Senate
1 November 1977

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1857

GENERAL ELECTION

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

– by leave- When I informed the Senate that the Government proposed that the next House of Representatives and half Senate elections should be held on Saturday, 10 December 1977, I undertook to confirm details of the time-table when replies had been received from the States. I am now able to say that all States are in agreement with the time-table, which is as follows:

Issue of writs- 10 November 1977

Close of nominations- 18 November 1977

Polling Day- 10 December 1 977

Date of return of writs-on or before 8

February 1978

page 1857

PETITIONS

Non-State Business Colleges

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 15 citizens of Australia:

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

That the report of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation, July 1977, p. 197, states that, in respect of Stenographers/Secretaries:

With the exception of new business college graduates the demand for less experienced and less skilled people in Sydney is in balance with the supply.

Business College graduates are exactly what the market wants and employers demand.

In one of the few fields of employment shown by the report to be under-supplied, the Government is effectively reducing the ability of business colleges to train enough secretaries and stenographers for the positions which are available.

The sixteen technical colleges in the Metropolitan area of Sydney which accommodate 3220 students in day secretarial studies do not have the capacity to accommodate more than 6 per cent of the 2435 students at non-State business colleges in the same area who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s recent decision to withdraw fees subsidies and living allowances from the end of 1 977. 1977 School leavers who wish to undertake a course in Secretarial Studies and thus ensure they obtain a worthwhile position of employment on graduation are being forced to pay fees of the order of $1400 for the year and also to forgo TEAS living allowances.

The Government’s decision is unfair, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable and capricious.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act immediately to undertake a thorough review of the position of non-State business colleges, guarantee interim funding forthwith and reverse its decision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

As the petition exceeds 250 words in length, I seek leave to have it read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Petition received and read.

English Classes for Migrants

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 2,508 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable, the President of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens and/or taxpayers of Australia, speaking for ourselves and on behalf of the many who cannot become citizens because of their inability to speak English, request the Senate to give immediate attention to the totally inadequate provision of English classes for migrants by the Australian Government.

Our intention is to impress upon the House that inability to speak English means discrimination-discrimination in the field of employment, in education and in social and political life.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Non-State Business Colleges

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

That the report of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation, July 1977, p. 197, states that, in respect of Stenographers/Secretaries:

With the exception of new business college graduates the demand for less experienced and less skilled people in Sydney is in balance with the supply.

Business College graduates are exactly what the market wants and employers demand.

In one of the few fields of employment shown by the report to be under-supplied, the Government is effectively reducing the ability or the business colleges to train enough secretaries and stenographers for the positions which are available.

The sixteen technical colleges in the Metropolitan area of Sydney which accommodate 3,220 students in day secretarial studies do not have the capacity to accommodate more than 6 per cent of the 2,435 students at non-State business colleges in the same area who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s recent decision to withdraw fees subsidies and living allowances from the end of 1977. 1977 School leavers who wish to undertake a course in Secretarial Studies and thus ensure they obtain a worthwhile position of employment on graduation are being forced to pay fees of the order of $1,400 for the year and also to forgo TEAS living allowances.

The Government’s decision is unfair, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable and capricious.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act immediately to undertake a thorough review of the position of non-State business colleges, guarantee interim funding forthwith and reverse its decision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, Senator Cotton, Senator Brown, Senator Baume, Senator Scott, Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Sibraa.

Petitions received.

Estate Duty

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

That where whole or part of a deceased estate passes to the surviving spouse it should be free from federal estate duty.

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

Petition received.

page 1858

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

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

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

  1. That, unless otherwise ordered, the sessional order relating to the days and times of meeting of the Senate be varied for the remainder of this period of sittings as follows:

Thursday, 3 November-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.; 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.; 8.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

Friday, 4 November-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.; 2.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Monday, 7 November-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.; 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.; 8.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, 8 November-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.; 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.; 8.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

  1. That, unless otherwise ordered, the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.
  2. That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after 8 p.m. on Thursday.

page 1858

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1858

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTION: WESTERN AUSTRALIA

There is no reason why a non-literate voter should not use a how to vote card in order to tell you how he wants his ballot paper marked.

Will the Minister have the matter cleared up as early as possible and, if Mr Pearson’s instruction still stands, will the Minister ensure that a public statement to that effect is made?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I assume that the honourable senator is talking about the Perth Sunday Times- I think he said the National Times.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. I am sorry.

Senator WITHERS:

-I shall take that to be the paper to which he referred. Yes. I did see what the Australian Electoral Officer for Western Australia, Mr Nicholls, was alleged to have said. This morning I asked my office to get me the exact text of what he said to the newspaper or the exact instructions he has issued on this matter. As soon as I obtain that I shall advise the honourable senator.

page 1858

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall my question last week about the change of attitude towards uranium mining by the Leader of the Opposition? Does the Leader of the Government recall that Mr Whitlam denied that he had said that he would like to see uranium mined? Does this statement by Mr Whitlam accord with the facts? Has Mr Whitlam ever said that he would like to see uranium mined?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I certainly do recall speaking to the Senate last week about the attitude of Mr Whitlam. On the basis that even the previous Labor Government did believe in a collective responsibility, I take it that when one of Mr Whitlam’s Ministers said something he was speaking not only for himself but also for all his colleagues. Honourable senators may recall that on 19 August 1975, according to the journals of this place, the then Minister for Agriculture,

Senator Wriedt, laid upon the table of this place a paper entitled: ‘Urgent Energy Items- List of Urgent Energy Items together with Indictative Order of Magnitude of Cost’. Included in that paper, amongst a number of other things, are these words: ‘Three uranium mining and milling plants, $225m. ‘ Honourable senators will recall that on 9 July 1975 there was a one-day sitting of the House of Representatives. I draw honourable senators’ attention to pages 3611 and 3612 of Hansard of that date. The then Minister for Minerals and Energy, the late Mr Connor, amongst other things said:

  1. . it was no less than my duty to present to the Prime Minister and my senior colleagues a plan for direct overseas borrowing of $A3 billion-equal to $US4 billion . . .

He said further:

The full list and cost of urgent energy items was presented not only to my co-signatories of the Executive Council Minute but also in the presence of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

Senator Button:

– Is that in the contract?

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator can look it up for himself. On page 3612 Mr Connor also said:

The cost of 3 uranium mining and milling plants in the Northern Territory and assistance to the Cooper Basin natural gas consortium, in which the Australian Government is now a partner, was included . . .

I put these statements on the record. On page 3599 of Hansard of the same day the then Prime Minister, Mr E. G. Whitlam, said:

Provided with the capital, Australia ‘s vast opportunities to develop its energy resources could be quickly realised. The nation, every State and Territory would benefit from the development of our uranium, our natural gas, our coal- our immense natural resources of energy. Australia’s wealth of uranium resources offers vast opportunities for the establishment of an enrichment plant.

As I said in this place last week, the former Prime Minister said on television in answer to a question by Miss Lindy Jenkins that he had never signed a statement. I thought I had dealt with the matter at length on that occasion. On or about 28 October 1975 the then Prime Minister signed a memorandum with Peko Mines Ltd and Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd. On the same day he issued a Press statement in which he clearly indicated the Whitlam Labor Government s intention to mine and export up to 6,600 tons of uranium.

page 1859

QUESTION

CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate follows the answer he has just given. He and the Government apparently take great delight in the fact that the Labor Party has allegedly changed its policy on the export and development of uranium. Is the Minister prepared to direct the same criticism against his own Government for changing its policy on the recognition of China, changing its policy on a national health scheme, changing its policy on overseas investment in Australian companies, changing its policy on simultaneous elections, and its policy on the payment of a dairy bounty? I will not bore the Senate but there are many more examples. Is it a fact that the Minister said in this chamber on 2 1 May this year when answering a question by Senator Wood in respect of the constitutional referenda: I am prepared to admit that I was wrong. I have learned by experience*?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– That is a very interesting question. I do not think it is a terribly good way for the Leader of the Opposition to get out of a factual situation. If the honourable senator had been here last week he would have known that this matter arose from the fact that Mr E. G. Whitlam said on television to Miss Lindy Jenkins that he had never signed anything about the mining and export of uranium. That is what I was talking about. This gentleman, who is all too prone on television to accuse others of being liars, said he never had. As the honourable senator ought to realise, that was not a correct statement. He ought also to know that on 28 October 1975 Mr Whitlam entered into a contract with Peko-EZ to mine and export 6,600 tons of uranium. That is what we are talking about, not whether we changed our minds over mainland China or something else. We are talking about a man going on television- a man who puts himself forward as the alternative Prime Minister of this country- and just not giving the facts. That is what we were talking about last week and what we are still talking about. I say to the Leader of the Opposition in this place that if he trusts a man who will indulge in those sorts of attitudes and ideas, I am certain the Australian electorate will not.

Senator WRIEDT:

-May I take it that Senator Withers is in fact now saying that it is not important whether a government or an opposition changes its mind, as he was trying very hard last week to convey as the basic proposition? I assure the honourable senator I was listening to his remarks.

Senator WITHERS:

-The most important thing is that people in public life ought to tell the truth, and that did not happen this time.

page 1859

QUESTION

FAMILY COURT

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and refers to the appointment of His Honour Mr Justice Treyvaud to the

Family Court in Victoria. I congratulate the Government on its appointment and ask the Attorney-General why it is that only one additional judge has been appointed to that Court.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government was, in accordance with the regulations, appointing six new Family Court judges. Of course, the six judges had to be apportioned throughout the States of Australia, except Western Australia, which has its own State Family Court. Although there have been, and continue to be, great delays in disposing of Family Court matters in Victoria, there are delays in all other States as well. Indeed, the rate of applications in a number of other registries is even greater than that in Victoria. It is to be expected that in the course of time there will be even greater demands on the time of judges in those registeries than there will be in Victoria.

A further consideration is that Mr Justice Butler has been appointed as a Family Court judge resident in northern Tasmania, and that hitherto judges of the Family Court in Victoria from time to time rendered assistance in that State. That call upon their time will no longer be made. Moreover, part of the arrangement made with Mr Justice Butler is that, because he is not expected to be fully engaged in northern Tasmania, he will be available to travel to Victoria and assist there. Therefore, although only one extra judge is being appointed in Victoria, in effect almost the time of a second judge will be available in that State also.

I should also refer to the fact that an additional legally qualified deputy registrar will commence duties in the Melbourne registry on 24 October. That brings to three the number of persons in the registry who can conduct conferences between parties and that, of course, relieves judges of a considerable burden in terms of time.

page 1860

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION, QUEENSLAND

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister for Education whether he is aware that, in its latest annual report to his Queensland counterpart, the Queensland Board of Advanced Education stated that there was a continuing lag in Queensland’s tertiary participation rate in relation to the national average and that the Commonwealth is continuing to give relatively inequitable treatment to Queensland in the funding of tertiary education? Is it a fact that, due to Federal Government restrictions on education funding, a reduction of the order of 8 per cent had to be made in the number of student places envisaged for colleges of advanced education in Queensland in the three years 1977 to 1979? If so, can the colleges in Queensland look forward to receiving more consideration in the future?

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

– I have not seen the report which, as I understand it, is a State report. I will look at it. If the report suggests what Senator Colston says it suggests then it suggests that the former Commission of Advanced Education, which is now the Council of Advanced Education, and the Tertiary Education Commission, both of which are statutory, objective and independent bodies, are in fact being partisan against Queensland. I wonder whether that is a suggestion that Senator Colston supports. He shakes his head. But he acknowledges it if, as he reports it to me, that is suggested. Let me simply say that I believe that these independent statutory bodies, which in their time- certainly the Commission- were supported by the Whitlam Government, are themselves utterly impartial and their recommendations on the allocation of funds are indeed impartial. But I will look at whether the substance of the matter is as has been suggested and let the honourable senator know.

The honourable senator also asked whether there will be an 8 per cent reduction in the number of student places. That is not my understanding in relation to Australia as a whole. My understanding and the Government’s understanding is that the colleges of advanced education in Australia should be capable in the years ahead of absorbing those who apply. But the honourable senator must keep in mind that 43 per cent of the students who attend colleges of advanced education are teacher trainees. He would be aware that Australia is moving into a glut supply position in relation to the number of qualified teachers. Therefore each State is applying a reduction in the number of places and students themselves are voluntarily not moving forward into teacher training. So voluntarily fewer teacher trainees automatically will be going to colleges of advanced education. I repeat that some 43 per cent of the places in colleges of advanced education are held by teacher trainees.

There is no reason at all why students in the post-school area cannot find a place appropriate to their qualifications and academic achievements in universities, colleges and the technical and further education field. There will be, of course, by voluntary choice a movement of young people and others from universities and colleges to the technical and further education field. There is a growing realisation in the community that there is a need for manual skills and higher technology, and that there is a financially and spiritually rewarding career in those areas. I will look up the report. If I find any information relevant to this question, I will let the honourable senator know.

page 1861

QUESTION

MORNINGTON ISLAND: HOUSING

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Senate how much money the Federal Government has contributed to the building of houses on Mornington Island after the recent devastating cyclone? How many, if any, houses have been built? Who is occupying those houses? Is there any hold up in the building of houses on Mornington Island? If so, who or what is responsible for the hold up?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I have some information on this matter. I am able to advise that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ share of the cost of restoration of damaged housing on Mornington Island as a result of Cyclone Ted is $1,480,500. The Department will provide the money over a two-year to three-year period. Its cash provision for this program during 1977-78 is $1,050,000. The Natural Disaster Relief Fund will provide $3,454,500, covering both Mornington Island and Burketown. I understand that 83 houses and 40 shelters have been built on Mornington Island. I am not aware of who is occupying these houses; nor am I aware of any delays in construction that have occurred. I remind the Senate that the development of this area is the responsibility of the Queensland State Government. I will ask my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to make inquiries into whether there is further information that he can give on this matter.

page 1861

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: KAREN GREEN CASE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Social Security by saying that I endorse the remark of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that people in public life should tell the truth. Will the Minister for Social Security clear up the matter of whether the letter tabled last week by Senator Grimes is an authentic letter from the Ombudsman to the Minister or whether it is a fraud? If the letter is authentic, do the Minister’s initials on the side indicate that she has read the letter? If it is authentic, do the figures 28/9 indicate that the Minister read the letter on 28 September? If it is authentic, was the Minister telling the truth -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must not make an imputation against the Minister.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I ask whether the Minister was accurate in her reply to Senator Grimes on 1 8 October when she said:

I am not aware of whether Karen Green’s case specifically is before the Ombudsman.

I ask whether the Minister was correct in her answers to both Senator Grimes and me on 26 October when she said:

The question asked by Senator Grimes today indicated that he had in his possession a letter from the Ombudsman advising me of certain cases that were before him.

The question related to Karen Green, not to ‘certain cases’. I ask whether it was not confusing for the Minister to say in her answer:

I am aware that from time to time I receive advices from the Ombudsman of cases that he had under his consideration.

I point out that only one case was involved. I further ask: Did the Minister discuss the Ombudsman’s letter with her Director-General between 28 September and 1 8 October?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– A number of matters have been raised in the honourable senator’s question. Dealing with what I believe to be the first one- the matter of whether the letter tabled by Senator Grimes is an authentic letter- let me say that the copy of the letter tabled by Senator Grimes which I have seen does appear to be a copy of a letter from the Ombudsman addressed to me. Certain markings on the letter had been obscured from the copy that was tabled and certain other markings appeared on it. However, it does appear to be a copy of a letter from the Ombudsman to me. Senator Cavanagh raised several other matters. I should like to refer to the original question raised by Senator Grimes when he asked:

Is it a fact that the case of Miss Karen Green, who was refused unemployment benefit in the school holidays last year … is before the Ombudsman, together with other similar cases? Has the Minister received a report as yet from the Ombudsman? If so, will she table the report? If she has not received it, will she table such a report when she receives it?

I indicated in my brief reply that I would give consideration to the. question that had been raised, and I said:

I am not aware of whether Karen Green’s case specifically is before the Ombudsman.

That was a true statement of fact at the time that I made it. I still am not aware of whether Karen Green’s case specifically is before the Ombudsman. I am not aware of what is on his desk from time to time and whether he has completed the review of a case or whether he has made a report which I have not seen. If the Opposition will read the answers which are given and understand the plain language in which they are expressed, it will find that it has built a case around an answer which was true at the time and which is true now. Any other semantics which may be indulged in by the Opposition will not lead to any different answer being given by me about whether a case is specifically before the Ombudsman at that time.

Further questions have been raised by Senator Cavanagh today in relation to my answer that I am aware that from time to time I receive advice from the Ombudsman of cases which are before him. That also is a statement of fact. From time to time I do receive advice from the Ombudsman, in accordance with his line of duty, of cases which are before him. The Opposition for some reason of its own may have interest only in the case of Karen Green. I assure honourable senators opposite that there is not only one case before the Ombudsman. There are several cases before him. He advises me from time to time of these matters.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. This is getting serious now. I was supplied by the Senate Records Office with a copy of the letter which was tabled. I take it that this is a direct copy of the letter which was tabled. The only markings on it are the Minister’s initials and the date 28/9. When the Minister replies that there were other markings on the letter, do I take it that the Minister’s initials and the figures 28/9 are the markings which someone has placed on the letter since it was received by the Minister?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– My reference was not to that matter. I was referring to some brackets which appeared on the copy of the letter. Senator Cavanagh will notice them somewhere about the centre of the page. Also there has been removed from the letter, in accordance with the copy I hold, a date -

Senator Cavanagh:

– They are not on my copy which comes from the Records Office.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– That is right. There is a date stamp on my copy of the letter showing when the letter was received in the ministerial office. It is not on the copy which I received from the Senate Table Office. They were the matters to which I referred- not to my initials or the date.

page 1862

QUESTION

WITHDRAWAL OF INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATION

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that following the return to work of the Latrobe Valley State Electricity

Commission employees, Mr Bob Hawke was reported in the Press as saying that he expected the Government to withdraw the industrial legislation which was passed through the Senate last Friday week? Can the Minister say whether this report is correct? What is the Government’s attitude in regard to the legislation?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I cannot say whether the statement attributed to Mr Bob Hawke is correct. Apart from what I have been told 1 am not aware of what he said on this matter. I accept the fact that apparently he has indicated that he expects this legislation to be withdrawn, that is, the amendments which were made by the Parliament and which passed through the Senate on Friday, 2 1 October, making some major amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I cannot imagine why Mr Bob Hawke would have thought or expected that the Government would withdraw the legislation. The Government made it perfectly clear before the legislation was introduced and during the passage of the legislation, as I did when anwering questions in the Senate from time to time on behalf of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, that this legislation was regarded by the Government as a most important reform of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Many of the reforms were foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his policy speech and in speaking on other policy matters on which the Government was elected on 13 December 1975. In fact, provisions dealing with the powers of the Industrial Relations Bureau were incorporated in legislation which was introduced in the Parliament in May this year. When the Government stood those matters over it made it clear that it intended to discuss those matters with the National Labour Consultative Council and certainly adhered to its view that this legislation was desirable and that it would propose the legislation subsequently in the Parliament. The legislation was introduced in accordance with statements and promises which have been made by the Government for some time and in accordance with its policies. I think it is perfectly clear now to most people in the community, if not to Mr Bob Hawke and to the Opposition, that the legislation was most necessary and desirable and that the Industrial Relations Bureau, with the powers it now has, will contribute substantially to the improvement of industrial relations in this country.

page 1863

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORT ON COPPER MINING

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Has the Government received the Industries Assistance Report on copper rnining, and the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd in particular? When will the Government table this report in the Senate?

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

-This question really belongs to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs who is represented in this place by my colleague Senator Durack. I therefore cannot help the honourable senator specifically but I will endeavour to get more detail for him after question time.

page 1863

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and I refer again to the uranium issue. I ask: Has the Leader of the Government seen clause 8 of the Memorandum of Agreement signed in October 1975 by Mr E. G. Whitlam, with other members of the then Labor Government, and the partners of the Ranger project, Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd? If so, is it a fact that in this clause Mr Whitlam agreed to pay compensation to the companies, Peko and EZ, if Australia withheld sales of uranium from the Ranger projects?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Yes, I have seen clause 8.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What about the Fox Report?

Senator WITHERS:

-I think I ought to read it because evidently Senator Cavanagh has not seen it. Perhaps he was not part of the kitchen Cabinet and was never consulted.

Senator Wriedt:

– Are you going to read the whole of clause 8?

Senator WITHERS:

-No. I am just going to read paragraph (d) which is the important one. It states:

In the event that in the national interest Australia withholds from sale uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project, an arbitrator shall be appointed to decide what compensation, if any, but not exceeding world market price, should be given by Australia to offset the adverse financial effect on Peko and EZ resulting from this action. If the purpose of withholding from sale is to establish a stockpile for enrichment or strategic reasons, the Government will pay world market price.

I think it is quite obvious from the compensation clause put in for Peko and EZ that there was a definite and firm intention to mine and export uranium. In fact basically there was a decision to enrich it. The late Mr Connor said this on 9 July 1975. That Government was totally, firmly and absolutely committed to the rnining and export of uranium and most likely also to the enrichment of it. What credibility is there when Mr Whitlam says to Lindy Jenkins of Elwood, Melbourne: ‘No, I have never said anything of the sort … I have never signed a statement like that.’?

Senator YOUNG:

– I ask a supplementary question. Could the Leader of the Government say what the position would be today when the Australian Labor Party is opposing mining at Ranger? Would the Labor Party as a party be committed to compensating the Ranger partners?

Senator WITHERS:

– I do not know. I think that is a legal question and I ought not to give an opinion on it. I would just suggest that anybody who is interested in this topic would know that the words in clause 8 (d) most likely speak for themselves, and that if in the national interest Australia withholds from sale the material produced by the Ranger project -

Senator Wriedt:

-I take a point of order. The Leader of the Government just said that he is not supposed to give a legal opinion but he has proceeded to give one. I ask you to rule him out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Opinions must not be given.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, I am not giving an opinion; I am just saying that I think people ought to read it for themselves. I would suggest to people that the words speak for themselves. People do not necessarily want me to interpret the words. I think that the words are so clear, so simple and so accurate that there would appear to be an absolute obligation to give compensation.

page 1863

QUESTION

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator WRIEDT:

-Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall saying to me on 15 September, in reply to a question I asked him concerning the disposal of nuclear waste:

What I said was that I would pass on to the Prime Minister the fact that the Leader of the Opposition in this place believes the Government ought to reconsider its position and be unselfish enough to store the nuclear waste of other countries.

I ask: Did the Leader of the Government pass that on to the Prime Minister and with what result?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-That would have been passed on the same day. As yet I have not had an answer but as soon as I get one I will let the honourable senator have it.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. Are we to assume that the Senate has to wait 6 weeks before the Prime Minister can give an answer to a question which apparently his colleague conveyed to him that long ago? Is this the standard to be adopted by this Government for providing information?

Senator WITHERS:

-It is far better to wait a little while and get accurate information than to have someone snooting off the cuff and not giving accurate information.

page 1864

QUESTION

ADULT MIGRANT EDUCATION

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Education inform the Senate of the details of New South Wales share of the $2.3m in additional allocations for adult migrant education programs announced last Tuesday night? Can the Minister say how the allocation to New South Wales for 1977-78 compares with allocations in recent years?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I shall answer the second part of the question first. Funds provided by the Commonwealth to New South Wales for its Adult Migrant Education Service in the last 3 program years are as follows: In 1975-76, the last year of the Whitlam Government, $2,626,260; in 1976-77, the first year of the Fraser Government, $2,957,026; this year, 1977-78, including the amount provided in the Budget and additional allocations, it is $3,466,000 which is an increase of 17.21 per cent. So there have been substantial increases. The break-up of funds provided to New South Wales shows that in more recent times I approved an additional $150,000 some weeks ago and, more recently $226,000 to extend the New South Wales programs. New South Wales will take its appropriate share of funds for on-arrival language programs for refugees, English language courses conducted during the vacation, the development of further initiatives and the teaching of English in courses in the working place, assessing the feasibility of English teaching in television programs in high rise housing developments, and increased living allowances for persons in full time courses to the equivalent of the unemployment benefit. So there has been a significant increase in the money flow to adult migrant education as well as considerable diversification in the program.

page 1864

QUESTION

SPECIAL AIR SERVICE

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence in a position to confirm or deny reports that Australian military aircraft and personnel from the Special Air Service stationed at Butterworth are being used by the Malaysian Government in support of Gurkha mercenaries on the Thai-Malaysian border?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I am not in a postion to either confirm or deny it.

page 1864

QUESTION

COMPANIES LEGISLATION

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer to the recent statement by the South Australian AttorneyGeneral that he is preparing amending legislation to impose more extensive controls on companies registered in South Australia. Are these changes likely to delay current negotiations between the States and the Commonwealth on the establishment of a national securities and exchange commission?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have not seen the statement from the South Australian AttorneyGeneral about proposals he has to amend the South Australian Companies Act. Certainly the State Attorneys-General, together with my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, have been giving close consideration to the establishment of national companies and securities industry legislation as a cooperative exercise. I will draw the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, to statements that have been made by the South Australian Attorney-General and referred to by Senator Messner. I think that is a matter which he certainly should take up with the South Australian Attorney-General and consider in relation to the negotiations that have been going on.

page 1864

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY OF MIGRANTS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What policy is the Government following in the Commonwealth Public Service and statutory corporations as regards the employment eligibility, all other qualifications being equal, of migrants who have resident status but have not qualified for Australian citizenship?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Senator Mulvihill sent me a telegram yesterday on this matter; so I have had an opportunity to try to obtain for him and the Senate some detailed information on the matter. However, it has not been possible to obtain a detailed answer covering all the various Commonwealth employing bodies. We will endeavour to do so in due course. It can be said generally that the Public Service Act which, of course, covers mainly the ministerial departments, which represent about one-third of Commonwealth employment, contains a longstanding requirement that permanent officers should be British subjects. There is no nationality requirement for temporary or exempt staff employed under the Public Service Act. However, in practice, all staff are required to be permanent residents. A major area of Commonwealth employment is within the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions. There is no nationality requirement for staff employed by those commissions, but permanent resident status is a condition of eligibility for employment. In other areas of Commonwealth employment differing arrangements have been established to meet the wide variety of circumstances that obtain. Legislation covering a number of Commonwealth authorities does nor require British subject status for appointment. Those are some of the details that we have been able to obtain for the honourable senator.

Policy on this matter has been under review, following the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration that nationality requirements for permanent appointment should be abolished except where Australian citizenship is prescribed for particular positions. For example, I refer to positions in the diplomatic service or national security areas. Consideration is being given to the Royal Commission’s recommendation in the light of the diversity of employment in the Commonwealth Government and the need to accommodate differing circumstances.

Senator MULVIHILL:

- Mr President, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In addition to the question which I sent to the Minister yesterday, and following upon the precedent established by Senator Bishop as a former Postmaster-General, I asked the Bureau of Customs, in view of its big recruiting program, what was the position of a national of one of the 35 British Commonwealth countries who has married an Australian but, of course, does not have Australian citizenship. The advice I received was that, unless such a person had Australian citizenship by February when the recruitment was completed, he would not be employed. In addition to sending a telegram to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, I sent a telegram to Senator Guilfoyle, who represents the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the Senate, to bracket both Ministers together on a specific issue. I take it now that the Minister will get in touch with the Customs people to see specifically what happens in a case involving a migrant who marries an Australian. Are such people to be denied employment in the Bureau of Customs?

Senator DURACK:

-I will take up that specific question with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Of course, employment in the Bureau of Customs most probably would come under the Public Service Act. So, the general position in regard to the employment of permanent officers who are British subjects would apply. However, I will not go into the details of the question. Perhaps I should not say anything more about that particular case.

page 1865

QUESTION

POST OFFICES: OPERATION OF MEDIBANK SCHEME

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The Executive Council of the Australian Postmasters Association has approached senators with a proposal that post offices should operate Medibank and has set out many items of the possible operation. Can the Minister advise whether the proposal has been investigated by the Minister he represents and the Minister for Health to assess the possibilities of such a change? If so, has any decision been made?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen the correspondence circulated by the Executive Council of the Australian Postmasters Association requesting that the Post Office be used for Medibank financial transactions. I have not immediately before me any information as to whether either the Department of Health or the Postal and Telecommunications Department has conducted an investigation as to the feasibility of such a practice. I shall ask my colleagues and let the honourable senator know the answer.

page 1865

QUESTION

ABORIGINES: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security and refer to an article in the Daily News of 4 October regarding five Aboriginal people who travelled from Perth to Canberra to protest about federal policies having their unemployment benefit stopped. I ask: On what grounds were those benefits stopped?

As the people concerned were away from their normal place of residence for something less than two weeks but had been unemployed for between two and three years, were any possible employment opportunities available during their absence? If so, was the normal method of advice used to notify them that they were to report for employment? Have full benefits now been restored to all the people involved?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA · LP

-I shall have the matter investigated to see what information I can provide. I should be grateful if the honourable senator would give me a copy of the article to which she referred so that any detail in it can be used.

page 1866

QUESTION

TERRY LANE TALK-BACK PROGRAM

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and refers to the considerable and continuing public protest, newspaper correspondence and letters to honourable senators regarding the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to cease broadcasting the obviously successful and popular Terry Lane talk-back program. Whilst I appreciate that the Minister cannot and should not give any direction to the ABC, will he, in view of the paucity of informative radio discussion programs currently available, urge the ABC Commissioners to reconsider their decision? As a result of questions asked in the Senate last week on this subject, has the Minister ascertained and can he inform the Senate the reason for the program being discontinued? Is the Minister satisfied that the ABC is at present providing adequate and comprehensive programming so far as public discussion is concerned?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is quite clear that there is considerable public protest at the cancellation of the Terry Lane program. It is equally true that last week I was asked at least several questions on this matter and I undertook to transfer the substance of those questions to my colleague in another place. That has been done. No response has come under my scrutiny which indicates why the Australian Broadcasting Commission has made this decision with regard to Terry Lane. I shall seek to obtain that information and to make it public, as well as making it available to the honourable senator.

The honourable senator asked whether I personally-and presumably the Federal Government-was satisfied that under the Broadcasting and Television Act the Australian Broadcasting Commission was discharging its legislative responsibility to program adequate and comprehensive programs. I have no way of making a value judgment on this matter. I think that in the first place it is a matter for the general public to determine. I think that if there is a substantial and sustained protest it must indicate that in at least one direction the ABC is not fulfilling its legislative responsibility. I have always regarded healthy public protest as a good thing. I hope that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in a wider sense than just the ABC, is encouraging adequate and comprehensive programming in Australia. In any case, I shall again take up this matter.

page 1866

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: DUTIES OF OFFICERS

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister representing the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters seen a report that some Commonwealth public servants have complained to the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association that they have been asked to perform duties of a party political nature for electioneering purposes on behalf of the Government? Will the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that public servants will not be used by the government for electioneering purposes?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I represent the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations with regard to Public Service matters. I shall refer the question to him.

page 1866

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I refer to the recent visit to Australia by Dr Dickson Mabon, the United Kingdom Labour Minister for Energy. I preface my question by saying that I enjoyed a dinner with him and his officers last Thursday night. Is it a fact that the Minister for Energy in the United Kingdom is completely satisfied with the storage techniques being applied to radioactive waste following 20 years of experience in the United Kingdom? Is it also true that Dr Mabon is very impressed with the safeguards requirements laid down by the Australian Government with respect to uranium? Can the Minister say whether the Government has agreed to supply the United Kingdom Minister’s long-term requirement of 1,000 tonnes of uranium per annum? Is he able to say what such an order would mean to Australia in economic terms and also with respect to job opportunities? Can the Minister say whether the United Kingdom

Labour Minister’s mission to Australia to purchase uranium oxide had the endorsement of the United Kingdom trade unions?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think we are all well aware that Dr Mabon has been in Australia. For some reason he has incurred the wrath of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Uren, in the other place who expected a very distinguished member of the United Kingdom Labour Government to look after his political fortunes rather than the interests of the United Kingdom. It must come very hard for Mr Uren and those who think as he does that other members of Labour parties throughout the world do not support the peculiar attitudes of the Australian Labor Party. As I understand it, the United Kingdom Minister said that he was satisfied with the precautions which have been taken in the United Kingdom. He was certainly impressed with the safeguards which have been announced by the Australian Government. He believes them to be the strictest and most useful safeguards promulgated by any government in the world.

As to whether Australia has agreed to supply 1,000 tonnes of uranium a year I shall have to make inquiries for the honourable senator. I understand that uranium is worth about $40 a pound. I do not know whether that is United States dollars or Australian dollars. From my rough maths I suppose that 1,000 tonnes a year would be worth about $80m a year. Not only has Dr Mabon enunciated the views of Mr Callaghan ‘s United Kingdom Labour Government; it would also be the policy of the British Trade Union Congress. The honourable senator would know that some weeks ago I read into Hansard a resolution of the United Kingdom Trade Union Congress on 8 September this year. The Congress backed a call for an expanded nuclear power program in England. Obviously, the United Kingdom Trade Union Congress is devoting its time and attention to the benefits its members will receive from such a program and not indulging in politics. That contrasts very sharply with the attitude taken by some trade unions in Australia.

Australia has been very fortunate to have a visitor of the standing and quality of Dr Mabon to show us how enlightened countries are handling this problem. It was the same sort of attitude that the Whitlam Labor Government had when it was in power. As I said earlier in Question Time, we all recall that the Labor Government, through Mr Khemlani, was desperately anxious to borrow $4,000m overseas, at least $225m of which was to go into building a uranium enrichment plant in this country. The memorandum of understanding of 28 October 1975 shows that it was putting this in hand. I recall that at that stage the Government was going to put up 72V4 per cent of the capital in return for 50 per cent of the profit. It was anxious, desperately anxious. As I recall, it was said that the reason for using Mr Khemlani to raise $4,000m was to generate jobs in Australia which would have benefited trade unionists. It is a shame that neither the Labor Party nor the trade union movement now seems to have any interest at all in the employment of trade union members.

page 1867

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE BOUNTY

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that in the last 10 years the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, has received benefits under the superphosphate bounty in excess of $60,000. Will the Minister dispute the accuracy of this figure and, if so, will he table the correct figure?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not know whether either the Prime Minister or I have ministerial responsibility for a bounty which is paid to every Australian farmer, but what I am interested in it the thrust of the honourable senator’s remarks, which lead one to the obvious conclusion that an incoming Labor Government, if Australia should be so unfortunate as to have one, would abolish the superphosphate bounty, just as it did the last time it was in office. It was quite obvious during those terrible three dark years under Labor that we had a Sydney-Melbourne government which was anti-farmer, anti-Queensland, anti-Western Australia, anti-Tasmania, antiSouth Australia -

Senator Walsh:

-Four tonnes a head!

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator needs some superphosphate on him; he might grow into a more pleasant person! Somehow or other it seems to be a crime in this country to be successful. That is what the honourable senator is saying. He is so bound up in his dislike of individuals that he and his party will put such policies into effect. They will abolish the superphosphate bounty just as they abolished it last time, and all farmers have now been put on notice that the Australian Labor Party does not believe in the payment of such bounties.

page 1867

QUESTION

ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION: APPRENTICES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial

Relations whether he is aware that the Tasmanian State secretary of the Electrical Trades Union has sent out notices to union members stating that unless all electrical apprentices join the union within 14 days members are to refuse to work with them. Is this not a further attack on the traditional position of apprentices, which frees them from the requirement to join a union? Will action be taken to protect those electrical apprentices in Tasmania who do not wish to join the ETU? Do the recent amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act give added protection to such individuals from stand-over tactics exercised by union ‘heavies’?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– One of the most important features of the amendments made by the Parliament a week or so ago to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to which I referred earlier, and which Mr Bob Hawke wants us to withdraw, and the Opposition of course opposed, was that of providing protection for individual unionists and widening greatly the scope and availability of individual rights for apprentices such as the honourable senator refers to, so that they may be able to make good their conscientious objection to joining unions. I will certainly refer the specific matter raised to the Minister who will, I am sure, see to it that action is taken to protect the rights of such people under that legislation.

page 1868

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT CENTRE, ADELAIDE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services and concerns also the Minister representing the Minister for Construction. The Minister will recall that over the years there has been reported an acceptance by successive Ministers of the fact that a Commonwealth Government centre would be established in Adelaide. Ministers in the present Government, the previous Government and the one before that have reported that such a project has been kept alive. I am now informed that the only block available to accommodate such a building in Adelaide, which was intended to house some of the 20 Commonwealth departments, is to be sold. I ask the Minister: Is that a fact? Will the sale of this land mean the end of any possibility of there being a structure to do that which was formally discussed?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will have to get the file out in order to advise the honourable senator accurately. From memory, the Commonwealth had two sites in Adelaide. One has been sold to the City of Adelaide. The City of Adelaide asked the Commonwealth whether it could acquire that site as it wished to build a car parking facility on it. I imagine that it will be a multi-storey facility.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is in Currie Street, is it not?

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Cavanagh could be right. I cannot recall the exact details. I think that under both the State planning ordinances and the city council ordinances the Commonwealth would have had problems in putting a multi-storey office block on that site. Therefore, at the request of the State Government and the city council, it has been sold to the city council for a car parking facility. There is, however, another site which has been held for some time.

Senator McLaren:

– That is the John Bull one.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is the John Bull one. I thank Senator McLaren for reminding me. I had forgotten its location. There have been inquiries from people who have expressed an interest in acquiring it. I signed a letter the other day that informed an inquirer that the Commonwealth had no intention of selling the John Bull site, that it had been earmarked for a Commonwealth Government centre and that it was still being kept for that purpose. I think the sites I have mentioned are correct, but if my answer is not accurate enough and Senator Bishop sees me later I will get out the file for him.

page 1868

QUESTION

WILLIAMSBURG CONFERENCE

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– Is the Minister for Education aware that an international conference that is supported by the Australian Institute of International Affairs, with assistance from the Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs, has reportedly been forced off the campus of the Australian National University as a result of threats of demonstrations? Can the Minister say whether this means that all future meetings on the campus of the ANU must be open to the public and that people will not be free to hold private meetings on university campuses?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I read with very considerable concern reports in the Canberrra Times of yesterday and today purporting to be a background of a series of events relating to the seventh Williamsburg Conference. I understand that this Conference, which is well respected internationally, had been invited to Australia, in a co-sponsorship with the Australian Institute of International Affairs, to hold private study meetings in its normal way with regard to Asian and Pacific economic and political affairs. In the past this Conference has met in various places. It has met privately but its papers have been published later. Its papers are considerably sought after in the world as well respected in their contents. My understanding is that a booking was made for University House. I have read in the Press that arising from the fear of disruption and violence -

Senator Georges:

– They are a bunch of squibs. They are terribly sensitive, are they not?

Senator CARRICK:

-I will come to Senator Georges in a moment. He, like Mr Freney, may share a view on this matter. We will have a look at this. Perhaps he will then go silent on this situation. It is implied in the Press that because of the fear of disruption and violence the authorities asked that the meeting be transferred from the campus. I understand that the Australian Labor Party’s member for one of the electorates in the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Fry, has strongly criticised the Conference. I equally understand that Mr Denis Freeney, who is of pro-communist origins, has said: ‘We will be doing everything short of physical violence to stop it taking place’.

Senator Button:

– What does ‘pro-communist origins’ mean- that his grandfather was a communist?

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr Freney is reported in the newspapers as being a member of the Communist Party of Australia. Perhaps Senator Button can add to that knowledge, since he finds it frivolous to talk about a man who is reported to be seeking to break up free speech in Australia. I do not know whether the authorities in fact asked that the meeting be removed from the campus because of a threat of disruption. If that were so, I would be gravely concerned, and so would my Government.

Senator Georges:

– You talk about authorities -

Senator CARRICK:

– Every time members of the Opposition interrupt to support the Denis Freneys of this world they underline their stance as disrupters in this community; they come on side with what is called low level terrorism, that is, the use of threat and intimidation to destroy freedom of speech.

If a university has found it necessary, in its own judgment, to move a meeting off its campus, then that university has failed to discharge an undertaking that is implicit in the legislation setting it up and has failed to take account of advice from this Government. Universities are given statutory authority in order to ensure academic freedom. Fundamentally, that means they will uphold freedom of speech, whether it be from the Left or the Right, and not selectively, only when it comes from the Left and the far Left. My Government has asked all vice-chancellors to ensure that on campuses there shall be no intimidation, no violence at all, and no threats of terrorism. We have had such an assurance. Since I have only the newspaper reports on this matter, I propose to get in touch with the University and to ask what are the facts. However, I must underline that people in other parts of the world will be horrified at the concept of our institutions in Australia if those institutions cannot support such study groups as this- such freedom of speech. We will become the kind of banana republic that Senator Georges is advocating by his interjections. For my part, if the facts are as publicised, there is reason for grave concern in the community.

page 1869

INTERJECTIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– I have been very tolerant and very patient in calls to order relating to interjections. Interjections are disorderly, and I warn honourable senators that those who persist in not taking heed of my calls to order will be dealt with as provided for in the procedures of this place.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GEORGES:

-Mr President, I accept that interjections are disorderly, and I suppose that I am one who has interjected constantly in this place, although I hope at the right time. However, I must say that, when Ministers answering questions become highly provocative, and deliberately so, then the Senate falls into disarray and interjections become more frequent. If I have upset you by my constant interjections on the Minister, I apologise; but surely responsibilitymustrestwithMinisterswhentheyanswer questionsinthewaythatSenatorCarrickhasjust done.

page 1869

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Loan Bill 1977.

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill 1977.

Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1977.

Oilseeds Levy Bill 1977.

Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Bill 1977.

page 1869

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the resolutions of the 102nd meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Alice Springs in August 1977.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1870

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Dairy Produce Act 1924 1 present the interim annual report of the Australian Dairy Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1977.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1870

AUSTRALIAN WINE BOARD

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

-Pursuant to section 29 of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929 I present the interim annual report of the Australian Wine Board for the year ended 30 June 1977.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1870

AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CONTROL BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Dried Fruits Export Control Act 1974 I present the annual report of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board for the year ended 30 June 1977.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1870

ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR INTER-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976 1 present the first annual report of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations for the year ended 3 1 August 1 977.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave-I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1870

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL PARKS AND

page 1870

WILDLIFE SERVICE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 52 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 I present the report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for the year ended 30 June 1977. Copies of the report will be sent to all members and senators as soon as bulk supplies become available. In the meantime, copies of the report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library and the Senate Table Office.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

Without transgressing Standing Orders, I presume from what the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has said that if we are elsewhere we will get copies of the report? I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Senator Carrick:

– I will ensure that that happens.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1870

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1977.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1870

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 35 of the Prices Justification Act 1973 I present the Prices Justification Tribunal annual report for 1976-77 and its half-yearly report for the six months ended 30 June 1977.

page 1871

QUESTION

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE D

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-by leave-I table written answers to questions asked during Estimates Committee D’s consideration of the particulars of proposed expenditure received since the report of the Committee was tabled on 13 October.

page 1871

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Reports

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

Beef Cattle Research Works Laboratory at Rockhampton, Queensland, and Headquarters Operational Command at Royal Australian Air Force Station, Glenbrook, New South Wales.

page 1871

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Notices of Motion

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– by leaveAll the notices of motion standing in my name on the Business Paper today were given in respect of legislation which was under inquiry by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. The first of the notices of motion relates to the Ombudsman Regulations. The Ombudsman Act passed by the Parliament in 1976 provided that Commonwealth statutory authorities would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, but that they could be excluded from his jurisdiction by regulation. Companies owned by the Commonwealth are excluded unless specifically included by the regulations. The regulations provide for exclusion of a number of statutory authorities and companies and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee considered that it was its duty to examine the reasons for their exclusion. The Committee considers that to restrict the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman is to restrict the rights of the citizen, and that Commonwealth authorities should not be excluded from the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction except for the most cogent reasons.

The Committee is concerned that the regulations exclude a number of commercial statutory authorities and companies, such as the various Commonwealth banks, on the ground that they are in competition with private enterprise and their commercial operations should not be subject to review by the Ombudsman. The Committee considers that the administrative acts of these bodies should be included in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Committee does not object to the other bodies excluded by the regulations. These include judicial and industrial tribunals, bodies established by international agreement, the Auditor-General, and the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has given the Committee an assurance that the Administrative Review Council will review the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and that the report of the Council will be made available to the Committee. The Committee has accepted this assurance, and also intends, when the report is available, to seek the opinion of the Ombudsman, and information on the number of cases he has been unable to investigate because of lack of jurisdiction under the regulations. On this basis the Committee is prepared to allow the regulations to stand.

The second notice of motion relates to the Australian Capital Territory Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance. This ordinance provides that the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers may adjudicate in disputes between sellers and buyers of motor vehicles and may make such orders as he considers just and there are penalties for enforcing his orders. Although there is an appeal to the courts against decisions cif the Registrar, and the Registrar may not deal with disputes which are before the courts, the Committee considers that these provisions are in principle objectionable, in that they confer on an administrative official the powers and responsibilities of a court. The provision of penalties to enforce the orders of the Registrar violates the principle that civil orders should be enforced in the first instance by civil and not criminal remedies. The other provision that the Committee considers objectionable, is to the effect that persons who bring witnesses in hearings before the Registrar are liable for the expenses of those witnesses, notwithstanding that the witnesses may be material to the proceedings. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) has undertaken to review and amend all of these provisions, and the provisions will not come into effect until that review has occurred. The Committee will have the opportunity of examining the amendments when they are made. The Committee is willing to allow the ordinance to stand on the basis of this undertaking.

The third notice of motion relates to the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Ordinance. This ordinance contains a provision to the effect that where a legally assisted person fails in litigation, and had costs awarded against him by the court, the Legal Aid Commission may or may not pay those costs. This decision is subject to no appeal except to a review committee appointed by the Commission itself. The Committee considers that there is a risk of grave injustice being done under this provision. A person may, with the assistance of legal aid, initiate litigation which he would not otherwise have undertaken. The defendant in those proceedings may be put to great expense in defending himself, and then, notwithstanding that the case fails, and the court orders that the plaintiff should pay the defendant’s costs, the defendant may be unable to recover those costs because the Legal Aid Commission, and the review committee appointed by it, refuses to pay the costs regardless of the order of the court. The Committee is also disturbed to note that the review committees are to be the final avenue of appeal against decisions by the Commission, but that they are lacking in procedures under the ordinance and that the appellant is not even given a right to be heard.

The Attorney-General (Senator Durack), in response to the Committee’s view that a court should have the power to decide whether costs awarded against a legally assisted person will be paid by the Legal Aid Commission, has pointed out that this would require an Act of Parliament, and could not be achieved in the present Parliament. The Attorney-General has undertaken to refer to the Administrative Review Council the operation of the ordinance, and to review the ordinance in the light of experience in its first 12 months of operation. The ordinance will also be amended so as to give an appellant the right to be heard by a review committee. The Committee is prepared to allow the ordinance to stand on the basis of that assurance, but the Committee would hope to examine the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council, and also to discover whether there are any cases of costs being awarded against legally assisted persons, and whether the Legal Aid Commission pays those costs in those cases.

The Senate will see from this statement that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has subjected these three pieces of subordinate legislation to close scrutiny to see whether the rights and liberties of persons are properly safeguarded, and it is hoped that during the new Parliament the operation of this legislation will be reviewed in accordance with the terms of my statement. In view of the undertakings given by the responsible Ministers, and the consequent decisions of the Committee, I withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1, 2 and 3, standing in my name.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I seek leave to make a short statement on the statement made by Senator Wood.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GEORGES:

-I am a new member of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances of which Senator Wood is the Chairman. May I express the concern I feel. The Committee does not appear to have sufficient time now to consider some very important changes to regulations. Because we have only IS sitting days in which to make a decision the Committee is constrained and has to come to some arrangement, as has been arrived at in this case, and allow regulations to stand. I believe that the Senate ought to consider whether this Committee is inhibited by the 15-day rule and whether that period of time ought to be extended.

It also appears to me, as a new member of the Committee, that many more important regulations are coming before the Committee. This may be because of the Government’s policy of seeking to govern perhaps by regulation rather than by Act of Parliament. I make these few remarks to get my concern into the records. The Committee has been under pressure, as has been revealed in respect of the three notices of motion referred to by Senator Wood. As a result the Senate may have to consider the 15-day rule and decide whether it ought to be extended.

page 1872

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Motion (by Senator Messner)- by leaveproposed:

That leave be granted to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to meet during the sittings of the Senate on Wednesday 2 November and Thursday 3 November.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For some time the Senate has been loth to agree to sittings of committees at the same time as the Senate is sitting unless good and cogent reasons are given to the Senate. I am not saying that there are not good and cogent reasons in this case but they have not been advanced. I think we should ensure, before we agree to such a proposition, that those reasons are put forward by the mover of the motion because it is a principle that the Senate has been careful to preserve.

Senator Withers:

- Senator Colston knows all about it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No one has mentioned the reasons to me. I did not even know that the proposition was coming forward. Therefore I believe the Senate is entitled to know more before it agrees to this motion.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– in reply- I apologise to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Douglas McClelland). I thought all the buttons had been done up and that the honourable senator had been advised in this regard. The Public Accounts Committee has been enjoying a very heavy workload recently in respect of public hearings. The Committee, due to a change of secretary, has been unable in the short time available to it to complete all the necessary reports that ought to be submitted to the Parliament before it rises next week. Consequently the Committee, at its meeting this morning, decided to ask the Senate whether it would give leave in this circumstance so that it could meet its obligations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1873

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1977-78

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 1873

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1977-78

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1977-78 for expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, advances and loans, plant and equipment, grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution, and new policies not authorised by special legislation. Details of the amounts sought by each Department are shown in Schedule 2 to the Bill, the sum of these appropriations being $1,329,969,000. Of this, $745,044,000 was authorised by Supply Act (No. 2) 1977-78, the balance of $584,925,000 being authorised by this Bill. The main features of the proposed expenditure were outlined in the Budget Speech. The Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document entitled ‘Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1978’ which was referred to the Senate Estimates Committees on 25 August for examination and report.

I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1873

GOVERNOR-GENERAL 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 Withers) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

This Bill provides for an increase in the salary of the Governor-General. Because the Constitution provides that the salary of the Governor-General will not be altered during his continuance in office, the increased salary becomes payable to the next Governor-General, after he is sworn in December. The present Governor-General Act was introduced by the Labor Administration in 1974 and provided for a salary $30,000. It is now proposed that the Governor-General’s salary be $37,000- a salary that will remain unchanged through the period of the next GovernorGeneral’s appointment.

In 1974 the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), put forward some important principles as applying to consideration by the Parliament of the Governor-General’s remuneration. It is worth re-stating these principles now. They are that the Governor-General’s salary would be dealt with in a non-party way; that the salary should recognise the importance and place of his high office; and that the appointment of a Governor-General should not depend on personal wealth or the availability of other income. The Government fully endorses these principles.

In the same spirit I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 1874

JUDICIARY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION) 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 AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

This Bill was foreshadowed in the statement to Parliament by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 6 October when he announced the Government’s decision to appoint Mr Justice Fox as Ambassador-at-Large, to represent Australia overseas in international endeavours to secure a strengthened nuclear non-proliferation regime. In announcing that decision, the Prime Minister mentioned that the Government would be introducing legislation to enable Mr Justice Fox to retain his judicial status and the rights which attach to that status while he is Ambassador-at-Large. This Bill makes provision for those matters.

Mr Justice Fox is at present the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and he is also a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. As the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement of 6 October, His Honour proposes, when the formalities in relation to his ambassadorial appointment have been completed, to resign his office of Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. This is a step which will be greatly regretted. I know that His Honour has reached his decision to resign only after very careful consideration. It is an unselfish step which His Honour considers he should take in the interests of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, having regard to the administrative nature of the duties of the Chief Judge of that Court. His Honour will nevertheless retain his appointment as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia and the present Bill will remove any doubts that otherwise might exist as to the effect that the ambassadorial appointment might have had on his judicial office.

This is in line with the legislative action that was taken to remove any doubts that the diplomatic appointments of Sir John Latham and Sir Owen Dixon in 1940 and 1942 respectively, and the appointment last year of Mr Justice Woodward as Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, may have had on their judicial offices. The Bill provides that while Mr Justice Fox is holding his appointment as Ambassador-at-Large he will retain his entitlements to remuneration and annual allowance that he would have had as Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. His pension entitlement under the Judges ‘ Pensions Act 1 968 is also to be retained on that basis.

When Mr Justice Fox’s appointment as Ambassador-at-Large comes to an end he will retain his position as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia and he will be entitled to remuneration and annual allowances on that basis. This will be a somewhat lesser entitlement than His Honour would have had if he had retained the office of Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, but His Honour has indicated that this is nevertheless acceptable to him.

Somewhat different considerations, however, apply in relation to His Honour’s pension entitlement under the Judges’ Pensions Act. The Bill provides that His Honour will not suffer any loss of pension entitlement, which has largely accrued already, by reason of his proposed resignation as Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure honourable senators will agree that it is appropriate that His Honour should retain his pension rights.

It only remains for me to endorse what the Prime Minister has already said about the importance which the Government attaches to Mr Justice Fox’s proposed appointment as Ambassador-at-Large and to His Honour’s preeminent qualifications for the task. It is a great pity that during the term of his appointment he will be unavailable for judicial service but bis contribution towards our endeavours to secure a strengthened nuclear non-proliferation regime will, I am sure, more than make up for this.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 1874

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1977-78

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I rise to speak about matters of appropriation which are not necessarily matters of public appropriation but which may be regarded by cynics in the community as matters of private appropriation. I begin by referring the Senate to the Report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament on the Declaration of Interests of members of parliament which was handed down in September 1975. At the outset I refer to some of the important conclusions reached by that Committee of this Parliament in September 1975. They are:

  1. Members of Parliament should disclose the names of all companies in which they have a beneficial interest in shareholdings, no matter how insignificant, whether as an individual, member of another company, or partnership, through a trust.
  2. Members of Parliament should disclose the location of any realty in which they have a beneficial interest.
  3. Members of Parliament should declare the names of all companies of which they are directors even if the directorship is unremunerated.
  4. vi) Members of Parliament should declare any sponsored travel.
  5. Members of Parliament should provide the information required in the form of a statutory declaration to a Parliamentary Registrar who shall be directly responsible to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is reasonable and proper to allow the public to have access to the information disclosed on establishing to the satisfaction of the Registrar and with the approval of the President or Speaker that a bona fide reason exists for such access . . .
  6. On assuming office.’a Minister of the Crown should resign any directorships of public companies and dispose of any shares in a public or private company which might be seen to be affected by decisions taken within the Minister’s ‘ sphere of responsibility.
  7. Ministerial Staff should make a written declaration to the Minister by whom they are employed of those types of pecuniary interests which it is recommended should be registered by Members of Parliament. A copy of the declaration made by each staff member should be given to the Prime Minister.
  8. The staff of the Opposition Leaders and their appointed spokesman should be required to declare their pecuniary interests in a manner similar to that required of ministerial staff.

Since that report was handed down in September 1975, nothing has happened in terms of the recommendations which the Joint Committee, on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament-an all party committee- made to the Parliament. I will cite a very important section of the report which gives some of the reasons why its recommendations should have been carried out and the urgency with which the Committee in 1975 saw that they should be carried out. The Committee said this in a most important statement on page 44 of its report:

It will be perceived that the thread which has been running through the fabric of this Report is that of concern for the welfare and integrity of public life which is being demeaned by various forces, but particularly by that of insidious cynicism accompanied as it is by destructive denigration. While making proposals to redress this situation due care has been given to the delicate mechanisms of our society which is of necessity a complementary partnership. This partnership of the people is a partnership between responsive Government, a constructive Parliament, a loyal Opposition, a dedicated Public Service,

The Committee finished that paragraph with this sentence:

In such an interdependent community that which is within the power of Parliament and its partners to do to promote this objective should be done with alacrity and with total disregard to self interest.

That was a message of urgency which a committee of this Parliament gave to the Parliament in 1975. 1 would think that most members of this Parliament believe that we should have the highest standards in Australia in relation to this question of the pecuniary interests of members of this Parliament. After all, in 1975 Mr Fraser promised us sound management and honest government. There was a lot said in 1975 about the importance of honest government. Honest government involves not just honesty in itself but also the people of this country being able to see that government is honest and that it is perceived to be honest by the people to avoid the sort of cynicism to which the report in 1975 referred. One would have thought that this Government or this Parliament should have nothing to fear from honest disclosure of financial interests.

Of course, the matter has come to light again in my State of Victoria quite recently with the inquiry into land dealings in that State in which, whatever the results of the inquiry being conducted into land dealings is, it is perceived by a large number of people that there has been a situation in that State in which there must be very grave doubts about the honesty and integrity of a number of public servants. It is also perceived that there must be very grave doubts about the competence and perhaps the honesty of a number of Ministers in the State Government in Victoria. Although that inquiry relates to Victoria, it must be a matter of concern to this Parliament as well. The essential point about the report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is simply this: The public is entitled to know, for very obvious reasons.

I would argue not only that the public is entitled to know- of course, that is the most important thing- but also that we all should be diligent to see that in this country we have standards which are as high as those in other countries with similar pretentions to our own. For example, in the United States of America the policy of the Senate is stated quite clearly. It is that senators, officers and employees of the Senate make full and complete public disclosures of their financial holdings. The position in Great Britain is very well stated in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice and is stated quite explicitly in the Clerk of the Senate’s book Australian Senate Practice. The section of the latter book which deals with the declaration of interests is to be particularly commended for the way in which it sets out this whole matter. I will quote the learned Clerk’s reference to the particular point of the 1975 report. On page 283 of the book he states, in relation to the situation in Great Britain:

In 1975 the House of Commons agreed, by resolution, to the declaration and registration of Members interests. It is now a rule of the House that every Member -

Not just Ministers or the staff of Ministers- shall furnish to the Registrar of Members’ Interests such particulars as shall be required, and shall notify to the Registrar any alterations which may occur therein, and the Registrar shall cause these particulars to be entered in the Register of Members’ Interests which shall be available to the public. Interests required to be declared cover the classes of pecuniary interest or benefit which might reasonably be thought to influence the conduct of Members of Parliament. However, Members are not required to disclose the amounts of any remuneration or benefit received.

That statement is consistent with the statement set out in Erskine May’s book. Commenting on the situation in Australia following the 1975 report, the Clerk had this to say:

In a unanimous report -

I emphasise that it was a unanimous report- the Committee found that the usefulness of a register lies not in the ability to detect fraud or impropriety but as a means of assuring the public that decisions affecting it are made in the public interest. The system recommended was one whereby Members of Parliament would be required to declare their interests in general terms.

I have outlined the situation in Australia following the 1975 report. The situation recommended is not the actual situation here. It is the situation in the United States of America and it is the situation in Great Britain. I do not bother to refer to countries such as Norway where people in public life such as members of Parliament not only have to disclose their proprietary interests or their pecuniary interests in various forms of property but also are bound to disclose their incomes which are published annually in newspapers.

One might ask: Why not, if people are purporting to take part in public life in a manner which is beyond public reproach or public cynicism?

Following the report of the 1975 Committee the position in a sense is documented by questions that have been asked in this Parliament of both Senator Withers in this place and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the House of Representatives. On 18 February 1976, in answer to a question without notice, the Prime Minister said that the recommendations of the 1975 Committee were being taken into account in formulating the requirements of declarations by Ministers and staffs. He said that the Government had not fully determined its attitude to the report as a whole and that senior public servants also would be considered in the determination of the Government’s attitude. In April 1976, in answer to a question on notice regarding alleged conflicts of interest which Sir Henry Bland was alleged to have as chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Prime Minister said:

Sir Henry Bland is a consultant to the Government. I am certain that he would advise me if he had any conflict of interest.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the brunt of the report of the parliamentary Committee. It is not up to the individual to notify the Prime Minister in those circumstances of his own volition whether he has any conflict of interest. One would have thought that it would be something which was demanded by the Government. In October 1976 in answer to a further question relating to Sir Henry Bland, in which it was pointed out to the Prime Minister that Sir Henry was a director of five companies which were being examined by the Prices Justification Tribunal at the time of Sir Henry’s appointment, the Prime Minister went on to say that Sir Henry Bland had not advised him of any conflict of interest. So again it was being left to a person who might be said to have a pecuniary interest contrary to the interests of this Parliament and of government to decide quite subjectively whether any conflict of interest existed.

In December 1976 in answer to a question asked by Senator Colston here in the Senate we were told that the Government was still considering the report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests. The Leader of the Government in the Senate informed the Senate that Ministers already made declarations to the Prime Minister which took into account the recommendations of the Joint Committee and that ministerial staffs made declarations in a similar form. With respect, what a very cosy way of doing it. The purport of the report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests was that the whole question was one of public disclosure. But here we have this nice little in-club arrangement whereby Ministers in the Fraser Government notify Mr Fraser himself whether they have any pecuniary interests which might be in conflict with the sorts of principles which have been enunciated by parliaments in Britain, the United States and here. What a cosy little arrangement for the Government to enter into.

That was the position in December 1976. In February 1977 m answer to another question Senator Colston was told that the information provided by Ministers was provided on a confidential basis and it was not intended to make it public. In May 1977, in answer to a question from Senator Colston, Senator Withers said that the pecuniary interest question was still under consideration by the Government and that the implementation of the proposals of the Joint Committee would not require legislation.

In August 1977 in answer to a further question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) the Prime Minister said that an interdepartmental committee was looking at both the Royal Commission’s recommendations and at the recommendations of the parliamentary committee to see to what extent they were compatible so that the Government would be in a position to make a decision on the whole question of pecuniary interests in relation to both members of Parliament and public servants. The Prime Minister went on in his answer to deny that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, had any conflict of interest because of his association with a company of funeral directors. That again might be regarded as a cause for some cynicism.

The record of this Government in its answers to the questions which have been raised about this matter is one of evasion and prevarication. In none of the answers to those questions asked over a period of time is there reference to any apparent intention by the Government to do anything about the report of that Committee. There is no attempt to discuss or to distinguish various types of interest or to disclose those interests in any public sense. That is despite the fact that the Prime Minister wrote to Ministers on 13 January 1976 a letter in which he indicated that he would be seeking the co-operation of Ministers concerning the matter of public duty and private interests of Ministers. The conflict between public duty and private interests of Ministers is referred to quite apparently in the Prime Minister’s letter. The copy of the letter which I have was sent to Mr Anthony. The final two paragraphs state:

I emphasise that it is the responsibility of each Minister to avoid any conflict of interest arising and to inform me of any significant changes in the information provided in response to this letter.

I am available to discuss with you any aspects of the matters I have referred to. The information provided will of course be kept on a strictly personal and confidential basis.

The consequence of that sort of approach to this issue is as I have pointed out already. The Prime Minister has taken advantage of this report of the Joint Committee of the Parliament to say: ‘I want to know- as Prime Minister I am entitled to know- from all my Ministers what particular proprietary interests they have, what are their shareholdings, their interests in rural land, their company directorships and so on. I am entitled to know but the public is not. It is a matter which we will keep in-club in this Government. I will have the information and not one iota of that information will be made available to the public’. That is the exact obverse of what the Joint Committee of this Parliament recommended. It recommended that this was a matter of public concern and public interest and that it was not a matter solely for the Prime Minister any more than for any other citizen. The Prime Minister has turned that all around to create this situation of Ministers reporting to him on the matter in a manner which is totally in-club. I use that term advisedly, but it is appropriate to this Government in so many of its endeavours.

Why should Ministers report to the Prime Minister about this matter? Is it sought to lead the people to think that if Malcolm Fraser knows about those interests there can be no crook Minister in this Government because Malcolm Fraser will look after the matter and will see that there is no conflict of interest? Apparently the people of Australia are asked to accept the word of a Prime Minister whose word has never been answered for in questions which have been directed to him, a Prime Minister in whom, according to the polls, 27 per cent of the Australian people have confidence. Only 27 per cent of the Australian public, who are the people concerned with the consequences of this report, have confidence in the man who is going to decide whether Ministers have a conflict of interest in regard to their private dealings and their public responsibilities. This is perhaps another fascinating insight into life at the top, but it is not the sort of insight to which the people of Australia are entitled on the basis of a unanimous report of this Parliament.

Why would the Government not want to implement the recommendation which the Joint Committee of the Parliament has made? Why would the Prime Minister want to keep all this information to himself? I refer the Senate again to the content of that report, in which the Committee stated that the main thread of the report was the fact that public life in this country is being demeaned by various forces, but particularly by the force of insidious cynicism, accompanied as it is by destructive denigration. Why would the Prime Minister not want to examine the situation of the public interest and private interests of his Ministers? I do not know the answer to that question, but let me refer honorable senators to a few examples. Let me refer honourable senators first of all to the case of the Deputy Prime Minister of this country (Mr Anthony) who, through a very substantial family interest in a company known as Northern Star Holdings Ltd, has a controlling interest in television stations NRN11 and RTN8 in northern New South Wales. His family has a controlling interest in radio stations 4GG on the Gold Coast, 2MW in Murwillumbah and 2LM in Lismore, and in a dozen commercial newspapers in the area between South Brisbane and Coffs Harbour. That is a substantial interest which the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, through his family, has directly in companies which could bring him in conflict with his public responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown and about which there has not been disclosure presumably to anybody other than to the Prime Minister of Australia.

The Leader of the House in the other place, Mr Ian Sinclair, is a very substantial shareholder in Television New England Ltd, which has a nice arrangement with the Australian Telecommunications Commission for the sharing of a television translator station near Tamworth in New South Wales. That is a company which makes substantial profits and which, by the arrangement with Telecom, obtains a substantial benefit from taxpayers’ money which is put into that television translator station by means of appropriations of this Parliament. In dealing with the question of the declaration of private interests, one would like to know whether Mr Sinclair made a declaration which engendered him to feel that he might be disposed not to take part in Cabinet discussions when the Broadcasting and Television Act was being amended. He might have felt that it was inappropriate for him to vote in the Parliament when the Act was being amended. The same could be said about Mr Anthony. Because of his family holdings perhaps he should have declined to take part when the

Broadcasting and Television Act was being amended.

One can follow up the situation of Ian Sinclair through his association- if I can call it that for want of a better expression- with the Sinclair Pastoral Company. That company has substantial interests in shopping premises in Weetangera and Latham in the Australian Capital Territory about which the public is entitled to know. The public is entitled to know whether Ministers of the Crown have interests which could conflict with legislation or ordinances relating to the Australian Capital Territory which have been passed by the Parliament. One wonders whether Mr Sinclair thought fit to disclose that information to the Cabinet when those matters were being discussed.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), who is a member of this chamber, has as his principal private secretary Mr Wally Summons. He was private secretary to the Minister when he was in opposition. From the time this Government obtained office until February this year Mr Summons was director of a company called Waugh and Josephson Holdings Ltd which had contracts with the Government in that period. I am not suggesting that the Minister or Mr Summons are involved in any impropriety but the people of Australia are entitled to know these things. The Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament said that the people of Australia were entitled to know these things. With respect, Mr Summons, as a director of a public company such as Waugh and Josephson which was accepting contracts from this Government, should not have been private secretary to the Minister for Business and Commerce.

Senator Cotton:

– Get it right. If you want to make an accusation by innuendo get the facts right. I understand what you are trying to do but try to be accurate if you can on this sort of thing.

Senator BUTTON:

-I am indebted to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The cynics to which the Committee report refers might talk about some section of industry or commerce which the Minister presides over through his staff. I shall not put the matter any higher than that but that is not the whole point. The Committee report recommends specifically that Members of Parliament, not just Ministers, should disclose the location of any realty in which they have a beneficial interest. I understand from various reports that one can put in that basket from the Cabinet Mr Anthony, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Sinclair, the Leader of the House of Representatives, Mr Fraser, the Prime Minister, Senator Cotton, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Street, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Hunt, the Minister for Health, Mr Nixon, the Minister for Transport and Senator Webster, the Minister for Science. Those are just a few examples. None of those Ministers has complied with the standards which the report recommends they should comply with. All those Ministers have participated in discussions, Cabinet decisions and decisions of the Parliament relating to primary industry which have involved substantial benefits to primary producers. None of them has stood up in the Parliament and declared his interests. None of them has done any of the things which might be considered to be consistent with the public interest in this country. As far as we know, none of them has declined to take part in Cabinet discussions or any of those matters.

These are only examples of the point I am seeking to make. If it was so desired I could point to other honourable senators, not Ministers, who have pecuniary interests of the kind which the report sought to deal with but I am content to let the matter rest with Ministers. After all there is a fair swag of them to illustrate my point. It looks very much as though that is only the tip of the iceberg. The point with which I am concerned is that a situation in which Ministers have holdings of this kind is by any standards of English speaking democracies a public scandal. It is confounded and compounded by the fact that not only has the situation not improved, it is also being made worse by this in-club arrangement which the Prime Minister has arrived at in which he assures Ministers that he is prepared to have a chat with them about the matter but any information will be strictly personal and on a confidential basis. He gives no involvement to the public of Australia and there are no declarations to the Parliament as a committee of the Parliament thought there should be.

This matter has been of longstanding concern to me. It was brought to my mind most recently by the allegations of impropriety by Ministers and public servants in my own State of Victoria. I felt it would be wrong for me to take part in any criticism of those people if my own house, the Senate, was not in order. I felt it appropriate that 1 should raise the matter here before participating at great length in any debate about anything which might be happening in the Victorian Parliament. It is proper that this Senate and this Parliament should set an example to the parliaments of Australia of a kind which has been set by the

Westminster Parliament and the United States Congress.

Senator Webster:

– Would you care to explain what the Labor Government did when it was in power?

Senator BUTTON:

-The first thing we did when somebody got on to Senator Webster’s private interests- I think he was the senator involved- was to appoint a committee to inquire into this question. It made a report in September 1975. Senator Webster might remember that in October 1975 he was a member of the then Opposition that took action in the Senate to delay the Budget and bring about a constitutional crisis in this country. There was no possibility of the Government doing anything about the report at that stage. In 1975 the then Opposition promised that it would introduce a new era of ‘honest government’ as it called it. It has not done much good with respect to this matter. For the information of Senator Webster, who came into the chamber late and now wants to know, that is why I am raising the matter today. The present Government talks about public standards. It talks about introducing freedom of information legislation. It talks about a lot of matters which are loosely summarised in the expression ‘open government’. But it has done nothing about them in the two years in which it has been in office, in spite of repeated prodding in the form of questions and by other means.

I have cited a number of examples which might be of interest to Senator Webster. They turned up in passing but I am sure that there are plenty more. If Senator Webster could persuade his colleagues to make a declaration of interest as the report of the Committee recommended we would hear much more about the matter.

Might I just conclude by referring again to the important conclusion of that report, which must be of concern to every parliamentarian and, indeed, to the public of Australia, since nothing has been done about it. It reads as follows: the welfare and integrity of public life which is being demeaned by various forces, but particularly by that of insidious cynicism accompanied as it is by destructive denigration.

And I refer to the proposals that have been made to redress that situation-

In such an interdependent community that which is within the power of Parliament and its partners to do to promote this objective should be done with alacrity and with total disregard to self interest.

Again and again in this report it is stressed that it is not a matter for private arrangements between Ministers or members, as the case may be; that it is a matter of public interest and concern and for that reason there should be public disclosure. I hope the Government will at least begin to think about it as a little less of a pally-wally exercise than it has in the past.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I rise to speak on this first reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) for two purposes, the first of which is to repudiate again the accusations that have been made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) concerning the South Australian Labor Government and the Minister for Agriculture of that State, to the effect that they are not carrying out their obligations under the drought relief scheme to which the Commonwealth Government is a party.

However, I want first to refer to the question asked today by Senator Wriedt of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) that is, would he either confirm or deny that the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had been the recipient of an amount in the vicinity of $60,000 in superphosphate bounties in recent years. Of course, Senator Withers neither confirmed nor denied that assertion but went on to state that what Senator Wriedt was implying was that the incoming Whitiam Governmentand I am pleased he had admitted that after 10 December there will be an incoming Whitlam Government- would not renegotiate the superphosphate bounty. Of course, nothing is further from the truth. Senator Withers well knows that recently, when the relevant legislation came before the Parliament, the present Opposition party did not oppose it; nor has it any intention of so doing in the future.

Senator Webster:

– Why did you withdraw it when you were in power?

Senator McLAREN:

-I might well ask Senator Webster why his former leader, Mr McEwen, when Minister for Primary Industry, withdrew from the Budget provision for the superphosphate bounty, and made it retrospective to 1 July- after farmers had in many instances already placed their orders and had delivery, with the result that many of them had themselves to make up the difference.

In contrast, the Labor Government, upon deciding that it would not renegotiate that particular legislation, gave the farmers at least 12 months notice of that fact. It is all very well for the honourable senator to ask why we withdrew it. At least we did not act in an underhand manner. We let the farmers know what we were going to do- quite the opposite of what the Country Party did. The honourable senator’s revered leader, as the senator has often referred to him, took the bounty away.

Senator Webster:

-On a point of order. While the honourable senator is having a glass of water, let me say that challenges are coming from the Opposition on a concerted basis seeking a declaration by certain members of the House of Representatives of amounts they may have received from the payment of a superphostphate bounty. The honourable senator is undoubtedly willing to declare the pecuniary benefit that he obtained when the egg bounty was in vogue and he was as yet a poultry farmer. I hope we shall hear that figure from him before he resumes his seat

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- It is for Senator McLaren to decide whether to respond.

Senator McLAREN:

– The honourable senator’s statement is a stupid one because, if he know anything at all about the poultry industry he would know that there has never been a bounty paid on eggs, that poultry farmers get back only a portion of the levy that is made on them. His statement shows the depth of his knowledge concerning the poultry industry generally. I have also asked him on earlier occasions, when he has interjected during remarks that I have made on the pastoral industry, whether he knew the difference between a one-eyed stag and a maiden wether. He has not been able to answer that question, thus illustrating that his knowledge of the pastoral industry as well is absolutely nil.

When I was wrongfully interrupted by Senator Webster’s trying to score a cheap point, I was about to say that under the present Superphosphate Bounty Act provision is made whereby the publication of recipients names may be called for. I proposed an amendment, when the legislation was before the Senate, seeking to have that requirement carried out as it had been when Labor was in government, much to the embarrassment of present supporters of the Government. Naturally, my proposed amendment was bitterly opposed. If Government supporters were fair dinkum they would have no objection to the names of persons in receipt of the bounty being tabled because, in effect, it is taxpayers’ money.

I well recall that when we published recipients’ names, obtained legally under the provisions of the Act, it took me three days to have them incorporated in Hansard. The late Senator Greenwood was one of the bitterest opponents to that happening, but through the common sense of the now Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), incorporation did in fact take place. As I have mentioned previously, I have since had hundreds of requests for a copy of that information, so that people could ascertain who were the major recipients. As I have also mentioned previously, two farmers in South Australia received up to $50,000 a year in superphosphate bounty, although certain small farmers who required it received absolutely nothing.

The main topic to which I wish to refer is the way in which Government supporters, through the Country Party’s Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) have been trying to mislead the farmers in South Australia, who are suffering the grave consequences of a terrible drought. I refer to the allegation that the South Australian Government is not in fact carrying out its obligations under the drought relief scheme. I had occasion, because of a ‘Dorothy Dix’ question that had been submitted by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) to the Minister to mention the matter in my speech on the Budget. In replying, Mr Sinclair had said:

I have been advised by my Department that carry-on loans approved amount to about $300,000;-

I will prove later that this figure was incorrect- carry-on loans, including loans approved last year, amount to about $645,000; and freight rebates on livestock and fodder amount to about $50,000.

The Minister went on to say, as reported at page 17 12 ofHansard of 6 October 1977:

As I understand that South Australia up to this stage has not expended$1. 5m- its minimal contribution level from its own resources- it could apply a number of measures which perhaps it has not applied, including the slaughter of aged stock or drought affected stock, all of which can be compensated for under existing approved schemes in accordance with formulae between the Commonwealth and the States. In other words, the South Australian Government could pursue a number of measures which are in accordance with existing formulae, including the slaughter of aged stock or drought affected stock, for which there is a scheme of offset within the drought assistance measures.

As I have pointed out, this was the very thing that Mr Chatterton had in fact done and because, on 1 1 October, I pointed out that error, on 20 October the honourable member for the rural seat of Barker (Mr Porter) rose on the adjournment in the other place and criticised both myself and the Minister of Agriculture in South Australia, alleging that we did not know what we were talking about. It might be as well to remind the Senate that Mr Porter, like all the other members of the Liberal Party of Australia who represent country electorates in South Australia, neither lives in his electorate nor has an office in his electorate. He and his colleagues have offices in King William Street and live in the city area.

Yet they make accusations about me- I live in the country and have an office in the countryand Mr Chatterton, who is a farmer and who lives in the country. We would be closer to primary producers than Mr Porter.

Senator Webster:

– I thought you lived in Canberra.

Senator McLAREN:

– I have pointed out where I live to Senator Webster when he has misrepresented me before in this Parliament. He has again stated that I live in Canberra. I do not live in Canberra as many days as Senator Webster does. I am in Canberra only when the Parliament is sitting. The rest of the time I am in the country town where I live or in the country areas of South Australia. Senator Webster should not make stupid statements like that.

I return to the answer given by Mr Sinclair. I want again to read into Hansard the terms of a Press statement put out by Mr Chatterton in reply to the statement by Mr Sinclair. Of course, Mr Sinclair not only made that statement in the House on 6 October but he also took the opportunity when he opened the Clare show on 15 October falsely to misrepresent the Minister of Agriculture in South Australia. Page two of the Press statement that Mr Sinclair put out when he opened the show reads:

In South Australia-

He was talking about the drought- it is first necessary for the State Government to spend$ 1.5m in one financial year before Commonwealth funds will be provided.

Of course, as I will show, that money has been spent. A Press release which was put out on 7 October- eight days before Mr Sinclair opened the Clare show- by the Minister of Agriculture in South Australia and which was entitled ‘State not tardy on drought aid’, reads:

The State Government has exceeded by $600,000, the amount of money it had to pay out for drought relief before getting matching grants from the Commonwealth Government

Although the figure has been well exceeded, money from the Commonwealth has not been given’ the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Brian Chatterton, said today.

That is completely opposite to what Mr Sinclair and Mr Porter have been saying. South Australia has not been given money by the Commonwealth. The Press release continues:

Instead, the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, is suggesting the States have been tardy in providing funds.’

Mr Chatterton said that Mr Sinclair only yesterday claimed that South Australia was less than half way towards meeting the target it had to reach before earning the ‘right’ to Commonwealth money.

The truth is that this State acted quickly when the assistance measures announced and applicants for assistance have already been allocated $2,092,000 in the form of carry-on finance ‘ Mr Chatterton said.

Of this, nearly $900,000 has already been received by farmers. The rest is in the pipeline for other successful applicants under our State scheme. ‘

That is where the Minister of Agriculture in South Australia was misrepresented by Mr Porter who implied when he spoke in the adjournment debate that it was some other scheme altogether, as I will point out later. The Press release continues:

Mr Chatterton said other money paid out included $236,000 in freight rebates and $35,000 for slaughter schemes.

I pointed out in my speech on the Budget on 1 1 October that South Australia had expended that amount of money. Yet Mr Sinclair said in answer to a question from Mr Giles that that is something we ought to be doing. He was not even aware that the South Australian Labor Government, through its Minister of Agriculture, had spent that amount of money on the very things that he said that we ought to be spending it on.

I refer now to Mr Porter’s remarks on 20 October of this year. I shall quote from page 2285 of the House of Representatives Hansard of that date. He said:

A great number of farmers in South Australia are affected by the drought-

I agree with him on that, but that is as far as I would go. He went on to say: and it is unfortunate that South Australia politicians- only Australian Labor Party politicians in South Australia- seem to be attempting to play politics over the plight of those who have been affected by the drought.

Of course, that is completely wrong. The ones who are playing politics are in fact Mr Porter and Mr Sinclair, as I have said. Mr Porter went on to say:

Last week in this House the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) asked the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) whether the South Australian Government had provided the $1.5m assistance required to be provided by the State before the Commonwealth Government would give assistance over and above that amount. The Minister for Primary Industry said that the South Australian Government had not provided that amount.

In another place, on 1 1 October, Senator McLaren said that the Minister for Primary Industry was criticising the South Australian Labor Government because it had not carried out its obligations to give assistance to South Australian farmers under the drought relief scheme.

That is the very thing that Mr Chatterton said in his Press release on 7 October. He said that the Commonwealth Government in fact had not made the money available. Mr Porter went on to say:

Yet the Minister for Agriculture in South Australia is saying that because these grants have been approved the farmers should receive the Commonwealth grant on a dollar for dollar basis or whatever the grant may be.

I acquainted Mr Chatterton with the transcript of Mr Porter’s speech. I received a telex back from Mr Chatterton on 21 October, which was the next day, at Parliament House, In it he said:

Porter has missed the point completely when he accuses us of saying the rest of the money is for other successful applicants under our State scheme. The applicants have already been successful. Their applications have been approved but the funds not paid out completely. The system works on the basis of carry-on loans being provided to meet the deficit in the farmer’s budget. The loans are paid out on a quarterly basis to meet the estimated deficit for the next three months. Some successful applicants have received quarterly cheques, others will not until next year when their farm finances move into deficit. But their loans have been approved, they do meet the criteria and the money will be paid.

That is conclusive proof- I will give’ further proof- that both Mr Sinclair and Mr Porter do not have any clues at all as to how the scheme operates. But I will give due credit to Mr Whyte, who is a Liberal Party member in the Legislative Council in South Australia. He at least knows how it operates.

To point. out where Mr Porter is completely wrong, I will quote from a Press release put out by the South Australian Minister of Agriculture on 28 September this year. Of course, if Mr Porter had any interest in the people who are suffering from the drought in South Australia, including the farmers, he would have taken careful notice of this Press release. It is headed ‘New measure for drought assistance’ and reads:

New, simplified application forms; a faster assessment procedure; a less stringent security requirement and a change to a quarterly cheque system were announced today by the SA Minister of Agriculture, Mr Brian Chatterton, as the latest step in the State Government’s plans for drought assistance.

Mr Chatterton said that the form was actually being made available ahead of the scheduled time. The new form now consists of four pages and is designed to show the applicant’s cash-flow budget for the remainder of this season and for the following season.

Forms are available from next week at SA Department of Agriculture and Fisheries offices in drought affected areas.

Successful applicants for carry-on loans will no longer be required to provide a mortgage over the whole of the farm property as security but will only have to provide sufficient security to cover the actual loan. Mr Chatterton said that this step had been taken so that the farmer could retain financial flexibility for future years.

Mr Chatterton said that successful applicants will be able to budget their farm and household costs on a quarterly basis. One carry-on loan cheque will be sent out every three months to cover these costs. In the past, farmers have had to send in individual accounts and have received separate cheques for each item of expenditure.

This decision has been made to save farmers unnecessary time and trouble and to speed up the administration of carryon loans for drought assistance.

The Minister said that drought assistance assessment staff have been doubled on a temporary basis. Officers from other SA Depanment of Agriculture and Fisheries branches have been trained to work as assessors and this should ensure that a backlog in applications does not develop.

Mr Chatterton added that durther changes to the present administration are being planned and further announcements concerning speeded-up procedures for rural adjustment programs could be expected shortly.

There we have it. That is the new scheme which has been devised by the South Australian Government and which has been criticised by both Mr Sinclair and Mr Porter. It also has been criticised by the President of the Stockowners Association of South Australia. He is another person who does not have his facts right. He has them completely wrong. In this regard I refer to an article headed ‘Government hit over farm aid’ in the Advertiser of 26 October 1977, which reads:

Staggering mismanagement’ by the SA Government is said to have denied drought-affected farmers access to at least $700,000 in interest free Federal Government loans.

The Stockowners Association of SA made this charge yesterday.

Its President (Mr K. R. James) said that, despite two options for Federal funds under the Natural Disasters Relief Scheme, the SA Government had been incapable of making the right choice.

Because the State had not spent enought of its own money in the past financial year, it had not qualified for Federal funding.

Mr Chatterton decided in his wisdom to reply to that charge, which was a very serious charge. He did so through the ‘Letters to the Editor’ section in the Advertiser of 29 October- last Saturday. I will read his letter into Hansard and then I will quote from the South Australian Hansard. The letter is headed ‘Drought aid ‘ and reads:

Sir- I am appalled at the garbled nonsense attributed to the president of the Stockowners Association (Mr K.R. James) in a report on drought aid (‘ Advertiser’ 26. 10.77).

Farmers in SA are in fact receiving considerable drought relief in the form of both State and Commonwealth funds.

The current agreement has run from October 1, 1976, and will remain in existence until December 31 when a new scheme (almost identical to the current one) will operate.

Since the current scheme began, $2,260,544 has been approved for carry-on loans and other drought relief measures in SA. Currently 170 farmers are receiving carry-on loans and there is no delay in the processing of applications.

SA farmers have not been disadvantaged by the natural disaster funding formula and, in fact, under the formula adopted they now have access to unlimited Commonwealth funds for loans over a seven to 10-year term at 4p.c. interest.

The Stockowners Association has a representative on the Drought Consultative Committee which I have established to ensure that farmers are involved in the decisions about the type of aid to be made available in times of drought.

That representative (Mr A.M. Whyte, MLC) stated in Parliament on October 18, that ‘money for drought relief is available to the State from the Commonwealth . . . The simplification of the application form and the adoption of a more realistic attitude to the qualifying criteria are now part of the scheme ‘.

He went on to say that he ‘congratulates the Minister of Agriculture on the pan he has played in effecting what everyone hopes will be a practical scheme and will provide at least a pan solution to what could be a disaster for SA. ‘

Brian Chatterton

Minister of Agriculture, Adelaide.

As recorded at page 222 of the South Australian Hansard of 18 October, in referring to drought relief, Mr Whyte said:

Money for drought relief is available to the State from the Federal Government, and I am pleased to see that many of the recommendations I have made in the council over the past 18 months for its distribution are now about to operate. The simplification of the application form and the adoption of a more realistic attitude to the qualifying criteria are now pan of the scheme.

I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the pan he has played in effecting what everyone hopes will be a practical scheme and will provide at least a pan solution to what could be a disaster for South Australia.

There we have the nominee of the South Australian Stockowners Association claiming some credit for the policy and for the way in which the drought relief scheme in South Australia is being administered. According to the Hansard from which I have quoted, Mr Whyte claimed some credit because he said that he had put forward some suggestions. He congratulated Mr Chatterton for taking notice of his proposals and incorporating them into the scheme.

Then we find Mr Porter, Mr Sinclair, and particularly Mr James, the Secretary of the South Australian Stockowners Association, whose representative on the body has congratulated the Minister for the work he has done, criticising the Minister for not being able to administer the policy. The pertinent words of Mr James were that the South Australian Government had been incapable of making the right choice. So, Mr James claimed that his own representative on the body was one of those who were incapable of making the right choice, but Mr Whyte must have had quite a lot to say on the committee when the drought relief scheme was set up, and he himself has claimed some credit. We find those people misrepresenting the South Australian Labor Government and saying that it was not administering the scheme in the way it ought to be administered, when in fact the South Australian Stockowners Association had a representative on the committee. I do not know what Mr Whyte is going to say to Mr James about his statement; but of course that sort of thing is not new. It is getting near election time and, in the main, the farmer organisations are being very critical of the Labor Government and the trade union movement. In that connection, I will refer in a few moments to a statement made by the president of another leading organisation.

To return to the way in which the scheme operates and the claim that the South Australian Government is not doing all that it might, I wish to refer to the October 1977 issue of the Farmer and Grazier, a very esteemed journal in South Australia. In an article headed ‘People’, under a photograph of Mr Barry Rollbusch, the man who made the statement, these words appear:

Zone 10, chairman, BARRY ROLLBUSCH, had a meeting of a different type to handle at Wunkar recently.

The subject was drought (what else?) and UFG drought consultative committee representative. Bill Murdoch, wanted as much feed back as possible from the audience on the pros and cons of assistance schemes.

So the audience of 60 was split into seven groups; a series of questions was asked and a spokesman appointed to present the view of his group after about 30 minutes consideration.

This way, more people got to have a say and a number of worthwhile suggestions and comments were made.

One of the most pertinent was that the revised payment system enabling producers to pay their own bills from quarterly cheques instead of sending in accounts to the departments ‘ will restore some dignity to the whole process ‘.

We now find that Mr Sinclair and Mr Porter have criticised the very scheme that the Government has implemented and, as I have said several times during my remarks, Mr Whyte has claimed some credit for devising the scheme. In turn he has been criticised by Mr James, and in turn again the people at Wunkar, which is in the very heart of the worst drought affected area in South Australia, have said that the method of paying quarterly cheques instead of sending in accounts to the department will restore some dignity to the whole process. If anybody is doing any cheap politicking on the drought assistance scheme for farmers in South Australia it is not the members of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament or in the State Parliament, it is the members of the Liberal and National Country parties in the Federal Parliament and some of the spokesmen of their organisations, particularly Mr James in South Australia, who have completely misrepresented what the South Australian Labor Government is endeavouring to do.

We will hear much more of that type of thing before 10 December. Members of the LiberalNational Country Party coalition will try to influence people who live in the country areas, particularly the farmers, into believing that the Australian Labor Party has no interest in their welfare. I challenge them to prove that. I challenge them to go into the country areas in South Australia, the drought affected areas, and to ask the people what they think about the drought assistance scheme which is operating in South Australia and which has not yet received the amount of money it should have received from the Commonwealth Government, despite the fact that Mr Chatterton said in his Press statement that he had already expended $2,092,000 in the form of carry-on finance. What more does Mr Sinclair want the State Government to do? It is well known that Mr Sinclair has no sympathy for the farmers, and the Cattlemen’s Union knows that too. As I have said before- I have only repeated what has appeared in the newspapers and what was said at that renowed meeting in Queensland- the Cattlemen’s Union quite rightly passed a motion of no confidence in Mr Sinclair because of actions he had taken. He has no interest in the farmers.

As Mr Cassell, the Director of the Cattlemen’s Union, said as recently as Saturday or Sunday, about 12 country seats are in jeopardy because of the attitude of Mr Sinclair and his lack of interest in the farming community. Mr Cassell is not the only person who has said these things. Late this afternoon I received a copy of an address given by Sir Samuel Burston, K.B. O.B.E., the President of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council. In his address he had this to say about an announcement made by Mr Anthony:

When addressing the Farmers’ Federation Conference some two weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, said: the Government’s policy-and certainly the policy of the National Country Party- (is) that we should make progress in the direction of generally lower tariff levels. This objective must be pursued with increased resolution as the country emerges from its current economic difficulties.

There is some doubt whether it is emerging from those difficulties. The quotation from Mr Anthony’s address continued:

While it would be foolish to adopt an attitude so rigid that we worsened our existing problems, our commitment to that long-term objective must be a real one. ‘

Sir Samuel Burston continued:

While I welcome Mr Anthony’s assurance, I regret to say that based on recent performance I have little confidence in its fulfilment.

The leader of that organisation has said that he has little or no confidence in any statements made by Mr Anthony. Similarly, the Cattlemen’s Union and the Fruitgrowers Association, following the big marches in Mooroopna, Victoria, and Berri, South Australia, said that the Government is not living up to its election promise to look after people in the country areas.

One other matter I want to mention while I am on my feet relates to a Press statement put out by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He now supersedes Mr Anthony and Mr Sinclair. He knows that they are in hot water so he is taking up the cudgels for them. Mr Fraser put out a Press statement on 28 October 1977. It is headed Livestock Marketing’ and it states:

The Prime Minister today announced that he had telexed the Premiers of all States seeking their co-operation with the Commonwealth in a full and urgent review of ways in which present livestock marketing systems could be improved.

He referred to three special areas where possible improvements should be examined as a matter of urgency:

The control of anti-competitive practices such as collusion and lot splitting in livestock auctioning.

The introduction of a weight and grade selling system for cattle.

The introduction of price stabilisation arrangements, probably of a buffer fund character.

The Prime Minister stressed that with the present difficulties facing beef producers it was imperative that the Commonwealth and States co-operated in giving the highest priority to the examination of these potentially promising avenues of reform in livestock marketing.

Mr Fraser made this announcement to try to retrieve some of the lost ground in country areas. A Press release in answer to that statement was put out by the present shadow Minister for Primary Industry in the other place, Mr Gordon Scholes. It was released on 30 October, two days after the release of Mr Fraser ‘s statement. The heading is: ‘Prime Minister Has Troubles with Livestock Industry’. It states:

Unemployment atPortland abattoir-

Of course, we all know that the Portland abattoir is in Mr Fraser’s electorate of Wannon- and serious problems in the livestock industry have suddenly come to the Prime Minister’s notice and combined with prompting by a report from the Parliamentary Research Service, have caused him to telex the premiers seeking cooperation.

That is where the Prime Minister got his base in order to make his Press statement. He relied on a report which came from the Parliamentary Research Service. The statement continues:

It would not be surprising if the Premiers, including Joh Bjelke Petersen, regarded the Prime Minister’s action as cynical.

TheNewSouthWalesandQueenslandGovernmentsin particularhavepassedorareintheprocessofpassinglegislationwhichwilleffectivelydealwithmostofthematters raisedinthePrimeMinister’stelex.

It has been the Australian Government which has dragged the chain in encouraging and introducing reforms.

It was only after strong pressure by the beef cattle industry and the ALP that the Government agreed to provide funds in the last Budget for carcass classification. Had they done so sooner and the Minister for Primary Industry instructed the Australian Meat Board to speed up research into carcass classification schemes there wouldhave been considerably less cause for the Prime Minister’s telex.

Livestock sellers have continually raised the question of collusion and lot splitting and had the Australian Government been really concerned they could have taken action under the Trade Practices Act at any time since they were elected.

It is also pertinent that the Government appointed to the Chairmanship of the new Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, an ex-abattoir General Manager whose first public statement indicated the new Corporation would act little differently from the old Meat Board.

This is causing great concern to meat producers of Australia. The Press release continued:

Producers are thoroughly disillusioned with the FraserSinclair handling of the livestock industry and most of the Premiers will no doubt respond to the Prime Minister’s telex by saying let us see the bona fides of the Government and let us have an assurance that the Australian Government will keep pace with States such as New South Wales.

It would be useful also if the Prime Minister explained that in the Liberal State of Victoria, livestock and meat marketing reform were proceeding at the slowest pace, concluded Mr Scholes.

It has a Canberra dateline of 30 October. Mr Scholes is saying the verysame thing which Sir Samuel Burston said in his address, a copy of which came to every member of Parliament today. He stated:

While I welcome Mr Anthony’s assurance - that is on another matter-

I regret to say that based on recent performance I have little confidence in its fulfilment.

That was the very thing Mr Scholes was saying when he asked for some assurance to be given that the Australian Government would keep pace with States such as New South Wales. Other matters were also contained in the Press release. We find the Prime Minister, like a cat on hot bricks, is jumping from one thing to another. As I have said, no doubt we will hear a lot more of this sort of thing in the days and weeks to come. I am sure that the people who were prevailed upon to vote for this Government, particularly the people in country areas who were prevailed upon to support the present Government parties in December 1975, will ask what the Government has been doing in the last two years to honour its promises. One or two promises have been honoured, such as the restoration of the superphosphate bounty. With that bounty the greatest amount of benefit goes to the biggest producers who are the ones least in need of assistance. Small farmers get practically nothing. There is an article in that same journal from which I quoted a while ago, the Farmer and Grazier, about the superphosphate bounty. The article is very cynical about some of the statements being made, particularly about the benefit farmers got previously. As is said in this journal, it is very doubtful whether the bounty is of any benefit at all. The article, which is on page 5, is headed:

Perhaps the super bounty is not worth the effort.

The article is written by Stumpjump. I do not know whether he is any relation to the other good correspondent who comes from South Australia and writes in the Financial Review which is published every Friday. He may be. He may be one of the chaps to whom that writer refers. But Stumpjump in the article states:

I am reliably informed that in 1845, French candle makers approached their government seeking compulsory blinds and shutters on every window.

The idea was that these devices would protect the candle makers from unfair, cheap and foreign competition- in the form of the sun. My records don’t show whether their case was successful.

He then goes on to talk about the superphosphate bounty and whether it was of any benefit to the farmers. As Mr Chatterton pointed out, two farmers in South Australia received up to $50,000 each from the superphosphate bounty when this Government was previously in power. Small farmers use a small amount. I think the average use of superphosphate by Australian farmers is 26 tons a year. The average bounty those people would receive would be about $400 a year. No farmer could claim that he went broke because he lost $400 a year when the superphosphate bounty was abolished. We will have to suffer statements, similar to those which have been made by honourable senators on the Government side, week in week out until the election. If the people in country areas have the common sense to reject the statements and promises made by the Government, I am sure that those people will be well served by an incoming Whitlam government. Another thing we will have to put up with is false claims by Government supporters and some captains of industry that industrial disputes are affecting primary industry. Mr Burston in the same paper under the heading ‘ Industrial Disputes ‘ stated:

The last 12 months have seen little improvement in the overall industrial scene in Australia, and in some areas a further deterioration in industrial relations has occurred. There can be no question that this problem perpetuates business uncertainty, holds back economic recovery, and adds to the difficulties which exporters face in maintaining international competitiveness. While actual working days lost through strikes may have declined in 1977, the effects of disputes are being felt more widely than ever before.

He then goes on:

It is no wonder that producers become thoroughly fed up and support Government moves for tougher industrial legislation. The general community might reflect on the situation in the light of Government assistance recently provided to the beef industry.

There we have it. Whenever there is any problem in marketing or freighting of products Government supporters and captains of industry immediately lay all the blame at the feet of the trade union movement. I went to a forum recently which was organised by the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council. I was astounded to hear an Opposition member of the New South Wales Parliament severely criticise the trade union movement. He put all the blame for the problems in primary industry on members of the trade union movement. But I was very heartened to hear another very well respected member of the farming community in this area stand up and say in reply that the primary producers should make a greater effort to sit down and discuss their problems with the leaders of industrial unions. Not only the industrial unions are at fault. Much of the fault also lies with the owners of export abattoirs who deliberately create disputes when they cannot get a continuous run-through of stock. They create or fabricate a dispute so that they can stand down workers. When there is no work the abattoir owners do not have to pay all the hands that are not on piece work.

This gentleman- I will not name him; everyone knows who he is- made the very sound suggestion that the industry itself, and particularly primary industry leaders, should sit down and talk with members of the trade union movement and see where the problems lie. I am sure that if they did so they would find that there would be much more co-operation from the people who work in the abattoirs. I worked in abattoirs in years gone by and it is a dirty, filthy job. Some of the people who sit opposite and who criticise workers for their non-productivity would not have a clue about the filthy and hard work that these people have to perform. Abattoir workers are not highly paid and are paid weekly for a seasonal job. Yet they are continually under criticism by the captains of primary industry and by the leading lights in the Government who have to find a scapegoat somewhere. They do not lay the criticism at the feet of the owners of the organisations but try to lump it all on to the trade union movement. This goes for other industries such as the heavy industries of this country.

The trade union movement is not the only section of the community that is at fault. Let us have a look at the other side. The government of the day has to get down to talking with people in the trade union movement instead of introducing repressive legislation every time there is an industrial dispute and making a great blah in the Press by saying that it will bring in diabolical measures to force trade unionists to go back to work. We all know that Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has been able to settle disputes because of his negotiating skills. But the present government says: Oh, well, it was the fear of the legislation that we have brought in that has forced the people back to work.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. If this Government by some chance remains in office after 10 December, and I am sure that it will not, because of an industrial dispute it is put in the position of having to enact the oppressive legislation which was rushed through this Parliament on two occasions within 24 hours- legislation the Senate, which the Government claims is a House of review, did not have a chance to look at so that it could point out all its weaknessess- it will be in for a very rude shock.

I well remember when I was a boy that Stanley Bruce, a conservative Prime Minister, took the trade union movement on and lost his seat at the next election. Stanley Bruce brought the country into chaos. The same thing will happen again if this Government is unwise enough to try to take on the trade union movement. No trade unionist in my experience- I have been a trade unionist ever since I was about 15 years of age and I still am- goes on strike for no good purpose. He knows that immediately he goes on strike he loses his pay packet and his wife and children suffer. He knows that the bills mount up. He has to have a really good reason for going on strike. He goes on strike only to get some justice.

The men involved in the recent dispute in the Latrobe Valley- and I commend them and their wives who supported them for having held out during a ten week strike- have had to go back to full arbitration. This Government denied them some of the things they were asking for because it argued that their claims would break the indexation guidelines. Yet what do we find? Only last week another trade union in Victoria was granted an increase outside the indexation guidelines. This Government made no complaint about that situation. Because the people in the Latrobe Valley sought justice and an uplifting of their income they were regarded as the worst people in the world.

We were informed today that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has been in receipt of at least $60,000 in superphosphate bounty payments over recent years. There was not a whinge about that from the Liberal-Country Party coalition. However, the people in the Latrobe Valley, the real workers of this country, are regarded as terrible and are said to be holding the country to ransom because they are seeking a maximum increase of a miserable $40 a week, no doubt hoping they would get between zero and $40 a week. Yet workers m the Latrobe Valley coal mines earning even $8,000 a year would need to work for seven or eight years to earn the equivalent of what the Prime Minister is receiving out of the taxpayers’ pockets in the form of superphosphate bounty payments. We talk about justice! Justice went out the window when this Government came to office.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator McLAREN:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was speaking to the motion for the first reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and had been quoting from the statement put out by the President of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council. In that statement he said that he regretted having to say that based on recent performances he had little confidence in the things which Mr Anthony was saying he would do for rural producers. I want to place on record the appreciation of the Opposition’s resources committee for the rural pokey document put out by this organisation. It is a most comprehensive document and contains some very good thoughts and proposals. Our committee had the pleasure of having discussions with Mr David Trebeck who in my opinion is a very capable young chap. The Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council is very fortunate to have a person of his ability and expertise as its executive officer to put forward its proposals. I hope that when we come into office on 10 December we will be having deep and lasting discussions with Mr Trebeck with a view to implementing some of the policy measures contained in the Council’s document.

During the suspension of the sitting I had occasion to look at the copies of Minister’s speeches which are distributed to us. I was most intrigued when I read the speech made by Mr Anthony at the opening of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council’s 137th convention. I was surprised to read in that speech remarks similar to those which I had made earlier today. Of course, I did not know then that Mr Anthony had made them too. He said in his opening remarks:

And if I could add to what you have said . . .

He was talking about the President’s address-

I would suggest that any person in rural industry who is prepared to look at those Government decisions . . .

He was talking about his Government’s decisions- the decisions of the last two years- and then look at the Government decisions of the previous three years, he should have no difficulty in arriving at a judgment as to the choice he should make in six weeks time.

They are the very words which I used: The people in country areas will have no difficulty arriving at their choice when they compare the record of the Whitlam Government in its three years in office-a period interrupted by an election which was forced upon us- with the record of the Liberal-Country Party coalition in the last two years. I agree with Mr Anthony. The people in the country will have no difficulty arriving at a choice- they will vote Labor. What did concern me greatly was that Mr Anthony, in his speech, claimed credit for opening up the beef market in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Everybody knows that the good international relations were set in train by the Whitlam Government. I want to quote what Mr Anthony said because it is ill becoming of him to claim credit for something which was set in train by the Whitlam Government. When talking about the beef market he had this to say:

There may not be any marked growth in total sales to our traditional markets, but further substantial sales to Eastern European countries, including the USSR, are likely. I’m glad that I’ve been able to make a personal contribution to the process of developing these markets. It was my visit to the USSR and a personal invitation to the head of their meat purchasing agency to visit Australia that really stimulated the whole process of sales to the USSR and Eastern Europe.

What a statement for Mr Anthony to make. Over the years there has been no one more critical than this Government of the policies and living standards of the USSR and China. As a matter of fact, this Government has offended those countries by its statements. Only recently the Prime Minister made some very offensive statements about the USSR. I have spoken about them in the Senate before. He made those statements in regard to shipping in the Indian Ocean and his own Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) had to repudiate what he said. We now read in the weekend Press that Mr Killen is one of the people who will get the axe if by some mischance Fraser is returned as Prime Minister on 10 December. I think Mr Anthony has a hide to claim credit for the good public relations which now exist between the USSR and Australia because they are due to the good offices of the Whitlam Labor Government. If some Government supporters are not careful about some comments they make for purely political reasons the Government will lose those markets and it will be left to the incoming Labor Government, after 10 December, to again cement that friendship which we ought to have. As Mr Anthony has pointed out, the USSR is now our second largest market. I have said in this place on many occasions that no successful shopkeeper goes outside his shop when he opens at nine o ‘clock in the morning and abuses his best customer, yet that is what Government members and supporters have been doing for years. It took the Whitlam Government to bring about the present very happy relationship.

Mr Anthony made some reference in his speech to fuel prices for country people and said how something ought to be done to give them cheaper fuel, but it was no less a person than Mr Anthony who advocated the world parity price for fuel in Australia. A statement was made in clear terms in the Budget brought down in August this year that petrol prices will go up by 1 lc a gallon under this Government. Who is that going to hurt the most? It will hurt most the primary producers and the people who live in the country. Yet when Mr Anthony made his speech on Monday, 31 October, only yesterday, he talked about his Government being concerned for people who live in country areas and about how his Government was going to do something to bring down fuel prices for them. Here again the Government is doing the same as it did in relation to wine tax and many other measures. It votes one way in the Parliament but goes out and tells the producers something else. Mr Anthony did the same thing yesterday. After putting up the price of petrol by 1 lc a gallon in the Budget he now tells the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council convention that he is going to do something to bring down petrol prices. I do not think he will fool those people.

The only other matter I wanted to mention concerns Senator Withers and I am glad that he is in the Senate at the moment. Shortly we will be debating this Appropriation Bill in the Committee stage. Senator Withers will recall that I asked him during the hearing of a Senate estimates committee when he would table the VIP manifests so that I could see how our GovernorGeneral has been flitting around the country like a homing pigeon and the cost to the Australian taxpayer. As yet that document has not been tabled. We now come to the Committee stage of the debate on the Appropriation Bill without having been able to look at those VIP manifests. I would be interested to know what the Minister is doing about it. We know there has been overuse of public money in flying the GovernorGeneral all around the place. I will be having something to say later on about this Government giving him an additional perk by flying him overseas at the taxpayers’ expense when he will no longer be an office holder of the country. Two or three days after his term expires the Government will pay his air fare when he flits around the world again.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate amounts required for expenditure in 1977-78 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund other than those amounts provided by special appropriations and those included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1977-78. The amounts sought for each Department are shown in detail in the Second Schedule to the Bill, and total $8,066,055,000. This Bill seeks authority for the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) to issue $4,553,792,000, the balance of $3,512,263,000 having already been authorised by the Supply Act (No. 1 ) 1 977-78.

The expenditure program of the Government was outlined in the Budget Speech and the Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document ‘Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending on 30 June 1978’ which was referred to the Senate Estimates Committees on 25 August for examination and report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

- Mr Chairman, for the convenience of honourable senators I move:

  1. 1 ) That clauses 1 to 8 and Schedule 1 be postponed until after consideration of Schedule 2.

That is so that we can get to the details of the matter-

  1. That unless otherwise ordered, the votes in Schedule 2 be considered in the same groupings and order as in Estimates committees A, B, C, D, E and F respectively.
  2. That leave be given to honourable senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the reports of the Estimates committees; that such motions be moved when the appropriate vote is under consideration; that where more than one motion is proposed in relation to a particular vote, the motions may be debated together but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the question is put on the vote before the

Chair, and that any resolutions be reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in the Committee of the Whole.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition does not object to the general proposition that has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers), but we take advantage of the Estimates debate in the Committee of the Whole to raise certain matters additional to those which were discussed during the hearings of the Estimates committees. I assume from the proposal of the Leader of the Government in the enate that what he envisages is that there will be a general debate in the Committee stage on, for instance, all of the departments that are embodied in the consideration of Senate Estimates Committee A at the one time. In other words, we will not be taking the appropriation for the Parliament separate from those for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or the Department of Administrative Services. As I understand it, the Minister is suggesting- I speak subject to correction- that we lump all of the departments as considered in the various groups into one Committee debate.

Senator Withers:

– That is right.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That being so, I do not think that the Opposition would have any objection to that course of action. However, I point out to you, Mr Chairman, that it might make for some difficulty in an honourable senator indicating to the Committee of the Whole to which line he is addressing his remarks.

I speak to the report of Senate Estimates Committee A. Firstly, I wish to compliment the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Sim, for the excellent way in which he chaired the deliberations of the Committee. It is fair to say- I know that my colleagues Senator McLaren and Senator Sibraa will agree with me- that we were given every opportunity to raise questions with the Minister and with the various departmental officers who came before the Committee. At the outset, I wish to make one or two remarks of an observatory nature concerning the report of the Committee. For instance, on page 2 of the report which was presented to the Senate on 6 October 1977, the Committee has proposed to the Senate that the Government be called on to give an undertaking to table the explanatory notes on the day immediately following the presentation of the Appropriation Bills to the Parliament.

It was found in connection with one or two of the departments that came before Senate Estimates Committee A- I understand that this applied in respect to other Estimates committeesthat the explanatory notes for those departments under scrutiny arrived long after the Appropriation Bills had been presented to the Parliament and just shortly prior to the time that the Senate Estimates committees were to sit. If the Estimates committees are to mean anything so far as scrutiny of public expenditure by Government departments is concerned, certainly senators and members of the parliament are entitled to expect delivery of the explanatory notes within a reasonable time following the presentation to Parliament of the Appropriation Bills. As I have mentioned, Senate Estimates Committee A has made a recommendation which it proposes to the chamber that the Government be called on to give an undertaking to table the explanatory notes on the day immediately following the presentation of the Appropriation Bills to the Parliament.

The other matter in the report which relates to the Parliament is outlined on page 3, paragraph (d). It is stated:

During its examination of the Estimates for the Department of the Senate, the Committee sought an explanation for the shortfall of expenditure as against appropriation for the printing,bindinganddistributionsofpapersintheyear 1976-77.TheCommitteewasinformedthatallaccountsfor printing in progress were expected before the end of the 1976-77 financial year, but that some accounts will now be paid in the financial year 1977-78.

The Committee appreciates the difficulty which is inherent in administering this particular appropriation, as it involves an estimate to be made of likely Senate Committee activity and Papers ordered to be printed by the Parliament. Such estimates must be heavily weighted by past experience. Nevertheless, the Committee is hopeful that the current enquiry by the Joint Committee on Publications into the Parliamentary Paper series will help to alleviate the problems experienced by both the Parliament and the Australian Government Publishing Service.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Senator, I think that you have jumped the gun.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In what respect, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee is dealing with the motion that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has put down. The Committee has not yet agreed to take group A together. I have let you speak-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If what I understood was the intention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate- that is, that all these departments will be taken collectivelythe Opposition does not oppose the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In accordance with the motion, the Committee of the Whole will now proceed to a consideration of the votes in group A. Is it the wish of the Committee that we consider the votes in group A as a whole? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Department of Administrative Services

Proposed Expenditure, $273,583,000.

Rent (Defence)

Proposed Expenditure, $34, 100,000.

Acquisition of Sites and Buildings (Defence)

Proposed Expenditure, $6,4 10,000.

Furniture and Fittings (Defence)

Proposed Expenditure, $5,600,000.

Parliament

Proposed Expenditure, $14,922,000.

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed Expenditure, $93,308,000.

Department of National Resources

Proposed Expenditure, $52,01 1,000.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed Expenditure, $463,874,000.

Department of Defence

Proposed Expenditure, $ 1 , 985,09 1 , 000.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will not weary the Committee of the Whole by making again those remarks that I have made already concerning the report of Senate Estimates Committee A. I was speaking about the recommendation of the Committee that appears on page 3 of the report relating to the Committee seeking an explanation for the shortfall of expenditure as against appropriation for the printing, binding and distribution of papers in the year 1976.I had mentioned that we were hopeful that the then current inquiry by the Joint Committee on Publications into Parliamentary Papers might help to overcome the problems that were being experienced by both the Parliament and the Australian Government Publishing Service. Since the time of the presentation of this report, of course, that Joint Committee has tendered its excellent report to the Parliament. I sincerely trust that the Government, and more particularly the Australian Government Publishing Service, will take cognisance of the recommendations that were embodied in that report.

Having made those initial comments, I merely wish to say something about the Parliament itself. I know that there was a recommendation that a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders be held, I think, either this week or next week; but, because of events which have overtaken the calling of that meeting, doubtless no meeting of the Committee will take place between now and the next general election. From the standpoint of the prestige of this place, from the standpoint of public relations so far as Parliament is concerned, the sooner the Standing Orders of this Parliament are brought up to date and into line with modern day standards, practices and conventions, the better it will be for Parliament.

Frankly, I believe that Parliament as an institution is losing its importance and influence so far as the Australian population is concerned and especially so far as the younger generation is concerned. I say that bearing in mind especially the circumstances and the events which took place in this Parliament some two years ago. I do not want members of the Committee to think that I am merely harping on past experiences. I am just suggesting that if honourable senators were to get out and talk to the younger members of the Australian community- practical, decent, levelheaded members of the Australian communitythey would know that the community is saying that this place is becoming quite meaningless in regard to the events and circumstances with which members of the community, particularly the younger members of the community, are concerned.

We know that very little of what goes on in this place in fact is reported to the public at large. I think it was three or four weeks ago that I drew the attention of the Senate the fact that at that time one member of the Press Gallery was present. If I look up to the Press Gallery now I see that that situation exists at the present time, when we are discussing the amounts of money which are spent by this Parliament and by government departments in the interests of or on behalf of the Australian taxpayer. I say with great respect to every honourable senator that, if we believe in the institution of Parliament, if we believe in the system of parliamentary democracy, if we believe in the election of people’s representatives to the Parliament, we have to devise and evolve a system whereby as much as possible of the deliberations in this place is recorded and transmitted to the public at large. I believe that the President of the Senate, whom I see sitting in this Committee, as the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee has a great responsibility not only to the Parliament but also to the Australian people to see that every step is taken to bring up to date- to bring into line with modern-day practice, custom and convention in society- the Standing Orders of this place so that every honourable senator has the right of effective speech in this Parliament on behalf of the people who elect us to this place.

Having made those comments, I wish to make no other reference to the estimates for the Parliament, except to say that my colleague, Senator Gietzelt, the other night made an interesting observation when he indicated that he had made representations to the Public Service Board concerning the appointment of staff for members of the Parliament. He indicated that the Public Service Board had replied to him to the effect that in its opinion members of the Australian Parliament, having regard to their work load and their responsibilities, were entitled to a staff of threeone in their electorate office, one in Canberra and one mobile, as it were, between their electorate office and Canberra-but the Public Service Board had stated that because of the shortage of accommodation, particularly in Canberra, at this stage it was impossible to implement such a determination. I think that that is a pretty scandalous state of affairs.

If the Public Service Board has made that determination, which Senator Gietzelt read into the record of this chamber, I think that the people who serve the community in this place are entitled to the greatest possible provision of staff, having regard to the responsibilities which fall upon their shoulders. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that it should be having a close look at the recommendation of the Public Service Board. I mention this to you, sir, as Chairman of the Committee, and I mention it also to my good friend the President, who sits in the Committee at this stage. I draw his attention in particular to the fact that this statement has been made by the Public Service Board and that every attempt possible should be made to overcome the accommodation difficulties which exist in this place and to see that the staff of members of the Parliament is brought up to a standard which will enable members of the Parliament to carry out their job and to do it effectively on behalf of the people they represent.

Having made those two comments on the estimates for the Parliament- one concerning bringing the Standing Orders up to date and the second concerning the provision of staff for members of the Parliament-I wish now to proceed to the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services. This debate on the estimates of expenditure for 1977-78 affords me an opportunity to discuss government policy and performance in the administrative services portfolio. The present Government- I say ‘present’ with some emphasis- is the most conservative, negative and, I suggest, dishonest government that Australia has known for some time. Last week the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) gave further proof of this statement when he announced the calling of a House of Representatives election a full year before it in fact was required. As I mentioned last week, that announcement was in direct contradiction of a statement which he made a mere five months ago. At a Press conference after the 93rd anniversary rally of the Central Methodist Mission in Sydney Mr Fraser said that he did not think it was a good idea continually to cut short the term of office of the House of Representatives. He said that the threeyear term was a quite short term by Western democratic standards. Those statements by the Prime Minister were reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 May 1977.

I make those observations at the outset, having regard to my earlier remarks about four general elections being held in a period of five years. Bearing in mind what I said about the inadequacy of staff for members of the Parliament and about the obsolescence of the Standing Orders of this place, the ordinary members of the public, particularly those of the younger generationthat section of the community which is suffering as a result of this Government’s policies- are becoming a little disillusioned, to say the least, with the old principle that Parliament is sacrosanct within the Australian community.

I return now to the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services. The first matter to which I wish to refer is that of staff ceilings and the reduction in the staff of the Department of Administrative Services. The reduction in the staff of that Department is reflected in the decrease, in real terms, in the amount of money appropriated for salaries and payments in the nature of salary. That appropriation totals $3 8m for 1977-78, compared with an appropriation of $42m last financial year. As all Public Service salaries have increased to some extent over the past year, the indications are that there has been a large reduction in the level of staff on the Department ‘s establishment. In an answer provided to me in the Senate Hansard of IS August of this year in response to question No. 984 the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) said that since 1 January 1976, shortly after this Government came to office a total of 553 offices of the Department of Administrative Services have been abolished, comprising 34 Second Division positions, 178 Third Division positions and 341 Fourth Division positions. Certainly most Second Division positions were recreated but the Minister said that he did not propose to have the answer to the balance of the question researched because of the amount of work involved.

On page 1 19 of the report of Estimates Committee A a supplementary statement is provided as a result of a question asked by my colleague, Senator McLaren. He requested that the Committee be supplied with a breakdown of the area where vacancies are actually occurring and whether they are in Canberra or any of the other capital cities. Page 120 of the Committee ‘s report sets out attachment ‘A’, ‘Summary of Vacancies, Public Service Act Staff, Department of Administrative Services (Excluding Australian Electoral Office and National Library)’. The total number of vacancies is 682, 320 of them being in Canberra, two overseas, 96 in New South Wales, 118 in Victoria, 42 in Queensland, 51 in South Australia, 6 in Western Australia, none in Tasmania and 47 in the Northern Territory. How a government department charged with the very important responsibility of administering the services of this nation can carry out effectively the nation’s requirements in relation to administrative services is beyond me when there is such a large number of vacancies on the staff of the department. It is all very well for the Minister and, with great respect, the officers of the Department to say to the Senate Estimates Committee that despite all the staff shortages caused as a result of the ceilings policy of the Government it is able to carry on the administrative affairs of this nation. I suggest that the Department must be labouring as a large number of other departments are labouring under great inconvenience and inefficiency having regard to the shortage of staff. I hope that I can continue my remarks shortly.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired. Before I call the next honourable senator I mention that the Committee has agreed to consider the votes in group A as a whole. I suggest that those who speak nominate the particular divisions on which they wish to speak, as Senator Douglas McClelland did.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I join with Senator Douglas McClelland in congratulating Senator Sim, the Chairman of Estimates Committee A, for the manner in which he conducted the inquiries of the Committee. I think he gave the members of the Committee every opportunity to pursue questions. We are grateful to him for the way he carried out his duties. We are also grateful to the Parliamentary staff for the way they assisted the members of the Committee in their work. There are one or two things in the report of Estimates Committee A to which I shall refer. Clause (c) on page 3 states:

As a result of the recent transfer of the Director-General of Social Security to the position of Secretary of the Department of Capital Territory, the Committee noted what appears to be a conflict between the Public Service Act 1922 and the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 (Hansard, Estimates Committee A, 6 September 1977, pages 7-8, and 15 September 1977, pages 499-501). The Committee reports to the Senate that the Minister for Administrative Services informed the Committee that he has sought advice from Attorney-General as to whether the Acts are in conflict. Due to the importance of the matter the Committee urges the Minister to inform the Senate as soon as possible of the outcome of his inquiries.

So far as I am aware- I may have missed it- the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) has not yet informed the Senate of the outcome of his inquiries into that matter. He will recall that I raised it on several occasions by way of questions in the Senate as a whole. I again brought the matter up at the Estimates committee meetings. I refer now to clause (e) on page 4 of the Committee’s report. It states:

The Committee once again must draw attention to the disparity in the form and content of Explanatory Notes. In addition, we found that some departments still do not make sufficient effort to provide breakdowns of what might be described as ‘group amounts.

We were able to ascertain throughout the Estimates that on many occasions the amounts appropriated under the designation ‘group’ were far in excess of the amounts appropriated for certain items that were designated. This is something about which the Committee is concerned. It takes up a lot of time of members of the Committee and the Committee sessions trying to ascertain from officers where this money is being used which is appropriated in sums much larger in many instances that other sums which are set out in the explanatory notes.

While the Minister is in the chamber I shall raise a matter concerning the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Administrative Services by Committee A. It is referred to on page 3 of Senate Hansard of 6 September 1977 under Division 130- Administrative. I said:

I have a question on Commonwealth properties. I refer again to the Commonwealth property in Currie Street in Adelaide which is used as a car park. I raised this matter with the Minister during the last Estimates hearings. He undertook to have some repairs done to the surface. The Minister had them done but they were not adequate. I now want to know whether that property is going to be sold or whether it is the Government’s intention to use it for building purposes.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-That is the one we bought for use as an eventual Commonwealth centre, is it not?

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, you had it for some years.

Senator WITHERS:

– No decision has been made to sell it. I do not think it is our intention to sell it

Senator McLAREN:

– If you are not going to sell it, can some move be made to upgrade the overall surface and the toilet facilities?

Senator WITHERS:

– Do you mean the lift services or the toilet services or what?

Senator McLAREN:

– The surface of the car park.

Senator WITHERS:

-I will have a look at the matter.

The Minister provided an answer on page 1 17 of the Committee ‘s report. It states:

Senator McLaren requested information concerning the Commonwealth property in Currie Street . . .

Answer

There has been some confusion caused by the use of differing terminology for the same site. The ‘Currie Street’ site is in fact the site listed on page 7 of the explanations as the ‘John Bull Hotel, Adelaide, South Australia’. This property is expected to be sold in 1977-78 and for this reason it is not intended to provide any funds for upgrading the surface of the area used as a car park.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He said something different in answer to a question today.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am coming to that, Senator Cavanagh. Senator Bishop asked the Minister a question today. He replied that one of the properties owned by the Commonwealth in the metropolitan area of Adelaide had been disposed of to the Adelaide City Council. He could not remember the name of the other one so I interjected and said: ‘That is the John Bull one. ‘ The Minister thanked me. If my memory serves me correctly he said that only last week he had written to somebody saying that the property was not for sale. That is in conflict with what is stated in the Committee report.

Senator Withers:

– I am confused as to the two sites.

Senator McLAREN:

-I hope the answer that the Minister gave Senator Bishop today is correct and that the answer on page 1 17 of the report is incorrect. I should be very disappointed if the Government were to dispose of that property because it is in a very select site in Adelaide. It is already adjacent to one of Adelaide’s city car parks, takes up quite a large area and extends right down to a private insurance company building, part of which is leased by the Commonwealth for the Commonwealth Electoral Office. For the life of me I cannot see why, in view of the fact that the property was bought back in 19S7 approximately, something has not been done to build a Commonwealth centre to accommodate Federal departments there.

I know it is costing a tremendous amount for the Commonwealth to lease the fifteenth floor of the AMP building at 1 King William Street. Here we have a block of land which is an eye-sore in the city of Adelaide and which, having in mind the high level of unemployment could, if developed, give employment to building contractors and to many skilled persons who are now looking for work. Such a centre would house not only members of Parliament, who now take up the fifteenth floor of the AMP building, but also the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and those who are presently occupying, in nearby Currie Street, the premises of the Commonwealth Electoral Office. There is no reason at all why all of these instrumentalities and services could not be housed in such a building, which would be right in the heart of the city, adjacent to a city car park, and convenient to as many of the residents of Adelaide as might wish to visit the departments concerned.

I hope the answer that the Leader of the Government gave Senator Bishop today was in fact correct, and that the answer he previously gave in his report to the Senate was incorrect. If so, I hope that when we are returned to government on 10 December, Senator Cavanagh can bring pressure to bear on the new Minister for Construction in regard to this matter. I know that when he was himself Minister he had set his sights on building a Commonwealth centre there. Unfortunately, he lost that portfolio- we were not allowed to settle down in our jobs- and the incoming Government has of course, taken no action.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That was not the reason it was not built. It was taking so long that Fred Daly bought one that was already erected!

Senator McLAREN:

– Be that as it may, we still need a Commonwealth centre because we have insufficient accommodation, even though Mr Fred Daly, who was then occupying the portfolio now held by Senator Withers bought premises that had already been erected. No doubt, as Senator Cavanagh implied, he had to do that because we were running short of space due to the lethargy of the previous Government, which had bought the Currie Street property in 1957 and done nothing at all about it. It had not even kept the surface of the car park in proper condition. The few times that I parked my car there during the winter I found that one had to be very careful one did not step into a pothole and end up knee deep in water. At least I give credit to the Minister for Construction for his action after the last Estimates debate in having minor repairs performed to the surface. However, he now says that because the property is to be sold the Government does not intend to carry out any additional repairs. I know that if the answer the Minister gave Senator Bishop today is correct, the senator will have a very worthwhile proposition to put before him, but I will not transgress on his right to do that himself.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I always admire my socialist friends for their ability to travel by car, even if they sometimes plunge up to their knees in water upon alighting. As a capitalist, I always travel to my office by bus.

Senator Davidson:

– That is right. I go by public transport.

Senator SIM:

– It is only the socialists who travel in Mercedes-Benz and Rolls Royce cars to their offices. I also note with interest the dispute between Senator McLaren and Senator Cavanagh about who bought a block of land, and the attack that was made on the Minister for not developing it. That is a typical socialist ploy, of course. There is no one who enjoys life more that the socialist with his whisky and French champagne and cigars.

To return to the report of Estimates Committee A, the Committee, in considering the Estimates, came to several conclusions which I would like to bring to the notice of the Senate. In previous reports we had referred to procedures whereby explanatory notes would be made available to honourable senators as early as practicable, to permit a preliminary examination to be made by the committees in private session prior to public examination of the Estimates. We have noted with some pleasure that this aspect has shown improvement. However, following its most recent examination of the Estimates, the committee has proposed that the Government be called upon to give an undertaking to table the explanatory notes on the day immediately following presentation of the Appropriation Bills, thus enabling committees to examine them properly. If one receives them only a week or 10 days beforehand it is very difficult to do that.

The Committee also noted, with some concern I might add, the lateness in the presentation to the Parliament of the annual reports of some departments and statutory authorities. Whilst these reports do not stand referred to committees, they nevertheless are among the tools used by the committees in exercising their responsibility to the Senate for the scrutiny of government expenditure. It is not the first time that Estimates Committee A has brought these matters to the attention of the Senate.

The third matter to which the Committee, directed the attention of the Senate was the disparity in the form and content of the explanatory notes. I believe Senator McLaren was referring to this matter as I came into the chamber. Some departments do not make sufficient effort to provide a breakdown of what might be described as group amounts. This creates problems and wastes the time of committees, which must then endeavour to ascertain the actual breakdown.

We are aware that other Estimates committees have had the same problem and that both last year and the year before attention was directed to the great variation in the type of explanatory notes provided. We have advocated a degree of standardisation in the models to be used for committee reports. Estimates Committee A would describe the explanatory notes of the Department of Administrative Services as representing a model which provides the greatest possible detail for use by the committee. I know that other committees have proposed explanatory notes from other departments as models to be followed. Accordingly, Estimates Committee A proposes that the Department of Finance review recent reports of Estimates committees and submit to a meeting of committee chairmen a style of note embracing both form and content; that this would then be used as a model for all departments and statutory authorities. We do this quite deliberately because we had great problems, as the Minister might recall with the explanatory notes of some departments, which were almost impossible to understand. For example, I remember Senator McLaren being involved at one stage in an argument over the explanatory notes of a particular department. I am quite sure that the Minister for Administrative Services remembers that. We feel that if we could possibly get some standardisation it would enable a far more proper and effective examination to be carried out of the Estimates. We have suggested that the explanatory notes of the Department of Administrative Services should be used as a model. I know that other committees have suggested that those of other departments should be used as a model. We do not wish to take a firm stance on a particular one. But we do suggest that the Department of Finance should produce a model at which the chairmen of the Estimates committees should look and decide whether it is the best model for use. It is for those reasons that I move:

That the Committee, having considered the report of Estimates Committee A-

Requests the Government to give an undertaking to table departmental explanatory notes on the day immediately following the presentation of the Budget Papers or Appropriation Bills to the Parliament.

Recommends that the Department of Finance, after reviewing reports of Estimates committees over recent years, submit to a meeting of Estimates committee chairmen a style of explanatory notes, embracing both form and content, to be used as a model by all departments and statutory authorities.

I have explained the reasons we think that the proposition put in paragraph ( 1 ) of the motion is desirable. I have put forward the second proposition because we believe that if we can achieve that aim the Estimates committees can be far more effective than they are at the moment. I think we all agree that one of the aims that we seek to achieve is maximum effectiveness of the parliamentary examination of the Estimates. There is nothing new in what we are proposing. As I said earlier, from time to time over the years the chairmen of the Estimates committees individually have put forward such a proposition. It is now being put in the form of a more formal motion.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I intervene at this stage only because if I were not to do so until too many honourable senators had spoken I would forget the burden of their argument. Senator Douglas McClelland spoke earner on the same matter on which Senator Sim has just moved a motion, that is, that an undertaking ought to be given to table explanatory notes on the same day as the Budget Papers are presented. The Government will not oppose that motion. I will certainly use my best endeavours to make certain that the wish of the Estimates committees is carried out. I shall move through the speeches of honourable senators one by one. Senator Douglas McClelland raised a matter which appears on page 4 of the report of Estimates Committee A and mentioned the work of the Joint Committee on Publications on this matter. I am anxiously awaiting the presentation of the report of the Joint Committee on Publications, which, as honourable senators no doubt are aware, has been doing a lot of work on the whole of the operations of the Australian Government Publishing Service. I think it will be coming forward with some very interesting and useful suggestions.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It has been brought down. It was brought down here about a week ago.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Douglas McClelland informs me that the report has been presented. I am hoping that out of that we will be able to get a better performance out of the AGPS. As to the Standmg Orders, I suppose that all honourable senators would complain that the Standing Orders in this place are a bit archaic and that the proceedings of the chamber tend to be ritualistic.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, they are not. They are just not observed, that is all.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is the old argument of what is the practice and what are the Standing Orders. I think that we occasionally indulge in some ancient rituals handed down from the Incas. I often wonder whether the Standing Orders really contemplate that we are still illiterate. Maybe the Standing Orders are correct. At the same time, honourable senators would appreciatethatoverthelastfiveofsixyearsthere hasbeenanenormousimprovementinandmodernisation of the Standing Orders. Whilst I am one of those who occasionally get testy about some of the archaic methods, I think it is far better to move a little slowly and to do it properly as a result of experience than it is to rush pell-mell into it. I think we have come a long way in recent years in up-dating our Standing Orders. I am quite certain that the committee is seized of the same problem.

Senator Douglas McClelland also mentioned the report of the Public Service Board. I have not seen it, but I can well recall the Remuneration Tribunal saying that when it was satisfied that there was sufficient accommodation within this building it would be prepared to determine that senators and members of parliament should be granted a third staff member for work in Canberra. That was mentioned in the last report of the Remuneration Tribunal which I tabled in this chamber in August of this year. That is not a matter just for governments to determine; it is a matter which is also within the province of the Presiding Officers. All I can say is that I am well seized of the recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal, as is the Government, and that the Government is anxious to do all it can to bring about an improvement in the conditions in this building so that a third staff member will be granted by the Remuneration Tribunal. It is a matter that I have had under study for some time. Early next year I hope to be announcing some positive steps to bring it about.

Senator Douglas McClelland referred in passing to the early election. I thought it seemed strange for an opposition to complain about the holding of an election. During the three years that we were in opposition I asked once a week for an election to be held. I think that is a sign of a good opposition. An opposition that is confident that it is going to win an election will want that election to be held so that it can do so. I think that an opposition that complains about the holding of an early election knows that it is going to be beaten. I can remember what happened in those very interesting days when weekly I used to call upon the previous Prime Minister to get into his car and go to Yarralumla and ask for double dissolution after double dissolution. Honourable senators may remember that I always used to ask: Will he jump or do we push? In the end we pushed. We see the result of that today. I think that a really good fighting opposition does not complain about the holding of an early election.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do not be too cocky, boy.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am not. I am just saying that I am surprised that the Opposition does not want an election to be held.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You might be in for an awful shock yet. You might be in for a really big shock.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am used to being surprised. The other matter of which the honourable senator was critical was the imposition of staff ceilings. I admit that the staff numbers within departments have fallen, but am I to take it from the honourable senator’s remarks that he will be going out and saying to the taxpayers of Australia: ‘We believe in having a vastly increased Public Service, which is something for which you will have to pay’? He had better make up his mind. We were elected on the basis that we would bring about more efficient government. Might I say that with a very few exceptions I have not heard a moan or a complaint from the officers of my department in particular, and the Public Service in general, about staff ceilings. I believe that the Public Service has wanted this challenge and that it has wanted the opportunity to show that it can do better. After all, I think that the better members of the Public Service, who are in the great majority, are just sick and tired of being regarded as people who do not work too hard and who do not meet challenges. I think that they have shown in the last two years that they can, and that we have a very good Public Service in Australia.

Senator McLaren raised two matters. One was the Daniels case. I have been advised that the Attorney-General’s Department has advised the Public Service Board that it has the capacity under the Public Service Act to continue to pay the extra responsibility allowance on the transfer of a Permanent Head. That is an advising of the Attorney-General’s Department and the Government naturally abides by it. The Public Service Board has done nothing unlawful. The other matter that he mentioned was the construction of a Commonwealth centre in Adelaide. I am sorry, but I cannot remember every block of Commonwealth land in Australia. I think that the Commonwealth Government owns 20,000, perhaps 30,000 pieces of real estate in this country, and at times I do get a little confused. However, I understand that I have here the full information. Are the Currie Street site and the John Bull site one and the same?

Senator Cavanagh:

– They are one and the same.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is what my note says. The Currie Street site, or the John Bull site, has been approved for disposal to the Adelaide City Council. I understand- again I am calling on my memory and I cannot remember the minute in exact terms- that the building of an office block there now would not be in conformity with City Council and State Government planning regulations. The site evidently has been zoned as a car park and a car park will be constructed there. Is the Simpson Building in Pirie Street the other one?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is to be retained as a site for a Commonwealth centre. I hope I have the two pieces of real estate correct. Senator Bishop is nodding. Evidently I have coupled the right piece of land with the right information. Senator Sim referred to the details of explanatory notes. I thank Estimates Committee A for the work it has done on this matter. I must say that as a Minister trying to look after five or six departments I find some difficulty in following different forms, and I am quite certain that all the Estimates committees will get a great deal of cooperation from the Department of Finance in their quest for similarity in presentation.

Senator Sim also raised the matter of the lateness of the tabling of annual reports. Honourable senators will recall that I too have been somewhat critical when I have tabled reports during this part of the financial year. In respect of my own Department and the reports for which I am responsible, I have asked that next year all reports be ready for tabling on the same day as the Budget is put down, that is, the first day of sitting after the end of the financial year. I also have suggested to the Department that in cases where there are technical difficulties in putting down a report, such as awaiting the AuditorGeneral’s certificate or some special requirement under the Act, or even where there is a printing problem, an interim report should be put down and a formal report tabled later, when the Auditor-General’s certificate is obtained. Honourable senators will realise that a number of Acts require that the annual reports, together with the Auditor-General’s certificate, shall be tabled. If one looks at the date of the AuditorGeneral’s certificate one finds frequently that it is October, November or December. I have been advised that, if a report is tabled without the Auditor-General’s certificate attached to it, in effect it has not been tabled in accordance with the Act. I intend to table interim reports for the areas for which I am responsible so that as far as possible they will be tabled on Budget day.

When speaking before dinner on the first reading of the Bill Senator McLaren raised the question of the VIP aircraft manifests. The honourable senator will recall that during the meetings of the Estimates committees I said that I would look for them. The information I have is that the manifests are being collated in the Department of Defence. They are not yet ready for tabling, but every effort will be made to have them ready for tabling as quickly as possible. I am sorry that Senator McLaren has not got them. Apparently work has been proceeding. I regret that they were not available in time for this debate.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

-The Opposition supports the motion moved by Senator Sim. As a matter of fact, Senator Douglas McClelland, Senator McLaren and I were parties to the resolution, which was unanimous. I also should like to place on record my appreciation of the job done by Senator Sim as Chairman of Senate Estimates Committee A and of the excellent job done by the staff who looked after the Committee. A study of the report of Estimates Committee A for this year reveals more of the sorts of things we saw in 1976. There were further cuts in public expenditure in many areas, for little or apparently no reason at all. It is interesting to note that a recent poll showed that most Australians believe that cuts in public expenditure have gone too far and they are opposed to any more. The damage has already been done to the social and economic infrastructure of the country by cuts in government expenditure. I believe that it is a policy of economic lunacy, but at this stage I want to confine my remarks to the Department of Administrative Services.

In respect of that Department, funds were set aside for the cost of running elections and, if one looks back now at those estimates, one sees that probably not enough money was set aside for that purpose. One of the points I want to raise is that no funds at all were made available for investigating electoral reform, and we are about to go into an election campaign with a system of running elections, especially for this chamber, that I believe is in the greatest need of reform. As far as the Senate is concerned, we have the compulsory preferential voting system. It has many disadvantages. It is complicated for the voters. It disadvantages the less well educated. It also disadvantages elderly people and especially immigrants. In New South Wales in 1974 people were asked to fill out 73 squares on a ballot paper for the Senate. In 1975 they were asked to fill out 54 squares, and of course the people I mentioned were severely disadvantaged. I believe that we. have to find a much easier system of voting for the Senate.

Under the present system, the votes take too long to count. In 1975 it took two months to get the final result of the double dissolution election. I know that many people would say that that did not matter because we all knew that the Government had a majority in the House of Representatives and a majority in the Senate. Taking a situation such as the one that occurred in the 1961 election, when the Government finished up with only a one seat majority, in 1975 the country could have been placed in a situation in which for a period of two months nobody would have known who the Government was going to be. That is not good enough. It is not good enough when one compares it with the situation in the United States, which has a presidential election system. Millions of votes are cast, yet the result is known within 24 hours of the ballot closing. West Germany has a list system of voting as well as a constituency system and, despite the fact that the system is complicated, the results usually are known within 24 hours. Perhaps the best place to look at in relation to the quick counting of votes is Great Britain. There are 600-odd seats in the House of Commons and sometimes two or three complete recounts, yet it is usually only 48 to 72 hours before the full election result is known.

The present system in Australia also contributes to informal voting. In the State of New South Wales, which is the experience to which I will continue to refer, 12.13 per cent of the Senate votes in 1974 were informal. In 1975, despite the campaign waged by both major parties, more than 10 per cent of the votes, or one in ten, were informal. We then had the very first recount of a Senate poll in history, and that showed up some of the many flaws in the system. I understand that about 12,000 votes cast were awarded to different candidates as a result of the recount and that there was a reduction in the total number of formal votes cast. The Commonwealth was put to great expense to carry out that recount. The question also was raised whether the casual staff who were asked to come in and do the recount were competent. I am not talking about the permanent public servants; I am talking about the casuals who were brought in all over New South Wales to do that recount. From my own experience and from the reports that I received from my scrutineers, I do not believe that they were competent enough to do that sort of count. In fact, a complete recount should have been done by only permanent employees at a central place, preferably in Sydney. Again, that is something that ought to be looked at in the future.

The random sample system of counting preferences also I believe is not a good system. I know that it has been argued that it does not change the overall result, but every time it is used in fact a slightly different result is achieved. When faced with a situation such as that which occurred in New South Wales in the last election, where in the first count there was a difference of only 19 votes per electorate for the 45 electorates, it is apparent that the system of random sampling also needs investigating. Having made those criticisms of the system, I believe that we also have to consider possible solutions, and that is the area in which the Department of Administrative Services should be involved. Optional preferential voting simplifies the process. The present New South Wales Government is bringing in a system for the New South Wales Legislative Council. It will be like the list system used in West Germany. I believe it will cut down drastically on the number of informal votes.

Senator Mulvihill has raised a matter in here many times when he has been talking about reforms for the Senate. I refer to the deposit which is required to be paid by Senate candidates. I think Senator Mulvihill has suggested in debate that the amount should be $1,000. I do not know whether it should be $1,000 or more, but the system which now exists, under which it costs only $200 to nominate, is absolutely crazy. A higher amount would certainly get rid of the nonsense candidates who nominated in 1974 and 1975. 1 certainly question how fair dinkum were some of the people who stood in New South Wales for the Senate elections in 1974 and 1975 and whether they paid the $200 deposit themselves. It has also been suggested, I think by

Senator Mulvihill, that Senate candidates should have nominators from every federal electorate in their State. Again, this would be a way in which we could cut down on the number of nonsense candidates standing. Surely if one is a responsible candidate for the Senate one would be able to get somebody from each of the 45 electorates as it was then, or from each of the 43 electorates as it is now, to nominate one, instead of requiring just the six people who I think are required at the moment.

We should indicate the candidate’s party affiliation on the ballot paper. We should also look at the early closure of the polls. This has already been done in New South Wales by the Lewis Liberal-Country Party Government. New South Wales now closes the polling places at 6 o’clock, as a result of which we do not have the situation which used to occur with bad lighting, an insufficient number of booths and, between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., a lot of people voting informally because of these conditions. We ought to be looking at mobile voting booths and computerised counting. I believe it is time that the Department of Administrative Services carried out seriously a study of the use of voting machines. I know that in the past the use of voting machines has been looked at. I know of some of the faults of using voting machines. But I suggest this is something at which we ought to be looking for the future.

I think also that the Department of Administrative Services should be looking at ways of reducing possible corruption in an election campaign by looking at the public funding of candidates and campaigns. We should look at the situation which exists in western Europe at the moment. In the United States at the last presidential election there was public funding for the first time. I believe that in time this aspect will spread to all the Congressional and Senate elections which are held in the United States. When I was there during the presidential campaign I found it very interesting to be able to go into the office of the Electoral Commission and for ten cents a copy, be able to get every day a list of contributions made to the major candidates who were running at that time for the primaries for the United Sates presidency.

I think also we should be looking at means of informing migrants and Aboriginals of their voting rights and at means of getting the socially disadvantaged groups on the electoral rolls. The other day I suggested to the appropriate Minister that we ought to reintroduce the mobile multilingual vans which went around and encouraged these people to place their names on the electoral rolls. We have at the moment a system of election for the Senate which is so complicated that it causes much distortion of the electorate’s will. The system of counting votes is archaic. These things reduce the reputation of the Senate and contribute to political alienation in the community. I suggest that a special committee should be formed. Not only should the Department of Administrative Services look at this matter but also we should have a special committee on electoral reform like the Houghton Committee in Great Britain which looked into all these aspects which I have raised tonight. I do not believe that we are about to get these reforms because I think the present Government believes that the system we have now suits it. However, I suggest to the Government that the people of Australia are becoming better educated about electoral reform and that this is something which cannot be put off for much longer.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It is gratifying for me to find compliments paid to my colleague Senator Sim as chairman of Estimates Committee A in affording an opportunity for a full investigation of government expenditure. I rise mainly in response to the remarks of Senator Douglas McClelland when he referred to the dwindling significance of this chamber and of both Houses of Parliament in the eyes of the people they represent. It has been my task to make some investigation of the reason for that. I think a corollary of our Estimates Committee system is that when a Committee makes a report and it comes into the Committee of the Whole, honourable senators should take unto themselves the right to decide modifications to the Estimates, consistent with a proper responsibility to stability in government. For this reason I had research conducted by the Senate Research officer, firstly, into the historical development of the House of Commons’ exclusive power over money Bills. Suffice it to say that that was a development over the centuries culminating in the Parliament Bill of 1911 which we have not copied. After proper consultation with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and the Chairman of Committees I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the results of researches of the Senate Research officer.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

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

The document read as follows-

  1. Historical development of the House of Common’s exclusive power over money bills.

In the early stages of Parliamentary history, it is apparent that the Common’s battle for ascendancy over the Lords in relation to the granting of monies was pan of, and probably overshadowed by, the more imponant question of the establishment of the principle of no taxation without consent. It is generally agreed that the contitutional foundation for the principle is contained in Chapter 12 of the Magna Cana: “No scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our Kingdom unless by common counsel of our Kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a Knight, and for marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the City of London”.

This principle was confirmed by the monarchy on many occasions, particularly in the Confirmatio Cartarum in 1297, with a considerably extended scope covering all taxation. While the Confirmatio Cartarum made no mention of the Commons, in practice the Commons were summoned to every Parliament after 1 3 1 1 , so that the concessions enforced by the Barons for their own benefit came to be applied automatically to the Commons.

According to Einzig1, the most imponant step towards the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords, the right to initiate grants, appears to have been achieved almost without any struggle as an unintentional by-product of Parliament’s victory over the King in the matter of imposing import duties. Until 1372 Kings usually negotiated the tonnage and poundage direct with the merchants of London and Bristol, and Parliament went through with a gesture of endorsing them by incorporating them into the annual grants. In 1373 Edward III was persuaded, in return for the grant of the tonnage and poundage for the subsequent three years, to agree that hencefonh tonnage and poundage would have to be authorised by Parliament as a whole.

As Einzig points out, since the import duties were paid by the merchants, it stood to reason that the assembly which included their representatives should be first in chronological order to deal with such subsidies. The Prelates and Barons had no direct interest in the matter, since they did not have to pay the duties, nor did they have the expertise necessary for their negotiation. Thus the Lords agreed to the modification of the old-established constitutional formula whereby subsidies were granted by the Lords with the assent of the Commons. In 1 373 the grant was entered into the Rolls of Parliament as being granted by the Commons and assented to by the Lords.

The full significance of the difference between granting and assenting to a grant does not appear to have been realised or become a matter of controversy until 1407. In that year Henry IV commenced the financial business of the session by a discussion with the Lords as to the probable requirments of the service of the year and the Commons were summoned to be told the result of the discussion. The Commons remonstrated that the King had not accorded them their accustomed privilege of first discussing his money requirements with them. As a result the King formally acknowledged the superiority of the Commons in a declaration before a joint meeting of both Assemblies on December 2, 1407, “that grants of Supply must take their rise in the Commons, and that the resulting grants, after the Lords has assented to them, ought to be reported by the mouth of the Speaker of the House of Commons”. (Rolls of Parliament III 611)2. 2 See Anson: Law and Custom of the Constitution Oxford, 1892, Part 1, p. 253.

Reid: The Politics of Financial Control, London, 1966, p. 55.

Einzig: op cit, p. 110-111.

The Lords, understandably, did not acquiesce in such a subordinate position, and frequently argued for their right to amend, as well as reject, financial bills. For example in 1671 they argued as follows: “. . . if the Lords who have the power of treating, advising, giving counsel and applying remedies, cannot amend, abate, or refuse a bill in pan, by what consequence of reason can they enjoy a liberty to reject the whole?”

This was in response to the Commons resolution of 1671 which resolved, “That in all aids given to the King by the Common’s the rate or tax ought not to be altered.” The Common’s attitude, as communicated to the Lords was Your Lordships . . . have a negative to the whole”.

In 1678 the Commons finally expressed their claim to superiority in the following significant resolution: “That all Aids and Supplies and Aids to His Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gin of the Commons; and all Bills for the granting of any such Aids and Supplies ought to begin with the Commons; and that it is undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills, the ends, purposes, considerations and conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords”.

Thus by the end of the Seventeenth century, it seems to be generally claimed that the House of Lords had a veto power, but not an amending power, over financial bills. (Although, as can be seen in the answer to question 3 below, the Lords did occasionally amend financial legislation of the Commons). As Einzig points out, however, “in some of these precedents the Commons did not stand on their dignity but accepted the Lord’s Amendments, although, to save their face, they dropped the amended Bill and introduced an entirely new Bill in the exact form in which the old Bill was after its amendment by the Lords. In no instance did these incidents lead to a constitutional crisis”.3 3 Einzig: op cit, p. 304.

A clash between the two Houses, with most imponant ramifications, did occur in 1860, over the rejection by the Lords of a Bill providing for the repeal of the paper duty. The Commons replied by passing three resolutions which, while not denying that the Lords might have a power of rejecting money bills, and intimating, as Anson suggest, that the Commons had it always in their power so to frame money bills as to make the right of rejection nugatory. The three resolutions are set out by Anson as follows: “The first recites that the right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone.

The second, that although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting bills of several descriptions relative to taxation, by negativing the whole, yet the exercise of that power by them has not been frequent, and is justly regarded by this House with peculiar jealousy, as affecting the right of the Commons to grant the supplies and to provide the ways and means for the service of the year.

The third, that to guard for the future against an undue exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over Taxation and Supply, this House has in its own hands the power to impose and remit taxes, and to frame bills of supply, that the right of the Commons as to the matter, manner, measure, or time, may be maintained inviolate.”4

In 1 86 1 , these resolutions were put into effect. Gladstone ‘s Budget of April 15 included the repeal of the paper duties as pan of the total annual taxation measures, and from that year onwards the annual Bill contained all the taxation provisions and was named the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. Subsequently it was to be renamed the Finance Bill. The House of Lords was thus forced into the position of having to accept or reject the financial proposals of the Commons as a whole.

Before proceeding to an outline of the culmination of the Common s achievement of exclusive power over money bills as enshrined in the Parliament Act of 1 9 1 1 , it is interesting to set down a passage from a proposed report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Tax Bills of 1860 (the report was presented to the Parliament in a different final form) as it provides an indication of the depth of feeling in the Commons over Lords interference in financial legislation. The draft report proposed by Mr Bright, contained the following passage: “The Committee cannot doubt that the right which the Commons have contended for, and have maintained, is nothing less than an absolute control in determining the expenditure necessary for the service of the Crown, and the mode and the amount of the taxation which shall be imposed upon the People. If the Lords cannot begin a tax, if they cannot increase or abate a tax, yet if they may prolong a tax by refusing their assent to its repeal when that repeal has been voted by the House of Commons, then it appears to the Committee that the ‘fundamental and inherent right’ of the House of Commons to an absolute control over Taxation and Supply is not only menaced, but destroyed. “The Committee cannot conclude their Report without reminding the House, that, if henceforth, which they will not believe to be possible, no tax, hurtful to trade,’ and grievous to the People, can be remitted unless the Lords be pleased to remit it, or can be even recommended by the Crown to be considered by the Commons with a view to its remission, with that full assurance which has heretofore existed that such a tax will be remitted; not only will the powers of the House of Commons be impaired, but the foundation of the ancient freedom of England will be undermined; for where shall that ancient freedom be found when the right to determine the mode and the sum of taxation is divorced from the Representative Branch of the Legislature”.

The events leading up to and subsequent to the Lords rejection of the Finance Bill in 1909, culminating in the General Election of January 1910 and the subsequent passing of the 1909 Bill are well enough known to be not dealt with here. The Government, however, was determined that the 1909 situation should not happen again. Consequently, on April 6, 1 9 10, it introduced the following Resolution: “That it is expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by law from rejecting or amending a Money Bill, but that any such limitation by law shall not be taken to diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons. For the purposes of this Resolution a Bill shall be considered a Money Bill if in the opinion of the Speaker it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by Parliament; supply; the appropriation, control or regulation of public moneys; the raising or guaranteeing of any loan or the repayment thereof; or matters incidental to these subjects or any of them “.

After lengthy and acrimonious debate, the Resolution was passed by a large majority, and was followed by legislation embodying it, which finally clearly curtailed the financial powers of the House of Lords. The relevant clause of the 1911 Parliament Act reads as follows: “If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is not passed by the House of Lords without Amendment within one month after it is so sent up, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and becomes an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, not withstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill “.

Finally, it is an irony of history that had the Parliament Act been in force in 1909, the Speaker of that dme might well have refused to certify the Finance Bill as a Money Bill. Lord Ullswater, who as J. W. Lowther was Speaker in 1909 wrote in his memoirs “In my judgment the celebrated Finance Bill of 1909 . . . would not have come under the provisions of Clause 1 Section 2 of the Parliament Act as a ‘ Money Bill ‘, for it contained a number of provisions which were not within the definition of that clause and section”. (A Speaker’s Commentary, Vol. II, p. 103).

Senator WRIGHT:

-It follows, I maintain, that there is a fundamental distinction between an hereditary House of Lords and a Senate elected on an equality of adult suffrage not restricted in any degree from the suffrage of the House of Representatives. Our base is just as much adult suffrage as is the other place in the Federal Parliament. Therefore, I was interested in the matter that seems to be an assumption here that if either the House of Representatives or the Senate passes a motion requesting a reduction of expenditure, that is an indication of want of confidence in the Government. I am pleased to say that the researches of the Senate Research officer assure me that none of the sources that have been consulted reveals any acknowledgment of the existence of such a convention m relation to the House of Commons, a fortiori the House of Representatives or the Senate. Without taking the time of the Committee I therefore ask for leave, after the proper consultations that I have had, to incorporate in Hansard the note that has been provided on that subject.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

The document read as follows-

  1. Development of the Convention that if a money bill is altered even by one-pound in the Commons, the Government should resign.

In none of the sources consulted did I find any acknowledgment of the existence of such a convention in relation to the House of Commons. Some writers specifically denied it, while another suggested that it was a myth rather than a convention, and a myth with unfortunate consequences. To illustrate, it is appropriate to quote in considerable detail from Paul Einzig : The Control of the Purse: (Pp. 19-23).

  1. . it may be said without fear of contradiction that at the present time effective Parliamentarian Control over public finance is incomparably weaker in Britain than in any other democratic country . . .’

On the Supply Days alloted for the purpose of considering the Estimates in Committee of Supply- a Committee of the Whole House- broad subjects which have little or no connection with the Estimates under review are debated in a general way, and the Estimates themselves are passed purely formally at the beginning or the end of these general debates. It is true that the Opposition often divides the House against Estimates. But this is always done on Amendments moving some token reduction to imply censure of the Government or of the Minister concerned- more likely than not, for not spending enough.

During recent decades this system has become so firmly established that it is now taken entirely for granted. It does not even occur to Members of Parliament, let alone to the public, that it could and should be otherwise. Very few people are aware that in the United States, France, and other democratic countries Estimates are subject to very close scrutiny before they are passed and are liable to be drastically amended against the wishes of the Executive. Even fewer people are aware that in Britain itself Estimates were subject to a fairly close scrutiny during a great part of the 19th Century, when occasionally many Government supporters felt strongly enough against certain expenditure items to vote against the Government. Admittedly, defeats over Estimates were few and far between, and most of them occurred on items of relatively small importance. But the faa that occasionally Parliamentary majorities turned against their Government in order to defend the taxpayer’s interests must itself have gone a long way towards warning Governments against overspending.

In the absence of resistance to extravagance in recent times by means of a thorough scrutiny of Estimates on the floor of the House, Governments have been placed in a position to assume that they can do as they please with the taxpayer’s money. It is true, Estimates are criticised by the Select Committee on Estimates. But the Government is at liberty to ignore its recommendations. In any case, the Committee does not even pretend to scrutinise Estimates systematically. Even though it has greatly extended its activities in recent years, it would have to extend them many times more, and it would have to increase its political influence considerably, before it could be regarded as a substitute for the Committee of Supply as the guardian of the taxpayer’s money . . .

The myth that a Government has to resign or to ask for a dissolution of Parliament if it is defeated on any detail of the Finance Bill or the Estimates goes a long way towards preventing the majority in the House from exercising control over finance. Government supporters assume that the choice lies between provoking a crisis and giving reluctant support to financial measures which they dislike, and they regard the second alternative as the smaller evil. The first step towards a restoration of effective financial control would be the realisation that, under long-established British constitutional practice, defeats over details of the Budget or of Estimates are no cause for resignation, provided that they do not amount to denial to the Government of the entire annual supply or an essential part of it, and provided that they do not amount to the rejection of some major policy to which the Government had committed itself.’

That such a convention exists is denied strongly by Alpheus Todd, in his work Parliamentary Government in England. To support his contention, he offers the following considerations (vol. ii, pp. 224-6):

In the exercise of their constitutional functions, the House of Commons not infrequently dissent from the financial propositions of ministers . . . In 1816, after the close of the war with France, when the government were desirous of continuing the property tax for a longer term, the feeling of the House was so strongly opposed to the continuance of war taxes after peace had been obtained, that the chancellor of the exchequer was defeated on the 18th of March, in committee of ways and means, upon his motion for the renewal of the property tax. After this, he voluntarily abandoned the duties upon malt, amounting to about £2,700,000. Altogether it has been computed that the government lost, on this occasion, about twelve millions of anticipated revenue.

It is somewhat remarkable that the great ministerial defeat, recorded in the preceding paragraph, was so quietly accepted by the government, and did not lead to a ministerial crisis. But the true doctrine on this point is that which was expressed by Lord John Russell, in 1851, after the government had sustained a defeat on some financial proposition. He remarked that ‘questions of taxation and burdens are questions upon which the House of Commons, representing the country, have peculiar claims to have their opinions listened to, and upon which the executive government may very fairly, without any loss of its dignity-provided they maintain a sufficient revenue for the credit of the country and for its establishment- reconsider any particular measures of finance they have proposed.’ To the same effect, Mr T. Baring, the undersecretary for war in Lord Palmerston ‘s administration, said, in 1861, after the rejection by the House of Lords of the bill for the repeal of the paper dutieswhich formed part of the financial measures of government for that year-‘ I am happy that we live at a time when experience has shown that a budget may be modified or rejected without any change in the position of the ministry. I am glad that we have seen budgets withdrawn, and fresh ones introduced. We have seen taxes remitted, or taxes the remission of which, when proposed, has been refused, without any effect upon the cabinet. In faa, a change of the budget does not involve a change in ministry; and I rejoice that it is so, because I think it would be most unpardonable obstinancy on the part of public men to adhere to the terms of a budget which was opposed to the wishes and feelings of parliament. It would be unfortunate for the free exercise of the judgment of this House, if the rejection of any portion of a budget were to be construed into a vote of want of confidence. ‘

For a comment on the Australian practice, see J. R. Odgers Australian Senate Practice 5th Edition, p. 399.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Following upon those matters I asked the Senate Research officer to trace the historical experience of money Bills in the House of Lords before it was finally precluded from rejection or amendment of money Bills, only so that we could take our judgment as to our decisions in these Committees of the Whole in the light of this historical experience. The research service has provided me with, among other things, a report of the select committee of the House of Commons on tax Bills in 1860 when the final achievement of the House of Commons as to its exclusive power was, in effect, really maintained, and it traces instances where the House of Lords amended or rejected money Bills from early times. I ask for leave to incorporate that report in Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

The document read as follows-

  1. Before the Commons achieved ascendancy and complete power over money bills does history provide any instances of Lords amendments?

Attached for your consideration are two lists of Lords amendments to money bills. They are taken from:

Hatsell : Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons, Vol III, pp. 1 10-1 57 (London, 1818).

House of Commons : Report from the Select Committee on Tax Bills, Appendix (Ordered to be printed 29 June 1860).

page 1903

PART I

Section A.-Lords’ Amendments to Supply and Tax Bills

Section B.-Supply and Tax Bills rejected or postponed by the House of Lords.

page 1904

PART II

Bills appropriating Supplies amended or rejected by the House of Lords. (No Cases found.)

page 1904

PART III

Public Bills which are not strictly Bas of Supply or Tax Bills but which operate as a Tax or Charge upon the People.

Section A.- Lords’ Amendments to such Bills.

Section B.-Bills which are not strictly Bills of Supply or Tax Bills, but which operate as a Tax or Charge upon the People, rejected or postponed by the House of Lords.

Section A. -Amendments made by the Lords to Public Bills which are not strictly Bills of Supply or Tax Bills, but which operate as a Tax or Charge upon the People.

Section B.- Public Bills which are not strictly Bills of Supply or Tax Bills, but which operate as a Tax or Charge upon the People, rejected or postponed by the House of Lords.

page 1905

PART IV

BILLS for Altering or Repealing Acts which relate to Supply, Taxes, or Charges.

Section A.- Lords’ Amendments to such Bills.

Section B. - Bills Rejected or Postponed by the House of Lords.

Section A.- Lords’ Amendments to such Bills.

Section B. - Bills for altering or repealing Acts which relate to Supply, Taxes, or Charges, rejected or postponed by the House of Lords.

page 1907

PART V

Cases of Private Bills amended by the Lords . . . p. 85

Senator WRIGHT:

-I do this for the purpose of formulating a basis of a forum upon which, in the next stage, we shall move to vote as to our view of the proper figure for certain expenses. If it is disagreed to by the government of the day we shall engage in conference and compromise, according to sensible people, because I need not remind all honourable senators that in the American Senate once a money Bill comes onto its floor the Senate has powers equal to those of the House of Representatives. The American Senate has no power to initiate but it has power to amend or reject with no section 57 but only conference procedures which invariably result in compromise. The American Senate determines alterations in presidential proposals for expenditure of the utmost magnitude without disturbing the stability of the Government which is, of course, guaranteed by the Constitution to have a fixed term. It is not subject to dissolution if its House majority withdraws confidence.

I am not advocating an adoption of the presidential system but I am adverting to it as a democracy which operates without blasting to instability Government control of finance simply because the Congress takes a defective part in the decision as to finance. Later I will raise certain matters because the Committee of the Whole is where they should be decided. I, in my spirit of moderation and gradual approach will not be asking for any vote of a decisive character this session. But in the next session, the last I will be here, when Supply is before us I will be proposing those things for the decision of the Senate.

I instance one proposition that comes out of a reference from Senator McLaren. I have been repeating this ever since I was a Minister for Works. I tried to get a program going for the construction of Commonwealth office buildings that would be adequate to accommodate all government services. Out of five proposals in the six State capitals I got one by a mere accidental afterthought. I will not go into the history of that. However, it is most interesting to me that people will say that Hobart was granted a building because I was a Minister from that city. Nothing of the sort. A building was constructed in Hobart for about $4m. Today the same building would cost $14m. In the meantime payments in the nature of interest and rental have been saved. Yet I find that the Government under division 135.0.1 is paying rent of $53m for private office space, rising each year at the rate of $4m or $5m. This is the greatest diseconomy that could occur, for two reasons. If one reads the report of the National Capital Development Commission in Canberra one will see that there has been a downturn in construction. The fact that we are applying our restricted expenditure economy proposals to capital construction of a productive nature is, I think, shortsighted in the extreme. To apply those proposals to surplus excessive expenditure such as things that are unnecessary, is the way to get money back into relation to earning power. But, for goodness sake, let capital productive works proceed and they, once built, will earn their own reward and create increasing employment. Instead of that we are restricting our capital works and allowing private enterprise to inflate the economy, as it has in Sydney, where there are acres of vacant office space of two or three years standing that should have been built by the Commonwealth two or three years ago. The fault was just as obvious in the time of the Labor Administration so Senator Georges need not chuckle. All I am pointing out is that we should build our capital works. We should not pay rent on private property when we could accommodate much more economically our own services by building.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I notice that group A consists of quite a number of items and I would like information on some of them. However, time at this stage will not permit me to seek all of the information I require but I hope that at some later stage I can get some information.

I am concerned about two points referred to by Senator Wright I would like to clear up some matters raised by the honourable senator in respect to buildings that house Commonwealth offices. I was Minister for Works when Labor came to power and I took up the question of Commonwealth offices. Previous governments seemed to have some arrangement whereby every time an insurance company built a multistorey block the Commonwealth would rent sufficient accommodation in that new building for the purpose of paying the cost of construction in return for the insurance company investing 30 percentofitsinvestmentsinCommonwealth loans.

Senator Wright:

– There is no foundation for that, Senator. You are very wrong in saying that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-There was some agreement in this respect. The Commonwealth occupies nine floors of the AMP building in Adelaide. An agreement was made for the Australian Taxation Office to rent office space in the Advertiser building in Adelaide on the basis that the cost of construction would be paid for in 7½ years. I approached Mr Daly who was then the Minister for Services and Property about this. He agreed that something should be done. We were concerned about the size of the rental the Commonwealth was paying to the insurance company and also about clauses in rental agreement which tied up the Commonwealth insofar as every time an alteration had to be made to fittings, such as partitions in the office, the work had to be done by the insurance company’s subcontractor. They were the only people who worked in the building. The insurance company’s sub-contractor had to be accepted by the Commonwealth, whatever his price was, and the price was astronomical. We were paying heavily for every alteration that was made in Commonwealth buildings. Mr Daly and I agreed to do something about it. I approached the Department of Works in respect of drawing up plans for the John Bull site in Currie Street, Adelaide. Mr Reiner, head of the Department of Works, told me that the Department had made investigations a few years previously and that it was not keen on building multi-storey Commonwealth office blocks in congested areas in capital cities because of the number of employees who would be in such an area. The Department some years previously had been offered a site in Adelaide at the old tram depot in Victoria Square, Angus Street, or alternatively a big area at the Richards store on the Anzac Highway at Keswick. He said that the Department would be more interested in getting those sites if they were still available rather than obtaining a site right in the centre of the city. While he was making investigations Mr Daly came to me and said that because of the rent the Commonwealth was paying he thought it should go to the extent of buying a building that was already in the process of being erected. He asked me to defer a decision until such time as the Commonwealth could build its own building which would take about three to five years. He bought the Commonwealth block in King William Street, a new multi-storey building that was then not completed but was being built by private enterprise for the purpose of housing the Taxation Office and some other Commonwealth offices. It is still insufficient. I am pleased to say that the Simpson site is to be the location of the Commonwealth buildings. It is in Wakefield Street which is not such a congested area as

Currie Street. I think it will make a suitable location for Commonwealth offices but speed now is necessary, as Senator Wright mentioned, in view of what it is costing the Commonwealth to rent offices in which other people have the equity.

The other thing I want to mention is the low image of Parliament referred to by Senator Douglas McClelland. Since I have been in this Chamber I have been proud of the Senate and have tried to raise its prestige as much as I could. Only the other day I objected to the Senate accepting what the other House decided on a matter and said that we should not just accept it. The Senate had some prestige until 1974 when it rejected a money Bill in order to defeat a government. Now the Senate has no prestige in the eyes of the Australian community which declares: You are simply bludging in the Senate. It has no purpose. ‘ It was accepted as a House of review before then; now it is the House that can reject governments. It is the rubber stamp of government and a government cannot operate unless it has a majority in the Senate. Any value it had in the public image has disappeared.

Senator Wright referred to section 57 of the Constitution dealing with the power of the Senate to reject or to request an alteration in money Bills. I do not know that this section has ever been interpreted as relating to want of confidence in the government. During his speech Senator Wright incorporated material containing a lot of history about what other Parliaments have done but we will not know the value of his speech until we have read it in Hansard and have researched the incorporated material. I thought the suggestion contained in that material was that we should try to get some agreement on such Bills. A recognition of the Senate’s power to request amendments lends itself to some agreements. Only today we discussed increased appropriations for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation although we are to set up a new establishment. However, pending that, we will increase the appropriation for the existing organisation which a royal commission found was not a satisfactory organisation, and was one that even acted unlawfully. We are quite within our rights in those circumstances in requesting a reduction of the appropriation of ASIO until such time as a better organisation is set up. I think this would be a reasonable ground for such a request. Perhaps we should have a system of conference by which to determine whether we will appropriate $X this year or reduce the amount by $Y.

While we always had the power to request amendments or to reject money Bills no one ever accepted that we had the power to dismiss a government.

Senator Sim:

– Murphy did.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No one ever thought we had the power to dismiss a government but if Senator Sim holds that view then let me amend my remark and say that only one person thought that we had the power to dismiss a government. I hope that pleases Senator Sim. By not rejecting but by deferring a Bill until such time as the people’s elected government submitted itself to the people was a complete distortion and betrayal of the Senate ‘s responsibility.

Senator Sim:

– Whitlam advocated that and so did Murphy. Why did you not argue against them?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That hastened the day when there was little respect for the Senate. Senator Wright’s desire to reform the conference role of the two Houses for the purpose of deciding on an allocation of money does not get over the fact that the Senate has rejected the peoples’ elected government.

Senator Wright:

– We deferred a money Bill and asked the Government to go to an election.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Let us be honest about it.

Senator Sim:

– You be honest.

Senator Walters:

-Be honest. Who put you out? The people chose.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Let us not argue about that. In 1975 the Senate refused to pass a Supply Bill until such time as the Government submitted itself to the decision of the people.

Senator Wright:

-Hear! Hear!

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is right. That was the position and whatever else is said that is the fact. For the first time we found that the Senate had the power to dismiss the elected government of the people and that is a power which the people never thought this Chamber possessed. While that power exists there can never be respect for this chamber. Senator Sim said that we tried to do the same thing when former Senator Murphy was Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber, and the occasion may arise when the Opposition would try to do the same thing again, but no one can say that that would be correct. Anyone who has the concern of the Senate at heart must advocate an alteration to that section of the Constitution so that when deciding what figure we shall appropriate we cannot again use the power which the Senate assumed and operated under before. The Senate can never regain its prestige and the previous public opinion of it until it abandons the power which it has now. As well as reconsidering the role of the Senate we must look at the powers of the Governor-General whose decision on the operations of the Senate can be superior even to that of both Houses of the Parliament.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I intervene again only because three honourable senators have spoken and I do not wish to lose the trend of what they have said. Senator Sibraa again raised the matter of Government expenditure cuts. We are all about to go electioneering and if he intends to advocate as part of his election platform that there ought to be greater government expenditure, I hope he will be honest enough to tell the people where he will get the money. I can tell him now that he can get it from only one of two sources. He can either raise it in taxes or he can print it. There is no other way in which he can get the money. So if he is complaining about the Government’s expenditure cuts and intends saying to the people that the Opposition would reverse them, he should also tell the people how the Opposition would get the money- whether it would raise it by taxation or print it or both.

Senator McLaren:

– Or borrow it, like you are doing.

Senator WITHERS:

-Is Mr Khemlani still working for the Labor Party? The other matter which the honourable senator raised was electoral reform. I do not know what the present Australian Labor Party policy is but, as we are in an election atmosphere, it ought to be clearly made known. Is the Labor Opposition prepared to say that it intends to maintain compulsory enrolment and compulsory preferential voting? If not, let honourable senators opposite stand up and say so. Is that the sort of reform about which they are talking- the abolition of compulsory preferential voting? Senator Sibraa says that the system is too hard. I do not believe that it is hard. After all the millions of dollars that we have poured into education, I would have thought that we had a more educated, more highly sophisticated society than at any other time in this centuryor so many people inform me. But I have always thought that most of the wisest people I have met have been illiterates and that some of the biggest fools I had ever met have been doctors of philosophy.

Senator Colston:

– Thank you very much.

Senator WITHERS:

-I did not quite have the honourable senator in mind. I thank him for reminding me. I am yet to be convinved that people do not understand the preferential voting system. Of course, they do. If they do not understand it, is the whole electoral system to be put into the hands of those who are too stupid to be able to exercise a vote? That is what honourable senators opposite are seeking. In regard to those who are disadvantaged, as Senator Sibraa will know, as a result of some prodding from his colleague Senator Mulvihill, the Australian Electoral Office is gearing up to do quite a deal of work amongst migrants. That is the way to cure the defect. We should educate those who do not understand the system, not change a system that works well. As some honourable senators would know, the Electoral Office has been doing work amongst the Aboriginals. I hope that next year it will do much more work, especially amongst those two groups in the community.

I hope also that there will be an opportunity to do work in the schools, not necessarily just at the secondary level. I think that, as part of citizenship courses, voting systems ought to be taught early. That is the way to cure defects in the system if they exist. I do not think it is terribly destructive of democracy if somebody has to wait for a week or so to know who has won an election. It is more important to get the right result. I thought that there were a number of defects in the American presidential system in which, as I understand it, theoretically a candidate can receive a majority of the electoral college votes without receiving the majority of the popular votes. Speed is not always necessary in elections. There are very few elections in Australia in which we really do not know who has won government by midnight on Saturday night or 2 o ‘clock on Sunday morning.

Senator Wright raised a couple of matters. One was the dwindling importance of Parliament. Senator Cavanagh also adverted to this matter. I rather think that the Senate has improved since I first came to it 12 years agonot because I came here. I would have thought that in recent years the Senate has gained some stature in the community. I think that too many honourable senators underrate the importance and prestige that the Senate has gained, principally through its committee system and not necessarily by indulging in the same mirror-type or sterile debate that takes place in the other place. Honourable senators- including most honourable senators here tonight- work very hard, particularly when working on committees, be they select committees, standing committees or other committees. Only last week Senator Baume, on behalf of his committee the Senate

Standing Committee on Social Welfare, put down a report on drug usage in Australia. Yes, it may be a controversial report. But that does not matter. At least that Senate Committee provided a forum in which many interesting and interested people in Australia could come before it and give evidence on oath. The Committee was able to take that evidence into account and to come to its own conclusions.

The fact that we are having a different style of Estimates debate from that which occurred when I first came here I think indicates a vast improvement. With all the defects which I think all honourable senators would admit the Senate Estimates committees still have- they are not perfect- they still represent an enormous and vast improvement on the investigation of the Appropriation Bills that occurred prior to the commencement of their operation. I know, and I think all honourable senators know, that the Estimates committees have their defects. I congratulate the committees and the chairmen of them who are working so hard to make them work more and more effectively. One result of the commencement of the Estimates committees has been the establishment of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations under the Chairmanship of Senator Rae. As I understand its terms of reference, to some extent that Committee will follow up the matters raised in Estimates committees.

The committee system in this place is an evolving system. It is one that works by evolution and not by revolution. I am one who has enourmous faith and confidence in this chamber and the work it can do in its committee work. I can see in the future, when most probably I will not be here, the Senate being a quite different place from what it was when I first came here in 1966. It is different now, in 1977. 1 think it will be quite different five to ten years hence. I think the worst thing that could happen to the Senate would be for it to remain static. Institutions that remain too static rot or decay. I think the great strength of the Senate has been that honourable senators on all sides have seen it as an evolving House, a House which ought to play a quite different role perhaps from the traditional role in the parliamentary sense that was envisaged for it for so long. It is a House of the Parliament which has been prepared to launch out on new ideas and on new ventures.

We want to retain those ancient committees, if I may refer to them in that way- committees such as the Regulations and Ordinances Committee which has been in operation now for more than 40 years and which has proven itself and done an enormous amount of work- that we have inherited. I hope that in 30 or 40 years time honourable senators will be seeing the benefits of the standing committees and Estimates committees which we have established in our time. I do not despair about the the prestige of the Parliament. The matters raised by Senator Cavanagh in that context I put down as matters of 1975 electioneering. I wish that the honourable senator would come up to date and electioneer in 1977 terms.

Senator Wright dealt with the way in which the American Congress works. Yes, each house of the Congress has an absolute right over its money Bills once it becomes seized of them, and they nave their conferences. But I would be a little wary about putting too much confidence in that son of system because I understand that it also leads to that interesting system which exists in America and which is known as pork- barrelling. I think that one of the great virtues of the system we have is that so far we have not engaged- I hope we never do- in a pork- barrelling exercise between honourable senators and honourable members in the other place.

Senator Georges:

– You would be kidding.

Senator WITHERS:

-It would have to be a fairly big barrel to fit the honourable senator in. Another matter raised by Senator Cavanagh was the perennial argument about whether the Commonwealth Government should rent or build. There can be arguments put for both sides for the matter. I understand Senator Wright’s argument about the necessity for the Commonwealth to have sufficient of its capital works and to own sufficient of its buildings. It is an argument which is understood and I certainly will take note of the remarks he has made.

I again return to what Senator Cavanagh was saying about the Senate. I think it was in 1970 that the then Labor Opposition senators- Senator Cavanagh would nave been one of themwith their allies for the day rejected a Budget Bill- a money Bill- which was to raise $68m or $69m under a receipts duties tax. It was part of the Government’s Budget. It was vital to the Government’s legislative program in the normal sense. But honourable senators opposite had no compunction in for political reasons allying themselves with their hated enemies to throw out a Budget Bill or a money Bill. In fact, they gave great reasons for it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There was a difference between that Bill and an Appropriation Bill.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Cavanagh should not start distinguishing between money

Bills for this and money Bills for that. A money Bill is a money Bill. Let us not draw too fine a distinction. I recall that it was the same group of honourable senators who sought to delay an increase in postage rates at one stage. Honourable senators opposite cannot have it both ways. If they can reject one sort of money Bill they can reject any sort of money Bill. Let us not fool around. The honourable senator said that perhaps the Constitution needs to be amended. I am one of those people who believe that it does need to be amended. I am one of those people who believe in the form of amendment which was put before the Constitutional Convention in Hobart in October last year.

Senator Wright:

– Be careful.

Senator WITHERS:

-For Senator Wright’s benefit, I shall be careful. The amendment to which I refer was to the effect that upon the Senate not passing a money Bill within 30 days the Governor-General shall dissolve both Houses of the Parliament. I believe that that is the proper procedure to be followed. If one House of a Parliament does not like what the other House does we, as members of the Parliament, ought to go back to our masters and either be put back in government or be put to the sword. I think that is a fair enough discipline to be imposed upon members of parliament.

Senator Wright:

– I do not object to that.

Senator WITHERS:

– You do not object to that proposition, Senator?

Senator Wright:

– No.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, I thought you would support it. I am always surprised to think that any honourable senator would want to sit in this place and imagine that he had some sort of eternal life here. I believe that if we come here as servants of the people we should be prepared to return to them and, as I said, either be re-elected or put to the sword.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I had intended to deal mainly with the matter of passport control, which comes under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs, but I cannot let go unanswered a reference which was made to electoral reform. Senator Sibraa mentioned my views, as did the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). I simply make this observation: Last week when we were dealing with the redistribution of electorates Senator Withers drew a very vivid picture of what would happen if we were to have an election at large. He visualised an enormous ballot paper. I simply say respectfully from the previous experience of more than 50 candidates standing for a Senate election in one State, that unless we can guarantee that there will be fluorescent lighting in every polling booth we will find the frequency of errors rising. I do not think it was good for democracy when well over 12 per cent of the votes were informal. I refuse to accept that they were deliberately informal. We can argue about the IQ of voters, but I think even people with a reasonable education become a bit bored, impatient and so on when so many candidates are listed. If they make an error their vote is nullified.

The best illustration of the reform which Senator Douglas McClelland, Senator Sibraa and I have advocated is the situation which exists with the present very staid civic authorities in the Sydney Town Hall. That certainly is not a socialist administration. In their elections I doubt whether they had more than 11 candidates standing for each ward, but they had optional preferences in a situation where they wanted three aldermen. So I do not think this is a revolutionary proposal. I think the best answer I can give the Minister is to point out that in private conversation with at least three divisional returning officers in New South Wales the officers shuddered at the thought of another field of over 50 candidates. Without arguing about excessive deposits, I believe that every candidate was required to have at least an equivalent number of sponsors to the number required in one electorate in the House of Representatives, but if Senate candidates were required to have at least ten sponsors from each New South Wales division it would mean that at least they had some support.

I turn now to the main reason for my entering this debate. Perhaps the Minister could up-date for me information in a letter dated 7 October 1977, a copy of which he has in his hand, concerning the famous William Joseph Flynn passport case, which was featured some weeks ago in the weekend Press in Sydney. I emulate Senator Wright and ask that the letter, a copy of which the Minister has in his hand, be incorporated in Hansard, together with a letter from Mr Maher, the State member for Drummoyne, in which he seeks information on the role of the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

The documents read as follows-

Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs Canberra 7 Oct 1977

Dear Senator,

I am writing in reply to your letter of 14 September 1977 to Mr Peacock about the issue of a passport to a Mr Walter James Flynn, masquerading as Mr William Joseph Flynn.

The reply given to you by Senator Withers on behalf of Mr Peacock was never meant to be more than an interim response as at that stage the Department of Foreign Affairs had not had the time to adequately check whether a passport had been issued to Walter James Flynn.

Investigations have now established that one Walter James Flynn was issued with a passport in Brisbane and there is strong evidence to suggest that he falsely used the identity of Mr Flynn who is a member of the Australian Railways Union. In these circumstances the matter has been referred to the appropriate authorities to see what legal action can be taken in the light of the known circumstances. Australian posts overseas have also been advised that the passport is not valid as it was falsely obtained and all other possible steps will be taken to recover the document from the bearer.

In reply to your more general question in the Senate the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, through Senator Withers, that the issue of a passport is subject to certain requirements similar to those which apply elsewhere in the world. So that you will be in no doubt as to what these requirements are I attach a passport application form which sets out the conditions which must be fulfilled before an Australian passport can be issued. You will note that nearly all the requirements are designed to establish the correct identity of the applicant, precisely because a passport should be proof of citizenship and identity, so the bearer, as an Australian, can be assisted in his or her travel, by other Governments.

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Senator for New South Wales. Australian Parliament Offices, Chifley Square, SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2000.

It may interest you to know that more than 350,000 passports were issued in Australia in 1976 and about 1.2 million passports are believed to be currently valid. Despite the large volume of passports on issue the known incidence of malpractice is extremely small. Successive Governments have maintained under constant review passport procedures with a view to making the documents more difficult to forge or obtain by false pretences. In fact, this whole question has been the subject of a particularly intensive review in the first part of this year by a group of officials, including representatives from Prime Minister and Cabinet, Attorney-Generals, the Departments of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Consumer Affairs, and appropriate law enforcement agencies. Particular attention was given in the course of this study to the problem of white collar crime and the control of passports, to prevent those suspected of it from leaving the country. As a result of this examination, which was instigated by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Cabinet will soon be considering proposals to amend the Passports Act, which include harsher penalties and the establishment of permanent committees to keep various aspects under review.

Additional to this exercise the Department of Foreign Affairs, as a matter of course, follows developments throughout the world for making passports more secure. Where new methods are considered to have reduced malpractice, be it forgery or some other form of falsification, changes will be introduced as practicable. The Department is also introducing new monitoring techniques such as microfiche, visual display units and computer processing which will enable it to exercise even tighter control over passports in the future.

I was concerned at your unsubstantiated remark to Senator Withers to the effect that applicants for passports get the run-around’ in Sydney and Brisbane. It is this Government’s wish that the services it offers the public be as efficient, expeditious and as courteous as possible. Therefore, should you have any hard information about problems encountered by applicants in obtaining passports I would be pleased to receive it, so that urgent remedial action can be taken. I am advised, however, that public complaints about passports services are few and that, when these are investigated, many prove to be unwarranted. This of course in no way lessens the Department’s interest in knowing where the service falls down so it can be corrected.

As you suggested a letter will be sent to Mr William Joseph Flynn regretting any inconvenience he may have suffered because Mr Walter James Flynn apparently used his identity to obtain a passport. Even though the issue of the passport was in no way the fault of the passport issuing officer, Mr Walter James Flynn having falsely represented himself and misled a reputable witness, you may be assured that Mr Flynn of the Australian Railways Union will encounter no difficulties should he apply for a passport.

Your sincerely,

Ian Sinclair

Parliament of New South Wales Legislative Assembly 106 Lyons Road Drummoyne 2047 Telephone 81-5562 26th October, 1977

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Australian Government Offices, Chifley Square, SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2000

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of copy letter dated 7th October from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Canberra following my representation on behalf of my Constituent, Mr William Joseph Flynn.

I note in the last paragraph of the letter, the Minister states no fault can be attributed to the Department of Foreign Affairs in issuing the Passport.

Will you kindly ascertain exactly how the Passport was issued and what check was made to establish the identity of the person seeking the Passport.

If it transpired that a birth certificate was obtained in the name of William Joseph Flynn, it would appear that the State Authorities are involved.

I shall await your reply.

Your faithfully,

Michael Maher M.L.A. Member for Drummoyne

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The Minister would know that in that lengthy reply from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Ian Sinclair, which I have incorporated, it was stated that a committee was looking at passport control reform. It was stated also that efforts were being made probably to prosecute somebody for impersonation. I simply ask the Minister whether he is prepared to comment on whether the New South Wales Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Sydney might have been lax or, if the Minister is not sure, whether the Registrar’s methods are being checked to see whether they are effective. That is my first plea.

The second case I mention, which I think is equally important, has some Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs overtones. I refer to a case in which two Indonesian nationals are facing deportation and a controversy surrounds the fact that they have two children who were born in Australia. I certainly am not going to argue with Senator Withers the pros and cons of the deportation as that is a matter which I can deal with with the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, at a later stage in this debate. But this is a very unusual situation. I have never heard of such a case before. It amazes me that two people who are not citizens of this country but who had children born while they were in transit here were given Australian passports. There might be reasons for this. I think the Minister will agree that perhaps somebody has fumbled the ball. I do not know whether false information was given at the immigration end or perhaps even at the passport section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. But I do think this case merits some explanation of what the real position is. Off the top of my head I always say that if a couple are in Australia and the woman has a child while she is here, that does not make the offspring an Australian citizen. I am open to correction if I am wrong.

The last matter which I wish to raise deals also with passport control and relates to an answer I received from* the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to question on notice No. 1 134 relating to a Donald Phillip McMahon of Revesby Heights and Jannette Moule of Penshurst, who were heavily involved in narcotics peddling, which regrettably is becoming a way of life for some people- it is a part of white collar crime. I notice that this answer includes the following statement:

Both defendants were in possession of Australian passports when arrested. The convictions of both defendants have been drawn to the attention of the Department of Foreign Affairs which, under the Minister, administers the Passports Act 1938.

I just wonder, with all due respect, whether the Minister can indicate to me, in view of the laxity which apparently occurred in the Flynn episode, whether we are rightly applying a heavy hand to people to stop them from using an Australian passport to make money and, in the process, to lead a lot of other people into living a hideous life once they are hooked on drugs. Those are the matters on passport control on which I should like some answers.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish briefly to respond to what the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) said about staff ceilings. He dismissed Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s arguments with a general statement which seemed to indicate that there was no substance in the representations which had been made by staff organisations and by honourable senators, including myself. I think the Minister will probably recall that many questions have been directed to him and to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Durack, in which we to a large extent supported the arguments of the staff associations which claimed that in many departments staff ceilings which had been applied under the direction of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and reinforced by various Ministers were impeding the work of the departments.

Evidence of that exists in the two glaring cases of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Social Security. I think the Minister will recall that I made the claim that the Commonwealth Employment Service was not functioning properly. Following that the Norgard inquiry was set up and later the Myer inquiry. The result was that there was a quite extensive recruitment of labour in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and finally in the Department of Social Security, after about 18 months of complaints from and action by the unions and from within the Department. An additional 300 staff members were recruited. In addition to that, as the Minister might remember, I brought to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) the fact that it had been stated in evidence given before the Estimates Committees that on a number of occasions staff ceilings had embarrassed the Industries Assistance Commission. What I am putting to the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) is that staff ceilings, even now with some relaxation, can impede what might be a progress to suitable employment in the Public Service which would absorb a lot of young people who cannot get jobs. They were arbitary ceilings in the first place. They have been relaxed by persuasion and the agitation of staff organisations supported to some extent by the Opposition. I suggest that the Government might well give consideration to relaxing the ceilings again so that more people may be employed in the Public Service.

I also refer to the case of apprentices. Twelve months ago or more I raised the matter of the employment of apprentices. In all Commonwealth departments the figures on the recruitment of apprentices were lower than they had been in any previous 12 month period. The South Australian Government and some other governments had, in fact, increased the number of apprentices employed. Those numbers were satisfactory. The Government has proposed other measures which have been partly successful. I put to the Government and to the Minister in relation to his own responsibilities that the evidence I have given indicates that the Government might well consider making sure that the staff ceilings do not inhibit the recruitment of skilled staff. Certain staff ceilings have been imposed by an arbitrary action on some statutory corporations such as the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Postal Commission. They have prevented the recruitment of increased numbers of staff by those commissions.

I shall add one or two points to the saga of the Commonwealth office block in South Australia. It must be 12 years since I raised in the Senate the need for building a Commonwealth centre. Previous Ministers for Works all accepted the need to build a Commonwealth centre. Senator Wright, the Minister for Works in the previous Liberal-Country Party Government, indicated that approximately $500,000 was being paid in rents by the Commonwealth Government to private organisations in South Australia which, as he well amplified, was unsatisfactory. That amount would now have increased to about Sim a year. I am looking for a continuing commitment by the Government, in addition to what Senator Cavanagh amplified, that there will be finally in South Australia a Commonwealth centre which will house some of the 27 departments now scattered around the Adelaide metropolitan area. The present facilities are not as convenient as would be provided in a central building. The Minister’s answer to me today indicated that there is a continuing commitment to that project. I hope that if there is any departure from that commitment he will so indicate.

There is one other important matter in relation to the Commonwealth office block which was raised by Opposition senators during the period of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. It concerns the Australian Mutual Provident Society building. Our questions prompted an inquiry into the fire hazards of the AMP building in South Australia as a result of which Senator Wright obtained an opinion from the South Australian Fire Brigade. This is a building of 16 floors. It has a communications system with the South Australian Fire Brigade which is the main resort to fire protection. In recent times it has been amply demonstrated that enclosed staircases and unsatisfactory draughts may well be a smoke and fire hazard. Some of the staff have spoken to me about this matter. I have suggested that they discuss it on a staff basis amongst themselves and that if they want senators from both parties to take up the matter they should let us know. The staff are conscious of the hazards. I do not want to high note the issue but I should like the Minister to give it some examination, including the advice which Senator Wright received in respect of the opinion of the South Australian Fire Brigade when he was Minister for Works.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I pursue further the remarks I made earlier on the question of staff ceilings. They have been subsequently supplemented by my colleagues Senator Sibraa and Senator Bishop. On the expiration of the first 15 minutes in which I spoke I referred to a reply to question No. 984 on 16 August. The Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) stated that since 1 January 1976 a total of 553 offices of the Department of Administrative Services have been abolished. On page 120 of the report of Senate Estimates Committee A there is a table headed ‘Summary of Vacancies Public Service Act. Staff Department of Administrative Services (excluding Australian Electoral Office and National Library)’. The total number of vacancies throughout Australia to which I previously referred is 682, some 320 of them being in the Australian Capital Territory. When those figures were placed in front of the Minister he responded by saying that the Public Service is under challenge and that, unquestionably, we have a Public Service which is now down to an efficient level. The Minister challenged the Labor Party to say that it will increase the size of the Public Service.

I shall cite one or two instances of which the Minister should take cognisance. After all, he is responsible for the administration of the National Library. In its annual report for 1976-77 the National Library Council outlined the effects that staff ceilings are having on the Library and the concern it feels about the long term consequences of such actions. It said:

The reduction in staff is leading to arrears of work which will seriously affect future services.

This is one area of administration for which the Minister is responsible to the Parliament yet he has the audacity to say that the Public Service is not being impaired in efficiency as a result of the staff ceilings. Let us look at the last annual report of the Public Service Board which was placed before the Parliament recently.

Senator Bishop:

– Six weeks ago.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As my colleague Senator Bishop said, it was six weeks ago. The report states:

The extent to which staff restrictions have been imposed has, however, led to problems in some areas. At various times throughout the year the Board has been informed of difficulties in providing prompt and efficient services to the public, maintaining professional and technical services, meeting peak work loads and in the expeditious handling of correspondence.

I will not bore the Committee with a dissertation on all the extracts that the Public Service Board has tendered in its annual report. It also states:

From time to time representations have been made by ministers to the Prime Minister and by departments to the Board bringing to notice particular staffing problems. For example, difficulties were reported with the operations of the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Senator Bishop mentioned that;

Northern Territory hospitals and rehabilitation centres, with the processing of unemployment benefits and with the administration of changes in the pensions means test.

Might I interpolate to say that all of those matters are of great importance to the under privileged section of the Australian community today. The report continues:

These representations have been considered by the interdepartmental committee on staff ceilings, comprising representatives of the Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board. The Committee has prepared reports to be used by the Prime Minister in making decisions on staff ceiling matters. As a result, in some cases individual departmental ceilings have been increased. In others, approvals have been given for departments to exceed their ceilings for a time to enable them to meet peak workloads.

That surely implies that for some time the Public Service Board has agreed that the efficiency of the Public Service was being impaired. I quote further:

The Board has had regular consultation with staff organisations on staff ceiling matters.

Then, on another page the Public Service Board says:

There are also indications that the restrictions are adversely affecting the efficiency of the Service in the longer term.

Then it sets out a number of instances and goes on to say:

In current circumstances it is the Board’s view that any further general reductions in staff ceilings would call for corresponding decisions by the Government to forgo functions or reduce standards of service.

That report was dated 30 June 1977 and yet, if one turns to the Budget papers presented to this Parliament last August, one sees a statement on page 16 as follows:

Since 30 June 1975 the number of public servants in employment areas covered by staff ceilings has fallen by about 12,500. The staff ceilings now set for 30 June 1978 imply a further reduction of over 3,000- or about one per cent- during 1977-78.

In the light of the statement of the National Library that its efficiency is being impaired, in the light of the Public Service Board’s statement that efficiency is being impaired, if the Minister wants to go to the Australian public and say he believes that irrespective of the efficiency or otherwise of the Public Service there has to continue to be a reduction in staff in order to keep down government expenditure, and thus deprive young school leavers of job opportunities, that is a matter for him. I say here and now that when the Labor movement gets on to the hustings it will not be saying what the Minister is saying now.

Having responded on that matter, I come to division 161 of the Estimates, relating to the appropriation for the National Library. In this year’s Budget although there was, I believe, an addition of some $400,000 to the budget of the National Library, in real terms this year the Library’s budget was cut by about $ 1.2m- taking inflation into account- as compared with that for last year. As set out in the annual report of the National Library, this cut in funding has necessitated drastic cutbacks in staff levels during the present Government’s term in office. The existing staff ceiling is 710, which is 1 19 below the establishment of 829, but the actual reduction in staff during the last two years is difficult to gauge, as previous figures for staff levels have been unavailable. However, the effects these cutbacks had on the functioning of the National Library were made very clear in the departmental explanations prepared for Senate Estimates Committee A. If one goes to page 414 of the explanatory notes on the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services one sees there the statement that because of shortage of funds the hours of work have in recent years been reduced, resulting in considerable criticism, despite the care that is taken to ensure, in selecting noun of opening, that the least inconvenience possible is caused to users.

There is an admission that, because of shortage of funds, the hours of opening have in recent years had to be reduced. As I have mentioned already, the annual report of the National Library Council for 1976-77 outlines the effect of staff cutbacks on the work of the Library and the concern of the Council about the long term consequences of such action. On pages eight and 15 the annual report of the National Library for 1976-77 states that:

The Council is concerned that the Library’s accommodation is seriously inadequate and considers that additional space is required urgently. An increasing part of the National collection is being housed in corridors and other unsatisfactory areas where it is subject to loss and damage. In many instances the material is irreplaceable.

A committee of inquiry was established and has taken evidence on the needs of public libraries throughout Australia. That report was commissioned by the Whitlam Labor Government and was tendered to the present Government in April 1976. It pointed out all of the things pointed out by the National Library Council in its annual report to the Parliament. The Horton Committee which inquired into national libraries said that as a matter of urgency, if not extreme urgency, the sum of $ 19.6m had to be made available in the ensuing financial year in order to get things underway and ensure that the circumstances subsequently reported to the Parliament by the National Library Council were remedied. That Committee was appointed in March 1975 and chaired by Mr R. A. Horton who was, I believe, the chief librarian of the University of New South Wales. Special efforts were made to complete the Committee’s work early in 1976 so that a beginning on its moderate and responsible proposed 10-year program could be made in planning for the 1976-77 Budget. In its report the Committee stated that it hoped that its proposed public libraries and information council and State joint committees would be set up not later than 30 June 1976 to plan allocation of the suggested provision of $ 19.9m in the 1976-77 Budget. The fact is that the public libraries of Australia received no allocation of funds from this Government either in the 1976-77 Budget or the 1977-78 Budget.

On 9 March 1977 I gave notice that I would move in this Parliament under the heading of General Business that, in the opinion of the Senate, there had been a failure of the Government to act on the Horton Committee’s recommendations and the subject should be considered as a matter of urgency. Additionally, of course, numerous questions have been asked in an effort to obtain some statement from the Government as to its. views on the Committee’s recommendations. I raised the subject only a fortnight ago and in effect the Minister said in response, ‘Well, committees of this nature do make recommendations as to the way in which money should be expended but not as to the way in which money should be raised’. All the Committee is doing is asking for a mere $ 19.9m to be spent in one financial year and for such expenditure to be continued over a period of 10 years to enable libraries throughout Australia to be brought up to date and to standards comparable with those enjoyed by people of other nations throughout the world. The Government’s failure to act upon the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries is scandalous and certainly will be used against it by the Labor movement and the people of Australia when they cast their votes at the forthcoming Federal election.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I will reply to the comments of honourable senators each time after three honourable senators have spoken so that I will be able to keep up to date with what is said. I will obtain the information sought by Senator Mulvihill concerning passports. It would appear that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is not the only body doing some work on this matter. I understand that on 4 October Senator Mulvihill put down a reference for the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence concerning all aspects of the current Australian passport system. I think it is fair to say that we all look forward to the findings of that Committee in this area. The honourable senator also asked me a number of detailed questions. I will seek that information for him as quickly as I can from my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in the other place. As to Senator Mulvihill ‘s remarks on electoral reform-

Senator Mulvihill:

– Optional preference.

Senator WITHERS:

-I think we had a great debate on optional preference in this chamber in the 1974-75 period. There is an argument for it. I have no doubt that the Commonwealth Electoral Office would like to have it as it would make its task easier. But, after all, the idea of having an election is to make certain that the right government is elected and not to make things easier for anybody in the community. Some people want to put crosses on their ballot papers and others want to have photographs on them. What is wrong with the present system? I think it works well. People understand it. We do not get the distortionsin our electoral system that occur in other electoral systems. It certainly is not uncommon in the United Kingdom, with its first past the post system, for a party to get 60 per cent of the seats with 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the votes.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They can do that in Queensland with a lower percentage.

Senator WITHERS:

-I would not know about that. Let us talk about the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which is legislation for which I am responsible. Rarely does it not return a government according to the wishes of the electorate. As I think I said many times in Opposition, between 1949 and 1975, with the exception of one occasion, the party or parties that obtained the greatest number of votes gained office. The exception was the 1954 election, which the Australian Labor Party should have won. It was held on the boundaries that the Labor Party drew up in 1948; so it had no reason for complaint. After all, the election was held on its boundaries and the funny way in which it drew them. Apart from that oddity, all the House of Representatives elections from 1949 to 1975 showed that the party or parties that obtained the greatest popular vote attained or retained office.

As to the matter of fire hazards in the AMP building, which was raised by Senator Bishop, I will have the report that was given to Senator Wright taken out and I will look at it personally. I will let the honourable senator know the result of my investigations. If I do not understand some of the report I will call upon him for assistance, if I may. The balance of Senator Bishop’s remarks and almost the whole of what Senator Douglas McClelland said was about staff ceilings in the Public Service. Nothing in life is perfect. I do not suppose that there would be one group in Australia that would not like -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Life was not meant to be easy.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator is quite right. No matter which walk of life one looks at, there is not one group of people in Australia who would not like to have more bodies and more money. Whether one looks at the public sector or the private sector and no matter what endeavour of life one may like to imagine, there is not one group of people in the community who would not say: ‘If only we had more people and more money we would be better’. I doubt the accuracy of that statement. I do not believe that it is necessarily true. I say to Senator Douglas McClelland that he should not make over-much of the figures he quoted earlier. For a start, he ought to realise that there was a reorganisation in the Department of Administrative Services, which was formed out of a number of other departments. I have responsibility for parts of the former Department of the Media, parts of the former Department of Services and Property and parts of the former Department of the Special Minister of State, as well as other bodies within the Department of Administrative Services. A reorganisation took place and functions as well as bodies were dispensed with. That ought to be remembered. If one is not carrying out functions one does not need the bodies to do them.

As to the figures that Senator Douglas McClelland has been using concerning the number of vacancies, I say to the honourable senator that there are always vacancies in the Public Service. Vacancies are caused by deaths, resignations and transfers. No government department since 1900 has been without vacancies. I understand that the number of vacancies in a department at any one time could be anywhere between 5 per cent and 7 per cent. When somebody who has applied for a job is successful in his application and leaves his former job the former job has to be advertised before it can be filled. It could remain vacant for some time. If one went to any department at any time during the week and asked whether it had vacancies one would find that it had vacancies. One does not fill those vacancies just by pulling people from the market place outside. They are normally vacancies that will be filled from within the Public Service by people transferring to them and thereby creating other vacancies. I think there is a misunderstanding of what happens within the Public Service. There has been talk about the Department of Administrative Services having 600 vacancies. The Department is made up of all sorts of bodies and probalbly would have about 1 1 ,000 people in it. It is nothing for it to have 600 vacancies because of deaths, retirements and transfers both within the Department and between departments.

I ought also to inform the Senate that the staff ceilings are not the problem. One of the main problems is to find the right people to fill existing positions. There seems to be some peculiar idea around that, if there is a shortage of people in the Commonwealth Employment Service, all of a sudden one can find 200 people who are expert in the matters covered by it. One does not just take the first 200 people off the street and say: You are now experts. You can be competent Commonwealth Employment Service officers’. One has to recruit them and train them. Somehow or other, I think there is a total misunderstanding around the place about how the members of the Public Service are both recruited and trained. It is only natural that the Public Service Board should say what it said. If Senator Douglas McClelland were to put a fair and reasonable interpretation upon what the Board said he would find that the Board was only saying what any employer in the public or private sector would be saying in the same circumstances, namely: ‘There are peaks in the work load when people are put under pressure. There are most probably periods when things are a bit slack. There are periods when we are not doing as well as we might because the staff ceiling is a bit hard there, but the matter of staff is always a matter of adjustment? I think all honourable senators would know from their experience in this place that at times enormous work loads are put upon them.

As to the matters raised about the National Library, I imagine that if the National Library had twice the money and three times the building it has it then would be asking for ten times the money to buy collections to fill that building. It is an ever-evolving situation. I come back to what I said earlier: If Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s party is going out to campaign on filling up the Public Service and expanding the Public Service, it is welcome and entitled to do so; but, in all decency, it should tell us from where it is going to get the money. Is it going to get it from taxes or is it going to print it? Those are the only two options.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I takeit that the question is not yet being put; so I raise the matter -

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question:

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Chairman having reported accordingly-

page 1919

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

page 1920

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Beef Industry: Cyclone Damage (Question No. 618)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:

Will the Minister indicate the damages and stock losses suffered by the beef industry in North Queensland, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, the Tableland area and Cape York, as a result of the disastrous cyclone season in Queensland this year.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I apologise to the honourable senator for the delay in providing the information he sought. This was due, in part, to the fact that figures were not readily available and those which I now give may not represent the final losses resulting from Cyclone ‘Ted’

The best estimates available are that:

a) property damage accrued to the value of approximately $1,736,000, the two largest single categories being 55 windmills ($21 1,000) 2,400 km of fencing ($1,400,000).

stock losses involved 73,000 cattle, 180,000 sheep and 400 horses to a total value of approximately $4,950,000.

Department of Administrative Services: Publications (Question No. 994)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the publishing program of the Department of Administrative Services for 1977 yet been determined.
  2. What publications have been approved by the Minister for 1 977, in respect of his Department.
  3. What publications have been submitted for approval, but have been rejected for 1977, in respect of the Department of Administrative Services.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. The Departmental list is very exhaustive but the following are the major items in the program.

    1. Reports including annual reports- 1976 Cocos Island; 1976 Christmas Island; 1976 Norfolk Island; Grants Commission 44th Annual; Independent Inquiry into CSIRO; Royal Commission on Human Relationships; Australian War Memorial; Commonwealth Fire Board; Commonwealth Police; Remuneration Tribunal; Academic Salaries.
    2. Annual and or regular publications- Commonwealth Record; Commonwealth Government Directory; Commonwealth Government Gazette; Australia Handbook 77/78; Australia in Brief 77/78; Australia Now (several volumes); Commonwealth Police Gazettes and Bulletins; Australian Police College Journal. (iti) Manuals, guides, handbooks, and information publications- Guide to Commonwealth’s Rental Scheme for Staff Housing; Stay Alive (Survival Manual); Buying an Existing Home; Buying a Home Site; History of Norfolk Island through Art (tentative title); Weekly, Monthly and Cumulative Lists of Government Publications; Access Manual-Australian Archives; General Orders- Commonwealth Police; Protective Forces and Persistent Drug Offenders Handbooks- Commonwealth Police; General Disposal Schedule Manual- Australian Archives.
    3. Illustrations-A.I.S. Art Calendar 1978; Fire Extinguisher Poster; Mounting and indication of fire equipment; Reference Papers- Australian Information Services.
    4. Reprints, revised editions-The Government and the People 1942-1945-Australian War Memorial; Style Manual.
    5. Miscellaneous- Various Forms of Diversions and Associated Organisations, Newsletters, Leaflets etc.
    6. Nil.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry: Viability (Question No. 1107)

Senator Baume:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. Has the Minister’s Department been undertaking an examination of the viability of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia.
  2. Is the Minister in a position to advise the Senate in the near future of the results of such an inquiry.
  3. If not, can the Minister indicate how the results of the inquiry will be handled and how they will be made public
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Depanment of Industry and Commerce has conducted a study into the viability of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry and I have recently received its report on the study.
  2. and (3) The findings of the study are now under review by the relevant departments. A report on the outcome of this review will shortly be submitted to Ministers. An announcement on any decisions subsequently taken by the Government will be made as appropriate.

Naval Personnel: Repatriation Benefits (Question No. 1221)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Were personnel who served in the Australian Navy off Vietnam required to do 29 consecutive days’ war service to be entitled to repatriation benefits.
  2. Did the vessels H.M.A.S. Hobart and H.M.A.S. Perth serve for periods of 28 days, withdraw for one day, and return to war service for a further period not exceeding 28 days, thus depriving the serving personnel of any opportunity to qualify for repatriation benefits.
  3. To what benefits, if any, are personnel who served on H.M.A.S. Melbourne and who suffered ill effects as the result of the collision between that vessel and the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans entitled.
  4. Is it a fact that Australian Navy personnel who served on land for short periods in Vietnam are not entitled to any repatriation benefits, because they were not attached to any unit while there.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. A member of the Defence Force who served on special service is eligible for repatriation benefits in respect of any period during which he was outside Australia and he or his unit was allotted for special duty in a special area. The waters surrounding the coast of South Vietnam are prescribed as a special area under the Repatriation (Special Areas) Regulations.
  2. No. These ships were outside Australia and their crews were allotted for special service for the following periods:

H.M.A.S. Hobart from 7 March 1 967 to 27 September 1967, from 22 March 1968 to 1 1 October 1968, and from 16 March 1970 to 9 October 1970.

H.M.A.S. Perth from 2 September 1967 to 10 April 1968, from 19 September 1968 to 12 April 1969, and from 14 September 1970 to 8 April 1971.

  1. No repatriation benefits. The crew of H.M.A.S. Melbourne were not allotted for special service.
  2. Naval personnel who served on land in Vietnam are eligible for full repatriation benefits if they were allotted for special service themselves or were members of a unit which was allotted for special service. Personnel who were not allotted for special service but who were incapacitated in Vietnam as a result of action by hostile forces are also eligible for full repatriation benefits.

Motor Vehicle Registration, Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 1233)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 1 9 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) How does the Minister justify the decision of the Government to increase registration fees on small cars, by more than 100 per cent in some cases, in the Australian Capital Territory, in view of the Government’s decision to increase the price of crude oil and petroleum products in order to encourage energy conservation.
  2. Is not this decision against the interests of energy conservation in transport.
  3. Is the Minister not aware that such action will discourage a rapid consumer change to small and more energyefficient cars.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) When motor vehicle registration fees in the ACT were increased recently the opportunity was taken to introduce a flat original registration fee of$81 and a flat renewal fee of $56 for all motor vehicles up to 2 tonnes in weight. This was a break with the tradition that registration fees for all vehicles be proportional to weight. This assumed that owners of larger vehicles had the ability to pay higher charges and that the heavier the vehicle the greater the wear and tear on roads.

Now many small cars are expensive to purchase and use, hence size is not necessarily a reflection of the user’s capacity to pay registration fees.

Wear and tear studies indicate that the difference in deterioration of road pavements for vehicles up to 2 tonnes in weight is insignificant.

The traditional approach has not recognised that the size or cost of a motor car has no relevance to the level of traffic management and enforcement required by a community nor the resources needed to carry out registration procedures.

  1. and (3) Neither the flat first registration fee nor the renewal fee are considered to be significant factors affecting purchasing decisions when compared with the original price of a vehicle and other costs such as comprehensive and third party insurance, annual running and maintenance. The action taken is not expected to affect trends towards smaller cars and consequently the interests of energy conservation in transport should not be affected.

Floral Arrangements for The Queen’s Visit (Question No. 1260)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 August 1977:

With respect to the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 190 (Senate Hansard, 26 April 1977, page 977), what additional cost was incurred by engaging a Melbourne florist rather than utilising the services of Canberra florists.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

In my answer to question No. 388 (Hansard, 3 June 1977, pages 2049-50) I stated that tenders were not called for providing the floral arrangements for the Lodge and Parliament House during the visit of The Queen.

Accordingly, it is not known what difference (if any) there would have been between the cost of engaging a Melbourne florist rather than utilising the services of Canberra florists.

In my answer to question No. 388 I also stated that there were several precedents for bringing persons skilled in various fields to Canberra for receptions in Parliament House. By way of example I mention that the previous Government brought artists and a dance band to Canberra, without calling public tenders, for the reception following the opening of the 28th Parliament on 27 February 1 973 at a cost of $6,269 which was far higher than the cost of bringing floral decorators to Canberra for the reception for The Queen earlier this year.

Allocation of Commonwealth Funds to Queensland Government (Question No. 1274)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) What funds, if any, were allocated by the Commonwealth to the Queensland Government for matters encompassed by the Ministers portfolio in (a) 1972-73; (b) 1973-74; (c) 1974-75; (d) 1975-76; and (e) 1976-77.
  2. What amount, if any, from (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) remained unspent by the Queensland Government at the end of each respective financial year.
  3. Were any funds remaining unspent, as listed in (2), re- - turned to the Commonwealth, or were they carried over into the succeeding financial year.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided by the Acting Treasurer to Senate question No. 1272 (Hansard, 1 1 October 1977, pages 1276-7).

Pig Industry Research Committee: Report (Question No. 1332)

Senator Martin:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

In view of the requirement of the Pie Industry Research Act 1971 that the Pig Industry Research Committee report annually to the Minister as soon as practicable after 30 June, the Minister to then cause the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament; (a) why was the report for year ended 30 June 1974 not tabled in the Senate until 8 September 1977; (b) when was the report submitted to the Minister by the Committee; and (c) when did the AuditorGeneral provide his certification of the operation of the Pig Industry Trust Account for 1 973-74.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Section 1 6 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971, requires the Pig Industry Research Committee to make a report to the Minister on the operation of the Act and the Minister is required to cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament. Those requirements were met for the years ending 30 June 1974 and 30 June 1975 by the Committee’s submitting to the Minister and his laying before each House of Parliament an interim annual report.

The report referred to by the honourable senator as having been tabled on 8 September 1977 is the so-called final report. This is in bound form and contains information on the progress of research projects and other material of a reference nature. Although it was submitted to each House of Parliament, the statutory obligation had already been fulfilled by tabling of an interim report.

The Committee decided some years ago that its final reports should include summaries of research progress as a means of communicating information to pig producers. It has taken a considerable time to obtain appropriate summaries from all research workers. The Committee’s limited resources to undertake technical editing have caused further delays in finalising the reports. These delays have now been overcome.

Having regard for this explanation, the following are the answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

An interim report for the year ended 30 June 1974 was tabled in the Senate on 19 September 1974.

An interim report for the year ended 30 June 1974 was submitted to the Minister in September 1 974.

The Pig Industry Research Trust Account is administered by the Department of Primary Industry and is audited in conjunction with the audit of that Department. There is no requirement for an AuditorGeneral certificate to be included in the annual report of the Pig Industry Research Committee.

Pig Industry Research Committee: Report (Question No. 1333)

Senator Martin:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

In view of the requirement of the Pie Industry Research Act 1971 that the Plg Industry Research Committee report annually to the Minister as soon as practicable after 30 June, the Minister to then cause the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament: (a) why was the report for the year ended 30 June 1975 not tabled in the Senate until 8 September 1977; (b) when was the report submitted to the Minister by the Committee; and (c) when did the AuditorGeneral provide his certification of the operation of the Pig Industry Trust Account for 1974-75.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Having regard to the answers to question 1332 the answers to the honourable senator’s questions are:

  1. An interim report for the year ended 30 June 1975 was tabled in the Senate on 1 October 1975.
  2. b ) An interim report for the year ended 30 June 1 97 5 was submitted to the Minister early in September 1975.
  3. See answer to question 1332.

Pig Industry Research Committee: Report (Question No. 1334)

Senator Martin:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

In view of the requirement of the Pie Industry Research Act 1971 that the Plg Industry Research Committee report annually to the Minister as soon as practicable after 30 June, the Minister to then cause the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament: (a) why was the report for the year ended 30 June 1976 not tabled in the Senate until 8 September 1977; (b) when was the report submitted to the Minister by the Committee; and (c) when did the AuditorGeneral provide his certification of the operation of the Pig Industry Trust Account for 1 975-76.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Having regard to the answers to question 1332 the answers to the honourable senator’s questions are:

  1. and (b) The answer to question 1332 indicated that the Committee had tabled interim reports for the years ending 30 June 1974 and 30 June 1975, pending completion of final reports which included summaries of research progress and results.

An interim report was not tabled for the year ended 30 June 1976 because it was expected that the final report would be completed in reasonable time. In the event there were unexpected delays in finalising the preparation and editing of some of the research summaries and the final report was not submitted to the Minister until 31 August 1977. Delays of this nature have now been overcome and the report for the year ended 30 June 1977 has already been completed.

  1. See answer to question 1 332.

Foreign Medical Graduates (Question No. 1350)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1977:

  1. Has the Minister seen the article by Christine M. Swearingen and James M. Perrin, entitled ‘Foreign Medical Graduates in Rural Primary Care: The Case of Western New York State’ which appeared in the journal ‘Medical Care ‘ April 1 977, Volume 1 5, page 331.
  2. Do any Australian statistics, similar to those quoted in the article, show an increasing dependence within the Australian community on foreign medical graduates for the provision of primary medical care; if so, could the Minister give details, and, in particular, what trends they disclose.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am not aware of published statistics which would permit ready replication of the type of analyses referred to.

The Australian medical workforce, however, has traditionally included a significant proportion of doctors who qualified overseas. For example, the report of the Committee on Medical Schools ‘Expansion of Medical Education’ estimated that in 1972 some 24 per cent of the doctors in active practice in Australia had graduated in overseas countries.

While available statistics suggest that there has since been some increase in the total number of doctors immigrating to Australia, the relative proportion of these within the total active medical workforce is not known to have significantly increased. The output from Australian medical schools has also increased in the period.

Even though statistics are not available, there are some indications which suggest that there is less difficulty in attracting to rural and other high need areas doctors who qualified overseas than doctors who have graduated from Australian medical schools.

Northern Territory: Archives (Question No. 1370)

Senator Kilgariff:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. What action does the Government intend to take to provide copying services and microfilm readers and printers to private and Government researchers following the provision of an archives building in Darwin and the transfer of records back to the Northern Territory.
  2. As the Northern Territory is far behind the States in research, securing essential historical records, et cetera, will the Government upgrade the services provided by the Archives to safeguard the records of the past ana provide research facilities for the present.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A microfilm reader/printer is available in the Darwin repository of the Australian Archives but because of lack of service facilities in Darwin, the machine at present can be used only as a reader. Efforts are being made to rectify this.
  2. The Australian Archives building in Darwin provides excellent facilities for research work and for the storage of archival material under proper conditions. Following the return in 1976 of staff and records to Darwin from Brisbane, where the records had been sent for treatment after the cyclone, the Archives establishment was increased from two to nine in order to provide for the development of desirable services. The building itself is quite first class but is not yet fully equipped. An effort will be made to rectifty this at the earliest opportunity.
  3. The Archives is very conscious of the need to foster preservation of the historical records of the Northern Territory, both official and unofficial. It has begun a program designed to supply the Darwin repository with copies of records from outside the Territory which are relevant to it and this program will be continued as resources allow. In order to ensure the preservation of important records, the Australian Archives endeavours to maintain contact with all Government agencies throughout the Territory and with persons associated with them.
  4. Every effort is being made to encourage and facilitate worthwhile research activity in Darwin. For example, the North Australia Research Unit of the Australian National University is resident in Darwin and, under special arrangements approved by the Government, is conducting through the use of archives a major research project into the problems of agricultural development of Northern Australia.

Income Tax Assessment (Question No. 1424)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer take such steps as are necessary to enable individual working-class taxpayers to avail themselves of an integrated system of earning income, such as that adopted by oil companies in this country, which enables such companies to make use of a procedure of income tax assessment which disregards normal internal accounting procedures.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

See answers to questions 1425 and 1427.

Oil Companies: Taxation (Question No. 1425)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer confirm that in order to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to attempt to arrive at a realistic monetary figure respecting the true cost of crude oil imported by oil companies in this country:

the Commissioner of Taxation is forced to make an assessment of the crude oil prices which such companies would have paid in a totally ‘arms’ length’ transaction; and

the methods of assessment open to the Commissioner of Taxation in arriving at that assessment are depriving the Commissioner of Taxation of substantial amounts of taxation.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that the secrecy provisions of the income tax law prevent him from giving any information regarding the assessments of oil companies. He can say, however, that their assessments, like those of other taxpayers, are determined according to general and specific provisions of the income tax law that may be applicable.

See also answer to question 1 427.

Oil Companies: Taxation (Question No. 1426)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer confirm that, in order to assess the liability of oil companies for income tax, it has become necessary for the Commissioner of Taxation to place an arbitrary figure on the cost of crude oil bought by such companies from their overseas affiliates in order to attempt to qualify the true income derived by them.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

See answers to questions 142S and 1427.

Oil Companies: Taxation (Question No. 1427)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer confirm:

that a separate system of taxation assessment has been evolved by od companies in Australia;

that this system exists outside the ambit of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936;

that the system has not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny; and

that an essential ingredient of this system requires the Commissioner of Taxation to attempt to arrive at an assessment of the liability of such companies for income tax.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that no separate system outside the ambit of the Income Tax Assessment Act has been evolved for any son of company. See also answer to question 1425.

Australian Dairy Corporation: Staffing, and Purchases from Overseas (Question No. f 452)

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 October, 1977:

  1. Will the Minister supply details of the number of persons employed by the Australian Dairy Corporation and the total weekly salaries of all persons employed as at:

    1. 1 December 1976,
    2. 1 March 1977, and
    3. 1 September 1977.
  2. Will the Minister also supply details of additional federal bodies and committees set up since 1 March 1977 to administer the dairying industry, together with details of the personnel comprising such bodies or committees.
  3. What quantity and types of dairy produce, including particularly skim milk powder and butter oil, have been purchased by the Australian Dairy Corporation since 1 January 1 977 from overseas countries to satisfy the shortfall in supply to overseas markets traditionally supplied by Australia.
  4. What price was paid to these countries, and what was the price obtained for the products on resale.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The increase in the total number of employees as at 1 September 1977 was attributable to the taking over by the Australian Dairy Corporation of the staff of the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalisation Committee Ltd (CDPEC Ltd) to enable the Corporation to implement Stage I of the new marketing arrangements for the dairy industry from 1 July 1977. CDPEC Ltd administered the industry’s voluntary equalisation scheme until 30 June 1977.

  1. (a) The Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Committee was established under legislation to assist the Australian Dairy Corporation in carrying out its functions under the new dairy industry marketing arrangements.

Members of the Committee were appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry on 8 June 1 977.

The present members of the Committee are:

Chairman: J. C. Gleeson (Vic.)

Members:

Representing manufacturers of butter, skim milk powder and casein:

  1. A. Wood, (Vic) R.P.McArthur,(Tas.)

Representing manufacturers of cheese:

A. C. Skene, (Vic.) J. G. Spinkston, (S.A.)

Representing manufacturers of other processed milk products:

E.J. Davy, (Vic.)

Representing dairy farmers:

D.J.Higbed,(SA) N. I. Miles, (Vic)

  1. G.Smith, (NSW) P. D.Rowley, (Qld) (representing market milk sector)

Currently there is one vacancy on the Committee following the resignation of Mr B. J. Hill (N.S.W.) as a member representing manufacturers of butter, skim milk powder and casein.

  1. The industry itself has established the Australian Dairy Industry Conference which replaced the Australian Dairy Industry Council that had existed for a number of years. The Conference was established on 19 August, 1977 for the purpose of co-ordinating the policies and interests of all sections of the Australian dairy industry. It has 34 members- 17 of whom represent Australian dairy farmers supplying milk for manufacture and for market milk, and 17 members representing manufacturers, processors, distributors, marketers and/or traders of dairy products.

    1. Since 1 January 1977 the Australian Dairy Corporation has made one purchase of overseas dairy product. This was 10,000 tonnes of skim milk powder purchased from

Canada to meet the Corporation’s stockfood contract with Japan. The contract had been entered into at the request of the Australian dairy industry in 1975 at a time of world surpluses of skim milk powder. Reduced production of skim milk powder in Australia, however, has meant that the Corporation has been unable to supply from local sources the tonnages required to complete the contract.

  1. This was a commercial transaction and details of the contract are confidential.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 November 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19771101_senate_30_s75/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant