Senate
31 May 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1663

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Pensions

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

That those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a right and not a charity.

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

Petition 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 sytem 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 provide50 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 1980-8 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. by Senator Chaney.

Petition received.

Income Tax

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

  1. . That there is no provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act for an independent court or other tribunal of first instance to hear and determine disputed questions of liability in tax matters before liability (if any) is determined and before payment (if any) is ordered to be made.
  2. That under the present Act the Commissioner of Taxation and his officers are accusers and judge their own cause, which is a denial of human rights and of natural justice.
  3. That the Act has not been amended to divest the Commissioner of Taxation of judicial powers and to vest such powers in an independent court of first instance, in accordance with the decision of the High Court and Privy Council in the Boilermakers Case in 1956.
  4. That under the British and American tax systems tax disputes are heard by an independent judicial tribunal of first instance, before liability (if any) is determined and before payment (if any) is required to be made and before penalties (if any) are imposed.
  5. That no provisions exist in the Act to enable notices of objection to assessments to be amended, or to enable extensions of time to lodge objections to be granted, or to require the Commissioner to give further and better particulars of the basis of computation of assessments and the reasons for disallowing objections by taxpayers, or to require the Commissioner to refrain from collecting tax in dispute and penalties and interest thereon pending the determination of such dispute by a court or board of review, or to require the Commissioner to pay interest on refunds of tax ordered to be incurred by taxpayers in contesting disputed tax assessments as a tax deduction.
  6. That the powers vested by the Act in the Commissioner, the periods for which investigations may be made, and the amount of penalties imposed, are excessive and oppressive by comparison with British and American tax standards.
  7. That there is a continuing failure by the Commissioner to inform Parliament in his Annual Report under section 14 of the Act of tax avoidance schemes and arrangements, and the estimated amount of income tax lost thereby, and by the operation of other concessional and exemption provisions of the Act, whereby Members of Parliament and other taxpayers are required to pay higher tax than would otherwise be payable, and the correction of which would enable significant reductions in income tax to be made.
  8. That no action has been taken to date to implement the recommendations of the Taxation Review Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Asprey with respect to the foregoing matters.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. The Income Tax Assessment Act be amended to correct the aforesaid matters in the interests of justice.
  2. The Commissioner of Taxation be directed to forthwith furnish the Senate with:

    1. General particulars of the nature and extent of tax avoidance schemes and arrangements which have come to his notice to date (excepting the names and addresses of particular taxpayers), and the estimated amount of income tax lost thereby.
    2. General particulars of the tax concessional and exempting provisions of the Act, and the estimated amount of income tax lost thereby.
  3. The Commissioner be also directed to furnish the Senate with similar particulars in his annual reports in future.
  4. The Senate do take into consideration the Bill for an Act to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act and the explanatory notes thereto, which your petitioner has filed in the Federal Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable members of the Senate.
  5. That the Senate do constitute a tax review committee, either alone or jointly with the other place, to study the nature and effect of the Income Tax Assessment Act with respect to tax avoidance schemes and arrangements and the effect of such Act on the Budget and on the economy in general.

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

Petition received.

page 1664

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- I wish to advise the Senate that Senator Douglas McClelland is now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am sure, Mr President, the Senate will not mind my paying tribute to the excellent contribution that Senator Jim Keeffe made during the time he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that I can say on his behalf that we will not hear or see any less of him in the ensuing months and that he will be making his contribution in this Parliament in the same way as he has in the past 1 8 months.

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

– by leave- I offer to the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy the congratulations of the Government. For Senator Wriedt to have been unopposed is, I think, a remarkable achievement. It just shows how good Leaders of the Opposition are in this place. I offer the Government’s congratulations to Senator Douglas McClelland whom we have known as a former Minister and Manager of Government Business and as Manager of Opposition Business. We wish him a long and happy stay in his present job.

page 1664

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1664

QUESTION

GIPPSLAND INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister for Education: Did the Commission on Advanced Education recommend funds in the last Budget for the construction of an engineering building at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education? Does the construction of that building have the complete support of the Victorian Institute of Colleges? Has the Victorian Minister for Education informed him that the building is essential not only for the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education but also for the Yallourn Technical College? Why has the Minister refused to allow the project to proceed? In view of the extensive support for this project from the Victorian Government and professional bodies in Victoria, how does he relate his refusal to approve the project to the Government’s attitude towards new federalism?

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

-As to the first 2 questions, the answer is yes. The Commission on Advanced Education has approved the project for an engineering school at Gippsland College of Advanced Education. It has the support of the Victorian Institute of Colleges. As to the remaining questions, the Victorian State Government set up a committee of inquiry, the Partridge Committee, into higher education and the committee is proceeding with that inquiry now. The Partridge Committee set up the Newman committee of inquiry into the development of engineering institutions in Victoria. That inquiry is proceeding. Of course, in the very best interests of federalism, my own Government and I have taken note of the fact that the Partridge Committee has set up the Newman Committee. Therefore, clearly the committee set up by the Victorian Government to recommend to the Government the development of institutions of higher education in Victoria needs to have information from the Newman Committee before it can form a viewpoint. We have indicated to the Victorian Government that we are interested to get the report of the Newman Committee as soon as possible. Whilst we are forming the Tertiary Education Commission there is an interim committee of the Commission at the moment comprising my departmental head and the 3 chairmen of the commissions responsible for universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education. The interim committee has recommended that we do not act pending the advice of the Newman Committee. That viewpoint has been conveyed to the Victorian Government and a request for urgent information has been made of that Government. I have given an undertaking that I will refer the findings of the Newman Committee to the interim committee or to the Tertiary Education Commission and seek an early decision on the matter. The matter is held up purely because of the intervention of the Newman Committee. I am as keen as the Leader of the Opposition to get a resolution of this matter.

page 1664

QUESTION

THE OF SHOW

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Will he outline to the Senate the details of the Of Show of 5 May, particularly those details, words and phrases which have been held by some of my constituents to hold up to ridicule the basic figure of our Christian beliefs’? Will he inform the Senate what are the rules against the use of blasphemy on Australian Broadcasting Commission television programs?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have heard extensive criticism of that program. I have not seen a transcript of the show in question but I will seek one. I understand that various severe criticisms have been made. Senator Baume asks what are the guidelines in the legislation regarding this matter. The Australian Broadcasting Commission, like commercial licensees, is bound by section 1 18 of the Broadcasting and Television Act. All licensees are bound by that. I think the relevant sub-section is 118(1), which says:

The Commission or a licensee shall not broadcast or televise matter which is blasphemous, indecent or obscene.

That is perfectly clear. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has a clear responsibility to conform with the provisions of that Act. I shall leave it at that. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in another place to Senator Baume ‘s question. As a follow-up Senator Baume may seek to know what steps might be taken in that regard.

page 1665

QUESTION

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY: WHITE PAPER

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Before I ask my question, Mr President, I seek your indulgence to express to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government in the Senate my appreciation of the congratulatory remarks they made on my election to the position of Deputy Leader of the Opposition today.

Has the Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce seen reports that the Associated Chambers of Manufactures has severely criticised the contents of the Government’s White Paper on the future of manufacturing industry because of its lack of positive guidelines for the long term development of industry in Australia? Has the Minister also seen a report to the effect that the New South Wales State Council of the Liberal Party has resolved that the Government should modify its high protectionist approach to inefficient industries? Will the Minister agree that those who are engaged in manufacturing industry, both employers and workers, now view with concern, and perhaps some cynicism, the effectiveness of the proposals contained in the White Paper?

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

– I would be very surprised if a White Paper or any government decision on a subject as important and as sensitive as the subject matter of the White Paper on manufacturing industry did not attract differing views. I have seen the expressions of view to which Senator

Douglas McClelland refers. Since I am only the Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce, naturally enough I have not been able to give these matters any close study up to this stage. No doubt these are all matters which will receive the close attention of the Government.

page 1665

QUESTION

CUT PRICE PETROL

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer to reported statements that some service station owners are intending to align themselves with trade unions in a campaign to end discriminatory pricing in the oil industry. I ask: Are these so-called independent owners in effect tenants of the various oil companies? Do the oil companies sell to cut price petrol jobbers, in particular ACTUSolo Enterprises Pty Ltd, at prices very substantially below those at which they sell to their own tenants? In other words, do some oil companies help cut price resellers to undercut their own tenants by very substantial margins? Can the Minister say whether the Government is prepared to do anything to remedy this problem?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Government is aware of some of the problems to which Senator Lewis refers in his question. The Minister whom I represent certainly is giving the matter close consideration. I shall refer the question to him for a more detailed reply.

page 1665

QUESTION

BEEF CATTLE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister who currently represents the Minister for Primary Industry. I preface my question by remarking that I intended to speak last Friday on the subject of the condition of the beef cattle industry in the Northern Territory; but, as you will recall, Mr President, I got somewhat tied up in the chair. I ask the Minister: Is he aware of the critical condition of the beef cattle industry in the Northern Territory where, because of depressed prices over recent years, herd numbers have grown rapidly and husbandry and control have declined alarmingly? Is he aware of the threat posed by the increase of brucellosis and that, through inadequate mustering and therefore uncontrolled breeding, this disease could quickly get out of hand and threaten the whole national export trade, having regard to the requirement for disease-free cattle for the export trade by 1 984? Will the Minister study the section of the report of Senate Estimates Committee E, which was tabled recently, pertaining to this question and advise what action is being taken and what additional and, I hope, urgent further action can be taken to remove the growing threat to our whole beef cattle export industry?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-As I understand it, the question relates to 2 different matters of concern to beef producers in the Northern Territory- to economic conditions generally and to the particular question of brucellosis. The problems of the beef industry are well known and have been given close attention by the Government. It is still giving them close attention. As to the particular matter raised by Senator Devitt and referred to in the report of Senate Estimates Committee E, I will refer the contents of that report to the Minister whom I am representing and seek to obtain a reply from him.

page 1666

QUESTION

GRANTS TO STATES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. A telegram received today from the Premier of Tasmania makes several extravagant assertions as to the disadvantages to the smaller States in the changes to the role of the Grants Commission arising from the proposed changes to the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act. Can the Minister advise whether Mr Neilson has the right impression, whether it is the intention of the Government to advantage New South Wales and Victoria at the expense of the smaller States, or whether his concern is unjustified?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Mr President, you may well feel that a substantial part of that question relates to legislation currently before the Senate. I refer to the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill. To the extent that that Bill seeks to set up a grants commission, I suggest to the honourable senator that in the course of the debate later today or tomorrow I could deal with the substance of it. Putting that aside and dealing with the generality of the question, I am bound to say that those who believe that the less populous States have anything to fear from the federalism programs are on unsound ground. Before the Government took its steps in stage 1 of fiscal federalism and when it had given to the public and to the Parliament an undertaking that the equalisations and relativities that existed between the States would be preserved there were similar fears. Yet since the implementation of stage 1 no State has had any reason to complain that the relativities have not been translated very accurately into fact. What has happened is that the proportions of money now going by way of tax sharing reflect the decisions of the Commonwealth Grants Commission over the course of its journey of 44 years. The Commonwealth Government is committed to the maintenance of relativities for the less populous States. The less populous States have nothing to fear in those terms. There is no truth in the rumours frequently stated.

page 1666

QUESTION

GRANTS TO STATES

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, is on the same subject as the previous question. I ask him: Is it not a fact, as he has just said himself, that the Grants Commission has protected the smaller States on the basis of the relativities which have been accepted for some years? Is it not also a fact that the Premiers of Western Australia, Tasmania, Queensland and South Australia have all expressed the gravest reservations about altering those relativities now, particularly prior to the introduction of stage 2 of federalism? Is the Minister purporting to give an undertaking to the Senate that those relativities will not be altered despite the fact that the Grants Commission itself presumably is being asked by the Commonwealth to review the relativities?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Again, I am at some disadvantage regarding the actual legislation. Perhaps I should keep away from it in my answer and we can have a dialogue on the important matter raised in the question during the discussion on the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill, which will be debated later. There is no intention to alter relativities in the immediate future. The community knows that the Government ‘s policy, which is accepted as such by the Premiers, is that within periods of not more than 5 years there should be a review by an independent body of the relativities between the States. Discussion has been taking place between the States and there is some difference of opinion between them as to what should be the nature of the independent body. That will be discussed in the debate on the Bill I have just mentioned. There is no intention through the action of this Government, by legislation or otherwise, to alter the general concept of a review of relativities before 1 980-8 1 . That is the whole purpose of the policy.

As I understand it, the basic conflict, as reflected only in the Press reports that I have seen- I have not been a recipient of the telegrams-is as to the nature of the independent body. Some States claim that they want an independent body of a particular kind; other States argue that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should be the body, and the Commonwealth upholds that view. That is the thrust of the thing. Whenever we mention this it is important to point out that there has been acceptance of the view that there should be an independent body. The 6 State Premiers have concurred in what should be the terms of reference of that body; so nobody is arguing about the terms of reference. The only matter on which dialogue is necessary is which body should handle those terms of reference. The Bill that is before us relates to that.

This is a complicated matter, but in what we are doing we are not attempting to hurry things up. It is all part of the uniform process of stage I. I repeat that the aim of the legislation and of the policy is to preserve the rights of the less populous States in the general context in which the Grants Commission has viewed the situation over 43 years, that is, that those States have disabilities which should be recognised and compensated for by way of financial adjustments.

page 1667

QUESTION

SOLAR ENERGY: FLINDERS ISLAND

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Will the Minister for Science consider whether Flinders Island could be adopted as a trial area for testing new discoveries by Professor Messel, of the University of Sydney, in regard to the production of electricity from solar energy? As the Minister may be aware, the Flinders Island Council is most interested in solar energy. It has already installed a solar hot water system in its council chambers at a cost of $700, and the system is working most efficiently.

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

– I acknowledge the interest of the honourable senator in that part of her electorate. Indeed, I shall be anxious to learn of the interest that the Flinders Island Council is taking in developing solar energy. I can only speak well of that particular island as it was my birthplace. I shall see that some interest is taken in the matter. I would have doubted that Flinders Island would be a satisfactory testing place for solar energy research. Indeed, I should have expected that the location of Flinders Island would be such that it would have obtained its supply of power from other sources, such as wind or tidal generation. I shall have the matter looked at. If any of the institutions under the control of the Department of Science or the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation can assist I am sure they will do so.

page 1667

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Social Security: As many thousands of youngsters are going to leave school in a few months, what advice can be given to them so that they will not find themselves in a position similar to that in which Karen Green found herself? Should the advice be that whenever they apply for a job they should do so in writing? Is the advice to them that they should keep a file of all applications and answers to those applications? If they do that, will those applications be considered as a genuine attempt to find work on the part of these young people?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– It is necessary to clarify for all people seeking unemployment benefits what steps they should take in order to satisfy the Director-General that they have taken reasonable steps under the Act. I will see that adequate advice is given to them with regard to meeting these requirements. The matters that have been put forward in the honourable senator’s question are sound suggestions with regard to providing concrete evidence of steps that have been taken. I believe that things such as records of interviews, applications and responses from employers are essential, in addition to registering with the Commonwealth Employment Service. It could not be argued that mere registration with the CES necessarily can be regarded as taking reasonable steps. I will take note of the suggestions that were made by the honourable senator, in particular with regard to school leavers at the end of this year. I will ensure that adequate advice and time is given to them to see that they do meet the requirements.

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister assure the Senate that there will not be a repetition on the part of Commonwealth Employment Service officers of action which led to their refusal to accept applications from school leavers? That action occurred previously to the disadvantage of many thousands of youngsters. Will the Minister assure us that that situation will not arise again?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– One report has already been received by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street. I understand that he is shortly to receive a report from the Norgard Committee which inquired into the administration of the CES. Likewise, Mr Street and I expect to receive a report in about the middle of the year from Dr Myers and his committee which is examining the administration of unemployment benefits. I will again undertake to ensure on the basis of recommendations in those reports that adequate advice is given to those who seek eligibility for unemployment benefits. I will take account of the matters that have been raised in the 2 questions asked by Senator Georges.

page 1668

QUESTION

AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It relates to the figures for average weekly earnings for the year ended 3 1 March last, which show an increase of 12.1 per cent for that particular year, which outstrips the rise in the consumer price index, excluding hospital and medical services, of 10.2 per cent in the same period. As the majority of the wage indexation judgments during the year in question were for partial indexation only, does the Minister agree that partial wage indexation has been successful to some extent in containing inflation? Does he also agree that when tax indexation comes into operation on 1 July next, the position of wage earners will be further substantially improved in relation to take-home pay?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-In the year to the March quarter the average weekly earnings, seasonally adjusted, grew by 12.1 percent- only marginally lower than the 12.8 per cent increase in the preceding year. Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting this comparison. The 12.1 per cent increase over the year to March 1977 will have been depressed by the delay in the national wage case hearing based on the December quarter consumer price index. On the other hand, the difference between that figure and the figure for the previous 12 months will have been reduced by the postponement of the hearing relating to the September 1975 CPI increase, which was held to 0.8 per cent by the introduction of Medibank. It is difficult to estimate the net effect of these 2 factors which will be at least partly offsetting. Nevertheless, in looking at the figures that have actually been recorded, it is of interest to note that the average weekly earnings increased more than the CPI, adjusted for Medibank, over the year to the March quarter. Using the adjusted CPI increase of 10.2 per cent as a deflator suggests that real average weekly earnings have grown by about 1.7 per cent in the 12 months to the March quarter. As to the latter part of the honourable senator’s question about the effects of tax indexation, I indicate to him that a Bill dealing with this matter is before the Senate at the moment. I think that Mr Lynch already has issued some tables showing the effect of tax indexation, and I will be putting down in the Senate further tables which will indicate to honourable senators the positive effect of personal income tax indexation.

page 1668

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO: FUNDING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the grave concern expressed by the staff of ethnic radio stations in Sydney as to whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission will take over the funding of ethnic radio as from 1 July in the face of a very austere Budget. I simply ask the Minister: Is she in a position to reiterate the earlier promises, which were subject to postponement, that the ABC will pick up the tab for ethnic radio as from 1 July?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not in a position to give any further information on the matter of ethnic radio and its funding after 1 July. I will refer the question to the Minister concerned and ensure that he makes a statement when he is able to do so.

page 1668

QUESTION

SPOTTED LUCERNE APHID

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Science tell the Senate what actions have been initiated or have been taken already by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to prevent the further spread of the spotted lucerne aphid in New South Wales and to limit the damage that is being done to lucerne crops and pastures in eastern Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– A similar question was asked recently of another Minister. The information that is coming forward from the science aspect is quite important. The spotted aphid apparently is creating havoc in Australia, and it was introduced into Australia only this year. It is expected that the effect of this insect in the coming years is likely to be particularly serious, as it was apparently in the United States of America in the 1950s. The CSIRO, with the agreement of the States concerned, is taking steps in an attempt to meet this problem in a variety of ways. It has brought in from the United States 3 parasitic wasp species which have been used successfully there to keep down the population of the spotted aphid. Careful attention will need to be given to the quarantine aspects, and the suitability of these species for biological control in Australia will have to be thoroughly tested. This is being done by staff of the CSIRO.

It is of interest that for some time now the CSIRO has been interested in the concept of lucerne strains which could be resistant to the aphid, in case this insect should come to Australia. This approach has become a standard one in the United States and there is little doubt that in future it will be essential in Australia. The Falkiner variety of lucerne produced by the CSIRO already has some resistance to the aphid, apparently, and there are other lines in Australia which will allow further selections for resistance.

However, a great volume of source material is required before resistant lucerne varieties can be spread and there will need to be a great bulkingup of seed before it can be effective. The CSIRO is working with State Departments of Agriculture and interested Commonwealth departments to develop an overall plan of action. The Standing Committee on Agriculture has called together a working party from these organisations and it is to meet tomorrow.

page 1669

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS: PAYMENT OF HOSPITAL ACCOUNTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Did the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on 25 August 1975 forward to the South Australian Minister of Health a letter requesting hospitals in South Australia not to prosecute Aboriginals for debt as the Commonwealth would pay such accounts? Did the hospitals in that State act in good faith in accordance with the Commonwealth ‘s commitment? Has the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs by letter dated 23 May of this year repudiated the Commonwealth’s previous undertaking with resultant financial loss to many hospitals in the State of South Australia, many of which are in serious financial difficulties?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Several questions were involved in the matter raised by the honourable senator. I have no information available to respond to them. I suggest that the question be placed on notice for the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

page 1669

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to Senator Durack in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the Minister’s answer to my question yesterday concerning drought relief in South Australia which advised that the State Government of South Australia has agreed with the Federal Government to provide relief to South Australian farmers of up to $ 1.5 m as a prerequisite to the Federal Government providing further moneys of up to $10m. I ask: Is the Minister aware of the dismay felt by South Australian farmers that the South Australian Minister of Agriculture has delayed further action on drought relief because of rains in South Australia over the last few days and his stated need to assess the situation? Will the Minister use his good offices to urge the South Australian

Government to stop procrastinating on this matter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I should have thought that the agreement in relation to drought relief between the Commonwealth and the States that was referred to yesterday was a pretty good example of co-operative federalism. The States assume responsibilities up to a certain amount. I mentioned the figure in relation to South Australia. The Commonwealth also has agreed to assume certain responsibilities if the figure exceeds that amount. This matter apparently is the responsibility of the South Australian Government. Whether it is discharging its responsibilities in that matter would seem to be a matter for the South Australian electors to judge.

page 1669

QUESTION

PROPOSED NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and relates to the economics of the proposed natural gas pipeline from the North West Shelf to the eastern seaboard. Is the Minister aware that at this year’s annual general meeting of Woodside-Burmah Oil NL, the Chairman stated that the transporting of gas from the North West Shelf to Sydney would cost $1.70 and perhaps $2 per thousand cubic feet and would not be acceptable to industry in the eastern States? Is the Minister aware also that the United States Federal Power Commission has recommended that a planned pipeline to carry natural gas from Alaska’s north slope be built across Canada and that the Commission’s economic study indicated that the cost per thousand cubic feet delivered to Chicago would be 80c? That information is from the Financial Times of 4 May 1 977. As the distance from the north slope of Alaska to Chicago is far greater than the distance from the North West Shelf to Sydney and the terrain much more difficult, would the Minister care to investigate or have investigated the trustworthiness of the Chairman’s economics? If the Chairman’s figures are proved to be wrong, this question in some way may be able to help preserve a great Australian asset from being shipped overseas, along with all the other energy sources that this Government is hellbent on getting rid of at giveaway prices.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I did not have the benefit of reading the report of the Chairman of WoodsideBurmah Oil NL. Therefore, I did not, until Senator Mcintosh provided the information, have the benefit of the statement concerning the cost per thousand cubic feet of transporting gas from the North West Shelf to the eastern seaboard. Nor have I until now been aware of what

Senator Mcintosh suggests is the estimate by the United States Federal Power Commission of the cost of the transport of gas in the Alaska-Canada area, which he suggests is a lesser cost. Quite clearly, a number of factors would be involved here. First of all there would be a number of quite technical factors, not unrelated to topography and distance. Overriding the lot is the fact that in recent years the comparative costs, between America and Australia, of doing anything have moved very severely and adversely against Australia. The matter is technical. It is important. I will refer it to the Acting Minister for Transport and ask him whether he will look at the matter to see whether he has some comments of use to the honourable senator.

page 1670

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: HEALTH SERVICES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In the last 12 months the Government has commenced or completed many major health projects in the Northern Territory such as hospitals, extra hospital wards, health centres, etc., which will enhance the ability of the Government to bring better health both to urban and isolated dwellers in the Territory. However, the efficient operation of these projects has been hindered by lack of staff, both professional and industrial. While I believe that many areas in the Northern Territory are suffering because of these shortages, I refer particularly to the Darwin Hospital which urgently needs increased staff ceilings. Last year there was a requirement for a further 121 personnel. Lately there has been an increase of forty. It still leaves a minimum requirement of more than 80 people. Will the various authorities, such as the Government, the Public Service Board, etc., give the highest priority to reviewing the situation? Will this reassessment of requirements take place in Darwin rather than in Canberra, to ensure that the people in this rapidly developing northern city are given medical attention similar to that received in the southern States and to reduce strain on those dedicated people already working in the field of health in the Northern Territory?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that the Minister for Health is giving the highest priority to assessing the staff ceiling situation in the Northern Territory. This is a matter which is currently being considered by the Department of Health and the Public Service Board. In this assessment particular emphasis is being placed on the Darwin Hospital situation. In reassessing the staffing requirements, I understand that discussions have taken place between representatives of the Public Service Inspectors Office in Darwin and the Department of Health in Darwin, and the Public Service Board and the Department of Health in Canberra. If these discussions are successful, I think they would answer the point of the honourable senator’s question which suggested that the people in Darwin should have adequate consultation on a review of the staffing requirements. I will see whether the Minister has any further information that he is now able to advise.

page 1670

QUESTION

ALLEGED CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ACTIVITIES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Government received any information about when the report of investigations in the United States into activities of the Central Intelligence Agency in Australia will be released? Is it intended that the Australian Government will receive a copy of the report? Will the Minister undertake to provide all senators with a copy of the full report as soon as possible after it is provided to the Australian Government? Has the Australian Government asked for or yet received a complete transcript of evidence in the Boyce and Fox trials plus a copy of their alleged confessions?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I refer the honourable senator to a statement which I put down in this place last week, I think it was, on behalf of the Prime Minister. There is in the Parliamentary Library a transcript of one of the trials. The Prime Minister undertook to have it placed there as soon as it arrived. I cannot recall which trial it was. I suggest to the honourable senator that she re-read my statement. If she still has some questions she should put them on notice.

:./ SUPPLIES OF CRUDE OIL

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct my question to the

Minister representing the Acting Minister for Transport. Is he aware that crude oil supplies for the South Australian refinery at Port Stanvac are being held back because tankers are not allowed to discharge their crude oil until the refinery’s crude oil feedstock is down to less than 24 hours supply? Is the Minister also aware that in the process of holding both the refinery and the people of South Australia to ransom it is costing some $US 12,000 a day for each day the ships are delayed at berth? There have been up to 3 tankers at one time being delayed for days before being allowed to discharge their cargo, which adds greatly to the cost of crude oil. Is the Minister aware that this ban by the Seamen’s Union of Australia on the unloading of tankers is due to the demands of the union to place the tanker Howard Smith on the overseas crude oil run? Is it a fact that to do this would increase the cost of shipping crude oil to Australia by an amount that would be equivalent to a subsidy of some $40,000 per annum for each seaman on the Howard Smith’:

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Young was good enough earlier today to indicate to me his interest in this matter. I have sought some information on what is substantially-

Senator Georges:

– It is not a question without notice.

Senator Withers:

– It is. It is not on the notice paper.

Senator CARRICK:

-I repeat that like many members of the Labor Party-

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order. The point of order I am putting is that the question asked by Senator Young of Senator Carrick is not a question without notice. This has been admitted by Senator Carrick.

Senator Young:

– I did not say it was.

Senator Georges:

- Senator Carrick indicated that Senator Young gave him prior notice of the question. This is a practice that is developing at question time. I believe that you, Mr President, should give a ruling on it; otherwise the device of Government supporters asking questions of which the Minister concerned has been given prior notice will develop to the point where question time will be destroyed.

Senator Carrick:

– If I may speak to the point of order, in the time that I have been a Minister, certainly a number of times each week members from the Labor Opposition in common with my own people have indicated to me, because they have a genuine interest in wanting an answer, that they proposed to ask me a question on a particular subject. They do not give me the details of the question. They simply indicate to me the broad headland of a subject. This is very common. I value this advice as I am sure my colleagues do because it enables a Minister to give genuine information in response to a genuine question asked. Because I do not believe that the practice of Dorothy Dix questions is a good one, when I rose today I indicated that it does not happen that I have a lot of specific information which I can give off the top of my head. Having been informed that specific information would be sought I have some detailed information. I suggest that the question is still a question without notice in that all I had was knowledge of the subject on which a question would be asked, a subject for which I have a general brief.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I address myself to the point of order raised by Senator Georges. Senator Georges fell into the error of taking a point of order and not referring to the standing order of the Senate on which he was taking the point of order. He was using the form of question time to make a general statement on the whole matter of questions and not raising a point of order in the context of the standing order. In rising to seek your acceptance of my observations Mr President, I refer Senator Georges to standing order 98 which reads as follows:

After Notices have been given Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and to other Senators, relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the business on the Notice Paper, of which such Senators may have charge.

Therefore I suggest that you should disregard the point of order raised by Senator Georges- it is not a valid one- and allow the question to be answered.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Carrick to continue his reply.

Senator CARRICK:

– In response to Senator Young let me say that I am aware that delays have occurred to overseas tankers at various Australian ports as a result of action by maritime unions in support of demands that the Howard Smith be employed in coastal or overseas trade. The campaign of direct industrial action by the unions has delayed tankers at selected ports by refusing tug services. I understand that the practice followed is to allow tankers to berth at refinery feedstocks near completion. In view of this serious situation the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations met representatives of the oil industry and Howard Smith Industries Ltd. to discuss the matter on 28 April. The vessel Howard Smith has been without continuous employment on the coast since 13 February this year. It was imported in 1969 and has been used as a back-up to 4 Australian built crude tankers. However, due to a reduced requirement for crude tanker tonnage on the coast, only limited employment is foreseen for the vessel. I understand that at the meeting Ministers were advised by the oil industry that only 70 to 100 days work would be available for the Howard Smith on the coast. Furthermore, it was indicated that the cost of using the Howard Smith in overseas trades would result in an additional $3.5 m to $5m per annum. On this basis the additional cost would represent a subsidy of approximately $40,000 per annum for each seaman employed on the vessel.

The Government’s position was made quite clear to representatives at the meeting. Employment for Australian flag shipping is a matter for commercial decision by the companies concerned. The Government cannot guarantee employment for coastal vessels. Furthermore, we would not support the use of Australian flag vessels in overseas trades unless they were economic and efficient. We are not prepared to subsidise overseas operations by Australian flag ships; nor do we agree that higher costs should be passed on to Australian consumers. While the Government is concerned at the irresponsible attitude being taken by maritime unions over this matter which is causing a significant increase in transport costs from delays to vessels, responsibility for the problem rests clearly with the parties concerned.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a further point of order. Having heard the question and now the answer, I ask whether you are prepared to rule that the question was not one without notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– In the broad, I understand that the Minister has been given indication of a question. He is replying to the question. I ask him to continue his reply.

Senator CARRICK:

-Finally, I hope that common sense will prevail and that an early solution will be found through commercial negotiation by the owner with members of the oil industry.

Senator Young:

- Mr President, I seek clarification. In view of the points of order raised by Senator Georges, will my question, which is of vital importance to the people of South Australia, be deleted from the rebroadcast of question time this evening?

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, would it not be a further abuse of question time if this question and this answer, which have been the subject of 2 points of order, were rebroadcast this evening? I reckon it is a disgrace.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have obtained advice from my Clerk in respect of this situation. If a point of order is taken and the question can still be put into the broadcast intelligibly, it is put into the broadcast.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr President, I raise a point of order, only for the purpose of seeking clarification. I think it is important that this matter should be followed through. Surely the editing of question time is applicable only when the Senate is not on the air for the full day. If the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast for the full day, surely there is no editing of question time.

The PRESIDENT:

– No. That is a direct broadcast. It is the rebroadcast of question time about which we have been talking.

page 1672

LIBRARY SERVICES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr President-

Senator Withers:

– When are you going overseas?

Senator McLAREN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. He asks me when I am going overseas. I give him the answer that, unlike many of his colleagues, I have never had a trip overseas. I might have something to say about that on the first reading of a money Bill. I ask: Is the Minister aware that last weekend a seminar was held in Canberra to discuss library services to the community? Is it a fact that the longer the delay in the Government implementing the recommendations of the Horton Committee the greater will be the amount of money required to tackle the inadequacy of library services throughout Australia? Has the Minister yet studied the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee which was established by the Government? When can the Minister make an announcement on what action the Government proposes to take?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I suggest that the honourable senator contain his impatience until Budget day.

page 1672

QUESTION

RUBBER REPROCESSING

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity. A report which appeared in last Sunday’s Sun Herald of 29 May referred to a process which has reportedly been developed by 3 Australians to reprocess used tyres. The report states:

The low-cost, pollution-free process, separates the rubber in the old tyres from the steel and fibre. It has created little interest with large Australian companies but has been welcomed by overseas nations.

Cost of producing the synthetic rubber would be about half the current price for similar products.

In view of the fact that this matter does seem to have aroused little interest in Australia but a good deal of interest in Japan I ask the Minister whether the Government is aware of this report and of what appears to be an important new development in the recycling of a significant resource? Will the Government examine whether the process might be put to use in Australia? Is there some way in which the

Government might co-operate and encourage this process being further developed?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Minister for Productivity has had his attention drawn to the report which appeared in the Sun Herald and which concerned a process for the recycling of tyres. I understand that he is interested in the process. The process is not unknown in Australia. Apparently other people have developed this technique or similar techniques. It is a matter in which the Government is interested and will certainly be making further investigations.

page 1673

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security: Is it a fact that, due to staff shortages, the Department of Social Security is on the verge of collapse, as is reported in today’s Press?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-In recent days there has been some interest in the matter of staff ceilings in my Department. Reports of staff work bans have appeared and other difficulties have been experienced. Last night I responded to a matter raised during the adjournment debate by Senator McLaren. In that response I told him that an interdepartmental committee had made a recommendation to the Acting Prime Minister to the effect that the staff numbers should be increased. I am now able to advise that the Acting Prime Minister has approved a further increase of 285 staff for the Department of Social Security. That increase in staff is aimed at providing additional resources to relieve pressures being experienced in the Department in handling heavy work loads in the pensions, family allowances and unemployment and sickness benefit areas. A further approval has been received to continue to employ the 90 staff who were provided until the end of May to handle urgent work associated with changes in the means test for pensions. The Department therefore now has some 375 staff in excess of the previously approved ceiling for 30 June 1977. These increases should go a long way towards providing the Department with the resources that it needs. The Public Service Board has advised the Committee on Staff Ceilings that it has reached agreement with the Department of Social Security to establish a joint committee to undertake regular reviews of the Department’s staffing needs, having regard to emerging work load trends and new policy initiatives. The joint committee will also advise on productivity gains accruing from systems development, management improvement and things of that kind.

Senator Jessop:

– It sounds like a Dorothy Dixer to me.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I assure the honourable senator that my Victorian colleague, Senator Primmer, had not arranged the question with me. I believe that his interest in the matter arose from an article which appeared in this morning’s Melbourne Age, which I am sure both Senator Primmer and I read. That article dealt with the Melbourne office of my Department, where some difficulties are being experienced. I am hopeful that, with the additional staff which have now been approved by the Public Service Board and the filling of further positions, in every State the re-arrangement of duties and responsibilities will enable work to be undertaken now to give the service which I believe the Australian public is entitled to receive from a department such as mine. I hope that there will now be a resolution of the work bans and other difficulties that we have experienced in recent weeks.

page 1673

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Senator JESSOP:

-Mr President, I direct my question to you. It concerns the procedures with respect to broadcasting parliamentary proceedings outside of normal sitting times. You will recall that it is usual for the Senate proceedings to be broadcast on Fridays. In the present circumstances is it not fair to suggest that, as the House of Representatives proceedings were broadcast on Monday, that House should not have its proceedings broadcast on Tuesday also, that is, on 2 successive days? If you agree that that is a reasonable suggestion will you take the appropriate action and place the matter before the Joint Statutory Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings?

The PRESIDENT:

– The practice has been on normal 3-day sitting weeks that the House of Representatives proceedings are broadcast on Tuesdays and Thursdays and the Senate proceedings on Wednesdays. When the Parliament sits on Mondays the House of Representatives takes that day and Fridays are given to the Senate. This week the Senate proceedings will be broadcast on Friday. That is the present situation and I believe it is the custom that has been in practice for many years.

page 1673

QUESTION

MINING INDUSTRY

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the National Country Party in the Senate and Minister for Science. I ask: Is the Minister aware of an article in the last issue of Quadrant in which the honourable member for Macarthur, Mr Baume, stated:

The Tacts are that, but for the mining industry, the man on the land would be racing a far better future than the dismal one he now must inevitably come to terms with.

Senator Primmer:

– Who said that?

Senator WALSH:

-The honourable member for Macarthur, Mr Michael Baume, a member of the Liberal Party. I ask the Leader of the Country Party whether he agrees with that statement and, if not, why not.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. The honourable senator directed his question to a member of the Country Party. The Senate Standing Orders do not acknowledge the existence of parties. I submit that the question should be ruled out of order.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On the point of order, the question was addressed, as I heard it, to the Leader of the Country Party and Minister for Science.

Senator Withers:

– Speaking to the point of order, as I understand it some years ago Senator Murphy proposed that Ministers should be asked questions relevant to ministerial responsibilities within their own portfolios. Senator Webster is the Minister for Science. He represents a number of his colleagues in this place. Senator Walsh’s question is nothing but an attempt to cause political mischief and he is not seeking information as to the administration of a department of state.

The PRESIDENT:

– My attention was diverted momentarily as I was having a discussion with Senator Douglas McClelland. I apologise for not having heard the question clearly. Will you repeat the question, Senator Walsh?

Senator WALSH:

– The question was addressed to Senator Webster as Minister for Science and Leader of the National Country Party. I asked whether he agrees with the following statement by the honourable member for Macarthur which appeared in Quadrant:

The facts are that, but for the mining industry, the man on the land would be facing a far better future than the dismal one he now must inevitably come to terms with.

The question arising from that was: Does the Minister agree with that statement and, if not, why not?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have not seen the article. I imagine that if the honourable senator’s quotation is accurate there is a great deal of truth in the statement made by the honourable member for Macarthur. All Australians, except perhaps the honourable senator who asked the question, are well aware of the enormously important role that the mining industry is playing in Australia. At least Government supporters recognise that and, indeed, encourage their activity. Regrettably the farming interests in Australia received such a terrible beating under the Labor Government, particularly from the Leader of the Labor Party in this place, that we on this side of the chamber are doing all we can now to try to retrieve the situation. Undoubtedly it was from that point of view that the honourable member for Macarthur spoke.

Senator WALSH:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In view of the answer just given by the Minister for Science, I ask him whether he acknowledges the truth of the statement made by the honourable member- for Macarthur which I quoted. Will the Minister confirm that the honourable member for Macarthur stated also that the Government will encourage further growth in the mining industry? If that is so, does the Minister acknowledge that the Government thereby will make the plight of farmers even more severe than it is now? I just ask him to confirm these things.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must point out that a supplementary question must be immediately related to the original question in its entirety, otherwise it is an additional question.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have no answer to the question the honourable senator asked.

page 1674

QUESTION

ALLEGED CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ACTIVITIES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. No doubt he will recall that yesterday I asked a question seeking certain information in relation to the terms of reference of the royal commission into the Australian security and intelligence agencies. The Minister was good enough to undertake to obtain a reply.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Prior to Senator Brown asking his question I was going to ask that further questions be placed on notice, and then I was going to say that yesterday Senator Brown asked me a question relating to the royal commission investigation by Mr Justice Hope. I have the original Press statement, No. 305, dated 21 August 1974 issued by the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, announcing the establishment of the inquiry. Annexed thereto is a copy of the terms of reference of that inquiry. I seek leave to have both the Press statement and a copy of the terms of reference incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The documents read as follows-

Press Statement No. 305 2! August 1974

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY SERVICES OF THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

The Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, announced today that His Excellency the Governor-General had, on the advice of the Executive Council, appointed Mr Justice Hope of the Supreme Court of New South Wales as a Royal Commissioner to inquire into Australia’s intelligence and security services.

A copy of the terms of reference for the inquiry is attached.

The Prime Minister recalled that in his policy speech on 29 April he had given an undertaking that the Government would, if returned, appoint a judicial inquiry into the structure of the Australian security services and into methods of reviewing decisions adversely affecting citizens or migrants. .

The Commission to Mr Justice Hope will fulfil both parts of the election promise.

The inquiry will cover the whole range of Australia’s intelligence and security services and so will provide the first comprehensive review that has been undertaken of these services since the inception of the various organisations during the 1 940s. The Commissioner will be asked to review the history of the services and, having regard to the security of Australia as a nation, the rights and responsibilities of individual persons and future as well as present needs, to make recommendations on the services the people and Government of Australia should have available to them.

Paragraph 3 of the terms of reference will ensure that the inquiry covers fully the important aspects of the civil rights of individuals as they can be affected by administrative decisions based on or influenced by security reports. The Commissioner is asked to suggest ways in which administrative decisions of this kind can be reviewed. His inquiries will extend to the projection which should be afforded not only to citizens but also to migrants and visitors.

The inquiry will also cover the important matter of ensuring that there is full responsibility at Ministerial and official level for the intelligence and security organisations and actions undertaken by them.

The Prime Minister said he expected that, because of its nature, a large part of the proceedings of the Commission would have to be conducted in closed session. He recalled that the Royal Commission into the Canadian security services had been directed to hold all its proceedings in camera. The Commissioner would advise trie Government as to which parts, if any, of the report might be made public.

The appointment of a Judge with qualifications as eminent as those of Mr Justice Hope guaranteed that the inquiry would be well conducted, comprehensive and responsible and at the same time would reassure those countries and organisations with which Australia has connections in the security field.

Mr Justice Hope was appointed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1969. He became a member of the Court of Appeal in 1972. He was President of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties between 1967 and 1969.

Mr Whitlam said he wished to express his own thanks, and those of the Government, to the Premier, Chief Justice and Attorney-General of New South Wales for their courtesy; and co-operation in agreeing that Mr Justice Hope should be available to undertake this important inquiry.

Canberra, A.C.T.

INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY SERVICES OF THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

Terms of Reference . . to make the following inquiries, reports and recommendations, including inquiries and reports on all matters relevant to the making of those recommendations:

To inquire into and report upon the history of the intelligence and security services of the Australian Government, with particular reference to:

purpose, functions, administration and staffing (including recruiting) of each organisation;

b ) the general co-ordination, control and direction of the services taken as a whole;

the use made by the Australian Government and its agencies of the information provided by the organisations.

In the light of past experience, and having regard to the security of Australia as a nation, the rights and responsibilities of individual persons and future as well as present needs, to make recommendations on the intelligence and security services which the nation should have available to it and on the way in which the relevant organisations can most efficiently and effectively serve the interests of the Australian people and Government, with particular reference to:

the scale of operations;

the number of separate organisations to be involved, and their purpose, functions, staffing (including recruiting and terms and conditions of service) ana administrative arrangements;

the nature and scope of the intelligence which the relevant organisations should seek to acquire from Australian sources or from sources outside Australia; including the intelligence services of other countries;

arrangements for co-ordinating and evaluating the available intelligence;

the distribution and use of the intelligence material available; (0 the relationship between the intelligence organis ations, between those organisations and the Australian and State law enforcement agencies and between those organisations and Departments and authorities of the Australian Government;

the degree of secrecy which should attach to the organisations and their work; and

the proper safeguarding of intelligence material and sources and the channel through which advice on such matters should be provided.

To make recommendations as to the procedures which should be introduced to permit review of administrative decisions affecting citizens, migrants and visitors which were or may have been based on, or influenced by, reports or information of an adverse kind furnished by the security intelligence services of the Australian Government.

To review the machinery for Ministerial and official control, direction and co-ordination of the activities of the intelligence and security services and make recommendations on any changes desirable, in particular to ensure that there are clear lines of responsibility and proper arrangements for accountability for funds.

To make recommendations on any other matters in relation to intelligence and security services to which the attention of the Commission is directed by the Prime Minister in the course of the inquiry.

Senator WITHERS:

-I might add that term of reference No. 5 states:

To make recommendations on any other matters in relation to intelligence and security services to which the attention of the Commission is directed by the Prime Minister in the course of the inquiry.

That was a very wide term of reference. 1 am advised that neither the present Prime Minister nor his predecessor gave any such directions to the Royal Commissioner. So the royal commission has stayed strictly within the terms of reference outlined in the document I have incorporated in Hansard for Senator Brown.

page 1676

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY ENDOWMENT FUND

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Science and Industry Endowment Act 1926 I present the audit of accounts of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30 June 1976.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1676

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANNUAL REPORT

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Department of Foreign Affairs annual report 1976.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1676

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO CHIROPRACTIC, OSTEOPATHY, HOMOEPATHY AND NATUROPATHY

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy-April 1977.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1676

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONFERENCE

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) on the National Aboriginal Conference.

page 1677

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969,I present the 7th annual report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1677

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on high voltage switchgear from India (anti-dumping).

page 1677

PRIMARY SCHOOL AT KATHERINE SOUTH, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969,I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Primary School atKatherine South, Northern Territory.

page 1677

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Motion (by Senator Missen) agreed to:

That-

The following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: Advisory Opinions by the High Court- Whether the Constitution should be amended to enable the High Court to give advisory opinions on important questions of law or fact arising out of legislation or other matters.

The Committee report to the Senate as soon as possible but not later than the last sitting day in September 1 977.

page 1677

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

In accordance with the provisions of the Australian National University Act 1 946, the Senate elect Senators Rae and James McClelland to be members of the Council of the Australian National University on and from 18 July 1977, and that they continue as members for a period of 3 years from that date.

page 1677

COUNCIL OF NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

In accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1900, the Senate elect Senator Davidson to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia on and from 19 August 1977, and that he continue as a member for a period of 3 years from that date.

page 1678

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, the Senate appoint Senators Chaney and Robertson to be members of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies on and from 18 July 1977 and that they continue as members for a period of 3 years from that date.

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1977-78 First Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Yesterday, after the announcement by the Leader of the Government (Senator Withers) of the arrangements made following further visits overseas by Government members, I had occasion to rise and seek leave to make a statement on that matter and to say that I was aghast that so many important Ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) were absent from Australia while Parliament was still in session. I should have gone on to sayperhaps I did not get that far- that this did not happen during the term of the Whitlam Government. The Prime Minister did not leave the country while the Parliament was in session because he thought it was his prime responsibility to be in Australia while Parliament was sitting.

Senator Archer:

– He was never here.

Senator McLAREN:

– I will come to that later. As I said, I was aghast that the country should be left leaderless because the Prime Minister was absent. These people have fled the country in a time of crisis in unemployment and at a time when we find that there is a great debate going on in the community because of the staff ceilings that have been placed on the Public Service. We find particularly within the area of social welfare that there are lengthy delays in payments to people who are entitled to receive welfare payments. There are long delays in processing the applications of people who qualify for an age or invalid pension. All these matters have reached a crisis situation, yet we find that members of this Government, which says that we must economise and try to set an example, have cleared out of the country.

I want to refer to some of the things that Mr Fraser said when he was the caretaker Prime

Minister. He said that Australia never again would have a tourist as a Prime Minister. He is fast catching up to what he accused Mr Whitlam of doing. On the same occasion he said that there would be no more expensive overseas junkets. We find now that the list of Ministers going on official overseas visits grows weekly as the Government finds that part of its responsibilities necessitates overseas travel by Ministers. Of course, the Labor Government realised that when it was in office but it was continually harassed and criticised because our Prime Minister, our Minister for Foreign Affairs and other leading members of the Cabinet went overseas because it was necessary to go. The present Prime Minister and, I think, the present Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, made a great story about how members of the former Government were wasting public money flitting about the country. We find now that they have realised that to run a government successfully in Australia, there must be close cooperation with countries in other parts of the world. They have found now that they have to go overseas, but they do not come in here and make any excuse or apology to the now official Opposition that they were wrong then and we were right, as they have had to admit that they were wrong and the Whitlam Government was right in the case of the referendum campaign. Of course they will not come forward and make that admission.

We find that there is a great problem with estimating the cost of trips undertaken by the Fraser Ministry. It is due to a change in policy by the present Government in requiring Ministers to use commercial aircraft. I have raised this matter at Estimates Committees because I think it is well known that when the previous Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, went on overseas trips he used the Australian flag carrier, our national airline Qantas. He went by Qantas aircraft.

Senator Baume:

– It was chartered.

Senator McLAREN:

– He chartered a Qantas aircraft. Senator Baume comes in. I am grateful for his assistance. Mr Whitlam chartered a Qantas aircraft. The whole cost was charged. We were able to see that cost because the charter was there.

What do we have under this Government? Mr Fraser, in the first instance, because he wanted an overnight sleep, did not intend to use Qantas. He intended to use a commercial aircraft and have a stopover in Singapore for the night, for a good night’s sleep, go on to Rome, meet his sister and lead her dog around the sporty spots of

Rome. All this has been reported in the Press. This is while Parliament is sitting. He is away on a vacation.

The whole crux of the matter, which I tried to follow up at the Estimates Committees, is the failure to get the true costs of the Prime Minister’s jaunts overseas. We were able to ascertain what it cost Mr Whitlam when he was Prime Minister, because he chartered a Qantas aircraft. What it cost was all there in one lump sum. Under this Government, Mr Fraser uses commercial aircraft when he goes.

I have directed some questions to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He has promised to provide me with the answers by the time we come back for the Budget session. I think my colleague in the other place, Mr Morris -

Senator Missen:

– Why repeat yourself?

Senator McLAREN:

– I would not have raised it if we had not got that Dorothy Dixer from Senator Young yesterday and the answer given immediately by Senator Withers. Of course it was a Dorothy Dixer.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I got the information out of my head.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Withers said that he got it out of his head. If he can come in here and have in his head this table of trips that we see in today’s Hansard he is a better man than I ever thought he was. Mr Fraser has people accompanying him on these trips. They are from various departments, and the charge for those people to go overseas is levied against each department. So it is very difficult to add up the total cost of Mr Fraser ‘s trips overseas and compare it with the cost of trips of Mr Whitlam.

Senator Missen:

– You will manage.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am hoping we will get that information. Sometimes it takes a very long time to get answers on these things. Often we get them when it is too late to pursue the matters at the Estimates Committees.

I rose today to express my concern at the way in which this country is being managed. I refer particularly to overseas trips by members of the Cabinet. It has been said to me by interjection across the chamber, by Senator Young and Senator Withers again today: ‘When are you going overseas?’

Senator Withers:

– When are you?

Senator McLAREN:

– I want to put on record that I have not had time this morning, because of other things that took place in the Parliament, to do the research to ascertain the number of trips that Senator Young has had overseas in the 6 years that I have been a senator. I can give my record. As yet I have not had one trip overseas either while the Parliament has been sitting or in recess. What I want to find out, and get placed on the record, is the number of times Senator Young has been overseas while the Parliament has been sitting and the number of times he has been overseas while it has been in recess. I would like to know that because of his interjections. I might pursue it a bit further because of a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal and find out how many other people on the Government side have made overseas trips. Before there was a change of government, under the old policy, certain trips were available to members of Parliament for study tours overseas. If we did not take them we were able to accumulate them to a certain degree. What do we find when we had a change of government? A lot of people lost all their entitlements. When we came back they were given back a very small percentage of those entitlements. I have in my possession a document which shows the overseas trips taken by a lot of present Government members. Most of those people used up all their overseas entitlements before the present Government came in and said that the entitlements were cancelled and we could start afresh. Many people in the Labor Party who did not know what was coming were not able to use their entitlements. I have that document. It is very revealing. It is not too good when people like Senator Young opposite and Senator Withers make some cross fire to me about when I am going overseas. I will go overseas in my own good time. When I go overseas I will put my trip to good purpose. When I come back I might be able to contribute something more to the Parliament.

Senator Maunsell:

– That will be a change.

Senator McLAREN:

– That is a judgment of what I have contributed in this Parliament as against what Senator Maunsell has contributed. We might argue that another day. I think it ill becomes honourable senators opposite to criticise and try to ridicule anybody on this side in regard to any overseas trips that we may make. If we have an entitlement to go overseas and we go, we should not be ridiculed.

The cross-fire which we had in this chamber yesterday, insinuating that members on this side of the Parliament go overseas for no purpose at all and members of the Government Parties stay at home, is completely wrong. As soon as I can get the information in regard to Senator Young I will take the first opportunity to have it incorporated in Hansard so that the people in South

Australia, about whom Senator Young was so concerned with his Dorothy Dix question to Senator Carrick today, can be informed as to how many times Senator Young has been out of this country in comparison with how many times Senator McLaren has been out of this country and who has been back in his own State in the parliamentary recess looking after his constituents and who has been overseas having a few trips around.

I might say, now that Senator Maunsell has come into the argument, that he was always a great critic of some of our best customers for primary products, and one of these countries was Russia; but when the Labor Government got into office and made overseas trips available, who was first cab off the rank to go to Russia? Who was the first man to put his name down to get a trip? It was none other than Senator Maunsell. Who was the man who stood up in this Parliament month after month criticising one of our best customers for all the wrong things he claimed they do? But immediately a Labor government gives an opportunity for members of Parliament to visit Russia, what happens? Senator Maunsell is the first cab off the rank to get over there. What was he trying to do?

Senator Georges:

– He is an improved character since.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course he is. He has now realised that there is a potential market in Russia for beef, in which he is very interested. He should not come in here and criticise that country. I think I have said all I need to say on this occasion. I have put it on record that the Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Industry and Commerce are absent from this country while the Parliament is still sitting. In my view their place is in the Parliament. If they wanted to go overseas they could quite easily have gone next week when the Parliament had dealt with all the business before it.

While I am on my feet I want to make a further reference to the whole pile of legislation which is coming into this Parliament in the next two or three days and which has to be considered. I think I mentioned this matter yesterday or last week. We have to deal with many Bills concerning primary industry without any time being given to the Parliament or to the party committees to consider the legislation which is of vital importance to primary industry. We have not had time to consult people in industry and to get their ideas, thoughts and reactions to the legislation. The legislation has to go through en masse. This is the wrong way to conduct the business. In my view the Senate ought to be sitting here next week to give proper consideration to that legislation.

We are told on many occasions by honourable senators opposite that this is a States House; that it is the House of review. How in the world will we be able to review legislation, a lot of which will not even come out of the other place until tomorrow or Thursday? We will be expected to sit up all night, if we are really to be the House of review which honourable senators opposite claim we are. In my times I have never known this chamber to be a House of review. If the government of the day has the numbers in this place the chamber is just a rubber stamp for the place. If the government of the day does not have the numbers in this place the chamber is a House of frustration for it. We found that occurring for 3 years while the Labor Party was in office. When the present government Parties have the numbers in this place it is a rubber stamp for what their Government does in the other place. No opportunity is given to the Opposition to make a proper review of the legislation which the Government is bringing in here. That is one of my great complaints. I will not be backward in telling the people out in the farming community and those who live in the country areas what is going on here, when I go back there next week.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1977. In this first reading debate I wish to refer to a number of newspaper articles which lead into a very serious subject. The Melbourne Truth, although it may be Victoria’s top selling weekly newspaper according to its own advertising, is not one of my favourite newspapers. It has been drawn to my attention that for 7 weeks running, from 2 April this year for 7 successive weeks, this newspaper has carried on its front pages and prominently throughout its news pages a number of accusations, a number of assertions. The first front page headline read: ‘Cancer Victim Saved ‘. This newspaper has set out to claim that there is in existence a new and important form of cancer therapy; that it is being run by a doctor who has been victimised; that this doctor has now set up in the Cook Islands; that something shameful is going on; and that his services are being restricted in the sense that we are not helping to run his service by giving blood and other things he needs.

Each issue of the Melbourne Truth makes extravagant claims. The issues claim that the man is not a quack. They claim that he is highly qualified. They claim that the Minister for

Health (Mr Hunt) is in some way recreant because he will not co-operate in giving to this doctor, now in the Cook Islands, the support he needs to treat Australians among others. The fact is that the stand taken by the Truth newspaper is almost impossible to comprehend. It has no basis in fact. What the Truth newspaper is doing is a cruel hoax upon many thousands of cancer victims throughout Australia.

There are few worse illnesses than cancer. One in five Australians will die of cancer. Almost all of us, personally or through someone we know, will have some contact with malignant disease. It is a cruel imposition on people to raise hopes which cannot be satisfied. It is a perversion of the morality of journalism to have a newspaper running a campaign for which there is no good basis and no justification. One must ask the question: Are the assertions, the headlines, the many items, the anecdotal stories of cures, the accusations against our Government and the testimonials in the Truth newspaper true? Do they represent some failure on the part of our Government and the New Zealand Government, which is also involved? Do they represent some grave injustice to a reforming medical practitioner? Or is there some other explanation of what is happening which is less complimentary to the practitioner, certainly less complimentary to the Truth newspaper and certainly less complimentary to journalism in this country?

There are 3 ways of treating cancer: Surgery, either to cure or to reduce the size of the tumour mass; deep X-ray therapy; or drugs. The drugs which we use for cancer basically are poisons. They poison the cancer cells a bit more than they poison the rest of the body. Their use is fraught with danger. They are extremely potent. They carry with them damage to the patient unless the people who use them are very careful. Anyone who uses these drugs for cancer treatment has to be in a place where safeguards can be applied, where the patient can be monitored and where good support is available.

The Messiah of cancer- or should I say ‘this quack’- referred to in the newspaper has set himself up in the Cook Islands. He has a clinic at Rarotonga. He is carrying out therapy- not with surgery, which would be bad enough, or with X-rays, but with these particularly dangerous drugs. They are well known to medicine. They are used quite extensively. He is carrying out the therapy in a quite adventurous way. He lacks laboratory support to do it safely. He lacks the treatment support to do it safely. Of course, in the Cook Islands there is something in it for him, as I shall demonstrate as I go on. Above all, I make the point that this man who is carrying out the treatment in Rarotonga is not a qualified medical practitioner. He is unqualified. He is by all accounts a quack and a charlatan.

I must pay tribute to the Minister for Health, who has attempted by way of Press releases to acquaint the Australian public with some of the facts. I must congratulate the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Canberra Times and other newspapers which have published some of the material setting out the facts to balance what the Melbourne Truth published.

In a Press release Mr Hunt gave a summary of the story concerning this person, Mr Vlastimil Brych. Not only did he give the facts but also he attached to his Press statement an absolutely damning indictment of the man and his methods which had been issued by the Medical Council of New Zealand. The Medical Council, as honourable senators would know, is the main disciplinary body existing in almost every English speaking country to control the practice of medicine and to discipline medical practitioners. It is this body which can recommend the striking of practitioners from the register. It hears complaints and it maintains standards. It is the watchdog of the profession. It is a body which is very careful in the way it acts. It is very loath to condemn. It is extremely careful in the procedures it follows and it is extremely aware of the proper recourse to law and to defence that should be available to anyone who is accused.

The document which the Medical Council issued, and which Mr Hunt has issued publicly, damns Mr Brych. The Council could not have issued the document earlier than it did in April this year because for 3 years legal proceedings were underway in an attempt to deregister this man. Time had to be allowed for him to appeal. When his appeal finally came to court he decided not to proceed. We wonder why. The reason is that he has not a leg to stand on. He is practising in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands. His patients are a band of people without hope- with advanced cancer. This man has set them up as prey for money-making activities. The Medical Council has set out quite- clearly that he is a liar who has claimed to hold degrees from Czechoslovakia that he does not hold.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What nationality is he? What passport does he hold?

Senator BAUME:

- Senator Mulvihill asks what nationality he is. This man left Czechoslovakia in 1968. He was accepted into New Zealand with all the goodwill that existed at that time. I take it that the honourable senator would agree with me that one bad person in no way reflects upon anyone else who escaped from Czechoslovakia at the same time nor on any other doctor who has come to practise in Australasia generally. Mr Brych is an exception in his evil and in the deceptions which he has practised. He has claimed a doctorate in medicine which he does not hold. He has claimed a Ph.D. which he does not hold. What he did not elect to tell until it was discovered was that he has been in prison a number of times. I will quote briefly from the statement issued by the Medical Council of New Zealand. It states: in fact Brych was in prison from late 1958 to late 1965 and again from mid- 1967 until early May of 1968.

I interpolate to say that is about the time he left Czechoslovakia. The statement goes on:

This covers the periods when Brych would have been attending medical school to obtain his qualifying degree, and higher institutions to obtain the equivalent of a Ph.D. In November of 1976 evidence was taken under New Zealand court procedure, using sworn testimony at a Court hearing in Brno attended by Mr David Morris, solicitor for the Medical Council, Professor Scott and Mrs Jane Anderson, a New Zealand diplomat from Vienna. Mrs Anderson attended the hearing at Brno to ensure that this was conducted in a fair and proper manner. Brych had the opportunity to be represented either by a lawyer from New Zealand or by someone appointed in Czechoslovakia. He did not take up this opportunity. 15 witnesses gave testimony and Brych ‘s criminal record was produced in Court and inspected by the three New Zealanders present. Two of Brych ‘s high school teachers testified that he had left school at the age of 1 7 years before gaining the educational qualifications to attend University. Brych’s first prison sentence in 1958 was for attempted murder but the charge was reduced on appeal to one of robbery with violence. The victim of Brych’s violence gave evidence at the Court hearing in Brno about the crime which led to Brych’s imprisonment for seven years, and the Court records relating to the charges were included in material submitted to the Supreme Court in Auckland, following the November 1 976 hearing at Brno.

So it goes on about how authorities attempted to rehabilitate him, how he went back to prison and how finally he came to New Zealand.

This man has claimed, and the Truth newspaper has published his claims, that he has done something which has never been done in the world before. He has claimed, and I quote from the newspaper, ‘to have saved more than 80 per cent of terminal cancer patients referred to him over 8 years’. He has also claimed that in a controlled trial on 800 terminal patients 580 survived. He further said:

There are no signs or symptoms of cancer after completing treatment.

It appears in fact that there are no trials or analyses of Mr Brych’s results. In fact the New Zealand authorities looked at the records in Auckland where this man had worked for some years. They selected from the records all evidence of the patients he had treated. They contacted the patients and found which ones were dead. They plotted them against the survival for ordinary treatment of cancer, and there is no extra survival from the treatment he gave. The man is a liar. He tells untruths. He is a villain. He has been to prison for crimes of violence. He is a forger. He is a charlatan. Of course the Medical Council of New Zealand wanted to strike him off the register. It did its best to assess his treatment. He claims there is some secret about it. It has not been assessed. Who suffers? The victims of cancer suffer because when they are desperate enough even a man like this might look attractive.

A further document from the Medical Council of New Zealand has come into my possession. It is not included among the documents which the Minister for Health in Australia made public. It is, however, an important document. It is a letter from the Chairman of the Medical Council of New Zealand to the Director-General of Health in Australia. It is a 4-page letter and I intend to read it because of the gravity of this case. It states:

Dear Dr Howells,

Although this letter has been prepared on behalf of the Medical Council of New Zealand, my action in writing to you has the strong endorsement of senior members of the medical profession in New Zealand generally and of doctors in the Auckland area particularly. A copy of this letter is being sent to Mr Hunt, your Minister of Health, and to Senator Margaret Guilfoyle, Minister for Social Security in the Federal Government. In addition, a similar letter will be sent to Mr J. Stewart, Minister of Health for New South Wales -

I gather that is meant to be the Honourable K. J. Stewart. The letter continues: and we are hoping that you, or one of the people mentioned in this paragraph, will give consideration to forwarding the contained information or an abstract thereof to the Senior Executives of Medibank and the private health insurance corporations in Australia for their further consideration. My Council feels that it has a moral obligation to inform relevant authorities in Australia about a number of aspects of what is known in New Zealand as the Brych affair. This matter has involved Australian patients for a number of years but, the implications to Australian doctors and patients changed dramatically as a result of a Supreme Court action in Auckland on 5 April 1977. 1 am enclosing a statement which was prepared for release to the media in New Zealand at the time of the Court hearing on 5 April.

That is the document to which I have already referred. The letter continues:

A copy of this document was given to an Australian reporter of Melbourne TRUTH at that time. This document was prepared by Professor P. J. Scott of the School of Medicine, University of Auckland, who had been asked by the Medical Council of New Zealand to investigate the background of a former Czechoslovakian refugee known as

Vlastimil or Milan Brych. The enclosed document was approved at a special meeting of the Medical Council held in Auckland on Sunday, 3 April. Also enclosed are two other documents which will be explained in the following paragraphs.

Essentially, Vlastimil Brych is a former Czechosolvakian refugee who was accepted by the Medical Council of New Zealand, upon his own sworn testimony, as having undergone a medical training in Czechoslovakia commencing in 1958. He left Czechoslovakia in 1968. Brych became a member of the staff of the Auckland Hospital Board institutions and from early 1972 onwards began to make extravagant claims about his ability to cure cancer patients, by a secret remedy of his own. Brych has never disclosed his methods, never published any scientific papers, nor presented any scientific evidence to the medical profession nor to any other scientific organisation. In response to complaints laid against him by the Division of Medicine of the Auckland Hospital .. . his background was investigated by the Medical Council during 1974 and he was struck off the New Zealand Medical Register in November of 1974 on the basis that he had fraudulently claimed to hold medical degrees. A long and complicated legal process followed which ended on 5 April 1977 when Brych withdrew his appeal against being struck off the register. Brych himself had moved to Rarotonga in the Cook Islands during March, and he was not in Auckland on 5 April, nor has he returned since then.

In addition to the charge that he had falsely claimed to have undergone University training and to have obtained medical degrees, Brych was facing a series of 23 other charges laid by the Division of Medicine from Auckland. (These charges related to a number of alleged instances of disgraceful behaviour and non-professional conduct.) Now that Brych has left New Zealand, and has been struck off the Medical Register, the Medical Council does not have power to investigate these 23 charges or to take further action. While still in New Zealand, Brych had been publicly named as a liar and there a number of well documented examples of his falsehoods.

Australian patients have been coming to New Zealand for treatment by Brych, probably from 1972 onwards. At least one of the private insurance firms in Australia made inquiries about his treatment and professional behaviour some time in 1974. At that time, Brych remained on the Medical Register of New Zealand, pending his appeal. Australian doctors who referred patients to Brych at that stage would not have been breaking ethical or other professional rules of conduct. Even at that stage a number of doctors from Australia expressed grave anxiety concerning Brych ‘s activities.

Brych has now set himself up in the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands Medical Act was altered specifically to allow for his registration. This was done despite the fact that the Division of Medicine in Auckland had warned the Cook Islands Medical Council and their Minister of Health of the likely outcome of legal proceedings in New Zealand. The Medical Act of the Cook Islands was altered before 5 April 1977. The Chairman of their Medical Council has resigned in protest. We have information from journalists and, in two instances, from patients and their relatives who have returned from the Cook Islands that Brych is working with unsatisfactory facilities. The hospital has no automatic suction, oxygen or similar amenities at the bedside of the patients. There are no elaborate laboratory or x-ray facilities. The blood transfusion services are poorly developed and there have already been requests to the Auckland branch of the Blood Transfusion Service for assistance.

I interpolate that requests for assistance have been made to this country also, and quite properly the Minister for Health has declined to send blood for an unregistered person or a person we consider to be inappropriately qualified. The letter continues:

As far as New Zealand is concerned. Brych is no longer a registered medical practitioner and the medical profession in this country may not refer patients to him. We would presume that the same would apply to referrals from doctors in Australia. We have learned from one member of the University of Otago staff who was recently in Melbourne and also from news reports that a Dr Hastings, who has rooms in Collins Street, Melbourne, is actively promoting Brych ‘s activities in the Cook Islands and is assisting in the organisation for sending patients from Australia to Rarotonga for treatment by Brych.

I understand that he is a very young doctor, recently graduated and certainly not an expert in any field of medical practice. The letter goes on to say:

Brych continues to charge large sums of money and there are varying estimates of the amounts of these sums which represent straight profit. The President of the Cook Islands Medical Association, Dr Tom Davis, who is an Otago University Medical graduate, has deduced that up to half the fees charged may be regarded as clear profit. Brych lacks the facilities in the Cook Islands to make critical diagnostic decisions, let alone to check the diagnoses on patients who arrive there from elsewhere. He lacks the facilities for careful monitoring of patients on highly dangerous cytotoxic drugs or for correction of trouble such as bone marrow depression. He once again has access to cytotoxic drugs free from restrictions, now that he is out of New Zealand. (As a nonspecialist he had access to such drugs in New Zealand provided the patient paid the full cost, but because he was not a registered specialist he did not have automatic access to these drugs on the Social Security scheme after he was dismissed from the Auckland Hospital Board institutions.)

As we have already mentioned, two of the patients who have gone from Auckland to the Cook Islands have returned disillusioned with the state of affairs there as far as Brych ‘s management of patients is concerned. One of these patients has told us that the Australians, who greatly outnumber the New Zealand patients, believe that the insurance authorities in Australia will be meeting their charges. These costs have escalated steeply over the past six months, from approximately $45.00 a treatment to $60.00, then to $300.00 and now to approximately $680.00. I am enclosing a copy of a document which is distributed to patients going to Rarotonga to the Oncology Centre where they will be treated by Brych. This document was given to us by a newspaper reporter and one of the two patients who nas returned to Auckland.

We are distressed that Brych avoided the major Court hearing which would have taken place in Auckland on 9 May. had he not withdrawn his own appeal. He has now transferred his activities, which my Council regard as highly dangerous to patients, to a small Island community in the South Pacific. He has successfully caught the ear of at least one of your national newspapers and we understand that television programmes favourable to Brych have been prepared or may have been shown already in Australia. The whole cycle of Brych ‘s charlatanism appears to be repeating itself this time involving Australia.

We feel it is important that the relevant authorities in Australia, including the Executives of your insurance corporations, know the facts regarding this man. My Council feels it is important to stress that at no stage was Brych granted specialist status in New Zealand and at no stage did he act as a consultant, even while in the employ of the Auckland

Hospital Board. His claims to have links with foreign governments and major overseas drug firms can very easily be shown to be false. Similarly, a number of affidavits which have been prepared on his behalf, including some prepared in Australia, can very easily be shown to contain false information. It is again unfortunate that these affidavits were not presented in open Court in New Zealand where their falsehoods could have been demonstrated.

Like all cancer quacks, Brych does not produce any figures or facts. This is one of the reasons why he has survived so long as a cancer therapist. The only information we can obtain to counter the claim that he has some miraculous secret method of treating cancer, is to study survival times in patients diagnosed by members of the medical profession in New Zealand who subsequently transferred to Brych, and whose death certificates are available to us. The enclosed graph is based on a careful analysis of this type prepared by members of the Oncology Department at Auckland Hospital.

The letter goes on to outline the various figures. I will not read them out to the Senate. I simply say that there is no evidence of any improved survival for those patients. The letter goes on to say:

A file prepared by the Auckland Police has been sent to Police Headquarters in Wellington for their consideration and for perusal by the Solicitor General and his staff. It is possible that the New Zealand Department of Justice or our Police Department may request an extradition order against Brych to bring him back to New Zealand to face criminal charges. However, this decision will take some time.

In addition to yourself and the people mentioned in the first paragraph of this letter, information concerning Brych is being sent to a number of individuals and groups in Australia. In particular, I understand that Fellows and Members of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in Auckland are submitting material through their President, Dr A. O. M. Gilmour, with a request that Brych ‘s activities be drawn to the attention of the Therapeutics Advisory Committee in Australia.

My Council and I trust that you will appreciate the very real concern we hold for the well being of Australian patients who may quite understandably, either take or be persuaded to take the decision to travel to Rarotonga for treatment by Brych. My Council is satisfied that this man has no University or medical training and that he represents a very real danger to patients who have cancer, and to those who think they may have cancer. For those patients who have cancer, he can offer only a form of cytotoxic drug treatment which cannot possibly be controlled according to the best modern criteria in view of the facilities he is occupying. He has no access to radiotherapy. He is working in an environment devoid of the normal supporting specialties. Therefore, patients with potentially treatable disease are exposing themselves to very real dangers.

If you felt that further documentation of our statements is required, I would put you in contact with colleagues in Auckland who could add detail to the general outline I have set out in this letter. I must ask you to excuse the length of this letter but I felt that this initial account of our viewpoint should be set out in this manner. As you will realise, your counterpart in New Zealand, Dr John Hiddlestone, is a member of the Medical Council of New Zealand and he is fully aware of the facts and opinions contained in this letter.

Your sincerely, N. F. GREENSLADE Chairman

Medical Council of New Zealand

There can be no greater indictment of any kind of crook than that set out in that account. The New Zealanders have gone to extreme lengths to document the falsehood of almost every claim put forward by this man- and still Australians are going to Rarotonga. They are putting themselves in danger. They are being fleeced.

I remind honourable senators that this Dr Brych recommends 6 treatments. Since he went to the Cook Islands the basic cost per treatment has gone up to $680. If the patient survives to have all 6 treatments it will cost him more than $4,000. The hospital bed charge is $50 a day. The rehabilitation unit bed charge is $35 a day. I am informed that on commencing treatment patients are requested to pay a deposit of $2,000 to the Oncology Centre, to be offset against treatment. This initial deposit would cover the first two or three treatments. The other unfortunate thing is that, as our present Health Insurance Act is written, the patients can claim some benefits. From the patients’ point of view I do not mind that they receive some rebate; but we should not be offering benefits for treatment by a quack, who is so dangerous and so unscrupulous. It should be made known to Australians who go there that the rebate is only a fraction of the cost. The cost of each treatment is $680, and honourable senators will remember that it is estimated that at least half of that amount is clear profit. The rebate on that $680 is $ 135.

The New Zealand Medical Council would not have acted lightly. It has sifted every fact. It has examined every aspect of this man’s background. The interesting question is: Why has the Cook Islands registered him? I regret to say that, apart from anything else, it will be a very lucrative venture because it is bringing money into that country. But it is blood money. It should be a matter of shame to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health of the Cook Islands that they have altered their medical Act specifically to register this charlatan. It is to the credit of the chairman of their medical council that he would not stand for it and resigned his position.

No one wants to prevent patients from receiving the very best treatment. No one wants to prevent any real advance in treatment from becoming well known. But we are concerned that more and more of the Australians who are going there are returning dissatisfied. I took the trouble today to telephone some of my medical friends. Many of them have patients who have been to the Cook Islands and come back dissatisfied. They have told some horrific tales, including the tale of a man who was placed on an aeroplane for the return trip and who died a short while later while the flight was in progress.

The fact is that Mr Brych is not a doctor. He is, we know, a charlatan and a criminal. But let us examine the possibility that his treatment could be effective. If it were effective, one would ask: Why has he not published his reports? Why has he not shared with all the suffering people in the world what he has discovered, the treatment that he has developed? Why has he not written up his results? Why, when his results from New Zealand are examined, do they not show any benefit? Only if one realises that we are dealing with a criminal conspiracy to make money out of suffering can one understand the present situation. Only then do the facts fit in: A man with a criminal background, known to be a perjurer, known to have obtained registration by fraud, known to be unqualified, known to have given unsatisfactory service in New Zealand, known to have withdrawn his appeal so that he would not have to face any cross-examination in court; a man for whom special arrangements somehow were made in the Cook Islands, arrangements which bring no credit upon that country; a man who has started to charge increased prices now that he has a captive clientele. One can only wonder that this man has prospered when he is so clearly unqualified to do so.

My final comment is that this seems to be the way in which the quacks always work. There is always a magical cure. Conventional therapy is always wrong for not having recognised this cure. It is always a secret cure. The secret is never released, and it never stands up to examination. These people, whether they are selling lantana juice, whether they are burying people in manure or whether they are like Mr Brych in Raratonga and are just ripping off the innocent, they claim victimisation. I should like to see people with advanced malignant diseases properly treated, given some comfort and the best available therapy. If there is something in this man’s treatment, let him publish it and share it. Let him make it available to the whole world. Of course, there is nothing in his treatment except a massive rip off.

It is just unthinkable that we should do anything to support this man’s activities, that we should send blood gathered from volunteers in Australia to help him in Raratonga, or that we should do anything to improve facilities for travel to his clinic. It is unthinkable that we should extend medical benefit rebates to include the cost of his treatment. It is highly desirable that we should do all in our power to restrict the extra suffering which he is threatening for Australians. Mr Brych says he wants to visit Australia in 3 weeks. It is said that some of our television stations want to interview him. They should remember when they do so that they are interviewing a perjurer and a publicly branded liar. One wonders what they hope to get from him. For my part, I do not want him in Australia at all. I hope there is some way in which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) or the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) can examine whether he is a desirable visitor to this country. I believe it would be of considerable benefit to exclude him from this country, and to subject his cruel and extravagant claims to the closest scrutiny with a view to making his services unavailable to the innocent sufferers in Australia.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Last night I moved a motion for the adjournment of the debate on the first reading of Supply Bill (No. 1) 1977-78. 1 am pleased I did so as it gave Senator Baume the opportunity to give to the Senate and the people of Australia information of vital importance. It gave him the opportunity to expose a person who can only be described as a desperate scoundrel. Perhaps Senator Baume deserved a better audience than he had within the Senate. It is a pity it is not a day when the proceedings of the Senate are broadcast so that the information he has given here could receive wider publicity.

I want to indicate to the Senate one or two things concerning procedures in the Senate which have troubled me for some time and which I feel need to be corrected. Firstly, I think it would be agreed by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber that attendance in the Senate chamber has not been the best. We have worked with a spirit of co-operation and, realising the amount of work honourable senators have to do outside the chamber, have refrained from calling for quorums. We have not insisted either that the Government parties are responsible for maintaining the House, that they must make certain that at all times a quorum is present. Had we been, shall I say, less than cooperative we possibly would have called for quorums from time to time. Surely honourable senators on both sides of the chamber will accept that if the attendance in the chamber drops below 1 5 senators we ought to attract the attention of the President or the Chairman to that position. I am not going to come back after the recess and make that announcement as though I had come back fresh from a rest.

Senator Withers:

-A rest from what?

Senator GEORGES:

-Not from a trip overseas. Senator McLaren might suggest that a few of us are going overseas. But I will be coming back fresh from the frustrations of this place and will be starting to call for quorums. I should like to make it clear that if the numbers in the chamber drop below 15 senators I shall be one who will call for quorums.

Senator Grimes:

– Why do you not call one now?

Senator GEORGES:

-I am tempted to do so now.

Senator Grimes:

– Would you like an audience?

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes. Mr Acting Deputy President, I attract you attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed.) The temptation was too great to resist when it was suggested that I might commence carrying out my intention. I was saying that on both sides of the chamber it had become evident that attendance in the chamber is not as it should be and that, realising that it is the Government’s responsibility to maintain the House, we on this side of the chamber could frequently call for quorums in order to embarrass the Government and to interfere with the work that undoubtedly goes on outside the chamber.

The point I really was making was that we will have to maintain some level of attendance and it would be reasonable to suggest to the Senate that if the attendance falls below 15 senators a quorum should be called for for the benefit of both sides of the chamber. I was merely indicating that when we come back for the Budget session it is my intention to call for such quorums. Senator Grimes put it into my mind that I should call for a quorum on myself as there were not 1 5 senators in the chamber and so start the record from today. It may be said that I have suffered some disappointment today and am kicking at the first shin I can find. That is not the case.

Senator Coleman:

– You were not up for election today, Senator.

Senator GEORGES:

-No, as it turned out 1 was not. If I had performed 2 weeks ago the way I am performing today perhaps I would have been up for election. With those few words, I think I have made my point on the first reading of Supply Bill (No. 1 ). I again congratulate Senator Baume for bringing before the Senate a very important matter. I think there is justification for calling for a quorum when an important statement is being made by an expert in the medical profession against a person who really is endangering the health of many people in our society.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I was prompted to enter this debate by the concluding remarks by Senator Baume when he talked about controlling people who enter Australia from New Zealand. I think my comments will be apt because my colleague from South Australia, Senator McLaren, earlier drew comparisons between certain innovations that the Labor Government had introduced and the fact that many of them were now operating in a diluted fashion. I suppose one might say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think we were enthralled with the story presented by the honourable senator from New South Wales about a bogus medico. We agree that there has to be more effective control in this respect. I asked about this gentleman and the passport he possessed because when the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) was the Minister for Immigration in a previous government, the New Zealand Minister for Immigration, Mr Colman, came here. They conferred with people in Australia who were interested in immigration. They were all set to introduce an identity card system for people coming across the Tasman Sea. I know that it is repugnant that means to travel between Australia and New Zealand has been far too easy and far more flexible than between most countries. The fact is that with the advent of white collar crime, Australia cannot continue to be an oasis for spivs to come here to make a quick dollar. There is no doubt that the episode outlined by Senator Baume justified the efforts of Mr Clyde Cameron and Mr Colman to institute an identity card system. I hasten to add that the cost of an identity card would have been much cheaper than the normal passport fee. An election was brewing in New Zealand. The tourist organisations in Australia and New Zealand mounted an offensive. They said it was a transgression of civil rights and a lot of other shibboleths were put forward.

I am satisfied, and not merely from what Senator Baume said, that there have been many cases of big operators in the white collar crime sector who have been able to get away with all sorts of lurks. Inevitably, despite the fact that we have governments of different political complexion in Australia and Wellington, the situation must be tightened. I am not referring only to wrongdoing New Zealanders and Australians travelling across the Tasman Sea. The fact of the matter is that many Commonwealth nationals- quite apart from people from other parts of the world- go to New Zealand and use New

Zealand as a launching pad to cross the Tasman Sea to Australia in order to carry out some of their various commercial buccaneering operations. If we study various capital offences, we find that Mr Weston, who was gunned down in Sydney and who was in the top bracket of bank robbers, came from New Zealand. There have been other cases where criminals have crossed the Tasman Sea. There is not sufficient surveillance.

I have in front of me an informative article out of the Nation which is a progressive United States journal. I could not help but wonder, with due deference to people who have been involved in political struggles in Europe, whether we are even-handed when we define people as political refugees. I am not referring only to the Dubcek era which coincided with the arrival in Australia of this gentleman from Prague. When the Labor Government was in office and was endeavouring to bring to Australia victims of the military junta in Santiago, that junta tried to increase the number of those refugees by including a few child mutilators and other people like that. The gentleman about whom Senator Baume spoke is not in that category but he obviously is a dubious personality. The article in the Nation suggests that in the United States of America at the moment one has only to say that one is a victim of a government of the left and no questions are asked. One is admitted straight away.

I say respectfully that whether it was a Labor government or a Nationalist government in New Zealand and particularly a Liberal government in Australia, we have been a little easy. We have been conned at times by people who purported to be victims of totalitarianism of the left. Yet, when other people seek to come to Australia who have been suffering in countries such as the Philippines, which is governed by that villain Marcos, or whether they are the victims of LatinAmerican military juntas, we seem to adopt a rigid attitude to their entry.

I make a couple of comments in relation to the remarks of Senator Baume. I agree that our Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) should confer with the Minister responsible for Immigration in the Muldoon Government. They should come up with a plan that would epitomise the vision of the honourable Clyde Cameron and the honourable James Coleman. I believe that the Coleman-Cameron plan should be taken up by the Australian Minister and his equivalent Minister across the Tasman Sea. We would certainly then be able to curb this situation. If this quack- Senator Baume used other terms in relation to this man- wants to come to Australia, I believe that at the moment, with our easy visa system, we would have great difficulty stopping him. I think that is important. Another aspect of the story is that sometimes people give a spiel about how they have been persecuted in their own country. It does not matter whether their government was to the far left or to the far right, some of these people were in gaol not for political crimes but for other reasons. I think this is a justification -

Senator Lajovic:

– Yes.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I see that I have one convert opposite. Perhaps I have two. I hope that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) will convey my remarks to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to get a decision.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– Australia has the national brucellosis eradication program aimed at achieving provisional free status from brucellosis by 1984. The date 1984 has been set to conform with export markets overseas. It has been indicated by the United States of America that by 1984 it expects that the program it has carried out will be completed and it then intends not to purchase cattle from overseas that are not brucellosis free. That represents 0.2 per cent of current imports. In the last few years, Australia has been carrying out a lengthy campaign- a large amount of money has gone into it- to bring about this situation by 1984. Australian cattle by that date should be free of brucellosis. I am afraid that as time passes, by 1 984, when our cattle should be brucellosis free, Australia will not be in that situation. The result will be that when we are looking for export markets for beef overseas we may well be frustrated. Some States are much better off than others at present. Some are carrying out a more sustained eradication program than other States. Some States have many cattle infected with brucellosis.

The matter I wish to speak about this afternoon relates to the Northern Territory. I do not think that many people realise the serious situation that exists in the Northern Territory today. I refer to the large number of cattle in the Northern Territory. According to reports coming in, people in the Northern Territory have not really been aware of the serious problem of brucellosis until the last few months. Recently, a beef conference was held in Alice Springs. Many interstate people attended it and many departmental officers presented reports. In the last couple of weeks during Estimates Committee hearings when officers of the Department of the Northern

Territory appeared it became obvious that there were many serious problems in the Northern Territory. Perhaps it is not generally known that in the Northern Territory in 1972 there were 1 105 000 cattle. By 1976 the total had increased to 1 795 000 cattle, an increase of some 688 000 head of cattle or a 62 per cent increase in the last 4 years, I stress with my knowledge of the Northern Territory, that that is a conservative estimate of the cattle numbers.

This increase has happened for many reasons. Beef markets throughout Australia and overseas have dropped away and the price paid for cattle has decreased, particularly in the Northern Territory which is a long way from the markets. The fact that the market price has dropped to an uneconomic price, that transport costs of cattle have increased by 98 per cent in the last few years and that labour and fuel costs have increased has brought about a situation in which many cattle stations in the Northern Territory are now operating uneconomically. Many are operating at a loss with the result that less and less cattle are being turned off in this area. It is a fact that some people have walked off their leases. Others who have not walked off their leases- I am speaking particularly of the smaller stations- cannot afford to continue to operate their leases efficiently because they do not have the financial resources. Employees have been put off. This has brought the proper running of these cattle stations to an end and in many cases the owner or the manager is merely sitting on the property, unable to provide proper stock control. For instance, mustering is not carried out as it should be, branding is not being carried out, fencing and all the usual maintenance repairs on a station are not being carried out.

Because cattle are not being sold and there is no market for them, there has been a rapid increase in the number of cattle in the Northern Territory, but without proper stock control. So at this time when we are looking forward to 1 984 as a time when Australia should be brucellosis free, we are seeing a situation in which instead of progress being achieved the eradication program is dropping away. In answer to a question I asked on 24 May regarding bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Ian Sinclair, said:

The bovine Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Program in the Northern Territory may be in jeopardy if the depressed state of the pastoral industry continues much longer. Properties which commenced test and slaughter before the slump and had improved fencing, watering and yarding facilities, will be able to continue to eradicate these diseases effectively in 1 977. While one of the major pastoral companies in the Top End is to enter the scheme to eradicate tuberculosis this year, generally small resident owner properties with limited cattle handling facilities, fencing and finance will be unable to enter the scheme until the industry recovers and/or Government assistance is granted.

It is estimated, after looking at the debate on the report of Estimates Committee E over the last few weeks, that some $2,700m is to be made available for rural adjustment through primary producer board loans. Of that amount $ 1,450m is for rural adjustment, $600,000 for beef carry on loans and $650,000 for processing and developing expenditure. What appears to have been overlooked- or if it has not been overlooked then it is this Government’s intention not to take this action-is the fact that there is no freight subsidy for the transport of cattle. It was pointed out to the Government a few years ago that problems were being experienced by the industry. Cattle numbers were increasing and the freight rates charged for transporting cattle to the markets were so high that it was uneconomical for the small pastoral leases to muster their cattle and sell them. At that time it became necessary for the good of the country that a freight subsidy be introduced. This was done with the result that to date $278,739 has been made available to transport some 90 000 head of cattle. Of this amount $190,370 was for road transport, $49,843 was for transport on Queensland railways and $38,526 was for transport on Australian National Railways. Payments were made to 1 10 producers. At present several claims are still under examination. But the situation in the Territory has not changed. This subsidy was of considerable assistance to the beef producers of the Northern Territory and enabled them to some degree to shift cattle from the Territory into Queensland and into South Australia. At least the subsidy gave them some assistance in the cost of transporting their cattle, but it is not now available to them. One wonders why the Government has not seen fit to introduce a freight subsidy for this coming year.

Let me deal with the number of cattle in the Northern Territory and particularly in the Alice Springs area, which is an arid area with an annual rainfall averaging 8 to 10 inches. Fortunately the annual rainfall in this area over the last few years has been averaging 20 inches, 24 or 28 inches, and this of course has saved the day for the producers. It has been estimated that the safe carrying capacity in this area is about 280 000 to 290 000 cattle. A report on the Northern Territory pastoral industry which was made available within the last 4 weeks said that the current cattle population in the Alice Springs district is reckoned to be 5 17 000 head, of which between 320 000 and 350 000 head are estimated to be females over 12 months. Taking the lower figure of 320 000 and a conservative calving rate of 50 per cent, we can expect an increase of 160 000 head through calving before the end of the next summer. I would say that on a conservative estimate the number of cattle in the Alice Springs area could be about 550 000 to 600 000 head at that time. Bear in mind that the safe carrying capacity of this area is 280 000 to 290 000.

Senator Georges:

– It is a desperate situation, is it not?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– It is a desperate situation. It is not only a desperate situation as far as cattle producers are concerned but also as far as the country is concerned because as I have said before, it is most fortunate that we have had such good seasons- the best on record- to enable the area to carry 100 per cent more than the normal safe carrying capacity. This has been brought about because of good seasons which we have had for the past 5 years. On the law of averages, this being an arid area, these good seasons must cease. This could very well happen in this coming year. There is also the problem of bushfires which are difficult to control in this area. It could well be that we will find the centre of Australia going into a dry period, possibly into a drought period, at a time when it is carrying some 600 000 head of cattle when there should be only some 280 000 to 290 000. Not only is this a serious situation for the beef producer but it is also a most serious situation for this country when so many head of cattle are being carried in this area at a time when they cannot be sold or removed. The over-grazing could have extremely serious consequences.

I am speaking not only of the Alice Springs area. The Barkly tableland district turned off 76 000 head in the 1975-76 financial year from a population estimated to be 459 000. The population increase has not been so dramatic in this area for various reasons, such as some large stations acting as depots, some of the stations being able to continue to transfer stores to their channel properties, the Queensland abattoirs continuing to take cull cows and some stations continue a speying program. A survey of the Victoria River district estimated the cattle population to be 498 000 head. In the 1975-76 year 28 000 head were turned off to Western Australia, the Katherine abattoirs and overseas. This turn-off is far less than the natural increase, and the district is thought to have a cattle population excess of about 100 000 head. I refer also to the livestock returns in the Darwin and Gulf districts which indicate a cattle population of 3 1 9 000 head. The turn-off was only 1 1 000. So, overall, there is a rapidly increasing cattle population where the natural increase far exceeds the turn-off to the various States. This is an extremely serious situation.

I return to the brucellosis problem. The summary of the results of the brucellosis campaign in the Northern Territory over the years, commencing in 1 965-66, shows that the prevalence in that year was 8 per cent. The rate has varied; it has gone up and down over the years. In 1966-67 it was 0.3 per cent; in 1967-68 it was 1.1 per cent; in 1969-70 it was 12.8 percent. In the following 3 years it was 9.8 per cent, 4.2 per cent and 5. 1 per cent respectively. In 1973-74 it was 0.7 per cent. That rate was getting within sight of the projected aim for 1984 of 0.2 per cent. But then, in 1974- 75, the prevalence rose to 1.1 per cent. In 1975- 76 it was 0.9 per cent; and last year, 1976- 77, it was 1.3 per cent. I do not know whether it is fair to compare the rate of 1 .3 per cent in 1976-77 with the rate of 1.1 per cent in 1 967-68, which shows that the rate is higher than it was 10 years ago.

Perhaps, for some reason, it is not a fair comparison; but perhaps it is a fair comparison. If it is a fair comparison and if Australia’s future depends on it being free of brucellosis and tuberculosis by 1984, the fact that the cattle populations of the Northern Territory are out of control for various reasons- the excess of natural increase over turn-off; the fact that the cattle stations in the Northern Territory at present, at least, are not viable economically in many instances; costs are defeating the operator; he is not in a position to control his herds properly; and mustering is allowed to slip by- means that this eradication program must break down. The Northern Territory is in a desperate situation. This applies not only to the Northern Territory; it will affect the whole of Australia. The point I am making today is that if we wish to protect our export marketthe big question these days is whether it will be the European Economic Community, Japan or sending live cattle to northern countries such as the United States of America- we have to take more notice of this desperate situation. Overcoming this problem is beyond many cattle producers because, as I have said, they are in a poor economic situation. I believe that in the national interest the Government must become more aware and take more action. Because of the poor economic situation of these people I believe that the Government must assist in the mustering of cattle and in the program of eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis.

I believe also that this is not the time to remove the freight subsidy for this industry. This subsidy made quite a difference to the producer in that it allowed some 90 000 to 100 000 head to be transported to Queensland and South Australia. But now, when the producers are in the most serious situation, there is no plan- at least I see no announcement of it anywhere, and in discussions with departmental officers in Estimates Committee E recently there was no indication that a freight subsidy was forthcoming, to enable the cattle to be shifted out. It is a must that a freight subsidy be provided for this industry. I do not think I can say anything further on this matter. As I have said before, in the space of some 4 years the cattle population in the Northern Territory has increased by 680 000 head, or 62 per cent. I draw the nation’s attention to the fact that this is not merely a problem for the Northern Territory; it is one of which Australia must take note.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- A number of honourable senators have spoken in this debate, commenceing with Senator McLaren. I say gently to Senator McLaren, in passing- without wishing to get into a disputation about who travels, how often and wherethat if he looks at the pooling arrangements that Qantas Airways Ltd has, he will find that Qantas often gets as much money out of a person travelling on an airline other than Qantas that is also in the pooling arrangement as it would get if that person had travelled with Qantas itself. Therefore, a person should never be criticised because he does not actually travel on the exact aircraft. I have never been able to understand this pooling arrangement, but it is an arrangement whereby most airline operators are not disadvantaged in spite of the alleged competition to attract passengers.

With regard to the other honourable senators who have spoken, I will draw the attention of the relevant Ministers to the comments that they have made and ask them to write directly, if need be, to the honourable senators who have spoken in this debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-The Opposition does not intend to engage in any lengthy debate at the second reading stage of this Supply Bill. Some Opposition senator’s have spoken at the first reading stage and some

Government senator’s also have contributed. Both sides made worthy speeches, if I might say so. Senator Kilgariff’s speech outlined a problem in the Northern Territory. After hearing him, I must admit that it is a very serious problem, not only for the Northern Territory but also for the southern States. Unless brucellosis is brought under control, the whole of our meat export industry will suffer and it will aggravate the problem which Senator Kilgariff outlined.

When I see the words ‘Supply Bill’ I have a kind of Pavlovian response. I am reminded of the problems faced by the Labor Government, when it was in office, in having the Supply Bills passed and the obstruction with which it was faced. On the first occasion, at this time of the year, the Labor Government was delayed and obstructed and then, at a later stage, it faced the same sort of obstruction. I am wistful about this matter. I wish that we had the numbers.

Senator Chaney:

– This is called turning the other pig’s cheek.

Senator GEORGES:

-Not for me. I am a pacifist, but only in matters of war. In matters of politics I am not a pacifist. I would respond in kind if we had the numbers and I could convince the rest of my colleagues. Most certainly the Government would not get Supply and it would have to go to the people at the moment of its greatest unpopularity.

Senator Withers:

– I thought your Party did not believe in the Senate exercising that power.

Senator GEORGES:

– I believe in the Senate’s exercising the power that it arrogantly took unto itself until such time as the people rebel and take away from the Senate that power. The only way in which that will be done is for the Senate to misuse continually its powers until the people are aware of that misuse. I will not say much more on this matter. We would like to proceed with the program today. From time to time we merely fill in time to allow certain procedures to be sorted out. Mr President, while you are in the chair, you deserve a reasonable audience. Therefore, I attract your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed.) I wish the Bills a speedy passage.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have not been able to give attention to the Bill. I ask whether any item is provided in this Bill for Advance to the Treasurer. If so, what amount is it?

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The amount is $100m. Without being provocative, I mention that the honourable senator will recall that it is Tar less than the previous Government provided. I think when we went out in 1972 it was $40m. I think in the previous 3 years it rose to $200m or more. I think it was $250m. This time it has been cut back to $ 100m.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– That does not sound like an improvement. Since the question has been raised and since the previous Government has been criticised, it is important. Am I correct in stating that the figure given was $ 1,000m?

Senator Withers:

-It was $ 1 00m.

Senator GEORGES:

– I beg your pardon. I was thinking in Arabian terms. If it were $l,000m I would make the point that when we speak of such sums of money- we are rapidly becoming adapted to such sums- perhaps the criticisms made in the past were unwarranted.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I suppose the same figure is in Supply Bill (No. 2). That is $200m for 5 months. That looks at about $400m expected to be approved for Advance to the Treasurer for the whole year. I simply register my view that that is far too much and gives rise to the payment of amounts such as the ones to which I objected last week. They are not proper items in any circumstances for payment out of the Advance to the Treasurer. I refer to the payment of long leave to retiring judges and the arrangements by which the re-engagement of public servants who retire on superannuation can be facilitated. I will not delay the Committee now. There will be enough difficulty this week on other matters. I just wanted it registered that this amount must be reduced, in my view.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1691

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1977-78

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Withers:

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I have not much to say on this Bill. The Senate having passed Supply Bill (No. 1), Supply Bill (No. 2) is now a routine matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1691

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Senate has before it 4 Bills, namely the States Grants (Advanced Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Universities Assistance) Amendment Bill. These Bills are designed to amend previous legislation to provide supplementary cover of cost increases which have occurred since the programs covered by the Bills were originally announced. As such, the Opposition will be supporting the Bills. However, we find it an occasion on which we can give some thought to the current position of education in the community. 1 would not anticipate, nor do I propose to make, any high powered contribution to this debate because we are not dealing with the substance of Federal payments to the States in respect of education but with comparatively lesser amounts involved in what has become known as cost supplementation. I think it is fair to say that there is great concern and uncertainty in the community about the way this Government is handling its education policies, lt would be idle to deny that throughout the country spokesmen in the education area are expressing the gravest concern as to the Government’s intentions in this area. I will say more on that later.

The Bills themselves provide for these cost supplementation programs in relation to the Government’s total education programs. The principle of cost supplementation was introduced by the Labor Government in 1974 to ensure that the programs of each of the education commissions would be able to be maintained at their proper values in real terms. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has made some previous announcements which give us cause for doubt as to the future of cost supplementation. As I understand it, we have no guarantees that the Government will maintain the cost supplementation principle after 1977. If that is not done, we can assume that all the commissionswhich involve schools and colleges, both advanced education colleges and universitieswill find themselves in a difficult position. I draw to the attention of the Senate a statement which the Minister made on 4 November 1976. He said:

The changes in procedures for 1977 will not detract from the present capacity of authorities and institutions to get full value from the Commonwealth’s financial support. It is, nevertheless, the responsibility and aim of the Government to reduce inflation and restore confidence in the economy. For this reason, we will be urging the States, relevant education authorities and institutions to use every endeavour to identify savings and to practise good housekeeping without detriment to the effective implementation of the programs. In this way the Government considers that it should be possible to ensure that cost increases are contained and reduced by offsetting savings.

He went on to say:

I will be asking the commissions to convey to authorities and institutions further details of the procedures agreed to by the Government. Briefly, these are that adjustments for agreed cost increases will be made each quarter following certification from each commission of the supplementation required to maintain real levels of the expenditure approved for the 1977 program. Account will be taken of offsetting savings, including any from favourable building tenders.

They are the words of the Minister on 4 November 1976. As I said earlier, we want an assurance from the Government that there will be a continuation of full cost supplementation in the years subsequent to 1 977. We would also like the Minister to explain what offsetting savings have been made by the various States up to now so that we can get particulars of how the savings have been achieved in certain areas. We would also like the Minister to give the Senate an assurance that the Government is not using this device to effectively erode the value of the programs which it approves. Perhaps it is the Minister’s intention at some time in the future to give us some more detailed information as to what has been achieved in this program of offsetting cost savings. It is of vital importance to the States and their education programs that they can be assured that the increases in costs which naturally occur after the main Bills go through each year will be met by supplementation by the Federal Government.

Guidelines for 1977 were brought down on 20 May last year. The purpose of the guidelines was to ensure that the commissions had sufficient time to make recommendations to the Government in relation to the allocation of education expenses in the August Budget. At the time the Minister praised the introduction of the rolling triennium by saying that it would allow for a systematic and rationalised approach to forward funding. This year that date of course has gone. Although I do not expect the Minister to hold himself precisely to that date in 1 977 nevertheless guidelines still have not been announced for this year. One can understand the concern and the doubts in the minds of so many people as to the Government’s real intentions. On behalf of the Opposition I also seek an assurance that the considerations of each commission will not be prejudiced by the bringing down of the guidelines at a date which is too late for the commissions. I confess to being at some disadvantage here. Perhaps the Minister intends announcing the guidelines before the Parliament rises. I hope that he does. Certainly it is important for him to do so not only to reassure the community at large but also to enable the commissions to be able to plan with some certainty on future Government policy.

The guidelines which were brought down last year indicated that the minimum growth would be 2 per cent for universities, colleges of advanced education and schools but that technical and further education colleges could look forward to an increase in real terms of 5 per cent. One can only go by persistent reports which one reads, I dare say mainly in the Press, and from conversations one has with educationists throughout Australia that there are grave doubts in the minds of many that the Government program of continual pruning of expenditure will be directed particularly at education during the course of the Budget deliberations.

I think I have said before in this place that we do not expect this Government to increase spending at the rate at which the Labor Government did mainly because it does not see education in the same light as we do. Notwithstanding the fact that this Government is prepared to forgo revenue to the extent of $ 1,000m a year to the business sector, a business sector which is recovering and in fact almost has fully recovered its profitability, it is not finding additional sums in real terms for education. The reality is that those funds have been frozen. All the States themselves now realise the sort of difficulty that they have got themselves into and what the other aspect of Government policy, namely the new federalism, means to them. The transfer of responsibility from the Federal Government to State governments is very much a real issue in education. It is part of the new federalism philosophy.

We also have persistent rumours that university fees will be reintroduced. Members of the Opposition are not satisfied that the States can look forward to the Federal Government fully funding universities in the future. Only recently the Minister wrote to the State Ministers for Education asking them to discuss with him next month some sharing arrangements the details of which I do not know. This would certainly suggest that on that agenda the Commonwealth will be putting to the States a proposition involving them sharing part of the costs of running universities and colleges of advanced education. I would appreciate very much from the Minister an assurance that I am wrong and that the Commonwealth will continue its commitment to fully fund the universities and colleges of advanced education. If he can give me that commitment then all the better, because we believe that the States need that assurance. I suspect that when that meeting takes place the States will realise that they will have to fund part of that in the years ahead under the present Government’s policies.

The Butcher Committee has made some recommendations concerning student loans. The Committee in its terms of reference was asked to consider not only loans over and above the grants to students but also the replacement of the present grants, at least in part, with loans. All these factors add up to real concern in the community. The Government’s record in education in totality is not one of which I believe it can be proud. It is fair to say that up till now education has been one area in which there have not been cuts in the same degree as in other areas. Of course the Minister continues to take the line that the calendar year spending for 1 975 was reduced by the Whitlam Government. It is true that there was a cutback from the massive increases in expenditure that occurred during the 3 years of the Labor Government. But it is important also to realise that the spending on education this calendar year is still not as great as it was in 1 975.

This statement is based on some figures the Minister tabled in this chamber some time ago. The Opposition trusts that the Government will realise that a retreat from its commitment will be taken very badly throughout the Australian community. I am sure that the Minister has a genuine desire to maintain the standards that were set by the previous Government and will exercise what influence he can to ensure that. But I believe that the Government is not set on that course. No doubt the truth of the position will be revealed in August when the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) delivers the Budget Speech. Then we will be able to say for sure whether this Government intends to maintain what was set up so ably and in such a dedicated fashion by the Labor Government. I do not intend to make any major attack in the debate of these Bills because I feel that they are not appropriate instruments by which to do it. It is very difficult for the Opposition to determine whether these cost supplementation Bills involve the full amount required to maintain the costs. We accept in good faith that they do. I would appreciate the Minister’s assurance that that is the case. Believing that to be the case, the Opposition does not oppose the 4 Bills.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply-I am grateful for the support of the Opposition for these Bills. As the second reading speech indicates, they simply provide additional appropriations of moneys that are necessary to meet the terms of cost supplementation as announced late last year following a Cabinet decision. I assure Senator Wriedt that the cost supplementation is wholly within the lines of the statement of the Government. This is not a time to make any major statement on education, particularly with the crowded list of legislation before us in this last week of the autumn session. Suffice to say that before the end of this week I hope to make a statement on the guidelines. That is my intention. I am bound to say that the Cabinet has not dealt fully with the matter as yet but if possible I will make a statement in the Parliament. I am hopeful also that in the course of this week I shall announce in the Parliament the names of the members of the Tertiary Education Commission and its associated councils. Together these form a major significant institution and structure for the guidelines and for the future. Of course the guidelines will be put to the new Tertiary Education Commission and its councils. It is understandable that the existing commissions are working on notional indications of their own for 1978, 1979 and 1980. 1 hope to be able to keep the undertaking to announce the guidelines as soon as they are finalised. If that can be donethat is my expectation- I see no reason why the Tertiary Education Commission and its councils cannot supply a basic report or reports in time for the Budget session. Last year we ran a bit late and a bit tight. I appreciate the honourable senator’s desire to have the papers ready. It is also my desire. I hope that it will be done.

Senator Wriedt canvassed a series of speculations and rumours. This is natural at this time of the year. The Butcher Committee set up to inquire into student loans has submitted its report to the Government, lt has not been considered yet. I will endeavour to have that report made public at a reasonably early time because I believe that the substance of the report is important to all honourable senators and honourable members in the other place in gaining an appreciation of the student allowance and student support programs. Of course the student allowances for this year have been determined. They were determined as from 1 January this year and were a very significant increase on the previous year. The recommendations of the Butcher Committee will be taken into consideration during the Budget discussions in looking at the future student allowances and at the Government’s policy, which is to investigate loans by way of supplementation of allowances and not in place of them.

Senator Wriedt raised the question of speculation as to a reimposition of university fees. The Government made an announcement on this matter last year. It has not made any decisions which would alter that announcement in any way. That announcement was quite clear. It has always been the Government’s policy that there should not be an imposition of fees for primary degrees. Last year the Government made clear its policy with regard to second or higher degrees and foreign students. There has been no change. The overall situation is that on the whole the program that these Bills supplement for the calendar year of 1978 has worked out well. It is good to think out loud a little on the achievements of that program. It has been possible for the universities and colleges to take in all students who have offered. No quota has been applied to students as a whole. Of course, there have been quotas in faculties such as medicine in relation to which quotas are imposed by the universities. There has been an availability, therefore, for students to enter the tertiary system. There has been some expansion in the technical system. Obviously that expansion must progress if we are to do justice to that area of education.

Senator Wriedt made reference to the letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the Premiers, inviting discussions at the Minister of Education level in the atmosphere of a meeting of the Australian Education Council. I remind The Senate that at the most recent Premiers Conference, in April, the Premiers gave thought to this matter and agreed unanimously that such discussions should occur. I will be meeting with my colleagues, the State Ministers, during June in a preliminary meeting to determine the nature of the working parties to be formed and the future meetings of Ministers to canvass the whole area. However, it is important, when considering this matter, to keep in mind the actual intentions. The Prime Minister’s letter to the Premiers has been incorporated in Hansard. I remind honourable senators that in that letter the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that the Commonwealth had no intention of abdicating the position it has taken in education or its share of the general responsibilities.

Consistent with that and consistent with the establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission, the councils and the Schools Commission, desirably there should be discussions between the Commonwealth and the States to see how, in the spending of perhaps some $6,000m of taxpayers money, the Commonwealth and the States together can deliver a better system of education which will enable the clients- the students and the families- to receive a better quality of education and which, at the same time, will allow us in that journey to remove whatever administrative conflicts, overlaps, duplications or wastages may occur. It is highly desirable that that should be done.

Senator Wriedt pointed out that the Commonwealth pays entirely for the maintenance of universities and colleges; but he failed to point out, of course, that the whole constitutional power and responsibility for all areas of education, except that of student allowances, resides in the States. Because of that situation, on occasions some very real conflicts, duplications and wastages occur. Consistent with aiming to get the highest possible quality of education, I think no honourable senator would quarrel with the idea that discussions ought to take place between the Commonwealth and the States in order to find out what better co-partnership should exist.

Senator Georges:

-You have been talking for years without achieving any beneficial results. You talk and talk and talk, and there is no result?

Senator CARRICK:

– I understand Senator Georges’ natural disappointments of today. Those disappointments stem from reasons other than perhaps political education. I fully understand his disappointments and I sympathise with him.

The talk may have gone on for years, but the action of the last 18 months has been very real indeed. Anyone who has attended a meeting of the Australian Education Council will agree, I think, that that body is maturing in the quality of its deliberations, in the range of the subject matters with which it deals, and in the sheer practical co-operation and results that are being achieved between the Commonwealth and the States. Equally, those who look at the moneys now made available to the States in general revenues must also understand that there was talk for years on the question of the thumb screws being applied in relation to uniform taxation. But now action is being taken to do what all Premiers had asked to be done earlier, and that is to give to the Premiers of all States the availability of untied finance which would enable them to do more flexible decision-making.

Honourable senators will have a copy of a second reading speech dealing with the establishment of an independent body to review relativities. Honourable senators will know that it was revealed in that second reading speech that at this moment the New South Wales Government, after 9 months operations this year, has surplus of funds of approximately $1llm. For that 9-month period the 6 States together have a surplus of something like $2 1 6m. That fact, taken in conjuction with a picture of all States being able to budget for a balance or for a surplus this year and of all States being able to cut taxes, shows that for the first time in many years, rather than talking, we have made it possible for the States to act in a wider field of selfdetermination, in a wider field of making their own judgments.

Anyone who knows of the discussions with the State Ministers of Education over the years- indeed, over the decades- will know that the constant theme of those State Ministers has been opposition to the thumb screws in relation to uniform taxation and the central planning of the Commonwealth, and that there has been a strong, aggressive and understandable desire on the part of the State Ministers to obtain wider, untied funds to enable them to make more sovereign judgments in the field of State education in which they operate. They are the fundamentals to which the 6 State Education Ministers have directed their attention over the years or, indeed, as I say, over the decades. Those things are becoming realities. The simple fact is that in everything that the Commonwealth is doing in the field of education we are consulting with the States. We are getting their viewpoint and we are taking them into our confidence. We are taking their views into consideration when making decisions.

When recently we reconstituted the Schools Commission, following the retirement of some 8 part-time members, that was done not only in terms of our own stated policy but also in line with the policies enunciated by the 6 State Education Ministers on the Australian Education Council. We have consulted them at all stages in that regard. I can see only benefit in having continuous discussions between the Commonwealth and the States. I am utterly surprised to find that the Labor Opposition in this chamber sees anything wrong or undesirable in the idea of continuous dialogue between the Commonwealth and the States in an atmosphere -

Senator Georges:

– As long as you obtain some results. You keep on talking and talking.

Senator CARRICK:

– Just because Senator Georges did not obtain his result this morning he now feels aggrieved. I understand and I sympathise, but this is not a grievance debate. That can be held in the Labor Caucus. Senator Georges asks whether we ought not to deliver results. I have recited the results we have achieved. I remind the honourable senator that, as Senator Wriedt has recognised, the Government of which he was a supporter in its last Budget cut education expenditure by $ 105m, turned off the triennial principle and froze student allowances. We reactivated each of those things. In fact, this year we increased the level of real money growth in the 4 systems. We restored a principle of rolling triennial planning. We raised the student allowances beyond the journey of inflation that had happened. Senator Georges talks about action. We have delivered the action in that regard. We have reconstituted the Schools Commission in line with the States. We have provided for the States a situation in which for the first time in 30 years the States will be able in the future to look towards a surplus of untied funds for which they can make sovereign decisions.

It is extraordinary that the Australian Labor Party continues to reject that principle. It can only be that Labor supports the decision in writing, in documentation, by their somewhat tenuous Leader who said that the best service that State Labor members of Parliament can do for their Party is to work for their own dissolution. I take it that since he is still the current Leader, although somewhat tenuous in his currency, they support that light on the hill. I take it that that is so because otherwise that would not be current in its publication. But that is the simple situation.

The truth is that, whereas we as a Government and as a coalition seek to give to the States a new lease of life, a new recognition of sovereignty, they seek to destroy the States as they sought to amalgamate local governments. If the States are to exist the States must be given the opportunity for independent decision making. The concept which is being carefully nurtured by the Labor Party, that the Commonwealth is the bulk spender on education, is fundamentally wrong. In Australia something like $6,000m a year is spent on education, of which about $2,200m is spent federally and the remainder in the States. About $1,000 of every one of 6 million taxpayers’ tax each year goes to education. That is a very large amount. The fact that the States virtually spend almost $2 for the Commonwealth’s $ 1 indicates the vital need for co-partnership; the vital need incidentally to help the States in their journey. The interesting thing is that Labor senators can criticise but they do not stand up and say what they mean. Do they intend to destroy the decision-making power of the States in terms of primary and secondary education?

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are only whistling in the dark. You know that there is no substance in it. You have 4 Premiers opposing it.

Senator CARRICK:

– I paused because I was not sure whether I was whistling in the dark on the thesis that the States would ultimately go or whether I was whistling in the dark in terms of federalism. Let me make it clear, because Senator Cavanagh has failed to understand this, that every one of the 6 Premiers has accepted the fundamental mechanism of stage 1 of federalism in terms of providing tax revenue sharing for the States. The Premier of Senator Cavanagh ‘s own State-

Senator Cavanagh:

– He sent me a telegram today.

Senator CARRICK:

– The honourable senator is very lucky. He must have felt very lonely today and the addition of a telegram must have been very helpful indeed to him. But Senator Cavanagh is talking about whistling in the dark. I remember that in 1974 the Labor Premier of South Australia, outraged at what the Whitlam Government had done in terms of funds for and handling of the States, raised at the June Conference of that Party the fact that if the Whitlam Government’s uniform taxation were to continue it would destroy the States. Mr Dunstan said that. Is Senator Cavanagh saying that Mr Dunstan was wrong and that he rejects him? Mr Dunstan then said-

Senator Georges:

– I rise to take a point of order. I thought we were debating the States Grants (Advanced Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and several other associated Bills. I hoped and so did the Government Whip that we would complete this debate by about 5.45 p.m. At one stage, at 5.15 p.m., we were wondering whether we could maintain the debate until 5.45 p.m. But we should have known better. All we needed to do to stretch out the time was to interject on Senator Carrick and he would take off on some line of anti-Labor propaganda ad nauseam. He has done that. Does he desire to continue on in this way? If he does he should speak to the Bills and not on extraneous matters.

Senator Carrick:

– Speaking to the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition, who I take it is Senator Georges’ leader, raised the question of the discussions between the Commonwealth and the States as to revenue sharing and function sharing in education. I was directing myself entirely to that point. I put it to you. Mr President, that it was totally relevant and that it related to matters raised by Senator Wriedt.

The PRESIDENT:

-There is no point of order.

Senator CARRICK:

– Let me simply say one other thing regarding Senator Cavanagh ‘s point because I am as anxious as anyone else to conclude the debate. Mr Dunstan said that the only solution to financing the States was to give the States a fixed percentage of personal income tax. Mr Dunstan having said that in the atmosphere of the June Conference of the Labor Party and it being the State Labor policy of South Australia, what Senator Cavanagh is doing today is saying that that is wrong. We are carrying out in the revenue sharing process the policies that have been invited by the 6 Premiers over the years and we are widening their abilities. 1 have responded to the various points that have been made. This series of Bills deserves a speedy passage. I commend the Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I think that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). who is in charge of the Bills, ought to appreciate that if he requires the legislation to be passed he should be less loquacious. It seems quite extraordinary to me that the Opposition will accept that in this final week of the session we should limit our debate on important Bills and take these Bills as a group in order to assist the Government to complete its program this week and yet the Minister replies at such great length, knowing of course that he could have had all these Bills passed within a few minutes. If he is prepared to give himself the time then he ought to be prepared to give me the time to raise one or two questions concerning these Bills. What troubles me is this: In spite of all the discussions about which the Minister has spoken, in spite of all the dialogue, in spite of all the responsibility thrust back to the States, no real progress is being made to solve the structural problems of education in this country.

Perhaps the Minister, in his discussion and dialogue and in making his recommendation that moneys should be paid by way of a variety of grants to the States etcetera, should consider the problem that we are facing at all levels in the education system. Perhaps he should look at one or two of the reports which seem to show that we have reached a period of zero population growth in Australia; that our maternity hospitals on the one hand are empty and, on the other hand, our geriatric wards are packed; that every item of expenditure that we decide upon now should take into account the grave problem that we may be facing, particularly in respect of the education system; that there may be an oversupply of teachers, for instance, or an oversupply of buildings or of graduate students which the community cannot absorb; that much of the money being expended by virtue of these Bills may be wasted in the long run. I want the Minister to give some thought to that and to give some answers.

I shall quickly refer to a periodical which I have before me- the Journal of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Without looking further than the first page we see an article written by the President and headed ‘The Future of Teacher Supply’. The article reads:

Problems with regard to Teacher Supply must be sorted out in the near future. We have had a number of discussions with the Minister for Education. Mr Bedford, and with the Federal Minister, Senator Carrick. We can summarise what we do know as follows:

I ) There is an underemployment of available teachers at present -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! We are in a rather difficult position. We are dealing with 4 Bills and we are in Committee. I think you are making what is rather a second reading speech. Whilst I am not going to stop you. I ask you to think about that and to try to abide by the normal rules that apply in Committee.

Senator GEORGES:

-Yes. Mr Chairman. I ask the Minister, therefore: In all these deliberations which have been taking place and with all this money which is being made available, have he and his officers taken into account the serious structural problems that arc emerging because we appear to have reached zero population growth? Firstly, what docs the Minister intend to do to correct the situation as far as teachers are concerned? Secondly, what is he going to do to correct the situation in which many students and graduates are emerging from colleges of advanced education, technical colleges and universities and have nowhere to go? Behind them arc thousands of other students seeking the same qualifications and will have nowhere to go. thereby making the situation even more serious. In all this talk, what is being done about those practical problems?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I shall be very brief indeed in my remarks. First of all, there is a recognition that because of zero population growth and other factors the need for continuing the intake of teacher trainees at anything like the accelerated rate of the past does not exist. The honourable senator will know that the Australian Education Council has faced up to this and has been working on a report to be released in the future to identify this. The first issue we shall invite the Tertiary Education Commission to look at will be that of the supply of teachers, both quantitatively and qualitatively, so that we may look at all the ramifications. Clearly it will be shown in the future, as it has been shown this year, that there will be a voluntary lessening of intake of students into universities and colleges because some 22 per cent of all students in tertiary education colleges and universities are teacher trainees. Some 50-odd per cent of students in colleges alone are teacher trainees. So this will be shown as something of a fall-off in the year or years ahead.

The Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training- the Williams Committee- has been charged with looking at all the problems which the honourable senator has raised. They arc important problems. They will be covered in the report of the Williams Committee which should be available next year. If necessary, a series of other in-depth investigations arising out of that report will be made. But the questions that the honourable senator raised have so many profound ramifications that they cannot be dealt with in the space of a Committee debate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr Chairman, I am pleased to hear -

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GEORGES:

– I was speaking prior to the suspension of the sitting. I wanted to give the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) an opportunity to reply to a few queries that I made concerning what I consider to be a very serious problem that is facing the education systems throughout Australia. I said that it was more than a matter of simply conversing, communicating and exchanging points of view with the States. Although the Minister gave us the welcome information that the Williams Committee is investigating these matters and that it will report next year, it does not give me much encouragement because it may mean a continuation of this useless and non-productive dialogue that has been going on for so long. The crisis is with us now. The need is immediate. It is my belief that the need ought to be attended to now. I trust that the Minister will give me some comfort on this.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– During the reply of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to Senator Georges, on a couple of occasions he made some remarks which provoked the Opposition Whip to make further remarks. I want to refer to some of the statements that the Minister has made on many occasions in this Parliament dealing with the amount of money which has been made available to education by this Government and by the previous Government. I hope that the Minister can give us some clarification of the remarks that he repeatedly makes that the Whitlam Government actually cut expenditure on education during its last year of office. I want to remind the Minister that in the 1972-73 McMahon Budget the total amount of money made available for education was $442.6m. In the 1973-74 Budget, the first Budget of the Whitlam Government, we find in the Budget Papers that the actual expenditure was $858.7m. We find that the actual expenditure in 1974-75 under the Whitlam Government was $1,67 1.6m. We find that in our Budget of 1975-76 the estimated expenditure on education was $ 1,908.2m.

I want now to ask the Minister why he repeatedly has claimed in this Parliament-both in debates and when answering questions- that under the Whitlam Government expenditure on education was diminished by $170m, when the

Budget Papers show clearly that in the last year of the McMahon Government expenditure was $442.6m and the estimated expenditure in the last Hayden Budget was $ 1,908.2m. I ask the Minister whether he can give us some explanation as to why he continually claims that the Labor Government reduced expenditure on education.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I should like to reply briefly to the comments of the honourable senator. Hansard contains a number of tables of authoritative figures which show expenditure on education in calendar years. That is the way in which education is costed and understood. The Whitlam Government made a decision that in the 1976 calendar year expenditure on education should be $105m less than expenditure for the 1975 calendar year. Those tables are available.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister for Education has not answered my question. He is continually claiming that the Whitlam Government made a reduction in expenditure on education. He has now admitted, for the first time, that it made a reduction of $105m in 1975-76 in the Appropriation Bill when I have heard him repeatedly say that it was a reduction of $ 170m. He refuses to tell the public at large and this Parliament that the Whitlam Government actually increased expenditure on education fourfold from the last year of the McMahon Budget to the last year of the Whitlam Budget. Figures do not lie, or if they do, something is wrong with these Budget Papers which have been accepted in this Parliament. The Minister cannot run away from the fact- it is a fact because the Budget Papers prove it- that expenditure did increase fourfold under the Whitlam Government from $442.6m in 1972-73 to an estimated expenditure of $ 1,908.2m in 1975-76. Those figures can clearly be seen. Despite what the Minister may say and despite what any tables which he may have incorporated in Hansard since he has been the Minister for Education may indicate, he cannot prove that we decreased expenditure on education. It is a complete fallacy for him to claim that the Whitlam Government did reduce expenditure on education.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a third time.

page 1699

INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition will oppose this Bill because we believe that it is an example of a retraction on the part of this Government from the policy which it enunciated in 1975 in the course of an election campaign. The Bill, of course, means that the Medibank component which would have been included in the consumer price index will now be excluded. This, of course, departs from the principle of full tax indexation which this Government claimed in 1975 that it would implement. Even though the question of full tax indexation had been argued about and promised for some time, all major parties realised that its introduction would not be easy because of the amount of revenue forgone, whichever Government was in power. At least the Government, during the election campaign in 1 975, said that this full tax indexation would be introduced and in fact made a claim that by introducing it in 1976 full tax indexation would be introduced in one year. Originally, it was believed that full tax indexation would be introduced over one year or perhaps three years.

In this legislation the Government is retracting its position. I have no doubt that many people in the community were very much attracted by this promise of the present Government in 1975. Those people have in fact been betrayed by this legislation. It is one of the many cases in which the Government has willingly and wilfully gone back on a commitment it gave. I do not intend to go through all of the broken promises, as we justifiably term them. I merely say that this legislation is very much a part of them. What the Government does not seem to realise is that the fact that it has retracted a commitment that it gave makes it all the more difficult for those wage and salary earners in the community who receive- in fact I concede this- some benefit from the tax indexation that remains. At the same time the Government also said that it would reduce inflation when it took office. Despite all the enormous cuts in Federal expenditure which we have seen in the last 1 8 months and despite the attack on the real incomes of all wage and salary earners in Australia, inflation is in fact almost as bad as it was when the Government took office. It may be easy to say that it is marginally better. It is marginally better, I think that would be conceded; but at enormous cost. That cost has been not only the reductions in government spending but also the loss of confidence that has occurred in the business community because of the reduction in government contracts which are let to the private sector and which are so important in keeping the private sector buoyant.

This has been the position over the past 18 months. In 1 976 we saw the real incomes of wage and salary earners decline. The purchasing power of the wage earner is less today than it was in 1975. All this is part of a deliberate strategy by this Government, allegedly for the purpose of reducing inflation. If in fact there had been success in that policy, then one would have to concede that the Government was making some headway; but of course that is not the case. Now we see in this legislation a further erosion of the wages and salaries of the great majority of Australians. If we are to assume that the Government will continue along this line, then obviously, whatever benefits may have been available originally to the community from the original decision on tax indexation, gradually they will be eroded. We can instance the Medibank levy, which is dealt with in this legislation, and other areas in which gradually the same sort of attack and erosion of this benefit will take place, despite the fact that the Government made the commitment that it would not do this.

I believe that we in the Opposition are not unreasonable in our opposition to Government legislation. We support, or at least we do not oppose, most of the Bills which come before this Parliament and which we believe to be reasonable pieces of legislation. But this Bill is a clear case of retracting a very basic undertaking that the Government gave in 1 975. 1 am sure that the community at large will realise how detrimental this retraction will be to the purchasing power of the ordinary housewife especially and to the community at large. 1 believe that the Bill will only compound the problems of this Government as time goes by. It is now apparent that the so-called investment led recovery is not working. There are certainly no signs of it working. Until such time as the Government recognises that the purchasing power of the wage and salary earners in Australia must be returned to at least the 1 975 level, we cannot expect the return to economicactivity and recovery which I am sure everybody would wish to see. This Bill does not encourage that move. It will tend to discourage it. For that reason and also for the reason I mentioned earlier- that is, it is another broken promise- the Opposition will oppose the legislation.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I rise to support the Bill. I believe that the decision that has been taken by the Government in this matter is absolutely correct. Senator Wriedt has been making out a case that there is a retraction by the Government of some election promise; but in fact there is no retraction of any promise. In fact what has occurred is that the indexation of personal income tax is being recorded at the rate at which wages have been passed on as costs in the community, as stated by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The fact that the Commission took into account factors other than those which obviously the Opposition thought were included, such as the Medibank levy and the devaluation costs, is totally relevant to this situation. I am afraid that Senator Wriedt fails to recognise that what we are doing in this exercise is adjusting taxation in line with the rate at which wages have increased in the community. This is total tax indexation and it is not a retraction of any policy that was stated before the 1975 election or at any time since. Indeed, when personal tax indexation was introduced, back in July of last year, indirect taxes were stated to be excluded from the personal tax deflator figure that was to be used in those circumstances. In no way can this be regarded as a betrayal of this Government’s stated promises before the last election or since.

Senator Wriedt has made a great deal of the issue of a decrease in real wages and its effects on purchasing power. Perhaps he will explain to us why it is that, since inflation has fallen from something like 16 Vi per cent when this Government came to power to about 10.2 per cent now, in that period of time household consumption has increased by something like 3.2 per cent in real terms. These figures cannot be denied. This is what has happened. Consumption in fact has increased. So, I state again that in the circumstances I believe that the Government has made the right decision in discounting the indexation factor in respect of the health insurance changes and devaluation. I support the legislation.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I feel obliged to say something. It would be to the disadvantage of the Senate if in about 5 or 10 minutes we were to slip through this legislation and the other Bills that are on the program. I am not inclined to assist the Government in the passage of its legislation; but if the Government senators are not going to put forward any arguments in support of the legislation tonight, then it is obvious -

Senator Steele Hall:
Senator GEORGES:

– Well, it is suggested that we get up when we finish the program. We might finish at 9 o’clock.

Senator Withers:

– Hear, hear. I will lift the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:

– Will you lift the Senate at 9 o’clock?

Senator Withers:

– My word, I will. As soon as we have completed the program, up we get.

Senator GEORGES:

-This is taking cooperation a little too far.

Senator Withers:

– We will get up at 8.30 if you like.

Senator GEORGES:

-No, no. In all seriousness, I must take up one or two points that Senator Messner brought forward. I do not have very much expertise- I have revealed this from time to time in the Senate- but one thing I do have is a sort of practical nous which has been built up by experience and day to day participation in just living. Senator Messner talks about there being an increase in consumption. That is not true. The statisticians are a little behind the times. If the honourable senator goes to the market place he will find that there has been no increase. In fact, over the last 2 months there has been a sharp decrease in demand or in consumer activity. In my own city of Brisbane there has been a lack of activity over the past 2 months bringing us to a point this month and next month where demand- that is purchasing of goods for resalehas decreased sharply.

Senator Messner:

– These months are always bad.

Senator GEORGES:

-They are not as bad as they are this year. Many small businesses in Brisbane are closing down. They just cannot face up to the economic problems that this Government has presented to them. What this Government has done is to put the economy into reverse. Honourable senators opposite could argue that under the Labor Government we were going too fast, that we were doing things too soon and the economy could not stand it. I am not prepared to admit it but Government supporters could put a case for it. What is happening now is that the economy has gone completely into reverse. It is a much more dangerous exercise to put the economy into reverse because it can place the economy into such difficulties that it could go backwards quickly. The number of small businesses in Brisbane to my knowledge that have found themselves in difficulties over the past weeks include the local blacksmith who says he has no future work. The job that he is doing is the last job that he has. There is also the sheetmetal works in Stafford Road, if I can return to localities, which is closing down because it cannot continue. The proprietor cannot meet the competition from overseas. As a nation we have depended -

Senator Lajovic:

– Why cannot he?

Senator GEORGES:

– He cannot for the simple reason that goods are being produced by what is termed ‘off-shore’ operations by Australian firms. Those firms were supposed to go overseas to help the underdeveloped countries to develop knowhow. Let us admit it. All they did when they went overseas was to get cheap labour. They are the ones who are endeavouring to reduce tariffs.

Senator Lajovic:

– It is the labour costs that are killing those people.

Senator GEORGES:

-They are the ones who are destroying local industry. Senator Lajovic says that it is being destroyed by costs. What Senator Lajovic wants to do, with the rest of his colleagues, is to reduce the real level of wages and reduce the conditions of workers so that those costs can be reduced to equal the costs of those workers overseas who operate on depressed wages and conditions.

Senator Messner:

– That is an absolutely stupid statement.

Senator GEORGES:

-The honourable senator can say that it is stupid. All that I can say is that over the next few months he will see the reality of what I am saying. What this Government has decided to do is to take a bludgeon to the economy. It has succeeded in mutilating the economy to the extent that small ordinary businesses cannot survive. Their difficulties in paying their bills have increased. They are seeking extended credit. They take 60 days to pay bills that normally they would pay in 30 days.

Senator Messner:

– Because of inflation.

Senator GEORGES:

-It is not a matter of inflation; it is a matter of lack of sales. There is just no purchasing power in the community. The community is suffering from a fair complex at the present time.

Senator Lajovic:

– Not purchasing power: They have plenty of money but they are putting it in the bank.

Senator GEORGES:

-If that is the case, they are not using their ability to purchase. Senator Lajovic is admitting that the Government has put people into a state of uncertainty about their future. They are placing their money in banks, building societies, credit unions and special loans to the Government at 10 per cent and I0!4 per cent interest. They are certainly not purchasing. What Senator Lajovic is saying is that we have reached a maximum growth position. There is no growth in the economy at this time.

Senator Lajovic:

– That is what you said.

Senator GEORGES:

-If the Government wants to reverse the economy to the point where people will not buy, it will get the economy into serious difficulties. It has already done so.

Senator Lajovic:

– We need more people, that is all.

Senator GEORGES:

– We can bring in more people. We can bring in another 100 000 migrants and we can supply them with the most difficult jobs in this nation- jobs on the assembly lines.

Senator Lajovic:

– We have done them and we are still doing them. I have done them.

Senator GEORGES:

-Senator Lajovic would be well aware that the first generation of many a migrant family has been sacrificed. They come to this country in a situation of great need. They have the incentive to work hard. They have the incentive to accept less and they accept less. They have what might be called the potential to purchase. They have nothing when they come here. They need a home and furnishings for the home. They need a car and they need to educate their children. What Senator Lajovic is saying is that we should bring these people into the economy in great numbers in competition with the unemployed who exist at the present time to discipline the workers of this country to work harder for less. That is exactly what the Government would like to do. That is exactly what it will do. I can see it coming. The Government will try to develop a growth factor in the community by introducing another 100 000 or perhaps 150 000 migrants a year. What this will do is to make those people economic slaves within the community based on their great need. That is what you want, Senator Lajovic.

Senator Lajovic:

– They are very happy here; they are not slaves.

Senator GEORGES:

-If you are part of that -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Please direct your remarks through the Chair, Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:

– I beg your pardon, Mr President. I did not want to be disrespectful. I have been stirred into entering a debate without being properly prepared. I have been brought into a debate on the Income Tax (Rates)

Amendment Bill because for some reason today I have felt the need to contribute. I do not know what it is that makes me want to do so but I feel that I ought to make some remarks. The Bill, in some ways, is concerned with indexation.

Senator Messner:

– It is totally about indexation.

Senator GEORGES:

-The Government is basing its decisions about indexation on the knowledge that the community knows very little about indexation, including myself. Therefore, I believe that the Government is foisting a confidence trick upon the community by saying that it is doing a thing when, in fact, it is doing nothing at all. By devious methods and the confusion which it can so easily create with tax scales and other information the Government can appear to be doing something when, in fact it is not. I do not know whether journalists are smarter than I am. They seem to have access to information.

Senator Lajovic:

– Sometimes to the wrong information.

Senator GEORGES:

– The information seems to be that the Cabinet is considering that it can delude the people, based on the unclear picture of what tax indexation means. It intends to rip off $50m or $60m from the community, without the community knowing it. It is now time for me to conclude my remarks. I trust that when we return in the August session -

Senator Bonner:

– Are you sure you have the right Bill?

Senator GEORGES:

– I have the right Bill. May I say that the amount of business on the Notice Paper for this evening gives rise to the hope that the Leader of the Government (Senator Withers) expressed that the Senate could adjourn at an earlier hour tonight. I do not want to be accused of keeping the House against its will. I warn the Government that tomorrow the situation will be quite different. The Government will have to defend its legislation, especially since some of the legislation needs to be vigorously defended. I think the industrial Bills will be on tomorrow. I cannot see the projected program. If the industrial Bills are on tomorrow, I would say that the performance in the Senate would be of a more vigorous nature than it has been today.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- In answer to a question last week I said: Last week was last week, and this week is this week’. I suppose the best I can say to my friend, if not colleague, Senator Georges is: ‘Today is today, and tomorrow is tomorrow’. Let us worry about tomorrow when we deal with conciliation and arbitration and trade practices. That will be another day. It will be another debate, different speakers with different attitudes and different ideas.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) put down a number of arguments why this Bill ought to be opposed. My colleague Senator Messner put down the arguments why it ought to be supported. Senator Georges, in entering the fray, made a number of interesting observations about the state of the nation’s economy. I suppose, whichever side of politics one is on- I say this in the gentlest and most noncontroversial way I can- one can seek around and find figures, statistics, attitudes, commentators, newspaper articles and learned journals which would support one ‘s case one way or the other. I suppose that most of what is said is a matter of opinion. There is very little which is a matter of fact, because we are always in dispute as to what are facts and what is a matter of opinion.

The Government is the first one this century which has decided that there ought to be personal income taxation indexation. Whether or not one likes the methodology, the matters which will come within the range and the matters which are excluded are matters of opinion. No matter how much one argues, one simple fact is that from the first pay day after 1 July of this year those who receive wages and salaries, including ourselves, will get the benefits of tax indexation. The people who will receive the greatest benefits from lax indexation are members of this Parliamc ill. We have not had a pay rise for 12 months. Proportionately we will most likely get a greater benefit out of tax indexation than anybody else because we are most likely the only group in the whole community whose wages and salaries have been static for 12 months. I say that as a matter of fact. I suppose we are about the only group in the community, apart from some limited groups which have had a fall, whose salary levels have been fixed in absolute terms since 20 June 1976. Therefore, as we have not had any benefits out of wage indexation we ought to reap the greatest benefits out of personal income tax indexation.

Senator Georges:

– You would not notice it. That is what I was talking about.

Senator WITHERS:

-I think I will notice it. I am looking forward to it. It will most likely provide some of the packets of cigarettes a day to keep the Australian Union of Students going, about which we were talking in economic terms yesterday. While the Opposition can argue as it does, the Government is firmly committed to its policy of personal income tax indexation. We believe it is the fairest way for a government to act, it is the most honest way for a government to act. If a government requires more revenue it ought to legislate positively for that revenue and not take the benefits of any inflation which may be running at the time. I thank my colleague and friend Senator Messner who spoke in support of the Bill and my colleagues who will vote Aye if a division is called for. I thank the Senate for a speedy passage. I repeat: If the program is completed by 9 p.m. we can go home to bed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1703

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-As is obvious to everyone, it was a long week last week, and it will be a longer week this week. I, for one, am quite happy to go home to go to bed early tonight if that is Senator Withers ‘ wish. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We have no desire to obstruct its passage. We welcome the changes provided in the Bill. The changes have arisen largely from the report of Mr Justice Toose on the repatriation system. The inquiry has the distinction, I believe, of being one of the longest inquiries ever conducted. It is said that the inquiry exceeded in length World War 1. However, it is good to see that an inquiry which went for so long and which cost so much money is at last bearing some fruit. We particularly believe that the restructuring of the repatriation boards and the methods of application which applicants will make in attempting to prove their claims for pensions will be of some benefit.

There has been a suggestion that some of the repatriation boards have become too rigid in their application because the members have not rotated between boards, because the members have become rigid in their ways. Some of the findings of the boards have been a bit difficult and hard to understand. We hope that now, with this restructuring and with the new ability of the Minister for Repatriation to direct the boards in various matters to enable them to have a more uniform method of dealing with applications, there will be an improvement. Added to this is the fact that boards now give reasons for their findings. We hope that this will go some way towards cutting down the number of appeals in the repatriation system which we believe are getting up to about 1 5 000 per annum. I think that we will have to look at the whole repatriation system further as well as the changes that are being made here. In the past it has become obvious that it has become the routine that everyone automatically appeals under the repatriation system. They are encouraged to do so. This has caused much duplication of work, some conflict and, I believe, some difficulties.

We welcome also the wording of proposed new section 47 of the Act. Section 47 has caused difficulty ever since it has been in the legislation. A lot of shibboleths and a lot of nonsense have been spoken about the old section 47 and what it means. We agree with Mr Justice Toose in his claim that the new section will clarify the whole situation and will give the applicants the idea that they are in fact getting justice, more so than they do now. Overall we find nothing objectionable in the changes. We hope that the other suggestions of Mr Justice Toose and some others will be taken up. It is becoming obvious to us all I think that there will have to be an overall change in the repatriation system in this country. There is a tendency I know among some ex-service organisations to believe that the system should remain as it is because it has been what it is over the years. Mr Justice Toose has made some pertinent suggestions as to what should happen in repatriation. We hope that all his years of* work will not be in vain. We hope that the Government will not take as long to deal with Mr Justice Toose ‘s findings as Mr Justice Toose took to reach them. In not opposing this Bill we hope that in the future the Government will consider the other changes which have arisen out of that very same inquiry.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its support of the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1977. I think Senator Grimes has put his finger on the major changes which are proposed by this legislation. I agree that they are important for 2 reasons. This is the first legislation to implement the recommendations of the Toose report. This will be a continuing process. The Government is determined to process this report fully as soon as it possibly can do so, bearing in mind of course the need at all times to fully consult, in accordance with our policies, the major ex-service organisations about changes which are proposed.

I would like to say only one other thing. This Bill contains part of a package of changes in the whole determining system relating to repatriation matters. It deals with boards. It deals with the important section 47. Pan and parcel of that package is a change in the appeals system. It is a matter of some regret to me that we were not able to have these changes incorporated in this legislation during this session. As I said in my second reading speech, we will be proceeding with those changes in legislation in the Spring session. I hope that we will have those changes in the determining system in being by the end of this year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1704

WOOL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– We debate this Bill and the Wool Tax Amendment Bills almost annually. They apply to the extension of the provisions which concern the operation of the floor price scheme for the wool industry. Essentially the Bills are of a machinery nature. Nevertheless they do once again afford us an opportunity to make some comments about the floor price scheme and the present position in the wool industry. The Bill seeks to amend section 28A of the Wool Industry Act which provides for the establishment of a market support fund which is used as a repository for the 5 per cent levy which is imposed on wool growers for the purpose of a support fund. That fund was established when the floor price system was introduced by the Labor Government. It is as well of course to remember- I believe it should not be forgotten; I am certain it is not forgotten by the wool growers of Australia- that it was an initiative of the Labor Government to introduce this scheme at a time when the Australian wool industry was in great trouble.

It is interesting to recall that back in 1970 and 1971 when the wool industry of this country was in a similar position and the market had collapsed with the price dropping to something like 30c per lb, the wool growers of Australia sought from the then Liberal-Country Party Government a commitment to underwrite the wool market. That comittment, of course, was not forthcoming. All that the government of the day could do was introduce a scheme which provided some small compensation to the wool growers of Australia. It amounted to a few cents per lb which was almost irrelevant to the cost which the wool growers had to bear even then. It was the Whitlam Government, a government which was allegedly against the rural people- I heard Senator Webster at question time today making one of his usual fatuous remarks about the attitude of the Labor Government to the rural peoplewhich rescued the biggest rural industry in Australia at that time.

Even when we look back after 4 years we can see the colossal benefits not only to the wool industry but to the whole of the rural sector which have flowed from that courageous decision of the Labor Government of the day. At the time it involved credits to the Australian Wool Corporation of, from memory, $350m, money which at the time was not easy to find. That level of commitment could have risen to a much greater height than we could have anticipated at the time. That is history, but I am quite sure that it is history that is not forgotten. It is not forgotten in the most important place, and that is amongst the wool growers of Australia. This legislation is designed to ensure that the Labor Government scheme continues. The Opposition supports the Government in its efforts to ensure that we never see a return to the very dark days when not only was the individual wool grower of Australia at the mercy of a wildly fluctuating market but also Australian wool was being shipped overseas at give-away prices because previous governments were not prepared to ensure not only that we as a nation got a proper return for the produce we were selling but also that the individual wool growers received a just reward for what they were producing.

It is 3 years since the Australian Wool Corporation introduced its proposals for a wool marketing plan. In view of all the criticism that was levelled against the rural policies of the Labor Government, one would have assumed that immediately on coming to office, or at least after allowing a reasonable time for consideration, the Liberal-National Country Party Government would have instituted the wool marketing plan that had been so carefully thought out by the Australian Wool Corporation. But what has happened? Absolutely nothing. There has been a lot of talk. I concede that the wool floor price scheme has been continued. The level of support has been raised, but that is all. One would have assumed that the National Country Party especially would have used its influence to ensure that a proper marketing scheme had been introduced by now. No one would suggest for one moment that the scheme will be easy of implementation. The real reason that nothing has been done is that there is no will to do anything. Not only is there no will but also there is no finance, because the Government will not provide it. With the Government’s obsession with reducing expenditure in every area of government, the wool industry in particular and rural industries in general are caught in this net of restricting Federal financial commitments.

As the great bulk of our wool clip is exported, the industry is dependent very largely on overseas markets. I have just indicated that the Australian Wool Corporation has given a tremendous amount of thought to its marketing plan. A tremendous amount of work has been put into it by very competent people who are advising the Government as they believe is best for the wool industry. Yet there has been a complete lack of action. I predict that things will continue that way because the financial commitment involved will not be forthcoming. We will continue to listen to a lot of rhetoric about this Government’s concern for the rural sector. In one stroke the Labor Government did more in this area than any Liberal and Country Party government has ever done or is likely to do in the foreseeable future. I have reminded the Senate of the history of this industry and the major events over the past three or four years. The Opposition supports the legislation because it continues the very great initiatives that were taken by the Labor Government two or three years ago.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1977. The Senate is indebted to my Leader in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, for his remarks. He pointed out all the good things which the Labor Government did to assist the wool industry. It is amazing to read some of the articles in the newspapers of recent days by some reporters who are trying to give credit to some people in the industry for things that were initiated and brought into being by the Whitlam Labor Government. I will make some reference to that shortly. I want to quote the remarks of Mr Paul Keating, who spoke for the Australian Labor Party in the other place when this Bill was debated there yesterday. Mr Keating ably pointed out a few of the things which Senator Wriedt has pointed out in this debate tonight. Of course, no one is more qualified to speak on wool industry matters than is Senator Wriedt, who was a very well respected Minister for Agriculture when the Labor Party was in government. Mr Keating had this to say:

It was the Australian Labor Party which introduced a fixed floor price scheme which gave so much confidence to the wool industry and the commercial leaders within it and formed the basis for establishing stable price levels for one of our major primary produce exports. In its first years of operation the Labor Government’s commitment to this scheme involved up to $400 m and had the market fallen it could have required as much as $600m. This sum significantly exceeds the value of any single item of assistance which the National Country Party has ever given to Australian rural industries.

I think Senator Wriedt referred to a claim made by Senator Webster in this chamber this week to the effect that the Labor Government did not do anything to help primary industries. As a person who for more than 20 years earned his living as a professional shearer, I well know the ups and downs of the wool industry from the very small wool grower to the very large wool grower. I have been employed as a shearer on all types of properties. I have worked for farmers who have had only 400 or 500 sheep, and I have shorn in sheds where 20 shearers have shorn more than 50 000 sheep.

So I am well versed in the problems with which the pastoral industry has been faced over many years. I have seen all sides of it. I have seen its ups and its downs. At times I was very distraught when some people in the industry had great ups and let money flow through their fingers as though it were water going through a colander. I think I spoke on that matter in my maiden speech in this Parliament. I will not refer to it again now. It was disturbing when we saw money flowing through the fingers of the wealthy wool growers when shearers such as myself were getting 35 shillings a hundred to shear sheep. Mr Keating went on to say:

Going back over the debates on the wool industry, it was the present Minister for Primary Industry who expressed strong reservations about the Labor Government’s proposals. On 28 November 1974 he said, when speaking on the Wool Industry Bill (No. 2):

We suspect this piece of legislation. We believe that there are elements within the changes which this legislation will implement which are very desirable.

Of course he was correct in that last sentence. The quotation went on:

However, there are other elements which we see rather as the product of an attempt by this Government - of course he was referring to the Labor Government- for political purposes to change the character of those who have been operating very effectively and very admirably as the present members of the Australian Wool Corporation.

In 1974, when Senator Wriedt introduced the Bill, the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) said that he was very suspicious of it and was not too happy with it. The Bill we are debating at present is a furtherance of the legislation which was brought in by a Labor government. The Minister, in his second reading speech on the Wool Amendment Bill 1 977 even said:

When the floor price scheme was introduced in September 1974 . . .

This brings me to an article by Ken Hooper in the ‘Politics’ column in yesterday’s Australian. It appears under the heading ‘all’s well in the woolshed, thanks’. But the reporter does not give any thanks to Senator Wriedt as a former Minister for Agriculture or to the Whitlam Labor Government. He gives it all to another person who floated the idea of a floor price scheme for many years but could not get the support of the former Liberal-Country Party coalition Government. That Government would not listen to him. Because he might have conceived the idea or it is claimed that he did, he now gets all the credit from Mr Ken Hooper. I will not quote all the article, but it says in part:

It’s the sort of thing Sir William Gunn had in mind when he suggested the fixing -

I am using the words ‘Sir William Gunn’ only because they appear in the article. It is well known that in this Senate I never mention anyone’s title. I had to use his title in order to quote him in the right context. I do not agree with his title or the title that any other person may have. The article reads:

It’s the sort of thing Sir William Gunn had in mind when he suggested the fixing of a floor price on the nation ‘s wool clip. Back in the early sixties no one believed it could work.

How little they knew then. Today the Wool Corporation is probably one of the most successful agricultural trading organisations in Australia.

Of course, the Labor Party agrees that it is, and I am sure that most people would agree that Senator Wriedt played a very great part in making it one of the most successful trading organisations. In the conclusion of his article Mr Hooper had this to say:

Wool on a seasonal basis might be down but it’s certainly not out-thanks to Bill Gunn and the few People who had the guts to back his long-range vision for the industry.

Who had the guts to back the long-range vision for the industry? It was not honourable senators opposite who form the Government and who were in government for 23 years. The people who had the guts were those who formed the Whitlam Labor Government and, in particular, Senator Wriedt who piloted the legislation through the Parliament. Before he piloted it through the Parliament he had endless discussions with the wool growers all around Australia. He listened to what they said they wanted. He could see the value in what we put forward. Now the present Government is simply keeping this legislation in operation. I agree that it should.

But let us not take the credit away from the Labor Party and from Senator Wriedt who really put this legislation into effect. It is to him that the credit ought to be given, and not to Bill Gunn who is a very strong supporter of the National Country Party. It is all very well to float ideas and then have someone claim those ideas as Bill Gunn’s and suggest that he put them into operation. As we all know, he could not get them off the ground under successive Liberal-Country Party governments. They just would not listen to him. As I said, it was the Labor Government which brought this legislation into being. I still have a good relationship with many wool growers around the country, although in the main our politics differ. They certainly give due credit to the Whitlam Government for what it did. So anybody who says for political purposes that the Labor Party never does anything to help the country people ought to refresh his memory by looking at some of the legislation which was introduced into the Parliament when the Labor Government was in office. That legislation was of great benefit to primary producers as well as to people who live in country towns and who in the main derive their income and their living from successful primary production. I join with my Leader in supporting this legislation.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in reply- I thank the Senate and, in particular, the Opposition speakers for their support of this measure. However, I am sorry that they should have concentrated their remarks solely upon the record of the Labor Government in regard to the wool industry. I do not want to detract in any way from the record of the present Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) when he was Minister for Agriculture. I think he also held the title of Minister for Primary Industry at one stage. Certainly there were great benefits in the scheme that he introduced. Nevertheless, I think it is a pity that their remarks were along those lines. I am rather surprised that Senator McLaren, who has a very extensive knowledge of the wool industry- as he says, his experience with the wool industry goes back 20 odd years -

Senator McLaren:

– Longer than that; since 1935.

Senator DURACK:

-I would have thought then that he would have accorded real recognition to the steps that the former coalition government took in 1970 to introduce the flexible reserve price scheme and to set up the Australian Wool Commission to operate that scheme.

If we are going to have some competition as to who has done the most for the wool industry in recent years, I point out that two can play at that game. I emphasise that aspect for the record. When all is said and done the wool industry had been debating for many years the question of some form of government control or the introduction of some acquisition scheme or stabilisation scheme, whatever one might like to call it, for the industry. I do not know how many referendums were held in the industry on that subject. It was a contentious subject amongst the woolgrowers for many years. The first major and significant government intervention in the wool industry was taken by the coalition government under the leadership of the present Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) when he was the responsible Minister. The government of the day established the reserve price scheme and set up the Australian Wool Commission to administer that scheme. I am not certain of the date on which that occurred, but it was somewhere towards the end of 1970. They were dark days indeed for the wool industry. The steps that were taken then undoubtedly had a major impact in sustaining prices, in sustaining the industry and enabling it to survive and subsequently return to the better days which it had known.

As I said, I do not want to detract from or belittle in any way the steps that were taken in relation to that scheme by Senator Wriedt when he was Minister. The present Government has carried on and has improved that scheme. We have advanced the level of the floor price from 208c a kilogram on the whole clip average to 284c. We have guaranteed to maintain it at not less than that figure for the 1977-78 year. In addition, as has been indicated, we have introduced the limited offer to purchase scheme. I think another important initiative is the one which is referred to in the second reading speech and to which I refer again; namely, the freight negotiations. At the present time the Wool Corporation, with the consent of the Minister, has the power to enter into freight negotiations, and it is in fact doing so. But the Government wants to improve that authority of the Corporation and will be introducing legislation during the spring session. That legislation will enable the Corporation to negotiate directly on overseas freight rates and to set conditions for the carriage and handling of wool exported under the general control of the Minister for Transport who will be concerned with the freight negotiations in respect of not only the wool industry but also other industries and boards concerned with rural matters.

Continuing advances are being made by the present Government in regard to these matters, and I think that for the purpose of the record I should refer to them tonight. Although there has been some attempt on the part of the Opposition to appropriate all credit to itself, I am sure that the Senate will not agree that that is justified. The Government also has a good record in regard to the wool industry. I hope that the Bill will receive a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am prompted to rise in the Committee stage of the Bill by a remark made by the Minister in charge of the Bill when he said that the Opposition did not give credit to the flexible reserve price scheme when it was in operation. I would just like to remind Senator Carrick that it was well known that that scheme was like an old cast for age or cracker ewe. It did not have a tooth in its head. That is the way it remained until the Australian Labor Party came to office.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:
QUEENSLAND

-You mean Senator Durack, do you not?

Senator McLAREN:

– No. I am talking about the legislation, not about Senator Durack. I see that he has a good set of teeth, so I was not referring to him. I was referring to the flexible reserve price scheme to which he referred when he was replying to both Senator Wriedt and me.

The CHAIRMAN:

– But which senator? Senator Carrick or Senator Durack?

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Durack, the Minister in charge of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You said ‘Senator Carrick’.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am very sorry. They look alike when they sit in that particular seat. It could be a fault of mine. I apologise to Senator Durack for confusing him with Senator Carrick. I am sure that he would not want to be put in that category. However, as I said, the wool growers and the wool industry well knew that that piece of legislation was like an old cast for age or cracker ewe without a tooth in its head.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1708

WOOL TAX AMENDMENT BILLS

(Nos 1 to 5) 1977

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bills be now read a second rime.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate · Tasmania

– I formally indicate that the Opposition is not opposing the Bills.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I thank the Opposition for supporting these Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 1708

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the proposals of the Government for amendment of the Trade Practices Act. This Bill has been developed following a long and fruitful period of detailed examination of the present Act and proposals for its amendment. In April 1976 the Government established a Committee to review the operation of the Act. That Committee- the Swanson’ Committee- reported last August and the report was immediately made public. In December 1976 the Government announced its proposals in relation to certain recommendations of the Committee. It did so with the specific intention of encouraging and fostering public scrutiny and debate. Since that time, those proposals have, in fact, been closely scrutinised by the community and a great number of submissions have been received.

This Bill represents the Government’s decisions in relation to the manner in which the Act should be amended, taking into account all the views that have been put to it. The original proposals have been varied to accommodate a large number of technical changes, largely flowing from the public comments to which I have already referred, and designed to clarify the Bill or remove anomalies. However, there have also been incorporated a number of changes which could not be described as technical. I now turn to the detail of the Bill.

Government Commercial Operations

The Government announced last December that it had decided in principle that its commercial operations should be subject to the same restraints of the Trade Practices Act as apply to like operations of private enterprise. The detailed implementation of this decision has been studied and is given effect to in clause 4- which provides that the Act is to apply to all business undertakings of the Commonwealth Government and its authorities. There is only one specific exception. Land development in the Australian Capital Territory is specifically exempted, so as not to inhibit town planning in the Australian Capital Territory. Although provision is made in the Bill for regulations to provide other exemptions, the Government has no present plans to use that power. In addition, quite apart from the operation of its business undertakings, this Government has adopted the practice that all its advertising should conform to the standards of the Trade Practices Aa. The Government hopes that its lead in this area is followed by all State governments.

Restrictive Trade Practices

The Trade Practices Act will continue to deal with anti-competitive agreements, monopolisation, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance, anti-competitive price discrimination and mergers. As I will outline in this speech, the Bill makes some adjustments to the laws on these matters and- importantly- to the procedures for their administrative adjudication. The law on anti-competitive agreements is altered by this Bill, substantially as recommended by the

Review Committee. This should clarify the operation of the law. The test of ‘restraint of trade’with its undesirable common law connotationshas been omitted. The previous differing tests of competitive effect have been eliminated in favour of a single test.

Price Agreements: The Bill prohibits collusive price agreements. However, except for price agreements for goods, which are prohibited outright, these matters may be granted authorisation if a net public benefit is shown to exist. The Government has not adopted the recommendation of the Review Committee that price agreements for services be prohibited outright. In some service industries, price agreements may be considered analogous to the determination of wage and salary levels.

Boycotts: The Government has given close attention to the problems of both primary and secondary boycotts. The Government’s views on this matter are based on 2 fundamental principles. First, it is considered that boycotting the commercial activities of particular persons is generally undesirable conduct, and that the Trade Practices Act should take a firm line on these matters. Accordingly, the Bill prohibits collective primary boycotts involving competitors where they have the purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting the trade of particular persons. Collective secondary boycotts are prohibited where they have both the purpose and effect of either substantially damaging a particular business or substantially lessening competition in a market.

Secondly, the Government believes that it is essential that the Trade Practices Act should take an even-handed approach to secondary boycotts and apply, so far as possible, to both business and employees alike. Primary boycotts by employees are not, of course, dealt with by this Act. Thus, section 45D applies to the conduct of any person. Exemptions for purely consumer boycotts will, however, remain. Further, the Bill enables authorisation to be obtained for any such boycott if the Trade Practices Commission is satisfied that in all the circumstances the boycott results in such a benefit to the public that it should be authorised. Secondary boycotts by employees do, however, have some unique features. Accordingly, the Bill has some special provisions which are appropriate only to employee secondary boycotts. Where employees are taking action for a dominant purpose substantially related to the remuneration, conditions of employment, termination of employment, hours of work or working conditions of those employees, or fellow employees of the same employer, the secondary boycott is not prohibited.

Further, where the relevant employees are members of a trade union, that trade union is deemed to have engaged in the secondary boycott itself unless it establishes that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the boycott. However, the protection which employees are to be afforded from the prohibition will also be available to trade unions and their officers where the only persons with whom they act in concert are employees of the one employer and the conduct is engaged in for a dominant purpose of the type to which I have already referred. An individual employee is not to be subject to an award of damages where his trade union is held responsible for the particular conduct. Finally, in this regard, no individual is to be subject to the pecuniary penalties of the Act for a contravention of section 45D.

Small Businesses: The Government has also given close attention to the problems of small businesses in relation to the Trade Practices Act. It has made a number of decisions as a consequence of this consideration. It has decided that both the present Act and its earlier proposals gave insufficient attention to the problems of small business in making pricing decisions. Small businesses often do not have the managerial support staff necessary to make informed individual pricing decisions, particularly in multi-product situations. They tend to rely for this support upon trade associations. However, the present Trade Practices Act has often hindered the issuing of recommended price lists by trade associations. This has worked against the interests of small businesses.

The effect of the Bill is that’ ‘true’ recommended price lists- those not having the effect of fixing, maintaining or controlling a price- and which do not substantially lessen competition in a market, will be outside the Act altogether. Those recommendations which may fix, control or maintain a price, but which are issued by trade associations of more than 50 members, will not be caught by the absolute prohibitions of the Act. They will still be permitted unless they have a substantial effect on competition. A further concession to price lists issued by trade associations of more than 50 members, will be that even if they have an anti-competitive effect they will be eligible for authorisation on the grounds of public benefit. The effect of these changes is that recommended price lists issued by many small business organisations will not be prohibited by the Act unless they both substantially lessen competition and are not in the public interest.

The Bill does not accept the recommendation of the Swanson Committee that section 49- the section which prohibits anti-competitive price discrimination- should be abolished. The Government has decided that section 49 should be retained- in the interests of assisting the competitive position of small businesses. The Government recognises, however, that difficulties with the interpretation of section 49 will remain. Accordingly, over the next few months, the Government will be looking at the operation of the section to determine whether there is any way in which those difficulties can be removed while still preserving the benefits of the section. Finally in relation to small businesses, the Bill gives special treatment to agreements relating to collective acquisition and joint advertising schemes. Particularly in retail industries, such schemes have enabled small business to band together for the purpose of placing themselves in a stronger buying position. Such schemes have played an important role in containing price increases to the consumer.

Joint Ventures: The Government has also given close attention to the position of joint ventures under the Act. The Government has always considered that joint ventures have made a special contribution to the economy of this country. The Bill recognises that contribution. In particular, it recognises that joint decisions as to the marketing of the joint venture product- including pricing decisions- are often inseparable from the decision to establish the joint venture in the first place. Appropriate distinctions are made in the prohibition and authorisation sections of the Bill. In substance, the relevant question is now whether the joint venture as a whole substantially lessens competition in a market. Even in that event a joint venture will still be able to seek authorisation on public benefit grounds. In addition, the Bill provides that the Trade Practices Commission is required to consider together, for the purposes of authorisation, all aspects of a particular joint venture which are placed before it simultaneously.

Use of Land: The Government has generally adopted the recommendations of the Review Committee concerning the use of land as a means of effecting restrictive trade practices. Those recommendations particularly related to the use of covenants running with the land and the use of leases and licences of land containing restrictive provisions. These matters are expressely included within the scope of this Bill.

Monopolisation: The law of monopolisation is clarified by this Bill. It makes it clear that only purposive conduct by a market dominating concern comes within the prohibition. It also states expressly that capital investment can never, of itself, constitute monopolisation.

Exclusive Dealing: Section 47 of the Act- the general prohibition of exclusive dealing- has been restructured as recommended by the Review Committee. The Bill provides immunity for exclusive dealing conduct notified to the Trade Practices Commission, until the Commission makes a positive determination that the conduct is both anti-competitive and without net public benefit. This procedure is available either as an alternative to, or in addition to, authorisation.

Mergers: I turn now to mergers. On this matter, the Bill makes substantial changes to the present law. The Government has decided that the categories of merger to be subject to the Act should be quite limited. There should be no unnecessary impediment, legislative or administrative, to the attainment of rationalisation of Australian industry. It is in Australia’s best interests to achieve economies of scale and improved international competitiveness. The Bill now deals only with mergers which lead to a corporation achieving or being likely to achieve a position of control or domination of a market, or to acquisitions of competitors by such marketdominating corporations which substantially strengthen the power of the corporation to control or dominate a market. In each case, the relevant market is to be a substantial market for goods or services in Australia or in a State. As the law relating to mergers is now only to be concerned with questions of control or domination of a market, the procedure for clearance has been eliminated.

Some changes have also been made to Part VI of the Act- remedies- in relation to remedies available following contravention of the merger provisions. The remedy of injunction is now to be available in these cases only upon the application of the Minister or the Trade Practices Commission. The availability of the injunctive remedy on the application of private persons gave a powerful tool to opponents of the merger. It has been used as a device to defeat mergers, during the tactical battle between the parties, for reasons quite unrelated to competition. Also the Bill provides that the remedy of divestiture is available to any person, either as a primary application or as a consequence of other proceedings or findings. An application for divestiture must, however, be made within 3 years of the merger.

Commission Procedures for Restrictive Trade Practices and Mergers

Experience has shown that the clearance procedure provided by the present law has involved the Trade Practices Commission very closely in the daily operations of Australian business. Whatever justification this may have had in the early days of the legislation has now disappeared. To continue the clearance procedure would perpetuate unnecessary interference by Government in the exercise of individual economic initiative. The Bill thus abolishes the clearance procedure. The authorisation test in the present law has been widely criticised as unnecessarily harsh. The Review Committee recommended that the test be altered to reflect a simple balance between benefits and detriments to the public flowing from the conduct. In relation to all matters other than mergers and boycotts, the Government supports this simple, but highly desirable, change which will bring a better perspective to the application of trade practices law. The changed emphasis regarding mergers, and the nature of the new prohibitions regarding boycotts, require a different authorisation test for those matters. That test now obliges the Trade Practices Commission to be satisfied in all the circumstances that the merger or boycott results in such a benefit to the public that it should be authorised.

This Bill also provides a right for discussions with the Trade Practices Commission before the determination of authorisation applications or exclusive dealing notifications. The lack of direct contact between the Commission, applicants and other interested persons has been a major deficiency in the operation of the law to date. The availability of such discussions, which the Review Committee recommended should be a matter of right, is essential. Public hearings before the Trade Practices Commission in authorisation matters are abolished. The heavy cost of these hearings- both to parties and to the Commission itself- is not warranted. The possibility remains for a full public hearing before the Trade Practices Tribunal on appeal.

Consumer Protection

The Review Committee recommended that the present provisions of Part V of the Act should generally continue to operate, subject to certain improvements. The Bill provides for these changes. The definition of consumer has been changed in a way which will give small businesses a measure of protection which they previously did not have. The conditions and warranties implied by Division 2 of Part V of the Act will now be implied into a wider range of transactions. The present Act is pointedly deficient in protecting consumers in land transactions. Major abuses have occurred in the past in relation to the promotion and sale of land- particularly major subdivisions promoted on an interstate basis. The Bill extends protection to the consumer in these matters. At present there is no quick method for the Government to ban the sale of unsafe consumer products produced in Australia. The marketing of unsafe products is a major concern of the community. Provision is now made in this Bill for the making of orders banning the sale of unsafe goods.

The Government considers that the present sanctions and remedies for consumer protection contraventions are unsatisfactory. The Bill makes a number of important changes in this area. The penalty of imprisonment is abolished. More appropriate defences are provided. The court may now make a wider range of corrective orders designed to assist the consumer in a practical way. For example, the court may order the supply of services or the repair of goods. Additionally, the court may order affirmative disclosure or corrective advertising, as a remedy for contraventions of the consumer protection provisions. This power is, however, subject to a limitation of $50,000 on the amount of affirmative disclosure or corrective advertising which may be ordered in relation to a particular contravention or substantially related contraventions.

Commencement Date

Finally with respect to the Bill, I note the express provision that it will come into force on I July 1977. It is the hope of the Government that this Bill will be enacted during the current sittings of Parliament.

Other matters

I turn now to matters which are not expressly dealt with by this Bill. The Review Committee recommended substantially greater involvement by State government agencies in the administration and enforcement of the consumer protection part of the Trade Practices Act. It was considered that consumer complaints could best be handled on a local basis, through State consumer protection agencies and State courts. The Government has accepted this recommendation in principle and discussions have already been held with the States about it. Individual State governments are presently considering their positions. No State government has yet indicated any final decision on the matter. In the meantime no provision has been made for these matters in the Bill.

An area of major concern to Australian business has been the multiplicity of State and Commonwealth laws implying non-excludable terms into consumer transactions. The Review Committee considered this multiplicity to be a source of cost and confusion to Australian business. It recommended that the Commonwealth legislate in the area so as to cover the field to a significant degree. The Government has accepted this recommendation in principle and will naturally explore proposals for its implementation with State governments. Indeed, the recommendation has already been discussed by a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers. The Review Committee also recommended that the Trade Practices Act be extended to provide for manufacturers to be liable directly to consumers for breach of implied terms in consumer contracts. Some State laws already provide for such liability. The Government has accepted this recommendation in principle. A draft amendment Bill on this subject has been prepared by the Government and it is proposed to expose that draft legislation to the Australian community for the purposes of public discussion of its terms.

The Review Committee also recommended that the Act contain provisions relating to the admission of business records as evidence in proceedings under the Trade Practices Act. The Government has now decided that such provisions should be more generally applicable and accordingly will seek to amend the Evidence Act 1905 to achieve this end. In this way these rules of evidence will apply to proceedings under the Trade Practices Act, but also to a much wider range of proceedings. It is common ground that the Trade Practices Act does not have universal application throughout the community because of constitutional limitations. The Swanson Committee recommended that the Commonwealth should initiate consultations with State governments to achieve such universal application. The Government has decided to seek consultations with State governments to this end. As I said at the start of this speech, this Bill has been prepared after extensive study and consultation. I hope it will receive the support of all honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 1712

PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to give effect to the Government’s decision, made on the basis of the Industries Assistance Commission’s report of 30 October 1976, to continue for a further 5 years from 1 July 1977 the payment of bounty on the production of phosphate fertilisers for use in Australia. In accordance with recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission, the bounty scheme is being extended to apply to production of crushed or calcined phosphate rock and phosphatic substances for use as supplements to stock foods. The rate of bounty payable at present is- on single superphosphate (i.e. superphosphate having a phosphorus pentoxide content of 20 per cent plus or minus one-half per cent)- $11.81 per tonne; and on other superphosphate and ammonium phosphate- $59.05 per tonne of phosphorus pentoxide content.

In the Bill that I have just introduced the rate of bounty is, in accordance with present trade usage, expressed by reference to available phosphorus content rather than by reference to phosphorus pentoxide content as in the present Act.

In accordance with the Industries Assistance Commission’s report, and for reasons of administrative convenience, the Bill proposes that bounty on the production of single superphosphate be paid at the rate of $12 per tonne and that, on the production of phosphatic substances having a phosphorus content either greater, or less than, the phosphorus content of single superphosphate, bounty be at the rate of $138 per tonne of available phosphorus content. The prescribing of the latter rate will result in bounty in every case, and irrespective of the phosphorus content of the product concerned, being in strict relativity to the bounty on single superphosphate.

Although the Bill proposes a significant change in the manner of calculating bounty, I would like to make it quite clear that, except for minor and sensible rounding off. the change does not represent any variation from the rates of bounty payable under the present Act.

In connection with the definition of ‘available phosphorus content’ in paragraph (a) of clause 3 of the Bill, provision is made for the prescribing by regulation of the method of determining such content. It is proposed that the method to be prescribed will be that of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists for available phosphorus which is an internationally accepted method. The effect of clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill is to continue the Government’s policy of expanding, wherever possible, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to administrative decisions which affect a person’s rights or entitlements under Commonwealth legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 1713

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Supension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1977 and the National Labour Consultative Council Bill 1977 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

Bills (on motion by Senator Durack) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speeches read as follows-

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1977

The Bill which is before the Senate was originally introduced in the House of Representatives on 3 1 March by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). In that form the Bill was designed to implement certain aspects of the Government’s Industrial Relations policy based upon the fundamental principles that: every member of the community has rights and obligations; those rights must be protected and the obligations met.

Thus the Bill, as originally presented, provided for: additional protection for the rights of individuals; the establishment of an Industrial Relations Bureau to secure the observance of the Act, regulations and awards; extension of the range of consequences available to the Court for breaches of industrial law.

In his second reading speech, the Minister stated the Government’s view that there was a need for time to be given not only for members of Parliament to give the proposed legislation their objective consideration but also for the principal parties to industrial relations- the peak councils of the employer organisations and trade unions, individual trade unions and employers and the community at large- to examine the contents of the Bill and to be able to make their views known to the Government. To that end the Minister stated the Government’s intention that the Bill should lie on the table of the House. The Minister subsequently invited representatives of the national employers and, through the Australian Council of Trade Unions, representatives of peak union councils to meet with him separately to discuss the Bill. He met with the union representatives on 11 May and with employers on 13 May. His discussions with them were both detailed and frank.

The unions indicated their strong opposition to many of the Government’s proposed amendments. However, at the end of the discussions, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, with the support of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations, provided the Minister with a written statement which included: . . we put two propositions for the earnest consideration of the Government. These propositions are put in the deeply held belief that confrontation and massive economic dislocation, if avoidable whilst still adhering to principle, is against the best interests of the Australian community.

First, if the Government wishes to put the responsibility for dealing with the existing pains and penalties and processes into the hands of a body which they wish to designate as an Industrial Relations Bureau-and there is no explicit or implicit addition to those existing provisions or processes- the trade union movement, while regarding such a move as unnecessary, would offer no objection.

Second, we would be prepared to join a reconstituted tripartite National Labour Advisory Council which would have, as previously, the responsibility of discussing any issues of national concern in that area of industrial relations. Among the early issues to be considered by the NLAC it would be appropriate to include a thorough going research and analysis of the operations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act with a view to achieving agreed improvements in that area. Such analysis could well produce positive creative functions for a Bureau concerned with improving industrial relations within this area.

The national employers, while not completely supporting the propositions put by the ACTU and stressing their view of the need to retain strong enforcement provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, indicated that they believed that the ACTU’s change of attitude in regard to the establishment of the Industrial Relations Bureau and participation in a tripartite consultative body were significant developments and their implications warranted serious consideration by the Government. The Government has given very serious consideration to the views and proposals put by both unions and employers.

On 17 May the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations announced:

The Government welcomes the acceptance by the ACTU of an Industrial Relations Bureau and the re-constitution of the National Labour Advisory Council.

The Government has decided to pass legislation this session to establish the Industrial Relations Bureau which will have the function of securing the observance of the Act and awards in the terms already in the Act.

Pending the detailed consideration of the Act referred to later in this statement, the Industrial Relations Bureau will have the same powers as the Arbitration Inspectorate, no more, no less, and those powers will be exercised according to the same processes as they have been until now.

The Government will also legislate this session to reconstitute the National Labour Advisory Council to provide a national tripartite forum for the consideration of issues of national concern in the industrial relations and manpower areas.

Both these bodies are key elements in the Government’s industrial relations policy. The Government is also committed to legislating for the protection for individual rights in the industrial area. However, it is prepared to review the provisions on these aspects and on other matters relating to the operation of the Act contained in the present Bill in the light of their further consideration by the reconstituted National Labour Advisory Council. To enable this, the Government will stand over until the Budget session further legislation in relation to these matters.

In the light of the positive response to this statement by the Conference of Federal Union– convened by the ACTU, and the national employers views, the Minister moved certain amendments to the Bill in the other place, and consequently the Bill as transmitted to this House provides, together with some machinery amendments, simply for the establishment of an Industrial Relations Bureau.

The functions and powers that will be exercised by the Industrial Relations Bureau when it is formed will be the same as those currently exercised by the Arbitration Inspectorate and the processes followed by the Bureau will be those followed by the Arbitration Inspectorate. The functions of the Arbitration Inspectorate are to secure the observance of the Act, regulations and of awards. Section 125 (4) of the Act states that the duties of inspectors shall be as determined by the Minister. In accordance with that sub-section successive Ministers have assigned inspectors the following duties, which the present Minister has left unchanged:

  1. i to make inspections, examinations, investigations and inquiries and to interview persons:
  2. a ) to determine whether the said Act and the regulations thereunder and any award or order made under the Act are being observed and if not in what respect they are not being observed: or
  3. b) where an offence against the Act is suspected;

    1. to advise employers and employees as to their rights and obligations under the said Act. regulations, awards and orders and as to the manner in which the said Act, regulations, awards and orders should be observed;
    2. to give a person who is required, and who has failed to observe the Act or the regulations or an award or order made under the Act a notice requiring him to make good the default specified in the notice within such time as is fixed by the notice, and to notify the Inspector who has given the notice, within such time as is fixed by the notice, of the action taken to comply with the notice.
    3. to furnish to the Secretary to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, or to any officer of the Department designated for that purpose by the Secretary, reports on the results of such inspections, examinations, investigations, inquiries, advice and notices; and
    4. to institute, conduct, assist in the conduct of, and give evidence in relation to any proceedings or prosecutions for breach or non-observance of the Act or the regulations made thereunder or an award or order made under the Act, which may be authorised by the Minister of State for Employment and Industrial Relations or by the secretary to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations or by any officer of the Department designated for that purpose by the Secretary.

For the benefit of honourable senators I would point out that these duties and the legal authorities under which the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspecorate operates are set out in Appendix A of the ‘Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate: Report for period 1 July 1975-30 June 1976’ which I tabled in this House on 24 May 1977. In August 1976 the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations approved criteria to be applied by Arbitration Inspectors in determining action to be taken to secure the observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, regulations and awards. At that time the Minister sent a copy of the criteria to the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) as the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Employment and industrial Relations. The criteria were as follows:

ARBITRATION INSPECTORATE

Criteria to be Applied by Inspectors and Regional Offices in Determining Action to be Taken in Relation to Securing the Observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Aci, Regulations and Awards

Introduction

The primary functions of the Arbitration Inspectorate are to secure, by voluntary means, the observance of relevant legal requirements and to assist employers and employees to understand and give effect to their rights, duties and obligations in this respect.

In certain circumstances it may not be possible to secure the observance of the law by voluntary compliance. In other circumstances the non observance of the law may be sufficiently serious to warrant prosecution. This paper sets down the criteria to be applied as well as the procedures to be followed by the Inspectorate in determining the various courses of action which, depending on the circumstances, may need to be taken.

Award Breaches- Proceedings Under si 19 of Conciliation and Arbitration Act

The Inspector is to normally require a breach to be rectified within 14 days of its notification by him to the employer. As appropriate, a longer period may be allowed for rectifying breaches requiring installation of equipment or physical alteration in a place of employment or for breaches involving complex or lengthy calculations of monetary amounts.

Where an employer fails to adequately rectify a breach of an award within the stipulated time without reasonable cause or explanation the Inspector should recommend that si 19 proceedings be instituted. This recommendation will not be made where the employer concerned is either bankrupt or in a state of liquidation. If an employer is in either of these situations the advice of the Deputy Crown Solicitor should be sought by the Director as to the most appropriate means, if any, of recovery of monies owing.

Where an employer refers a Notice of Demand to his agent eg, solicitor or industry association, to handle the mutter on his behalf, the Inspector should immediately draw the agent’s attention in writing to the necessity Ibr the breach to be rectified within 14 days from the date on which the matter was referred to him. Where, without reasonable cause or explanation, the employer through his agent subsequently fails to rectify the breach within the stipulated period, the Inspector should recommend s 1 1 9 proceedings be instituted.

Subject to paragraph 7, where a breach has been voluntarily rectified it is to be accepted without proceedings being recommended. However, the employer’s file is to be noted and re-submitted to ensure that a follow up visit is undertaken within twelve months, or as soon as practicable thereafter, to ensure no further breaches have been committed.

Notwithstanding the fact that an employer has voluntarily rectified a breach, the Inspector may recommend that s 1 1 9 proceedings be instituted where:

a ) the breach is serious or deliberate: or

b) the employer has previously been in breach of a federal award/s.

For the purpose of paragraph 7:

lt is not considered appropriate to define the term “serious breach’. Whether a breach is serious will depend on the circumstances of each particular case. Important considerations which should be taken into account in assessing the seriousness of a breach include size of any underpayment to each individual employee concerned, and any danger to health or safety.

An important consideration in determining whether a breach is “deliberate’ is whether the breach arose from conduct or events within the control of the employer.

Where an employer has previously been in breach of a federal award/s, important considerations in determining whether to recommend si 19 proceedings will be:

the circumstances and frequency of the previous breach/es. and

the likelihood of future award breaches if proceedings are not taken.

Directors are authorised to approve recommendations by Inspectors Ibr si 19 proceedings for breach of an award or to give such other decision on the recommendation as is consistent with the criteria.

The Director, New South Wales, is the authorised Director Ibr the Australian Capital Territory.

  1. The Inspector is to submit recommendations for proceedings to the Senior Officer as designated by the Director.

The Senior Officer is to pass each recommendation to the Director with his comments. Before doing so he is to satisfy himself: that all relevant facts are available; that the award(, ) has been correctly construed; that a prima facie case of breach exists; that policy governing prosecutions has been observed; that evidentiary requirements appear capable of being met to the satisfaction of the Deputy Crown Solicitor.

A copy of each recommendation for prosecution, together with the decision of the Director, is to be forwarded as soon us practicable to Central Office. In the case of approved proceedings, the documentation should be forwarded at the same time as instructions are forwarded to the Deputy Crown Solicitor. This is for recording purposes and to enable Central Office to keep in touch with decisions in Regions and ensure they are consistent with policy requirements.

The Director, or a nominated officer, will take up all approved proceedings with the Deputy Crown Solicitor and will report the outcome of proceedings to Central Office together with a full report on the case, including any observations by the Deputy Crown Solicitor.

Award Breaches by Employees

The above criteria are expressed to relate to award breaches by employers. By their very nature, federal awards are primarily directed toward the obligations of employers and award obligations upon employees are few in number and of an essentially different nature to those of employers. This difference is reflected in the fact that while the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides for the recovery of moneys owing by an employer to an employee, the Act does not provide for the converse.

Award breaches by employees (awards are binding on employees only if they are members of a union respondent to the relevant award or the award is Common Rule ) are subject to the same fundamental enforcement policy as award breaches by employers. However application of this policy must take account of the difference in the nature of the breaches. For this reason, and because of the complexity of the issue involved, Directors are to refer all alleged employee award breaches to Central Office for decision as to whether a breach exists and whether proceedings under section 119 will be instituted. In referring such matters, Directors should provide their assessment as to whether a breach exists.

Courts

Proceedings may be taken in the Australian Industrial Court or other courts specified in section 1 19 ( 1 ) as is considered appropriate by the Director.

Interpretation

Where an Inspector considers an award has been breached, but a strong doubt exists as to the interpretation of the award provision in question e.g. an employer or his agent may challenge an Inspector’s construction of an award on the basis of different, but well reasoned interpretation, the Inspector should not recommend that proceedings under section 1 19 be instituted, but should refer the matter to Central Office. Central Office will examine the matter and, if appropriate, seek an interpretation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Once an interpretation has been obtained from the Industrial Court, any action necessary follow-up recovery and, if appropriate, prosecution can be effected by the Inspector.

Breaches of Acts

All recommendations by Inspectors for proceedings for breach of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or any other Act are to be conveyed by the Director, with his comments, to the Secretary, for his decision.

A study of the duties of the Arbitration Inspectorate and the criteria applying to its operations makes it clear that it is to discharge its responsibilities in a completely evenhanded manner and without distinction between employers or employees or between their organisations, as the case may be. The Industrial Relations Bureau will have, in the words of the ACTU statement of 1 1 May, ‘the responsibility for dealing with the existing pains and penalties and processes ‘ under the Act. The ACTU statement recognised the importance of ‘adhering to principle’. This means that the Industrial Relations Bureau must be an independent statutory body; this is, and has always been, basic to its concept. Consequently, the officers of the Bureau in exercising their functions will be subject to the direction of the Director in the same way as the Arbitration Inspectorate is subject to the direction of the Minister under section 125 (4) of the Act.

At this point I should also reiterate that the Government is committed to legislating for the protection of individual rights in the industrial relations area. In my second reading speech introducing the Bill for the establishment of the National Labour Consultative Council, I indicated that the Government was prepared to review the provision for these and other matters relating to the operations of the Act contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1977, as originally proposed, in the light of their further consideration by the new Council. I also indicated that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations would be asking the Council to consider these questions as a matter of priority. To facilitate this the Government proposes to stand over until the Budget session further legislation in relation to these matters. The Government’s objective is to achieve more harmonious industrial relations. This objective will not be achieved unless there is mutual understanding and acceptance of their responsibilities by all parties to industrial relations. The Government believes the establishment of a reconstituted national tripartite consultative council and the Industrial Relations Bureau, both of which are key elements in the Government’s industrial relations policy, will substantially assist in achieving this end. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

National Labour Consultative Council Bill 1977

This Bill proposes the establishment of a continuing tripartite consultative body in the manpower and industrial relations fields to be known as the National Labour Consultative Council. This is not the first occasion on which there has been a tripartite body for consultations on matters relating to the employment and industrial relations portfolio. From 1954 to 1958, there was a body known as the Ministry of Labour Advisory Council, and in the late 1960s the National Labour Advisory Council was established. Both of these bodies had on them representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the national employers. They met regularly for consultation on a wide range of matters: For example, employment, industrial relations and related industrial and economic matters. Neither of the bodies were established by statute. The National Labour Advisory Council continued to meet until the advent of the Labor Government in 1972. Although it was never formally wound-up it has not met since that time.

The employment and industrial relations policy of the Government specifically provides for the re-establishment of a national tripartite consultative body similar to the National Labour Advisory Council but with a more effective charter. It also provides for the new consultative body to be established on a statutory basis and not merely to be available for use if required by the Minister. It would have an obligation to meet regularly. In January 1976, shortly after the Government came to office, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations conferred with representatives of the national employers and the peak union councils with a view to seeking their agreement to the implementation of this policy objective. At those discussions substantial consensus was achieved in relation to the establishment and charter of a national tripartite body. Subsequently, however, the ACTU indicated that it was not prepared to participate in the body. Obviously, the effectiveness of any tripartite machinery depends upon the willingness of all parties to participate in it. I am therefore pleased to be able to say now that, following discussions on 1 1 May between the Minister and representatives of the peak union councils on the Government’s proposed industrial relations legislation, the ACTU has indicated that it would be prepared to join a re-constituted tripartite consultative council. Representatives of the National Employers Associations have also reiterated their previous agreement to join such a council.

The Bill proposes that the new body should be known as the National Labour Consultative Council. Its purpose will be to provide a regular and formal means by which representatives of the Government and employer and employee organisations may consult together on manpower matters and industrial relations matters of national concern. Its charter is stated in general terms and will enable discussions of, among other matters, employment, training, industrial legislation and international labour issues. I believe that the creation of the council as a statutory body will not only enhance its status in the community but will also ensure its continuance as an essential channel for communications in the labour field. Let me briefly outline the other main provisions of the Bill.

Composition of the Council

The Bill proposes that the Council comprise 16 members:

The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who shall be Chairman;

The Secretary of that Department;

One member chosen by the Minister to represent public authorities as employers;

Six members nominated by the National Employers’ Policy Committee;

Six members nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; and

One member nominated by the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations.

Meetings of the Council

The Bill provides that meetings of the Council be held at least once a quarter. In addition the Minister may convene a meeting at any other time and is obliged to do so whenever requested by a majority of the members of the Council.

Establishment of Committees

The Bill also empowers the Council to establish committees and refer to them for consideration and report any matter relevant to the purpose of the Council.

The establishment of the Council proposed by this Bill represents a further, and fundamental step in the progressive implementation of the industrial relations policy of the Government. Effective consultation and communication between Government, employer and employee organisations is vital for the development of our nation. If Parliament agrees to the enactment of this legislation the Minister shall take immediate steps to bring the Council into operation. The ACTU has already indicated that among the early issues which might be considered by the new Council could be an examination of the operations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

In the Minister’s 13 May statement welcoming the acceptance by the ACTU of an Industrial Relations Bureau and the re-constitution of a tripartite consultative council, the Minister stressed that the Government was committed to legislating for the protection of individual rights in the industrial relations area but that it was prepared to review the provisions on these and other matters relating to the operation of the Act contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill laid before the Parliament on 31 March in the light of their further consideration by the new Council. The Minister stated in his second reading speech in the other place that he will be asking the Council to consider these questions as a matter of priority. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 9.20 p.m.

page 1719

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Mrs Fraser’s Visit to West Germany (Question No. 550)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 April

1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the estimated total cost of the visit to West Germany by the Prime Minister’s wife to officially launch an Australian container ship.
  2. 2 ) What are the details of the trip.
  3. Why was it necessary for Mrs Fraser to perform this function, rather than the wife of the Australian Ambassador to West Germany or some other Australian who was then currently in West Germany.
  4. What other official functions did Mrs Fraser perform during her visit.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) Mrs Fraser was invited by the Australian Shipping Commission to sponsor the Australian Progress at the shipyards of Blohm and Voss at Hamburg on 5 April. The launching coincided with the firm’s 100th anniversary and the main speaker at the function was the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. Wives of previous Prime Ministers have performed similar official duties, e.g. Mrs Whitlam visited Kobe in 1974 for the launching of Australian Emblem. Mrs Fraser’s acceptance of the invitation was entirely in accord with practice.

Mrs Fraser, accompanied by her Personal Secretary and a security officer, left Australia on 30 March for Bonn and Hamburg and returned to Australia via London on 8 April. Costs for the visit have not yet been finalised.

Apart from meeting the wives of Australian and German officials and presenting an anniversary gift at the launching dinner, Mrs Fraser visited the Werner Otto Institute for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Handicapped Children in Hamburg.

Sugar Industry: Cyclone Damage (Question No. 617)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

Will the Minister indicate the damages and crop losses suffered by the sugar industry in North Queensland in:

Ingham

Innisfail

Tully

Cairns, and

Ayr as a result of the disastrous cyclone season in Queensland this year.

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

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

I have been informed by the Queensland Acting Minister for Primary Industries that firm estimates of the production losses associated with cyclone and flood damage will not be available until the completion of harvesting later this year. However, the following preliminary estimates of crop losses, expressed in terms of gross value to the region and assuming a sugar price of S200 per tonne, are provided:

I understand that damage valued al S 1 50.000 has been reported to mill train lines and up to 300 hectares of cane land have been damaged to a degree where subsequent restoration will be difficult.

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (Question No. 667)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 May 1 977:

If and when will the Government agree to the unanimous request from major producer organisations to establish the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and not reappoint the Australian Meat Board.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I announced on 27 April last that the Government had agreed to establish an Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to replace the present Australian Meat Board. The Government has attached a high priority to establishment of the Corporation and the necessary steps to get it operational are under way.

Oil Tanker Fire, Gore Cove (Question No. 688)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the findings of a Marine Court of Inquiry into a recent oil tanker fire at Gore Cove are implemented.
  2. Will the Minister ensure that oil companies who fail to train crews in modern techniques to fight fires involving petroleum products have their tankers excluded from the Australian coast and replaced by other tankers with more efficient masters and crewmen.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. I ) The only findings of the Court that require action by the government are summarised in the 2 recommendations appended to the findings. In respect of recommendation No. I my Department has already issued a notice directing tanker owners to comply with detailed requirements for the checking of slop-tank ullages. Surveyors will ensure during their normal inspection visits that these requirements are being complied with.

In respect of recommendation No. 2 action is in hand, along with the general upgrading of training of seagoing personnel in Australia that will be associated with the establishment of the Maritime College in Launceston, to have fire fighting courses for tanker crews to be made available on a wider basis at points throughout Australia than is provided at present, lt is proposed that attendance at such training courses will be made mandatory for all tanker crews.

It should be noted that the Court did not find that the officers or crew of the Cellana, the vessel involved in the Gore Cove fire, were inadequately trained in fire fighting operations.

  1. I am confident that the actions referred to in Part ( 1 ) will ensure an acceptable standard of training for tankers operating on the Australian coast.

At the international level the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation will be convening a conference next year which should result in the adoption of a convention on the training of ships’ crews which imer alia takes into account training measures necessary following recent disastrous fires in ships.

Australian Meat Industry: Legal Representation in Washington (Question No. 769)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

Has the Government taken action to investigate the claim that the Australian Meat Board has paid more than $750,000 to a Washington law firm to lobby for the Australian meat industry in the United States, referred to in an article by John Hamilton in the Courier-Mail dated 27 April 1977. If so, (a) what investigations have been undertaken, (b) what have the investigations shown, and (c) what further action is the Minister taking as a result of the investigations.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Australian Meat Board has maintained almost continuously legal representation in Washington since 1960 when it retained the services of an American attorney to prepare and present the Australian industry case at a U.S. Tariff Commission inquiry into mutton and lamb and live sheep imports. The law firm which presently acts for the Board was retained in 1969 to undertake similar representations as necessary, and to assess the advise on legislative developments and the many aspects of U.S. law which affect our meat trade in one way or another. Currently the firm is acting for the Board in a U.S. International Trade Commission inquiry into requests for further restriction of meat imports arising out of allegations that imports are injurious to American cattle producers.

The payments mentioned by the honourable senator have to be seen in the light of the value of our meat exports to the U.S. which, over the period referred to, totalled $2. 186m. The Meat Board has acted entirely within its powers in retaining these services and I do not consider any investigation of the matter is necessary or warranted.

Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis: Eradication Program (Question No. 865)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minster for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis eradication program in jeopardy because of the depressed state of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory, with small returns affecting the control of herds and thereby further compounding the situation.
  2. If the program is in jeopardy, having in mind the fact that Australia is aiming at being brucellosis-free by 1984, what action is the Government taking to eradicate brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis by assisting the pastoral industry.

Mr Sinclair; The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication program in the Northern Territory may be in jeopardy if the depressed state of the pastoral industry continues much longer. Properties which commenced test and slaughter before the slump and had improved fencing, watering and yarding facilities, will be able to continue to eradicate these diseases effectively in 1977. While one of the major pastoral companies in the Top End is to enter the scheme to eradicate tuberculosis this year, generally small resident owner properties with limited cattle handling facilities, fencing and finance will be unable to enter the scheme until the industry recovers and/or Government assistance is granted.
  2. The aim of the national brucellosis eradication program is to achieve provisionally free status (less than 0.2 per cent) for Australia by 1984. The Top End of the Territory was declared provisionally free in 1973. The area has just under half the Territory’s cattle; only four low prevalence infected properties remain, all of which have active and effective programs. The declaration of the Top End as a free area is well in sight.

Assistance offered by the Government in the Northern Territory at present is:

  1. payment of veterinarian supervised station staff for the collection of blood samples for brucellosis determination;
  2. b) the provision of 75 per cent of net commercial market value for owners of cattle reacting to tests for brucellosis;
  3. the provision of 50 per cent of net commercial market value for owners of cattle reacting to tests for tuberculosis.

The assistance offered by the Government in the Northern Territory Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign benefit only those properties which have current active test and slaughter program.

Torres Strait Region: Commonwealth Expenditure (Question No. S)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article in the Brisbane Telegraph dated 24 November 1976, in which the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, is quoted as making severe criticisms of Commonwealth expenditure in the

Torres Strait region since December 1972. If so. (a) has more than Sim been spent by Federal Goverment in an attempt to swing Torres Strait Islanders support away from Queensland’, as claimed by the Premier: (b) has the Murray Island Co-operative built only 3 houses with $688,000 provided by the Commonwealth; if so, what are the details; (c) has the Torres Strait Co-operative Ltd ‘little to show’ for the $250,000 provided by the Commonwealth, if so. what are the details: (d) if any, or all, of the allegations made by the Queensland Premier are incorrect, what action does the Minister intend taking to ensure that the Queensland Premier desists from making allegations that ure untrue, and injurious to the aims of Commonwealth expenditure in the Torres Strait Islands; and (e) has the Queensland Premier made similar allegations in the past about Commonwealth expenditure in the Torres Strait Islands: if so (i) what are the details (ii) were the allegations in question subsequently refuted in detail by the Australian Government, and (iii) does the Minister intend taking any further action concerning the Queensland Premier’s call for an investigation into Commonwealth expenditure in the Torres Strait Islands.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

My attention has been drawn to the article referred to in the question and my reply to the specific questions are:

No.

I understand that the Premier stated that the Erubmerugar Co-operative Society has received $668,940 since December 1972 and had only ‘three houses and the foundations for a few others’ to show for the money. Three houses have been completed, but others are near completion and substantial other work associated with the housing program has been carried out, including the construction of materials stores on Darnley Island, electrical installation work at Murray Island and other work necessary to establish a housing construction program in the remote Eastern Islands.

I understand that the Premier stated that the Torres Strait Co-operative Ltd has little to show for ‘almost half a million dollars in four years’ and contrasted this funding with the relatively small amount provided to the Torres Shire Council from my Department. The Co-operative is actually conducting a rock crushing venture on Thursday Island in association with the Shire Council.

I am continually in touch with the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement on matters of mutual interest, and have drawn his attention to the Brisbane Telegraph report of 24 November.

(i) and (ii) On 5 October 1975 the Queensland Premier made allegations which were refuted by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Les Johnson both in the press and in this House (Hansard for 21 October 1975). The Minister’s reply included a statement signed by Mr George Mye, Eastern Islands representative and 1 7 other persons.

As stated in (d) above, I have written to the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Islander Advancement on these matters.

Department of Finance: Budget Allocation (Question No. 59)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

What is the Budget allocation for the Department of Finance.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The question has been interpreted as relating to the central organisation of the Department of Finance and not to other associated organisations, such as the Royal Australian Mini, the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office and the Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, for which the Treasurer is the responsible Minister.

It might also be noted that the following figures do not include proposed additional appropriations contained in Appropriation Bills Nos 3 and 4 that are now before the Senate.

Following the creation of the Department of Finance on 7 December 1976. funds were provided from the Advances to the Treasurer to meet expenditures in respect of the Department. The total amounts so provided from the Advances in Appropriation Acts Nos 1 and 2 1976-77 were $5,836,800 for salaries, $ 1 ,767,700 for administrative expenses (excluding other services) and $488,600 for plant and equipment.

Medibank: Refusal of Doctors to Treat Patients (Question No. 90)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What action does the Minister intend taking against medical practitioners who refuse to treat patients who arc insured with Medibank.
  2. Is the New South Wales Health Commission currently compiling a dossier on medical practitioners who refuse to treat patients who are insured with Medibank. If so, (a) will the Minister be seeking a copy of this dossier and (b ) arc any other States compiling similar lists or planning to do so.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. In referring to patients ‘who are insured with Medibank ‘ it is assumed that the honourable senator is referring to patients who are insured with Medibank Standard and are therefore either levy payers or are exempt from paying the levy on income grounds.

The Commonwealth does not have jurisdiction over the conduct of medical practice in the States or policies adopted by individual medical practitioners in regard to the patients they treat. These matters come under the control of the various Stales and Territories.

The Government is not aware of any significant difficulties being faced by Medibank Standard patients seeking outofhospital treatment from private medical practitioners. There is a problem in some States in regard to in-hospital treatment. Instances have come to the Government’s attention of Medibank Standard patients being influenced by private medical practitioners to be treated as private patients. This problem is mainly restricted to patients seeking treatment for non-urgent conditions. Generally there is no problem with patients requiring emergency care or urgent treatment.

This matter has been brought to the attention of the respective State hospital authorities in order that they may take a closer look at the situation. While the practice is noi illegal, it is considered by the Government to be undesirable. All States support the Government’s attitude on this matter and have undertaken to deal with reported cases in order to ensure that patient’s rights are maintained.

  1. The Health Commission of New South Wales is noi compiling a dossier on medical practitioners who refuse to treat Medibank Standard patients. However, the Commission does investigate specific instances where Medibank Standard patients are disadvantaged by the discriminatory actions of medical practitioners. Each incident is dealt with as it arises and action taken by the Commission includes direct discussion with the medical practitioners concerned, approaches to the Australian Medical Association to seek their support in obtaining the co-operation of particular medical practitioners and approaches to hospital boards seeking non-acceptance of discriminatory decisions made by hospital medical boards.

Dossiers or lists of medical practitioners who refuse to treat Medibank Standard patients are not being compiled by any other State.

Department of Administrative Services: Apprenticeships (Question No. 151)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Administrative Services since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The trades in which apprentices have been employed since 1 July 1970 are: hand and machine compositor, book binder, printing machinist, photo lithographer, fitter machinist, electrician, motor mechanic, panel beater, auto electrician, motor trimmer, spray painter and fitter welder.
  2. and (3) The numbers of apprentices employed by the Department as at the close of each financial year commencing 1 969-70 are as follows:

Allocation of Funds to Non-Government Organisations (Question No. 353)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What factors are taken into consideration in determining the allocation of funds to non-Government organisations.
  2. What mechanisms have been established to coordinate the allocation of such funds.
  3. 3 ) What is the definition of a grant-in-aid.
  4. What are the criteria adopted Tor the allocation of grants-in-aid.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1 ), (2) and (3) Grants-in-aid are a specific means of allocating funds to non-government organisations. With certain exceptions they are regarded as comprising all monetary and non-monetary assistance, on a recurring or ad hoc basis, provided by the Government to non-government groups or organisations in Australia. They do not include payments for services rendered, payments made under schemes authorised by legislation or by formal policy guidelines, or schemes administered by machinery specifically approved by the Government. Examples of these exclusions are grants to manage counselling organisations under the Family Law Act, to international conferences under the scheme to assist such conferences to be held in Australia, and various research grants and scholarship schemes. Grants-in-aid are proposed at the discretion of the Minister concerned and are normally referred to an Interdepartmental Committee which reports to me.

  1. Grants-in-aid are assessed on their individual merits with particular regard to the need for national benefit, economy, consistency and equity.

Commonwealth Grants-in-Aid (Question No. 354)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

What is the number and total value of grants-in-aid in 1967-77 in relation to each ministerial portfolio and by functional classification.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable senator is not available on any consistent or comprehensive basis for the ten year period concerned.

Occupants of Offices of Profit: Use of Commonwealth Cars (Question No. 382)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which people who occupy an office of profit under the Crown are entitled to be driven by a Commonwealth driver in a Commonwealth car, or drive a self-drive car, at Commonwealth expense (a) from their home to their regular place of work, and (b) to various functions to which they might be invited.
  2. 2 ) How many of such people are there in each of the capital cities.
  3. 3 ) What is the estimated annual cost to the taxpayer.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

Responsibility for approving the use of official car transport within each government department and authority rests with permanent heads and, in the case of Authorities, with the chief officers designated by the Ministers concerned.

Records ofthe use by individual departments and authorities of official car transport in the manner outlined in the honourable senator’s question, are not maintained by my Department. To collect and assemble the information sought would be a major task and I am not prepared to authorise the man-hours involved.

If the honourable senator wishes to make a specific inquiry I will see if he can be provided with the information required.

Government Printing Office: Purchase of Equipment (Question No. 385)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board recently arrange a contract with Edwards Dunlop and Co. Ltd and B. J. Ball Graphics Division, Waterloo, for printing and binding equipment for the Government Printing Office.
  2. Was the equipment a four-colour offset press, and was the contractual price $ 1 69,359.
  3. Is the commercial sector of the printing industry in Canberra admittedly over-capitalised and under used, and could any of the work to be carried out on the new equipment be performed by commercial printing houses in Canberra.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. I do not know whether the commercial sector of the printing industry in Canberra is over-capitalised but I have received representations from Canberra printers to the effect that they have experienced a decline in available work. The four-colour press in question has been purchased mainly for the purpose of printing maps for the National Mapping Division of the Department of National Resources. There are no commercial printers in Canberra capable of map production to the standards required.

Department of Defence: Employees (Question No. 395)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 March, 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) Class 8, (b) Class 9, (c) Class 10, and (d) Class 1 1, Third Division Public Servants were there in the Defence group of departments at 30 June 1972.
  2. 2 ) What are the corresponding figures for 30 June 1 976.
  3. How many (a) Level One, (b) Level Two. (c) Level Three, (d ) Level Four, (e ) Level Five, and ( f) Level Six Second Division Public Servants were there in the Defence group of departments at 30 June 1972.
  4. What are the corresponding figures for 30 June 1976.
  5. How many military officers of the rank of Major or equivalent, and df each rank above, were working in the Defence group of departments at 30 June 1972.
  6. What are the corresponding figures for 30 June 1976.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

At 30 June 1972 the Defence group of departments comprised the Departments of Defence, Navy, Army. Air and Supply.

I ) and (2) The number of Third Division Public Servants in Clerical/Administrative designations in the Defence group of departments at 30 June 1972 and the Department of Defence at 30 June 1 976 were as follows:

  1. and (4) The number of Second Division Public Servants in the Defence group of departments at 30 June 1972 and the Department of Defence at 30 June 1976 were as follows:

During the same period the number of First Division Officers in the Defence group of departments was reduced from 5 to 1.

  1. and (6) Figures specifically in the terms of question (5) were not kept at that time. Those which follow, therefore are estimates only, drawn from the available detail about established positions and manning status (these two not necessarily being the same) obtaining at dates as near as practicable to 30 June 1972 but in practice spanning some months either side of that date.

There is no direct comparability between the foregoing statistics relating to Public Servants on the one hand and military officers on the other. The figures for Public Servants comprehend all Departmental civilian staff throughout Australia and overseas, including those in direct support of Defence Force Units wherever located. The figures for ‘military officers working in the Defence group of Departments’ embrace the officers of the Central Headquarters in Canberra of the Defence Force and its three Arms and officers posted to established positions in the Department in Canberra.

World Fertility Survey: Australian Participation (Question No. 413)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government decided Australia cannot afford to participate in the World Fertility Survey.
  2. What is the number and names of the countries that have decided to participate in this international research survey.
  3. Will the Minister institute an urgent re-examination of the question of Australia ‘s participation in this survey.
  4. On what demographic basis is the Government now proceeding to re-formulate its immigration policies in the absence not only of this survey/but also of any detailed analysis of the 1976 Census.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions: (I), (3) and (4) The International Statistical Institute, which is responsible for the management of the World Fertility Survey, has recently decided to extend the deadline for participation in the Survey to 1 982.

Officers of my Department have recently had discussions with representatives of other bodies to review the feasibility and need for Australian participation. On the basis of the information and advice obtained in these discussions, I have agreed that a further review of the question of Australian participation be made in 1 977-78, in the light of fertility data that will become available from various sources including the 1976 Census, a survey of binh expectations conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in November, 1 976, and a family survey soon to be conducted by the Department of Demography of the Australian National University.

Extensive demographic data are already available from the 1971 Census, tabulations of vital statistics and international population movements since 1 97 1 and from various surveys which have been conducted. Australia’s population and immigration policies are kept under continuing review in the light of changing demographic trends and prevailing economic and social conditions in Australia. As new information becomes available it is taken into account in formulating and reviewing policies and programs.

  1. I am informed that the following countries were approved for participation prior to 1 976.

The following countries were approved for participation during 1976.

Participation is planned for the following countries for 1977.

The following countries are participating in the World Fertility Survey but are conducting surveys by themselves and paying for them from their own resources.

Australian National Line: Queensland Government Policy (Question No. 502)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

Did the Minister state, in reply in Question No. 1466 asked by Senator Colston concerning Queensland trading rights for the Australian National Line (Senate Hansard. 15 February 1977, page 43), that ‘the Queensland Minister for Transport has conveyed to the Minister for Transport the Queensland Government’s decision to take action to permit the Australian National Line to undertake the carriage intrastate by sea of cars, utilities, trucks, tractors, caravans, boats, earthmoving equipment, agricultural implements, and overdimensional loads which cannot be carried by rail’. If so, how can the Minister account for the Queensland Premier’s response to a question on notice in the Queensland Parliament on 16 March 1977 (Queensland Hansard, page 2432), in which Mr Bjelke-Petersen stated that ‘while it is true that agreement in principle has been reached between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments on the entry of the Australian National Line into certain areas of intra-state trade, the question of the goods, commodities and methods encompassed is still a matter of Government policy and 1 cannot enlighten the honourable member further at this juncture ‘.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes. In regard to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, however, I cannot account for the Queensland Premier’s response to a question on notice in the Queensland Parliament on 16 March 1977. My reply was based on advice by letter of 24 November 1976 from the Queensland Minister for Transport.

I have since received advice from the Queensland Minister for Transport by letter dated 29 April that the State Government has agreed that approval be given for the Australian National Line to engage in intra-state trading in Queensland on a non-restricted basis and action is being taken to give effect thereto as soon as possible.

Registered Voters: Victorian Electorates (Question No. 538)

Senator Button:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

How many persons aged (a) 18 to 21 years: (b) 22 to 29 years; (c) 30 to 39 years) (d) 40 to 49 years; (e) 50 to 59 years; (f) 60 to 69 years: (g) 70 to 79 years: and (h) 80 years and over are now registered as voters in (i) the electorate of Deakin, (ii) the electorate of Casey, (iii) the electorate of Diamond Valley; and (iv) the following electoral subdivisions: Blackburn North (Deakin), Heatherdale (Casey), Mitcham (Casey). Southwood (Casey), and Tunstall (Diamond Valley).

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The date of birth of each elector is obtained only to ensure that he or she meets the legal requirement for enrolment of being 18 years of age or more and to enable identification to be made in cases of changes in the Rolls. Statistics on the agc distribution of electors are not maintained.

Accordingly the information you seek could only be provided by the Australian Electoral Office if a special computer program were designed or the Divisional Officer concerned manually extracted the information from individual records. I am not prepared to authorise the additional work that would be involved under either method.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Teletext System (Question No. 545)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

Is the Australian Broadcasting Commission preparing to operate the Teletext system in conjuction with Australian Broadcasting Commission television. If so, what stage have such preparations reached.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Australian Broadcasting Commission is preparing for tests of the Teletext system. Equipment has been ordered, and initial tests could commence late in July or early in August.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Sponsorship of Programs (Question No. 547)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What arrangments currently exist between the Australian Broadcasting Commission and any, and what, private investors or government departments. State or Federal, for sponsorship of Australian Broadcasting Commission television programs.
  2. What programs arc being made pursuant to such arrangements.
  3. Is the Commission negotiating regarding future productions on a sponsorship basis.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) None.
  2. None.
  3. No.

Northern Territory Aboriginals: Treatment of Hearing Defects (Question No. 553)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

With respect to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 642 concerning Aboriginal hearing defects (Senate Hansard, 3 June 1976, page 2387), what has been the result of consideration of further research programs aimed at improving the effectiveness of treatment measures in the Northern Territory.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

In the answer given to Question No. 642 it was indicated that the diagnosis and treatment of ear disease and hearing defects are integral parts of the Aboriginal health programs funded by the Commonwealth Government.

With the aim of further improving the effectiveness of these programs my Department is supporting a research proposal which is aimed to commence later this year, subject to the funds situation, to elucidate the causes of, and the most effective treatment for the excessive ear diseases in Aboriginal people. Development of a preventive regimen is a vital part of the project which will employ Aboriginal health workers.

I would like to draw attention to related activity being undertaken in this field in the Northern Territory.

In respect of policies for the Northern Territory the Department has adopted a standardised rational approach to the therapy and referral of cases of chronic purulent otitis media, the most important of the ear diseases in Aboriginals, fully consistent with the best medical standards. With the full Ear, Nose and Throat Unit operating at Darwin Hospital and a second to be established at the new hospital at Alice Springs, it will be in a position to capitalise on all new information in the field. It is also relevant to note the work of the hearing centre of the National Acoustic Laboratories in the Territory with its long-term program of development of specific techniques for assisting hearing-impaired Aboriginals and of a joint committee established by my Department and the Department of Education to examine the problems of those with hearing handicaps.

Australian War Memorial: Contracts for Air Conditioned Storage Areas (Question No. 581)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Have two contracts been let for the design of new air conditioned storage areas and conservation laboratory areas for the Australian War Memorial.
  2. When were these contracts let and to whom.
  3. What is the anticipated commencement date of construction.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) An architectural firm has been engaged by the National Capital Development Commission to design the War Memorial Storage and Conservation Repository at Mitchell in the A.C.T.
  2. Enrico Taglietti and Maddox, Architects of Canberra, were engaged on 12 November 1976.
  3. 3 ) This has not yet been decided.

Department of Social Security: Program Allocations (Question No. 585)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide a list of all programs in the Australian Capital Territory dealt with by the Department of Social Security in New South Wales.
  2. ) What is the Budget allocation for each such program in New South Wales for 1976-77.
  3. Will the Minister provide a list of any programs directly dealt with by the Department of Social Security in the Australian Capital Territory.
  4. Will the Minister provide information on the budget allocation for each such program in the Australian Capital Territory in 1976-77.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) All Social Security pensions and benefits for the Australian Capital Territory are administered through the Department of Social Security’s Canberra Regional Office which is responsible to the Department’s New South Wales headquarters.

Thefollowing national programs are administered for the Australian Capital Territory by the Department’s New South Wales headquarters:

  1. a ) Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act.
  2. b ) Aged Persons Hostels Act.
  3. Delivered Meals Subsidy Act.
  4. Handicapped Persons Welfare Act.
  5. ) Homeless Persons Assistance Act.
  6. f ) Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service.

    1. ) Budget allocations are available only for Australia as a whole. However, estimated expenditure under the national programs referred to in (a)-(f) of (1 ) above for New South Wales, including the Australian Capital Territory, for 1976-77 is as follows:
  7. $5.5m.
  8. $8.2m.
  9. $l.2m.
  10. $8.3m.
  11. $0.7m.
  12. $4m. (3) The Children’s Services Program and some services relating to the settlement of migrants are provided in the Australian Capital Territory directly through the Central Administration of the Department.

    1. There is no specific budget allocation for funds to be expended in the Australian Capital Territory in relation to the services mentioned in (3) above. Under the Children’s Services Program, payments are made against approved projects according to established funding criteria.

Poison 1080 Baits (Question No. 628)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:

What are the present policies practised by the Australian and various State Governments in regard to the use of 1080 poison baits.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The poison 1080 has been used in some States for 25 years and to varying extent has been used in recent years in all States and the mainland Territories.

Many Authorities consider the chemical to be the most effective and humane poison available for the control of wild dogs, feral pigs, goats, foxes, rabbits and native animals. such as wallabies and pademelons, where they are regarded as pests.

Governments generally recognise the need to implement restrictions on its use. Government agencies ensure control over distribution or the poison, care in its handling and application and. so far as possible, avoidance of destruction of non-target species. Although controls vary from State to State, al! States exercise strict safeguards.

Authorities responsible for animal health are aware of the risk of outbreaks of exotic diseases such as foot and mouth disease, rabies and blue tongue. Government policies take account of this risk and the need for an effective poison for emergency use in control of feral or native animals which may spread such diseases. The poison 1080 appears to be one of the safest and most effective control agents for use in such an emergency.

Governments are seeking to extend knowledge of the use of the poison, including its effects on non-target species through research and field studies. Such research has been carried out or is projected by Government authorities in 4 States and by CSIRO. To date no significant damage to nontarget species of wildlife, through the use of 1080, has been reported.

The Vertebrate Pests Committee established by the Standing Committee on Agriculture is currently collating information on the use of 1080 and other poisons for a report requested by the Standing Committee. Officers of all Slates and Territories are co-operating in this project.

Public Expenditure (Question No. 635)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What percentage of Australia’s gross national product was expended on Public Services in the financial years 1975-76 and is estimated to be expended for the financial year 1976-77.
  2. What arc the comparable figures for these years in respect of countries such as Great Britain, the United States of America, West Germany, the Netherlands. Norway. Denmark and Sweden.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no single measure of the expenditure on ‘public services’. For example, it is not clear from the question whether public service expenditure might include expenditure on local government bureaucracies, enterprises supplying electricity, water and post and telecommunications utilities to the public, or the running expenses of hospitals, universities and other educational institutions.

Final consumption expenditure of all public authorities (Federal, State and Local) as compiled in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Bulletin Public Authority Finance (Reference No. 5.55) could be said to constitute an appropriately broad definition for the purposes of this question. Final Consumption Expenditure therein relates to expenditure on goods and services by public authorities other than those classified as public enterprises, which does not result in the creation of fixed tangible assets such us office buildings, hospitals or schools, or in the acquisition of land and buildings or second hand goods. Exceptions to this definition are made for expenditure on defence, the whole of which is treated as current, and expenditure on roads, all of which is classified as capital.

In fact, a large proportion of final consumption expenditure of all public authorities comprises expenditure on wages, salaries and supplements paid to government employees. (A fuller definition may be found in the Australian National Accounts annual bulletin under ‘Definitions and Description of Items ‘. )

The provisional figure for final consumption expenditure of all public authorities in Australia for 1975-76 is SI 1,673m. representing 16.8 percent of expenditure on the gross domestic product. The estimate for 1976-77 is $13.429m. As the financial year 1976-77 has yet to run its course, no figure for gross domestic product is available.

  1. 2 ) For reasons noted in ( I ) it is also difficult to draw valid comparisons between ‘public service* expenditure in different countries. Moreover, direct comparisons of publicconsumption expenditure as a proportion of GDP fail to take into account the effect of varying economic fluctuations and the structure of the economies concerned. There are, therefore, no truly comparable figures available in this area. Bearing in mind these qualifications, the following table shows public consumption expenditure in 1975 expressed as a proportion of GDP/GNP for certain countries.

(Source: National Accounts of OECD Countries 1975. Volume I ).

Royal Visit: Commonwealth Cars (Question No. 638)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many Commonwealth car drivers were flown into Perth from inter-state on or about 28 March 1977 for duties associated with the recent Royal Visit.
  2. What was the cost of fares, accommodation, and/or travelling allowances of the drivers concerned.
  3. What costs were incurred in transporting limousines from Perth to regional centres for the Queen’s visit to those centres.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Air fares- $7,389.40: Accommodation and travelling allowances-$3.734.70.
  2. $2,130.

Citizens for Democracy: News Coverage (Question No. 733)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 7 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did any news bulletins on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, or any other public affairs program of the Commission, use news coverage or comment in relation to a large public meeting held in the Sydney Town Hall on Tuesday, 8 March 1 977, organised by the Citizens for Democracy and entitled “Towards an Australian Republic’. If not. why not.
  2. Was any directive given by the Australian Broadcasting Commission management that such news coverage should not be given to this meeting.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The meeting was covered by the ABC in both news and current affairs programs.
  2. No.

Fire Brigade: Financing and Co-ordination (Question No. 758)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

With respect to the Prime Minister’s reply to Senate question No. 188 concerning the financing and co-ordination of fire brigades, will the Treasurer provide details of his reply to the submission from the Insurance Council of Australia, dated 24 November 1976.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

It was pointed out that the matter is one which traditionally and constitutionally has rested with the States and that the view has been taken that, in line with the Government’s federalism policy, it should remain a State responsibility.

Commonwealth Government Printing (Question No. 761)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the printing firms that have performed work on behalf of the Commonwealth Government Printer or the Australian Government Publishing Service from 1 July 1976 to 31 March 1977.
  2. ) What has been the charge against the Commonwealth for the carrying out of each of the printing jobs involved.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. The following 131 printers have performed work on behalf of the Commonwealth Government Printer or the Australian Government Publishing Service during the period I July 1 976 to 3 1 March 1977:
  1. During the period I July 1976 to 3 1 March 1977. 1332 orders have been placed with a total order value of $5,246,316.00. The Australian Government Publishing Service does not have the resources to extract the details from such a large number of orders and presents the following monthly summary of orders placed and their value.

Immigrants from United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland (Question No. 842)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:

How many migrants entered Australia for the 12 months ending 31 March 1977 from the (a) United Kingdom: (b) Ulster: and (c) the Republic of Ireland.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. United Kingdom-
  1. Ulster-Not separately available. Included with arrivals from the United Kingdom.
  2. Republic of Ireland-

The above figures are final in respect of the period AprilDecember 1976 but preliminary for March quarter 1977. They indicate the number of migrants who stated upon arrival in Australia that their country of last permanent residence was the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland.

Unemployment Benefit: School Leavers (Question No. 941)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Are persons who left school in 1976, and who are denied unemployment benefit until the commencement of the 1977 school year, now entitled to claim payment of unemployment benefit for the period they were denied benefit.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Press Statement issued by the Director-General of Social Services on Friday. 27 May 1977.

STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Mr L. J. DANIELS. ON MISS KAREN GREENUNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

The Director-General of the Department of Social Security Mr L. J. Daniels today made available his Determination in the claim for unemployment benefit by Miss Karen Green. Following the judgment by Mr Justice Stephen in the High Court case brought by Miss Green against the Commonwealth and the Decarations made by Mr Justice Stephen on 22 April 1977, the Director-General reviewed the claim for unemployment benefit made by Miss Green on 20 December 1976. In the course of his review and before finalising his Determination the Director-General sought advice on legal aspects of the claim from the Commonwealth’s legal advisers.

A copy of the Determination is attached. A copy is being forwarded to Miss Green ‘s solicitor as requested by him.

Mr Daniels said that the Judgment of the High Court deals specifically with the case of Miss Green and he did not propose to initiate a review of any other claims for unemployment benefit by school leavers for the December-January school holidays. However, if, following the High Court Judgment and the Director-General’s Determination in Miss Green’s case any applicant seeks a review of his claim, Mr Daniels said that a review will be made.

Unemployment Benefit Claim-Miss Karen Green

On 20 December 1976 Karen Green of 34 Allumba Street. Howrah, Tasmania made a claim for an unemployment benefit.

I am satisfied that on that date-

she was unemployed and her unemployment was not due to her being a direct participant in a strike;

she was capable of undertaking and was willing to undertake work which, in my opinion, was suitable to be undertaken by her.

I am not satisfied that by 20 December 1 976 she had taken reasonable steps to obtain work suitable to be undertaken by her.

I therefore determine that on 20 December 1976 she was not qualified to receive an unemployment benefit.

J. DANIELS Director-General of Social Services 27 May 1977

Unemployment Benefit: School Leavers (Question No. 942)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

Will the Department of Social Security be processing all claims for unemployment benefit as they are received from persons who leave school in November and December 1977 and who lodge claims between November 1977 and February 1978. If not. why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

See answer to Question number 94 1 .

War Disability Pension (Question No. 1025)

Senator Donald Cameron:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that only half the amount of income from a war disability pension is applied in assessing income for a service pension entitlement.
  2. Does the same formula apply to a social security age pension.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the negative will the Minister correct this anomaly by applying the same income lest to social security age pensions.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. No.
  3. 3) This involves a matter ofGovernment policy.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 May 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770531_senate_30_s73/>.