was well known to many of us in this chamber, came not altogether as a surprise because we knew that he had been in ill health for some years.

I am certain that I speak for all my colleagues who sit on this side of the chamber when I say that we deeply regret the death of Harry Cant. He was a great companion in this place and a good friend to all of us. He was a man who debated the issues vigorously and without fear or favour, but who was without personal enemies in this place. I recall that both he and the late Ivor Greenwood who, most would agree, were at opposite ends of the spectrum on a large number of matters, became good and close friends as a result of their work on the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources. It was a measure of the man that in spite of his differences with Ivor Greenwood over a large range of issues they became very firm friends and had a great deal of affection for each other. I think that epitomises the Harry Cant whom we knew.

I served with Harry Cant on one select committee, the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control in 1971-72. Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Maunsell, Harry Cant and I once spent 7 or 8 days looking at the mineral resources of Australia. I am certain that the three of us here would say that that was one of the more pleasant weeks we have had in our lifetime.

A large amount of the credit must go to Harry Cant’s companionship, friendship and very great knowledge of the mineral resource area of this nation. This was an abiding interest of his. It was an interest at which we know he worked enormously hard gathering information.

As a Senate committee member, he was always one who had read his submissions, who had prepared his cross-examination and who questioned with great skill. A number of my colleagues, including Senator Young, Senator Cotton and others who served with him on the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, have said that there was many a witness who came in with the thought that he would wipe the floor with the Senate Committee but to his surprise by the time Harry Cant had finished with him he wished he had never started on that tack because Harry Cant had a great deal of knowledge of the mineral resource area.

As a Western Australian I travelled on aircraft quite a bit with Harry Cant. He was a most delightful companion in those long hours across the Nullarbor talking over a range of subjects, occasionally political but not often. He used to tell very interesting stories of his days underground in the gold mines of Australia, first in Kalgoorlie and later at Big Bell or Wiluna. I shall miss him. All I can do is extend to his family on behalf of my colleagues our deepest and most sincere sympathy at their very great loss.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– As the longest serving Labor senator from Western Australia, I speak on behalf of the members of the Australian Labor Party in support of the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) and wish to be associated with the very generous remarks of Senator Withers concerning our late colleague, former Senator Harry Cant. Former Senator Cant was one of the old school of working class trade union Labor activists. He was a hard, tough, vigorous fighter who grew up in the ranks of the Australian Workers Union. He came from Geraldton in the northwest of Western Australia, worked in very tough conditions throughout Western Australia and suffered many vicissitudes during the Depression. He became an organiser for the Australian Workers Union and, before coming into the Senate, was the industrial advocate- and a very effective industrial advocate- on behalf of the AWU in Western Australia. At the same time, he was a person whose views one always respected because one knew that he held them with very great sincerity. Unfortunately, his career in this Parliament was somewhat prematurely cut short owing to the double dissolution of 1974. Despite the fact that he did not secure re-endorsement for the election of 1974 in circumstances which, I think it might be fair to say, a lesser person could have well taken amiss, he remained a loyal and dedicated supporter of the Australian Labor Party until his death shortly after the death of his wife to whom he was very close. In the passing of Harry Cant I think that the Australian Labor movement has lost one of its traditional members, one of the people who represented a very important strand in Australian society, a man who made a very great contribution to his Party, to the Australian working class and to the Australian Senate. On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to associate the ALP with the remarks of Senator Withers and express our sorrow and great sympathy to the members of Harry Cant’s family.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.

page 8

NOTICES OF MOTION

Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to modify the application of seciton 16 of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906.

Royal Commission Into Relationships Between Aborigines and Police Forces

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

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

That the Senate is of the opinion that urgent action should be taken by the Government to establish a royal commisison to inquire into relationships between Aboriginal communities throughout Australia and members of police forces.

Aborigines and Islanders (Admissibility of Confessions) Bill 1976

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

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

That the Aborigines and Islanders (Admissibility of Confessions) Bill 1976 be restored to the notice paper and consideration resumed at the stage it had reached in the last session.

Order of Business on the Notice Paper

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wriedt moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper.

Sydney Harbour Foreshores

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

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

That a Senate select committee be established to inquire into the uncertainty created by the Australian Government in regard to the transfer of certain Commonwealth Government occupied Sydney Harbour foreshores to the New South Wales Government as vital components of the Sydney Harbourside National Park.

Local Government

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

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

That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should revise its existing policy of channeling funds for local government organisations through the States’ Local Government Grants Commissions and introduce a more uniform system which will take into account the question of needs and in particular the special requirements of local authorities in the remote areas of Australia.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should as a matter of urgency make a statement to the Parliament on its policy concerning the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

Committees of Inquiry

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should complete its consideration of the reports of the committees of inquiry into (a) Public Libraries and (b) Museums and National Collections, determine its policies in relation to those reports and announce them to the Parliament.

page 9

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 9

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Government received a report indicating that there will be serious legal and constitutional difficulties in implementing State income taxes and associated matters which are proposed under stage 2 of the Government’s federalism policy? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government is satisfied that such difficulties will be overcome and that all States have indicated their preparedness to meet the Government’s requirements for introducing stage 2?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Apart from a newspaper article that I read on this matter, which I presume is the basis of Senator Wriedt ‘s question, I have not any further knowledge of the matter which he raises. However, I shall refer the question to the Attorney-General, whom I represent, and seek to obtain an early answer from him.

page 9

ABSENCE OF PARLIAMENTARY OFFICER

President, before I ask this question which is addressed to you I think I should make a small explanation, namely, that I found no way of bringing this matter before the Parliament except by addressing to you a question without notice. I was so advised by your learned Clerks. Therefore, my question is: Will the Presiding Officers- the President and Mr Speaker- inform the Senate, firstly, what is the current situation of the Foreign Affairs group of the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service in view of the frequent absences of Mr James Dunn, director of that group, and his published intention to give evidence to a congressional committee in Washington and his further published intention to visit European capitals; secondly, under what auspices is this parliamentary officer travelling?

The PRESIDENT:

– The matters raised by the honourable senator will be given consideration.

page 9

QUESTION

SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Science, by drawing the Minister’s attention to a comment in the local newspaper, the Canberra Times, on 2 March 1977 that a plan to demonstrate the feasibility of solar power for domestic heating purposes in Canberra may fall through for the lack of finance. Is the Minister aware that the finance needed amounts to only $25,000 as most other costs are being met from other sources? Will the Minister undertake to review this project immediately with the purpose of providing the required $25,000 should the project be feasible?

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

– I cannot say that I noted particularly the article on 2 March of this year that the honourable senator mentioned. There has been a great deal of comment in various States and from various universities to the effect that funds should be generated for research into solar energy. The comment appears to settle on a suggestion that the Commonwealth should be providing the money. I have noted . several letters to the media in which it is noted critically that the Commonwealth does not take up every suggestion that is made and fund every proposal that is suggested in relation to solar energy research. I would indeed welcome greater funds being made available by the Commonwealth for solar energy research- indeed into energy research of all types. I believe about $1.5m is spent in Australia each year at present on solar energy research. I am unable to say whether the sum should be 10 times greater than that or 100 times greater than that. But I note that the United States of America is spending about $240m this year on solar energy research. I would think that scientists in Australia- if one can judge from their character over the yearswill be very closely associated with any findings that come from that type of research.

The honourable senator mentioned research into solar energy for domestic purposes. Several houses are being built. Indeed, the Queensland Premier has commented that he is anxious that that State should build some type of solar energy equipment into the various forms of equipment that go into houses these days. I think that is a very good idea. Over the past few years, as the honourable senator knows, CSIRO has brought this country to the fore in the development of heating and cooling equipment using solar energy, and such equipment is a big seller in the State of South Australia and in the Northern Territory. The honourable senator will note that industrial heating also has had the attention of CSIRO in past years. Indeed, an invitation has been extended for honourable senators to view the Coca-Cola bottling equipment in Queanbeyan to see the way water heated by solar energy is being used. Generally there is a great interest in the subject. I believe CSIRO is competent to assess whether the Commonwealth should be providing $25,000 for the particular project the honourable senator mentioned or whether it should be doing research in another area. I believe also that we are channelling our efforts in the right direction.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the long drawn out answer I have received from the Minister, but he avoided answering my question. I asked about a particular project and whether or not the Minister would give attention to that project. If it is a feasible project, will the Minister try to have it funded for what is a small sum of money by comparison with the money that was spent here yesterday and the day before?

Senator WEBSTER:

– If the honourable senator will send me the information, I will look into the matter.

page 10

QUESTION

FORMER LEBANESE PRESIDENT: VISA

Senator WHEELDON:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is he aware that Mr Camille Chamoun, the former President of the Republic of Lebanon and leader of the National Liberal Party in that country, has postponed a visit to Australia which he intended to make in the near future? Is it a fact that Mr Chamoun has postponed his visit as a result of a request to the Government of Lebanon by representatives of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs? If that is the case, what was the reason for the request regarding Mr Chamoun ‘s proposed visit?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Strictly speaking, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs controls the issue or non-issue of visas. I understand that Mr Chamoun has postponed his visit. I understand also that it was partly at the request of the Australian Government and partly because of his intervening illness. I further understand that at no time did Mr Chamoun actually apply for a visa. Evidently he indicated, without applying for a visa, that he would like to come to Australia. I have been unable to ascertain so far what the reasons were. If there were reasons such as those alleged by the honourable senator, I will have inquiries made of my colleague to see whether or not I can ascertain them.

page 10

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BONNER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and I apologise for its long and detailed nature. I refer to a Press release dated 28 May 1976 when the Minister announced that a working party would be set up consisting of representatives of his Department, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Education to inquire into the problems associated with Aboriginal unemployment, which was then reported to amount to some 50 per cent of the Aboriginal work force. The working party was to have had its report ready for submission to the Ministers concerned by 3 1 July 1976. I also direct the Minister’s attention to question on notice No. 990 of 5 October 1976 and to the reply. In view of that reply I ask: Has an independent examination of the report been completed? If not, why not, in view of the time which has already elapsed? If the examination of the report has been completed, will the Minister inform me and my people what remedial actions or programs are to be implemented to relieve this tragic state of affairs and when we may expect them to be implemented?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– A great deal of work has been done by a working group of Ministers which included the Ministers for Aboriginal

Affairs, Employment and Industrial Relations, Health, and myself and their departments to determine how we may best assist in regard to employment for Aborigines. As I understand it, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is progressing towards making some statement on this matter, but I have no definitive statement that I can make as a result of the working party’s activities. The time lag that has been mentioned in the question is noted. It should be understood that a great deal of work and discussion has been undertaken partly to look at whether Aboriginal reserves and settlements wish to have some sort of employment opportunities provided and partly to decide whether bulk payments of Aboriginal unemployment benefits should be made so that work may be generated within the reserves themselves. All of these things have been subjected to examination. I hope that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will make some statement shortly.

page 11

QUESTION

LOANS TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade: Is it a fact that loans to beef producers by the Commonwealth Development Bank alone amounted to $89m as at 30 June 1976 and that loans to beef producers by Australian finance companies amounted to considerably more than that sum? In view of the advice of the Minister for Overseas Trade to beef cattle producers to withhold stock from the market, will the Government agree to assist cattle producers to meet interest charges which will still accrue while the producers’ cash flow will come to an abrupt halt if they follow the Minister’s advice?

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

– I cannot vouch for the figures as to the indebtedness of or advances to beef cattle producers as at June of last year. It would surprise me to learn that finance companies are advancing money to beef cattle producers. I find it very hard to give a rational reason for their doing so as lenders. But be that as it may, the honourable senator made some comments about what the Minister for Overseas Trade is supposed to have said. I think if the honourable senator were to read carefully what the Minister did say- I endeavoured to read carefully his remarks and to get a copy of his speech- he would find that what the Minister was indicating, and I think it is true, is that the prices received by cattle producers in Australia bear a very bad relationship to the prices received for export cattle sold overseas. Therefore there is a great need to get some clear understanding of why it is that while producers on their properties are getting almost minimal prices, export meat companies are making fantastic amounts of money. The Minister was drawing attention to that fact. I would have thought that it was a good thing to draw attention to it.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister not propose to answer my question?

Senator COTTON:

– The honourable senator is well aware that a Minister in this place answers to the best of his ability that much that he knows. What the Minister does not know he seeks to find out. I think that that is a good arrangement for everybody in the Senate.

page 11

QUESTION

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I do so following the report of the Prices Justification Tribunal on the Australian stevedoring industry and in particular, the firm of James Patrick. Has the Minister seen the comment of the Prices Justification Tribunal on the payments of some $700,000 in the form of commission to a governing director of James Patrick, Sir Reginald Reid, that:

It is not our function to comment on either the propriety or the legality of the agreement.

Due to the concern expressed over the years on the high cost of Australian freight rates, which, incidentally, are the highest in the world, and of which one of the major factors is that of stevedoring, what positive steps is the Minister taking in relation to the revelations of the Prices Justification Tribunal and particularly in the matter of commissions to the governing director of James Patrick?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– It is of course the function of the Prices Justification Tribunal to investigate whether prices charged or proposed to be charged by companies are justified and, if they are not justified, what lower prices are justified. I have seen the statement by the Prices Justification Tribunal to which Senator Young refers. As a result of that inquiry, payments made to Sir Reginald Reid by way of commission came out in evidence. Although the general arrangements between the James Patrick company and its staff are not directly the subject of investigation by the Prices Justification Tribunal, nevertheless, the Tribunal does take commissions, fees and other factors including the ‘extremely favourable conditions of employment in the industry’ into account when assessing the profitability of a company and the justification of its prices. In fact, in considering the justification of the increases in prices requested by James Patrick, the Tribunal not only rejected the proposed increases but also rolled back existing charges. That is the position at the moment. The Senate will be aware that companies are not obliged to adhere to the findings of the Prices Justification Tribunal. They have 14 days in which to notify their decision one way or the other. To date, there has never been a case of a company notifying the Tribunal that it would not accept the findings. It is not anticipated that that will occur in this case.

page 12

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to a question which I asked him on Friday, 25 February 1977, relating to unemployment. In that question I adverted to the fact that the Minister had answered questions of a Dorothy Dix nature from his colleagues on his side of the Senate relating to the fact that 38 per cent of people who are currently unemployed had apparently left their jobs voluntarily. I asked:

Is he saying that it is now a part of this Government’s policy that people should not leave their jobs voluntarily?

The Minister replied:

The Government is not saying that and I am not saying that.

In the light of the statement made by the Prime Minister last Saturday questioning how seriously a person wishes to work if he or she leaves a job, I ask: Does the Minister repudiate the Prime Minister’s statement in view of his own earlier answer or has there been a change in Government policy on this issue?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The question which Senator Button asked me on that day was one of a number of questions asked of me during that week on this and related matters. I certainly said what Senator Button said I did, but I recall that I went on to say that I thought it was a matter for some comment that in relation to the level of unemployment registrations there was evidence that a large number of people who were seeking employment had in fact left their jobs voluntarily. I adhere to that statement. I do not think that what I said then is very different from anything the Prime Minister has said since.

I quoted a figure in answer to other questions that week. Incidentally, none of them was a Dorothy Dix question. I do not know what definition Senator Button has of such questions but in my understanding of the term the questions I was asked were not such questions. A survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that last year 38 per cent of people looking for work had left their jobs voluntarily. The fact that there is such a large number of them is a matter for consideration. It reflects how difficult it is to obtain work in many cases. There is also quite a lot of evidence that employers are finding it difficult to obtain suitable labour. It must be that, if people leave jobs voluntarily, a great many of them must expect to be able to obtain employment. That is the context in which I answered questions on this matter. I reiterate those answers now. I do not consider that anything the Prime Minister may have said is contradictory of what I said.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Does the Minister agree with the implications of the Prime Minister’s statement that people who leave their jobs voluntarily do not wish to work and are, in the terminology of this Government, ‘incipient dole bludgers’?

Senator DURACK:

– I have not seen the particular statement to which Senator Button has referred. I am not the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I think I should refer to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations any further questions from Senator Button on interpretation of the figures. I suggest to him that he should put those questions on notice.

page 12

QUESTION

EDUCATION: POST-SECONDARY GRANTS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. It concerns a Press report of a meeting of the North Western Tasmanian Committee on Post-Secondary Education, which is based on what is referred to as ‘the replacement of grants by student loans’. Will the Minister advise the Senate whether it is his intention to eliminate post-secondary grants and to replace them with a student loan system, or whether any changes to the system are contemplated?

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

-The current policy of the Government is to pursue the various student loans, including what is known as TEAS- the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. No change in that policy is foreshadowed. ‘A committee, on which I think students are represented, has been set up to inquire into the possibility of there being student loans by way of supplement to and not replacement of existing allowances. I repeat: The inquiry is essentially to produce evidence as to whether student loans, in whatever nature, would be useful as additions to allowances and not replacements of allowances. I remind the honourable senator that there are various systems of student loans throughout the world and that they are being studied now. I also remind the honourable senator that Australia, in terms of its allowances to students to assist with their maintenance during their studies, is one of the pacesetters and leaders in the world.

page 13

QUESTION

NAVAL EXERCISES IN INDIAN OCEAN

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to reports of proposals made by the Australian Department of Defence to the Indonesian Government for the holding of joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean. Who authorised such proposals? Who conducted discussions concerning the proposals with the Indonesian Government? In view of the public stance of the Australian Government of opposition to Indonesian intervention in East Timor, does the Minister not agree that such proposals could be interpreted as de facto support for Indonesian military activities in East Timor?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will seek information as to the first 2 questions. As to the last question, the answer is no.

page 13

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. I refer to a Commonwealth plan to have the Commonwealth Grants Commission review the tax sharing arrangements and to the comments that have been made on this plan in the last day or so by the Premiers of South Australia and Western Australia. Is it a fact that the review will not recognise any special arrangements reached outside the normal financial arrangements? The Minister will understand that I have in mind the South Australian railways situation. If so, will that place certain States in a position of disadvantage and in some difficulty of argument to the Commission as the reviewing authority? What effect will such a review plan have on Commonwealth-State relations and the principles of Federation? Indeed, can the Minister give me any further information on the matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The situation is that, following upon the successful launching of stage one of the revenue sharing arrangements in relation to the federalism policy, the Commonwealth indicated to the States that there should be in each period of 5 years- not more than 5 years- a review of the relativities between the States. The Commonwealth also indicated that it felt that the Commonwealth Grants Commission- a statutory body which was established in 1933 and which has achieved great prestige for its work in Australia- should be the body to undertake this review of the relativities. A number of the States- - several of the less populous States- have expressed a view, for one reason or another, that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should not be the reviewing body. I understand that no State has suggested that there should not be an independent body to decide the relativities. As a matter of fact I have before me the transcript of the remarks made by Mr Dunstan yesterday in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s AM broadcast. The transcript quotes him as having said:

I believe that a review has to take place and we have acceded to that.

He went on to say:

They - meaning New South Wales and Victoria- will probably be better off as a result.

First of all I want to make it perfectly clear that the contention is not whether there ought to be a quinquennial review or an even shorter review; the question is what body shall undertake the review. There are a number of suggestions in this regard. The subject will be a matter for discussion at the next Premiers’ Conference. I do not foreshadow what the result will be. The Commonwealth, of course, will be interested in the view of the States. It has held to the strong view that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should be such a body. The States have suggested that since the Grants Commission looks throughout the year towards the mendicant States and makes decisions in that regard it cannot sit in review of its own judgments. But the arbitration system works in a 2 -tiered system in a very similar fashion. I do not pretend to foreshadow what the nature of the review will be.

As to the question of what elements will be taken into the review, that will be essentially a matter for the reviewing body itself. I remind the honourable senator that the Commonwealth Grants Commission today has a free hand in reviewing the elements of relativities if there is an approach from the States. I cannot foreshadow what will be reviewed and what will not be reviewed. I simply draw attention to the fact that the essential argument at the moment is what the body will be. In Mr Dunstan ‘s case there is some apprehension that the body may look towards moneys that South Australia has gained from the Commonwealth under the terms of the sale of railways, but I cannot say that that is so. The review body will be looking to Australia as a whole. It will not be looking simply towards the desires of each of the six States to acquire money. It has another very real responsibility to the taxpayers of Australia to ensure that they are not raided too frequently.

page 14

QUESTION

CATTLE PRICES

Senator GIETZELT:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, in which he called on cattle producers to withhold stock from the market, constitute Government policy? Would not such a proposal seriously raise domestic meat prices and affect the fight against inflation? Would not the threat to withhold supplies constitute a strike by capital? Does this mean that the Government now supports strike action by labour and capital to get higher prices for their commodities?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I suggest that the honourable senator place his question on notice.

page 14

QUESTION

PRESERVATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Is it a fact that capital grants to the Victorian Division of the National Trust from the Commonwealth Government have ceased, forcing the Trust to suspend its future capital expenditure program? Is it also true that the Federal Government has pledged to donate $100,000 to the highly admirable world-wide appeal for the restoration of the Acropolis in Athens? If this is true, and given the undeveloped state of action for preservation of Australia’s heritage, how does the Minister explain this allocation of priorities?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I can say, with first-hand knowledge, that it is a fact that the Australian Government has indicated its intention to make a grant, I think of $ 100,000, for the restoration of what must be one of the great heritages of this world, the Acropolis. I understand that the people of Australia, the Greek community and national communities, also will be raising money for this purpose. I would urge support for this enterprise. I cannot answer whether grants of money to the National Trust have ceased. I shall seek the information and let the honourable senator know.

page 14

QUESTION

SOLDIER SETTLERS: DEBTS TO THE COMMONWEALTH

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether notice has been issued to 8 soldier settlers on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, that unless they can greatly reduce their debts to the Commonwealth they must vacate their holdings by the end of this month. Did the Minister give the settlers an undertaking that no action would be taken to remove them until consideration had been given to the report of a special committee set up by the South Australian Government to investigate problems on the island? Is it correct that the report has not yet been made public? If so, is the Minister’s latest notification to the 8 soldier settlers a repudiation of his previous undertaking?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This is a serious matter for the settlers concerned on Kangaroo Island. If, after question time, the honourable senator will let me have the details of the matter I shall take it up for him with the Minister responsible.

page 14

QUESTION

CYCLONE TRACY: COMPENSATION

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the personal compensation payments to those people who suffered injury during cyclone Tracy and ask: What is the present attitude of the Government to the personal compensation payments to those people? I understand that every widow received a grant of $15,000 and that $1,000 was given for each dependent child from the Cyclone Tracy Trust Fund. What further amount was received in compensation payments from the Department of Social Security over the last 2 years and 3 months? How many people were crippled? What payments were made to these people?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– In the first part of the question I was asked about the Government’s attitude with regard to the victims of cyclone Tracy. I should put the situation into context. Since the cyclone the victims in that area have received personal compensation payments based on the proposed national compensation scheme under a Bui introduced by the former Government. The Government’s attitude to this matter is that from the end of this month those special payments will be discontinued. Those people who are eligible for other benefits through the Department of Social Security may apply for them. They will receive whatever their entitlements are under existing provisions. With regard to specific compensation payments which have been received, many questions were asked but perhaps if I give general information it may be of assistance. Class A widows who were determined to be eligible for compensation at that time received a benefit, updated quarterly in accordance with the movement in the consumer price index. The entitlement was 60 per cent of the benefit which would have been payable to the husband; that is 60 per cent of 85 per cent of the husband’s 1973-74 income. But that amount must be at least $50. Such widows also received a lump sum payment of $1,000. Class B widows had benefits as set out above but these were payable for a period of 12 months only. Dependent children were entitled to 15 per cent of the benefit which would have been payable to the father. The numbers involved at the time we took the decision to discontinue these payments were 17 class A widows and one class B widow. I understand that a number of people have received injury compensation. The total cost of compensation to date has been $410,000 since 7 March 1975. If I find, when reading the question from the honourable senator, that there are matters that I have not covered in this answer, I shall see that the information is provided.

page 15

QUESTION

NATIONAL WETLANDS SURVEY

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I refer to page 8 of the report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which was circulated on the last sitting day before the adjournment of the Senate for Christmas, and to the heading ‘National Wetlands Survey’. The report states that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has completed its feasibility study report for a national wetlands survey and that the report is being examined by the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers which deals with funding. Since I asked this question in a broader sense last December, could the Minister tell me the cost involved in this national wetlands survey and when the next meeting of the Council of Conservation Ministers will be held apparently to underwrite such an operation.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not have that information immediately before me. I appreciate the honourable senator’s interest in this matter. It is an important matter. I will bring to the attention of my colleague the 2 questions which the honourable senator has asked, get the answers and let the honourable senator have them.

page 15

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The question relates to a recent statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that he had seen neither drafting instructions nor the Bill, proposed as complementary legislation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which was introduced recently into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly by Dr Goff Letts. Did the Minister in his second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill indicate that he would participate with Dr Letts in the preparation of complementary legislation and that acceptance by the Minister of such complementary legislation would be necessary before it was introduced as legislation? Does the Minister’s insistence on participation in, and acceptance by him of, complementary legislation remain? If so, can he advise what is the present position in relation to the complementary legislation now before the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly? Can the Minister assure the Senate that there will be no attempt to by-pass the processes of consultation, participation and approval set out when the land rights legislation was debated in this Parliament?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Legislation complementary to the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was introduced into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 3 March. In his second reading speech Dr Letts, the Chief Secretary of the Northern Territory, said that the Bills would be available for public comment for a reasonable period. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs wishes me to state that there was a public commitment given by Dr Letts that the complementary legislation would be worked out in consultation with Aborigines and with the involvement and agreement of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. That commitment stands and the Minister will see that it is met.

It will be recalled that the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights include examination of Northern Territory legislation and the Commonwealth’s attitude to Northern Territory Bills will be determined, taking into account the views of the Joint Select Committee. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has the responsibility of ensuring that Northern Territory legislation accords with the Commonwealth Act and the views of the Aboriginal people. There have been discussions at ministerial and departmental levels which have included Dr Letts and his officers preparatory to drafting the Bills. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had expected to see drafts before legislation was introduced into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. It is now noted that Dr Letts has given an assurance that the Bills will not pass through the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly until the public and the Commonwealth have had a chance to comment. There has been some Press comment in regard to the Minister’s Press statement. I believe from what was stressed in our own legislation at the time it was dealt with, particularly in the Senate, that the assurance given by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs with regard to consultation and agreement will be upheld. We expect that that commitment will be met.

page 16

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES ACT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Social Security whether she recalls saying to me in answer to a question on 24 February last:

The Government amended the Social Services Act last year to enable automatic indexation of pensions and benefits to be made in May and November of each year. The Government has no intention to amend further the Social Services Act. The amendments the Government has made will be upheld.

Is it a fact, as reported, that Mr Lynch has announced that the Government is reconsidering this matter? If so, what has happened in the last 12 days to cause such a reconsideration in view of the Minister’s very firm statement 3 sitting days ago?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I recall answering the honourable senator’s question and stating that the Government had amended the Social Services Act last year to provide for automatic indexation of pensions and benefits in accordance with movements upwards in the consumer price index. The Government has not given any further consideration to this matter.

Senator GRIMES:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Social Security. Is it true, as reported, that the Treasurer this day has announced that the Government is reconsidering this legislation? If so, why should such reconsideration be proposed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I restate the answer that I have just given: The Government has not given further consideration to this matter.

page 16

QUESTION

TELEPHONE FACILITIES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Does Telecom Australia generally make available to the deaf a device to amplify telephone conversations? If so, what is the cost to deaf subscribers? If not, does Telecom have plans to provide such a service? When might it be expected to be implemented?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have information regarding Telecom Australia and the deaf. I have been asked several times about this matter. My understanding is that particular telephone facilities have been made available for some years now to assist people with moderate hearing loss. Volume control telephones require an additional rental of $4 a year. Gliding tone callers attract an additional rental of $3 a year. I understand that hearing aid couplers attract an additional rental of 30 cents, and that rental for extension bells varies according to size and type of sets. Visual signals attract an additional rental of $2.50. If these facilities are provided with the installation of the normal telephone service, there is no additional installation charge. If the facility is required to be fitted to an existing service, there is an installation charge of $20. I understand that Telecom Australia currently is investigating, in conjunction with the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled and appropriate welfare orientated government departments, what other facilities might be required and how best they could be made available. If the honourable senator seeks any further information, I will be happy to get it.

page 16

QUESTION

ANTARCTIC DIVISION HEADQUARTERS

Senator WRIEDT:

-Does the Minister for Science recall having promised to announce by the end of February the Government’s decision on the site for the Antarctic Division headquarters in Hobart? Is it to be the site at Kingston selected by the previous Government in 1974 and on which construction should now be under way? What is to happen to the land at Kingston owned by the Commonwealth? Does this mean that all the work and cost involved in designing the building for that site is now wasted? If the Kingston site is to be proceeded with, how can the Minister justify the delay in proceeding with construction on that site? What has the cost now increased to because of the Government’s 12 months of indecision? What is the construction timetable now to be?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Leader of the Opposition has asked me a series of questions. I suggest to him, in view of the shortness of question time, that he should place them on the notice paper in order to receive proper answers. The initial part of his question asked whether I said that I would make a decision on this matter early in the year. Suffice to say that I did, and I expect that within the next 2 weeks I will make that decision.

page 17

QUESTION

ADELAIDE WATER TREATMENT PROGRAM

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, refers to the subject of metropolitan Adelaide’s water treatment program. The Minister no doubt will be aware that the quality of Adelaide water has been under some general criticism and that an agreement was made between the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government in 1974 in respect of a part funding and a part grant program over a period of 1 1 years. The Minister may also be aware that recently a party composed of all the South Australian senators toured the sites, inspected the schemes and were very mindful of the need to get a continuing program. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether a continuing program will be cemented by the present Government along the lines of the 1974 program? Is there any question of that program being disturbed? If he cannot so inform the Senate this afternoon, would he be good enough to find out the situation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I appreciate the importance of the question of a stable water supply to Adelaide because of its particular difficulties. As the honourable senator will appreciate, I do not have the particular details in front of me. I will be happy to get them and let the honourable senator know the position.

page 17

QUESTION

PROPELLANT GASES

Senator KNIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. I refer to reports that the State of Oregon in the United States of America has banned the sale of aerosol sprays that contain fluorocarbons which are claimed to have adverse effects on the earth’s protective ozone layer. Can the Minister outline what investigations of these claims have been or are being made and the outcome of those inquiries? Can he indicate whether the Oregon legislation has been examined by the Government and whether there are any plans to introduce similar legislation in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I noted in the media on 2 March that it was stated that the State of Oregon had banned the sale of aerosol sprays which employ halocarbon propellants. My understanding of the most recent state of the science in this matter is that there is a class of chemical substances which have become known as ./……… , Amongst these substances are carbon, fluorine, hydrogen and chlorine. Of these, the major chemical thought to be destructive to the ozone layer is chlorine. Indeed, there appears to be a great deal of difference in attitude amongst scientists towards these various terms. My understanding of the correct term for these trace constituents is chlorofluoro methanes. These appear in general context to be commercially referred to as fluorocarbons. The honourable senator asked what Australia was doing in this matter. I have sought a report on the decision of the State of Oregon. I do not know the truth of the matter as yet and I have not received that report. Measurement of the effect of these gases on the ozone layer, as one can imagine, presents a particularly difficult scientific exercise. I have been seeking information. I have answered questions in the Senate previously relating to the possible detriment of certain constituents to the ozone layer. My advice on inquiry is that at this time damage to the ozone which may be caused by propellants is unproven. Perhaps within a couple of years the science will be more precise. I believe that the community should be very wary of the damage which may occur. Perhaps as time goes by this will appear more obvious. I am advised that any damage or effect is not particularly obvious at the moment. The honourable senator may know that investigations have been carried out for a number of years by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Atmospheric Physics as part of an overall research into propellants but special studies of course are being carried out world wide which have prompted the U.S. decision. United States government agencies are certainly carrying out investigations. Investigations are being carried out at present by the World Health Organisation, the World Meteorological Organisation, the United Nations Environment Protection Agency and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Honourable senators may be interested in the fact that one Australian scientist has suggested that there could be a greater threat to the ozone layer than is generally suggested is being posed by fluorocarbons by the effect of carbon tetrachloride, which is something with which we have been associated since 1 940. This is the material which has been used in dry cleaning and fumigation and for the removing of grease from metals. My understanding is that, while scientists have been concerned with the threat to the ozone layer from refrigerant gases and other propellants, perhaps this type of pollution is of far greater import. I understand that carbon tetrachloride puts about 3 times as much chlorine into the stratosphere-which incorporates the ozone layer- as do the combined chlorine from refrigerant gases, spray cans and supersonic aircraft. The matter is under consideration and other departments beside mine, including the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development, and all State governments are alerted to this problem.

ENTRY OF Mr VINCENT TERESA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Is it a fact that the American Mafioso Vincent Teresa was met on arrival at Sydney airport and escorted through Customs by Commonwealth Police officers? When did the Minister hear or when did the police learn of that person’s impending arrival? Why was it necessary for the person concerned to be met by Commonwealth Police officers? Did the Minister consult with his colleague responsible for the issue of visas or did the police consult with the relevant department before arrangements were made for the police officers concerned to meet the visitor?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator has asked for some detailed information which I do not carry in my head. I will seek the information from the Commissioner of Police and let the honourable senator have it at the earliest possible time.

page 18

QUESTION

HOBART AIRPORT: PILOT BRIEFING OFFICE

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport a question relating to the Hobart airport. Is it a fact that the pilot briefing office at Hobart Airport is now being operated at reduced hours, namely, from 5.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Thursday, Saturday and Sunday and from only 5.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on the other 4 days of the week and that that arrangement will continue until at least 1 May? Does the Minister realise that aircraft required to submit a flight plan, including both Ansett and TAA aircraft, therefore have to contact Launceston by telephone? Is the Minister able to state the rationale for the reduction in operating hours and whether or not any difficulties have yet been encountered? Is he able to assure the Senate that there is no danger to commercial aircraft resulting from the reduction in hours of operation? Are reductions of a similar nature contemplated at any other capital city airport?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Townley has asked a series of questions demanding specific answers. I do not have all those answers immediately available. I will refer the question to the relevant Minister in the other place and seek answers.

page 18

QUESTION

IDENTITY CARDS: WELFARE BENEFIT RECIPIENTS

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Government considering introducing a system of identity cards for persons receiving welfare benefits? If so, on what basis would such a system be established?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– A suggestion was made a week or so ago that consideration should be given to the matter of identification for social security and other benefits in this country. I have not asked my Department to make any investigations on that subject or to present any information to me. Some consideration may have been undertaken on behalf of other Ministers, but it is not a matter upon which I have any activity in progress.

page 18

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SAVINGS BONDS

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister recall that in February last year I asked him questions about series 1 Australian savings bonds and pointed out that although they were designed for smaller investors and savers, wealthy financial companies and nominee companies were taking advantage of loopholes in the issue? Has the Minister seen the article in the National Times of 7 March which states that eight of Australia’s leading corporate companies exploited loopholes in the issue and that one company actually subscribed $3. 4m to the issue by taking out the maximum bond issue of $100,000 in the name of the parent company and $3.3m in the names of 33 subsidiary companies? Is the Minister in a position to confirm or to state otherwise concerning the substance of the article? If it is true, does the Government intend to prevent similar back door manoeuvres in any future bond issue?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-It is not given to me to be lucky enough to read the National Times on every occasion, but I did read that issue and I noted the article. I remember the honourable senator’s question and I remember my own concern. I have already indicated to my own people that I should like them to direct to the Treasury some inquiries as to whether or not the statement in the article is a fact and, if it is a fact, what arrangements can be made to check that sort of position in the future.

page 19

QUESTION

STUDENT LOANS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister for Education: Is it a fact that tertiary institutions and student unions have not been contacted directly to seek their views on the inquiry into the desirability of implementing a system of student loans? Did those bodies which presented submissions by the cut-off date of 1 March learn about the request for their views purely through newspaper advertisements? If so, is the Minister aware that many universities and student unions were forced to prepare rushed submissions? I particularly instance here the University of Queensland and also the University of Queensland Union. I believe that the latter was forced to incorporate its views in the University administration’s submission through lack of adequate time. In view of the increasing concern at suggestions that the Butcher report will result in student loans replacing rather than supplementing tertiary education assistance scheme assistancedespite the Minister’s comments earlier today- will the Minister ensure that additional time is allowed for further submissions and, as in the case of Queensland University, for more detailed submissions, to be presented for consideration?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I refer first of all to the latter part of Senator Colston’s question. It does no good service to the students of Australia to peddle something which by way of fear will give them unnecessary cause for apprehension. In other words, I make it clear and I repeat that this inquiry is an inquiry into student loans as a supplement to- as an addition to- and not a replacement of student allowances. It is utterly clear that that is so. I have said so and the Government has said so repeatedly. I have made a number of statements including statements in this chamber on that matter. I want to make that abundantly clear. I am not aware that there has been some suggestion that inadequate time has been made available in which to get public and specialist response to this committee. If this is so, I regret it very much.

The aim of the Government was that the committee should draw upon the maximum specialist and general knowledge available. I am not aware that insufficient time was given for student bodies or universities to make submissions or that direct approaches were not made to them. It is fair to say of course that all such institutions would have had available to them the public statements that the Government made when setting up this inquiry. They also would have had available to them the paid advertisements in the newspapers. Nevertheless, if there has been inadequate time, I shall seek to see whether more adequate time can be given to permit full and comprehensive submissions. The Government wants to have the fullest information before it so that the report itself can be of use to the public as well as to the Government.

page 19

QUESTION

STUDENT LOANS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, follows on the one just asked by Senator Colston. In order to clarify the position, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not hold those student allowances as grants at their present level and then supplement them by loans which, I am sure the Minister will agree, is an entirely different proposition to increasing the real value of the grants and then implementing a supplementary system?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It would do no good at all to speculate at this moment on what future policies will be. Senator Wriedt smiles. Let me make this clear: The first thing that is obviously necessary is to have the committee’s report before this Parliament, before the public and before the Government and to evaluate it. The Government has made very clear what it has proposed. It has proposed and has implemented student allowances on a substantially increased basis. It ill behoves Senator Wriedt or the Labor Party- a party which refused during the whole of 1974 and the whole of 1975 to increase student allowances from their June 1974 level- to use scare tactics. If the game is scare tactics, let us look at the quality of the Labor Party which put that game forward. It is now trying to scare students but it did not have the common decency to put up student allowances in the whole of the high inflation period when it was in government.

Senator Wriedt:

– We did not scare the whole of the education system as you are doing now.

Senator CARRICK:

-lt hurts now because the tactics are rebounding on the Labor Party. In October of last year the Government announced increases in allowances to students amounting to 40 per cent in some cases and amounting to $50m in all. The Government said that it will continue these allowances and that it will review them in the next Budget. We hope we will then have the benefit of the report on loans. When we have that report, we will consider loans in relation to student aid in Australia in their true nature.

page 20

QUESTION

JOB CREATION

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In view of the only marginal fall in unemployment in February to a record level for that month of 5.7 per cent, will he agree that the Government should take action to create jobs? Will a new scheme along the lines of the Regional Employment Development scheme which created thousands of jobs be introduced? Will the Government provide subsidies to companies to employ unemployed persons along the lines of the successful schemes now operating in countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-Like the honourable senator I am concerned about the unemployment figures. I am concerned about their accuracy. I am concerned about young people who I know are seeking jobs and finding them hard to get. I am concerned also about many people who tell me that they are trying to get people to work for them but cannot do so. The whole matter is in a state of great confusion. I assure the honourable senator that the Department of Industry and Commerce is doing everything it can to build a prosperous Australia that will employ people gainfully. Let us bear in mind that the present inflation and unemployment began in the time of the previous Government. We inherited this situation. It is much the same today as it was when we took office. It is a difficult problem which will take a long time to resolve. Any constructive suggestions, other than pure and stupid noise, are welcomed by me.

page 20

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Insurance (Deposits) Amendment Bill 1976 Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Amendment Bill 1976 Defence Amendment Bill 1976

Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1976

Public Service Amendment (First Division Officers) Bill 1976

Crimes (Aircraft) Amendment Bill 1976 Crimes ( Internationally Protected Persons ) Bill 1 976 Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1976

Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1976 Crimes (Biological Weapons) Bill 1976 Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1 977 Census and Statistics Amendment Bill 1977 Representation Amendment Bill 1977 Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1977 Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Bill 1977

page 20

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the fifth session of the third United Nations Conference of the Law of the Sea held in New York from 2 August to 1 7 September 1976.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 20

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1 947, 1 present the report of the operations of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, insofar as they relate to Australia, for the financial year 1975-76.

page 20

DRILLING MACHINES

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on bench or pedestal drilling machines not power fed.

page 20

REFERENDUM PROPOSALS AND POLL FOR A NATIONAL SONG

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– by leave- On 25 February 1977 the Senate passed by absolute majorities the Bills in respect of the proposed laws to alter the Constitution:

To ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections;

To ensure so far as practicable that a casual vacancy in the Senate is filled by a person of the same political party as the senator chosen by the people and for the balance of his term;

To provide for retiring ages for judges of federal courts; and

To allow electors in Territories, as well as electors in the States, to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution.

The House of Representatives had previously passed these Bills on 1 7 February 1977. In order to comply with the requirements of section 128 of the Constitution these Bills must be submitted to the electors in each State not less than 2 nor more than 6 months after their passage through both Houses. I now inform honourable senators that the Government has decided that the referendums for these proposed alterations to the Constitution will be held on 21 May 1977. The Government will be recommending to the Governor-General that the writs issue on 27 April. The electoral rolls for the referendums will close on the day the writs issue.

The conduct of the referendums is governed by the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906. Provision is made in that Act for an argument in favour of, and also against, a proposed law to be forwarded to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer, who is then responsible for having the arguments printed and for posting a copy to each elector. Any such argument must, in accordance with the Act, be forwarded to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer by 25 March 1 977. An argument in favour of a proposed law must be authorised by a majority of those members of both Houses who voted for it and who desire to forward such argument. A similar authorisation requirement applies in relation to an argument against a proposed law. The Government is preparing the Yes case in favour of the proposed laws for submission to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer on behalf of those who voted for the proposed laws. In preparing the case the Government will consult with the Leader of the Opposition. The Chief Australian Electoral Officer is required to post the pamphlet to electors not later than 2 weeks after the issue of the writs.

Concurrently with the referendums all electors are to have the opportunity to express on a voluntary basis their wishes as to the tune of a national song. A poll will be conducted on the basis that God Save the Queen is the national anthem to be played on regal and vice-regal occasions, but that on other occasions it will be appropriate for a national song to be played. For this purpose electors will be asked to express their preferences for the following tunes:

God Save the Queen Advance A Australia Fair Song of Australia Waltzing Matilda.

The Government believes that it is desirable that all electors should be able to indicate their wishes as to which of these tunes should be adopted for our national song and the holding of the referendums to alter the Constitution on 2 1 May will provide an ideal opportunity for this purpose. The electors of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory will be able to participate in this poll for the national song, although it is not possible to provide for them, at this point of time, to participate in the referendums to alter the Constitution.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 21

SITTINGS AND BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

1 ) That the days of meeting of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, be Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week; and that the hour of meeting, unless otherwise ordered, be half-past two p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and eleven a.m. on Thursdays.

That, during the present Session, unless otherwise ordered, the sittings of the Senate, or a Committee of the Whole Senate, be suspended from one p.m. until a quarterpast two p.m. and from six p.m. until eight p.m.

That, during the present Session, unless otherwise ordered, at half-past ten p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays and eleven p.m. on Wednesdays, the President shall put the Question- That the Senate do now adjourn- which Question shall be open to debate; if the Senate be in Committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the QuestionThat he do leave the Chair and report to the Senate; and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the Question- That the Senate do now adjourn- which Question shall be open to debate: Provided that if the Senate or the Committee be in Division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the Question referred to until the result of such Division has been declared; and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day.

That, on all sitting days of the Senate during the present Session, unless otherwise ordered. Government Business shall take precedence of General Business except that General Business take precedence of Government Business on Thursdays, after eight p.m.; and that, unless otherwise ordered, General Orders of the Day take precedence of General Notices of Motion on alternate Thursdays.

That, the following procedure shall apply in lieu of that provided in Standing Orders 102 and 103-

The Clerk shall place notices of Questions on the Notice Paper in the order in which they are received by him.

The reply to a Question on Notice shall be given by delivering the same to the Clerk. A copy thereof shall be supplied to the Senator who has asked the Question, and such Question and reply shall be printed in Hansard. Provided that any Senator who, pursuant to this Standing Order, has received a copy of a reply may, by leave, ask the Question and have the reply read in the Senate.

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the procedure for the presentation of Petitions be varied as follows-

A Senator desiring personally to present a Petition shall notify the Clerk when lodging the Petition. When presenting such Petition to the Senate, the Senator may announce-

that he presents a Petition from a stated number of petitioners relating to a certain matter; or

that he presents a Petition from a stated number of petitioners similarly worded to one presented earlier by a Senator.

The Senator may ask that the Petition be read by the Clerk: Provided that unless otherwise ordered, a Petition exceeding 250 words may not be read.

The Clerk shall then make an announcement as to other Petitions lodged with him, indicating in respect of each Petition the Senator who presents it, the number of signatures, the identity of the petitioners and the subject-matter of the Petition.

Every Petition presented shall be deemed to have been received by the Senate unless a motion, moved forthwith, that a particular Petition be not received, be agreed to.

The terms of the Petitions presented shall be printed in Hansard.

page 22

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE REPORTS

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the Orders of the Day standing on the Notice Paper for 25 February 1977 for the consideration in Committee of the Whole of the First and Second Reports of the Fiftyseventh Session of the Standing Orders Committee be restored to the Notice Paper and be Orders of the Day for the next day of sitting.

page 22

SITTINGS AND BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

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

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a very brief statement about sitting times tomorrow and the business for consideration next Tuesday.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-By general arrangement it is the Government’s intention to lift the Senate not later than 5 p.m. tomorrow. I have let honourable senators know that so that they can make their own travel arrangements for the weekend.

Senator Button:

– No business?

Senator WITHERS:

-There is plenty of business for consideration. We will stay here if Senator Button wants us to do so, but it is understood that it is the general consensus that we should go home. Because of the importance of some of the matters contained in reports of the Standing Orders Committee relating to the setting up of the Senate committee system, it is my intention next Tuesday afternoon to have a debate on the 2 reports which have just been returned to the notice paper. Hopefully we can resolve the matter before the night is out and can then go on with the reconstitution of the various Senate committees.

page 22

QUESTION

SPEECH OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Address-in-Reply

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Before calling Senator Lewis, I indicate to the Senate that this will be his first speech in the Senate. I invite honourable senators to extend the traditional courtesies to him. I call Senator Lewis.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-Mr President, I have the honour to move:

That the following Address-in-Reply to the speech of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second be agreed to:

To Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth the SecondMost Gracious Sovereign:

We, Your Majesty’s loyal subjects, the members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to thank Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

The presence in Australia of Your Majesty and of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has once again brought the greatest pleasure to your Australian people. We, their representatives in the Senate, are grateful for the opportunity to re-affirm our allegiance to you as our Queen.

As you have said, Mr President, this is my maiden speech. I am conscious of the fact that I am here only because of the tragic death of Senator Ivor Greenwood, Q.C. The late Senator Greenwood was a friend of mine. He was acknowledged by all as a man of integrity and high principle, of outstanding courage, with a passion for justice and with an enormous capacity for work. Repeatedly in and around Canberra I have been informed by car drivers and staff that he used to work until half past 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning and then resume again at 8 a.m. the same day. There can be no doubt as to the cause of his death in relation to his work. Yet, as the wife of an employee of the people of Australia, his widow had no entitlement to any compensation- only to an ex gratia payment. Frankly it is my belief that a charitable payment to a widow of a parliamentarian who died in those circumstances is not good enough.

I am conscious of the honour of being a senator. I have been chosen by the Liberal Party of Australia, and I am conscious of that honour. But I represent Victoria and I was appointed without dissent by a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament of Victoria. I was present when that resolution was carried. I am pleased that the Houses of the Parliament of Victoria followed the convention without dispute. I was reminded by speakers from the Opposition and the National Country Party of Australia in that Parliament that I represent the State of Victoria and

I am very conscious of that representation. But, in particular, I hope to represent the people of rural Victoria- the people of the towns and other areas in rural Victoria. I believe that they in particular need representation at this time.

As to those living on the land, for far too long many of them have been living out of capital. A fall in land values would bankrupt many. They have economised and cut their living standards. They and their families are working long hours for an inadequate return. Estimated figures for 1976-77 from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics show farmers with an average net weekly income of $169 compared with an average weekly wage of $185. But worse, not only is the sum of $169 an average but also, in many cases, it is a family wage. Dad, mum and the kids are desperately trying to keep their heads above water. Even large properties are in dire straits. The Chairman of the Australian Meat Board, when submitting the Board’s report to 30 June 1976, had this to say:

In 1974-75 and 1975-76 up to three-quarters of all beef specialist enterprises in Australia were considered to be operating at a loss. The debts accumulated on these specialist properties could well render many of these enterprises unprofitable even with a return to prices considered to be attractive.

Certainly the people of rural Victoria and rural Australia need help. First and foremost they need inflation contained. Inflation hits the man on the land hardest of all. They need help with the marketing of their products the Australian Wool Corporation’s marketing plan has shown us the way. Their products need to be marketed aggressively. They also need information services and help with very long term finance.

In particular they would like some acknowledgment that they are wanted. They need to be assured that they and their families have a future and that they can plan for that future on the land. Australia will not be prosperous until the primary producer becomes profitable. Australian rural towns will not be prosperous until that date and Australian urban cities will not be prosperous until that date.

As a newcomer I would like to comment on the functions of the Senate as I see them, especially at this time when, no doubt, much will be said about the forthcoming referenda. I think that no one seriously suggests that the Senate does not operate very effectively as a House of review, but many would contend that it is not a States’ House. With respect, I disagree. I believe that that is a superficial view only. Certainly, senators always have grouped in parties rather than in States, but that has not stopped them arguing for their States not only in this chamber but also, and in particular, in their party rooms. Often legislation has been drawn in a certain way because governments have known that it would not pass the Senate in any other form.

Members of the House of Representatives are concerned mostly with their constituencies; senators are concerned with their States. Further, with proportional representation, I believe there can be no doubt that this House is the most democratically elected House of Parliament in Australia.

Mr President, my Vh weeks in this chamber have not been without interest. In my first week there was so much legislation that we had to sit until 6 o’clock on a Friday afternoon, the last sitting day in 1976. In fact on my very first day there were some 20 divisions on one Bill- almost a record. During my second week here someone turned out the lights on the Parliament, and in my third week eleven of my colleagues voted against their Government. I want to refer to this last matter. Probably there will be much debate in this chamber and elsewhere on the referenda, but as to the debate in this chamber I would like to make two simple points. Firstly, I believe that those of my colleagues who crossed the floor did so out of the highest of motives for the institution of the Senate and in no way for self-interest. I think their views should be respected as such. Secondly, I hope that the debate will be kept to the highest of levels consistent with consideration of constitutional change in the Senate of Australia.

There has been a suggestion that in a maiden speech one should discuss a matter of concern to the members of one’s State, preferably a noncontroversial matter. Already I have discussed one such matter, the plight of the primary producer. There is another such matter that I would like to mention. It is of major concern to all Victorians. I am sure this matter has almost unanimous support and so it must be noncontroversial. That matter is the complete condemnation of the President of the Victorian Teachers Union and his committee for calling yesterday’s teachers’ strike in Victoria. These people called a strike on the basis of some alleged rumours which were denied immediately and without reservation by the Victorian Minister, Mr Lindsay Thompson, and the Victorian Director of Education, men of complete integrity. But these people were so determined to have a strike that after 2 days of shenanigans they then changed their reasons for the strike. This time they told us that it was wrong for teachers who are working in office jobs with other Victorian public servants to work the same hours as those other public servants. Instead of starting at 8.30 a.m., like other public servants, they should not have to start until 9 a.m. Instead of finishing work at 4.46 p.m., like other public servants, they should be allowed to finish at 4.30 p.m. I suppose they want 14 weeks annual leave as well. Mr President this strike was preposterous and a farce. It was also sinister. As a lawyer occasionally involved in matrimonial contests I have seen children wielded by one parent to achieve a course of action by another parent. I have always detested such people and such tactics. I believe these people have used Victorian children in a similar manner.

Finally, and most importantly, let me return to my motion and the Speech of Her Majesty to her Australian Parliament. There is much of significance in the Speech. First and foremost, it should be noted that the Speech is progressive and forward looking. This Government is not yet half way through its term. It might have been expected that this Speech would simply review past achievements and confirm completion of the Government’s program. That would have been quite acceptable. This Government has achieved much in its short term of office. But no, this document goes much further. It sets out guidelines for the future in a variety of fields. There is a commitment to increasing the freedom, opportunity and equality of the Australian people- giving people an opportunity to make their own choices and to live their own lives. I ask you, Mr President, not to treat these words lightly. I know my Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He means what he says and I do not doubt that he means what Her Majesty said. There is a commitment to assisting people overcome poverty and disadvantage, to assisting those most in need in a manner which increases their choice, their dignity and self respect. There are proposals for the protection of individual liberties and human rights against unwarranted intrusions, proposals to strengthen the responsibility of government to citizens. Taken altogether, one could say quite reasonably that it is a program of reform- very substantial reform- for the protection of the citizens of the Commonwealth. I commend the Government on its proposals and take pride in moving the motion.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– It is my privilege today to second the motion so ably moved by my Victorian colleague, Senator Lewis. I congratulate him on the excellence of his maiden speech in the Senate. I am certain that in the times that lie ahead his contributions to debates in this chamber will be equally thoughtful and of the same high standard as he exhibited today. I compliment him also on highlighting the problems of primary producers in this country. His comments in that regard show that he has a keen appreciation and deep knowledge of the great problems which beset the primary industries in Australia. I, of course, join with him in expressing the thanks of the Senate to our Sovereign Lady the Queen who has so graciously opened this session of the thirtieth Parliament. Coming as she does in the twenty-fifth year of her reign, we are conscious of the honour she has bestowed not only on the Senate but also on the nation. In seconding this motion I am speaking for the Government. May I, on behalf of those I represent in this place, express our complete and undivided loyalty to Her Majesty in person and also, at the same time, to the British Crown.

It is well for us on occasions such as this to reflect that the remaining constitutional links with our mother country are embodied in the Crown, represented here this week by the Queen in person. It is also well for us to remember that we have a form of government known as a constitutional monarchy. In this day and age in which we live there are those among us- I hasten to say that I am not one of them- who espouse the cause of cutting the ties which link us with the British Crown and of establishing, in heu thereof, some form of republican government in this country by doing away with our role as a constitutional monarchy. In a democratic society, such as we are still privileged to enjoy in this country, one cannot deny the right to those who advocate such principles to project them. But so strong are the links which bind us and so great are the tangible and intangible benefits which our allegiance has produced over so many years that I am confident that any such proposal will be rejected by a majority more overwhelming than that which swept us into government at the last federal election.

However, whatever one might prognosticate in this regard, I think there is unanimous agreement among the people of Australia that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, since her accession to the throne in 1952, has not spared herself in the service of her peoples. She has brought to her very difficult and exacting task a public presence which is sincere and which commands universal respect. Today we pay tribute to her success in the role of monarch and also as Queen of Australia. This is a task which demands endurance, hard work, dedication, patience and the ability to put aside her personal desires and preferences as exemplified in her devoted service to her peoples in Britain and elsewhere over the last quarter of a century. It has been said in recent times that a head of state, monarch or otherwise, symbolises at least to some extent the ideals and principles which the nation, collectively, holds dear. The qualities which are ultimately important to any country’s wellbeing are, without attempting to state them exhaustively, selflessness, dedication and moral strength. These are some of the very qualities which our Sovereign Lady the Queen has displayed consistently in the 25 years of her reign. In my maiden speech in this place just a year ago- it is to be found in the Senate Hansard of 25 February 1976 at page 217-1 stated:

It has always been my belief that the maintenance of the family as a basic unit of society is essential to our way of life in our Australian democracy. There can be no more noble vocation than that of spouse and parent. This, of course, is irrespective of whether the spouse and parent is the male of the species or the female of the species. The role of the father is equally important to that of the mother in the moulding and formation of the character of a child.

The happy family life of Her Majesty the Queen affords us an opportunity of restating those sentiments. Her successful combination of the roles of wife and mother with the very exacting, demanding and time-consuming tasks of the reigning British monarch are a shining example to ah’ of us as to how a proper balance can be preserved between which might be termed the public and private role which she is called upon to play in society, without neglecting either of those roles. Of course, there are numerous examples of other women in the community who successfully combine these dual roles. However, in Australia today there are ominous signs that we are moving or that we have already moved to a serious situation in the breakdown of the family as a unit in society. One has only to look at the marriage and divorce statistics to reinforce this argument.

Senator Georges:

– Who is responsible for that?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– The lack of personal selfdiscipline in moral matters- I hope Senator Georges knows something about that- and the enormous number of broken marriages with consequent distress not only to the contracting parties but also, perhaps more importantly, to the offspring of such marriages, is well known and is a fact of everyday life in Australia today. I stress these things because, without appearing sanctimonious, I point out that from the biblical days of Sodom and Gomorrah history is strewn with the wrecks of civilisations which failed to recognise the fundamental necessity for selfdiscipline in matters which touch on the sanctity of the family and on the maintenance of the family as a unit in society. I have before me figures relating to marriage and divorce rates for Australia in each State up to 1975 which is the last available full year. For Australia as a whole the number of marriages celebrated was 103 973 and the number of divorces was 24 307. The table sets out the figures State by State. I seek leave for that table to be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

Senator Georges:

– Which State has the greatest problem?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– If the honourable senator looks at the figures when they appear in Hansard he will see. The important thing is what the statistics reveal. They reveal that in that period upwards of 25 per cent of marriages celebrated were due to be dissolved. Subsequent history, of course, has produced even more alarming figures. Although precise figures are not yet available it has been stated that following the proclamation of the Family Law Act Australia can expect a divorce rate of some 60 000 a year. So if we accept the 1975 figures for marriages celebrated we are looking at a figure of up to 50 per cent of those marriages which are celebrated in Australia being dissolved by the Family Court, in many cases a short time after they have been celebrated.

Senator Missen:

– There is no evidence that that rate will continue.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-Perhaps not, but I think the figures illustrate the growing trends.

Senator Wriedt:

– You are not advocating that people live in sin, are you?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– These figures indicate that the family as a unit in society may well be on the way to complete disintegration. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that these matters are very important for the future of this nation. The occasion of the visit of Her Majesty the Queen affords us an opportunity of considering this situation in the proper context. Broken marriages bring in their wake an added strain on the social service payments of the country. Even more important is the irreplacable loss of the loving care and attention which surely every child has the right to expect from both parents. Apart from the economic situation and the problems for the Government and the individual, the trauma and the psychological effect on the child cannot be measured in terms of money. The actual monetary payments in 1975-76 by way of widows’ pensions for widows and deserted wives amounted to $147m. The cost of benefits paid to deserted wives, supporting mothers, unmarried mothers and deserted de facto wives is $127m. I do not know what proportion of the first figure I quoted is paid to deserted wives. But, having regard to the divorce rate, a significant part of that figure would be paid to deserted wives.

It is interesting to look at the figures in relation to school age children for the year 1974. Of the 1.3 million children in Australia between the ages of 4 and 11 years, one out of four has neither parent at home during working hours and at least 16 000 are left at home each day alone. A straw sample of parents, which bears no relationship to the number of children a family, shows that in a number of working families no arrangements were made for the care of 43 700 children; 53 200 children were left in the care of friends and relatives while other arrangements were made for 13 500 children. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) gave figures as at the end of May 1976, 1 think it was, which showed that there were some 200 000 children in the 4 to 1 1 years age group with both parents in the labour force. We have a new phrase in Australian jargon today- ‘latch key children’. They may be defined as children whose parents are in the work force. The children come home from school, get the key, open up the house and wait for their parents to come home.

The statistics which I have quoted in some detail are all the more alarming when we look at them in terms of preserving the family unit as basic to the welfare of our democracy. I stress these figures as being relevant also to the consideration of the role of women in society today. I am very mindful of the fact that economic necessity in many cases compels the wife and mother to join the work force. But it is generally accepted that very young children have an absolute need for a mother’s care and attention and can suffer severe deprivation if, during those tender years, they are put in the care of persons outside the home. A great deal of juvenile crime, drug addiction and criminality generally can be traced to the almost physical disintegration of the family as a functioning social mechanism. Some of these problems are reaching almost plague proportions. Many of the aberrations I have mentioned are not connected with poverty but attack equally the affluent and middle classes of society.

I refer the Senate to the concern expressed by Dr Judianne Densen-Gerber who has a wide background in the treatment and rehabilitation of hard drug addicts and the problems of youth in America. She works with the Odessy Foundation. Many honourable senators would have seen the Press reports of an address by her at the National Press Club in Canberra on 1 March. The Australian newspaper of the following date reported that she said that more than 600 000 American children under 16 years of age were involved in prostitution and pornography. The article states:

Thousands of runaway children were being procured or tricked into selling themselves for sexual purposes, prostitution and pornography.

She also said that United States child pornography was a multi-million dollar business.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Do you not think that she is a sensation-monger herself, senator?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I reserve judgement on that, senator. The point I make is that although her statements relate to the American situation concern must be expressed for the situation in Australia which does appear to be following the American pattern. I suggest that a strong case can be made for not penalising a woman who chooses to devote her time exclusively to her vocation and role in society as a wife and mother. Indeed, in the current climate of unemployment one would think that women with family responsibilities should be discouraged from entering the work force unless doing so is a matter of economic necessity. Some more positive steps could be expected from government by way of allowances to a family where the wife and mother is not engaged in outside employment but is totally absorbed in her duties in the home. Also I suggest that the Government should consider paying some allowance to such women in lower income families. In the present unemployment situation the voluntary reduction in the number of married women in the work force should assist in dissipating the problem of youth employment which is one of the grave problems of the day.

The extension of government activity into the social services field has been precipitated by the breakdown in family life and by the increasing necessity to provide social service amenities for the products of broken homes. I have already instanced the cost of social services in this regard, $2 74m annually, and it is true to say that every additional broken home adds to the social services bill of the nation. This should alert the Government to contrast the increasing costs in this area with its financial commitment to those fortunate children and parents who have the advantage of a contented and happy family background, which fortunately is still the case in the majority of families in Australia, and who do not cost the Government one cent apart from the universal family allowance payment. I acknowledge the great step forward by our Government in providing the family allowance which help families in the lower income group who previously, because their incomes were so low and families so large, did not get the benefit of taxation deductions. The family allowance is a definite step in the right direction.

I am mindful also that in recent amendments to the Marriage Act the Government has taken certain legislative steps which hopefully will stem the rising divorce rate to some extent. These measures include lengthening the time for notice of intended marriage from 7 days to a minimum of one month and the necessity for the officiating celebrant to give the parties to the intending marriage a document setting out the solemnity of the marriage contract, the obligations it creates between the parties and outlining the obligations and consequences of marriage as well as indicating the availability of both premarital education and marriage counselling. This is at least some indication by the Government of its concern for the problem. I now urge it to investigate the payment of an allowance to the woman who chooses to devote all of her time to her vocation of wife and mother, particularly in cases where the family is in straitened economic circumstances.

In the short time left to me in this debate, I wish to make brief reference to the twin evils of unemployment and inflation which still beset the nation. I have said before in this chamber, and I repeat again, that there is a basic economic principle involved, that is, that inflation, wage restraint and unemployment are totally interdependent and interrelated. Our Government has designed a strategy to bring inflation down. If one ignores the Medibank component of the consumer price index for the last quarter, because it is a once only item, the increase in the consumer price index for that quarter was reduced to 2.8 per cent. This compares more than favourably with the 6.2 per cent rise in the December quarter of 1975. The introduction of the contributory Medibank scheme meant a saving of $2,000m in the Health vote of the nation and meant that the Government was able to maintain and improve the level of expenditure in other important areas such as social welfare and education. As the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) said, the effect on the consumer price index of such once and for all influences as the health insurance changes has nothing to do with the underlying inflationary pressures in the economy. The Treasurer has produced a table which was published in the form of table 6 of Budget Statement 2 which was attached to the Budget Speech. It gives a comprehensive picture of the consumer price index showing the percentage changes and the annual rate of the index in half year stages for 1974, 1975 and 1976. The table shows a considerable reduction in the inflation rate particularly in the second half of 1 976. 1 seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The table read as follows-

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Our Government has brought down the underlying rate of inflation from 16.7 per cent at the end of 1975 to 8 per cent after its first 12 months in office. A recent statement by the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd- I think it was made in the Bank’s Quarterly Survey published last weekurged community leaders to stop harping on the gloomy side of things and instead to acknowledge that economic progress is being made. I think that this is the attitude we ought to be taking at the present dme. Indeed, the Bank’s latest edition of Business Indicators shows that following 2 years of near stagnation the economy is now making some mild expansion, and on present trends the improvement in non-farm production this financial year seems likely to exceed 4 per cent. The statement by the Bank goes on to say that enterprise, profits, productivity and standards of living are the responsibility of management. They are not necessarily the responsibility of investors, workers and government. Those sections should not be urged to guarantee them or force feed business to ensure quick recovery. Of course, the true position is that the greater the co-operation between the private and public sectors of the economy and the forces of capital and labour, the quicker will be the recovery of economic stability.

I would like to say a few words briefly about the unemployment position. I think it is fair to say, as was said here today during question time, that the statistics available do not really give a completely accurate picture either as to job vacancies or the actual number of persons unemployed. We all know of numerous instances in commerce and industry where employers engage staff without reference to the Commonwealth Employment Service. This is done either through private employment agencies or by advertisements in the Press. Having regard to this factor alone, there must be a wide discrepancy between the number of job vacancies registered and the actual number of positions available. A further disturbing feature which has recently come to light concerns the fact that 40 per cent of unemployment beneficiaries voluntarily left their last position of employment before becoming recipients of the unemployment benefit. The Government has set up the Norgard committee. When it presents its final report in the next few weeks I sincerely trust that some of the present inconsistencies and irregularities will be ironed out. In particular, I hope that the situation in regard to persons automatically receiving full unemployment benefit after voluntarily leaving their previous employment will be dealt with.

In the few moments left to me, I wish to refer to a quote from the Speech of Her Majesty to the Parliament yesterday. I quote this passage be-, cause it epitomises the efforts of our Government to restore an efficient economy and to move along the track which we commenced along when we were returned as the Government in 1975. She said:

At the heart of my Government’s policies lie a commitment and a concern; commitment to increasing the freedom, opportunity and equality of the Australian people; and concern with enhancing people’s ability to make their own choices and live their own lives in their own way.

The commitment of my Government to these goals stems from the conviction that the progress of Australia as a nation depends on creating the conditions which foster the strength, independence and creativity of its people.

Our Government is irrevocably committed to the course so clearly outlined by Her Majesty. I can assure her, and also the people of Australia who are listening to this debate, that during the life of this Parliament it will be our earnest endeavour to bring those policies to fruition.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Senate currently is debating the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply in response to the speech delivered by Her Majesty the Queen yesterday in this chamber. As such, the debate allows members of Parliament to speak about a very wide range of subjects. I was interested to hear the speech that has just been given by Senator Tehan and particularly the earlier pan of his speech in which he discussed the problems that exist for many tens of thousands of Australian children as a result of broken homes and other disabilities which are caused through the economic circumstances of families. I believe that he raised a very legitimate point. It is some time since I can recall any honourable senator specifically making this the subject matter of a speech. Although I disagree with some of his economic comments made during the latter part of his speech and about which I will be speaking myself, I think he is to be commended for raising what is a very serious problem in Australia and one to which this Parliament in some form or another ought to give more attention. Senator Tehan has had a lot of professional experience in that area. Nevertheless, it was interesting to hear his comments.

I should also congratulate Senator Lewis on his maiden speech. He spoke mainly on behalf of the rural people. I was interested to hear him say that the rural people of Australia need help. There is no question of that. They certainly do need help. The present Government claimed to represent the rural people. There is no doubt, as Senator Lewis pointed out, that rural incomes in Australia have dipped dramatically in the last year or two from their record levels of 1973 and 1974. One can understand the reaction of the members of the rural community to the present position, having experienced increases in their net incomes of not less than 1 30 per cent in those 2 years of 1973 and 1974. The fact that a Labor Government was in power might not be significant or relevant to some people. Nevertheless, rural incomes have shown a dramatic decline. I would hope that this Government would live up to some of the promises that it made when in opposition, namely, that it would attempt at least to overcome the difficulties in which the rural sector now finds itself. It was a good example, of course, of the points that Senator Tehan made in his speech and which I will be discussing, that is, that the position that applied in respect to those rural incomes was indicative of the enormous inflationary pressures that the Government of the day experienced. One often likes to think of the effect that such increases would have on the economy today in 1976 and 1 977 had those rural incomes gone on increasing at that rate. That is to say, the Labor Government found itself also subjected to these enormous inflationary pressures because of rapid increases in the incomes in the rural sectors, something which this Government has been spared. If we were to see another take-off in incomes and in the prices of wool, meat and wheat- the big earners- I do not know what this Government would do about it. It has no answer to the inflation problem already. It would have less of an answer if it had to contend with those factors as well.

I am not here to pretend that all the faults must be laid entirely at the feet of the Government. Naturally any government must make major decisions as to how it balances the options that are available to it and any government facing these issues has to make those decisions in the light of circumstances in which it finds itself. My main comments today will be directed towards the undertakings that were given by this Government when it was in opposition and when it chose to use certain tactics to get into power to satisfy its urge for power. I spoke during the Budget debate, as most of us did. I mentioned then that the Government obtained office at a time when it knew inflation and unemployment were at high levels. It deluded the Australian people into believing that it had the answers to the problems. Because of the way it came to power I pointed out that if the Government’s policies which it had enunciated during the election campaign were not realised, if it did not bring down inflation and unemployment, it would be shown no quarter in the criticism which we would direct towards it. It is clear now that the position has worsened. I turn back to the statement of the now Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his policy speech in 1975. It would be laughable if it were not for the tragedy in it. He said: a level of unemployment in January -

He was talking about January 1976- in excess of 400 000 when more Australians will be out of work than at any time since the Great Depression.

He then went on to talk about a Budget deficit which could reach $4 billion. Let us look at the first figure of 400 000. The Labor Government was able to reduce unemployment from its peak in 1975. We recognised the problems. At that time we aimed at reducing unemployment after the middle of 1975 and in fact we succeeded. Never let it be forgotten by supporters of the Government and by Mr Fraser in particular that in January 1 976, 2 months after this Government came to power, we had an unemployment figure of 257 000. In February that figure had fallen to 252 000 but then the effect of this Government’s policies began to take hold of the Australian economy. The figures then started to increase to 269 000, to 281 000 and, so we go on to August 1976 with a figure of 327 000. The Government seemed to believe that this was the answer to the inflation problem. On and on went the increase in unemployment. Now we find that the latest figure for the February period is 346 000- no less than 5.7 per cent of the work force. The figures may sound dry and dreary but they must be stated because it has to be understood by the Australia people that this increase in unemployment has been a deliberate policy on the part of this Government, despite the assurances that were given by Mr Fraser in 1 975.

I turn, as a matter of interest, to the statements that were made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). In February of this year, we were told that there had been a fall of 8000 in the number of unemployed. Mr Street was not concerned about that. But 12 months ago, in his Press release dated 5 March 1976, he had this to say:

The actual number of registered unemployed fell by 40 200 in February . . . Most of this can be attributed to the usual seasonal movement at this time of year.

But we heard a different story in February 1977 because the Minister knows the real underlying factors which in fact are increasing the level of unemployment in Australia. In percentage terms that figure has increased now to 5.7 per cent of the work force. Mr Street has never professed any concern about this. On how many occasions has he brushed this off as being of virtually no significance? In relation to October last he said:

There was no major change in the state of the labour market during October.

In relation to the next quarter he said that there was - . . very little underlying change in the labour market.

After the December quarter he said:

The underlying trend in the labour market during December appeared to be one of virtual stability.

In January he said:

The labour market situation remained relatively stable.

It appears now that he has given up trying to justify what has taken place. While unemployment has gone up and up and up every month since March and April of 1976, the Minister responsible has brushed it off, saying that the employment position is secure. In fact we are looking at a deteriorating situation. This is not a matter of the Opposition expressing gloom and doom; the facts are there in front of us. One of the major factors behind the Government’s record of incompetency is the style that it adopts. Its style is based on confrontation and not co-operation. When in opposition Government supporters were prepared to attack parliamentary institutions to achieve power. They were prepared to bring on, or to threaten to bring on, an election every 6 months to the detriment of the country. They were prepared to deny Supply to an elected government. They were prepared to connive in the breach of fundamental conventions to stack the Senate to achieve their needs. I suggest they are using the same tactics now in running the country. In government they have been prepared to attack the independence of institutions with which they disagree. They have attacked the independence of bodies such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Prices Justification Tribunal. There is a threat to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission if it does not comply with the Government’s directions. They have threatened the States with financial penalties if they do not comply with Federal Government policies.

The Government appeared prepared early last year to discuss industrial problems with the trade unions but it is now apparent that those efforts were a disguise to give the impression that the Government was seeking co-operation with the trade union movement and not confrontation. It would be idle to suggest that it is easy for a Liberal government and the trade union movement to enter into a harmonious relationship, particularly in the light of the present Government’s attitude towards incomes. That attitude was clearly expressed by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) as being effectively to reduce the purchasing power of the great majority of members of the Australian work force. As the fundamental role of the trade unions is to ensure that that does not happen, and as it is abundantly clear that the Government’s intention was to do that from the day it took office, the alleged co-operation with the trade union movement was no more than a charade. This is not to suggest that all claims by the trade union movement are justifiable or to be supported. But it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of Australians that notwithstanding the faults which may exist on the part of the unions, the unions are completely justified in ensuring that the living standards of their members are not allowed to decline. Few Australians would argue with that proposition. But amongst that few, of course, are the members of the Government.

We heard a lot of talk and figures quoted not long ago on the percentage of the gross domestic product going into profits. The present Treasurer described the traditional level of profits of Australian companies as being 15 per cent of gross domestic product. I do not think there would be any great difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition parties on that. Three years ago that figure declined to about 10 per cent. That was a significant movement, and it was recognised by the Labor Government of the day that a greater percentage needed to go back into profits in order to maintain the necessary level of investment. But that percentage has now gone back to its historical level of about 14 per cent. I quote those figures to illustrate that the Government is on very shaky ground when it continues to argue that the real value of incomes in this country should fall, and it is for that reason that the trade unions have a genuine battle on their hands. Even in the present wages case the Government is determined to deny to the majority of the Australian work force an adjustment for the increase in the cost of living which occurred in the last quarter.

The Government has virtually divided our society into those who have more and more who have less. I believe that, through the trade unions, it is determined to beat the work force into submission by withholding jobs, by threatening the removal of unemployment benefits, and by forcing the work force to take substantial cuts in real wages. There are now even suggestions that the Government should press to reintroduce sweated labour by denying the unemployment benefit to people who voluntarily leave their jobs in any circumstances, and I was interested at Question Time today to hear a question on that very subject from Senator Tehan. It is an astonishing proposition that a person should be denied the unemployment benefit because he sees fit to leave his job voluntarily. The policy that seems to be forming in the Government’s mind is that he is to be virtually forced to stay in that job.

Senator Primmer:

– Industrial conscription.

Senator WRIEDT:

-That is what it amounts to. From here on, a man is to be told that he will work in a particular place because if he does not work there and cannot get a job somewhere else he will virtually starve and will not get the unemployment benefit. That is the way things are lining up, and I am surprised that Senator Bonner should suggest any support for that concept.

In recent days the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has promised legislation on freedom of information. That has a hollow ring in the light of the Government’s record. Throughout the life of this Government the Prime Minister has shown himself to be greatly concerned about leaks appearing in the Press. As a result, allegations have been made that the Commonwealth Police are being used against public servants and that phones have been tapped. Allegations have also been made that special measures will be introduced to catch those allegedly responsible for leaking information. That has brought about a great decline in the morale of the Public Service. The Government has taken action to place ceilings on Public Service employment. The Opposition does not suggest for one moment that people ought to be employed in the Public Service if there is no justification for their positions, but it is an axing job which is going on at the present time in order to fit the Government’s ideological concept that the public sector should be almost destroyed.

The Government appears to be determined to conceal problems rather than to face up to them. Its propaganda increasingly is directed to convincing people that no problem exists or that the Government is being successful in overcoming its problems. The prime example of that is in relation to unemployment, with which I have dealt already. The seasonally adjusted figures which the Government had been using proved to be unfavourable and were dropped. Promise after promise of this Government has been broken. Medibank, wage indexation and a whole range of social service programs have been emasculated or abandoned to the Australian people, and the fear now exists that the Government will erode the value of pensions by varying the automatic adjustment for inflation. Many of the Government’s statements were believed by many people. However, there has been a continuing program of deception, and we are now seeing the real effect of that. This Government can be said to have inspired unemployment. Under the guise of controlling inflation it has pursued a policy of deliberately maintaining high unemployment levels. As I said earlier, that policy has been pursued in order to force wage and salary earners to accept less money in terms of real purchasing power.

One wonders from where the Government expects to get its recovery. Does it not realise what will happen if the real purchasing power of the community is reduced? Does it imagine that the private sector will take advantage of the investment allowance and other advantages which the Government has given to it? I am not saying that all those things should not have been done, but we believe that some of them have been excessive. But is it not to be expected that if the Australian community is to respond to increased privileges for the private sector, that must be demonstrated in the capacity of the Australian people to increase their consumption of goods produced in this country? It is quite obvious that the Government intends to reduce the capacity of Australians to buy more. The hatred the Government shows to the public sector is not helping either the Australian community or the services which the Public Service provides. The famous statement of the Prime Minister that life was not meant to be easy has now been written into almost everything, and of course it came from the head of a Government which has many members who are recipients of certain privileges applying particularly to large landholders.

In setting out its priorities for economic recovery the Government gives very low priority to employment. It continues to insist that inflation must be reduced, company profits increased and productivity restored before there can be any improvement in unemployment. But it has to be realised that the Government cannot expect those things to happen when the whole of its program is being defeated as a result of widespread uncertainty amongst the Australian people. The Speech made yesterday by Her Majesty, which of course was a statement on behalf of the Government, gave no indication of the legislative program for this session. This is a time of considerable difficulty, but the Government offered nothing by way of a program to restore the economy or to deal with the fundamental issues facing the Parliament. I wish to restate on behalf of the Opposition that if ever a government deserved to be condemned for having made promises and given undertakings which one would think it is not attempting to implement it is this Fraser Government. The Australian people will become more disillusioned as time goes by, and no doubt disillusionment has already been expressed in some State elections. The people will expect action. It seems that we are not going to get it during 1977, and this Government will be called to account in 1978 by the majority of Australians. I am sure that when the result of the next election is known we will see a change back to policies which recognise the needs of the Australian people and which seek to give equity and genuine assistance to those in the Australian community who really need it.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I rise with a great sense of pride to support the speeches of my 2 colleagues, Senator Lewis and Senator Tehan, in the Address-in-Reply debate. I say that it is with a great sense of pride that I rise because, as an Australian and as an Australian Aborigine- and in some quarters this may be termed ironic- I am proud indeed that Her Gracious Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh took time out to visit our country during Her Gracious Majesty’s jubilee year celebrations. I am also extremely proud that Her Gracious Majesty saw fit to accept the invitation to open this session of our Parliament.

I should like to take time out to congratulate my colleague, Senator Austin Lewis, firstly for his appointment to fill the Senate casual vacancy in his State of Victoria and the confidence placed in him by his Party and the people of Victoria and secondly on his maiden speech here today. It was a constructive speech though perhaps it may be termed as rather brief. Nevertheless it was a constructive speech and a speech of realism. I am sure that in the course of his time in this chamber we will hear many more speeches of like quality from my colleague who sits on the same side of this chamber as myself. I am kind of lost for words to express what I feel at this moment when I consider the remarks of the previous speaker. I have always had a strong respect and admiration for the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Ken Wriedt. But today I am afraid I am rather disappointed with the speech that he has just made.

Senator McLaren:

– Because you heard some home truths. You do not like it.

Senator Bishop:

– You are supposed to answer it.

Senator BONNER:

– Wait for it, fellows; you will get it in time. I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition stood up and had the audacity to demand that this Government bring down inflation and bring down the unemployment level, when he was a senior Minister in the government that the Australian people know was responsible for the economic mess that this country is in at the moment and the high rate of inflation we are suffering at this time.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They are not responsible for the present one.

Senator BONNER:

-Let us look back to 1972 and at some of the figures for inflation and unemployment in 1972. Senator Cavanagh well may walk out because sometimes the truth does hurt. The Labor Government came to office in 1972. I wonder whether the Australian people remember, as Senator Wriedt was so happily trying to make them do, what has happened in the past 1 8 months. Let us remind them of what happened in 1972 when we left government. Inflation was running at a tremendous ratesomething like 4.5 per cent. That was a shocking state of affairs under the Liberal-National Country Party Government which had been in office for some 23 years. The very same people who are in Opposition now and who were in Opposition then were saying to us: ‘This situation is shocking; it is terrible! This Government needs to be turfed out because inflation is running at 4.5 per cent. ‘ They were also criticising us about unemployment. There were 35 000 people unemployed in Australia. We had a 4.5 per cent inflation rate and 35 000 people were unemployed. So the people of Australia- God bless them, they thought they were doing the right thing at the time- said that it was time for a change. The then great slogan of the now Opposition and those who came to office in 1972 was ‘It’s Time’. Unfortunately the Australian people thought it was time for a change. They got a change. Oh my goodness, what a change they got. Within 18 months inflation and unemployment were soaring, but what were they doing? They were doing nothing. All they were doing was emptying the barrel; handing out money left right and centre buying votes all over the country even amongst my own people. They were trying to buy them off in every possible way. I throw this fact back in the teeth of the Opposition: We are not responsible for the rate of inflation we have now and neither are we responsible for the high rate of unemployment in this country. Our Governmentthe present Government, the Australian Government, the Liberal-National Country Party Government- is doing something about the situation.

I turn to the speech made yesterday by Her Gracious Majesty and refer to some of the points that were raised because I think they show that we have something to look forward to. Her Majesty said:

Australia has experienced economic difficulties in recent years; my Government has given first priority to restoring the economy and will use all the resources at its disposal to achieve this goal.

That is what this Government has been doing for the past 18 months. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have said categorically again and again that our first priority is to bring down the inflation rate and to get people back to work. That is what we are attempting to do. We are doing it in a sensible way. We are not trying to do things overnight as the Labor Government tried to do in its 3 years in office- a period I am sure Australia will never forget. The speech continues:

The prosperity of the Australian people depends on the strength of its productive private sector, on its manufacturing, mining and rural industries.

My colleague commented on the rural industries and their plight and I shall be touching on that matter later. Her Majesty continued:

My Government is providing incentives and encouragement to the private sector, and is reducing its own relative demands on national resources so that private industry may have room to grow, provide employment and increase the well-being of all Australians.

That is what the present Government is endeavouring to do and it is doing so in a sensible and realistic way. The speech goes on:

My Government is not only taking action to restore the economy, it is also making social reforms which are of fundamental importance to the freedom and well-being of the Australian people.

My Government is committed to assisting people overcome poverty and disadvantage, and is giving priority to assisting those most in need in a manner increasing their choice, dignity and self-respect.

So the Government has a policy. It has been consistent in that policy. I am sure that it will not be long before we see great effects from the policy of the Fraser Government.

I want to speak for a short time about unemployment. This is a matter that surely concerns not only me and other members of this chamber and of the other place but also all Australians. Our prime goal, apart from bringing down inflation, must be to get the Australian people back to work. In my travels through not only my own State but also through other States of the Commonwealth I am finding- it is very sad to have to say this-that perhaps too many Australian people are becoming lazy and greedy. Unfortunately, the people involved- there is proof positive of the number involved- are giving a bad name to those who are genuinely unemployed. There are people who collect a social security benefit in one place and then go to another town under another name to collect another social security benefit. There are those young people who pool their social security benefit- five or six of them may club together- so that they can go to the Gold Coast and surf all day and live on the dole. I am not saying that all Australians are like that but unfortunately there are far too many of them.

Senator McLaren:

– Have you proof of that?

Senator BONNER:

-Unfortunately, yes, there is proof of it. I have stacks of proof.

Senator McLaren:

– Have you reported it?

Senator BONNER:

-I have reported it, Senator McLaren. If you stop cackling for a while I will be able to carry on with my speech which will show a lot more sense than some of the cackling I have heard from you on your side of the chamber. As I said, unfortunately we are tending to become a lazy nation of people in some respects. We are asking for higher wages and less time at work. We want more leisure time but unfortunately the way things are going we are not producing. Unless we produce we will not be able to get this economy back to where it was prior to 1972 before its almost destruction by the Labor Party. I should like to see again what happened many years ago. I lived through the last Depression and though I do not want to see a depression again in this country- I pray to God that we will never again see one- I think we can learn something from the actions of the government of that day in relation not only to keeping people in house and home but also in being able to provide them with some kind of resource so that they could live. Instead of paying out the kind of money we are paying out now without people having to do something for it, I believe the Government should and must look at some kind of proposition whereby people will have to do something in order to receive the social security benefit. They would have to perform some task for the money that is paid to them at the moment by the taxpayer. I see many areas in which that could be done such as local government or State governments. People could be given some kind of work for a number of days. They would then not only retain their sense of dignity and pride but also make a contribution.

Why can money not be channelled in the way that members of my own race on Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory have suggested? Aboriginal councillors have seen what is happening to the people in those communities. Instead of paying Aborigines what they term ‘sit down money’, they have asked the Government to pay the money to the councils. The councils would employ people to do work in their communities for their own benefit and for the benefit of their communities. Aboriginal councils are finding it difficult to employ people in these communities. People are saying: ‘Why should I work when I can sit down and get money from the Department of Social Security? Why should I work for the council doing jobs for the benefit of the people in the community?’ The same idea could apply to people in towns and cities throughout Australia. Genuinely unemployed people could go along to their local authority. They could be registered as unemployed and be given two or three days work a week. They would receive some remuneration in the same manner as they would receive it from the Department of Social Security.

All people have to do now is go to the Department of Social Security on Mondays, register as unemployed and then go home, sit down and wait for the postman’s whistle. They then go down to the mailbox and pick out the envelope containing the cheque. They do the same thing the next week.

Senator McLaren:

– Postmen do not blow whistles now. Do you not know that?

Senator BONNER:

-They blow them at my place. They might not blow them at your place, old boy, but they do at mine. We have sensible postmen in Queensland.

Senator Chaney:

– It would probably wake bis chickens.

Senator BONNER:

– Yes, I am sorry. It probably would wake his chickens or put them off laying eggs. I am putting up what I believe to be a sensible proposition. When a man is genuinely unemployed and has a family to support, I believe that he is entitled to social security benefits. But, by the same token, I do not believe that any man or woman is entitled to sit down and receive a benefit from the taxpayer without making some effort to repay the people who are making the money available. The taxpayer is carrying the burden. Whilst there are so many people unemployed, the money that we pay to the Government in the form of taxation is fast running out and the government may not have sufficient money to provide all the services, apart from social security, required by the Australian people. People would welcome such an opportunity. I am talking about the genuinely unemployed person, the genuine, fair dinkum, decent Australian. He wants to make a contribution. He does not want to get something for nothing. This proposition would sort out the wheat from the chaff. Those people who are, what is commonly termed, ‘loafing on the taxpayer’ would be forced out of the woodwork and would find that they had to make a contribution otherwise they would not receive any money. I support that concept. .

There is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate and the Parliament. It concerns people who leave Australia to go to other parts of the world. Throughout the course of a year many people travel overseas for one reason or another. They may be going on business excursions or on holidays. For whatever reason they are going, certain procedures have to be followed. A person has to go through the normal channels. He has to obtain a visa and get his passport brought up to date. Then he has to go to the Commonwealth health authorities and, among other matters, have various vaccinations such as those for smallpox and cholera.

Recently I was invited to Lagos, Nigeria, as the guest of the Nigerian Government. A number of my fellow Aborigines also visited that country for the Black African Festival of Arts and Culture. I went through the normal procedures. I went to Nigeria and returned to Australia. I had all the vaccinations I was told I needed but on my return to Australia- as a matter of fact, it was only in the last couple of days- I received a telegram from the Commonwealth Department of Health in Canberra. I think it is important that I read this telegram because it substantiates what I am trying to get across. The telegram was addressed to me in Brisbane. It reads:

Some United States delegates who attended the Black African Festival of Arts and Culture in Nigeria JanuaryFebruary this year have developed malaria. The preventive treatment (tablets) which was recommended by Doctor Devanesen would, if fully complied with while in Nigeria and for the period advised after return to Australia, provide satisfactory protection. However if you develop an illness, particularly one with fever, you should consult a doctor at once and show him this message, requesting him to contact the Commonwealth Department of Health in your State or the State Health Department. Those Departments have been advised of the situation. Should further information be required your doctor could contact the Assistant Director (Medical) of the Commonwealth Department of Health in each State.

That is not nearly good enough. I do not speak for myself only. Thousands of Australians are going overseas. They could be going to malariaprone areas. It is not good enough that they are allowed to leave our shores without being fully protected by the health authorities of this nation. As well as myself, as I said, a number of tribal Aborigines from the Northern Territory, a group of tribal Aborigines from Aurukun in my own State of Queensland and other Aboriginal people from various parts of the Commonwealth attended that festival. Some people may say that I should have ascertained prior to leaving Australia whether Nigeria was a malaria-prone area. That is not good enough. We have a department responsible for those matters in the same way as we have a Department of Aboriginal Affairs. If anyone was seeking information about Aborigines he would go to that Department. To my knowledge the Department of Health did not inform the members of the Aboriginal contingent who went to Nigeria that it was a malaria-prone country, nor did they alert me to that fact.

This matter needs to be looked at more closely. I hope that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) after reading my speech tomorrow, if he feels so inclined, or when it is reported to him, will make a thorough investigation of the matter. I am concerned that many other Australians in a like situation could enter disease-prone areas without the proper protection to which they are entitled. Unfortunately, because of short notice, I had 34. days to prepare myself for the visit. I was notified that I was to be on an aircraft at a certain time. I did not have time to find out all I needed to know concerning the country to which I was travelling. I threw myself completely on the mercy of the Commonwealth Health authorities with confidence that these matters would be taken care of. On my return I found that they were not taken care of. I am concerned. This matter must be looked at. We must protect Australian people leaving our shores for whatever reason. In conclusion, I have great pleasure in supporting my colleagues, the mover and the seconder of this motion.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-At the outset of this Address-in-Reply debate I take the opportunity of extending to Senator Lewis my congratulations and those of the Australian Labor Party on the making of his maiden speech in the Senate today. All of us who have been here for longer than Senator Lewis have had the frightening experience of making a maiden speech in this Parliament. Having listened to the honourable senator, I must say that he impressed me as being a man of capability and one who obviously intends to devote his efforts during the time that he is in this Parliament to highlighting the problems of the people who live and work in rural Australia.

I was very interested in the argument Senator Lewis put forward that if land values in rural areas were to be cut many Australian farmers would be declared bankrupt. Being one who has taken some interest in the welfare of rural people in New South Wales, I agree with that contention but I would would emphasise to Senator Lewis that the members of the Government Parties are not the only ones who have an interest in the welfare and well-being of the Australian people generally, especially those in rural areas. I point out to the honourable senator that the small land holders and farmers in agricultural areas are not the only ones who today are experiencing problems. Unfortunately, as a result of government policy many workers have lost their jobs and are trying to sell their homes in industrial suburbs on a depressed market. They also are necessarily involving themselves in expenditure in going elsewhere in search of work. The problems that confront those people are certainly of equal magnitude to the problems that confront the people about whom Senator Lewis spoke.

The honourable senator also referred in his maiden speech to the activities that have taken place in the Parliament in the 3!6 weeks that he has been a member of it. I think that he referred to the fact that during his first day here there were some 20 divisions on a Bill, that during the next week the lights went out during the sitting of the Parliament and that the following week we had to sit until the Friday evening in order to get the Government’s legislative proposals through the Parliament. I assure the honourable senator that the busy nature of the program in the last Vh weeks of this Parliament did not come within a mile of the events that took place in this Parliament in October and November 1975.

It is indicative of the divisions that are continuing within the Australian community over the actions that were taken in this place in October and November 1975, and that were taken in the name of the Crown in November 1975. It is rather ironical that while Her Majesty the Queen was opening Parliament yesterday there was a gathering in Sydney- in the capital of the State I represent- of 4000-odd people, which was addressed amongst others by a Liberal Party member of the House of Representatives, urging Australians towards republicanism. I suggest that shows the extent of the shifts and the divisions that have occurred in the community over the issue. Unquestionably those divisions will continue for some considerable time to come. That is undeniable. I believe that one of the reasons the Government has decided to put certain questions to the people by way of referenda is that it is making a desperate attempt to overcome the gulf that now exists in our society because of the actions that were taken by the conservative forces and the establishment in this country literally to stack the Senate and to start the process of getting a Labor government out of office. Therefore I noted with a certain amount of irony the statement in Her Majesty’s Speech yesterday afternoon that other referenda will be held at the same time to make necessary amendments to the Constitution.

Having congratulated Senator Lewis on making his maiden speech and having made those comments, I say that it was with amazement that I sat and listened yesterday while Her Majesty the Queen read the Speech that was prepared for her by her advisers setting out the Government’s aims and objectives in the remainder of its term of office in this Parliament. The amazement was created in my mind because I could not believe that a Government would have the audacity to ask the Head of State to speak to the Parliament and the nation for 10 minutes and say absolutely nothing. Like the many Australians who now know that they were completely conned by the events that took place here 18 months ago, Her Majesty the Queen must have wondered as she read the Speech who had prepared for her some of the pearly phrases that appeared in it. For instance- I think that Senator Bonner referred to this statement- she said: my Government has given first priority to restoring the economy and will use all the resources at its disposal to achieve this goal.

Later she said:

The program for the new session of the thirtieth Parliament reflects my Government’s determination to stabilise the economy and pursue the goal of social reform.

As I heard those words I could not help but think what a pity it was for this nation that the Governor-General- Her Majesty’s representative in Australia- acted in the way in which he did and that the then Opposition acted in the way in which it did on 11 November 1975 to bring about the dismissal from office of the Labor Government of that time. I am convinced beyond doubt that if our political opponents, who then had the weight of numbers, which they had gained by stealth in the Senate, had given the Labor Government a real chance to govern, the nation would not be in the desperate economic situation in which it is today- a desperate economic situation that has been caused and created by and contributed to by people who feel that they and they alone are the ones who are born to rule. They are prepared to see the labour force represented in the Parliament, but they are not prepared to let a Labor government- a properly and democratically elected Labor governmentexercise power in the Parliament.

In December 1975, following the events that took place in November 1975, the present Government won office. Let me cite to the Parliament some of the statements that were made at that time in his election policy speech by Mr Fraser, who, as a result of that election, became the Prime Minister. He said that the Liberal and National Country Parties had prepared a farreaching program to restore prosperity and to give effect to their philosophy of freedom, opportunity and concern for the individual. I repeat that he said that they had prepared a farreaching program. We have yet to see it implemented. Again I quote from the policy speech of Mr Fraser: ‘We have a comprehensive strategy to restore prosperity’. We wait for that comprehensive strategy to be publicly exposed. Mr Fraser said also: ‘Our strategy to promote growth is clear’. In addition he said: ‘A Government which understands and can manage the Australian economy is essential to Australian prosperity and to the revival of business confidence’.

After a period of some 15 months or 16 months in office the business confidence about which we heard so much from this Government and its supporters during that election campaign and about which we have heard so much from them in this Parliament since that campaign has not come to fruition. Only last week I was at a gathering of a large and important section of businessmen from New South Wales. They expressed to me very grave concern at the way in which Government policies were not coming through, at the way in which the Government was not relating effectively to the business sector, to the trade union sector or to the rural sector of the Australian community. As a result of the uncertainty about the Government’s policies there has been a complete failure to restore confidence in the Australian community.

I will not weary you, Mr Deputy President, with other quotations or excerpts from the Prime Minister’s policy speech but since the time it was delivered, and since the Government was given a mandate in both Houses of the Parliament to govern and to implement its policies, practically on a daily basis we have had nothing but excuses for inaction or inactivity on the Government’s pan or blatant attempts to shift the blame onto other shoulders. For instance, we put up with the old worn out political attitude for the first 6 months in office of its blaming the previous Government. I suppose that was a fair tactic because I remember that when we came into government in November 1972 and I was elected to the Ministry I blamed the previous Government for creating the difficulties that we had to overcome. But we realised the practical situation; we realised that that excuse soon wore out. Members of the present Government still do not realise the folly of their case. They do not realise that that excuse has worn out because they are still trying to use it. The Australian public just is not accepting it. For the first 6 months in office this Government relied solely on laying blame on the incompetence of the Whitlam Government.

Then, five or six months after this Government was elected to office there was a change of government in New South Wales where a Labor government was elected. Suddenly we saw a shift in the emphasis on blame. Suddenly, overnight, the blame shifted from the previous Whitlam

Government to the new Wran Labor Government. Within a week or fortnight of the election of the new Wran Labor Government the Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, and the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, were blaming the Wran Labor Government for the high incidence of unemployment in New South Wales. They forgot to recognise, or they did not understand, that because New South Wales, the State I have the honour to represent in this Parliament, is the most highly industrialised State in the Commonwealth and because there had been such a heavy cutting of public expenditure by the Federal Government with such a great effect on the steel industries, the metal working industries and the building trades industries, their policies were creating the economic and unemployment difficulties in New South Wales. Then, realising that that argument was not getting over to the Australian people, in the last period we have seen a deliberate and concerted attack on the trade union movement and the workers of this country.

I do not accept the argument of Senator Bonner that this nation is becoming a nation of lazy people. The younger generation of this country is comprised of people of whom we can all be proud. It is comprised of people who want to work and who want to contribute something to this country. They are people who want to see this country become a better place in the future than it has been in the past. The overwhelming bulk of them are fine, honourable and decent Australian citizens. Unfortunately they are the people affected by this Government’s mismanagement. In short, what this Government has done is to blame everyone except itself. It has blamed the Whitlam Government, it has blamed the Wran Labor Government, it has blamed the trade union movement and now it is blaming the workers who want to work but who cannot work. This Government, as a result of its mismanagement and its failure to face up to realities, is running inflation at a higher level than it was previously, interest rates at a higher level than they were previously, the Budget deficit at a higher rate than it was before, and now unemployment at an all time high since the Great Depression of the early 1930s. Therefore, because these things are distinctly a result of this Government’s policies, it can no longer blame us. The blame is that of members of this Government and theirs alone.

For instance, take the Government’s decision on devaluation. That decision was taken 1 1 months after the Government came to office. For the 1 1 months before it announced its policy of devaluation we heard here in this Senate, at question time every day, statements by Senator Cotton the Minister representing the Treasurer, and we also read about them being made by Mr Lynch in another place, to the effect that devaluation just was not on. I can well remember Mr Lynch even blaming the Labor Party for trying to bring about some form of devaluation. After having criticised the previous Treasurer, Mr Hayden, he said that devaluation was just not a goer in Australia. Then, some time late in November, as though it were another Blind Freddie observation on the part of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, the Government devalued by 17 ‘A per cent. The day it did that was the day that it could no longer blame the Labor Government. The Budget strategy that the present Government had exercised up to that time was based on a policy of reining in and tightening up on the economy, of asking the people and pleading with the public to tighten their belts, to ease up on the demands on government. But in no circumstances was there going to be devaluation!

Let me refer now to the deficit. I again cite Mr Fraser ‘s election policy speech of November 1975 on which he was given a mandate in both Houses to govern. He pointed out that there were certain economic problems that a LiberalNational Country Party Government would have to face up to. He said: ‘Other severe economic problems also largely hidden by the former Government must be faced ‘. The first one was a Budget deficit which could reach $4,000m- a full $1.2 billion higher than estimated in August 1975. Obviously the Government thought it had the answers. It said that it had a strategy for recovery and that it would be implementing that policy. But only yesterday, 8 March, this article headed ‘Deficit is $billion ahead of last year’ appeared in the Australian Financial Review:

For the eight months to the end of February the Federal Government deficit was running at a massive $5, 532m.

This is $ 1,000m more than the deficit of the Australian Labor Party Government which this Government alluded to when it went to the people. The article goes on:

Despite the most earnest endeavours of the Government to cut back on outlays and the moral indignation that was generated about the size of the Labor Government’s deficit, the latest figures bring home the difficulty the Fraser Administration is having in bringing the deficit to anything near the S2,609m estimated in the Budget.

In other words, between now and next June if the Government is to carry out the promise it gave the Parliament when it presented its Budget in August 1976- that is bring the deficit to within an area of $2,609m-it will have to take steps to cut the present Budget deficit by half. Mr President, I suggest to you that those are very serious matters which will cause great economic and administrative problems for this Government and for the Australian nation. The fact is a great deal of cynicism exists in Australia today because of the election policy speech of the Prime Minister and of recurring statements made by the Prime Minister and his Ministers. In the minds of the Australian community this Government no longer has any credibility. No longer do the Australian people accept the Government as being authoritative. No longer do the Australian people believe the Government. No longer do the Australian people believe that the Government can unite the nation because the Government has deliberately set out to create divisions within the community.

With great respect to everyone I say that one could feel an undercurrent of cynicism on the part of a number of people in Canberra yesterday. While this Government has created record unemployment, particularly among the younger generation, and while it is running a Budget deficit at a rate much higher than any deficit of an Australian Labor Party government, its great failure, its enormous political crime, is that it has destroyed the faith of so many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians in themselves as people. They are anxiously in search of work but they cannot find it. This is destroying their faith in themselves as individuals and, perhaps worse still, it is destroying their faith in the present system of Government. I heard a statement made recently about 140 000 people leaving work because they did not like their jobs. Ipso facto it is assumed that they all receive unemployment relief. But I pose the question: If 140 000 people leave their jobs then surely 140 000 jobs are created and other people can take their place? Are honourable senators on the Government side telling me that 140 000 people have left work, that they are getting unemployment relief and that no one is filling those 140 000 jobs? The Australian people do not swallow such stories any longer. I urge the Government to look at its own propaganda because they are destroying the very thing which can build this country into a great nation.

The threads of the old system have worn very thin over the last 1 8 months because of the policies pursued by the Liberal and National Country Parties while they were in Opposition. Those threads are wearing even thinner now because of the policies pursued by the Liberal and National Country Parties in government. Having made those comments about the damage which this

Government is doing to the community economically, socially and sociologically, I shall now say something about the development of the policies and the record of this Government in the field of general administration. Its record has been one of cutting back destructively in practically every sphere of the Australian Public Service. If this policy could be seen by the Australian community as contributing to a dramatic recovery in economic terms, then I believe that the Australian people perhaps would have accepted the sacrifices they have been forced to make as a result of Government policy. The economy is in a much worse condition today than it was 12 months ago but the Government still insists on cutting back vital public services even further. Let us look at the situation with the Commonwealth Employment Service. Unemployment has been running at an all time high for a long time. It is the worst since the Depression. The Government decided to conduct an inquiry into the Commonwealth Employment Service and a mere 3 days before the Parliament met the Government suddenly found that the Employment Service was understaffed by 300 people. That is a scandalous situation. Action should have been taken very early in the piece to see that the employment needs of the Commonwealth Employment Service were able to give effective service to the Australian people. That is typical of what is happening within the Australian Public Service today.

Let us look at some of the reports which have been tendered, and which still await action. A Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration was commissioned by the Labor Government. The commission reported to the Governor-General in August 1976. The report was tabled in Parliament on 18 August 1976. The Prime Minister asked the Public Service Board to comment on the report. The Board commented on the 78 recommendations, forwarded its report to the Prime Minister but there has been no further action on the Royal Commission’s report. The Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections was established by the Labor Government in April 1974. Its report was tabled in the Parliament on 5 November 1975, only 6 days before we were dismissed. To date there has been no action from this Government. There was the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries which was commissioned by the Whitlam Administration on 1 1 March 1 975. It reported to the Government in February 1 976 and the report was tabled in Parliament in March 1976. To date, no action has been taken by this Government. This is what is going on with the administration of the Australian Public Service. I suggest to the Senate, to the Australian Parliament and to the Australian people that in responding to the address by Her Majesty we should say that this Government has been an abysmal failure. It has failed to face up to any aspect of its undertakings and it stands condemned in the eyes of the Australian people.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I have pleasure in supporting the AddressinReply motion to the Speech which was so graciously delivered by Her Majesty the Queen yesterday. I have listened with interest to the speakers preceding me in this debate. I must at this stage pay a tribute to Senator Lewis who made his maiden speech this afternoon. Since he entered this chamber, Senator Lewis has shown that he has an active interest in the welfare of Victoria, in particular the country areas in which he lives. His speech in the Senate today was a credit to him and should give confidence to the people of Victoria that in Senator Lewis they have a worthwhile person who is interested in their welfare, particularly in the rural community.

I also listened with interest to Senator Douglas McClelland who referred repeatedly to the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and, by inference, suggested that our performance had not been too good. One of the highlights of the Prime Minister’s policy speech was the acknowledgement that it would take our Government 3 years to reverse the tide of inflation and unemployment that had been created by the previous administration. I do not care how many times we remind the people of Australia that the 3 years of the socialist regime, before we took over, completely wrecked the Australian economy. Of course, as is well known, when in Opposition one makes policy speeches which reflect the plight in which the country finds itself. However, when one then has access to the Treasury records and realises that the situation is even worse than was estimated it is fair to say that problems will be associated with the implementing of those policies.

It also must not be forgotten that for the first 7 months of our period in administration we were relying on the Hayden Labor Budget which in itself was quite incredible because it anticipated or prophesied an increase in national wages of 22 per cent which implied a 43 per cent rise in personal income tax. Actually we have had not quite 8 months in which to see the effects of the measures we introduced in August last year. It must be encouraging to realise that those measures have had some significant effect. The gross domestic product for the September quarter of last year was 7.3 per cent up on the September quarter 1975. That encourages me to believe that our Budget is having a desirable effect.

Apart from inheriting a wrecked economy from the Labor Government, we also have had to provide from revenue a considerable amount of money- something of the order of 25 per cent -for social welfare payments. We pay a considerable amount of our revenue to the States directly for their use according to their priorities. So, we have not much remaining with which to create all the necessary incentives at the one time. Immediately we came into Government we recognised the stupidity of the Labor administration in allowing such a disparity between wage and tax increases and, very soon after we came into office, we introduced tax indexation which at least provides that as salaries increase taxation increases by the same percentage.

I am concerned about the unemployment that is apparent in the community at present. It was incredible to hear recently that 40 per cent of those unemployed reared voluntarily from their jobs. People have asked me why those people should be entitled to the unemployment benefit. This seems to me to be a question that the Government should look at.

Senator Grimes:

– Are you advocating that they do not get it?

Senator JESSOP:

-I believe that there is a strong argument in favour of that suggestion, yes.

Senator Grimes:

– Then you are advocating it?

Senator JESSOP:

-I believe it would be a reasonable proposition to put.

Senator Grimes:

– Ho, ho, ho!

Senator JESSOP:

- Senator Grimes may laugh. If he resigned from his job does he think that he should be entitled to unemployment support from taxpayers? I also am concerned about the manner in which people are seeking jobs. It occurs to me that we may well look at one of the systems which operates in two or three other countries where people seeking employment nominate two or three jobs in order of preference and, if those jobs in order of preference are not available within a limited time, they are required to accept another position until a vacancy occurs in their preferred work situation. It occurs to me that that is the type of system we ought to be looking at in an attempt to place people in employment in Australia.

I am also a bit concerned about some officers in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I recall that a young man I know very well from a family I know very well applied for a job as a labourer. The first question he was asked was: ‘Do you want unemployment benefits?’ He would then become a statistic. He said: ‘No, I do not want the unemployment benefit; I want work as a labourer. ‘ This young man went out of that office quite disillusioned that the carrot of the unemployment benefit was dangled in front of him before he was asked what sort of job he required. He subsequently got a job as a labourer. But he was disillusioned by the approach taken by the office he attended.

Senator Davidson:

– There ought to be more like him.

Senator JESSOP:

-Yes, I believe so. The spirit of self-help in the community must be encouraged in an effort to overcome the disastrous effects of the previous administration.

Her Majesty’s Speech outlined the policies of the Government and the philosophy behind what we believe is the way to correct the economic situation in Australia. Her Majesty said, as recorded at page 4 of Hansard:

The prosperity of the Australian people depends upon the strength of its productive private sector, on its manufacturing, mining and rural industries.

My Government is providing incentives and encouragement to the private sector, and is reducing its own relative demands on national resources so that private industry may have room to grow, provide employment and increase the well-being of all Australians.

Of course, this is the basis or the backbone of our economy. After all, the private sector provides 75 per cent of the jobs in Australia and should be given the incentive to expand its activities, to provide more job opportunities and to increase its productivity. Therefore, I personally support an early restructuring of the complete taxation system- from the personal side right through to the sales tax area. I think that we must look at this as soon as possible. I realise that in the present economic climate the Government cannot do this all at once. Estimates have been made that if we were to do something realistic in the area of personal taxation the cost in lost revenue would be $1.5 billion. I am one who believes that there are some people- not only professionals but tradesmen as well- who are withholding their services from the community because of the penalty of high taxation. I know that the Government recognises this and I hope that as soon as possible something will be done about it.

Instances have been cited in my State of bricklayers who choose to work for two or three days a week. They are capable of earning $200 a day. Some people are willing to work at weekends perhaps for a colour television set. Others, rather than charge $300 for bricklaying work, will settle for $200 in cash and in that way evade the taxation for which they should be liable. It occurs to me that apart from the withholding of services from the community in the dental and medical area- in fact, this is happening- if we paid attention as early as possible to providing incentive for these people to work more, and for the average worker to perform overtime work without incurring incredible tax penalties, our productivity would increase. It occurs to me that more jobs would be made available because of the incentive created to employers to expand their activities and to provide further job opportunities. I hope that as soon as possible the Government will be able to act in that area which is of great concern to many people in our community.

I refer also to that paragraph of Her Majesty’s Speech which states that people must be encouraged in the manufacturing, mining and rural industries. Of course, this means that we must pay some attention to the provision of adequate transport facilities. In recent weeks petitions have been presented in the Senate from many local government authorities with respect to road funding. During the last session of the Parliament I, together with some of my colleagues, received a deputation from the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. The members of the deputation stressed the plight that many rural local government authorities find themselves in with respect to the road funding issue. We have to remember that local government is a major rural employer. Local government provides employment for 40 per cent of the people in our country areas. Therefore, local government is quite justifiably concerned that the future funding for roads is sufficient for it to continue employing outside road working gangs and to maintain employment at the highest possible level. I believe that the submission from the Council which I have seen was a reasonable one. The Council has suggested that the Government ought to be looking at an increase of $403m in the total expenditure on roads for the program ending in 1981. The Bureau of Roads recommendation was that we should be spending $5,500m. I believe that the Government ought to be looking at that proposal sympathetically because it would be in the interests of local government in maintaining employment in the road construction area. After all, the roads of Australia must be considered to be a national asset. Because of the effect that inflation has on increased road construction and maintenance costs, it is vital that the Government provides adequate funds to protect and preserve this very important national asset.

I was interested in the summary that the Australian Council of Local Government Associations presented to us. In particular, I was interested in the statement from the Council that local government believes that unless its recommendations are adopted, a national asset will waste and Australia’s roads will deteriorate further. Local government also asks the Commonwealth Government to maintain an adequate road categorisation system, endeavour to achieve a uniform system of categories, resume 5 year forward planning and appropriations, and ensure that the proposed amalgamation of the Bureau of Roads with the Bureau of Transport Economics does not impair the important policy advisory role of the Bureau of Roads or its high level of independence and professionalism. Of course, that is a matter which has concerned local government and other bodies interested in roads throughout Australia.

The Bureau of Roads was set up in 1964. It had an independence which I think was most important. It had a capacity to advise the Minister for Transport directly with respect to certain road projects. It is vital that the Government in its future actions with respect to this Bureau bears in mind the importance of paying regard to the value that local government authorities have placed on its functioning. I have raised the question on several occasions in the Senate and have been assured that my concern was noted by the Government. I hope that when we face up to the repeal of the Bureau of Roads Act we will try to ensure that the independent functioning of this area of expertise is assured.

There are many other matters that arise as a result of Her Majesty’s Speech which are of considerable interest. I refer to the proposal with respect to housing whereby the Government will introduce a scheme under which young couples will be able to participate in a voucher system to ensure that they can provide the type of accommodation that they believe is best suited to their purposes. The housing voucher pilot scheme for low income earners will enable them to choose the accommodation most suited to their needs when the scheme is given effect. I hope that the Government will act quickly because in the area of housing there is a need that has to be filled. It would seem to me to be a very progressive step to introduce a measure of that type.

There are many other aspects of the Speech to which I would like to refer but time will not permit me to go into detail on all of them. One aspect that I would like to ask the Government to examine carefully concerns medical services in rural areas. A friend of mine has been very active in examing the need to provide medical services in rural areas. He presented a report to the South Australian branch of the Australian Medical Association last year. In this he drew attention to the need to re-examine and re-assess the training of general practitioners so that they will be able to go out into the more remote areas of Australia better equipped to deal with matters such as emergency surgery. These days, it appears, the question of emergency surgery is not given sufficient attention in medical training.

Another responsibility that governments have to face up to is the provision of adequate manpower in rural communities throughout Australia. Of course, it is very attractive for a young doctor to remain in the city close to large hospitals with specialist services readily available; but it is another matter to ask a young doctor to go into a country area where perhaps the hospital is not quite up to the standard of many of the metropolitan hospitals. It occurs to me that there ought to be a provision whereby young doctors are required in some way or other to spend at least a year in an area of need in the community. I made a submission today to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) drawing his attention to the constructive recommendations of this report. Mr President, I think you will recall Dr Cooter who is a mutual friend of ours. Senator Young, too, knows him. He is dedicated to ensuring that the medical profession recognises this need and that it does something about it. I think that the Government ought to encourage that attitude within the profession and give some impetus to it. I hope that the Minister for Health will digest this report carefully and come forward with some proposals that will rectify what I believe to be a very serious deficiency in our medical health program to service rural communities. I also suggest that the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia ought to be given a little more help.

Senator Davidson:

– Hear, hear!

Senator JESSOP:

– It provides a tremendous service throughout Australia. Senator Davidson says ‘Hear, hear!’ He has been concerned with this matter for a long time. He was on the federal council for a long time and has an intimate interest in the Service.

Senator McAuliffe:

– What about Queensland?

Senator JESSOP:

-I have been to Queensland, too. I have had a look at the Flying Doctor Service in Queensland and have visited the original tin shed at Cloncurry-I think it was- from which the flying doctor operated. I commend the service that has developed there. But one cannot provide the service without adequate funding. I can recall when I first went to Port Augusta I pioneered an optical service associated with the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Believe me, it is an interesting experience to have to examine a patient in a dugout at Coober Pedy, for example, without any lights, to have to rely on opening a door to get light on a chart. I recall my first visit to that town many years ago when I had to use a kerosene case as an instrument table and I had to improvise. I hope I provided those people with some service. Of course, nowadays the Royal District Nursing Society and church organisations have provided hospitals, nursing facilities and consulting rooms that people can use and it is a different kettle of fish now. But people who live in the cities cannot possibly realise the hardships that people in those areas have had to put up with. I commend the Flying Doctor Service for what it has done. I believe it is a responsibility predominantly of our Government to see that adequate funds are provided to ensure that the medical services in those areas are of the highest possible standard. I have pleasure in supporting the Address-in-Reply.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating Senator Lewis. Before I commence my general remarks I wish to reply to some of the points which Senator Jessop has raised. He raised a doubt about the future of people who may change their jobs and who, according to the recent statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), would not be eligible for unemployment benefits. Senator Jessop stated that in some countries- he did not nominate themthose people who want to change their jobs or those who are out of work have 3 options. If they do not take up the option of employment- that is, employment in categories in which they are not qualified- they are taken off the list of beneficiaries. I am surprised to think that such a suggestion should be put forward by a government which announced in the speech read by Her Majesty the Queen yesterday that it was its intention to bring down legislation to protect the rights of individuals in the community. All honourable senators will recall that in the early parts of that speech the Queen said:

At the heart of my Government’s policies lie a commitment and a concern: commitment to increasing the freedom, opportunity and equality of the Australian people; and concern with enhancing people’s ability to make their own choices and live their own lives in their own way.

The fact is that in Australia today, as everybody knows, there is an economic crisis and in addition we have what is now being recognised as a political crisis. As has been stated well by Senator Wriedt today, unemployment is rapidly increasing. All that the Government and honourable senators opposite can say is that they lay the blame on the Labor Government. They continue to blame the Labor Government even though at the time of the elections- elections which they brought about by a political fraud in my opinion- they promised jobs for all. We have a situation where jobs are not available; skills are being lost to the Australian community; the private sector productivity is dropping; manufacturing production is dropping; and the skills of our young people are being lost. And people are talking about imposing further burdens on people who cannot get a job. The thing is all wrong.

To make sure that it is properly considered I refer to one of the schemes which have been introduced by the Government. In this place we on this side on many occasions, as you well know, Mr President, have raised the need to maintain in the public sector for the time being an increased intake of apprentices. I note that in my State the South Australian Government is taking more than its entitlement of apprentices to ensure that in the future there will not be a lack of skills when industry takes up. Some incentives have been provided but the incentives are not enough. Everybody will recall that when Labor was in government we were told that inflation was created within Australia. It was not long after this Government took office- within a month or two- that the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, said that of course there was world inflation. Now the Government says there is world inflation but whatever residues of inflation and unemployment there are are due to the Labor Government. The Australian people will not go for that sort of fraud today. I refer to the matter raised by Senator Jessop because it is a very insidious attack upon the rights of people who cannot get jobs. One of the schemes which has been promoted by the Government is the community youth support scheme, but it offers the young people no pay for the jobs they do. The statement which accompanied the Minister’s information about this scheme stated that it would provide a range of programs which will help to keep unemployed youth oriented to work and improve their ability to apply for jobs and find employment.

Some of the areas in which they might participate are in assistance with minor maintenance to community facilities and in conservation or environment protection projects; they might assist in paper and metal recycling activities; they will learn job skills in an informal atmosphere and maintain a positive orientation to work and to job finding. That is no good for the Australian work force, it is no good for the nation, it is no good for the young people who want jobs and who want to learn trades which are necessary now and will be necessary in the future. Any provision which the Government brings forward to do that sort of thing and to take from people who have been displaced because of its own economic policies would be a form of conscription. As everybody knows, the Federal Government sets the economic climate, and the new federalism policy is no different from the old arrangement under which the Federal Government set the climate in which industry, commerce, transport and State Governments had to work. The Federal Government is responsible for the situation, and the Opposition is very much opposed to any scheme along those lines.

Senator Jessop made a number of pleas in relation to various projects in South Australia, but I am sorry to say that in his State important projects which were approved by the Labor Government have been stalled by this Government and allowed to run down. I refer to the Whyalla shipbuilding industry, to the question of roads, which Senator Jessop raised, and to 2 railway projects which the State Government is being forced to deal with in a new climate. Agreements which were made with the State Government relating to the Tarcoola railway and to the broadening of the gauge have been stopped, and the State Government, as well as Senator Jessop and I, has been anxious to make representation to the Minister. If those agreements had been kept the projects would nave proceeded more quickly and the slowing down which has occurred since this Government was elected would not have happened. Not only would that work have proceeded and been completed earlier but more people would have been involved. There are many other areas involved, and I speak about matters relating to my own State because they come more readily to mind. For example in relation to the water improvement scheme about which I spoke today, in 1974 the State Labor Government did a deal with the Federal Government in respect of a general metropolitan water improvement scheme, bearing in mind that that could not be done at once but that there had to be a comprehensive improvement. It might be recalled that at Question Time today reference was made to the fact that all South Australian senators inspected the plant. The State Government is concerned that the funds for the job will not be maintained. The point I wish to make is that when the Labor Government was in power the State Governments, local authorities, and road and railway authorities knew in what part of the economic sector they had a place. They knew that in the long term there would be funds for certain work, for railway rolling stock improvements and for improvements in urban transport.

All that has been shattered by a policy called the new federalism. There have been a series of cuts in a whole range of Labor policies which have affected not only the economy within Australia but have also affected our overseas administration. At every level expenditure has been reduced and Labor has been charged with being extravagant. We were charged with being the cause of inflation which existed only within Australia. The people of Australia now know that that charge was a fraud, and this Government is perpetrating a great fraud. In my opinion, it seized power by means of fraud, and the Senate might recall that when I spoke at that time I said that I believed parliamentary democracy was imperilled by the actions of Liberals in this place in refusing Supply to Labor. The closest statement I have seen to that definition- a definition which the Australian Labor Party considered to be correct- came from the mouth of none other than the Liberal Party Whip, Senator Chaney, when he spoke recently on the Constitution alteration legislation. In talking about the referendum he said:

The passage of this referendum will be good for democracy in Australia. There are problems in our democratic system.

That is an about turn, is it not? Senator Chaney continued:

The action we took in 1975 in which I participated and which I believed and still believe was right put strains on the political system. If we have a long term interest in the survival of this place as a part of democratic Australia we must ensure that it is responsive to the will of the people.

I commend Senator Chaney for making at that late stage what seems to be a very important statement about the Parliament in Australia. We know that the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to this country has been undertaken at a time of great tension in the community. Nobody who attended last night’s reception would be unaware that there is a political tension within

Australia. A large part of the Australian community believe that Labor was wrongly dismissed from Government, and it will be many years before that wound is healed. It will only be through a straight forward approach by this Government to the country’s economic problems that people will believe that the Liberal Government honestly intends to correct the problems existing in the community. Nothing put forward in the program announced in Her Majesty’s Speech indicates that sort of approach.

Prior to the election the Liberal Party said: We are now enlightened. We will ensure that there are jobs for all.’ The answer to that statement is that inflation has grown to nearly 6 per cent, a figure almost as high as that in the United States and certainly much higher than that of many European countries. That rate of inflation is not nesessary. Industry lacks confidence, and the Government’s promise to bring about better relations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been diminished. All that has happened in recent months is that continual attacks have been made upon the unions, the ACTU and Mr Hawke, the ACTU President. The Government has forgotten that in every major industrial dispute in Australia Mr Hawke, like his predecessor, Albert Monk, has played a sterling role and has solved many disputes which nobody else could solve. In many disputes affecting the airlines, transport and the waterfront, Bob Hawke comes in with the ACTU apparatus and helps to solve the problem. Arbitration cannot do it. The Ministers of the Government cannot do it. When I was Postmaster-General or Acting Minister for Labour during the time that we were in government, I could not solve many of the disputes which occurred. Who did solve them? It was Bob Hawke, and Bob Hawke and the ACTU promised the Government and the Government promised to take up the option, to consult with the Federal Government about economic matters within Australia. As the President of the ACTU has said, despite conflicts in their policies the trade unions are concerned about the future of Australia.

What is the program set out in Her Majesty’s speech? While there is a promise of more freedom for individuals and a promise to increase and foster the strength and independence and creativity of Australian people, it is clear that the sort of legislation to be brought down will make conditions worse for the ordinary working man and for the unions. In fact, it is intended to transfer the general economic burdens away from those who can best bear them on to the backs of the workers. People still talk about the number of industrial disputes in Australia, but may I quote the words of one of Government’s own Ministers. Mr Macphee, the Minister for Productivity. In an address in Perth on 2 1 February he made a comparison between accidents and industrial disputes, something to which Labor had referred in the past. This is what he said:

Management in small business and in tertiary Industry tends to accept that illnesses occur and do not recognise their responsibility in eliminating illness at the work place. The cost of illness not only exceeds the cost to industry of accidents, but it exceeds greatly the cost of industrial disputes. In an average year the number of working hours lost by accidents or illness at work is double the number of hours lost due to industrial disputes. The annual bill to Australia is many hundreds of millions of dollars, thus quite apart from the pain and suffering caused to the individual, Australian industry becomes less efficient and competitive overseas.

Now that is a new breath. Of course in the past in odd debates we have been used to hearing Mr Macphee, who is now a Minister, saying something like what the Labor Party and the unions have said: There has to be a voice for the unions. Instead of bringing in new laws to repress them or talking about penal clauses or an industrial tribunal, the Government should consult with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It should take account of the ACTU and seek its advice on economic matters. Unfortunately that is not taking place.

I refer now to the matter of employment. Honourable senators will recall that in this place, I and other people have talked about the unnecessary staff ceiling inhibitions that apply to public service departments generally and also to statutory authorities. We have mentioned the evidence which has been brought before Estimates committees. It indicates that many departments are not able to work efficiently under the present ceilings. But more important than that is a matter which I have tried to draw to the attention of the Minister. It is the fact that unless these people can be gainfully employed in future, they will not only be on the unemployment market but in time, because they will have lost the skills and the mechanisms of the operation, they also will become less efficient. That is a bad thing. There has been a belated attempt to correct the situation. I understand, for example, that in Telecom Australia some adjustments have been made. The other thing which was evident 12 months ago was the proposition I put that on the basis of the staff ceilings the Commonwealth Employment Service just could not cope with the sort of situation which was developing within Australia. It has been in only the last two or three weeks that some modifications have been made to those programs. There has to be a genuine attempt to restore effective employment techniques and there has to be an acceptance within our own public administrations that we have to make sure that they can work efficiently without staff ceilings being restricted unnecessarily. As I have pointed out, there is evidence from the Estimates committees that departments have been restricted.

What is the position in industry generally? The fact is that since this Government came to power, even though it promised it would restore confidence in industry, general manufacturing production is down. We know too that while profits in some areas are comparatively high, secondary industry generally is concerned about the slow pace of recovery. Hundreds of thousands of workers have been sacked from their jobs and have no chance of getting employment again in the industry. In the electronic industry, for example, we know that there has been almost a complete demise of electronic capacity. No longer can we fall back on the advantages, skills and techniques of that industry to keep up our defence support. It is a fact of life. The defence contractors have been saying publicly that this is the circumstance. Not only are they concerned about the electronic industry, but they are concerned also about manufacturing defence capability too. There has been no attempt to recognise the defence aspects of shipbuilding. We know that the Government has stood aside, blaming the Wran New South Wales Government for the fate of the Newcastle dockyards. There has been no real attempt to provide an alternative shipbuilding capability for Whyalla. Apparently the pleas which have been made on behalf of Whyalla have fallen on deaf ears because the Government has no intention of again maintaining capability in shipbuilding in Australia. It simply says that the situation is the fault of the Labor Government. I do not think the Australian people are going to take that excuse. I think they are sick of this business of blaming the Labor Government for everything. Of course we made some adjustments.

Senator Baume:

- Mr Charles Jones, the member for Newcastle, made the decision.

Senator BISHOP:

-No, he did not, senator. If you say that, you know nothing about it. The ACTU and the Newcastle shipbuilding union made the most liberal offer ever made to any government in Australia about arrangements to build ships. That cannot be denied.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What was it?

Senator BISHOP:

– They made arrangements quite contrary to all award conditions.

Senator Young:

- Mr Jones made the decision while you went overseas.

Senator BISHOP:

-Senator, even if they did not do that can you justify standing aside and seeing the shipyards rot? Is that the idea of the great defenders of Australia? Is that what you want? You just say: ‘Well, it is all the fault of the Labor Government and of the workers’. Senator Young, are you going to see the Whyalla shipyard defunct and 3000 men shifted out of Whyalla and then blame the Newcastle dockyard workers?

Senator Young:

– On the contrary, senator, you know that I am trying to do something.

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes, I know, you are making the same sort of pleas as Senator Jessop. You are a part of the Government that tossed out of office the Labor Party which had programs. You knew that when you took part in this great call against the extravagance of Labor. You promoted the new federalism policy and you promoted wholesale cuts. Now you are making pleas to a government that has done all these things. In my opinion you are just kidding the electors. You have no chance at all, senator.

Senator Maunsell:

– You cannot prove that.

Senator BISHOP:

– Well I should like to know what you are going to do about the shipbuilding industry, if you are going to do anything.

Senator Archer:

– Tell us what you did about textiles.

Senator BISHOP:

– There honourable senators opposite go again with their cry: ‘Tell us what you did’. That is no excuse, senator. You cannot keep blaming your opponent. Senators opposite are the crowd that supported what was said yesterday:

The commitment of my Government to these goals stems from the conviction that the progress of Australia as a nation depends on creating the conditions which foster the strength, independence and creativity of its people.

Where is the strength in the electronics industry? Where is the strength in the manufacturing industry? That area is running down in plant and manpower. Honourable senators opposite know that this is a fact. When are they going to correct the situation? They say that it is all the fault of the Labor Government. That is a fraud and they know it. So they have tried a new gimmick- the new federalism policy. What is it? It is a copy of the American policy. All they have done in the United States is to produce a strong organisation of States. A strong organisation of States will be developed in this country to combat those sons of stringent policies applied by the government of honourable senators opposite. It has cut every viable Labor policy. Now it says: ‘Let us have some more social welfare; let us have some money’. Of course honourable senators opposite have said it. They said it tonight. I do not think the people are going to take that. I say that on every count what the Government is doing is affecting the viability of Australian industry. It is not even carrying out the charge of ensuring that industry in Australia will have a continuing defence capability.

Senator Young:

– It is a fact of life.

Senator BISHOP:

-Senator, it is a fact of life. Think of government factories; think of defence contractors and the electronics industries.

Senator Young:

– That is your view.

Senator BISHOP:

– It is not my view; it is the view of the people who put forward public information to us. I wonder whether we are reaching a situation that was mentioned by Senator Wood in an interview on 7 March, two days ago, on a talk-back program involving him and Senator Withers. They talked about the policies of the Government. The interviewer asked Senator Wood:

Do you think it’s an integrity gap or a credibility gap we are talking about?

Senator Wood replied:

Well, I think definitely it’s a credibility gap and the way the Government is going on, it will be hard to get anybody to believe what they say in view of their great somersault on this particular question.

I referred earlier to the admission of Senator Chaney. I compliment him on the sensitive way in which he described the sorts of tensions which have been created in Australia by the actions honourable senators opposite took and the way in which they intend to correct them.

Senator Young:

– What were they discussing, senator?

Senator BISHOP:

– They were discussing the referendum Bills. Of course, the honourable senator has heard this before. In addition, honourable senators on the other side have always said that they were free from Party discipline. What did Senator Wood say about this freedom and the claim that there was neither pressure nor influence on Liberals. He was asked the question:

What are they going to do to you?

Senator Chaney:

-I have not much influence on him.

Senator BISHOP:

– We are a caucus. We vote to support our policies. Senator Wood said:

Well, as far as I’m concerned, they use a lot of pressure on the senators to make them change their mind.

That is not true, is it? The interviewer was not satisfied with that answer. He asked:

By pressure, do you mean pressure from the Prime Minister?

Senator Wood said:

From the top down.

I do not wish to quote what Senator Wright said about Senator Withers. There is an economic and political crisis. This Government took the Australian people for a ride in the election in December 1975 and carried the vote. At present, the Australian people must be convinced that the promised recovery has not taken place. The situation has become worse under the coalition’s policies. Those policies ought to be changed for the good of the country. It is up to the Senate in particular to make sure that what has occurred never happens again. I suggest that honourable senators on the other side, rather than making pleas about small matters, might well put their weight behind the matters I have talked about, including the railway projects, the South Australian projects which have been held up and, most importantly, the shipbuilding issue. Otherwise the capability of the people will be lost. In addition to the problem presented by the 6 per cent of people who are unemployed, I point out that young people will never learn a skill unless industry is working properly.

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

– We were privileged yesterday in this chamber to join with members of another place to witness Her Majesty the Queen open the second session of the 30th Parliament. I support the motion before the chamber for an AddressinReply to Her Majesty’s Speech. I wish to identify myself strongly with the purport of that Address. This Government has a comprehensive program which it was elected to pursue in 1975 and which it is midway through implementing. It will place this country in a stronger economic and social condition and it will allow all Australians the kind of life they want to live without the fettering and restraint which others seek to impose.

I offer to Her Majesty’s representative in this country, the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, and to Lady Kerr my apologies for the unfair, unwarranted and hateful comments made by a number of persons in this community who I have no doubt know better. For what they believe will be their own personal aggrandisement they have attacked the person of Sir John Kerr. May Her Majesty know that Sir John carried out his duties- Senator Cavanagh- As a traitor to -

Senator WEBSTER:

-. . . in impressive terms and with great decorum. He gave explanations to the community for his actions. No one of any stature can challenge those decisions as not being in the best interests of this nation.

The former Labor Government, led by Mr Whitlam, created the greatest harm to this nation and its inhabitants, whether they be pensioners, labourers or those with business connections. When Labor sought to continue government and even to have recourse to illegality Sir John Kerr permitted the electorate a say in the matter. That is the evidence of democracy. The Australian electorate spoke forcibly. May we in Australia never lose that democratic right.

Senator Wriedt:

– I take a point of order. Senator Webster has referred to illegalities on the part of the previous Labor Government. I ask him to withdraw that statement or to substantiate it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake- Brockman)- Senator Webster may make his own decision about that. He does not have to withdraw, but the Leader of the Opposition has asked him to do so.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with your view, Mr Deputy President. The Australian electorate -

Senator Georges:

– I rise to take a point of order. I support my point of order with the information that I endeavoured to put on the notice paper a question concerning allegations of illegality made against the previous Labor Government. That question was not allowed to go on the notice paper. I have a copy of the question with me. I could read it if that is desired but it would lengthen the point of order. I do not think that is desirable. Nevertheless, the accusation that Senator Webster has made is the same as that made by Mr Rolfe, Q.C., in a court case at Queanbeyan. When I endeavoured to protest about this by placing a question on the notice paper, the Clerks of the Senate ruled that the question would be out of order. If that question would have been out of order, Senator Webster is also out of order.

Senator Young:

– What is the standing order to which the Opposition is referring?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is standing order 4 18.

Senator Wriedt:

– I wish to add to what Senator Georges has said. The remark by Senator Webster is offensive. It is typical of the tactics he has used over the years. He said that the Labor Government resorted to illegalities. After your invitation to him to continue, Mr Deputy President, he made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate that statement. I ask you again to ask Senator Webster to withdraw the statement or else to substantiate the accusation he made.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I think Senator Webster’s comments were political comments.

Senator Keeffe:

– We will have a go tonight.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Senator Keeffe, when I am making a decision I do not want you to interject. I think that it is up to following speakers to make their political comments. As* I sit in the Chair from day to day I hear all sorts of comments from either side of the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The Australian electorate spoke forcibly on that occasion. May we in Australia never lose that democratic right.

Senator Keeffe:

– I wish to take a point of order. The Minister has a fair amount of freedom when he is making statements in this Parliament in association with his portfolio. Tonight he is reading a speech. Without wishing to infringe upon the -

Seantor Maunsell- You do that all the time.

Senator Keeffe:

– If the honourable senator wishes to start a debate he can have one. I do not wish to infringe upon standing order 417.

Senator Baume:

– You have already.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator does not even know what standing order 417 states. He would not be able to understand it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I shall not allow honourable senators to get away with this conduct. When I call an honourable senator, I want him to address the Chair. Senator Keeffe should do so.

Senator Keeffe:

– I know that standing order 4 1 9 allows a fair amount of latitude.

Senator Maunsell:

– I thought you were talking about standing order 4 1 7.

Senator Keeffe:

– For the benefit of those honourable senators opposite who do not understand it, I will read standing order 419, which obviously goes to the point of the argument. It reads:

No senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any question under discussion; nor anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the notice papen

Provided that this standing order shall not prevent discussion on the Address-in-Reply of any matter; and provided further that if a period of 4 weeks shall have elapsed since any notice of motion or order of the day was first placed on the notice paper, and no debate thereon shall have been initiated, the rule as to anticipating discussion shall have no effect in relation to such motion or order.

That is a fairly wide-ranging standing order. My disagreement is with the fact that the Minister is reading his speech. The phraseology is not his own. The speech obviously has been compiled in some other area. I ask you, Sir, to rule in accordance with the long-standing custom in this chamber that honourable senators are not allowed to read their speeches.

Senator Wriedt:

– I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr Deputy President. I refer specifically to the wording of standing order 4 1 8. Bearing in mind that Senator Webster spoke of illegalities on the part of the previous Government, standing order 4 1 8 is quite specific. It says:

No senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any member of such House . . . and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly.

With great respect to you, Sir, I suggest that you would not be taking account of that standing order if you were not to uphold the point of order.

Senator Chaney:

– I submit, speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy President, that it is not offensive to say of a member of a House that his conduct was illegal. There is a matter before the courts at the moment which is being litigated. In my submission it is not offensive to make an unvarnished declaration that somebody behaved in an illegal manner. As far as the matter of improper motives is concerned, which has been referred to by a number of Opposition senators, I cannot recall there being any reference to motives in what Senator Webster has said. He simply made the statement that there was illegal conduct.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr Deputy President, I want to speak to the point of order concerning standing order 4 18.

Senator Maunsell:

– You do not like the truth.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It brings up the whole question of what is an offensive word.

Senator Webster:

– Calling somebody a traitor is, as you did.

Senator Cavanagh:

-Among the numerous interjections there was the interjection that to call someone a traitor, as I did, was to use an offensive word. I think that is agreed upon. It is an offensive word and its use possibly justified a retraction. But where does one draw the line of demarcation? Who decides what is an offensive word? The Leader of the Opposition has said that he found the suggestion that the previous Government was engaged in illegal activities was offensive. In his opinion that is offensive. If you rule contrary to that- if you say that in your opinion it is not offensive to say that a politician was engaged in illegal activities- I do not think that would stand up to any definition of what is an offensive word.

Senator Maunsell:

– He did not say ‘someone’; he said ‘the Government’.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That raises a very interesting point. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has ruled that a word is not offensive if it relates to a party, which is a collection of individuals. But that ruling has never been given in this House. Very serious consideration is given to this matter in the fifth edition of Australian Senate Practice. The author of that book says that he is of the belief that the defamation extends to a party. If we accept his opinion on the matter, it is more defamatory and it is more offensive to refer to a government or a party than it is to say, for example, that Senator Wriedt was engaged in some illegal activities. Therefore, in our opinion it is offensive. I do not think that you can rule that to suggest that anyone or any group of people was engaged in illegal activities is not to use an offensive word in accordance with standing order 418.

Senator Lewis:

- Mr Deputy President, as I understand Senator Cavanagh, he is suggesting that an imputation that a government has engaged in illegal activities is contrary to standing order 418. 1 draw your attention to the precise wording of standing order 418, which reads:

No senator shall use offensive words against - Senator Keeffe- I have already quoted it.

Senator Lewis:

– I propose to quote it again. It reads:

No senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any member of such House . . .

I emphasise the words ‘any member of such House’. There can be no doubt that those words are quite clear. The standing order relates to an imputation against a member of either House or the House itself. It has nothing to do with a government or even a party in government.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) I think honourable senators know that I will not allow, at any time, any honourable senator to attempt to disparage another honourable senator. I have taken Senator Webster’s remarks to be more of a political nature than a personal nature -

Senator Georges:

– Oh!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I rule in that way. Do you want to disagree, Senator Georges?

Senator Georges:

– I just happen to have a question that I want to ask, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Do not interrupt me. I call Senator Webster. In doing so I ask him to abide by the Standing Orders and the practice of the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Labor sought to take away this right. I believe that many of those groups which are now supporting Labor and which are demonstrating to the inconvenience of others -

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise the same point of order as I raised earlier, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I have already ruled on this matter.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is on an entirely different subject matter. When I took a point of order earlier I referred to the wide latitude that was offered under 2 standing orders, in response to which my distinguished opponent on the other side of the chamber felt fit also to quote the standing order. I refer now to standing order 406, which says quite unequivocally- there is no backing and filling on it- that no senator shall read his speech. I raised this matter earlier tonight, Mr Deputy President, and the Minister immediately went back to reading a prepared speech. I ask for that standing order to be observed.

Mr DEPUTY PRESIDENT:

- Senator Webster, the standing order which provides that no senator shall read his speech has been raised. This matter has been referred to in a report of the Standing Orders Committee. I ask you to observe that point.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr Deputy President, the Opposition has effectively taken up exactly 10 minutes of my speaking time. The Senate will recognise that this is one of the reactions of weak-stomached men when they find the thrust of the sword close to their innards. They are not able to take the words that are used, but I can still deal with that proposition. I say again that Labor sought to take that democratic right away from the people of Australia. I believe that many of those groups which are now supporting Labor and which are demonstrating, as they were yesterday, to the inconvenience of the public and others, wish a system on this community whereby the spoils of office, as was stated by some when Labor took office, would be used by unscrupulous men. One usually finds such people to be supporters of the socialists.

Senator Georges:

- Mr Deputy President, I object to the use of the term ‘unscrupulous men’. I find it offensive. It was used directly against the Party to which I belong and the Government of which I was a supporter. I again direct your attention to the fact -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Who are the unscrupulous men?

Senator Georges:

– I am objecting strongly to the use of the words ‘unscrupulous men’. I am asking for the withdrawal of those words.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- But who are they? That is all I have asked.

Senator Georges:

-Mr Deputy President, I believe I am correct when I say that I thought Senator Webster directed those terms against a group which included myself. I take strong personal objection to the words used and I seek their withdrawal.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr Deputy President, speaking to the point of order, I wish to substantiate the reference I quoted. At page 155 of the Fifth Edition of Australian Senate Practice the Clerk of the Senate states the following:

In the House of Representatives on 23 April 1969 -

He then refers to the Hansard report- a point of order was taken by a Member that a remark by a Minister that the Australian Labor Party was in alliance with the Communist Party on the Vietnam affair was offensive to him and should be withdrawn.

Rather than read the whole paragraph I point out that the Deputy Speaker ruled then that as the remark referred to the Party it could not be accepted as being offensive. That was the ruling of the Deputy Speaker in the other place. But the author -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Cavanagh, I think you have made your point. I am going to ask Senator Webster to withdraw that remark because I think it was a personal remark.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr Deputy President, I bow to your ruling. If you allow me to read the words again and if you then ask that I withdraw them, I shall do so immediately.

Senator Wriedt:

– He has just said so. Are you not big enough to obey his ruling?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order, Senator Wriedt. Senator Webster, I am asking you to withdraw those words.

Seantor WEBSTER- I withdraw the remarks that appear to be offensive to the honourable senator. I wish to congratulate Senator Lewis on his speech to the Senate this day. His reference to his predecessor, the late Senator Ivor Greenwood, again prompts our recollection of one of the most competent senators ever to adorn this place. I regret, as did Senator Lewis, the late

Senator’s passing. I confidently look forward to a very bright future for Senator Lewis. I believe that our newly installed senator will be able to pursue an opportunity that is not given to many men in this country. I do not wish to mention particular senators but my Party colleague, Senator Tehan, was mentioned by Senator Wriedt. I was interested in the comments and presentation of Senator Tehan. I believe that his speech should be read and the importance of it firmly established in the minds of people who wish to see a better Australia. I wish to speak at some length on the harshness with which the Labor Party dealt with the Australian people.

Senator Georges:

- Mr Deputy President, because Senator Webster is going to continue his unfair assault upon the Labor Party -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! No, I am not going to listen to any more. I call Senator Webster.

Senator Georges:

– I think Senator Webster should be listened to carefully so I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Quorum formed

Senator WEBSTER:

– I had intended in my speech to say something to the disadvantage of the Labor Party and something about the advance of science. Members of the Opposition have taken up my time by indulging in a quite stupid performance this evening. Perhaps they will take exception to that remark. I must address myself to some matters associated with science. I want to inform the Senate of some of the operations coming within my portfolio. I am proud to say that the operation of the general proposals of the Government in relation to science have been most exciting over the last year. Many new initiatives have been fostered by this Government in its short term of office. It has demonstrated its interest in and support for the sciences and the programs undertaken will continue to monitor and satisfy the needs of our nation in this changing time. During the parliamentary recess I was fortunate to be able to travel to Antarctica for 8 days. I believe it probably would be better if the entire Labor Party stayed on that land mass for good. I believe that this land mass is more diverse and unique in content for scientific interest than any land mass anywhere else in the world.

Senator Keeffe:

– I am sorry about this. If the honourable senator travelled to Antarctica he ought to be able to tell us the story without reading his speech. I draw your attention, Mr Deputy President, to standing order 406 which states:

No Senator shall read his speech.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I think a senator is allowed to glance down and look at his headings for his speech. I ask the honourable senator to abide by the Standing Orders.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think you will find that, as I am a Minister, if I wish to read a speech in this place in order for the record to be accurate I am entitled to do so.

Senator Keeffe:

– There is a long standing custom in this place. A Minister or a Leader of the Opposition is entitled to read something into the record and that practice is never challenged, but the Minister at present does not have that sort of protection when he is contributing to a debate in these circumstances. I again draw attention to standing order 406.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It has been my ruling when I have been in the chair that Ministers and spokesmen for the Opposition are allowed to read their speeches.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am now left with 5 minutes for the whole of my remarks.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Senator Webster, I have asked you to abide by the Standing Orders. I ask you to do so.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not believe that there is a land mass of such diversified and unique content for scientific research to be found anywhere else in the world. By bad luck the Opposition has left me with 4 minutes in which to speak, unless I seek an extension of time, which I may do. That depends on its performance for the next 4 minutes. That time will not enable me properly to set out the great interest we have in that area. Many nations are investing in scientific research in the Antarctic. We in Australia must be ever alert to our responsibilities as a claimant nation. We have claimed a large proportion of the continent of Antarctica. In Antarctica scientific research is taking place in areas of geology, geomorphology, geophysics, geochemistry, hydrology, polar medicine, glaciology, meteorology and cosmic rays as well as others.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I am sorry to interrupt but I will not have unnecessary chatter around the chamber.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Australia has 3 stations on the Antarctic continent and we have a station at Macquarie Island. I think the public should be aware that this day, for the first time in Australia’s history, 3 members of the Federal parliament are proceeding to take their places on one of our exploration ships going to the Antarctic. The vessel is expected to sail tomorrow night. One member of the House of Representatives as well as 2 honourable senators, one from the Opposition side and one from the Government side, will be taking that voyage. I congratulate them on the action they have taken. I think it is important that we should be aware of our obligations in that area of Antarctica. I wish them well in their trip and I hope that the voyage is pleasant. In the Antarctic scientists are coring glaciers by heat application while others are determining the state of the atmosphere and the meteorological conditions which may have existed over some thousands of years purely by taking samples and analyses of the frozen layers of water from those cores. Geologists investigating rock formations and residues are able to determine the ages of the formations. In future years this will enable us not only by our methods of carbon dating to be able to place a history on the formation of the area but also a new treatment, known as the uranium thorium method, will allow calculations of the age of any matter under analysis up to a period of some 400 000 years.

Antarctica has a great role to play in releasing the secrets of this world. For scientific purposes it is necessary that the continent be retained for scientists to pursue their work undeterred. I give them my full support. The Federal Government is doing likewise at the present time. The field of energy research in Australia has raised interest and questions in this place and in another place over the last year. I would wish to speak at some length on this matter. I think it is of great public interest. I think universities, the public in general, environmentalists and most people in the Opposition with any intelligence, find that they have an interest in this area. The action of the Opposition this evening in taking over 1 5 minutes out of my speaking time of 30 minutes, has left me without adequate time. I advise the Senate that should I wish to do so I could gain further time but perhaps that is not in the interests of the decorum of the Senate. I finish on the note on which I commenced -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-Not being a very provocative sort of person I do not expect to have the same difficulties which the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) had. It is always interesting to follow the Minister for Science. It is. a pity we could not receive the great dissertation on science tonight. We are participating in the Address-in-Reply debate following the Speech by Her Majesty the Queen yesterday. The Speech by the Queen is usually an outline of the Government’s policies and plans for future years. I can imagine the distress of the Minister for Science tonight and his determination to give us a lecture on science because when he read the Speech from the throne he found that there was no reference to any science policy in it. However, in view of the antics he gets up to at question time in this place I realise why the author of the Speech from the throne did not bother to include science in that Speech at all. We will hear at question time in the future, at great length, Senator Webster’s science policy, whether or not that policy coincides with the Government’s view.

As I was saying, the Speech at the opening of the Parliament by the Queen or by her representative is usually an outline of the Government’s future plans and policies. I have the great authority of Senator Jessop on this matter. He used those very words in his speech this evening. He said, in fact, that the Speech was a great outline of the Government’s philosophies and policies. The Speech took Her Majesty the Queen 8 minutes to read at a very steady pace. It consists of 4 pages, sparsely printed. I submit that it gave the people of this country no idea of what the Government intends to do in the future. If that is all the Government intends to do in the future, the outlook for many people in this country is indeed bleak. I believe that the Queen was illserved by her supporters, especially those great supporters of the monarchy opposite, when yesterday she was obliged to deliver to the Parliament the Speech which we have in this document. Of course, it was written for her by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and, typically, is composed of empty rhetoric and platitudes. I suggest that the Queen’s task is not made easier by having to mouth 8 minutes of words like these. The Speech is full of generalisations and all sorts of phoney reassurances to a divided community- honourable senators on the Government side in a debate here a fortnight ago admitted that it is a socially divided community- and a politically divided community. I see Senator Scott sitting in his place. He made the very point when he spoke in the debate on the referenda Bills. We are a troubled country. We are divided in many ways. We are troubled economically. I suggest that what appears in the Speech will not help the people in this country to be reassured. We should hear more speeches like the speech delivered by Senator Lewis this afternoon when he made his maiden speech. It was a more reasoned and reasonable speech which brought to the fore of the public mind some of the problems in society and suggested solutions to them. Even though some of us will not agree with those solutions I believe that we might end up with a better society if we had more such contributions. I congratulate Senator Lewis. I also thank him and congratulate him for being one of the people in the Senate who agrees that in the case of a casual vacancy an honourable senator should be replaced by a member from the same Party. It is a pity that all honourable senators opposite do not agree with that principle. It is a pity that all Premiers do not agree with it.

Senator Missen:

– We all voted for it.

Senator GRIMES:

– Not all senators voted for the proposal. If Senator Missen has a look at the vote on that issue he will see that it was not unanimous.

Senator Missen:

– It was.

Senator GRIMES:

– It was not unanimous. The only unanimous vote was in regard to the retiring age of judges as Senator Missen will find.

Senator Missen:

– I am talking about 2 years ago.

Senator GRIMES:

– Two years ago people did all sorts of things. But the vote on that referendum Bill was not unanimous. I suggest to the Senate that the author of this Speech, the Prime Minister, has always been consistent in his inconsistency ever since he became Leader of the Opposition and then Prime Minister. In fact, I suggest that he is the greatest dissembler this Parliament has ever seen. Having promised good economic management he has not produced it. Having promised to produce confidence in the society he has, in fact, created confusion and uncertainty. We heard Senator Jessop say in a speech here tonight that the people of this country knew from when the present Government was campaigning for Government that it would take this Government 3 years to get the economy back on its feet. But, in fact, on 26 November 1975 the Prime Minister said that the election of a Liberal-National Country Party government would give such business confidence that there would be a drop of some 200 000 in unemployment in its first 6 months. Senator Cotton was very courageous and said that within 6 months to 9 months unemployment in this country would drop to one per cent. That has not happened and we will go into that matter in detail later.

This man, the Prime Minister, has abandoned almost every promise he made during the last election campaign to the community in general, particularly those promises made to the poor and underprivileged in this country. He has even abandoned promises he made after the election.

He has abandoned plans and there has been a continuous change so that the business community, the working community, the Public Service and everyone in this community are in a state of confusion. He still believes that by making speeches, either out of his own mouth or by putting them into the Queen’s mouth, by talking about commitment and concern, by talking in deep terms of concern and worry and by urging people to get out and work he will solve the problems in the community. Of course, he has now changed that view somewhat and decided, as conservatives so often do, that the best way to govern the country is to divide society and the country. We can see an example of that in the campaign being conducted at the moment against the trade union movement and others involved in trying to improve the conditions of wage earners in this country. In the Queen’s Speech, as recorded on page 3 of Hansard, the Prime Minister put these words into the Queen’s mouth:

At the heart of my Government’s policies lie a commitment and a concern:

Those famous words used so frequently by Mr Fraser -

Commitment to increasing the freedom, opportunity and equality of the Australian people: and concern with enhancing people’s ability to make their own choices and live their own lives in their own way.

Almost 6 per cent of Australians are unemployed- 346 688 Australians- and we know also that there are many women and others in the community who do not appear in the statistics but who would work if suitable jobs were available or who would work if child care facilities were available. We know that the number of paying jobs in the community has not increased in the last year as it has increased in past years. We know that there are married women who previously worked who are now at home not working and do not appear in the unemployment statistics. We know that apprenticeships available are at a record low and that in New South Wales there are 1500 fewer apprenticeships than in past years in the building industry. Are these people making their own choices? Are they living their own lives in their own way, as the words of this Speech suggest? Have they the opportunity and equality that other citizens in this country have? Can they and their children look forward to the future with hope because of this Speech, a Speech which we are told is a blueprint for this Government’s future actions?

However, a worse aspect appears because we know that many on the Government side do not believe that there is any unemployment but believe that the unemployed are unemployed because of their own fault. We know that a senior Minister, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson), tells us that unemployment is a myth; and, because Party meetings have a tendency to leak, we know that today there was a concerted effort to ensure that, in the first place, the unemployment benefit and, in the second place, pensions in some cases would not be increased by the full consumer price index increase as was legislated for only 4 months ago. I understand that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has been successful in stopping this atrocity, in stopping the Government going back on legislation which it introduced only 4 months ago, in stopping the Government going back completely on one of the firmest promises it made in the last election campaign. We understand from the Press that there were no fewer than 1 7 people who got up at a meeting today and said that the unemployed should not get their increase while some said that pensioners should not get their increase. I dare say that in the next half of the year when, because of devaluation, the inflation rate will be 6 per cent or more, we will have the same cry.

We have had this continual campaign against the unemployed and those receiving the unemployment benefit since well before this Government came into power. Senator Jessop tonight suggested that some 40 per cent of those on the unemployment benefit should not be receiving the benefit and should have it taken away from them. The unemployment situation is all the worse because of the high percentage of young unemployed and we believe that it is because of this callous disregard of the young unemployed that our divided society has the potential to become more divided. This increasingly large group already has been discriminated against by the Government in its harsh interpretation of the Social Services Act concerning school leavers in legislation introduced last December. This was done because some school leavers received the unemployment benefit and then went back to school. My Party does not advocate that people on school or university vacations should get the unemployment benefit. But we suggest that stopping all school leavers getting the unemployment benefit in order to catch the few who try to beat the system is immoral and discriminates severely against the children of pensioners and other poor people in the community who need this benefit so that they can dress adequately and travel to look for jobs in a society which has very few jobs for them. We have some 340 000 unemployed people in the community and there are about 25 000 job vacancies. There is an enormous gap, yet we hear continually from those on the Government side that all people on the unemployment benefit should not be receiving it because they do not want to work. I have suggested before, and I feel quite free to suggest again tonight in view of the ruling by the Deputy President and the learned discourse by Senator Chaney and others, that the Government’s action is illegal and completely against the spirit of the Act. The Government is acting illegally and we suggest that it will act illegally in the future.

What is of greater concern is that survey after survey here and overseas has shown the association between unemployment in the young and the severe social problems of juvenile crime, vandalism and, what may be more serious, drug trafficking in hard drugs and some of the soft drugs. I ask: Can the failure to do anything for the young unemployed foster the strength, independence and creativity of the youth of this country referred to in the Speech from the Throne yesterday. Almost 6 per cent of people in this community has no choice, has lost dignity and has lost esteem. These people have suffered loss of opportunity and self respect and, when nothing is done to relieve their plight, conditions can only get worse. Yet we still have senior Ministers saying that unemployment is a myth. We still have Ministers at question time in this place saying that they do not believe that people are unemployed in this community.

The Speech by the Queen goes on to talk about social reform of fundamental importance to the people of Australia. Here the Speech mentions 2 reforms. The first was the family allowance scheme which was introduced last year and which we did not oppose. We do not oppose it now. However, the Speech did not mention that at the same time as this reform was introduced it was offset by the removal of the taxation rebates for children and more than offset by the introduction of the Medibank levy. Figures produced by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) at the time demonstrated that 75 per cent of wage earners in this country, that is, those on average weekly earnings, those just below average weekly earnings and those just above who have 3 children or less- the vast majority of wage earners in this country- had a decrease in disposable income as a result of these moves. The Government knows this. The Government already has decreased the disposable income of people and intends to do so even more this year by its actions in the national wage case.

The second social reform mentioned here tonight by Senator Jessop as well as in the Queen’s Speech yesterday is, in the words of the Speech, a housing voucher pilot scheme’ but which is more correctly called by the Department looking after it and by the Minister looking after it a housing allowance voucher experiment’. It is claimed that this scheme will enable low income earners to choose for themselves the accommodation most suited to their needs. I ask Senator Jessop, who obviously does not understand the scheme, and all other honourable senators to look closely at it. It is not a social reform; it is an experiment. It is an experiment which provides $70m over the next 3 years for only 1 500 families in 3 capital cities- Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart. Such an experiment cannot produce an increase in available housing in this country. In fact, it will bid up rents in areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart which are already short of housing. It can do nothing for rural housing which is also a great difficulty in this country.

The scope of how inadequate this experiment is- I repeat that it is an experiment- is demonstrated by the Henderson inquiry into poverty in this country which estimated that there are 125 000- not 1500- low income households in the private sector of the community which need rental assistance immediately. This experiment has received little public discussion. It will not involve most of the people who are in need. It does not involve only poor people. In fact, in the views of many of the housing co-operatives, particularly the Victorian people who have looked at the scheme, in fact it may discriminate against the very poor people. It is not a social reform; it is an experiment. It is the largest social experiment that has ever been conducted in this country. From the comments of the Prime Minister in the Address-in-Reply debate and at other times and, indeed, from the comments of the Minister for Social Security in the Senate who said one day that this scheme would solve a lot of our housing problems, it is obvious that they do not consider it as an experiment at all. They consider it as an established scheme.

Similar experiments are being conducted in the United States of America. They have not been assessed. Preliminary results show that the take-up of the people who possibly can be helped under these schemes is about 14 per cent. There are questions unanswered about the scheme, and there are questions to which no one can see any answer arising out of this experiment. For instance, it will not help those people who are in need of emergency housing. I am sure that every member of Parliament realises the difficulty in providing emergency housing for people in the community. We all receive requests from people who need housing at short notice because they have lost their previous home. It is difficult to understand from a reading of the details of the scheme- that is, what details we can get about it- what will prevent most of the $75m winding up in the pockets of public officials who have to conduct it, screen the applicants, design the experiment, counsel the tenants and ensure that the people in the experiment have adequate housing and that they maintain that adequate housing.

It is also difficult to understand how most of this money will not end up in the pockets of the landlords in areas which are already short of housing and who will naturally, in our system, bid up their rents. It is difficult to see how the privacy of tenants under this scheme will be safeguarded. This is of very great concern for many of the people who are concerned with welfare housing in this country. It is difficult to see what will happen after 3 years if it is decided that the experiment is not to continue. It is difficult to see how any experiment can be conducted when the people who are in it know that they are part of an experiment. We do not know how they will modify their behaviour. We do not know, when they realise that the experiment may last for only 3 years, what they may do and what they may think of the future. One wonders really whether a $75 m investment in private housing or in housing commission accommodation in areas of need not only in Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart but also in other areas may not produce a better result. This is an isolated experiment. It has received little publicity. The Parliamentary Library does not even have a copy of the outline of the scheme which has been given by the Department to some State governments and to some interested people in Melbourne and Sydney. I have been trying to get a copy of it for several weeks. Strangely enough, I received one only today. Every voluntary agency in this country has expressed doubts not only about the efficiency of the experiment but also about its morality and the propriety of conducting experiments like this. Nobody believes that it is a substitute for a housing policy. Nobody in his wildest dreams could call it a social reform. It is difficult to see how it will reform anything.

The third paragraph of Her Majesty’s Speech coming under the section dealing with social reform refers to the Income Security Review Committee which will report progressively to the Government on the rationalisation of income security programs, and on how assistance can first of all be directed to those most in need. Apparently, this is listed as a social reform. The other 2 schemes mentioned quite clearly are meant to be social reforms. This is also supposed to be a social reform. We are told that the Income Security Review Committee will report progressively to the Government. We are told continually in reply to questions in the Senate and in another place that such and such a problem has been referred to the Income Security Review Committee and that it is looking at the problem. The Income Security Review Committee seems to have become a dustbin into which all the too hard questions go. All the problems of income maintenance seem to have been referred to it at some time or other. But we have never received any public reports. We have never received anything from this Committee. Certainly, we have received no reports from it since this Government came to power. In view of the Government’s previous record, we probably never will.

We know that a Medibank Review Committee was set up. Suddenly new Medibank changes were introduced with disastrous results on the inflation rate and the consumer price index. Money was being taken out of the pockets of people in this country and their disposable incomes were being decreased. We never saw a report from the Medibank Review Committee. We understand that no report was made. Although it is claimed that the Medibank changes were made as a result of the report of this Committee, we understand that it had not completed its report when the Government brought in the changes. I believe that the Parliament and the members of the community in general should receive reports of this type as was the case when a Labor government was in power so that the people who have knowledge and the people who have some idea of what the problems are in the community, can discuss them and can put forward their views without radical changes in social policy suddenly being announced with no previous discussion except that conducted carefully within the confines of government.

We know that we cannot plan properly in this country for future social welfare services of all types, including pensions and rehabilitation, until we obtain the results of some of the recent censuses so that we have some idea of what the problems are, where they are and how large they are. Yet the Government, in its mania for cost cutting, has removed $2m from the budget of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We face the difficulty that this information vital to the future development in this area and vital to the future planning of this country is locked away and cannot be obtained. One reads in the newspapersthat is the only place one finds anything about what is going on in this Government- of a conflict between the Treasury and the Department of Social Security about the availability of this information. At the moment we are not getting that information. The Department that needs it is not getting that information and those people who are doing research, both in this Parliament and in universities around Australia, who badly need this information just cannot receive it.

The whole approach of the Government, if this piece of paper is to be the future blueprint and plan of Government action for this community, will be a continuation of the sort of thing we have had for the last 15 months. We will repeatedly hear the Prime Minister exhort the consumers to consume, the producers to produce and the manufacturer to manufacture. When they do not respond, as they have not responded up to now, we will probably have petulant attacks on them for not responding to the great initiatives of government, initiatives that they cannot see. When the policies do not work, as they have not worked up until now, the Government will again need a smokescreen of the type that has been used until now, blaming the unemployed in the community for the troubles in the community, blaming the worker for not working hard enough, blaming the Labor Government for something it did 15 months ago, blaming everyone but the Government itself which has demonstrated that it has no coherent plan. There is certainly no coherent plan in this document. The Government has no real idea of where it is going and it has not had for the last 15 months. Only when the Government decides that it will take the people into its confidence and that the best way to get over the unemployment problem is to get people back into jobs rather than condemning the unemployed for being unemployed will we see a light at the end of the tunnel. It is only then that our society will be less divided. But I fear that in the future only a Labor government will do that.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I rise firstly to commend Senator Lewis on his excellent address this evening in his maiden speech. Unfortunately I missed about half of it so I shall be looking forward to seeing the balance in Hansard tomorrow. But I understand from my colleagues that it was a most constructive speech and augurs well for his future in this place. The several matters that are set out in the Queen’s Speech of yesterday do not touch just on the questions of inflation and the economy generally which have been the chief issues which have pre-occupied us over the last year or so. The Speech includes several matters, references to positive achievements of the Fraser Government since it has been in power in respect of various areas to which it has paid attention. These cover a wide variety of spheres. Of course some of these are in the areas of human rights and definitely in the area of social reform. I shall come to some of those matters a little later.

I should like to pick up a few of the points that have been raised by Senator Grimes and also to refer to the practice that has developed in the Opposition, ever since it came into that state, over the last 12 or 15 months of constantly talking down the economy. It is to a great deal of shame to members of the Opposition that some of the achievements of the recovery over the last 12 months have not been made as clear to the Australian people as they would like. Take for instance the devaluation that occurred on 28 November. Of course we all remember back in September 1976 that magnificent statement emanating from the lips of the shadow Treasurer, Bill Hayden, commenting upon the fact that even Blind Freddie could see that there would be a devaluation around the corner. At that time vast numbers of millions of dollars left Australia. Those very statements that emanated from the Opposition were designed for political purposes to undermine the value of the Australian dollar on overseas markets and to force a devaluation which otherwise might never have occurred. However, I am refreshed to see that the Opposition does not have all the ears of the people. In the last day or two we have seen some encouraging remarks coming forward from the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd which received some prominence in the media. I should like to quote from the ANZ Bank’s Business Indicators of ‘March 1977, No. 104:

It is even more essential that those who make public opinion- business and labour leaders and the media which interpret them- should cease aggravating the gloom, and acknowledge the economic progress which is being made (even though some may consider that the chosen official policies are imperfect) and refrain from asking governments to deliver what is beyond their powers to deliver.

That is a most significant statement at this time. It clearly demonstrates that, backed up by figures in this month’s Business Indicators bulletin economic recovery is well on the way. We have seen an increase in gross non-farm product over the last 12 months of the order of 7.5 per cent. Productivity, which had been declining for the last 3 years, has suddenly turned around into a positive area, a jump in this last 6 months of about 5.5 per cent at an annual rate. In the area of the share of national income going to profits, whereas this declined to a lamentable level of around 10 per cent in 1974 this has now risen to 14½ per cent, which is within cooee of the long term rate of some 1 5 per cent. I emphasise that that 15 per cent figure is most important when businessmen consider when they need to invest to increase their capacity to go forward, and can see some positive achievement at the end from profits.

We have all read a lot about tax cuts recently in the newspapers and of course the Opposition, true to form, has jumped on the band wagon. I suppose it would be probably the most politically popular thing to do, except to spend more; there could be nothing better than to advocate cuts in taxation. As we have said before, the size of the deficit is a significant factor in the determination of the rate of inflation in Australia. Because of that and the Government’s determination to beat inflation it has decided that tax cuts are inappropriate at present. That is not to say that that is a denial of the promise that was made during the election campaign and subsequently that tax reform remains a basic objective of the Fraser Government. The reform, when it comes, must be basic. It cannot be shavings of 2 per cent here or 5 per cent there or things of that order. It must be a thorough program to eliminate the anomalies in the income tax legislation and the problems that occur in the other sections of the taxation law. It is to that which the Government is addressing its mind; it is not out seeking popularity by cheap tax cuts. It is seeking to look at the basic problems bedevilling businessmen generally and individual workers in the community by seeking a thorough-going tax reform.

Just to indicate some of the problems relating to the income tax schedules for individuals, I wish to quote one set of figures. Taking a person on a salary of around $14,000, which I think was well recognised when Dr Cairns was the Treasurer in the Labor Government as being an above average but reasonable level of income, on the tax scales as they apply today the income tax applicable to that level of income is $4,560. That leaves a net disposable income of $9,440. Assuming that inflation runs on at the rate of about 12 per cent a year- heaven forbid that it will, and certainly it will not under the Fraser Government- over a 5-year period that salary could lift to $24,672. If no tax indexation applied, the amount of tax applicable to that salary would be $10,242. That means that in 5 years time the net disposable income of that average earner would be $14,430. It might be said that that is a $5,000 improvement over the present situation, but that is without discounting the effect of inflation over the 5-year period. In today’s real terms, that net disposable income of $14,430 would be worth merely $8, 187, which is some $1,300 less than the amount applicable today. What has the Fraser Government done about that situation? In its first year of office it implemented the tax indexation scheme at a cost of some $ 1,000m in the first year. Of course, that is an improvement on the promise made during the election campaign that tax indexation would be introduced over a 3-year period. There certainly has been no denial of any promise.

In the area of unemployment, the problems we have faced over the last three or four years have resulted directly from Australia’s decreasing ability as against the rest of the world. Today the inflation rate in Australia, which at the underlying rate is of the order of 10.8 per cent, is approximately double the rate in the United States. Because of that it is quite obvious that the ability of Australian manufacturers to compete by exporting overseas or, alternatively, by manufacturing in Australia or deciding whether to import into Australia goods which are manufactured overseas, has declined enormously. If Australia can be grateful to Frank Crean for anything it can be grateful for his statement made in 1974 that one man’s pay rise is another man’s job. The evidence at this time is clear before us. In the manufacturing area 100 000 jobs have disappeared since 1973. As a percentage of the work force, the manufacturing sector has declined from some 29 per cent about 10 years ago to around 21 per cent today. The reason why we face difficulties with unemployment is that our basic cost structures in Australia are so high that in fact we are unable to employ more people. Applying Frank Crean “s excellent logic to this matter, it is clear that we have to face some realities, particularly at the moment with the national wage case at issue, and it is extremely important if we are to solve future problems.

One of the great mistakes of the Whitlam Government was its failure to recognise during its period of office that the economy was changing. As one celebrated member of the House of Representatives, my colleague Mr Bert Kelly, the honourable member for Wakefield in South Australia, has often said, the economy is a bag of worms; it is moving and changing all the time. So it is that over the last few years we have seen increasing revenues pouring into the economy as a result of our increasing exports of minerals and other primary products. This has meant that because of the rising balance of our foreign reserves we have had more money available in Australia for the purchase of overseas-manufactured goods. Consequently, again because of our higher cost structures in this country, it has become more and more attractive for people in Australia to buy overseas-made goods. Why did the Whitlam Government not realise that those changes were occurring? That is the question. We know that the changes would have been recognised by any competent manager of the economy, and indeed they were recognised during the period of the McMahon Government. Why did the Whitlam Government not take steps to offset that situation? The answer is that it was too concerned at the time with seeking to milk the private sector of the economy in order to feed taxation revenues into more and more grandiose schemes. Everything that the Whitlam Government did was designed to exacerbate those problems. It cut the tariff by 25 per cent and revalued the dollar, thereby only increasing the opportunities for people who wanted to buy overseas and making it more attractive for them to do so.

The question of cost structures in Australia, which has been well and truly outlined today, is at the crossroads at the moment with the case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I have been particularly interested to read the comments which have emanated from the commissioners and from advocates putting forward various views about the appropriateness of the consumer price index as a measure of cost increases and hence a basis for passing on wage increases in the community. The Government has advocated that quarterly hearings are far too frequent, and indeed there appears to be some logic in that. The more hearings there are and the more cost increases are passed on to the community, the more likely it is that business will be unable to cope with the increasing pressure. We have seen too the lumpy effect of the Medibank cost in this one period. It has been estimated by the Bureau of Statistics that the Medibank component, or the component for the cost of health care as it is probably more properly described, increased by 3.2 per cent during the December quarter of 1 976. The point which I think is quite relevant here is that that 3.2 per cent refers to the whole annual cost of health care yet it is being passed on in one quarter of the financial year. Of course, people who are paying a health insurance levy through their contribution to Medibank or, alternatively, are buying private health insurance are, generally speaking, paying that premium over a full 12 months period, possibly in weekly or monthly instalments. I believe that the Government’s case is quite clear. The exclusion of that 3.2 per cent effect is of great significance. I should correct that and say that in fact the Government is not arguing that the cost of medical care should be excluded from the consumer price index. It is advocating a pass on of $2.90 as a flat rate in order to cover that cost. I believe there is justice in that because it appears to be related to the cost of health care as it has affected the community in the last 12 months. But it is also related to the approximate award wage for a metal worker.

Another interesting statement has emanated from the Bench in regard to the 2 factors that go to make up the wage elements in Australia. There has been discussion of a possible return to the basic wage element plus a margin. We know that that system applied in Australia for a great number of years and was abolished, I think, about 20 years ago. It is interesting to note when comparing wage level changes as a whole from 1968 to 1976 and comparing the 2 categories of worker- one skilled and one unskilled- that in 1968 a boilermaker ‘s wage at the award level was $55.03 while today it is $ 128.96 and whereas in 1968 an unskilled builder’s labourer’s wage was $50.2 1 today it is $ 148.94. In other words, he is getting $20 a week more than the boilermaker who has served his apprenticeship and gained his skills over a considerable period. These things are thrown into greater relief when one compares the award wages for bricklayers’ labourers and plasterers which from 1967 to 1976 have increased by 338 per cent whereas an experienced graduate engineer has had wage increases of only 232 per cent. That is 100 per cent less than the increase applying to a bricklayer’s labourer.

Because of the effect of these changes in our cost structure, we find people are being encouraged more and more to take jobs in unskilled classifications rather than in skilled classifications. Consequently our bank of skills within the community has declined. Yet that bank is the strongest thing on which we can draw for the future benefit of the nation. That is where our technological increases will come from in the future. Those things are at the core of the increase in our efficiency as a nation. Those things are at the core of an improvement in our overseas situation, which will lead to a continuous and consistent return to our original financial position and economic situation in regard to the rest of the world.

One of the areas that the Arbitration Commission has been discussing is the return to the basic wage plus margin concept. Bearing in mind the figures I have just cited, I believe that is a worthwhile suggestion to investigate further. Of course I am no expert in the area of wage negotiations and of understanding thoroughly the impact of these various issues, but I believe that this area is of significance and is one which ought to be examined further by all parties presently putting their cases to the Arbitration Commission.

The other areas which I should like to mention briefly concern the securities and exchange laws which have been mooted recently by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Howard. As I understand it, he is presently conducting investigations with the State AttorneysGeneral with a view to coming to a conclusion about establishing a national securities and exchange commission and also the implementing of a national companies law. As I understand the present recommendations, that law would be administered by the various States. I believe that there is an essential need for active co-operation of the States in this matter. I hope that this would see favour in their eyes in the next few months so that there can be an early conclusion to these negotiations which started in July 1976. The latest report, labelled the Masterman report, which commented on the affairs of the Patrick Partners organisation in Sydney has raised again the question of the control of stock exchanges, members of stock exchanges and the whole principle of whether or not stockbrokers should be able to regulate themselves or whether there should be a national commission to control them. It is my belief that there is only one way by which we can properly control the affairs of companies which operate across State borders and that is with a comprehensive national company law. I hope that there will be early implementation of these thoughts during the coming period of the Fraser Government’s term of office.

The final matter that I should like to mention is the area which affects a great number of aged people in the community today. I refer to those people who have worked hard during their lifetime to reach retirement and saved their hard earned wages over many years and invested them frugally by perhaps purchasing a little real estate. Over those years they have set aside a nest egg which they anticipated would enable them to live in some comfort after retirement. Today, because of the level of the threshold for old age pensions and other benefits, these people find that they are not claiming benefits from the Government, yet the income they are earning from the various assets in which they have invested is not sufficient to meet their requirements. This, of course, has had a dramatic effect on their standard of living and is a great problem in the community generally.

Another matter which is related to that is the impact on people who have been living off superannuation or pensions which have been run by private employers. Because of the dramatic effect of inflation over time, and more particularly in recent years, these people have found themselves in a situation where those pensions have not been capable of being increased to levels where a decent return can be expected. Consequently, because of the inability of the employers who have been running these superannuation funds for some time to meet the increased requirements for these expenses they have found that it is in their interests and in the interests of the members of the superannuation fund to capitalise those funds and pay them out in one lump sum. So they leave the management of that investment to the individual as he best sees fit. Of course this has denied people some security. Honourable senators can imagine the effect of people who have reached the age of say, 65 years, and never had very much business experience or have little knowledge about investment procedures and the way business is carried on m the community. They are faced at that time of life with having to invest a considerable amount of money. They also have to take attendant risks related to that investment, particularly in these times of high inflation.

I find that this situation is of particular concern in the community at the moment. It is something which can be assisted by appropriate adjustments to threshold levels of various pensioner benefits that are available. It is something that can be looked at also from the taxation aspects. There is a great deal of concern amongst people who are reaching that age that, as a result of the Hayden Budget of 1975, they will have to pay provisional tax on their incomes. This is something with which probably in general terms they had nothing to do during their younger years. They have a great deal of difficulty in coping with these problems and find them extremely confusing. I therefore hope that these are some of the matters that will be considered by the Federal Government during this Parliamentary session and during the period of its office which, of course, will continue beyond the next election. It is with great pleasure that I support the motion.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– When the present coalition Government came into power, it justified the sleazy circumstances under which it seized power on the grounds that the Labor Government had allegedly mismanaged the economy and that the consequences of that mismanagement were so disastrous and horrendous that anything could be justified which would install a competent team of economic managers in the government of Australia. What has happened since then? Almost all the economic indicators are showing further deterioration, a further slide into recession. The crucial indicators of inflation and unemployment have seriously deteriorated in the 15 months that this Government has been in office. In the calendar year 1976 the consumer price index increased by 14.4 per cent as against 14 per cent in the previous year. In the last 6 months of the 1976 calendar year the consumer price index increased by 8.3 per cent against 6.4 per cent in the equivalent 6 months of 1975. Forty thousand more people are unemployed in February 1977 than were unemployed in February 1976. So much for competent economic management!

The deficit upon which the present Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and even more the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) attached so much importance in 1976 has just hit a record $5.5 billion. It is $1 billion higher than it was 12 months ago when, according to the Treasurer and Prime Minister it was disastrous and was leading Australia into financial and economic chaos. It is $1 billion higher than it was when they said that. What has been the Government’s reaction to this clear, objective evidence of incompetence? I:i assessing it it has displayed all the objectivity of a Stalinist rewriting Russian history. It has adopted the view that problems can be solved or defined out of existence by redefining reality. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson) says that unemployment figures are a ‘myth’. He and the Prime Minister said that 80 000 people who are currently in receipt of unemployment benefits left their previous employment voluntarily, the implication of that statement being that 80 000 fewer people are unemployed than the figures show. For that argument to have any validity the 80 000 jobs that those people apparently left voluntarily would still have to be available.

We were told by a previous speaker in this debate on the Government side that farmers, many of whom have low income problems, want an assurance from society that they are wanted, that they are of value and that they have some dignity. What sort of assurance did the people who are unemployed, the 40 000 extra victims of this Government’s economic policies, receive from the people who control this Government? What they receive, far from an assurance of being wanted, of having some dignity and of being entitled to have some self respect, is a continual campaign of vilification aimed at identifying them as dole bludgers and as the cause of the nation’s economic problems instead of the victims of this Government’s economic incompetence.

The Treasurer assures us that no matter what the consumer price index shows the underlying trend in inflation is downwards. He talks about a Medibank blip for the December quarter. He says we must ignore that. In March there will be a devaluation blip. In June there will be a further devaluation blip compounded by previous blips. Through all this the Treasurer blithely assures us that the underlying trend in inflation is downwards. Of course the underlying trend in inflation is downwards provided that all the components of the consumer price index, which are in the opposite direction, are excluded from that calculation. That is a tautological exercise that the Treasurer has worked out. His euphemistic reference to the Medibank blip certainly prompts the question after the first and second devaluation blips, compounded by factors caused by the previous blips: ‘When will a series of blips become an underlying trend?’ In the judgment or the reasoning process of this Treasurer, presumably never.

I heard a funny story the other day about Uganda. I understand that the well known ruler of Uganda, Colonel or General Amin, decreed that inflation in Uganda had been solved. He solved inflation by saying that all prices which have increased will be ignored. Therefore, once the arbitrary decision has been made that any price increases will not be considered there is only one way for inflation or prices to go. That is downwards. It seems as though we are about to apply the Ugandan situation to the Australian scene. Senator Messner displayed in one small area more perspicacity than most of his colleagues do when he was discussing the effects of growing mineral exports on the Australian economy and the pressures that had generated with structural change. He castigated the Whitlam Government for being unaware of these pressures for structural change which were already intensifying problems for manufacturing industry. I find it supremely ironic that Senator Messner or any member of this Government should castigate any other government for not being conscious of the effects of growing mineral exports and the associated capital inflow into Australia. I seem to remember that in late 1971, when the McMahon Government was in power and clearly these very factors which Senator Messner identified were exerting powerful pressures for a revaluation of the Australian dollar, the McMahon Government caved in to Country Party pressure, as Liberal governments always do, and refused to revalue the dollar. As a direct consequence of that grossly irresponsible decision, nearly $2 billion of foreign capital poured into Australia in the next calendar year and the money supply was exploding at an annual rate of 34 per cent at the end of 1 972.

Senator Messner postulated that all the economic problems are due to Labor Party supporters who have been talking down the economy. He said how deplorable it was that the former Treasurer, Mr Hayden, said in September that Blind Freddie could see that the dollar would be devalued. He did not tell us that at the same time the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) was saying that there was no room for complacency about the balance of payments. He did not bother to mention that the Cabinet discussions of November 1975, at which the fact that the Prime Minister was soft on devaluation emerged, were promptly leaked by one or more members of the Fraser Cabinet to the Press and were published in the Melbourne Age on 9 November. He did not bother to tell us that. He did not bother to mention either that, even after one of those Ministers had thoughtfully leaked the fact that the Prime Minister was soft on devaluation and therefore that the dollar would be devalued in the not too distant future, this Government then gave the speculators 13 working days in which to take capital out of the country. When the Treasurer finally announced the devaluation decision, he had the audacity to talk about taking the country to the cleaners.

Senator Messner seems to think that it is the Labor Party’s fault-the Opposition’s fault- that the economy refuses to respond to the expertise which is being brought to bear upon it by this Government. Is it surprising that the economy refuses to respond when the person who is making all the crucial economic decisions- I mean the Prime Minister- bewails the fact that machines are replacing men in industry, as he did in the House of Representatives 2 weeks ago, when his Government introduced, at massive cost to the revenue, a 40 per cent investment allowance designed to encourage precisely that and when his Government subsidises the substitution of capital for labour or, to put it in his terms, of machines for men and then deplores the fact that the very trend that the Government is encouraging at great cost to the revenue via the investment allowance is becoming apparent?

On the same day the Prime Minister, when discussing tariff protection, said that it is quite unreal to compare Australia with countries like Sweden because one has to remember that Australia, unlike Sweden, is at the end of long transport routes and that therefore its industry requires higher protection than does industry in Sweden. Any high school economics student who failed to grasp the significance of being at the end of long transport routes and who failed to grasp the significance of what economists call natural protection and to realise that, other things being equal, import competing industries which are at the end or which provide a market at the end of long transport routes require not more but less protection, would richly deserve to fail. We have a Prime Minister, who is dictating economic policy, pouring out his monumental ignorance of the subject in the House of Representatives. Yet Senator Messner says that it is the Labor Party’s fault that the economy has failed to respond to the expertise which is being brought to bear upon it by this Government.

If we look to the future are the prospects any brighter? The puerile document which the Queen was forced to read in this chamber yesterday certainly gave no indication that that will be the case. It is apparent that the Queen was shocked by the puerility of the document that she was forced to read because in reading the second sentence of it she made the most unusual error or reversing words-she made a sort of dyslexic error-and referred to the twenty-fifth reign of her year. No doubt that was a manifestation of the shock which the Queen felt and the insult which she must have thought was being handed out to her by being forced to read the document which she read yesterday.

Looking at the likely deficit for the next financial year, which this Government- rather the Leader of this Government and its Treasurerasserted throughout 1975 was crucially important, it is impossible, even if one takes into consideration the Treasurer’s originality in accountancy principles and the use in the last Budget of accountancy techniques which, if used by com- [>any directors in a report to shareholders would and those directors in jail, to see the deficit in the next financial year doing anything but going upwards, mainly because this Government has closed off so many of its options. Firstly, the cost to revenue of its investment allowances and the indexation of company stocks, both of which are firm decisions that have been announced by the Government and one of which already exists in legislative form, will be $950m on the Government’s estimates. It has passed legislation to index personal taxation to the increase in the consumer price index for the year ended March 1977. For the year ended March 1977 the consumer price index will have increased by something more than 16 per cent. The consequences of the indexation of income tax on that basis, unless wages increase across the spectrum by at least 16 per cent, or unless discretionary changes are made to the tax schedule will be a decline in Government revenue from personal taxation. I suspect that what the Government will in fact do is introduce a completely new schedule designed to disguise the fact that it will be increasing personal taxation. As my colleague Senator Grimes has mentioned, the Government has passed legislation to index to the CPI social service payments, pensions and the unemployment benefit. Unless it goes back on that pre-election undertakinganother pre-election undertaking- the cost of those social service payments will increase by the full increase in the CPI. So unless there is a recovery in employment or in general economic activity- there is no sign of that happening in the foreseeable future- the deficit must go even higher unless Government expenditure is heavily cut yet again. Given the Government’s existing commitment to heavy increases in defence expenditure, it is highly improbable- it is virtually impossible- that that will be done. Certainly if there are further significant cuts in Government expenditure in areas other than defence, the consequence of that will be even higher unemployment.

It is ironic that so many of the problems which currently confront this Government on the question of the indexation of taxes, the indexation of social security payments and the current wage case which is before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can be directly traced to the Government’s decision on Medibank. Whether it was because of ideological bigotry or because of a desire to provide a captive clientele for the self perpetuating oligarchs who run the private health funds and support the Liberal Party, this Government made a conscious and deliberate decision to introduce a health insurance levy- a Medibank levy- which could be avoided by people who chose instead to pay a premium to a private insurance fund. Because the levy was struck in that way, inevitably it was recorded in the consumer price index. The Government knew very well at the time it made the decision that that would be the case. It now seems to be postulating that because so many of its problems and so much of the increase in the CPI are due to its policy on Medibank, it should be absolved from all blame and all responsibility. That is comparable to saying that premeditated murder is less reprehensible than an accidental killing.

A previous speaker mentioned something about agriculture. As in almost every other area, the agricultural outlook today is gloomier than it was 1 5 months ago. According to the Treasurer’s Budget Speech the farm sector was on the brink of collapse. It is in a significantly worse position now than it was when the Treasurer made that statement. Farm incomes continue to fall. Apart from short term factors, there are 2 underlying reasons why this is happening. Firstly, there is a cost-price squeeze on commercial agriculture throughout the world. That is not new. It has been in progress for almost the entire last 100 years. But as well as that continuing pressure on farm incomes because of the cost-price squeeze- I will not go into the technical reasons why there is a cost-price squeeze- structural changes have occurred in the Australian economy which have weakened the competitive position of Australian farmers vis-a-vis farmers in other countries. Those structural changes have been caused by the rapid expansion of mineral exports in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That has affected the exchange rate of the Australian dollar. That relates to a point made by Senator Messner.

One could speculate endlessly about whether a greater than proportional growth in mineral exports will continue. My view is that, for a number of reasons, mineral export growth of the magnitude that we saw in the decade ending 1974 is not likely to recur. We could speculate about growing mineral exports being offset by an increased crude oil import bill. We could even speculate again that that second factor might be offset by exports of natural gas from the northwest shelf or by exports of uranium. But all that is speculative and at this stage in the debate it is relatively unimportant.

The changes which have occurred already in the structure of the Australian economy have severely and adversely worsened the terms of trade of Australian farmers and those changes almost certainly are permanent. I can well understand the acute embarrassment of the National Country Party as its traditional supporters become aware of this fact, as they become aware of the fact that rapid growth in the mining sector or in mineral exports has substantially worsened the competitive position of Australian farmers.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Rubbish!

Senator WALSH:

-I will deal with that remark shortly. The National Country Party has attempted to wear 2 hats. It has attempted to say:

We look after the farmers and we look after the miners and their interests are the same’. Anyone who has a level of economic comprehension which exceeds that of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack would realise- this was even published as a general hypothesis long ago- that mining and agriculture are highly competitive. They are more highly competitive than any other 2 sectors. Anyone who - has the faintest idea of a market economy would realise that every sector is in perpetual competition with every other sector. Apparently Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s comprehension of the subject has not reached that level.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It has not been enlightened by listening to you. I can assure you of that fact.

Senator WALSH:

– In a minute I will quote to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack the words of a couple of other people for whom he might have some respect, if he can understand what they said. One can understand the acute embarrassment of the National Country Party as farmers become aware of this fact and as they realise, in particular, that if uranium exports of the magnitude that some people forecast actually materialise- exports worth a billion dollars a year- those adverse pressures will intensify. Farmers who ignore the new reality that the low farm incomes are caused by short term factors, in some cases the continuing cost price squeeze and, uniquely to Australia, substantial changes in the structure of the Australian economy that occurred in the last decade, are headed for trouble, and politicians who encourage them to ignore them are as irresponsible and dangerous as the politicians who predicted in 1973 that demand for beef would rise so fast that we would be flat out trying to keep up with it and asserted that there was an urgent need to increase production. They are the same politicians and their names are Sinclair and Anthony.

I am sorry that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has moved out of the chamber because the 2 quotations I am about to deliver might have improved his comprehension. They might have enabled him to understand the simple fact that rapid growth in mineral exports in the decade ending 1974 seriously and adversely affected the terms of trade for Australian agriculture. The first academic article on this subject was written by Dr Bob Gregory and published in the Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics in August last.

Senator Missen:

– I thought it would have embarrassed you too much to quote him again.

Senator WALSH:
Senator Missen:

- Mr Hurford had enough trouble over misquoting him, did he not?

Senator WALSH:

– If I wished I could quote a letter from Dr Gregory in which he repudiated that article in the Australian, if that is what the honourable senator is talking about. This is what Dr Gregory said:

It is estimated, on the best available estimates of demand and supply price elasticities for exports and imports, that the effect of the rapid growth of mineral exports on the rural exporting industries is approximately equal to the effect, in the absence of the mineral exports, of a doubling of the tariff level.

That is a quotation from an article by Dr Gregory which was described in News Weekly as a scholary thesis. News Weekly went on to make a number of false assertions which will probably become the subject of litigation in the not too distant future. Dr Miller, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, focused on Dr Gregory’s calculations. It was only Dr Gregory’s calculations which were important. He attempted to quantify the magnitude of the change in the structure of the economy, agricultural and manufacturing. Dr Miller then focused particularly on Dr Gregory’s analysis of agriculture. In this quotation he explicity refutes the line being pedalled by Mr Sinclair and his ilk, that the income problem of Australian farmers today was caused entirely by inflation. Dr Miller wrote this:

However when we in Australia do again achieve a high level of economic activity at low rates of inflation, pressures for currency appreciation seem likely to emerge. This would be particularly true if strong growth resumed in the mineral sector. The production and export of high value minerals such as uranium could provide additional stimulus to any tendency to balance of payments surplus.

Of course, a balance of payments surplus ultimately generates pressures for further revaluations of the Australian dollar, for declines in the export prices of Australian agricultural commodities expressed in terms of the Australian dollar, and then, because so many domestic prices are linked to or controlled by export parity, domestic prices for agricultural products also fall.

In the few minutes that remain I want to comment on the new federalism. The Premiers, particularly those who are very slow to grasp the implications of new federalism, finally realised a fortnight ago what new federalism is all about. I give the Government credit for being honest enough to state quite explicitly that what new federalism is about is making the State governments responsible for raising the revenue that they spend. In particular, it envisages or entails phasing out specific purpose payments to the States and forcing the States to fund those areas of expenditure previously funded by specific purpose payments. One of those specific purpose payments, a very significant one, relates to road funds. A fortnight ago the Federal Government began to implement that new federalism policy when it reduced in real terms, by 8 per cent, specific purpose payments to the States for the next financial year for road construction and maintenance. That first instalment of the reality of the new federalism brought a bitter complaint from Sir Charles Court, Premier of Western Australia, in which he said that the Federal Government was forcing Western Australia to increase its expenditure on roads by 77 per cent above that in 1974 when in the same period the Federal Government had increased its contribution by only 13 per cent. His figures were quite correct. That is what new federalism is all about. The intention of new federalism is to phase out the specific purpose payments altogether. We only have the first instalment now. Sir Charles Court, who apparently could not grasp that very simple fact, is now bitterly complaining that he has the first instalment of it.

Senator Wriedt:

-It serves him right.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, as my Leader says, it serves him right. All that Sir Charles Court seems to be able to see is, first of all, that new federalism gave him an opportunity to increase his personal power. Secondly, he believed that the general revenue grants or what are now called the tax sharing arrangements would continue to increase and offset the phasing out of specific purpose payments. For a couple of years it will not decline unless the Government breaks yet another undertaking. But project this forward a little further to the time when specific purpose payments have been phased out altogether, as the Government has stated it intends to do. Consequently the Federal Government’s need for tax revenue will decline and income tax collections will fall. The States’ share of the general revenue grant or the tax sharing arrangements will fall with it. Hopefully if Sir Charles Court is still around he will not be Premier of Western Australia, but eventually he might begin to realise that point. Hopefully, perhaps even the West Australian newspaper might get around to publishing the facts on this subject instead of publishing the erroneous assertions of the Premier. I did not hear all the speakers in this debate but I heard Senator Tehan on the sanctity of marriage and the threat to social cohesion implicit in marriage breakdowns. I find it supremely ironic that so many people who share Senator Tehan ‘s views on marriage breakdowns can simultaneously eulogise the encumbent ViceRegal couple.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I rise with much pleasure to support the motion for the Address-in-Reply so ably moved by my new colleague, Senator Austin Lewis, and supported by Senator Tehan and other speakers. As I think I am the first Victorian Liberal senator to follow Senator Lewis tonight I say how very pleased I am, as we all are, that he has come into the Senate and brought with him to the service of the Senate his very obvious talents of which we have been aware for years. No doubt it is obvious to honourable senators that he will make many more of the same sorts of refreshing contributions to debates in the Senate. I am sure that he will add very much to the lustre of the Senate during his career in the following years. He has, of course, been attacked by the prophet of gloom, Senator Walsh, who has just resumed his seat. I take up that point first. Senator Lewis made the point that farmers have been suffering for a considerable time in recent years. They have had a great deal of anxiety and received poor incomes. Indeed, they wanted some assurance that they were, in fact, wanted by the community and that they and their children would have a future as farmers in the community. That appears to have been attacked in a most extraordinary way. It is not that Senator Walsh denies that. He just ignores it. He said that there were 40 000 more unemployed. I do not know from where he gets that figure. But it is like so many factors which he has brought forward tonight. They are obscure. They are exaggerated and they are expected. He said that all the unemployed are called dole bludgers and therefore, presumably, one should not do anything for the farmers. Of course, they are not all called dole bludgers. Nobody on this side or on the other side of the Senate deals with people in that sort of way. We know that there are such people and that there always have been. Perhaps there are more because of the great numbers which necessarily are now putting a great deal of pressure on the Commonwealth Employment Service. Naturally, there are people like that. But nobody tries to describe all people suffering from unemployment in that way, or even the majority or anything like the majority.

But let us remember the way in which Senator Walsh came to this argument. He wanted to reply to Senator Lewis’s statement- surely a true statement- that farmers and their families wanted an assurance that they have some future in this country and that that is one of the major things which this Government is setting out to do. It is obvious that that is something which does not suit Senator Walsh. Tonight we have heard from him the usual catalogue of complaints. We have heard him talking down the economy to the extent that he can do so. I do not think the economy will be very much talked down by Senator Walsh, but he tries. He endeavoured to forecast new devaluations soon. He also endeavoured to suggest that there will be further and growing unemployment. He obviously does not want to see the recovery which the great mass of people in the community wants to see. I shall deal with one particular aspect because he had what I think was something of an audacity to advert to Dr Gregory and to deal with his thesis as though the Australian Labor Party could claim it as its own. I remind the Senate that this matter was raised by Mr Hurford not so long ago. The article in the Australian of 12 February was referred to by Senator Walsh.

Senator Walsh:

– It was repudiated by Gregory.

Senator MISSEN:

– I know there have been attempts to slide away from this situation but I shall read what Dr Gregory said as it is set out in the article. Mr Hurford, the Labor Party shadow Treasurer, came to the conclusion that the Gregory thesis was one which would be accepted. He claimed that there was no need to rush into mining projects. The article states: he said: ‘I believe that one of the most significant new thoughts in the economic sphere is what we call the “Gregory Thesis,” named after R. J. Gregory of ANU.’

The article continues:

It says that an over-quick development of our minerals industry would cause a tremendous malaise in our manufacturing industry and would be responsible for a continuing structural high level of unemployment. ‘

The discussion went on and we find that this article states:

Dr Gregory said: ‘My paper should not be taken as argument that the pace of mining development should be slowed. That was not its purpose at all.

Senator Walsh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Missen has claimed that he is quoting from an article by Dr Gregory. If it is that article which was published in the Australian, it was not written by Dr Gregory. It was written by an Australian journalist.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator MISSEN:

-The article claims that Dr Gregory said these things. His words are in inverted commas. His words are quoted in the article as a statement by Dr Gregory. I have not seen this article denied. I read it as a quotation from Dr Gregory. The article continues:

What I was concerned to show was that there is necessarily a relationship between the pace of mineral development and the success of the secondary industry sector and the agricultural sector.

To put it simply and shortly, it is correct to say that my argument is that as minerals exports expand, the position of industry and agriculture will decline because the extra export income will be used to purchase new imports.

As a consequence we must recognise that continued expansion of the minerals sector will necessitate adjustments in the other two sectors. And that is my real point- not that we should try to slow down the pace of minerals developments but that we should recognise the need for the adjustments.

It would be wrong to use my paper as an argument against minerals development. I am saying that minerals expansion is going to force adjustments elsewhere but this is not necessarily a bad thing. They may be just the kind of adjustments you need in the Australian economy at this time.

I would have thought that the Australian Labor Party had had enough of misusing Dr Gregory’s thesis. I would have thought that the Labor Party would have had enough of using his statements of an academic nature, and of twisting them to try to find some solution to the economic problems which they have and which are not obviously solutions which will be necessary for the Australian economy. I do not think the Australian economy will gain anything by stopping mineral development in this country or its export. I believe that those things will be valuable to Australia in its future development. I do not think the Labor Party should lend itself to using ideas to try to discourage that development.

I turn from Senator Walsh to say how valuable it is to all of us in the Parliament that the Queen has been in this country, has made a Speech and has again shown her great interest in this country. I think it stands for most Australians who believe that the monarchy represents a most important and permanent part of our community. The monarchy is one of the aspects which the community needs to ensure that there is solidity and a continuing factor in our way of life. I believe that though there are people who academically will argue- young people quite often will argue- in a republican way, any looking around the world will reveal the great value which the monarchy has for this and for other communities. I believe that such people will see that the alternatives which put political power in one pair of hands at the head of the community is undesirable and is not to be countenanced by this community. Therefore, I think we face the future with the desire that the monarchical system should continue in this country. I believe that the Queen represents and carries out this system with most magnificent assurance and with sincerity. I turn now to one or two of the matters which are referred to in the Queen’s Speech and which I think promise a great deal of interest for the people of Australia in this coming year.

Debate interrupted.

page 66

ADJOURNMENT

Medibank: Hospital Accounts -Employment of Sessional Attendants

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– This evening I bring to the notice of the Senate a further disturbing consequence of the Fraser Government’s action in relation to Medibank during 1976. Through no fault of their own, hospital patients and hospital administrators are now liable to find themselves in a most embarrassing position. I explain by reading to the Senate a letter which I received from a constituent about a situation in which he recently found himself. In reading the letter it will be noticed that the Mater Misericordiae Private Hospital is mentioned. This reference is to the Mater Misericordiae Private Hospital in South Brisbane. I in no way reflect on that hospital but will state the dilemma which confronts the administrators of the hospital. The letter from my constituent reads as follows:

As discussed on the telephone on 4th February 1977, 1 enclose a roneoed form from the Mater Hospital stating fees etc., for the private section. I would like to bring your notice to the section that begins: ‘It is essential, therefore’.

I interrupt my quotation from the letter to mention that the relevant section of the roneoed form from the hospital states:

It is essential, therefore, that your accounts be paid in full weekly, or on discharge.

The letter continues:

After having my wife in Mater Private for S days from the 26th of January 1977, it was to cost me a personal cheque for $400. On inquiring from Medibank, I was told that my medical expenses would be refunded in ‘about 3-4 weeks’.

Taking this into account, it would be very easy therefore, to run up a bill of around $2,000, which according to the Mater Hospital, would have to be paid personally before receiving any refund from Medibank.

Shouldn’t it be that a hospital should accept a patient’s Medibank (or whatever fund they might be in) book and claim directly on that fund, therefore saving what could cause personal monetary problems for an average wage earner.

That is the end of the letter. The position is that patients can find themselves in a situation where they know that they will eventually receive a refund for their hospital fees from their health insurance fund but first have to outlay funds themselves. It is scarcely necessary for me to emphasise the financial problems which this may cause a hospital patient. After I received this letter I wrote to the Mater Misericordiae Hospital seeking some information about the circumstances which had been outlined to me. My letter read:

A constituent has written to me outlining the difficulty which he experienced in having to pay his hospital accounts before he was able to claim from his medical benefits organisation. Apparently he was told that variance in fund payments makes it impracticable for the hospital to claim on behalf of patients.

I can understand the difficulty that some patients would have in having to outlay funds and then later receiving a refund from their medical benefits organisation.

I would be grateful therefore if you could outline to me why it is impracticable for you to claim on behalf of patients.

That is the end of my letter. I received a very prompt reply to my letter and, as the matters raised in the reply are germane to my comments, I quote from the text of the letter which was sent to me. The letter read:

In reply to your letter of 21st February, 1977, re the difficulty one of your constituents experienced in having to pay his hospital account before being able to claim Medical Benefits, I would like to offer you some explanation as you requested.

We do have a Hospital Policy whereby patients are requested that accounts be paid weekly and /or on discharge. An information sheet is given to each patient on admission and this fact is clearly stated on it.

Further, on the same sheet, it is also stated that variance in Fund Benefits make it impracticable for the Hospital to claim on behalf of patients. Prior to October, last year we did claim quite often but at that time there was not so much variation as there is today e.g. package deals, varying scales, and the length of time on claims for over a period of twelve months, in certain cases. One would not be able to easily determine that any patient who was admitted here had not already claimed elsewhere. Business wise, then, you would see the Policy we have- and indeed most Private Hospitals today have- is the most satisfactory.

However, let me hasten to assure you that if any patient has a difficulty, he or she is quite at liberty to talk to the administration about it, and would certainly get a sympathetic and understanding hearing. We have found this a practical and reasonable thing to do with patients from time to time. I’m only sorry your constituent didn’t see Matron or myself re the problem and I’m sure the particular difficulty could have been ironed out.

Most patients coming to Private Hospitals are booked patients, rather than emergency cases, and would have known of costs etc. prior to admission and could have any queries dealt with.

Our only objective, as you would know, is to do all we can for the welfare of each patient who comes under our care, and we would be available to discuss a problem or endeavour to solve any difficulty they may have at any time and help in any way possible.

Trusting you find in the above the information you require.

That is the letter that I received from the Mater Misericordiae Private Hospital. The letter makes it clear that the Mater Hospital will give a sympathetic and understanding hearing to any patient who finds himself or herself in an embarrassing situation. Further, the hospital administration is to be commended, although knowing the high reputation that the Mater Hospital enjoys I would have expected the administration to have that type of approach. The letter also makes it clear that prior to October the hospital did make direct claims to hospital funds quite often. Let us not forget that the Fraser Government’s new scheme was introduced on 1 October. There is now, to use the hospital’s own words, ‘much variation …. e.g. package deals, varying scales, and the length of time on claims for over a period of 12 months’. The letter goes on to mention some of the other difficulties that now face the hospital administration. It is really not acceptable that patients and hospital staff should find themselves in this situation. It should not be necessary for an insured patient to have to make a special plea to the hospital to bend policy and claim on the fund direct in an individual case. Neither should it be necessary for the hospital administration to be forced to establish a policy which the administration itself knows will be embarrassing to some of its patients.

Given the poor preparation that surrounded the introduction of the Fraser Government’s Medibank scheme, or the new scheme that it adopted from the previous one, it is obvious that many anomalies currently exist. I cannot say that I would have great faith that the Government is taking steps to overcome the anomalies, yet I urge it to do so. As well I urge the Government to look at the case that I have outlined tonight because it is one which is directly of the Government’s own making. The situation deserves genuine investigation and subsequent prompt attention to remove financial worries from the minds of both patients and administrators.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– On 22 February last I asked a question in the Senate concerning the employment of sessional attendants. I was concerned that quite a few of the sessional attendants who had served this Parliament for a long period were not reengaged. I asked you, Mr President, certain questions relating to their retrenchment. You were good enough to reply to me in the Senate that evening and I spoke on the matter during the adjournment debate later in the evening. The two questions that I posed to you during the adjournment debate were thus:

Mr President, I would like you to ascertain, if you could, how long that regulation has been in force and, if it has been in force for a number of years, why it was held in abeyance until this session before being put into operation.

I went on further to say:

I hope that the people who replaced those attendants who were not re-employed are provided with suitable uniforms and that none of them have to go through the trauma that some other people have had to go through and possibly place their jobs in jeopardy.

Mr President, you replied to me by letter dated 24 February 1977. I have spoken to you this evening about this letter and I seek leave of the Senate to have your reply to me incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The letter read as follows-

President of the Senate

Parliament House Canberra 24 February 1977

Dear Senator McLaren,

I refer to your additional requests on the adjournment debate of Tuesday evening in relation to the employment of Sessional Attendants.

The relevant provisions in the Public Service Act, Regulations and General Orders have been in force for many years, certainly before the initial employment of the sessional attendants in question.

Regulation 84 of the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Regulations made under section 97 of the Public Service Act reads:

  1. 1 ) There shall be kept in each Department of the Parliamentary Service a book or other approved means of record to be called the ‘Temporary Employment Register’.
  2. A person shall not be temporarily employed unless his name is recorded in such Register.

Provided that where a suitable person is not available from the Register the Parliamentary Head may authorize the employment of any person suitable for the work to be performed.’

In 1 97 1 a sufficient number of persons under 63 years of age were not available to fill positions of Sessional Attendants. It was therefore decided to use the provisions of the above regulation and General Order 13/b/7 and employ persons over the age of 65 years. General Order 1 3 / b / 7 reads:

  1. Normally an employee’s services should not be retained after he reaches the age of 65 years.
  2. Consideration will, however, be given to permitting retention of an employee over 65 years of age where-

    1. there is no suitable person under the age of 65 years available to perform the work; or
    2. the employee concerned has special qualifications for a particular job. ‘

The question of such employment has been reviewed from time to time. Towards the end of the last period of sittings, it was considered that the then employment situation was such that it might be possible to fill the Sessional positions with employees under 65, thus complying with the General Order. The positions were advertised before the commencement of the current sittings.

The number and quality of the applications received justified the action taken.

In relation to the question of Attendant’s uniforms I have ensured that in addition to the spare uniforms currently in stock, sufficient additional uniforms are being obtained as soon as practicable to ensure that all attendant staff are suitably attired.

Yours sincerely,

CONDOR L. LAUCKE

President of the Senate

Senator G. T. McLaren, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Senator McLAREN:

-Mr President, there are 2 matters that I wish to raise briefly arising from your reply to me which is now incorporated in the Hansard record. You pointed out to me in your letter:

  1. Normally an employee’s service should not be retained after he reaches the age of 65 years.
  2. Consideration will, however, be given to permitting retention of an employee over 65 years of age where-

    1. there is no suitable person under the age of 65 years available to perform the work; or
    2. the employee concerned has special qualifications for a particular job.

In your earlier reply to me on 22 February you incorporated in Hansard a table setting out the period of service of some of the sessional attendants. Having looked at that, I found that one of the attendants had served the Senate for a total of 41 sessional months. Another one had served for 35 sessional months, two for 31 months, one for 28 months, one for 20 months, one for 1 1 months sessional plus 5½ years elsewhere in Parliament House, one for 1 1 months sessional and one for 4 months sessional plus 16 years elsewhere in Parliament House. Surely quite a few of those people would have had special qualifications to suit them for the Senate, they having worked here for so long, having known the responsibilities that they were obliged to carry out and no doubt having known a great many of the senators and their requirements. As I stated when I spoke in the Senate on 22 February, they were people who were respected and who had served the Senate well. I feel that perhaps some of those employees could have come into the category of having special qualifications.

Mr President, you stated in the last paragraph of your letter.

In relation to the question of Attendants’ uniforms I have ensured that in addition to the spare uniforms currently in stock, sufficient additional uniforms are being obtained as soon as practicable to ensure that all attendant staff are suitably attired.

You have not stated to me in your letter- I would like you to ascertain for me- whether, in fact, the uniforms now in stock are second hand uniforms or whether they are new uniforms. I would like to know also whether the uniforms that are to be obtained will be new uniforms or whether they will be second hand uniforms which these sessional attendants have been obliged to wear in the past. Although it might be quite in order for many people to wear what might be called monkey suits and who hire them for special occasions such as the one we saw yesterday in the Parliament, I feel that employees of the Parliament should not be required to wear secondhand uniforms. Surely the economy of this country is not so poor that we cannot outfit the staff of this Parliament in new uniforms. I hope, Mr President, that you will let me know whether you will attire the sessional attendants in the future in new uniforms so that we will not see a recurrence of the problem which arose with the previous attendants. Firstly, they had to approach me as a senator to lodge a complaint, then they had to see you, Mr President, and then see me again. I, in turn, had to go to you about the uniforms and then I came back to the Parliament to find that those attendants were no longer in the service of the Parliament.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I want to respond briefly to Senator Colston who outlined for us some difficulties experienced by one of his constituents with regard to the payment of a hospital account in Brisbane. I undertake to refer the matter to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and to obtain some response on the matters raised. The matter raised by Senator McLaren was directed to you, Mr President, and I shall not comment on that.

The PRESIDENT:

– I advise Senator McLaren that it has been a long standing practice to have on hand uniforms which are given to other attendants if they are in reasonable condition. Of course they would be dry cleaned before being handed over to the next person. I shall check the points that the honourable senator has raised and will reply further.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.16 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 March 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770309_senate_30_s72/>.