Senate
19 September 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 675

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I inform the Senate that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) left Australia yesterday to attend the South Pacific Forum in Niue. They are expected to return to Australia tomorrow. During their absence the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) is acting as Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is acting as Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) left Australia for Japan on 15 September for discussions on industrial relations and manpower issues. He is expected to return on 25 September and during his absence the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs ( Mr Fife ) will act as Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) also is absent leading Australia’s delegation to the Commonwealth Finance Ministers’ Meeting in Montreal and the annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group in Washington. He is expected to return on 3 October. During his absence the Treasurer (Mr Howard) will act as Minister for Finance.

page 675

PETITIONS

Education Funding

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

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

The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents ‘ Clubs respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of Victoria and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our schools be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should arrange for:

Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.

An increase of a minimum of 5 per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1 979.

Restoration of the S8m cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.

Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 27 citizens of Australia:

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Budget 1978-79

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 264 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Federal Budget will severely and adversely affect the living standards of wage earners, socially and economically disadvantaged people and minority groups through the imposition of higher direct and indirect taxation and spending restraints. We call on the Government to immediately review its Budget strategy and humbly pray that the Government will implement measures to protect the purchasing power of consumers and prevent worsening unemployment by creating new jobs.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education Funding

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I present the following petition from 820 citizens of Australia:

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

objection to the decision to provide no money for established school libraries in the N.T. in the 1978-79 financial year.

a request that at least $100,000 extra be provided for school libraries in the N.T. in the 1978;79 financial year to ensure our children receive the quality of education available to children in other education systems.

Petition received and read.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I present the following petition from 41 citizens of Australia:

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education Funding

Senator BUTTON:

-I present the following petition from 1 82 citizens of Australia:

The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of N.S.W. and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our schools be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1 979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should arrange for:

Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1 979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.

An increase of a minimum of 5 per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1979.

Restoration of the $8m cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.

Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Acting Clerk- Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Education Funding

The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents ‘ Clubs respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of Victoria and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our school be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should arrange for

  1. Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.
  2. An increase of a minimum of 5 per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1 979.
  3. Restoration of the $8m cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.
  4. Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

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

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for abortion.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

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

Petition received.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

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

That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the proposal by the Australian Government to abolish Paternity Leave and restrict the provisions relating to Maternity Leave which are currently contained in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject the passage of any legislation which has as its purpose the abolition of Paternity Leave and the restriction of the Maternity Leave provisions.

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

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Webster, Senator Primmer, Senator Chipp, Senator Evans and Senator Lewis.

Petitions received.

Family Allowance

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth; we feel very strongly that we do not want any interference from the Government in the payment to families of the family allowance.

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

Petition received.

page 677

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 677

QUESTION

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Does the Minister representing the Treasurer recall saying in the Senate last Wednesday, in respect of Commonwealth payments to New South Wales, the following:

The fact is that the volume of revenue provided by the Commonwealth Government, which is the major proportion of the money that constitutes a State’s Budget, has been increased by in excess of 10 per cent . . .

Is the Minister aware that on the same day the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, also claimed that total funding had increased this year by 8 per cent or 9 per cent? Is the Minister also aware that later that day the Prime Minister had to correct the statement he had made and admit that in fact he was quoting figures for the financial assistance grants only and not the total payments and, further, that he had to admit that the total allocation had increased by only 5.7 per cent? Will the Minister admit that his answer was also wrong, and will he give an undertaking that in future when quoting figures of this nature he will get clearly in his mind what in fact are the correct figures?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not recall the particular question. My instinct is that if I referred to a figure in the vicinity of 10 per cent it would relate to the increase in the recurrent grants through tax reimbursement under the federalism situation. I will look into the matter. I think the best plan is for me to get the details precisely and let the honourable senator have them. I will be happy to do that.

page 677

QUESTION

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ANNIVERSARY

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, concerns the commemoration of the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the part that Australia will play in this important event. Can the Minister inform the Senate what activities have been planned to celebrate the anniversary in Australia and what effects will be taken to explain the content and importance of the Universal Declaration to the public at large?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Prime Minister announced on 20 July that the Commonwealth Government was in the process of implementing a program to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Australia’s support for the principles set out in the Declaration is clearly on record, and the Government wishes, by its participation in the anniversary program, to reaffirm its commitment to the human rights standards which the international community has aspired to uphold for the past 30 years. Discussion kits are being prepared for schools and ethnic and Aboriginal organisations throughout Australia. The kits will include a copy of the Declaration. As well, translations of the Declaration in over 50 languages spoken by ethnic communities in Australia are to be made available. An explanation of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act is to be translated into the languages of migrant communities. An explanation is also to be translated into the main Aboriginal dialects spoken in the Northern Territory and distributed Australia-wide on cassettes for Aboriginal communities where these languages are in use. Twenty thousand copies of a commemorative poster are being provided for general distribution. I understand that Australia Post is also contributing to the program.

page 677

QUESTION

FLINDERS ELECTORATE

Senator BUTTON:

– I refer the Minister for Administrative Services to newspaper reports of the explanation given by a Liberal Party official for the keeping of two sets of receipt books in the electorate of Flinders as being necessary to find a way round the $500 limit on electoral expenditure imposed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Does the Minister accept that there may be a need to find an illegal way round the limitation on electoral expenditure?

Senator Missen:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I understand that question must relate to government administration. This question clearly has nothing to do with government administration.

Senator Wriedt:

– But it worries you.

Senator Missen:

– It does not worry me in the slightest but it does concern me that we are wasting the time of the Senate by dealing with the possible internal affairs of a political party. We certainly are not dealing with a matter of government business. I ask that the question be ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Questions directed to Ministers must relate to areas within their responsibility. I will allow the question and the Minister may respond if he so desires.

Senator BUTTON:

– I have no wish to repeat the preamble to the question. Firstly, does the Minister accept that there may be a necessity in reality to find a way round the limitation of electoral expenditure currently imposed by the Act? Secondly, what review, if any, is in progress in relation to the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? Thirdly, what consideration has been given by the Government to the public funding of political parties?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable senator asked a number of questions which he prefaced by referring to a report which I have not seen about the reasons for keeping multiple receipt books. The reports which I have seen are to the effect that receipt books were kept by each of the branches in the particular electorate and there was no reference to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in any of that material. After Question Time, Senator Button might like to direct my attention more specifically to the report to which he has referred. As far as the specific questions which he has raised are concerned, it appears to me that, since limitations are contained in the Electoral Act with respect to expenditure which bear little or no relation to the amount which is spent on elections in Australia, that is a matter which may well require examination. His reference to the need to find a way around the restrictions of the Act would probably strike a responsive cord in the heart of any practising politician in Australia. Those restrictions do not inhibit the amount spent on elections. That is a matter of fact and a matter of common knowledge to everybody in this chamber. A review of the Commonwealth Electoral Act is proceeding. My understanding is that it is hoped that the review will be completed at a departmental level late in this session and it is hoped that it will be possible to put some material before the Parliament and the public which will enable some discussion of the Act to take place. My personal wish would be that that discussion should take place as far away from an election as possible so that we can get as dispassionate an examination of the Act as possible. If there is any other aspect of the honourable senator’s question that I have overlooked I am sorry, but I think my remarks deal with the main matters that he raised.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question. The third aspect of my question related to whether the public funding of political parties would be encompassed in the review of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Senator CHANEY:

– I have no knowledge of whether that is being considered at the departmental level but I will find out and let the honourable senator know.

page 678

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS TO MOSLEM COUNTRIES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the considerable amount of confusion which exists over the procedure for slaughtering and certifying meat for export to Moslem countries? This matter has been highlighted in South Australia recently by the publicity given to the certification of meat by the Islamic community for the South Australian Meat Corporation. Is the Government concerned that this confusion could jeopardise the export of meat to Moslem countries?

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

– I understand that there is no confusion about slaughtering according to Moslem requirements. These are well known and have been followed for many years by Australian meat exporters. They have built up a substantial export trade in meat killed according to Moslem requirements. All the Moslem countries to which we export meat accept the procedures which have been followed by Australian exporters and these procedures satisfy their requirements. One of the requirements is that the shipment must be accompanied by a certificate signed by a Moslem guaranteeing that the correct ritual slaughtering procedures have been followed. I understand that recently the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils claimed that it is the only authority competent to issue such certificates. It has laid down a scale of charges that it suggests will be used for issuing certificates. The Federation’s approach is causing certain problems in the industry since the exporters involved already have Moslem slaughtermen in their employ or have long-standing arrangements with Moslem contractors to carry out this work. I am informed by the Minister for Primary Industry that the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation has the matter under consideration and will be seeking to resolve any problems.

page 678

QUESTION

DUMPING OF NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mindful of the rightful protest that we made to the French Government over atomic tests in the Pacific, I ask: Are we now making a protest to the United States Government about its proposal to utilise islands to the north of Papua New Guinea to dump atomic waste?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am advised that inquiries have been made in Washington about recent Press reports that the United States plans to dispose of nuclear waste on South Pacific islands. The reports appear to reflect a misinterpretation of a study the United States has been making of the possibility of establishing regional repositories for spent nuclear fuel. In October 1977 President Carter mentioned the idea of a global scheme for such repositories. This is a different concept from that of a nuclear waste dump. A spent fuel repository is essentially a secure storage for spent fuel to prevent its theft or other diversion to non-peaceful uses. The United States consideration of the idea of a spent fuel repository in the Asia-Pacific region apparently has gone no further than a preliminary examination.

No proposal has been made by the United States to locate such a repository in the South Pacific. We would not expect the United States to do so without prior consultation with Pacific countries. We would expect the United States to be responsive to their views. The United States is fully aware of Australia’s position, as stated by the Prime Minister on 25 August 1977, that there is no intention of Australia’s storing other countries’ radio active wastes, nor, of course, has Australia given the United States any encouragement to believe that a spent fuel repository in the South Pacific would be acceptable to regional countries.

page 679

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to invalid pensions as they will apply from November of this year. Is it true that where a individual earns more than $20 a week in addition to the $53.20 pension the means test will apply with the result of a loss of 50 cents for each dollar income earned above $20? As in future the invalid pension will be taxable, will the tax on incomes above $72 be about 33 cents in the dollar? Does this mean that an invalid pensioner who might be able to earn a few dollars over $20 in addition to the pension will lose 50 cents due to the means test and, of the remaining 50 cents, 16.5 cents in tax, or a total to the Government of 66.5 cents? Is the Minister aware that this is a higher marginal tax rate than that paid by even the highest earners in our community? Will the

Minister discuss the matter once more with the Treasurer?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is a fact that the invalid pension is a means tested pension. When a person earns over the allowable free income area of $20 there is a withdrawal of pension, as was said by Senator Townley. It is also a fact that the Treasurer announced in the Budget that invalid pensions with the exception of those paid to blind persons, would become taxable and would no longer be considered as exempt income. What has been stated by Senator Townley would be the effect of means testing and of including invalid pensions as taxable income. However, it ought to be said that this should not be classified as tax as such; it is a withdrawal of the pension. It is not a rate of tax -

Senator McLaren:

– Oh!

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Senator McLaren, let me finish. It is not a tax rate; it is a withdrawal of pension, and it will apply to a person whose earnings come within a certain tax area of income. I think that the figures given by Senator Townley are correct. We understand that about 90 per cent of invalid pensioners would not earn beyond the $20 limit. It must be realised that an invalid pension is paid to a person who is 85 per cent incapacitated. Taking these factors into account and the announcement by the Treasurer on the taxing of invalid pensions in the future, it will be seen that a relatively small number of people will be affected. I can only say again that we should not combine together and call ‘tax’ what is a mean tested pension and a rate of tax on income that is no longer exempt.

page 679

QUESTION

NATIONAL COMPENSATION SCHEME

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, is similar to the question which I ask her, largely I suppose for reasons of nostalgia, every six months or so, and which concerns the national compensation scheme. If I recollect correctly, the last time I asked the Minister about the progress of the Government’s undertaking to introduce its own national compensation scheme, she told me that the Department of Social Security was inquiring into it and that the inquiries were coming along quite nicely. I wonder whether she could tell me what stage these inquiries have now reached? Is there still a unit, if that is the appropriate description, within the Department studying national compensation, and when is it likely that we will hear from the Minister about the Government’s proposed scheme?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no imminent announcement to make with regard to a national compensation scheme. The six-monthly question that comes forward from Senator Wheeldon reminds us all of the national compensation scheme which was proposed by the Whitlam Government, and which would have been an economic disaster to the country. As regards the future development of a national compensation scheme, that is a matter that can always have consideration in the Department. It is not one on which the Government expects to be making an imminent announcement.

page 680

QUESTION

TRAVEL ALLOWANCE FORMS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Administrative Services why it is that government forms for claiming staff travel allowances contain no provision for the signatures of either the senator or the member verifying the claim, or of the staff member making the claim?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I must say that the same question has crossed my mind when I have been signing these forms for the members of my staff and they have pointed vaguely in the direction of the middle of the form. I must say that I have never had the wit to put that question to the responsible Minister and that the opportunity to do so has now passed. However, I will examine the matter raised by the honourable senator to see whether we can add a couple of lines to the form to make quite clear where the staff member and the employer are to sign.

page 680

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES: REHABILITATION AND SHELTERED WORKSHOP ALLOWANCES

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Social Security refers to the announcement in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer that in future allowances for those receiving rehabilitation and for those in sheltered workshops will be taxed- or perhaps in view of the Minister’s answer a moment ago I should say, ‘will have some of their allowances withdrawn’. What effect will this have on the Government’s finances in the forthcoming Budget and how many people will be involved in this new tax arrangement?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will have to check the precise information that has been requested by Senator Grimes. I do not think I have a figure readily available that relates to the rehabilitation allowances. I have a figure that I think relates to invalid pension, sheltered employment allowances and things of that kind, but perhaps it would be better if I were to check the figure and get the precise information that has been requested by the honourable senator.

page 680

QUESTION

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: IDENTIFICATION BADGE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. You may recall that some months ago I asked you about the possibility of members of the Federal Parliament having an identification badge. Might I suggest that perhaps this badge could consist of an Australian coat of arms with a red background for senators and perhaps a green background for members of the House of Representatives? I throw this in for consideration. Might I also ask whether you would give consideration also to such badges remaining with members of parliament so that, when they retire, they will still have some form of identification as having been previously a member of the Parliament? I appreciate that there are some very well known badges in Australia that incorporate bars et cetera identifying the holders as life members of the various organisations involved. My reason for mentioning this is that you may or may not be aware- and I ask whether you are aware- of the problems encountered by some ex-members of parliament. I refer in particular to Sir Magus Cormack, a former President of this chamber, who, when he returned to visit Parliament House, was given an identity disc which imposed certain restrictions upon him. Hence, I feel that badges for members of Parliament as well as for ex-members of Parliament would be well worthwhile. I ask: Has consideration been given to this matter?

The PRESIDENT:

– In response to the latter part of the honourable senator’s question, I hope that the embarrassment which the Honourable Sir Magnus Cormack and I experienced on that occasion will never again be experienced by a former member of parliament. A recommendation along these lines was contained in the report on security in this place which was presented by the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges. The recommendation was that there should be a badge of office for members of parliament. With that in mind, Mr Speaker and I have looked at various designs of badges, but as yet no determination has been made in respect of the matter.

page 680

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it a fact that the Northern Land Council was forced to sign an agreement for the mining of uranium in the

Northern Territory? Was the signing of the agreement achieved as a result of a threat by the Prime Minister that failure to sign would result in the withdrawal of funding for the Northern Land Council and for other activities carried out by or on behalf of Aborigines in the Northern Territory? How many members of the Northern Land Council were present when the decision was taken by the Council to sign the uranium mining agreement? Did the Prime Minister advise officials of the Northern Land Council that uranium mining would go ahead even if the agreement was not signed by the Council?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second question is no. I am not able to say how many persons were present. I will find out. As I was not there I am’ not able to say what was said. I will refer that question to the appropriate place. My instinct prompts me to say that I heard on the media that the President of the Northern Land Council said that the signing was done in conformity with the wishes of the members of the Northern Land Council. I heard that with my own ears. I take it that that ought to be a complete answer to the question asked by Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Either the Leader in the Senate got the question out of context or I did not hear him aright. I ask the Minister: Did the Prime Minister advise officials of the Northern Land Council that uranium mining would go ahead even if the agreement were not signed by the Northern Land Council?

Senator CARRICK:

-So that we can clarify the matter, the first question was: Was there any force or duress? The answer is no. Was there a threat? The answer is no. How many people were present? I do not know, I was not there, but I shall find out. What was said? I do not know; I shall find that out.

page 681

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a report that Prime Minister Smith and the African leaders in his Government have been invited to the United States to discuss the problems of Rhodesia? Is this another attempt by President Carter to resolve differences in the world’s trouble spots? What role will the Australian Government play in bringing about a peaceful solution to the problems of this former British colony?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Right at this moment I do not think I have an immediate brief relating to those matters. Because the matters are of particular importance, I think to all Australians, I shall seek out the information and let the honourable senator have it as quickly as possible.

page 681

QUESTION

LAND DEALS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I understand that one component said by the Government to be an important component of its anti-inflation strategy is opposition to what the Government calls ‘excessive wage rises’. Does the Government have a policy opposing excessive profits from land racketeering by people who act in collusion with people who control land use and therefore, to a substantial degree, the price of land. If so, what is that policy? If not, will the Government develop such a policy? Can the Government guarantee that in future the Minister for Industry and Commerce will abide by such a policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government certainly has a policy of restraint in all elements of costs in Australia, including wages. My instinct is that the question of land prices in all the States is a matter for the States. Therefore, the remainder of Senator Walsh’s question should be directed through his State colleagues to the State parliaments.

page 681

QUESTION

MIGRANT HOUSING

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is it true that the building situated at 105 Annandale Street, Annandale was built by the New South Wales Government to house migrants with money made available by the Commonwealth and that the building has not been occupied for two years? Is it true that there is a significant shortage of low cost housing in this and other adjacent inner city suburbs of Sydney? Finally, can the Minister explain why any available housing, presumably of good quality, is not being utilised for the benefit of low income earners by the Wran socialist Government?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The block of migrant flats at 105 Annandale Street, Annandale was erected for use by State nominated migrants and has never been under the control of the Commonwealth. However, under a long-standing agreement, funds for State operated migrant accommodation are provided on an equal Commonwealth-State basis. As a result of the downturn in State nominated migration, an arrangement was made early in 1977 for the small number of State nominated migrants then arriving to enter Commonwealth hostels. All New South Wales operated migrant accommodation, including that at Annandale, is no longer required for its original purpose. It is understood that the property has now been offered for sale. It certainly is a fact that there is a significant shortage of low cost housing in the inner suburbs of Sydney. It is a matter for the Wran Government to decide and explain why the property at Annandale should be sold.

page 682

QUESTION

STATEMENT ON UNEMPLOYMENT BY MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations agree with the statement on unemployment made by Mr Street in his contribution to the Budget debate in the other place last Thursday?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I have not had a full opportunity to read and study the statement made in another place by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations which was referred to by Senator Evans. I have had some consideration of it from what has been reported in the Press and what has been reported to me about it. As far as I have been able to ascertain from those reports the speech appears to me to be a very thoughtful contribution to the whole problem. It is a problem with which I know the Government is greatly concerned and to which it will be giving greater consideration.

Senator EVANS:

– I ask a supplementary question. In those circumstances will the AttorneyGeneral table the Minister’s statement or make a similar statement in this place so that the Senate can debate fully this admission that the Prime Minister’s promise before the last election that unemployment would fall from February was complete nonsense and probably known to be so at the time?

Senator DURACK:

-It seems to me that Senator Evans is really not particularly concerned about the very serious matters raised by Mr Street in his speech. Rather he is seeking to have a slanging match here about something the Prime Minister said on some other occasion. I shall give consideration to the question of tabling the speech or making a statement on this subject in this place on behalf of the Minister. I hope that the matter will then be seriously debated in the Senate and not used as a political football.

page 682

QUESTION

SEED INNOCULANT

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science. I draw the Minister’s attention to a recent report that a United States agricultural laboratory has begun to mass produce an improved version of a little known seed innoculant called Azobac, which it claims will reduce the dependence of farmers on expensive nitrogen fertiliser by up to 20 per cent in the first year of use and increase crop yields by up to 50 per cent. Is the Minister aware of this product? Are these claims genuine? If so, has this product been investigated for use in our primary industry so as to cut down on the initial cost to the primary producer and perhaps reduce the cost of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The innoculant Azobac which the honourable senator mentioned is not known to me. Its name indicates that it is likely to contain certain bacteria of free-living species capable of fixing nitrogen. That is the main question which the honourable senator raised. As to his comments about its use in Australia, if it were to be a nitrogen fixing innoculant it would be very helpful. It has been known for many years that some species of free-living bacteria in soils can fix atmospheric nitrogen which in due course may become available to plants. However, on the basis of research undertaken to date the amounts of nitrogen available to plants in this way are relatively small under most field conditions. On the other hand rhizobium, which we all know fairly well, lives in the roots of clovers, medics, lucerne and other types of plants which honourable senators will recognise have been the major means of Australian farmers building up soil fertility within Australia. These nitrogen fixing plants which take atmospheric nitrogen basically fix within the root of the plant rather than on the soil outside the plant. That is an important aspect. The honourable senator’s question will receive some attention from scientists within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

page 682

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, refers to unemployment. The Minister would be aware of the general concern expressed not only by the unions but also by management about the apathy which exists among young unemployed and the current request that they should receive benefits as soon as they become unemployed. I understand that a proposition has been put to the

Government that a general conference of all persons concerned with industrial organisations should be held to discuss unemployment. I note- the Minister will note this too- that Mr Hamer has decided to call such a conference. Can the Minister tell the Parliament what consideration has been given to this request which apparently is now supported by some State governments, employers and the trade union movement?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The question of unemployment and what remedies can be used to improve the situation is one to which the Government has given and will continue to give very earnest consideration. Some expert groups have been set up by the Government to investigate that matter. I refer particularly to the study group under the leadership of Sir John Crawford which is investigating structural change. That group includes Mr Hawke representing the employees and Sir Brian Inglis representing the employers. Within that committee there is a wide range of expertise. A committee has also been set up by the Government under the chairmanship of Professor Williams, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney. That committee is inquiring into education and training and the relationship between education and training and employment. That committee also includes representatives of employers and employees. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, has also given an undertaking that a special meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers will be held on 24 November for the specific purpose of discussing these problems.

There is a great deal of opportunity for all sides concerned with this problem to express views in these forums and in other forums of a similar kind. That is the approach which the Government has decided to take. I will refer the matter of a more general conference to the Minister for his consideration and obtain a more detailed answer. I emphasise that these matters are not ones that will be solved by having a oneday summit conference at a given time. They require expert consideration and only as a result of expert consideration will the solutions come forward.

page 683

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of the Public Accounts Committee of the Solomon Islands National Parliament led by Mr P. Kapini. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend a warm welcome to the members of the

Committee and trust that their stay in Australia will be a pleasant and fruitful one.

Honourable senators; Hear, hear!

page 683

QUESTION

AIR FARES: STANDBY SCHEME

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Since air fares are so excessively high both in and out of Australia and since the Government has some part in approving what those fares shall be, can the Minister proffer some explanation as to why the introductory program for the standby scheme operated by the domestic airlines was restricted to the short haul and, incidentally, low cost routes between Melbourne, Sydney and Tasmania rather than the long haul routes between Queensland or Western Australia and the southern States where the 40 per cent reduction would have been of real benefit and meaning to the Australian community?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Senator MacGibbon raises a matter which is of considerable interest in both Queensland and Western Australia where, as he indicates, a person wishing to travel to anywhere else in Australia has to travel a long distance and, therefore, fares are extremely high. I understand that the initiative for what has been done by the airline companies in conducting the experiment with standby fares arose out of consideration of the Government’s domestic air transport policy review which, among its other suggestions, recommended to the airlines greater innovation in the types of air fares which should be offered by domestic operators. The airlines responded to that by announcing this experiment over a period of two months. They are conducting the experiment over the southern routes between Sydney and Melbourne, Melbourne and Launceston, and Melbourne and Hobart. No doubt that has caused some disappointment to both Queensland and Western Australia. The idea is that at the end of the trial the airlines will evaluate the experiment and see whether it can be .either continued or extended.

In answer to the honourable senator’s question as to why the longer routes were not chosen for the experiment, my understanding is that the routes chosen have some advantages for this sort of exercise. Between Sydney and Melbourne there are high density and high frequency flights, so that a standby system means that somebody who takes a standby ticket on a flight and who does not get on that flight is not left lamenting until the next day to arrive at his destination. Hopefully that is the result. Although the routes between Melbourne and Hobart and Melbourne and Launceston are not as frequently covered as is the route between Sydney and Melbourne, a large proportion of the traffic on those routes is tourist traffic, which lends itself to a standby operation. On routes which have a high percentage of business traffic it is. important that people get to their destination at a precise time. I think there were quite logical reasons for the airlines’ choice of routes. My hope as a Western Australian and, no doubt, the honourable senator’s hope as a Queenslander, is that the experiment will succeed and that similar benefits will be extended to the outlying States.

page 684

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GRAPE GROWERS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister seen the submission of the Wine and Brandy Producers Association which claims that the increased excise on Australian brandy announced in the Budget will result in an additional surplus of 28,985 tonnes of grapes this year from the South Australian Riverland area? When this is added to the 25,000 tonnes left hanging on the vines last year, will this mean ruin to many South Australian grape growers? Basing this grape wastage on the average sale price of $125 per tonne, does this mean a financial loss of $3. 6m to South Australian grape growers? If the Minister agrees with these figures will he give serious consideration to revising the level of excise announced in the Budget to save from bankruptcy many small growers who have put years of effort and much financial investment into developing vineyards for wine production?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Speaking in my capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer, I have not seen the submission of the brandy producers. Nevertheless, I am aware that they have made such a submission and that my colleagues the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry both are concerned to study the situation. I am aware also that there is in South Australia a potential surplus of grapes of brandy producing types. I am not aware of the extent of the loss that Senator Cavanagh outlined, and because I do not know that detail it would be best if I referred this part of the question to the Treasurer and invited him to respond to it.

page 684

QUESTION

TRADING BANK LOANS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the trading banks are moving away from the traditional overdraft form of lending to fixed sum and term loans to increase their profitability? Can the Government, through control of the statutory reserve deposits of the Reserve Bank of Australia, reverse this trend and restore bank overdraft accommodation as an option to borrowers and prospective clients?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that within the general framework of policy banks are free to exercise their commercial judgment in allocating available funds amongst the competing demands for them and in choosing the technique or method of lending which meets the needs of both borrowers and the individual banks .concerned. For example, term and fixed loans give borrowers certainty that funds will be available to them for a definite period which is generally longer than would be available through the overdraft method. They also provide borrowers with a regular repayment schedule which will suit their particular needs. In fulfilling its responsibilities for implementing monetary policy the Reserve Bank through a variety of means, including the statutory reserve deposits, seeks to influence the total volume of credit available to the private sector. It would not be appropriate to use SRDs to influence the specific form in which banks provide finance. Interest rates charged by banks are subject to determination by the Reserve Bank with the approval of the Treasurer. In fixing rates of interest on loans drawn under limits of less than $100,000 trading banks observe a maximum overdraft rate currently 10.5 per cent per annum. In the case of term loans of less than $100,000 banks are permitted to charge up to 11 per cent per annum. Personal instalment loans are subject to a maximum interest rate of 7.25 per cent per annum flat.

page 684

QUESTION

TRADING BANK LOANS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question also is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and follows the question asked by Senator Watson. Did the Minister not say at Question Time earlier today that the Government exercises all possible options and powers towards containing costs in the Australian community? If the matter raised by Senator Watson about the action being taken by the trading banks is correct would this suggest that there is an additional cost factor involved in the economy? Does the Reserve Bank have the power to seek from the trading banks a different policy, one which would not allow them to pursue the practice to which Senator Watson referred? In view of the implications of that question will the Minister refer the matter to the Treasurer so that a detailed statement can be made in the Parliament?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Earlier in the course of Question Time I did say that the Government’s aim was to make an impact on the reduction of all costs, including wages. I now reiterate that the Government is keen to reduce the inflation rate and inflation’s co-partner, interest rates. The reduction of interest rates generally, particularly the pacesetter of interest rates which is the longterm overdraft rate, is one of our main aims. I have indicated already in this Senate some examples of what happens when interest rates are reduced. One could only be heartened by the huge over-subscription to the recent loan. It foreshadows useful trends for the future. As to the fourth element in the question, the request by Senator Wriedt to refer the matter to the Treasurer, yes, I will and I will see whether I can get a response for him.

page 685

QUESTION

ADVERTISING OF ANALGESICS

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs relates to a recent decision by the United States Federal Trade Commission in which judgment was given against manufacturers of Anacin for a $24m bill for advertising to tell consumers that the manufacturer’s best selling analgesic was not a tension reliever. I ask: Has the Trade Practices Commission examined Australian advertising of analgesics? If so, is it satisfied that no deceptive claims are being made by the makers of non-prescription painkillers sold in Australia?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have no information in regard to the decision by the United States Federal Trade Commission to which Senator Lewis has referred. However, I will draw the question to the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, whom I represent, and I will ask him to give attention to the matter that Senator Lewis has raised.

page 685

QUESTION

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND NATIONAL TUNE

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. On 14 April this year the then Minister for Administrative Services announced that this Government would make available free a cassette of the national anthem and national tune to organisations which came within the guidelines for a free issue of the Australian flag. Indications were then given that these cassettes would be available in about four weeks. Some six weeks later it was indicated that they would be available in approximately eight weeks. Recent inquiries reveal that it is not known when they will be available or whether they will be available. Can the Minister throw any light on the present situation of this bungled affair so that organisations which have requested cassettes can be advised as to when they can now expect to receive them?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Mr President, I will.

page 685

QUESTION

DARWIN PORT: PATROL BOAT FACILITIES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. The people of the north have been very mindful of Australian security on the north coast and they have continued to press for the upgrading of the Port of Darwin. The Government of the Northern Territory has now indicated its firm plans for the development of a land-backed wharf in the Darwin harbour, which is very desirable, but the people believe, with the same degree of urgency, that a small ships facility to service Navy patrol boats et cetera on northern surveillance should be provided with high priority. With this in mind, can the Minister advise what stage has been reached in planning and funding the small ships project and whether a site has been chosen for the base?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I appreciate Senator Kilgariff’s keen interest in surveillance in the north. He will be aware, of course, of the Government’s intentions, which were announced in the Defence White Paper of November 1976, to upgrade surveillance facilities throughout the north of Australia. To this end new patrol boats will be entering service from 1980. That is my advice. The facilities now existing at Darwin are not capable, I am advised, of supporting and maintaining the proposed new patrol craft. If the craft are to be based in Darwin a new facility will have to be built. The Department of Defence and the Department of Construction currently are conducting a series of studies to determine the most suitable location for a patrol boat base in Darwin as a basis for subsequent consideration and decision by the Ministers concerned.

page 685

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: EDUCATION STANDARDS

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Can the Minister explain why, in view of his numerous public assurances that he and the Fraser Government would maintain education standards in the Australian

Capital Territory, he has now instructed the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority to impose further staff reductions which will lower teaching standards in the Australian Capital Territory schools? Does the Minister agree that by retreating from the promises he has given publicly in relation to this matter he has provoked and is responsible for the industrial action now planned by the ACT Teachers Federation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The statement which I made in 1976 and which has been referred to thereafter that we would maintain standards not only has been observed but also has been surpassed. The honourable senator will be interested to know that in 1976 the average cost of maintaining a primary school student in the Australian Capital Territory was $988, whereas the average cost of maintaining a child in a State primary school was $835. Two years later- in 1977-78-the cost in the Territory was $1,046, compared with $860 in a State. So there has been a progression greater than it was before. The cost of maintaining a child in a secondary school in the Territory in 1976 was $1,660, compared with $1,494 in a State. In 1977-78 the cost of maintaining a secondary school student in the ACT was $1,897, compared with $1,433 in a State. In other words, the standards have been increased- not merely maintained. Indeed, I suppose the honourable senator would know that in fact the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary colleges at the moment is one teacher to 9.8 students. That ratio must be the lowest in the world.

Let me make it clear that at this moment there are 2,732 teachers employed in the ACT. The staff ceiling for next year is 2772- an increase of 40. In addition, the Neal-Hird report has indicated that there should be a review of the secondary colleges with a view to releasing a number of teachers. As the honourable senator should know, the decline in the number of students in the secondary colleges has been more than 5 per cent whereas the decline in the number of teachers has been only about one per cent. There will be the facilities to maintain the teaching ratios in schools- from pre-schools to secondary colleges- in 1979 at a level at least equal to that of 1978. The simple fact is that those who are responsible for making public statements should wait until the review of the secondary colleges is done so that we can see what teachers could be released in addition to the extra 40 teachers that are provided today. I repeat for the benefit of the people of the ACT and Australia that the standard of schools in the ACT has progressively increased over the past three years and will continue to do so. Those standards, compared with those for the rest of Australia, are high. Compared with world standards they are high. We are determined to maintain them as such.

page 686

QUESTION

CANBERRA LAND SALES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, concerns the state of the housing market. Can the Minister advise the Senate of the date of the most recent land sale held in Canberra, the number of blocks sold, how the prices obtained equated with the reserve prices, whether the speculative builders of Canberra were included amongst those who bought the land and, if so, give an estimate of the proportion of land going to those builders?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I understand that an auction of 2 15 blocks of land was held on 22 and 23 August 1978. Of those 215 blocks, 199 blocks were sold and 16 blocks were passed in. In addition, the Department of the Capital Territory has upwards of 500 blocks for sale over the counter at any one time. Up to 7 September 183 blocks had been sold this financial year. That means there has been a total of 382 sales for the year to date. At the auction on 22 and 23 August the average reserve price was $8,397. The average price paid was $9,044. Apparently builders comprised the bulk of the buyers, buying approximately 90 per cent of the sites sold. Apparently there is a continuing, strong demand for standard residential sites. The official estimate of sales for the year is 1,700 to 1,800 and the sales at the present moment indicate that this level certainly will be reached.

page 686

QUESTION

PECUNIARY INTERESTS: JUDICIAL INQUIRY

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister for Science whether he gave evidence over the past few days to the judicial inquiry into pecuniary interests. If so, did he indicate to the inquiry that he would be prepared to have his evidence made public?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is no. That is less than 20 centimetres.

page 686

QUESTION

THE SECRET STATE

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether his attention has been drawn to reports relating to the publication of a new book entitled The Secret State and comments by the author that the aim of publishing the book in part was to destroy the system of voluntary D notices? Does the Minister believe that the current voluntary D notice system is in fact an effective balance between legitimate government secrecy on the one hand and freedom of information and freedom of the Press on the other?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– It would have been difficult to escape giving some attention to the recently published book called The Secret State. Yes, my attention has been drawn to it. I have not had any opportunity to read it or any excerpts from it. I have not been given any briefings in relation to anything in it or its purpose. One of the purposes was mentioned by Senator Puplick. I will take notice of it and give consideration to that along with the other matters that are contained in the book when I have an opportunity.

page 687

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL NUTRITION

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Senate as to the truth in reports that because of cuts to Aboriginal welfare programs it has been necessary for a charitable organisation to agree to fund a comprehensive nutritional program for Aboriginal children in New South Wales? Will the Minister inform the Senate of the total in the original submission by the Aboriginal Health Service in New South Wales, the amount the Government will appropriate for this program and the amount being donated by the Freedom From Hunger Campaign?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I do not have the information that has been requested. I suggest that the question be placed on notice so that a precise answer can be given.

page 687

QUESTION

HOBART BRIDGES

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I notice that he was in Hobart on Friday. No doubt he was made aware then that in Hobart there is a Bailey bridge which was installed following the partial destruction of the Tasman Bridge. Is the Minister able to confirm that that Bailey bridge will remain in place until the second Derwent bridge is completed? If he is not able to confirm or to deny whether that is true, will he ask the Minister for Transport to make a statement about the matter?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Townley correctly stated that I was in Hobart last Friday. Unfortunately during that visit I did not gather the information that he now requires from me. Therefore I will make an inquiry of the Minister for Transport or the appropriate Minister and let him have a reply.

page 687

QUESTION

TASMANIAN CATTLE INDUSTRY

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry recall his answer to Senator Archer last Wednesday concerning the disease free status of cattle in Tasmania in which the Minister indicated a lack of interest ‘on the part of many of the people who are involved in government there at the present time’? Is it correct that the Tasmanian Agricultural Department constantly informs the Australian Bureau of Animal Health as to the disease status of the Tasmanian livestock industry? Will he acknowledge the successful efforts of the Tasmanian Agricultural Department, in conjunction with cattle producers, which has brought about a situation in which Tasmania is the State with the fewest cattle diseases? Is it in harmony with national policy that an individual State not obtain a declaration of disease free status to avoid a clear implication that mainland cattle are disease ridden, which would prejudice exports of livestock from the mainland? Finally, will the Minister withdraw his imputation against the Tasmanian Government and in particular against the conscientious officials of the Tasmanian Agricultural Department?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I tried to make a note of the five parts of the question which I was asked. I recall an answer I gave to Senator Archer on the matter. The reference to the Australian Agricultural Council, I believe, is correct. I am informed that Tasmania has the fewest number of cattle diseases, particularly those diseases mentioned by Senator Archer in his question. I was not aware that any remark which I had made was offensive to the Tasmanian Government.

Senator Wriedt:

– Not much. You were aware of it all right. It was quite deliberate.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It appears that Senator Wriedt has the answer for Senator Tate.

page 687

QUESTION

BRANDY INDUSTRY

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the brandy industry’s recent submission to the Treasurer concerning the drastic impact that the Budget proposal for an 83 per cent increase in excise will have on the livelihood of grape growers and others in the Riverland area of South Australia. Is the Minister aware that the estimate of the direct increase in revenue to the Government on account of the excise is only $4m- this is an increase from $30m last year to $34m this year- and that this small increase may be completely lost in reduced income tax collected in that area? Will the Minister add his own efforts to the Government’s direct efforts now being undertaken to find a remedy to this pending serious situation and to pass on that remedy soon to the people of South Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am well aware of Senator Teague ‘s keen interest in this matter. All South Australian senators, I think, are alert to the situation concerning the grape growing industry and particularly the small growers who produce brandy grapes which have no other outlet. I am aware- I think I was asked the same question previously- that there is an impending surplus. I do not have the figures before me but I believe the figures given by Senator Teague on the estimated yield are correct. Because of the concern expressed by honourable senators, I will certainly take up the matter with my colleagues to see what can be done.

page 688

QUESTION

NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– During Question Time I was asked by Senator Keeffe a question regarding the Northern Land Council. I can now answer specifically and say that I am advised by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who was present with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister at discussions with the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, and a member of the Council, Mr

Harry Wilson, from Peppimenarti, that there is no truth whatsoever in the allegations that the Government threatened or bullied or imposed duress upon the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. I am advised that negotiations between the Commonwealth and the Land Council have been carried out in a spirit of mutual confidentiality and in accordance with the provisions of the land right Acts. The Northern Land Council has now ratified the agreements negotiated.

page 688

QUESTION

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Earlier Senator Wriedt asked me a question concerning some figures relative to the New South Wales Government and an answer which I gave on 13 September. Part of my answer on that occasion reads:

The fact is that the volume of revenue provided by the Commonwealth Government, which is the major proportion of the money that constitutes a State Budget, has been increased by in excess of 10 per cent at a time when inflation is running below 7 per cent.

The total general revenue assistance from the Commonwealth to New South Wales was in fact 10.5 per cent. I undertook to provide the figures concerning all Commonwealth payments to New South Wales. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table giving those figures.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 689

QUESTION

ALICE SPRINGS RAIL LINK

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 14 September Senator Robertson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice, concerning the Tarcoola to Alice Springs Standard Gauge Railway. The Minister for Transport has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It has been found feasible to use some second hand 40 kilometre per metre and 47 kilometre per metre rail made available from rail relaying work on the Trans Australian Railway for construction of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs Railway north of Marla without reducing the effectiveness of this rail link.

The location and scope of terminal facilities , in Alice Springs is the subject of examination having regard to the overall town planning requirements of Alice Springs. There has been some delay in this plan being made available but work is proceeding.

There is no validity in the suggestion by Senator Robertson that the Government is not meeting its commitment to provide an appropriate standard gauge rail link to Alice Springs.

page 689

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: STAFF COMPLAINTS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 14 September 1978, Senator Ryan asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, what mechanism existed within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to examine staff complaints. The question arose from a press report that an ABC Television journalist had complained that derogatory and racist comments had been made by a senior officer.

The mechanism existing within the ABC to examine such complaints is contained in ABC Staff Rule No. 15, which states that:

  1. If an officer or employee considers he has grounds of complaint arising out of an official instuction, or from any other cause, he may appeal, in regard thereto, to the Branch Manager through his immediate superior officer, who shall forward an appeal forthwith to the Branch Manager, but he shall nevertheless, as far as possible, carry out any instruction given him until it is countermanded by competent authority.
  2. If an officer or employee, having appealed to the Branch Manager, in pursuance of this rule, is dissatisfied with the decision, the Branch Manager shall, on request, forward the appeal to the General Manager, who, if the appeal is not allowed, shall transmit it to the Commission for determination.

I am advised that a television public affairs reporter in Melbourne has lodged a complaint with the General Manager of the ABC, Mr T. S. Duckmanton, under staff rule No. 15, and that the General Manager has initiated an urgent investigation.

page 689

COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT 1977

The PRESIDENT:

– In accordance with section 121 (3) of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959, I lay on the table the annual report and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General’s report thereon, for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 689

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION: EXPLANATORY NOTES (BOOK 2)

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I lay on the table Explanatory Notes of the Department of Construction (Book 2) relating to the Estimates of proposed expenditure for 1978-79.

page 689

PUBLIC SERVANTS AND OFFICERS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES: ACCESS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Mr President, for the information of honourable senators, I present: Guidelines Relating to Access by- Members of Parliament to Public Servants and Officers of Statutory Authorities; and Guidelines to Apply to Appearances by Public Servants and Officers of Statutory Authorities Before Party Committees.

On 9 December 1976, the Prime Minister tabled draft guidelines on these matters and invited comments from the Opposition and from the Government parties. Those draft guidelines were incorporated in Hansard. After extensive consultation and amendment, the guidelines have been finalised. The Leader of the Opposition has advised the Prime Minister that, without prejudice to the forthcoming debate on the Freedom of Information Bill, he considers them acceptable.

page 689

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION: ANNUAL REPORT

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, I present the annual report of the Trade Practices Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 690

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION: FINAL ANNUAL REPORT

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

– Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972,I present the final annual report of the Australian Wool Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1977. An interim report for that year was tabled on 21 September 1977 with unaudited financial statements. The final report is identical in text but contains audited financial statements and the Auditor-General’s certificate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 690

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971 I present the annual report of the Pig Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 690

WHEAT RESEARCH ACT: ANNUAL REPORT

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

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Wheat Research Act 1957, I present the annual report on the operation of that Act during the year ended 3 1 December 1 977.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 690

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the interim annual report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 690

DEPARTMENT OF THE CAPITAL TERRITORY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of the Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1977.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 690

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HOUSING COSTS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Housing Costs, entitled ‘The Cost of Housing’, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) relating to the report.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 690

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs- the 66th series.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator TEAGUE:

– by leave- I have presented this report in the absence through illness today of Senator Knight, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. This report deals with the 66th series of proposals to vary the Canberra city plan. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) referred these 14 proposals to the Committee on 24 July. The Committee conducted a public hearing, at which it was briefed by representatives of the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Capital Territory. No objections were lodged in relation to any of the items, but the Committee found it expedient to ask the Department of the Capital

Territory to seek the opinion of residents in Glasgow Street, Hughes, on variation 8, which involves transferring a small area of land to a private lessee. The Committee recommends implementation of all the proposals contained in the series with the exception of variation 8, as it is considered that more information on that particular matter is necessary.

The proposals in this series will involve changes to improve further the Barton Highway, including new tourist information facilities and related amenities. Also included is a variation to provide access to tourist facilities, which might include some motel sites off Gold Creek Road to avoid the need for access directly from the Barton Highway. A proposal for the erection of a new bridge across the Murrumbidgee River at Tharwa will ensure that the structure and setting of the historic existing bridge are preserved. There are also proposals involving works within the parliamentary triangle. These relate particularly to access to and parking at the High Court and National Gallery sites and to a general improvement of traffic patterns within the parliamentary area. The National Capital Development Commission will mount a visual display in Senate Committee Room No. 6 on Wednesday, 20 September- tomorrow- so that interested honourable senators and honourable members can examine what is involved in the proposals.

Honourable senators and honourable members will be aware that the Parliament Act applies to works within the parliamentary area. Major works have to be approved by both Houses. The National Capital Development Commission informed the Committee that as the Act is now interpreted there is no necessity for the works in question to be the subject of special resolutions by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Commission is well aware, however, of its responsibilities under the Act and has undertaken to inform the Committee should there be any developments during construction which might require approval of the Parliament. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with the legislation resides with the National Capital Development Commission and the Minister. I commend the report to the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted: debate adjourned.

page 691

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Carrick)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Melzer be granted leave of absence for one month on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.

page 691

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Chaney requesting that he be discharged from further attendance on the Committee of Privileges.

Motion (by Senator Carrick)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Chaney be discharged from further attendance on the Committee of Privileges and that Senator Rocher be appointed a member of the Committee.

page 691

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Chaney resigning as a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Motion (by Senator Carrick)- by leaveagreed to:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 the Senate appoint Senator Bonner to be a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Senator the Honourable F. M. Chaney.

page 691

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The Government has decided that the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority should find all those funds for capital works which it cannot meet from its own internal revenue source through the semi governmental borrowing program rather than half of these requirements being provided for in the Budget as has been the previous practice.

The borrowing powers of the authority are contained in section 26 of the Principal Act.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 26 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1 962 to provide-

  1. that the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, which is constituted by the Principal Act, may borrow moneys by issuing securities;
  2. that the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, may guarantee the repayment of moneys (and interest thereon) borrowed by the Authority otherwise than from the Commonwealth; and
  3. that the Commonwealth’s guarantee will apply to borrowings (including interest thereon) by the issue of securities by the Authority where the securities are of a prescribed kind.

The opportunity has been taken in the Bill to provide for the Authority to borrow by the issue of securities and to attach the Commonwealth’s guarantee to them where they are of a prescribed kind. This will place the Authority on the same basis as Telecom and other modern statutory authorities.

I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 692

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 September, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The purpose of this Bill is to extend the bounty on nitrogenous fertilisers for the calendar year 1979, but at a significantly lower rate than has prevailed in the past. Under the provisions of the Bill the rate will be reduced from $60 a tonne nitrogen content to $40 a tonne. The Bill was passed by the House of Representatives last Thursday. Having looked through the House of Representatives Hansard this afternoon I must comment on a statement which was made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles) who, whilst never being noted for his perspicacity or mastery of logic, excelled himself when he claimed that this Bill would provide some assistance to Australian sugar growers. He said that because it would increase the growers’ costs it would help the sugar industry to establish a case for an increase in the price of sugar. That was an extraordinary rationale for the introduction of the Bill. His actual words were:

They -

That is the sugar producers- . . have a legitimate case to put to the Industries Assistance Commission.

That is, a case for a price increase. He continued:

Their case will be aided by the Bill before the House tonight. In fact, it will help them considerably because it represents an added cost that I am sure the sugar industry will not forget when it presents a case to the IAC.

I have seen members of the Government perform some extraordinary contortions in an attempt to justify the things that they have done and the contradictions that they have embraced from time to time, but I think the prize ought to go to the honourable member for Wakefield for that contribution.

Astute observers of the Australian political scene have noted for some time that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is a very subjective man. Brought down in the Budget was the so-called newsboys’ tax under which the parents of a dependent child who received an income above a stipulated level would be ineligible for a family allowance. That provision was put in by Mr Fraser and those other Government members whose perceptions of reality, when considering the question of whether dependent children should have incomes, were . closely aligned to their own direct knowledge of reality. It would not occur to a person like the Prime Minister that there are children in Australia who earn pocket money. Their perception of reality and the incomes of dependent children is of course related to children who receive income from family trusts set up for the purpose of evading taxation. But instead of doing the logical thing and tightening up on the tax laws on family trusts which have enabled people such as the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch), the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and no doubt virtually all the senior Ministers of this Government to evade taxation, they thought it would be a better idea to phase out family allowances for dependent children who have incomes. A tightening up of the laws on family trusts would have affected them. There was more in it for them.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that we are debating the

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill. I cannot really relate what the honourable senator is saying to the subject of the Bill. Could we invite him to be more relevant?

Senator WALSH:

– I would like to speak to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am about to come to the point. My remarks are relevant because the subjectivity of the Prime Minister is the prime factor responsible for this Bill being introduced. The Government decided that instead of doing the logical thing and tightening up the provisions which enable people to dodge taxes through family trusts, and because that taxdodging potential provides more money than the family allowance for the Prime Minister and others, they decided to knock off the family allowance instead of tightening up on the taxation laws. In this Bill we have another example of the Prime Minister’s subjectivity and of his total dominance of this Government. I compare the policy of the Government on the superphosphate bounty to its policy on the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. Last year legislation was passed to continue the payment of a superphosphate bounty at the level which had prevailed for five years since 1969. By contrast, since this Government came into power it has extended the nitrogen bounty on a year only basis and has progressively reduced the amount of bounty from the original figure of almost $79 a tonne to the figure of $40 a tonne which will prevail if this legislation is passed.

The key to that highly inconsistent behaviour can be found once again in the Prime Minister’s subjectivity. He uses superphosphate down on Nareen. In fact, he uses at least 400 tonnes a year of superphosphate at Nareen. The Prime Minister receives from the superphosphate bounty a personal benefit of something in excess of $5,000. He does not use nitrogen down at Nareen. Because of this man’s subjectivity and his dominance of the Government we find that the superphosphate bounty not only is continued at the pre-existing rate but also is enacted for five years and that the nitrogen bounty is reduced and continued on a year by year basis only. No doubt honourable senators from Queensland, including Senator Maunsell who will be following me in this debate and who no doubt purports to speak for the sugar producers of that State, will find some way of rationalising that inconsistency and contradiction, some way of rationalising their craven support for this legislation. This Bill also demonstrates that the Prime Minister, among the Ministers, has no monopoly of the double standard. On 8 May 1974, which it will be recalled was during the 1974 election campaign, the Australian Country Party secretariat issued a Press statement on behalf of the then shadow Minister for Agriculture, Mr Sinclair, who at the time was in Mackay, a well-known sugar growing area. Quite falsely, the then shadow Minister for Agriculture, now the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, asserted that the Labor Government, if re-elected, would immediately cancel the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. There was of course absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. The Labor Government was re-elected and that did not happen. But he continued:

I can give an unqualified assurance on behalf of the Country Party, that in Government with the Liberal Party, we will restore the bounty on superphosphate and ensure that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty continues.

So the Prime Minister, certainly among Ministers of this Government, has no monopoly of the double standard. For the benefit of among others, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) whose electorate incorporates the Mackay area and some sections of the rural Press which appear to be victims of false assertions by assorted members of the non-Labor parties, I want to set the record straight on the history of this matter. At no stage did the Labor Party during its period of government move to reduce the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. So, whatever the justification or otherwise for this or any other bounty may be, the Labor Party has been consistent on this issue. That is something which certainly cannot be said for the non-Labor parties. I draw the attention of those people who doubt that to the fine print on the bottom of the first page of the Bill, which refers to the principal Act, which is Act No. 78 of 1966, as amended. There are various amendments, but the one that is relevant is Act No. 20 of 1974, under which the then Labor Government extended the payment of the bounty at the pre-existing rate for the calendar year 1975.

I would like to say something about the most pertinent facts relating to the consumption of nitrogenous fertiliser in Australia and the Industries Assistance Commission report of 1975. The IAC report recommended that the bounty, which was then payable at just under $79 per tonne of nitrogen content- originally it had been $80 for an imperial ton, and there is about 2 per cent less in a tonne- be phased out over four years in virtually equal stages from $60 to $40 to $20 to zero. As I mentioned, the Labor Government did not act on that recommendation. In 1 976 the by then Liberal-National Country Party Government implemented the first stage and reduced the bounty to $60 a tonne. In 1977 the LiberalCountry Party Government extended the bounty for the calendar year 1978 at $60 a tonne. Now it has introduced this legislation to reduce it for the calendar year 1979 to $40 a tonne.

The table attached to the IAC report- I do not expect that the pattern of consumption will have changed drastically since- shows the usage of nitrogen fertiliser on various crops or for various end uses in 1974. It reveals that the cereal crops, the most important consumers of nitrogenous fertilisers, used 37.5 per cent of the total, sugar used a bit over 30 per cent, pastures used about 20 per cent, vegetables used about 6 per cent, and fruit and vine crops used about 5 per cent. Two points arising from that need to be highlighted. First of all, cereal crops are the major consumers. Sugar runs a close second, but there are eight to ten times as many cereal growers as there are sugar growers. I do not put a precise figure on that because there is no completely objective definition or no general agreement on what constitutes a wheat grower or a sugar grower, but there are eight to ten times as many grain producers as there are sugar producers. Although the whole industry consumption is lower for the grain industry, usage per farm is five to six times higher for sugar producers than it is for grain producers. So in that sense the cost of nitrogen fertiliser is of particular importance to the sugar industry.

As a result of other Government policy decisions on the pricing of Australian crude oil it is probable, or indeed inevitable, that there will be an increase in the price of nitrogenous fertilisers quite independently of any changes in the level of bounty. At this stage we do not know, and nobody knows, precisely how the higher cost of Australian crude oil which will follow from the Government’s Budget decision to increase the levy will be distributed among the end users of petroleum products. If it is to be distributed on a pro rata basis, the price of urea, the most commonly used nitrogenous fertiliser, will increase by between $14 and $15 a tonne. If this piece of legislation is carried and the bounty is reduced to $40 a tonne, then the price of urea will be pushed up another $9.20 a tonne, so that sugar producers and other consumers of urea are facing a price increase of the order of $24 a tonne for urea and pro rata increases for other nitrogenous fertilisers, depending on the amount of nitrogen they contain. The Government has made one mistake by adopting a crude oil policy which in the judgment of the Labor Party is wholly unnecessary. Indeed it has been forced upon the Government by its own folly in dropping the resources tax. So at the very time when consumers of nitrogenous fertilisers are already faced with a substantial increase in nitrogen fertiliser prices, the Government proposes to compound the damage that policy will do to nitrogen consumers by reducing the bounty

It is the Opposition’s intention to oppose clause 4 during the Committee stage. We will be seeking leave to defer consideration of clause 2, which is related to clause 4, until clause 4 has been dealt with. I trust that the Committee of the Whole will accommodate the Opposition in that request. We will be doing that, firstly, because we do not believe that this is an appropriate time to be reducing this bounty and, secondly, to give the Queensland senators in particular, especially the Queensland Country Party senators, the opportunity to demonstrate whether they are mindful of the interests of the Queensland sugar industry and whether they will support us in our opposition to clause 4 of the Bill.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I would like to refer to a few of the comments made by Senator Walsh. At the beginning of his speech he referred to what Mr Giles, the honourable member for Wakefield, said in another place. I have not read the Hansard report of what Mr Giles said. I presume that what he meant was that any reduction in the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty or any increase in nitrogenous fertiliser prices would be taken into account in the present Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into costs in the sugar industry. In that sense, I do not think the statement attributed to Mr Giles is an inane statement; it is a statement of fact.

I am personally disappointed that the Government should see fit to implement the IAC report, even if it recommends staggered stages for phasing out the bounty. Whilst I appreciate that the Government has budgetary problems, I would have hoped that assistance to productive industries, particularly those with a high export content, would not be reduced. If there is to be a reduction in government expenditure it should be in the non-profitable and non-productive areas. However, one has to appreciate that the biggest problem that has to be faced by this nation, particularly the primary producers of the country, is inflation. As anyone would know, it would be disastrous for any exporting industry if the rate of inflation were allowed to proceed at 16 per cent, as happened during the years of the Labor Government. Therefore, when the policy objective of the Budget is aimed at containing and reducing inflation we have to expect some form of reduction in assistance, whether it be assistance to primary industry or any other industry. As I said earlier when replying to what Senator Walsh had to say about the honourable member for Wakefield, there is one consolation for the sugar industry and that is that this matter will be taken into account, and must be taken into account, by the Industries Assistance Commission in its inquiry into the costs of the industry. I hope that the Government, as it has seen fit to implement the IAC report on the fertiliser bounty, even though it is on a staggered basis, will adopt the IAC report on the cost structure of the sugar industry. I am one who will ensure that the findings in that report in relation to the home consumption price are considered.

I say to those people who believe that the National Country Party is a pro-subsidy party that it came into existence in the early 1920s as a free trade party to protect export industries against the high tariff and other forms of protection afforded to secondary industries in this country. At times the party has had to resort to supporting subsidies for rural industry but this has been to compensate rural industry for its high cost structure as a result of the tariffs and other forms of protection for secondary industry. I would support the abolition of subsidies for primary industry if the same thing applied to price support given to secondary industry. We could then get back to the stage of producing our goods without any propping up and of being able to compete on world markets. It is interesting to note that only a few years ago the home consumption price of sugar was one-quarter, and for a short period about one-sixth, of the world market price. There is no question about the efficiency of the industry. One of the reasons we were able to have a low home consumption price was the fact that the Government had given assistance by way of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty which, when looked at from another angle, could be called a consumer bounty and not a producer bounty because of the prices charged to the Australian community. If we can ensure that the industry receives other benefits and that the home consumption price is made reasonably relative to the overseas price, there will be no necessity for bounties of this nature.

Senator Walsh also attacked the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) over a statement he made when he was the shadow Minister about restoring the superphosphate bounty and continuing the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. Well, the Government did restore the superphosphate bounty and did continue the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. Even though it may be at a reduced rate, the bounty still exists. From what I have seen in print, the Minister has stated that there will be a nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. Senator Walsh foreshadowed that the Opposition is going to put on a little act by considering clause 4 first and postponing consideration of earlier clauses for a while, hoping to put people like me on the spot. One only has to read the wording of the Bill to know that if it is defeated there will be no bounty. None of us is going to fall for that little ruse. The fact is that as responsible Government senators we have to accept that we cannot be nicking away here and there at a Budget. We either have to accept or reject the Budget. Whilst we may be disappointed in some areas, and this is one such area, it is our responsibility to see that in future adequate compensation is given to an industry that loses some support or that that support is restored.

This is not what the Labor Party has done in the past. We know its attitude towards the superphosphate bounty and the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. If it had its way there would be no bounties at all. I am disappointed that the Government is reducing the bounty by some $20 per tonne. We appreciate the problems associated with inflation. In the last five years costs in the sugar industry have risen by some 135 per cent. After all a $20 reduction in the bounty is a mere pittance compared with a 135 per cent increase in costs.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Could you amplify the factors involved in that 135 per cent increase in costs?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– The sugar industry has stated that its costs have increased by 1 35 per cent over a period of five or six years. That is not unusual for any industry in Australia today. Bearing that in mind, reluctantly I will be supporting the Bill.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-I would like to make some comments about the previous speaker’s reference to the remarks of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles). The honourable member for Wakefield was definitely talking about how a decrease in the subsidy would help the sugar industry. In the House of Representatives on 14 September, when discussing sugar growers, he said:

Their case will be aided by the Bill before the House tonight. In fact, it will help them considerably because it represents an added cost that I am sure the sugar industry will not forget when it presents a case to the IAC.

It seems to me that if this argument were taken to its logical conclusion the sugar industry would be better off with no subsidy at all. I cannot accept that this is the case. I cannot accept that it is a valid argument that because the subsidy is going to be reduced the sugar industry will be better off. Senator Maunsell admitted his disappointment at this measure. I was surprised that he was so candid in admitting his disappointment quite openly to the Senate, although he said that the $20 a tonne was a mere pittance. I am sure that the sugar growers in Queensland will not accept that it is a mere pittance.

Senator Maunsell:

– I said it was a mere pittance compared with the inflation in costs.

Senator COLSTON:

-The sugar growers in Queensland will not accept that this is a mere pittance. It will be a significant cost to them. I would like to mention something of the origin of the subsidy. In August 1966 a subsidy was granted on manufactured nitrogenous substances used as fertilisers or as supplements to stock feed. I mention the origin of the subsidy because one could infer from the comments that were made earlier this afternoon that the subsidy has been in existence for a longer period. One could infer that because it was suggested that the subsidy had kept down the price of Australian sugar for domestic consumption, but the subsidy has been operating only since 1966. The initial subsidy, of course, was $80 a ton. Under metric conversion the subsidy was the equivalent of $78.74 per tonne.

The Industries Assistance Commission recommended a phasing out of this subsidy. Its recommendations are worth looking at. It recommended that the subsidy per ton should be decreased to $60 in 1976, to $40 in 1977 and to $20 in 1978 and that it should cease at the end of this year. When the IAC brought down the recommendations I am sure that the sugar growers referred to it, as do many other people in the community- I suppose with tongue-in-cheek, but fairly wrongfully- as the ‘Industries Assassination Commission’. I have heard that expression used on a number of occasions. One could quite understand why some sugar growers should refer to it in that way. Nevertheless, this Government has accepted in principle the IAC recommendations. Even though they have been accepted in principle the time-table laid down by the IAC has been delayed. This BUI reduces the subsidy to $40 per tonne. I think it is noteworthy outlining what Mr Sinclair, the present Minister for Primary Industry, said in May 1974, just prior to the election. It has been mentioned by Senator Walsh and Senator Maunsell. It should be made clear that Mr Sinclair said at that time that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty would continue. I remind the Senate of what he said on 8 May 1974, just prior to the election that year. These words come from a media release issued by the National Country Party. Mr Sinclair said:

I give an unqualified assurance on behalf of the Country Party that, in government with the Liberal Party, we will restore the bounty on superphosphate and ensure that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty will continue.

Senator Maunsell said that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty has continued. Of course it has; but it has continued at a reduced rate. It is now down to a subsidy of $40 per tonne, which is slightly more than half of what it was originally. It is worth while considering the price movements in nitrogenous fertilisers since about the time that statement was made by Mr Sinclair. The price movements indicate that, given the prevailing conditions in certain primary industries, there is still a need for the bounty. One could say that between about 1973 and 1977 the price of nitrogenous fertilisers has doubled. There will be an increase in the price of these fertilisers as a result of the fuel policy which the Government announced in the Budget. Fuel oils are basic to the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers. It has been suggested that the additional cost of urea will be about $ 14 per tonne as a result of the fuel price increase. Under this legislation the amount of the subsidy for urea will decline by $9.20 per tonne. There will be a smaller decline in the subsidy for other nitrogenous fertilisers. For instance, the subsidy on nitram, which has 34 per cent nitrogen content, will decline by $6.80 per tonne. The subsidy on sulphate of ammonia, which has a smaller percentage of nitrogen content at 2 1 per cent, will decline by $4.20. Urea, which has 46 per cent nitrogen content, will experience a subsidy decline of $9.20 per tonne.

As a Queenslander, I am concerned about the reduction in the subsidy because of the effect that the reduction will have on the sugar industry. The sugar industry is not the biggest user of nitrogenous fertilisers but it is a major user of them. The export sugar price at the moment is barely half of what it reached in 1974 and, as most honourable senators would be aware, the sugar industry is going through an awkward phase. I am sure that as we progress to future years the sugar industry once more will become the profitable industry that it was, but at the moment in Queensland there is cause for concern. The drop in the price of export sugar has occurred mainly since the IAC made its report. It seems ironic that as late as May of this year we were debating in this chamber the International Sugar Agreement Bill- a Bill which would help to restore prosperity to the sugar industry in Queensland- and we are now debating a Bill which will reduce the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers which are used extensively throughout the sugar industry in Queensland.

I can remember quite clearly the 1974 election campaign in Queensland. Some honourable senators would know why I recall it quite clearly. At that time one of the major election planks that some people were putting forward on behalf of the then Opposition was that if the people put the Labor Party back into government it would do away with the nitrogenous fertilisers subsidy, yet it is now actually being removed by the present Government. Any move to take from the Queensland sugar industry the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers will be quite significant.

I outlined in the Senate not too long ago the significance of the sugar industry to Queensland. May I just remind the Senate of the number of people employed in the sugar industry in Queensland. The latest statistics that are still available on a reliable basis are those of the census for 30 June 1971. They indicate that the number of people employed in sugar cane growing and harvesting in Australia at that stage was 12,403. We know that a small quantity of sugar cane is growing in the northern rivers district of New South Wales. That figure of 12,403 takes into account the people working in the industry in that area as well. But by far the greatest quantity of Australian sugar is grown in Queensland. The number of people involved in the industry indicates the importance of the industry to Australia.

In addition to the number of people employed in growing and- harvesting, 9,871 people are employed in the manufacture of raw and refined sugar. So we can say that in 1971 a total of 22,274 people was directly employed in the sugar industry. This is a significant part of our work force. These figures do not include some other people who are employed because of the sugar industry but not on a full time basis. I refer to people in the transport industry- for example, those in the railways- and those whom one might describe as wharf labourers. So in looking at those people who are employed in the sugar industry in Queensland or, if one does not want to be parochial about it, those employed in the sugar industry in Australia, one can say that the numbers are quite significant. The sugar industry is an important industry and it is one which should receive the support of the Government. It seems to me that with the reduction in the subsidy it will not be receiving the support that it should receive.

It was mentioned earlier that the grain industry is a large user of nitrogenous fertiliser. In fact, the wheat industry uses about 45 per cent of the nitrogenous fertiliser consumed in Australia. One would not say that the wheat industry is an insignificant industry in Queensland. The latest statistics which I have been able to find in the Queensland Year Boole show that wheat production in 1975-76 had a gross value of $91m. It is a fairly big industry. It is interesting to point out how the increasing costs have affected the wheat industry too. In 1973-74 it took 0.83 of a tonne of wheat to pay for a tonne of urea. In 1974-75 that figure increased to 0.85 of a tonne. In 1975-76, when we had a reduction of about $ 18 per tonne in the subsidy for nitrogenous fertilisers or, to be more specific, a reduction of $18.40 in the price of one tonne of urea, the amount of wheat which was required to pay for one tonne of urea increased from 0.85 of a tonne to 1.25 tonnes. In 1976-77 that figure increased to 1.65 tonnes of wheat to pay for a tonne of urea. In other words, between 1973-74 and 1976-77 the price almost doubled. With the further reduction of $20 per tonne in the subsidy and with the rise in fuel prices, it would not surprise me if we reached the situation where it took two tonnes of wheat to pay for a tonne of urea.

I have just mentioned that the sugar industry is a major industry in Queensland. I have said that the wheat industry is not a small industry. I wish now to mention one other industry, but by doing so I am not saying that these are the only industries which are greatly concerned because of the reduction in the subsidy. The pineapple industry is a fairly big industry in Queensland. The same Year Book to which I referred earlier set the gross value of pineapple production in Queensland in 1975-76 at $14m. Nitrogenous fertiliser is used extensively in the pineapple industry also. Urea is the main fertiliser which is used. Some estimates suggest that about 2,000 tonnes of nitrogenous fertiliser are used annually in the production of pineapples in Queensland. All that will result from the reduction in the subsidy, of course, is that the cost of production will increase in these industries. I believe that this is not the time to place an additional burden on significant rural industries in Australia. As a senator who represents Queensland, a State which will be adversely affected, I join with my colleagues on this side of the chamber in opposing the reduction in the subsidy which is outlined in this Bill.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– I have only a couple of comments to make in relation to the speech made by Senator Colston who has just resumed his seat. It is rather interesting that Senator Colston should show some interest in rural matters because it would surprise me if Senator Colston showed his face in any rural part of Australia. I say that because the Government that he supported some years ago is still well remembered for the damage that it did to the whole of the rural industry, particularly in areas in Queensland. He tried, rather laboriously, to demonstrate that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has broken his word. However, during that laborious demonstration he proved in fact that the Minister has kept his word. There is no move by the Government in this Bill to withdraw the subsidy at all. In fact, the Bill specifically states that the Government will review the level of subsidy prior to 3 1 December 1979. Therefore, although Senator Colston tries to suggest that this marks the end of the subsidy on nitrogenous fertiliser, that is just not true.

We are debating the Nitrogenous Fertiliser Subsidy Amendment Bill 1978. 1 spoke at fairly great length on the Nitrogenous Fertiliser Subsidy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 on 3 December 1976. With all modesty, I draw the Senate ‘s attention to those very wise words. I do not want to repeat them today. The purpose of the Bill before the Senate is to extend the operation of the existing subsidy scheme but at a rate reduced from $60 per tonne to $40 per tonne of nitrogen. This move is a result of the implementation of the Industries Assistance Commission report on nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy which was brought down on 5 September 1975. In no way can rural industries suggest that the Government has not warned them sufficiently that this would happen. The Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 to which I spoke in December 1976 laid out very well the likely effect of this subsidy. However, we have delayed the implementation of the recommendations of the IAC report for one year. It is estimated that the cost of the subsidy will be $10m. For Senator Colston and Senator Walsh to try to relate the cost of $ 10m to the other matters that they did is just to show rather extreme negligence. I shall read two of the paragraphs from the IAC report that I have mentioned. Page 3 of the summary and conclusions of the report reads:

The evidence in this inquiry indicated that much research into new crop and grass varieties concentrated on varieties highly responsive to nitrogen and other fertilisers. In practice, highly responsive varieties tend to require heavy application of fertilisers. Since the prices of these inputs may change in the future, the Commission considers that any undue emphasis on manufactured nitrogen, which may be encouraged by a subsidy, may be detrimental to the establishment of an appropriate balance between manufactured and symbiotically produced nitrogen, both in research and in farm management.

That is a most interesting comment in the report because, I believe, that that principle can be applied in an area much wider than just that in regard to nitrogen. What it actually means is that subsidising the cost of manufactured nitrogen results in a decrease in the profitability of producing alternatives. If we go to the extreme by making it very cheap, for instance, for a person to use manufactured nitrogen, primary producers will not be so keen to produce those alternative nitrogen fixing plants such as clovers and legumes generally. That principle can be applied to the whole area of government involvement. Governments are inclined to create distortions in the marketplace and make it less profitable for some areas and more profitable for others. Page 3 of the Industries Assistance Commission report also states:

The Commission believes that there would be few adverse effects from the withdrawal of the present subsidy. To the extent that it would reduce direct financial assistance to some producers engaged in low cost activities, the Commission considers that the reduction would be outweighed by the more positive and direct encouragement which could flow from its suggestions concerning crop insurance, grain pool discount facilities and the desirability of an inquiry into the dissemination and application of the results of rural research.

I am proud to say that the Government has done something with regard to grain pool discount facilities. To my knowledge not a great deal has been done with regard to crop insurance, nor to the area of dissemination and application of results of rural research. I urge the Government to look in particular at those two recommendations of the IAC report presented as far back as 3 December 1976. The Australian Labor Party, when it was in government, eliminated the superphosphate bounty, and I am confident that it would have followed the IAC recommendations with regard to nitrogen as well. It is completely hypocritical of the Labor Party to claim otherwise.

With reluctance I support this present measure because it has to be looked at in the whole context of the Budget. The Budget will do a great deal to reduce the costs of primary producers, in particular by reducing the rate of inflation. I think that that is of vital importance and it is a point that was entirely neglected by the previous Labor Government. One of the positive effects of a reduction in the rate of inflation will be a reduction in interest rates. I am proud to say that there has been a continuation of- in some areas an increase in- the rural assistance given in the present Budget.

It is well known that I have supported the reduction of tariffs and quotas. I do not want to repeat all the arguments I have put forward. I regret that this Budget contains some increases in tariffs on the items that are subject to quota, although I have heard opinions expressed that those increases in tariffs may not necessarily mean an increase in the price to the consumer, but that they will be absorbed by the importer. Irrespective of how we explain them away, these sorts of things create distortions in the marketplace and allocate resources away from exporting industries. It is rather surprising that this also involves manufacturing industries and particularly rural exporting industries. Those resources are pushed towards the highly supported industries. Those in the highly supported industries, generally speaking, can pass on their costs but those whose sole or main business is to export cannot pass on their costs because they have to meet the market forces overseas.

I think that the worst sort of protection we can have in Australia is that provided through the quota system. This has been recognised finally by the Government in this current Budget. I certainly do not prefer the use of tariffs as a means of protecting industries in Australia. I prefer the payment of bounties as being the sort of assistance that should be given. The bounties system has many advantages. Unlike tariffs or quotas it does not create an increase in costs to the consumer. Even more importantly, it makes the level of protection given to a certain industry in Australia immediately obvious to people here and particularly to the government. The problem with tariffs is that it is almost impossible to identify the costs that they create. Without an organisation such as the IAC, which from time to time underlines the costs that are built in to certain industries by tariffs, we would be very poorly informed indeed. While talking about the IAC, I strongly support the work it is doing. I am pleased to say that in spite of all the fears and concerns expressed by many people in the community, and by the Opposition, the IAC is still completely independent. There is no suggestion whatever that the Government is playing the heavy hand on the activities of the IAC.

I return to the sugar industry that was talked about at great length by the Opposition. I do not want my colleagues from Queensland to take me too seriously, but it is well known that some of the main sugar producing areas of Queensland are confronted with fairly severe shortages of water for irrigation, so much so that towns such as Townsville, which has a population of some 100,000 people, and many of the large country centres on the east coast of Queensland are facing serious water shortages. In Western Australia we have a fine body of water in the Ord River system that is sitting there waiting, not being used much at the moment. Some of the latest production figures from the research stations of the Western Australia Department of Agriculture and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the Ord River area show that contrary to claims made by Senator Walsh some time ago, there has been a considerable increase in production. In fact the figures are somewhat higher than those that can be produced in Queensland, not only in mean production but also in sugar content.

Without being too parochial, I would strongly support the carrying out of a close investigation into the setting up of a sugar industry in Western Australia. I appreciate the tremendous cost of doing so- the cost of the infrastructure, the railways and the factories that would be needed to convert cane into sugar. But it is interesting that many Queensland sugar industry leaders have travelled to the Ord River system and expressed interest in the area. If the first move can be made to establish an industry there I know that it would have the support of many of the producers in Queensland who are now facing difficulties with their irrigation water. I strongly support the Bill and reject the Opposition’s foreshadowed amendment as being completely and purely hypocritical.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank honourable senators for their words on the Bill although, needless to say, I thank the Government senators rather more than the Opposition senators. Senator Walsh, who led for the Opposition, took us through a rather circuitous bypath of family trusts and other matters which were challenged by honourable senators on this side as being somewhat irrelevant. I do not intend to deal with the matters that he raised except to say that I suspect that many of the people who are interested in the passage of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1978 are not the people who will be frightened off by the sorts of comments Senator Walsh was making. I think that most primary producers are familiar with the concept of family partnerships, family companies, and, in some cases, family trusts which are used to arrange their affairs in a businesslike manner. I do not think that to those people those arrangements are the bogy-man that they are to other sections of the community.

I was a little disappointed at the attack that Senator Walsh made on the decision of the Government to continue the bounty, albeit at a reduced rate. I have always understood Senator

Walsh to be a firm supporter of the Industries Assistance Commission. By that I do not mean that he necessarily supports every recommendation of the Commission but I understand him to be in favour of the general line which the Commission adopts in these matters. I thought that he might have drawn attention to the fact that the Government, in carrying on the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy through this Bill, to some extent is going along with the recommendation of the Commission but is not going as far as the Commission requested. Had the Government followed the recommendation of the IAC which was made in the report of 5 September 1975, this subsidy would have been phased out for 1979. The Government in fact has gone beyond what was recommended by the IAC so far as assistance is concerned. It has continued assistance at the rate of $40 per tonne and in that sense it is looking very sympathetically at the requirements of rural industry.

The contrast which Senator Walsh drew between the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and the superphosphate bounty must have been more evident to the Industries Assistance Commission than to Senator Walsh. What the Government has done with respect to superphosphate is rooted in a report of the IAC of 30 October 1976 in which the Commission recommended that the superphosphate bounty be paid for a period of five years commencing 1 July 1977.I think it was a pity, therefore, that Senator Walsh approached this matter not on the basis of analysing the problem, as was done by Senator Thomas, but on the basis of mounting a personal attack on the Government and on the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). and a number of other Ministers were farmers. I suggest to Senator Walsh that if in future we debate Bills of this nature again, as appears likely, he might be of more assistance to all of us if he examines those two contrasting reports and explains to us the basis on which he disagrees with the distinction which has been drawn. But in any event -

Senator Walsh:

– The superphosphate report is crooked. It is a crook report from Parish.

Senator CHANEY:

– Now it turns out that even the IAC is crooked; it is not only the Government.

Senator Walsh:

– It is a political report from Parish. Anthony had Hilda Rolfe sacked anyway.

Senator CHANEY:

– I suggest that that outburst demonstrates that the debate on this Bill is at a somewhat lower level than I think the Australian electorate, and in particular the farming community, would like.

I noted Senator Colston’s comments about the concern he feels at loading costs onto the rural sector in these difficult times. I think it is proper to draw his attention to the fact, as was pointed out by Senator Maunsell and Senator Thomas, that one of the key objectives of this Government has been to control the problem of rising costs which have beset rural industry in particular. I remind the honourable senator of the figures produced by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which compared on-farm costs with the general rises in costs which were experienced in the Australian community. I can only quote the figures in the broad. I think they demonstrated roughly a two-for-one ratio between rises in onfarm costs and off-farm general costs. In 1 974 the figures of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics concerning on-farm costs went up by 30 per cent- a dramatic increase in the cost of production of farmers. It is to that problem that the Government has directed its primary attention.

I thank honourable senators from the Government side who expressed their own misgivings about the reduction in support for rural industry and for the stress that they have laid on the importance for primary producers of the Government’s bringing inflation under control. I think all Government members would share the concern that has been expressed by honourable senators on this side of the House. Indeed the same concern was expressed by Senator Colston. I think those honourable senators accept, as the Government accepts, that the priority which has been set is correct and is particularly correct for the sort of industries which are interested in this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western Australia · LP

- Senator Walsh indicated earlier in the debate that he wished to take the clauses in a certain order. I have no objection to that course being followed. Senator Walsh might like to indicate to you the order in which he would like the clauses to be taken.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I have been advised subsequently that because of the constitutional limitations on amendments to financial Bills- I wondered previously whether this was the case- it is probable that an amendment to delete clause 4 would not be in order because it would entail the expenditure of more money. We envisage moving that clause 4 be deleted. I am advised that it would be in order to move, as an amendment in consideration of the Bill as a whole, that the House of Representatives be requested to delete clause 4 from the Bill. If such a course is acceptable I will move accordingly.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I certainly have no objection to that course of action being followed. I thought that this was probably the case. I intended allowing the amendment to be moved in the hope that the result would be the same. I think that what has been suggested by Senator Walsh is the proper course to follow. He should proceed to move his amendment.

The Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

That the House of Representatives be requested to delete clause 4 from the Bill.

I apologise for not having submitted my amendment previously. I shall not speak at any length to the amendment. The actual form of it has been dictated by Standing Orders and constitutional requirements. The purpose of the amendment remains the same. It gives senators from Queensland in particular, given the importance of this subsidy to the Queensland sugar industry and the fact that Queensland consumes about one-half of the total amount of nitrogenous fertiliser used in this country, the opportunity to endeavour to maintain the bounty at its existing level of $60 per tonne of nitrogenous fertiliser. If clause 4, which seeks to amend section 10 of the principal Act by omitting ‘$60’ and substituting $40’, were omitted, section 10 of the principal Act would remain as is and the bounty would be payable at the rate of $60 per tonne. Should such a request be agreed to I would accept that there would be some consequential need to make amendments to clause 2(2) of the Bill which states:

Section 4 shall come into operation on 1 January 1 979.

I think the situation could be coped with easily if the motion I have moved is carried by the Senate and if it is accepted by the House of Representatives. I think one would have to be very realistic and underline very heavily both of those ‘ifs’ I think the reason for taking this action has been explained adequately in the second reading debate. I do not propose to repeat the arguments now.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I want to say a few words concerning the amendment moved by Senator Walsh. It provides to Senator Maunsell and Senator Thomas the opportunity to do what, in view of the speeches they have made, they ought to do. Both honourable senators said that they were opposed to a reduction of the bounty but, because it is a Budget measure, they could not bring themselves to vote for the amendment which had been foreshadowed by Senator Walsh.

Senator Thomas accused members of the Australian Labor Party of being hypocritical. I think that when the vote on this amendment is put to the test we will see, in fact, who is hypocriticalpeople who stand up in this chamber and criticise a measure but then vote for it. We have seen this happen on many occasions. My mind goes back to the wine excise measure. I believe that we will see it happen again when legislation is introduced to increase the excise on brandy. We will really see then who are the hypocritical people and who are the genuine people. I will leave it at that, because when we have the vote on Senator Walsh’s amendment we will see the final result.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I am disappointed that Senator McLaren did not make a longer speech because he probably would have enjoyed telling the Senate of all the times he crossed the floor against his party when it was in government and he thought it was acting against the interests of South Australia. I am sure that that would have involved both a great deal of time and a great deal of interest. The fact is that Senator McLaren would vote for black being white if that was the decision of Caucus. I do not sneer at that position. It is a perfectly respectable political stance to take. But it is slightly farcical for honourable senators opposite to be taunting honourable senators on this side for being loyal to Government decisions when they themselves are all pledged to absolute loyalty to a Caucus system. I simply make that comment because it always strikes me as a very odd sort of debating point for a Labor senator to make.

Both Senator Maunsell and Senator Thomas made quite clear in their speeches that they proposed to support this legislation, and they explained why. They referred to the general problem of the control of inflation and so on and at the same time made clear their concern about the reduced level of support for rural industries. That seems to me to be a perfectly responsible and respectable position. If they vote for the measure, as I expect they will, that will be perfectly consistent with the remarks that they made in this chamber.

The Government cannot, of course, support the request embodied in Senator Walsh’s amendment. The fact of the matter is that this is a Bill which extends a benefit; it is not a Bill which removes one. The benefit, in fact, ceases -

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CHANEY:

-The benefit under the existing legislation is to cease at the end of December. This measure provides for a benefit to be paid next year, albeit at a lower rate than was paid last year. Its passage is essential to payment of the subsidy being made in 1979. 1 have no doubt that, on that basis, the legislation will be passed.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The remarks that Senator Chaney has made have forced me to re-enter this debate. He has made the remark, oft-repeated by people who sit opposite in criticism of members of the Australian Labor Party, that we are bound by the decisions of Caucus. I intend during my speech on the Budget to point out that their previous Senate leader, who was so unceremoniously removed from his post, a few weeks ago wrote to the Australian a letter saying that members of the Liberal Party were also bound by Party decisions. What concerns me is that in regard to legislation such as this members of the Government, the Liberal Party-National Country Party coalition, go out to the electorate and say that they have the freedom to vote as they see fit on matters of interest and of vital importance, to primary producers particularly, and come in here and mouth the very same words, yet when the vote is taken they vote, irrespective of what their thoughts are, in support of the Government en masse.

Senator Chaney, who is in charge of the Bill knows very well, having sat here during this debate, that we heard Senator Maunsell from the National Country Party and Senator Thomas say that they were not in agreement with a reduction of the bounty, yet Senator Chaney says that they are going to support the Government’s position. We know that they will. What I object to is that they try to fool the electors that they are men of free choice, yet when the chips are down how often do we see them stand up to what they have said?

Senator Chaney also, in his opening remarks, made the statement that when the Labor Party was in government I did not cross the floor on matters pertaining to South Australia. He would know that while we were in government we never brought in legislation which was detrimental to South Australia, and which would have put me in that position.

Senator Bishop:

– It was all good legislation.

Senator McLAREN:

– It was good legislation and it has only been since there has been a change of government that the people of South Australia have suffered under legislation- the legislation which the present Government brings in.

Question put:

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out clause 4 of the Bill.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Scott)

AYES: 20

NOES: 28

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 703

STATES GRANTS (HOME CARE) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 September, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill now be read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The States Grants (Home Care) Amendment Bill, providing as it does for the amendment of the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969, is opposed by the Opposition. The Bill is the legislative result of a statement by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at a Premiers Conference in June which announced the cuts in the Commonwealth contributions under this Act now provided for in this Bill. That announcement provoked considerable discussion in the community and considerable opposition to the proposals from organisations such as the Australian Council on the Ageing; from people such as Professor Henderson, who conducted the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and was commissioned to do so by a Liberal-National Country Party government; from many local government councils in Victoria; from most newspapers- in particular the Melbourne Ageand even from Government members of Parliament. The honourable member for Higgins, Mr Shipton, was quite outspoken in his opposition to the provisions contained in this legislation, but he explained the situation by saying that public servants had slipped these changes through while the Minister was not looking. That is an extraordinary comment for any supporter of any government to make. One notices that though he repeatedly expressed his opposition in the Press before the legislation hit the House of Representatives, he did not vote against it when it was before the House of Representatives.

The Government’s changes to the States Grants (Home Care) Act in fact are an indication of its lack of responsibility towards Commonwealth programs in the welfare field and towards people, particularly the frail aged, who will be affected by the funding cuts contained in this legislation. This legislation seeks to cut the subsidy to State governments for home care services from a $2 to $ 1 subsidy down to a $ 1 for $ 1 subsidy; that is, instead of the Commonwealth paying two-thirds of the cost of these services, as a result of this legislation it will pay only a half.

As I said, announcement of these changes was made to the Premiers on 22 June this year. To the best of our knowledge, it was made without any prior consultation with State Premiers, with State Departments of Health, with State Departments of Welfare, with local government bodies or with any voluntary organisations. A month ago, on 16 August, I placed a question on notice to the Minister asking for information about the amount of consultation which had gone on between the States and the Commonwealth and about the responses from the State Premiers. I have been favoured with an answer- coincidentally todaywhich in fact hides more information than it gives. So, in the absence of any contradictory evidence from the Minister, I take it that there has been no consultation, that when the Premiers received news of the subsidy cuts on 22 June there had been no consultation with State governments, with local government authorities or with any bodies, such as the Australian Council on the Ageing, and that the Federal Government intended just to make the cuts and to announce them without any consultation. This is what it did.

Some two years ago the Government set up its own expert inquiries into the future of health and welfare services in this country. One inquiry was set up specifically to look into the care of the aged. Another, the Bailey task force, had something to say about how we should conduct our welfare funding and particularly how we should conduct it in view of what allegedly is Liberal Party policy. Mr Bailey, at page 1 of his report, as No. 4 of his findings and recommendations, states:

During some of our many discussions reservations were expressed about the Federalism policy, the main grounds being a fear that it will be used by the Commonwealth as a cost cutting’ exercise and that the objectives of some programs, if devolved, may suffer the need for consultation, for negotiation of agreements where devolution is intended, and for some assurances about continuation of programs were emphasised.

In fact, the doubters have been proved correctthe Government is well and truly into cost cutting. At the time that Mr Bailey was busy investigating, we might remember that the Government was already abolishing the Australian Assistance Plan, not because it was ineffective but in order to save money. The Australian Assistance Plan also contained many programs to help the aged. At the moment the Government is cutting grants to the States for home care for the same reasons. The Government not only ignored the reservations about cost cutting outlined in the Bailey report; it also ignored the emphasis placed on consultation and negotiation in that same report. The Bailey recommendation on local government reads:

We believe the growing awareness in local government circles of its potential to act effectively in the welfare/health field, and its growing capacity, particularly in service delivery, should be encouraged, primarily through influencing the States in this direction rather than by direct Commonwealth action.

The Bailey task force stumped the country by telling local government bodies how appropriate it was that they should provide these services on the basis of need in their communities and by telling them that in fact this was in accordance with Government policy. But local government was not told that Federal commitments would be watered down, as is happening under this legislation, without consultation, negotiation or appeal. The Government has in fact cut the subsidy for welfare officers but has increased by nearly $400,000 the amount of money available for new appointments. The Government has said repeatedly that that is what it is doing, but that is misleading because in fact there will not be any new positions. During the past two years local government, in good faith, has appointed welfare officers and has applied for subsidies. They were not told until March 1977 that funds for this purpose were frozen. The local authorities and councils felt committed and provided the salaries for these appointments until the Commonwealth subsidy was made good. It has only just been made good.

Much of the extra allocation will be taken up by increased salaries and will involve local governments in hundreds of thousands of dollars more to make up for the part of the subsidy which the Commonwealth is no longer paying. The additional 34 per cent which is usually the amount estimated for the cost of administrative and support services to maintain welfare officers for the aged community will also have to be found by local government. The Government has tried to say that the States and local government can find the money. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) said this in a Press release on 3 August. She said:

Provided that State Governments act responsibly within the framework of the federalism policy, there is no reason to believe that there will be any reduction in the level of welfare officer and home care services.

I presume that the Minister would still say that if the Commonwealth reduced its contribution to one-hundredth instead of to one half. The evidence is that the States cannot and will not make up the difference.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– But they have. New South Wales and Victoria have both added considerably to their Budgets.

Senator GRIMES:

– Calm down! Let us look at what Sir Charles Court and others say about it. Sir Charles Court said that the Commonwealth formula was the worst ever presented to the Premiers. He later threatened to withdraw from Commonwealth programs because his State was not going to be left holding the baby.

Senator Missen:

– It is unusual for you to be relying on him.

Senator GRIMES:

– I shall rely on more people than him. Why not look to the good strong Liberal Party Government that everyone is praising to see what its attitude is. In the Western Australian Parliament on 7 September the Honourable Lyla Elliott asked a question of the Minister for Lands who represents the Minister for Health in the Legislative Council. She said:

In view of the announcement by the Federal Government on 22 June 1978, that subsidies for home care services and provision of welfare officers for the aged salaries under the States Grants (Home Care) Act would be reduced from $2 for $ 1 to $ 1 for $ 1 , would the Minister advise-

1 ) Will the State increase its allocation to this area of social welfare to prevent cuts in home care services . . .

What arrangements will be made with local government in respect to its commitment to these services?

What steps has the State Government taken, or does it intend taking, to strongly protest to the Fraser Government about these cuts which will seriously affect a vital area of social welfare?

The Minister, obviously a very practical man, gave a very practical answer. He said:

  1. The State’s allocation for Home Care Services will remain the same but the cost to the State will increase because the amount received from the Commonwealth will be reduced.
  2. The Welfare Officers have been employed under an arrangement between the Local Authority and the Commonwealth. In the present financial constraints, it is not anticipated that the State will be in a position to provide funds for this purpose.
Senator Button:

– So much for the new federalism business they are talking about.

Senator GRIMES:

– So much for the Minister’s idea that the States will be able to find new funds. The Minister continued:

  1. This is only one of a number of areas where the Commonwealth has reduced the level of funding or ceased to fund programs. Continued protests have been unsuccessful and it is unlikely that a particular protest in regard to this area would be any more successful.

The Western Australian Government knows exactly what is going on. Funds have been cut. It cannot afford to pay any more and it is no good protesting to this Government because it will not take any notice. Mr Jona, the Acting Minister for Health in Victoria had something to say about this. A statement by him is quoted in a letter from the Municipal Association of Victoria. He said:

  1. . the State will not be able to make up the difference caused by the reduction in Commonwealth Government funding.

In a Press release of 1 August he said:

State funds are already committed in programmes which have been completely initiated by the State Government and for which the State Government has a moral and financial responsibility to continue. Furthermore, State funds through the Health Department will continue to be applied to meet existing jointly funded Commonwealth/State programmes where the formula has not been changed unilaterally without reference to the State.

That of course is exactly what is happening in this case. He also made it clear that it was not easy for local government to compensate for the Fraser Government’s abdication of responsibility. In the same Press release he said:

The decision of the Federal Government can only be regretted and undoubtedly will cast additional burden on local council finances at a time when local government finances are already strained to the limit.

Professor Henderson had already registered his dismay at the Commonwealth’s decision to cut the subsidy from $2 for $ 1 to $ 1 for $ 1 . 1 think, as he said, that we should point out to the Minister that this is a cut in subsidy and not a varying of the formula which is the Government’s terminology to describe what is happening. In the Age of 28 August 1978 Professor Henderson said that Senator Guilfoyle was unconvincing in her arguments. He said:

State and local authorities are short of money this year due to the restrictions imposed by the Commonwealth . . . an excellent example of penny wise pound foolish.

The councils and local government organisations are in no doubt as to the disastrous effect the subsidy cut will have on the provision of services to the elderly in their various regions. Fifty councils were represented at a protest meeting held in Melbourne last Wednesday, 13 September. They appointed what they called a war cabinet to discuss tactics and protest at policies they felt were shortsighted, inequitable and against community interests. It was said at that meeting that the Federal Government was paying lip service to the needs of welfare while taking money away from it. The Camberwell Council in Victoria went so far as to send a circular to all residents in which it set out the position. The circular stated:

The slashing of home help subsidies by the Federal Government shows that it has washed its hands of the responsibility that the community should bear for its elderly and incapacitated. The Camberwell service assists between 900 and 1 ,000 people- of these 56 per cent are over 80 years and receive full pension while 38 per cent are part pensioners. Over the past 12 months Camberwell ‘s service has cost $350,000. Of this $71,500 is contributed by Council. If the same level of service is to be maintained, the Council ‘s share may increase by 70 per cent to $127,500. At present home help provides that margin of support which allows these people to remain in their homes in independence and dignity.

Other councils have made similar calculations and know that it is impossible to provide additional services. They know that they are unlikely to be able to keep up their present services on the money they will get from the Commonwealth. They can raise extra money only from their own rates. This is a very difficult process for a local council and one which places many councils in an inconsistent position whereby they raise the rates collected from property owning pensioners and then give those same pensioners a rate rebate. This means a lot more paper work for no extra finance. It is generally recognised, I believe, that levying local government rates is an unsatisfactory way of financing health and welfare services in the community. Many members of the community are not ratepayers or they have their rates rebated. In a report by the Poverty Commission called ‘The Delivery of Welfare Services’ the arguments on this very subject are put in a section on local government and welfare. Page 56 of the report states:

About one half of the revenue of local authorities comes from the levy of a general property tax, but this tax is an inappropriate one not only for financing expanded social welfare programs, but also for financing the current functions of local government.

The Commission gives 12 or 13 reasons for this. I think it is worthwhile mentioning the main reasons. The Commission points out that rates are not a growth tax in an inflationary situation. They are a regressive tax placing a disproportionate burden on home owners. We have heard a lot of speeches in this place about that. Rates do not conform to either the benefit or the ability to pay principle when the individual taxpayer is concerned. Of course, all local authorities do not have the same tax raising capabilities. The ability of rural local governments to raise revenue is strongly related to the prosperity of rural industries, and metropolitan urban local authorities face problems because of declining population and a concentration of low income earners in many of their regions.

The Labor Party has been very pleased to see the widening of interest of those local authorities which have set up home care services, which have appointed welfare officers to the aged and which in recent years have generally entered into the area of welfare of not only the aged of all groups. But this increased interest cannot be expected to be continued if funding is cut in this manner without warning and without consultation. Such a cut as this is a discouragement to councils which are prepared to survey and cater for the needs of the less fortunate within their boundaries. They have the aged, the ill, the handicapped, the single parent families and all sorts of groups in their areas. What hope is there for any preventive health or welfare measures in this area if the Commonwealth slashes the funds and if the States cannot make up the deficiency- as the States of Victoria and Western Australia say they cannot- and if the councils, because of their nature, cannot raise their rates even further? The situation is difficult enough for the aged, and particularly for the aged poor. It is this group which has led a lot of the protests against the Government’s actions in this legislation. Mr Pomeroy of the Combined Pensioner Association in Box Hill was reported in his local newspaper as saying:

For each person who manages to walk to the elderly citizens club for a meal, there are at least nine or 10 at home who are unable to make the distance. The Government has encouraged the councils to establish these services and now they’re going to take it away from them.

That is the crux of the argument and that is the basis of the very real disappointment of so many people. Professionals in the health and welfare area have warned time and time again how short-sighted it is to force aged people and others into dependence and institutional life. They point out that old people want to stay at home, in their neighbourhoods, surrounded by their own possessions and within reach of their families and friends. Dr Van Tiggler, Co-ordinator of Geriatric Services for the Victorian Mental Health Authority, said recently:

No one should be forced to go into an institution because of the lack of home health. Everyone has the right to live and die in their own home. Sending an old person to a nursing home is a one-way ticket- a death sentence.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Are you suggesting in good faith that this Bill is likely to accentuate that trend?

Senator GRIMES:

– Not only am I suggesting it in good faith but also Professor Henderson and the Council for the Ageing are suggesting in good faith that the very actions of this Bill will contribute to that sort of thing. I make no bones about that. The honourable senator will have his chance later to refute that argument and all the other arguments that have been given. I suppose the Minister may be concerned that the whole business has become an emotional issue.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– It has usually been stated incorrectly. That is what concerns me.

Senator GRIMES:

– It is already an emotional issue. It always has been an emotional issue and it has become a political issue only because the Minister has chosen to reduce the subsidy for this care. I suppose one could say that all the local councils in Victoria, the Council for the Ageing, the Pensioner Association and Professor Henderson are misled, but they, of course, can only read what they see. They can only make clear interpretations from their own experiences. If they are unconvinced, as Professor Henderson was, by the Minister’s reply in the Age, she had better try to do some more convincing. Certainly the Opposition fails to see how a reduction in a subsidy can be called ‘varying the formula’ and be anything other than a reduction. We know that that is what is happening.

Senator Missen:

– It does increase the amount, though, doesn’t it?

Senator GRIMES:

-The allocation in the Budget has been raised. The honourable senator is right. Let us put that in perspective. For two years no subsidy has been paid towards the costs of welfare officers whom the councils have put on in good faith. Finally the Government is measuring up to its responsibilities. As far as home health services are concerned, the additional money nominally allocated by the Commonwealth will be called on only if the States and the councils themselves can find the additional funds to contribute. These additional funds were not expected to be required. This is an unexpected burden on their budgets. If they do not find the extra money the Commonwealth will not be putting up new funds. Honourable senators can bet their lives that the Commonwealth will do its best to blame others for the lower expenditure. The Government might as well have added $ 100m or $200m to this estimate but if the States and the councils cannot find the initial funds the Government is just wasting its time by trying to fool people. That is what is happening in this area. That sort of deception is relevant but what is really relevant is the effect that this will have on the people, particularly the old and the handicapped, who are concerned. How many of them will remain hospitalised because of the uncertainty about the provision of home help services? We just do not know. Councillor Zeleznikow of Caulfield Council said:

Longer periods of hospitalisation will ultimately mean higher costs for Australians.

Much as the Minister may not like it, the Age editorial of 8 August referred to the Government’s decision as:

One of the meanest and most shortsighted of the Federal Government’s welfare cutbacks . . . manifestly false economy.

Earlier this year the Government established a policy unit within the Department of Social Security to co-ordinate policies on health and welfare. I would like to know how much coordination there was in this case. To save a few million dollars, I think generally said to be $3. 8m, did the Government count the costs in terms of hospitalisation, in terms of occupancy of nursing home beds or in any other area? Is there a policy on the economy, the efficiency or the humanity of giving the frail aged and the disabled the ability to remain at home with community services? Is there a policy on community services generally and on whether these services should be contracted or expanded? I remind the Senate as I did earlier that when the Australian Assistance Plan was axed, at least 50 ongoing projects for assisting old people, with handyman and meal services which were community-based and largely voluntary, were axed at the same time. As Professor Henderson has said, in this action the Government has been ‘penny wise and pound foolish’.

Experience in Australia and overseas has shown that as the Federal Government moves away from funding welfare projects they tend to contract. The very real difficulties of local governments in finding more money, about which we have spoken earlier, and the squeeze on the States- Labor and Liberal- about which they talk continually, points to the same sort of thing happening in this area. I believe that local government in this country can very well determine the need and the delivery of health services. But to do so it needs the stimulus, guidance and financial support of an assured Commonwealth program, not a program which can be cut without consultation by the mere announcement of a Minister at a Premiers Conference. The Commonwealth is involved in other areas. It is involved in the provision of meals-on-wheels and other such assistance. The subsidy for that provision has not increased for some years but at least it has not been cut. Up until now the councils assumed that it never would be cut, but what can they think in the future? At last Wednesday’s meeting 50 Victorian councils called on members of Parliament on both sides to prevent the erosion of financial support to councils for home care and welfare officers. I suppose today we will see whether they get any more sympathetic response than they did in another place. I know that some honourable senators on the opposite side are not mesmerised by official figures.

Of course we know that the allocation of money goes up as local government assumes more responsibility in agreement with the States but as the State allocation has dropped from the basis of $4 to $ 1 in response to cuts from this Government, local governments cannot depend on the money and the community therefore cannot depend on the services. It is the cuts contained in this legislation that should be worrying members of the Senate this afternoon. They should be concerning supporters of the Government in the Senate, as they obviously concerned Mr Shipton and others in the other House when the cuts were first announced, even if they did not do anything about the legislation when it first came before their own House of Parliament. Every government report issued in the last five or ten years has urged support for domiciliary services, for increased support and in fact, one report advocated a doubling of the current subsidy. It goes against commonsense, expert opinion, and common humanity to cut subsidies like this and to cut them without consultation and without negotiation. I add that I believe it goes against Liberal Party policy. The Liberal Party health policy says:

We will encourage people to remain in their home or familiar social environment with a comprehensive home care program which would include assistance with home alterations, and community supports such as half-way houses, short-term nursing beds and hostels.

A Liberal and National Country Party Government will therefore consider extending the provision of home nursing care and home help.

The Government has not delivered an expanded nursing care benefit, which was promised during the last election campaign, and now it has cut home care and welfare subsidies. The Opposition believes that it is time it put its policies into operation. It is for this reason that we join with all those other people in the community who are protesting at the cuts in the Commonwealth subsidy for this important, humane and vital area of home help. We will add to our protest by voting against this legislation in this House.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The States Grants (Home Care) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969-1973. This is a Bill which covers the important matter of social welfare, particularly care for the aged. It also relates to the involvement of the States at the government participation level and to their contribution at local government level. When I talk about government participation and local government contribution I must also include the attention which non-government organisations, community instrumentalities and voluntary agencies give to this matter.

As the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) has said, the purpose of the Bill is to provide direct matching grants with the States for a whole range of home care services. Additionally, there is provision for payment of the salaries of approved welfare officers who are employed in senior citizens centres. The Bill also provides for a continuation of the subsidy, which I think the Senate should be reminded is on a $2 to $ 1 basis, for the capital costs of senior citizens centres. Senior citizens centres are institutions that have appeared in our community in recent years. They have provided the opportunity for senior citizens not only to gather together but also to engage in activities which are pleasant and useful to them. They also assist senior citizens to relate to the rest of the community and bring them into contact with the members of the community. At the same time they give the community an opportunity to recognise the presence of senior citizens and the centres in which they find their social and community activities.

So this measure which is before the Senate this afternoon gives effect to policies that were announced at the recent Premiers Conference. Whatever honourable senators opposite might say, the Premiers Conference recognised that the State governments are in the best position to understand the local needs of senior citizens and to give an accurate assessment of the home care services which may be required. Because they live closely and more in direct contact with the needs of senior citizens they are in a position to allocate priorities and to place emphasis where it is required.

The States Grants (Home Care) Act was first introduced in 1969 on the basis of recommendations made at a Health Ministers Conference the previous year. As I think we all understand that provided home care services such as housekeeping and other domestic assistance. It provided for the building and equipping of senior citizens centres and for the employment of welfare officers. Today the Government is very well aware of the importance of locally-based home care services. It is also acutely conscious of the value of welfare officer services for aged and older people. As the Minister pointed out in his speech, for the States grants home care program overall there has been an increase of some 12 per cent in the estimates for this financial year over the previous year. It is important to state that the home care services component of this program has received a notable increase of 83 per cent in estimated expenditure for this year over that of the financial year for 1 975-76 when the Government took office.

Although the figures have been set out in the second reading speech, I think it is important that they be noted again in a general way. The figure for home care services in 1975-76 was $5. 6m, whilst for 1978-79 the estimated expenditure amounts to $ 10.4m. For senior citizens centres, in 1975-76 the figure was $3. 5m, and the estimate for this year is $4m. In the area of welfare officers, to which I have referred, the amount for 1975-76 was just over $0.5m, whereas the estimate for this year is slightly over Sim. The total for those three areas of Commonwealth expenditure on senior citizens interests and needs in 1975-76 was $9.8m, whilst the estimate for this financial year is $ 1 5.5m.

The Bill is but one avenue of Commonwealth financial assistance for those who may require support services. It emphasises, as we respond to community needs, that those people who wish to live independently in their own homes should be able to do so. One of the services which enable people to live in their own homes is mealsonwheels, which is subsidised in another way altogether and for which there has been a considerable increase in expenditure in this financial year. It is important to refer to the suggestion that has been made the subject of some public comment; that is, that the Government might be suddenly withdrawing from funding home care services and that this might cause some concern and distress amongst aged people because they would have to find accommodation in nursing homes and in other institutions in the community. In his second reading speech the Minister pointed out that the Commonwealth is emphasising again and again that this is not the case and that, indeed, the Government will continue to match every dollar that is allocated by the States both for welfare officers and for home care services.

The Bill seeks to amend the principal Act, which provides that at the request of a participating State the Minister may approve a scheme for the provision of a home care service wholly or mainly for aged persons in respect of which that State proposes to incur expenditure. The project undertaken by a State may be conducted by the State itself or, alternatively, by a local government body. It may be done also by a community welfare organisation or by what I think is termed in the Act a joint body, that is, any two of the earlier mentioned organisations which act jointly in a co-operative venture.

I think it is well known that a home care service is a service in the nature of housekeeping or other domestic assistance to persons in their homes. This is one of the significant and important areas of home care service in that it provides not only for people to stay within their homes but also for them to receive attention and care within their own homes and recognises that that care and attention involves the services and presence of additional people.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator DAVIDSON:

-We are discussing the States Grants (Home Care) Amendment Bill and before the suspension of the sitting I made some observations not only on the Bill but also on the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969-73, which this Bill seeks to amend. The Act and this amending legislation are not concerned with institutionalised care of the aged except insofar as the provisions of the Act and the subsidies involved have some indirect effect on welfare services for senior people generally. They place emphasis on the provision of services rather than on cash payments for them.

Another important part of the Bill, apart from the provision of the services to which I have referred and which assist people to remain in their own home, is the inference in regard to the level of activity of the government or voluntary agencies which support the services both administratively and financially. For long enough the Federal Government has been responsible for the original and initiating capital for these programs and services. It provides this capital for the services to begin and then looks after certain recurrent expenditure. One of the dissatisfactions with this process is the confusion which sometimes arises between departments and different levels of government. It is true to say that in the application of these services on a day-to-day basis those groups which are nearest to the point of service- whether they be local government or voluntary groups- can best help in the provision of efficient and satisfying services. The Bill before the Senate gives effect to the Government’s policy to provide the appropriate grants and financial assistance but to have the services provided by other levels of government in order to give better accountability and more local responsibility. It also gives better cost control and allows greater local involvement and understanding. In total it provides for greater efficiency and much more satisfaction.

When we are considering services to the aged it is not only a question of finance or even of organisation but also of reminding ourselves that any program of service to the aged, however elaborate and expensive, must be associated with what I will call a caring community if it is to be effective. This caring community must involve itself in voluntary support services. It can and must cover an enormous range of services. They start with the obvious personal services, including home care services and medical care, but it is important that they move through all the home care services into even the areas of recreation and leisure. These services take on a special value as they make the most effective use of the talents and time of voluntary workers. The great range of services required today with the spiralling cost ingredient means that there is a need as well as an opportunity for voluntary and selfhelp groups to be a vital part of any home care and welfare service. This is at the centre of this legislation. It is true and well known that this activity enriches the lives of those involved and their relationships with the various programs as well as giving a new understanding and appreciation of what could be described as the interdependence that exists between those who are associated in some way at one level or another. A caring community is very much a part of the study of the legislation before us. It is very much a social matter, very much a community matter and, it would be true to say, very much an economic matter.

I stress the importance of this because I have seen it in action and have had some personal involvement with these services. It is also important because of the future trends in this country. From my study of figures and events it is clear that the population projections for the last 20 years of this century indicate that by the year 2000 Australia will have a considerably greater proportion of older persons in the community. It is important that we bear this and other related factors in mind when planning the work covered by the Bill before us. It is even more important when we recognise the value of keeping people in their homes, providing the opportunity for them to remain in their homes and providing them with services in their homes.

The home care services supported by the Government are considerable. In reply to what has been said it needs to be repeated that the Government is not opting out of its responsibility to support a wide range of care services for senior citizens in their home environment. Increased expenditure on these services is given a great deal more reality when we see how low the level of inflation is expected to be by the end of this financial year. In the Labor Administration totally unexpected levels of inflation ruined many of the initiatives taken in some areas. It is important to observe and to state again that, by significantly reducing inflation and continuing that reduction, inevitably much more effective utilisation of the financial resources of government will be achieved. We cannot expect inflation to be overcome without some kind of budgetary restraints.

Another aspect of the Bill which has been raised in the debate is whether there will be a subsequent transfer of persons from domiciliary accommodation to institutional accommodation in one of the many homes. We do not want aged people to be cared for in institutions when there is no need for them to be there. The senior people prefer to remain within their own home environment, one which is convenient and familiar and to which they have belonged for a number of years. They prefer this to the environment they would experience in an institution, however desirable or efficient it may be. This takes on added importance when senior people are in good health, active in mind and body, close to community affairs and close at hand to family. Institutionalised care in 1978 is an expensive business.

The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am among those concerned with the possible effect this legislation may have on local government. I invite the Minister’s attention to my observations and ask for a response in due course. Local government by its very nature is well suited to the provision of welfare services and the provision of home care services. Its expansion into this area has been a feature of its activity in recent years. But today, there are many heavy burdens on local government. It is required to provide an increasing range of services. We must bear in mind its revenue raising capacity. There is now a strong responsibility on the States to cooperate with the local government authorities and equitably to distribute the costs involved in these projects so that the burden does not fall too heavily on any one authority. The Commonwealth is seeking to alleviate this problem by providing a general increase in the funding of home care services.

In summary, there has been a significant increase in the amount allocated overall to home care services. Many important programs are now receiving additional assistance. The money allocated to the care of aged persons, I suggest, can now be more effectively utilised. I hope that the Government, in achieving a significant and very important reduction in the rate of inflation, can see for its work an effective utilisation, an effective interpretation and use of its funds. I ask also that it monitors the implementation of the provisions of this Bill and that it ensures that the matter of the care for the aged remains one of its very highest priorities.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Although not on the list of speakers, I am prompted by what the last speaker has said -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Coleman was rising to speak. I call Senator Coleman.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– Obviously we are stimulating debate on the States Grants (Home Care) Bill 1978 because a number of honourable senators who are not listed to enter this debate are rising to speak. Perhaps they can take the opportunity to do so at a later stage. I was extremely interested in what Senator Davidson had to say. I am glad that he recognised that aged people do in actual fact want to stay in their own homes. This Bill does not provide for them to do that. Senator Davidson said that aged people are independent and that they want their independence; that they want to stay in their own homes. They cannot do that in the main without government assistance. State governments cannot always provide it because they are dependent on Federal governments. Local governments can provide it to a certain extent but they can do so only by imposing taxes on some other sections of the community. Senator Davidson said that local governments are very well suited to the provision of home care services. I agree that they are very well suited to the provision of home care services. They still need finance to provide those services.

Senator Thomas:

– It is taxpayers ‘ money.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I recognise that it is taxpayers’ money, but the Government has most of the money and it is not prepared to give it to the States for the provision of these services.

Senator Walters:

– We don’t just print money like some governments did.

Senator COLEMAN:

– Obviously neither of the honourable senators on the Government benches who are interjecting has read the Bill because the proposed amendment to section 6 of the Act will reduce the money payable to the States in connection with an approved home care service scheme from the present two-thirds to one-half. The amendment proposed in the Bill to section 10 of the Act will reduce the money payable to the States for the payment of the salary of welfare officers at senior citizen centres, once again, from two-thirds to one-half. The Australian Council on the Ageing, the Pensioners’ Federation and Professor Henderson as well as local government bodies are all protesting about these proposed changes. I intend, in a moment, to read some of the remarks of a few of those people about this matter. Firstly, I shall read a telegram sent to one of my colleagues from Caroline Hogg, Mayor of the Collingwood City Council and chairman of the meeting referred to in the telegram:

A meeting of 55 Victorian councils on 1 3 September urged the Government to restore the 2 for 1 home help subsidy. The meeting produced figures showing severe effects on local government finances, its ability to maintain home help services and its opportunity to expand services this year. We urge you to raise the matter on our behalf during the Budget debate and within your parties.

I am not waiting for the Budget debate to bring this matter forward because I am concerned now about this Bill that we are asked to pass. Professor Henderson criticised the cutbacks and described them as negative economics. He said that the Government’s decision to cut its contribution towards home help services and the salaries of welfare officers employed by local councils would not save money. He also said that it would cost the Government $10,000 a year for every aged pensioner who was institutionalised because’ he could not cope alone at home. Senator Davidson, in his speech, said that aged persons would like to be able to cope at home. How can they do that if they do not have the finances coming from local, State or Federal governments? This Bill does not provide that assistance. Money is being taken away from the State governments, which in turn will take money away from local government, which will result in a reduction in the provision of these services rather than an expansion of them. The councils have already said that they want to expand these services.

Professor Henderson said it would also cost an immeasurable amount in human hardship, family breakdown and psychological stress. He said also that the States are already in a difficult position and were much more likely to cut back their own contribution to the program than to make up the difference. He said that there is a real danger that staff will be cut back and services will be cut back. Professor Henderson accused the Government of leading local governments up the garden path by offering subsidies for welfare schemes and then not continuing to pay for them once they were operating. Local government is going to stop providing welfare services because it has become fed up with being left holding the baby. Scores of frail old people will be forced into institutions because of this decision. Many people would die without seeing their homes again.

Nothing is quite so devastating as seeing aged people in these institutions. If members of the Government benches have not seen it, let me recommend that one of these days they go to one of the institutions for aged people and see the absolute devastation of those people who recognise that because they are now institutionalised they are no longer independent. What elderly people basically need is their independence- not to be a burden on society, not to be a burden in an institution, but to remain on their own homes and to care for themselves as much as possible with a little outside help. A Press release from the Australian Council on the Ageing had this to say:

While State governments and non-government organisations do much, support from the Federal Government is essential. The Federal Government is reducing its contribution by one-third. There is a body of expert opinion which states that older people should be assisted to remain in their own homes whenever possible rather than in institutional care . . . This can only mean a reduction in service with the prospect of more aged people seeking admission to institutional forms of accommodation at far greater cost to themselves and the community.

The newspapers have not been backward in their criticism of this particular legislation either. The Age editorial on 8 August 1 978 said:

This manifestly false economy is estimated to save the Commonwealth $3. 8m. This paltry saving will not do much to reduce an expected deficit of more than $3,000m. It could however do much to increase the distress of some of the most vulnerable people in the community and ultimately cost much more.

I understand, from the last sentence, that it could cost much more to those people who will die much sooner because they have lost their independence. Professor Henderson, who has brought down so many magnificent reports in this Parliament and who is recognised throughout Australia as the person most capable of assessing the situation from a social security angle, in a letter to the editor of the Age on 28 August 1978, had this to say:

Senator Guilfoyle s reply to criticism that the amendments to the States Grants (Home Care) Act will lead to a reduction in the provision of domiciliary services is unconvincing *(Hansard, 16 August, Senate, page 49).

The statement that an increase in Commonwealth funds for schemes of $2 to $3m has been provided does not mean that it will be spent, for that would only happen if a much larger increase in funds were provided by States and local governments in order to attract Commonwealth subsidy at the lower rate of $ 1 for $ 1 instead of $2 for $ 1 .

States and local authorities are short of money this year due to the restrictions imposed by the Commonwealth. They are being told that now they must provide 50 per cent instead of 33 Vs per cent, that is, an extra 16% per cent towards the joint Commonwealth/State contribution to the cost of domiciliary services.

In the circumstances, it is clear that there will be a cut in provision of such services.

Mr Hamer has already said that in Victoria his Government is unlikely to be able to offset the reduction of Commonwealth funding and maintain the level of services.

Senator Missen:

– What date?

Senator COLEMAN:

-This is on 28 August in the Melbourne Age. He went on to say:

This is happening at a time when there are great unmet needs for services, a steady increase in the proposition of aged people in the population and great pressure on institutional accommodation.

Since domiciliary services are much cheaper than institutional care or other alternatives, this is an excellent example of penny-wise, pound-foolish.

The letter is signed by Professor Ronald F. Henderson, Director of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne. If we think that we are concerned only with the aged people and the effect that these amendments will have on them, I think we should pay some attention to the effect they will have on the children of these aged people. These children are not always in a position to help the aged people in the community. They may want to help them but find themselves economically or financially unable to do so. As I said before, if members on the Government benches have ever visited aged people in aged homes they would have seen the way in which they are institutionalised and suddenly find themselves regimented from the time they wake in the morning until the time they go to bed. Breakfast is generally served at 8 o ‘clock in the morning and tea at 4 o ‘clock to 4.30 in the afternoon. So, because of the demands on the time of the staff of those institutions, these people are treated as though they are less than human. It should be recognised that, because of the increased costs, of running institutions over the last few years, the provision of staff becomes a major concern to the people operating the institutions. The C-class hospitals and the domiciliary care that is talked about by Professor Henderson are areas where there have been large cost increases for food, staff and medical attention. It is not possible for these organisations to continue to expand without some form of relief. If we are suddenly going to say- as I believe this Bill is saying- that we will commit more people to an institutionalised lifestyle we have to make provision for them. But the Government has not done that either. I would not like to see that happen; I would prefer to have elderly people remain in their own homes.

I am very concerned that in my own area in Western Australia, which is an old area, a great number of people rely on the local council for their domiciliary services, as they rely on Meals on Wheels to provide them with hot meals each day. The Chadstone Progress newspaper of 16 August published an article under the headline Elderly may be forced out of homes’. It had some comments that were worth making. In a separate article headed ‘We need the help’ the newspaper told the story of an elderly couple who at the moment are in receipt of home help services and who are now in danger of losing those services. The wife is 88 years of age, paralysed and in need of constant care. Her husband, who is 85 years of age, is quite active but not getting any younger. The article states:

We’d both have been in institutions long ago if it wasn’t for the council’s home-help service,’ . . .

We have a lady who comes round each week to help and we are getting meals-on-wheels too ‘.

Harold expressed the fears of hundreds of other elderly couples in Caulfield who may be affected by the decision to halve the subsidy for home-care services.

We simply couldn’t keep our home going if the services were cut or taken away ‘, he said.

These people have lived in Caulfield for the last 50 years. What right, I ask, has the Government now to propose that these people should become institutionalised simply because of this mad phobia that this Government has in relation to a reduction in the rate of inflation? We hear Government senators say: ‘We have been able to reduce the rate of inflation’. I would dearly like someone on the Government benches to tell me what benefit this has been to the majority of people.

Senator Missen:

– You are not serious?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am quite serious when I say this. Can Senator Missen tell me for instance of one item of food in the supermarket whose price has been reduced since the Government cut the inflation rate? People still have to eat. Perhaps Senator Missen does not consider that.

Senator Walters:

– Food went up one-half of one per cent.

Senator COLEMAN:

– Bring the question back down to that issue for the consumers in the community because that is how they rate inflation. That is how they see the inflation rate- in the benefits that they have in the purchasing power of the money that they take home each week.

Senator Thomas:

– Would you like to see the inflation rate back at 16 per cent?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I have not said that I would prefer to see the inflation rate back at anything. I am just making the point that I am sick and tired of hearing Government members who have this mania telling us how they have been able to reduce the inflation rate. I am simply asking them to tell me what has been reduced as far as the ordinary consumers in the community are concerned. Strange as it may seem, we are debating amendments to the States Grants (Home Care) Act. If the proceedings were being broadcast anybody listening would be wondering whether in actual fact that was what we were debating. I would like to continue to quote some of the people who have addressed themselves to this problem and who are concerned in the area of the provision of home help services. A letter which has been sent to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and Mr Street was written by the Winchelsea Social Development Committee. It reads:

As members of the Winchelsea Social Development Committee we are concerned generally for the needs of the people within the Winchelsea district and in particular for the older members of our community. We are therefore dismayed to learn of the Federal Government’s decision to reduce the subsidy for home care services.

We feel that the effect of this reduction will distress many people and we trust that you will reconsider the decision.

One hopes that perhaps we might see the same thing that happened in this Parliament when the Government announced that it intended taking away the pensioners’ funeral benefits. But I doubt that that will happen. I think that honourable senators on the Government benches have lost their guts, their get-up-and-go and their concern for other people. If they had not they would have been speaking out in their party rooms and in this Parliament against this legislation in which they can see the blatant attempt by this Government to force people who at their age are unable to care for themselves into a situation in which in the majority of cases they will have to give up their homes, become institutionalised and become dependent on domiciliary services.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Nonsense.

Senator COLEMAN:

– That is not quite good enough. It is all right for Senator Walters to sit there and say: ‘Oh, hogwash’ or whatever the interjection was.

Senator Walters:

– I never use that word.

Senator COLEMAN:

– No. I imagine Senator Walters would use something much more ladylike, but unless she speaks up I cannot hear her interjections. If she continues to mutter I will have to presume that she says: ‘Hogwash’. As I have said, I hope that every member on the Government benches has been inundated with the amount of mail with which I have been inundated. I have had correspondence from local government organisations and even from some State government members who are concerned about this issue. I hope that Government members are in receipt of correspondence from individuals expressing their concern, and I hope that they find the moral fortitude- perhaps one could say that if the word ‘guts’ offends Senator Walters- now to declare what their Government will do and what they will do about what is the Government’s intention in this Bill. I support the shadow Minister for Social Security in his opposition to the Bill.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-We have just heard an extraordinary diatribe on the States Grants (Home Care) Amendment Bill 1978. We also heard an extraordinary piece of economic logic from Senator Coleman. We heard the most extraordinary way in which she has revamped- I think one could use that expression- economics tonight, the way in which she has confused the rate of inflation and the reduction in the price of items. Nobody suggests that the price of items has been reduced overall. Of course there has been continued inflation, and the fight on that is continuous. But at the same time there has been an enormous reduction in the rate of inflation. Senator Coleman- I think it is perhaps typical of her Party- asked: What benefit do you find from the reduction in the rate of inflation? If one asks a pensioner about this he will say what benefit there is. Surely Senator Coleman must know that the people on fairly fixed incomes, the people who do not have an opportunity to get extra income, are the people who have been the victims of inflation. They are the people who have gained most because the rate of inflation has been reduced. That must be above all the things that the Government can do for pensioners and other people on fixed incomes. To reduce the inflation rate is surely of tremendous importance.

The Bill we are considering tonight of course is one of the Budget Bills. We have heard some extraordinary speeches about it. We heard Senator Grimes tonight- one might call his speech one of Grimes’s fairy tales- talk about cost cutting. He said that this is apparently the reason why this provision which reduces from two-thirds to one-half the amount of Commonwealth subsidy is in this Bill. It is not a matter of cost cutting at all. In fact it is an extraordinary piece of cost cutting when one recognises that the amount provided for home care services in this Bill will rise from $9. 138m last year to $ 10.4m! That is an increase of 12 per cent.

Senator Coleman:

– It has to be spent.

Senator MISSEN:

– Of course it has to be spent and of course there are problems in regard to this Bill. T will not avoid them for one moment.

I have had many representations on this Bill. Senator Coleman said that senators on the Government side somehow are frightened or have lost their guts, as I think she put it. She may recall that a few nights ago in my speech on the Budget I criticised this decision. I feel that it is a somewhat risky and unfortunate decision. If the States agree to the expenditure they will be called on to undertake, the decision may be all right. I criticised this reduction on 13 September. My comments are in Hansard of that date. I raise some criticism of it tonight. Let us bear in mind what was said in the second reading speech after this Bill was introduced. This is what was said:

Provided that State governments act responsibly within the framework of the federalism policy, there is no reason to believe that there will be any reduction in the level of welfare officer and home care services. Indeed, it could be anticipated that the States will allot a high priority to these services, which make a contribution to maintaining people in their own homes. The main function of a welfare officer is to provide a link between aged persons living in their own homes and domiciliary and other supportive welfare services.

The importance of maintaining these services is recognised. It is recognised that the States need to contribute. I think it has been pointed out already that the New South Wales Government, in its Budget brought down last week, provided an increased State contribution of 29 per cent for these services. That State has accepted this responsibility. One must recognise that the overall increase from last year to this year- it is in fact an increase- for home care services, senior citizen centres and welfare offices was from $ 13,805,000 to $ 1 5,500,000. That increase, as the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle pointed out in an earlier statement, has allowed the possibility of increasing and spreading the extent to which these services will take place. A newspaper article reports the Minister as saying:

In the current financial year $10.4m ($9.14m 1977-78) has been allocated in the Budget to subsidise home care services, such as housekeeping, home repairs and gardening to assist elderly people. This amount would enable the Commonwealth to extend funding to an additional 22 home care services (249 services are already being funded).

Surely it is important that not just some municipalities and areas have the benefit of these services; there should be a widening of this provision. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the increased amount of subsidy for the salaries of welfare officers employed in connection with senior citizen centres will cater for an additional 80 welfare officers. Currently there are 1 12 approved welfare officer positions. In both areas there are expansions of the provisions. It is true that if the States do not match the grants a problem could occur. This area worries me. If the States do not match the grant we will have to look again at the situation. I believe that the States will recognise the substantial importance of this program.

One would think, from listening to Senator Grimes and Senator Coleman, that they were the only people who received any representations on this matter. I have received many representations in Victoria. The decision was announced at the Premiers Conference well before the Budget. A real fear was held by many people, including Professor Henderson, that there was to be a reduction and that it could well lead to a situation where people who otherwise would be cared for at home would be forced into hospitals. I would be the first to admit that that is a horrible proposal.

Senator Chipp:

– It would be too late if that happened, Senator.

Senator MISSEN:

– It will not be too late. One would know of the situation if the States did not contribute the additional amounts which this wider program would involve them in. The Liberal Party shows by its platform and policy that it is concerned with these matters. It needs to be concerned with the independence of people and the opportunity for them to keep their independence by living at home. To send them into hospitals and into other institutions will be more costly for the community. I do not think for one moment that that is in any way desirable; nor is it within the platform and policy of my own party. The platform and policy of my party stresses the greatest possible independence of the citizen and the provision of assistance in a dignified, unobtrusive and sympathetic manner rather than through impersonal bureaucratic agencies. In addition to that, the platform emphasises the need for increasing the opportunities for personal relationships in the course of providing aid in the community. From the letters that have been sent to me by many citizens in Victoria, the number of people who are engaged at the moment in providing services of this type, and the people who can be engaged in providing them, is unquestionably important.

I have in my hand a letter from a council home helper. The lady has written a letter of many pages. She describes her week and the people she helps. She refers to the multitudinous types of service which she provides for people. She refers to the company, the assistance and the friendliness which she provides these people. Some are old. Some are lonely. Some need the extra strength and support which a person like this can give. She wrote to me because she feared that the subsidies would be reduced and that some of the work might not be done in the future. I would be equally concerned if I thought that that was to be so. I do not believe- I recognise that Senator Guilfoyle agrees- that this will come to pass. We must see whether the States will accept what I agree is an added burden. Will they join in the bigger program that is now contemplated under this scheme and will they contribute the amounts which will be needed? I therefore believe that the initial fears will not be justified.

Some people immediately saw the decision as meaning a reduction in services. They heard the States say that they felt they could not contribute their extra share. We must wait and see. We know that some States already have undertaken to pick up the extra burden. I believe that the schemes which are in existence need to be extended into a wider field. The schemes should not cover just a few councils and a few persons. Therefore the fact that the present payment by the Commonwealth will now go into wider hands will improve the scheme in the ultimate. I have said before, and I say it again, that I believe that there is a danger if the States do not pick up this responsibility. Bearing that in mind, I believe that the Bill should be supported but the legislation must be watched to ensure that it does not lead to any reduction in the number of persons who are able to be protected and able to be kept in their own homes and able to enjoy the independence which they have had in the past. With that in mind, I still support the Bill.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– All of us, either subconsciously or consciously, at times play the game of association of ideas. When I was contemplating what I might say about the States Grants (Home Care) Amendment Bill, which is essentially for the aged, the frightening thought came to me that perhaps 1 am the longest serving parliamentarian in this chamber. But, to my great relief, I found that that was not my honour. That honour goes to Senator O ‘Byrne. I run second. Otherwise I might have felt obliged to disclose a vested interest when speaking to this Bill. This Bill has only five clauses, most of which deal with the title or technical matters. What it does not refer to- I will come to what it says in a moment- is the incredibly generous treatment that this Budget provides in the way of home care services.

I would concede what Senator Missen and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) -in her second reading speech- say about the benefits that it confers on elderly, and not so elderly, people who need home care services. But that is not what we are talking about tonight. We are talking about this simple Bill. It looks relatively harmless, but the Australian Democrats do not believe that it is harmless. We believe that it is a very inhumane and silly Bill. Therefore, we could not possibly support it and will be voting with the Opposition on it. What it does is to reduce the subsidy that is given to State governments and, because of the flow-on, to local government for home help- for housekeeping and other domestic help in their homes- for the care of frail, elderly and other disadvantaged people. We believe that that is inhumane and silly.

First, I would like to discuss why we believe it to be inhumane. Its effect, we believe, will be prematurely to force thousands of frail, elderly people- and others not so frail or elderly- into institutions by withdrawing the home help and welfare services which have enabled them to stay in their own homes. We are talking about a great number of human beings. We are talking about 17,000 elderly and infirm people, in Victoria alone, who depend upon these domiciliary services and who, from the number of letters and representations that I, and I am sure every other honourable senator, have received are already deeply distressed and alarmed by the announcement.

Every organisation and individual who works with the aging is unanimous on one thing. There is much disputation about philosophy and whatever, but I have not met anyone who works with the aging or the frail and who is not unanimous about this one thing. I would go further and say that every honourable senator and every member of the House of Representatives, notwithstanding his political persuasion, is unanimous on this one point, that is, that if you have frail, elderly people you should keep them in their homes as long as you can. There is not in the whole of this national Parliament one voice of disagreement on that. We know that once they are institutionalised, notwithstanding the values of the institution in which they are placed, the process of deterioration is devastating and quick. Every honourable senator has gone into fine institutions where dedicated people are looking after the frail and elderly. All of us have come away feeling saddened that those people have begun the journey to the end of the road. One can see the different appearance, philosophy, and outlook of a frail person in an institution- no matter how good it may be- compared with that of the person who has, even though possibly disabled, remained in his own home. If they can stay in their homes, the castle in which they have grown up, whether the person is a bereaved husband or vice versa, they retain something precious that permits them to maintain their philosophical and intellectual capabilities. We are unanimous on that.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Not quite unanimous, Senator, but I will have my turn next.

Senator CHIPP:

– I will be fascinated to hear from Senator Baume, whose views on this I deeply respect. Apparently he is challenging my point that, with the elderly or infirm, it is better to keep them in their homes than it is to institutionalise them- provided they do not need hospital or medical care to an extent which cannot be administered at home. Is that what Senator Baume is challenging?

Senator Peter Baume:

– The honourable senator has made a universal statement about all people and I will just pick him up on that point. It is not always right; it is generally right.

Senator CHIPP:

-I thank Senator Baume for his interjection. I am grateful to him for the fair way in which he has qualified the statement. Having said that, I believe that this simple fiveclause Bill will have the opposite effect. It will reduce a subsidy of $2 for $ 1 on certain home services to a subsidy of $1 for $1. That is why I take issue with the speech of the Minister, which obviously was not written by her but on political instructions given to a public servant in another department. I would question the integrity of that procedure, but that is the way our system goes. The speech is not dishonest but, I suggest with great respect, lacks honesty. The Minister said:

It has been suggested in some quarters that the Government is suddenly withdrawing from funding home care services, causing large numbers of aged and infirm people to look to nursing homes and other institutions for help.

That is the allegation. The Minister answers it by saying:

The fact is thai the Commonwealth will continue to match every dollar allocated by the States for approved welfare officer and home care services.

That is totally lacking in honesty. It is a nonsequitur on an Aunt Sally that the writer of this speech set up and then knocked over. It is not untrue but I suggest that it lacks honesty. Of course the Government will match every dollar with a dollar, but that is the very thing that those of us who are on this side of the chamber are objecting to- reducing it from $2 for $1 to $1 for $1 but, read nakedly, the speech looks as if it means something other than it is supposed to mean. The Minister continued:

As I have already indicated, the new arrangements for the program were announced at the time of the Premiers’ Conference in June and of course are fully in line with the

Government’s policy of federalism, which recognises that State and local governments are well placed to assume greater responsibility for locally based programs of this nature.

I go along with that 100 per cent. I have been a champion of federalism, and of the philosophy of federalism, ever since it was announced, several years ago, by the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). But it is a mockery to talk about federalism and devolution of responsibility. It is a mockery simply to say that this responsibility is handled better at the State and local government levels unless those organisations have the financial facilities to carry that out. If they have not, and we know they have not, it simply means that there is an opting out of responsibility by this Government. I would be voting on the other side of the chamber, with vigour, if this Bill took away from the Federal Government and gave it to local councils the responsibility to fund home care services- if, but only if, the accompanying Budget provision went with it. Every honourable senator on the other side of the chamber knows that it is not to be accompanied by the necessary funding.

Why did Premier Hamer say immediately that he cannot find the extra funds to finance this matter? Why did he denounce this measure immediately it was announced? Why, if the money is there, did 55 municipalities meet and object to it strenuously- municipalities where the frail elderly are being cared for in a humane fashion. Why has the Uniting Church in Australia condemned this little five-clause Bill? Why has it been condemned by the Australian Council of Social Service and the Victorian Council of Social Service?

I would have believed- in fact I know- that the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, thought very highly of Professor Henderson, as indeed one should. He is a first-class man and has served this Government and this country very well. Professor Henderson has condemned this proposal. The Pensioners Association has condemned it. In fact, the only persons I have heard espousing its so-called values have been the Liberals rising in the Senate tonight and by whom, in great fairness to them, I have not yet been persuaded.

I also believe that the Bill is not only inhumane but also silly- silly because it will cost governments and taxpayers infinitely more than the miserable $3.8m by which it is intended to reduce the deficit. I should have thought that it would be well known to people in the Department and to the Treasury that it costs much more to maintain an elderly person in a nursing home and infinitely more for the next step along the downward path- the hospital bed- than it does to provide domiciliary services. Now I am getting away from the humanity of the question to the silliness of the economic action of the Government.

I think Professor Henderson said that it costs something like 17 times more to keep a person in a nursing home than it costs to keep a person under domiciliary care. This, if multiplied by the number of people in Victoria alone who are now receiving domiciliary care, would represent millions of dollars. Nationwide eventually it would represent hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet the provisions of this Bill are to be enacted to save a miserable $4m. That is something that goes beyond my comprehension. I defend for a moment the Liberal backbenchers, in the light of Senator Coleman’s charge against them. I think she rather unfairly asked them: ‘Why haven’t you got the guts to come over here and vote with us?’ I say, with very great respect to my friends in the Australian Labor Party, that it ill befits a member of the Labor Party to issue such a challenge to Liberals because members of the Labor Party know that if they cross the floor once they are automatically expelled from their party.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, that is not so.

Senator CHIPP:

– I thank the honourable senator for his interjection. I do not want to score a point on this, but just for the record, so that my speech is complete, I would be obliged to Senator Cavanagh or Senator Coleman if he or she would explain the situation. I was under the impression- obviously a false impression- that every member of the Labor Party, on being endorsed and on being elected, signs a pledge to obey party dictates, Caucus decisions, at all times, otherwise to suffer immediate expulsion. Is that incorrect, Senator Cavanagh?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, it is.

Senator CHIPP:

– I am grateful to Senator Cavanagh for his enlightenment. I would like to know the date that that happened in the Labor Party. At times certain Liberals have crossed the floor. I would hope that they would see this matter as being more important than the matter of funeral benefits, on which several of them courageously threatened to cross the floor. I would have thought that their actions on that occasion were sound and were courageous. But what I am suggesting is that this issue is far bigger, far more far-reaching, than the funeral benefits issue.

How a Liberal can vote for this proposal is beyond my comprehension because it is totally opposed to Liberal Party policy. I know because I wrote it. Liberal Party policy demands that funds be channelled through that avenue which will keep elderly people in their own homes to prevent them from being institutionalised. This legislation goes in the reverse direction. When I, with the help of the Social Welfare Committee of the Liberal Party, presented and wrote that policy it was endorsed unanimously by the Liberals in the party room. Why do we have this sort of legislation before us now? We are going to oppose it. Mr President, for the sake of the record, to prevent my having to read this statement out, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement by the Minister for Social Security of 3 April 1978 in which she eulogised the concept of domiciliary care. I have paid the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney), who is at the table, and the Opposition Whip the courtesy of asking for authority to incorporate the statement.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The Minister for Social Security in a Press Release dated 3 April 1978 on ‘Community Responsibilities in Welfare and Health Programs ‘ said-

Appropriate support services such as home nursing care, delivered meals, day hospitals, day centres and home visiting services can often provide a more humane and economic alternative for care of the aged, sick and disabled in our community than prolonged hospital or nursing home care’ . . .

Studies have shown that considerable cost savings accrue by providing support services which enables a patient to be cared for in his own home. In a discussion paper on paying for health care prepared by the Hospital and Health Services Commission, it was estimated that on average patients maintained in the community cost Governments about one-fifth of what it costs to treat patients in hospitals and two-thirds of what it costs to treat them in nursing homes. ‘

Senator CHIPP:

– In conclusion, we oppose this Bill. Unlike Senator Missen, we can see practical reasons for its causing people to be institutionalised. We share Senator Missen ‘s fear, but we say that it is too late to act after human beings, because of the thrust of this Bill, have been forced to leave their homes. We would prefer that the Bill were not passed rather than take that sort of risk with human lives. We believe that this is a classic case of a government which is out of touch with the people blindly accepting advice from a bureaucracy which is obsessed with statistics and deficits.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– Before talking about the substance of the States Grants (Home Care) Amendment Bill, I would like to add to two points made by Senator Chipp during his speech.

The first point is his analysis of the rather gratuitous insults offered by some Labor senators to honourable senators on this side of the chamber, in which it was asserted that honourable senators on this side were unable to cross the floor if that was their desire. Senator Chipp, who spoke before me, was quite correct. In the time I have been in this Senate chamber I have seen a number of honourable senators cross the floor. I have never seen a Labor senator break ranks or break Caucus rule, but I have seen many Liberals cross the floor. Indeed, we are the ones who have lost votes, or who have had a true exercise of parliamentary democracy. It comes very ill from the Australian Labor Party members to make that kind of sneering charge.

The other point Senator Chipp made was to establish himself in some hierarchy of parliamentary service. I am sure he would be as interested as any honourable senator to know that he is only half correct. He is correct in saying that Senator Justin O ‘Byrne is the father of the Senate. But he might be interested to know that Mr President, who is in the chair, actually has a longer period of parliamentary service than even Senator Chipp.

Senator Chipp:

– I said in this Parliament.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Well, that is correct- in this Parliament.

Senator Chipp:

– It was said in jest.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I thank Senator Chipp. Then we will agree that Senator Laucke ‘s parliamentary service in two Parliaments establishes him in the hierarchy slightly ahead of Senator Chipp. This Bill is concerned with home care services and it is concerned with the subsidy arrangements which will allow for the provision of home care services and for the provision of salaries for approved welfare officers in senior citizen centres. In fact, it extends the capacity for more people to be involved in the programs and to bring services to more aged people throughout Australia. Of that there is no doubt. The only argument can be whether it will achieve this result. It operates to involve several levels of government in sharing in the provision of home care facilities and the salaries of these welfare officers. The argument that has gone on is whether the subsidy arrangements which are proposed are appropriate and whether they will produce social effects of the kind that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats allege they will produce.

Senator Grimes:

– And many other people.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Many other people allege that too, but of course many people have vested interests of various kinds. The question of whether there will be an effect on domiciliary care of the kind that is asserted- whether there will be any effect which will be deleterious to the best interests of aged Australians- is capable of analysis. I think Senator Chipp stated very properly the desirable goals we would like to achieve, but I point out that many pressures operate in our society against domiciliary care for the aged. These pressures are not always just to do with the available support services in the community; they are pressures which are rooted as well in families, which form views as to where their aged should be nursed or cared for. These pressures are involved with the values which are held by the elderly people themselves, by the society in which they live and by the structure of society in a particular community as much as they are involved with the cash available to provide the services for support for isolated, aged, frail Australians. I do not think that any of us would argue with that. Just to keep this debate on some reasonable basis, I submit that domiciliary care is not always the most desirable form of care. In fact, some people benefit from institutional care. It is not true that in every case an elderly person would be better off in his or her own home, although it is generally true. I must say in an anecdotal sense that I have seen examples where people are not only better off in a material way but also are happier and better integrated by being in an institution. I have seen people blossom when they have gone into an institution.

Senator Keeffe:

– How do you know?

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The honourable senator might recall that quite apart from my political activities I had some professional exposure to these problems before I entered the Senate. I also remind honourable senators that many Australians enter institutions as a matter of choice. I draw to their attention the residents of self-contained accommodation and hostel accommodation. They are often very happy with the accommodation they are in. They choose it. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the long waiting lists for many of the institutions which are available to people who are not so frail but who want, as a matter of choice, to leave their own environments for various reasons.

I come back to the point that domiciliary services are good to have in the community. They are right in theory. There is a body of belief in social theory which states that those services should reduce the need for admission to institutions. I would encourage the provision of domiciliary services. They seem humane, effective and efficient. But I do not know in strictly scientific terms- I throw this in as a side issuehow effective the domiciliary services we provide are. I do not know whether they produce some of the beneficial effects we hope they produce. It is relevant to bring this point into the debate because there is a need for us to know more about whether the services we provide for elderly Australians produce lessened admission rates into institutions and a measurable beneficial effect to the aged.

Senator Coleman, apart from her endorsement of the high inflation rates of 16 per cent or 17 per cent during Labor’s term of office and in spite of her failure to acknowledge that August saw the lowest rise in food prices in this country for eight years, made some unnecessary, im proper and, I think she would agree, undeserved comments about the institutions caring for the aged people in this country, many of which are determined to work for the best standards of care.

Senator Coleman:

– I have not criticised the care.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The honourable senator can read what she said in Hansard tomorrow. She talked about people who go into institutions suffering under rigid time-tabling. That is not always true. When the honourable senator distributes copies of her speech many of the people who spend their lives dedicated to the care of the aged will know that that is the view of a Labor senator. They can form their own opinions about what she said about the services they offer and the job they do. They can make up their own minds. The debate centres on one argument, that is the assertion that the provisions of this Bill will lead to more people entering institutions. If that assertion is not true, the criticism falls. If that assertion is true, the criticism stands. It is only an assertion. I could try to examine the question by going the other way to ascertain whether when we introduced these home care programs a desirable trend emerged in terms of the rates of institutionalisation. That is indirect evidence only.

Senator Chipp:

– Does the honourable senator know any organisation working with the aged that says that the assertion is not true?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I take the honourable senator’s point but I make one statement. I have seen very few submissions that have been anything more than assertions. I believe that this is an area in welfare like all the other areas in which we do not know what has been happening or what is happening now. We do not know whether the rate of institutionalisation will increase or stay the same. Unless people can demonstrate that the rate of institutionalisation will increase there is no argument against this Bill.

This Bill provides access to the States which the States and local governent can then use for the benefit of aged Australians. In talking about subsidies there are several points which my colleagues have made and which I will reiterate. We cannot say that there has been a cut simply by looking at the subsidy rate. As well as looking at the arrangements required for obtaining a matching grant we have to look at the amount of money provided and the trend’:in the allocation of funds to see whether more or less is being made available to the Australian community. It is altogether too slick for people who cannot say that we are providing less to say that they know that we are providing more but that they will discount that anyway because the States will not take up the grants. As we will demonstrate later that is wrong.

Carefully avoided in any of the speeches by Labor senators was my acknowledgement of the fact that the States are already taking up their share of the grants. The spokesman on social security matters in another place, Dr Klugman, said that there will not be a wider program unless State and local governments double their contributions. We know that that is mathematically incorrect. It is fallacious. It is an error. It is not true to say that a move in subsidy from 33c to 50c in the dollar is a doubling of contributions. That was said by the spokesman the Labor Party puts up to advance its case. He made many other cases. He asked why local government should have to contribute on a dollar for dollar basis. He went on to expand the centralist philosophy which is really what people are espousing when they object to this Bill. He said:

The whole point of having a Federal government and a progressive system of taxation- inasmuch as it remains progressive- is for help to be given to those in need.

We intend to see that help is given but we intend to do it through a federalist system.

If the ALP is serious that it is not right for local government to have to contribute on a dollar for dollar basis then I reject that proposition. It is entirely appropriate for local governments or State governments to contribute their share on whatever is an equitable basis to get the greatest number of services for the greatest number of aged Australians. There is no argument there. Dr Klugman ‘s statement is entirely without any generosity or foundation. He did not acknowledge, for example, that the States are well off. Even with the mismanagement in my State, New

South Wales, the deficit in that State is less than $2m in the current year. Our deficit is approximately $2,500m. What is more, New South Wales and other States have moved steadily to reduce their taxes, they have been so well off. The States are in a better position to respond than they were previously. The Minister for Social Security has already indicated that New South Wales and Victoria, the two most populous States in the Commonwealth and the States which between them will take up the bulk of the grants, have already indicated that they will come into the scheme on the new subsidy arrangements. The Budget brought down in New South Wales makes increased allocations for just that purpose.

One possibility in federalism is that some States may not take up their matching grants. One of the possibilities we have to face is that some States, perhaps on ideological grounds, may decide not to play. They may have different priorities; they may not believe in home care. I guess they would then have to be answerable to their own electors. But, under a Federal system, we will provide the capacity for States and local governments to be involved in these programs. As I have said, the two larger States have already become involved, rather I think to the sorrow of the Australian Labor Party which would have been much happier to debate this issue had it been able to say: ‘The States will never play’. The fact is that New South Wales is playing and Victoria is playing.

Senator Grimes took the matter further by identifying the problems of local government. I think he put forward some good arguments about the need for local government to have a supplement to a rating base if it is to be involved in welfare provision. I agree with the honourable senator. Local government cannot provide welfare services on a basis of rates alone. Therefore, this Government, through the access it has given local government to funds- through the Loan Council, by the Grants Commission arrangements, and by the 1.52 per cent of income tax collections it has provided- has greatly increased the capacity of local government to be involved in welfare projects. We have seen local government respond and improve its share and involvement in the welfare game.

Apart from the arrangements to get matching grants and apart from the fact that we are providing a different kind of sharing of costs between the levels of governments, we are also increasing the quantum. Dr Klugman said many times that we were going to cut the amounts. That simply is not true. How can it be said that we have cut the amounts when we have deliberately identified in the Budget an increased subvention which is available for these programs. We need to examine the amount which has been allocated. If we look at the Budget we can see the amount. I was attracted to a table which appeared in another place last week. It sets out the amounts which have been provided for home care services, for senior citizens centres and for welfare officers over several years. I have the table and have shown it to the appropriate people. I seek leave to have it incorporated.

Senator Grimes:

– You have not shown it to me but I will agree to its incorporation.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– In answer to that interjection, the honourable senator was not in the House at that stage but his colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Button) was and he was approached.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator PETER BAUME:

– If we look at the table we can see- I think Senator Davidson and Senator Missen set this out- the increased amounts that are available under the States Grants (Home Care) Act. For example, for the provision of senior citizens centres we have provided an extra $52,000 this year, and for the salaries of welfare officers an extra $378,000.

Senator Grimes:

-I referred to it as $400,000. We concede all that.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I am delighted. The honourable senator has rounded off the figure. For the cost of home care services we have provided an extra $1,262,000. That is an extra $ 1 .7m in a total allocation of $ 1 5.5m.

Senator Grimes:

– If the States contribute.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-As I say again to the honourable senator, New South Wales is participating and the other States are on their way to doing so. If we look at the amount which was being provided and we add in the State allocations, I think the total amount which could have been provided for home care services throughout Australia, with State, local and Federal Government contributions, under the old scheme was of the order of $20. 7m. I hope my arithmetic is correct. Under the new scheme, with a $ 1 subsidy for two of the programs and a $2 for $ 1 subsidy for the remaining program, I estimate that the total amount that can be spread across the Australian community is just under $27m. Again I hope my arithmetic is correct. It is a program capable of wider application and capable of use by more Australians in more places. Under these circumstances, with the States starting to participate, with more money available and with a wider possibility of spreading all these programs, I cannot understand how this potential for more people to get the benefit has not been acknowledged and has not been applauded by the Opposition.

Some of the critics have made what I see to be a self-serving case. Some of the States would like to have the services and to contribute nothing if they could. Some of the agencies are happy with the game they know and do not feel at all happy about any kind of changed arrangements. But the fact is that we have an extra allocation and we have an extra challenge for the States, one to which they are responding. We are going to ask the States that are reducing their taxes to help increase the services to their citizens. I believe that a reduction is a smaller amount, a smaller involvement, and I see no evidence of a reduction in the program that the Government is offering. Further, I have seen nothing to make me believe that any aged Australian will be forced out of his or her home and into an institution because we have altered the subsidy arrangements for the home care program. The program is still unproven as to what it has achieved. The entry of people into institutions is not totally dependent upon the operation of this program. In the absence of that kind of proof I do not believe that the Opposition has established any case to sustain its very convenient assertions which will do nothing but frighten, upset and make uncertain many old Australians who want to use these services to the best of their ability. I support the Bill.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I thank the Senate for the discussion and debate which has taken place tonight on the States Grants (Home Care) Amendment Bill. It should be stated that many of the participants were uninformed and much of what was said was totally inaccurate. It should be restated that this year’s Budget provides for increased funds to be directed under the States Grants (Home Care) Act to the home care and other services which have been developed by State and local governments. Senator Grimes, in putting his case for the Opposition, spoke of cost cutting and of a number of other matters which are of concern to him. I say to him that to my knowledge no service under the States Grants (Home Care) Act has been withdrawn. Alarmist statements have been made quite frequently with regard to aged and frail people being forced into institutions and reports have been presented by the media of people being interviewed and asked how they would feel if treatment were withdrawn. I believe those sorts of statements have been most unfortunate because of the concern which they have caused.

I thank honourable senators who brought forward facts about the Budget implications and I thank those who made comments on the need for home care services to assist people to remain in their own homes and to be independent for as long as they are able or choose. Senator Grimes raised the question of negotiation with the States on this matter. I believe that honourable senators are aware that this was a subject of discussion at the Premiers Conference with the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I wrote to each State Minister on 29 June, informing him of the Government’s policy and of the fact that legislation was being prepared for the Budget session. No State has refused to participate in the scheme on the new basis. It should be recalled that the States Grants ( Home Care) Act was first introduced on a $ 1 for $ 1 basis. That was the basis which operated from 1969, 1 think, until 1973.

The reversion to the $1 for $1 basis in this Budget was made for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is the change in financial arrangements which has occurred with State and local governments and the belief that there are programs in which State and local governments would wish to express their own sense of priority. As far as this program is concerned, there have been many statements made suggesting that the States will not participate. I say right now, and it ought to be said again and again, that the States have shown in their own Budgets that they too place priority on home care services and that in the 1978-79 Budget of each State in Australia there have been increases in the amounts which have been provided for home care services.

I would like to give the figures for each State to emphasise the point I am making. In Victoria in 1977-78 the amount for home care services was $ 1 .2m; in the Budget of this year it is $3.3m. That is a notable increase in Victoria which will be matched on the basis of $1 for $1 by the Federal Government. In South Australia last year the figure was $0.7m; this year it is $0.8m. In New South Wales last year the amount was $2. 9m; this year it is $3. 75m- another notable increase. In Queensland last year the figure was $1.3m; this year it is $2.059m. In Tasmania it was $0.6m last year and is $0.8m this year. In Western Australia it was $0.06m last year, and it is $0.084m this year.

In each State there has been an increase in the funds which have been provided in this year’s Budgets. That was the expectation of the Federal Government in the changed arrangements. Let me say that one of the reasons why the arrangements were changed was that there had been a notable growth in the States grants home care program between 1975-76, when the expenditure was $9.877m, to this year, when it is $15. 5m. Despite the growth that occurred in those years, many welfare officer positions around Australia were not able to be approved. Where services had been approved there was growth in them. Where services had not been approved there was no access to a service at all. What has occurred now is that with the changed arrangements we are able to approve those positions which were outstanding and had been awaiting approval. There will now be far greater access around Australia to home care services than there has been previously.

That is a point that ought to be made so that we can allay the fears of those people who have been led to believe that there is to be a withdrawal of services and that there is to be a change in the way in which home care services are to be presented. I am aware that many local government bodies have held meetings and that many have talked of the need for domiciliary and home care services. There are those who have felt some fear about the withdrawal of those services, but the facts just do not sustain those fears. It ought to be seen that all the States have done as we expected them to do and have continued with the program, accepted the changed arrangements and appropriated increased funds to provide greater access to the services that will now be available.

It is clear that there will not be a reduction in services. In fact, the reverse is the case. I have instanced the figures in each of the States’ Budgets. I have said that the States will be spending more. This means that they will be requiring the Commonwealth also to spend more, because the arrangement under the Act is that expenditure by the States is matched by the Commonwealth on a dollar for dollar basis. This has therefore achieved the major purpose which was set out in the Budget strategy; that is, the States will increase their commitment because they have increased funds which they can divert to programs to which they give priority in the course of their own budgetings.

As mentioned in the second reading speech, 79 new welfare officer positions have been approved. Because of the growth in the program, I venture to say that if there had not been a change from the previous basis of funding we would not have been able to fund those positions and people right around Australia would not have had access to the services to which they will now have access. Is it suggested that we should have frozen approved positions and allowed growth only in those areas which had been approved? Is it suggested that we could have continued with the rate of growth and still had the same sort of funding formula?

I believe that the co-operation that has been achieved under this Act is a notable feature of it. The fact that State governments, local government bodies and others have come forward and provided services has led to the Act being used in the way in which it was envisaged when it was introduced. In recent days I have been able to say to numbers of people that they will now have approval for services for which they have been waiting, in some cases, for years. These are the facts that ought to be put on the table as we deal with a Bill of this kind. To suggest, as one speaker did, that we have been eulogising the Bill and have now cut the funding that is available overlooks all the facts I have just given. We are pleased to see that in all the State Budgets there is increased funding, that the commitment to the States Grants (Home Care) Act has been accepted by the State governments as a valid one, and that they are prepared to divert their own funds to sustain the program.

The States Grants (Home Care) Act is one that I believe is worthy of the support of the Parliament. I regret the fact that the Opposition does not wish to support this Bill. I believe that the Budget allocations of State governments right around the Commonwealth of Australia and their commitment to home care services and to this Act show that they wish to participate with the Commonwealth Government in the provision of these services. I think it is regrettable that the Opposition does not see fit to give support to this legislation.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 28

NOES: 22

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– Having by word and deed indicated our opposition to this legislation, I wish to reaffirm that opposition but at the same time inform the Senate that we will not call a division in the Committee stage. In view of some of the remarks made in the second reading debate it is worth while emphasising some of the points which the Opposition has made in opposing this legislation. The Bill is opposed not only by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats but also by almost every person and organisation concerned with this legislation since it was announced. Such people and organisations include Professor Henderson, the newspapers, the Council for the Ageing, various welfare organisations and local government bodies throughout Australia as well as back bench members of the Government parties in the other place, particularly the honourable member for Higgins, Mr Shipton. We object not only to the subsidy which is paid by the Federal Government to assist those bodies taking part in this worthwhile cause- a cause with which we agree, with which the Liberal Party has agreed in its policy speech and to which State governments have all agreed, as the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) said- being reduced but also to the manner in which the reduction took place.

The Government makes much of its policy of federalism. It claims that it is a co-operative policy between the States and the Federal Government. However, the Opposition believes that in any co-operative setup the changes to arrangements should be made after negotiation and consultation. The Minister therefore cannot say that the States have accepted the new arrangements because the new arrangements were landed on the States at a Premiers Conference without consultation or negotiation. There was an announcement that that was what the policy would be in the future. If we are to have an orderly federal program of this type alterations to policy should follow negotiation and consultation between the bodies concerned. There should not be just a unilateral announcement, such as occurred in this case and when the Government decided to cease its support for the Australian Assistance Plan. This goes against the Government’s stated policy on federalism.

They are the reasons that we do not support this legislation. They go further than the simplistic reasons for support advanced by Senator Baume, who made the claim that most of the people opposing the legislation were protecting their vested interests in the matter. Without wishing to delay the House further, I affirm that we oppose this legislation but will not call a division in the Committee stage.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 724

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 September, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Opposition does not oppose the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill. It is obvious to everyone that this Bill will extend for another year the operation of the Homeless Persons Assistance Act. But we certainly have questions to ask, particularly in relation to what the Government has in mind for the future of this program, which was initiated by the Labor Government in 1974 to devise ways of supporting destitute people in the community who were without community support and settled homes of their own.

In November last year, before the election, we had before us a Bill which was similar to this one. Its purpose was to extend the then program for a further year. During that debate many people in the House talked of the traditional group who have been covered by the Homeless Persons Assistance Act since 1 974. We talked about the fact that these were typically men who were homeless, destitute and more vulnerable to the problems and illnesses which beset our society than most people in the society. They were vulnerable to injustice under the law because of our outmoded laws on vagrancy and drunkenness. Their desperation made them prone to commit petty crime and their weakness made them prone to be the victims of all sorts of crimes, both petty and otherwise.

Such people are vulnerable to the diseases of our society- invalidity due to accidents of which they have a greater proportion than others in the community. They have a higher incidence of epilepsy, venereal disease, heart disease, bronchial disease and liver disease. Of course, some of them are subject to the ravages of alcoholism. These people have a low life expectancy. Their average age is only 46 years, despite their appearances. The average age, in fact, is dropping because of the devastating social effects of longterm unemployment. A common complaint made by those who are helping the homeless men in our community is that the average age is falling because of unemployment. They are getting a different sort of person in their rufuges because of the unemployment situation which is facing this community.

Of course, there are other groups which many honourable senators have mentioned and which could come under legislation like this. They may do so in the future if some of the Minister’s projections from past years become true. These groups include women who need protection in shelters, the increasing numbers of young homeless people as job opportunities decrease and as society’s problems become difficult with increasing unemployment. The Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul and the various other city missions in our cities and towns cannot be expected forever to bear completely society’s burden for homeless persons as they have in the past. We certainly believe that they need more help. In 1974 Mr Hayden certainly believed that they needed help. The size and nature of the problem facing us is evidenced in information available in the Poverty Commission’s reports on this subject- I refer particularly to health studies of selected disadvantaged groups and homeless persons and the law- together with the excellent document which was recently produced by the Department of Social Security called ‘A Place of Dignity’. I believe that these documents should be read and considered by all senators.

As I have said, almost a year ago just before the last election a Bill was rushed into the Parliament to extend the homeless persons assistance program from a three-year to a four-year program. It would otherwise have come to a conclusion with the onset of the December 1977 election. The reason given at that time was that the Government had not yet devised a firm direction for the program and had not yet finished considering the Bailey task force report on health and welfare. In fact, it was one of the last occasions on which we heard anything about the report of the Bailey task force. The Minister made it clear in her second reading speech that the Government wished to consider the implications of this report before proceeding with the matter. This reason which was advanced had not stopped the Government’s consideration of any other programs investigated by Mr Bailey. Lacking a firm program, the Government gave Mr Bailey’s report as the reason for doing no more than giving one year’s extension last year. We are now considering an extension of another year. The purpose of the Bill is exactly the same as that of last year’s measure. Mr Bailey’s report is no longer given as the reason for extending the program. This time we have a new notion, and that is that full consultation is to be held with State governments on future arrangements to meet the needs of homeless people in the light of experience with the program to date.

We have just concluded consideration of the States Grants (Home Care) Bill, a measure which reduces subsidies for home care services for States and which, in turn, we assert will reduce their subsidies to local government which will either reduce services to the frail aged or make it necessary for local government to find more money from ratepayers. At this time there is some confusion as to what will happen. We assert that certainly some services will have to be cut or not increased in the manner in which we think they should be increased. We are being given warning that the homeless persons assistance program, with its fairly clear lines of communication to State consultative bodies and its fairly clear lines of communication to voluntary organisations which care for the homeless, is to be passed across to the States.

One can assume only that, as last year the program was extended to allow time for consideration of the Bailey task force report, this year it is being extended to allow time for consideration and consultation with the States. To us that means that inevitably there is going to be a further devolution and pushing across of responsibilities to the States. That is something about which I do not particularly argue but with this Government it inevitably means pushing across to the States responsibility for the funding. As the means which the States have to raise those funds are limited, and as they are certainly not based on our usual principles of ability to pay, one can be concerned about what might happen in future. I believe we can legitimately ask whether the States are being given notice that they might be asked to fund or to control this program for which they have previously had no responsibility. In the light of recent experiences of the States accepting the burden of Commonwealth programs, how keen will they be to take on the responsibility of meeting the future needs of the homeless persons- needs which are recognised in all of the reports which have been made to this Parliament on this subject.

The Minister has recommended for our interest a document called ‘A Place of Dignity’. I certainly back up that recommendation. This report was tabled in the Parliament early this year and was written in the Minister’s Department as a result of surveys done to evaluate the operation of this program during the previous 3 years. I might add that the title of the report comes from the speech of Mr Bill Hayden, Leader of the Opposition, who as Minister for Social Security introduced the program in 1 974. He introduced it with these words:

This BUI is designed to provide both a reasonable standard of support and increased opportunities for homeless people, enabling them to obtain a place of dignity in the fabric of Australian society.

In regard to the funding of this program, the findings outlined in the report ‘A Place of Dignity ‘state:

There was overwhelming agreement that the Federal Government should have chief responsibility for providing the money for homeless persons assistance . . . and corresponding rejection of the proposition that State governments should have chief responsibility . . . However, most thought that local government has an important part to play as a supplier of special services for homeless people.

That is to be found on page 58 of the report. Again, as with other reports on other subjects, there is overwhelming evidence that organisations working with the homeless do not want State governments to take over financial responsibility. As State governments have had no experience in administering this program, I wonder what the Government’s motivation is in being so concerned about apparently trying to pass this program and others across to the States. I believe that if there are consultations on this line or on any other lines with the States the Minister should keep the Parliament informed, as well as the organisations which depend on finances through the homeless persons assistance program. We should not have the sort of situation which we have had previously under the States Grants (Home Care) Act in which decisions were made apparently without any consultation at all. Some of the confusion and anxiety about which the Minister spoke arose after her announcement of the changes to the States Grants (Home Care) Act. In fact, it arose because of the lack of consultation, because there was no negotiation, just a bald statement from the Government that the program would be changed. It is worth noting- I do not raise this in any contentious manner- that although the program has been extended for two years from the 1977-78 Budget no extra finance has been provided. In last year’s Budget we were given a figure of $5. 75m for capital works. This amount will be used for this program in the next financial year. As I said last year, I appreciate that many projects which are put up for approval in this area have a fairly long gestation period because organisations, apart from having more enthusiasm than cash, frequently face delays from local government, planning authorities and appeals from residents. We are a difficult society at times when people try to establish programs like the traditional homeless persons assistance program. I do not claim that any more money or more speedy administrative processes could have been provided. It is possible but we do not know. We do not have information on this. I believe we should have it. I point out that by extending the program for two years the Government has merely kept the legislation in being to give effect to approvals and financial transfers on the basis of last year’s Budget. That is certainly no measure of additional generosity, whether there should be any or not.

One of the themes implicit in the legislation since its inception, and a strong theme in ‘A Place of Dignity’ and in other papers and documents on this subject, has been the undesirability of treating homeless persons as outcasts and the desirability of considering them as members of our society who need short term or long term help to survive and who can often be assisted to find a more satisfactory way of life- frequently to find a job- as a result of the facilities provided. As has often been discussed, these facilities do not always mean just dormitory facilities in which people can sleep. We can have situations like Club 139 in Queensland. These people merely need a place to meet; a place where they can have an address, receive advice and gain some confidence which frequently they have not had in the past. We should always recognise that the problems they face mainly are personal ones which have kept them apart from family and friends, and that their way of life without a settled environment adds to the problems. All the surveys have shown that very few of these people are free of illnesses. Many are alcoholics. Many have a degree of psychiatric disorientation which may be primary to their problem but which is often secondary to the difficulties which arise from their homelessness. I suggest that those who have not done so will learn a good deal from a reading of the report on the health screening of homeless men in Sydney called Health Studies of Selected Disadvantaged Groups’. This report was produced by the Henderson poverty commission. It can teach us a lot about who is in this group of people, and it can also remove some of the misconceptions about these people which are frequently around in the community. We know from this survey that of the heavy drinkers in the group half were regularly heavy drinkers before the age of 19 years. This is something which is significant when considered in the light of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare of which Senator Baume is the chairman and I and others are members. The Committee has pointed out the great difficulties created in this society by alcohol. It is interesting to note that 8816 per cent of those surveyed were smokers, against only 48 per cent of the industrial workers in our community. Those in the survey had four times the incidence of heart disease, twice the incidence of high blood pressure and three times the incidence of bronchial disease.

In the past these people have been largely defined in our community by their use of institutions and facilities for destitute people. In general, as I have said previously, they are destitute men. They know the shelters in the cities and towns, the meals, the rules and their companions in the same straits. They tend to gather together. It is because of the way society has seen destitute people- without a settled home, associating in areas like this-that more provision has been made for them in the past. It was to give extra support to people trying to provide this meagre shelter and sustenance and to give them support to give counselling and medical care- and where appropriate rehabilitation and work preparation was necessary to give this support- that this program was started. I believe that the program should continue. Inadequate as it may be, many people would be much worse off without it. We can learn a lot from this program, and about how we should plan for the future. The program should also move on. Those who want to be part of the community outside the walls of institutions in these circumstances should have provision made for group housing or for single rooms in inexpensive areas. Rights, privacy, the opportunity for companionship- even of the opposite sexrights to legal aid and employment are matters raised by homeless men who were asked in the various surveys to talk about their various situations. We should recognise these rights and do what we can to protect the rights of people in these institutions rather than consider them in the narrow manner in which we have tended to do in the past.

We have always favoured institutions, I believe, because they keep homeless men off the streets. The same unfortunate people in the past were always expected in some way to show gratitude to society for providing these institutions. But I believe that the time has now come to consider special services and for homeless people to have direct access to them. Understanding from welfare agencies and even banks and medical services can be a big factor in building up selfrespect in these people, as can the establishment of a rights program to lessen the sort of authoritarian structure that we have used to deal with these people in the past. It is important that we get away from the sort of thinking that we had in the past that put us into a strait-jacket on how we would consider these people. It is important that we change- if necessary by publicity and education- society’s attitude to these people from the narrow thinking we have had in the past, the tendency to push them away into alleys in certain sections of the city, to keep them away from our comfortable existence. Society generally has been uncomfortable in the presence of people looked after under this program. Local councils do not like them because of the obvious social problems that sometimes are associated with them. Ratepayers do not like them because they think they will send down the valuations of their houses. We have had this very sad picture. So far the emphasis of this program has been on capital works- bricks, mortar, shelter and sustenance. But a rights program and an improved staffing program perhaps should have a higher priority in the next phase of the scheme.

I take it that the scheme will not conclude at the end of five years as some people may have expected. I expect that the results of the many evaluations that we have had in this area and the response that so many organisations have made to this very real problem should produce results worthy of the society in which we live. It may even be that we, and the Minister, should consider the appointment of a welfare rights officer for homeless persons, not necessarily attached to particular organisations as such people tend to be, say, in the ethnic communities, but appointed in one of the major cities to take up cases and make recommendations to the Department of Social Security and others on positive ways of helping these people to find a more satisfying place in the community. The inclusion of these people for the benefit of the whole community is of great importance. So far it has been reasonable that the organisations involved in helping the homeless should be able to continue their interest and develop their building and operational plans. Their interest is proven and certainly consistent in the very difficult circumstances.

The report ‘A Place of Dignity’ indicates that new ideas have not been prominent so far and that the organisations involved in this area have had difficulties in developing new ideas because of the very real restraints society has put on their work. I refer not only to financial and social restraints but also to restraints caused by the narrow thinking of the past. It is important to remember, as I said, that an increasing number of displaced young people will be in need of accommodation. This may be the catalyst in looking at homeless persons as if they have a future and not only looking at them as if they have only a past, as we have tended to do previously.

People can say many other things about the homeless persons program. I daresay honourable senators will say them in the debate. Many areas, including homeless women and children, and girls in need of protection, could well come under such a program but have not done so in the past. As long at our program encourages independence, as long at it encourages rehabilitation in society and not exclusion from society, we probably will go in the right direction. We should not be afraid of failure, particularly in this area. If a government sets up programs or assists private organisations in establishing programs and some fail or some are seen later, after evaluation, to have been going in the wrong direction, we should not be discouraged or allow people to be discouraged; nor should we turn back from supporting programs for homeless people and other destitute people in general. We are too prone in this society to consider that failure means the end of government programs or the programs of voluntary organisations. With built-in evaluation in future programs and with careful surveying of future programs we should proceed and have greater success and end up in the right direction. If we have successful programs whereby these people are included in society, they can approach their own situation with more confidence and vigour. Organisations can probably be less restrictive, less protective and less paternalistic than in the past. The users of their services will become more assured and they will be able to assist us in the future development of schemes like this.

As I pointed out initially, we do not oppose the legislation. We look forward to hearing from the Minister in future on the developments which will come from her consultations with the States. We hope that the Government does not intend merely to take part in a process of devolution of this whole program across to the States without considering the very real problems of financial responsibility. We hope that the consultations will be real and that the Commonwealth, with its quite considerable experience in this area, will be able to develop a national program so that all members of our society in this difficult situation will be treated as equals.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I seek to leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 728

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill 1978, the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Amendment Bill 1978 and the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Amendment Bill 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

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

First Readings

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 728

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-The purpose of this Bill is to extend the Homeless Persons Assistance Act for 12 months. As Senator Grimes has said, this Act was introduced in December 1974 by his party when it was in government as a result of a report by a working party on homeless men and women. One of the recommendations brought down by that working party was that the Homeless Persons Assistance Act be reviewed at the end of three years. So, this Act was extended from December 1 977 to December 1978. Since then, in June of this year, a report has been brought down entitled ‘A Place of Dignity’. Senator Grimes has already commented on it. As a result of that report we desire to consult the States on the future of the Act. So, we are extending the Homeless Persons Assistance Act for a further 12 months.

I congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) on the evaluation carried out by her Department. ‘A Place of Dignity’ is quite an important document. I found it very interesting. As Senator Grimes has said, the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, of which Senator Baume is Chairman and Senator Grimes and I are members, finds that very little evaluation goes on in any departments or voluntary organisations in this field. This is an important document from the Minister’s Department. The survey was carried out among 35 welfare agencies. The aim of the document reads: . . to evaluate the current state of services for homeless people and to determine as far as possible the effect of the Government’s homeless persons program and, by collecting information from a sample of current users of the same agencies, to ascertain whether existing services were adequate and appropriate. Information would also be obtained from the organisations on their plans for the future and on possible improvements to the program, and from both organisations and homeless people on the adequacy of general community services available to homeless people.

If we examine the report in a little more detail we find that some really effective evaluation has taken place. The comments made on the forms of service, for instance, cover quite a considerable area. The report reads:

On the question of whether the program was giving the right amount of encouragement to the most appropriate forms of service, it was agreed that, generally speaking the money had been spent to the greatest advantage of homeless people . . . but also that there had been too much emphasis on physical facilities and too little on actual services … too much emphasis on simply meeting survival needs and too little on the additional help that would enable people to better themselves. … A higher proportion of the money should be spent on people who have not yet become chronically homeless . . . and on people willing to help themselves.

The report goes on to say that in future no residential centres with as many as 100 beds should be set up. As a matter of fact, it goes a little further and says that it would be advantageous to have centres with fewer than 50 beds. The report goes on to point out that outside the main cities there are not many destitute people; that country areas have different priorities. One finds that the number of organisations that are eligible is very limited. They include voluntary organisations, in the main the charities, but the Act does allow for local government to be involved in this area of activity. Nevertheless, we find that only one local government, in Victoria, has actually taken up this benefit. It seems a pity that local governments do not involve themselves more in this area. The report adds that, as Senator Grimes noted earlier, most people believe that local governments have an important pan to play as suppliers of special services for homeless people. We know that traditionally, in our various areas, this has been so. It seems extraordinary that local governments have not availed themselves of the opportunities offered by the eligibility criteria.

The problems encountered in the survey have been well set out. One of the problems in the evaluation of the program is that there is insufficient information to ascertain long term trends in the adequacy of facilities and services. People who have worked in the field for a long time appear generally to believe that there has been a steady but slow improvement. The report contained the following finding:

All things considered, it seems reasonable to conclude that the program has not initiated, but significantly accelerated a process of development and improvement of services for homeless people.

However, the report expresses disappointment that there has not been more innovation as a result of the operation of the Homeless Persons Act. I would like to congratulate the Minister upon bringing forward this document because I believe that it is very significant.

The Federal Government has a special commitment to homeless persons, not only under this Act but also, as I mentioned last week, in respect of women’s shelters. The Government has made a special commitment under the Homeless Persons Act and is funding 106 centres, with 3,410 beds. Last year 990,759 people were assisted. The capital expenditure of voluntary organisations, and of the one local government area involved, has been funded 100 per cent. Also, there has been 100 per cent funding of rental expenses and of the purchase and installation of equipment. Salaries of social workers have been subsidised to the extent of 50 per cent. Last year some 37 welfare officers were employed on this work. Voluntary organisations which provide both food and accommodation received 75c per person, and 25c per meal was paid in respect of non-residents. This underlines the commitment of the Federal Government to assist homeless people.

The St Vincent de Paul organisation in Hobart has just been granted approximately $600,000. Recently I looked over its Bethlehem House there. Extensive extensions have been made and the money has done a tremendous amount of good. There has been capital expenditure upon furniture and equipment as well. The people involved were very proud of their centre and explained in great detail how they not only supported people in an emergency situation, when they first arrived, but, in the case of those who had an alcohol problem, gave counsel and assistance to enable them to re-enter the community. People were supported even though they might have outside accommodation, and were made to feel so much at home at St Vincent de Paul’s Bethlehem House that they would often revisit the centre just to enjoy the company and the social atmosphere that was present and was so obviously of benefit to them there.

I have referred to the problems of conducting the survey, but the system is working quite well. The summary of the report indicates that the program was thought to be an encouraging beginning and to have had already an appreciable effect on services, especially physical facilities. I think we will find that, for the three years prior to this report’s being brought down, the Government has operated the program successfully. Obviously, some doubt has been expressed in the report but, all in all, the opinion seems to be that the program is doing a fair amount of good. The situation has reached the stage that I believe Senator Grimes was talking about. The Government has carried out the recommendations of the working committee. A review has been undertaken. We are now ready to have full consultation with the State governments on future arrangements. I believe that this is part of our federalism policy. It depends upon how the State and Federal governments get together on this and decide just how the Homeless Persons Act should operate henceforth. I would like to underline the fact that it was the previous Government’s recommmendation that after three years of operation the program should be evaluated. That evaluation has now occurred and the next step in the program is ready to be taken. I support the Bill.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– The Australian Democrats could scarcely oppose this Bill because to do so would be to inhibit a proper consideration of the very important matter that is its subject, and because we also believe that this whole area needs basic rethinking. The mere fact that the purpose of the Bill is to encourage consultation is an excellent thing. I would only like to have seen in the first paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Senator Guilfoyle), after the words, ‘This is to allow for full consultation with the State governments’, the words and with major voluntary organisations’. It appears to me that it is the people in the heat of the kitchen who need to be consulted about what is to be done in this area.

Senator Walters:

– What is the report all about?

Senator MASON:

-The aim of the Bill, according to the Minister’s second reading speech, is to allow full consultation with State governments and, again, I would suggest that that should be at all stages also with major voluntary organisations. I suggest that nothing in this area can be implemented successfully without the continuing participation of those kinds of organisations. I am sorry about that. The Australian Democrats think this is quite basic. It is absolutely basic to our philosophy. We cannot consult people and then go away; people have to be consulted continuously or not at all.

There again, whilst I would not oppose the Bill, the whole direction of this area of public policy worries the Democrats. The Government, in keeping the economy in irons- I think that has to be said- acquires a certain responsibility to tidy up after it and to think outside purely economic considerations to the social strains it is putting on this community. One of these social strains- one of the implications of what is happening- is homelessness. Unemployment and near poverty- actual poverty in many cases- puts the most terrible strains on family life. I think it starts with people who are forced to live in small flats, perhaps going back to the family home, and leads to baby bashing. I believe that babies are bashed in our society not because of any fault in the mother or the father but because of the conditions of the society that are imposed on them. Increasingly conditions of the society are imposed on them by government. I believe that government and all members of it should accept the responsibility for those areas of disunity and destructiveness in the community that are arising from the current situation.

Actual housing shortages now being experienced in Sydney are having vast consequences. People cannot be expected to go on living in caravans and to carry on a happy family life. Huge numbers of our population are attempting to do this. It is almost inevitable that at some time during the life of such a family one of the children will reach the stage of becoming homeless. This is the second area that worries us very much. In the past homeless people typically were the sort of Skid Row derelicts with an alcohol problem. Of course, they still form a major part of that section of the community. I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the new categories of the homeless. I think that this is of vast importance. One hears the most terrible stories of Kings Cross where young people- girls as young as 11, 12 and 13 years- regularly wander the streets. They normally end up as prostitutes, probably before reaching the age of 14 or 15 years. One had only to talk to social workers at places like the Wayside Chapel to get the facts on that.

In New South Wales 32 institutions- I call them that because I think we should use that word- house 1,000 to 1,200 people a night. Every night the Mathew Talbot hostel, which has 400 beds, is more than full. I am concerned that we hear back from these organisations that the social security statistics are based on the actual number of people assisted, but because so many people are turned away the actual numbers of people needing assistance are not known. Because people have their pride, it is normal when they are turned down two or three times that they will not go back to the place that turned them down; they will end up sleeping on a park bench or somewhere on a street. Of the $32,000 a month required to run the Mathew Talbot hostel about $7,000 comes from Commonwealth assistance, so $25,000 has to come from other sources. In tighter economic circumstances this is becoming increasingly difficult.

The same picture emerges with the Salvation Army homes. For example, I learned today that Foster House in Surrey Hills, which has 250 beds, invariably has been more than filled. Tonight, honourable senators, at the time I am speaking here, every bed in that place and in every place like it in every city in this country is full and fairly uncomfortable stretchers are put out on the floor to accommodate a few more people. Incidentally, I would like to mention that the improvement of the fire escapes at Foster House is a matter which is giving the people running it the greatest concern. It is a major cost factor. I think that ought to be borne in the minds and perhaps in the consciences of honourable senators.

I would like to pay a tribute to the magnificent way in which these homes are managing with the small amount of money- this miserable 75c a day per person- that we feel is sufficient to contribute towards running them. I leave honourable senators to imagine the extent of the meals that these people would get if the fantastic 25c a person a day we provide were the only form of assistance provided. Fortunately, this is not so. Well intentioned people in the society see that that is not so. Good meals are provided. Bedding is changed regularly. Clothing, hairdressing and so on are provided. As far as I can see, every effort is made to make these unfortunate people comfortable, but even more importantly, to maintain their self-respect. But these places are stretched to the limit, not only by sheer weight of demand but also by the changing nature of the social problem. The problem embraces young people, people with acute psychological problems, and many more of the people now concerned than previously are women and children and many are Aborigines. This whole area is of great importance, not only in itself but also because it is so much an extreme symptom, to be sure, of the cracking strains which are now emerging in our society. We are reaching the stage where, one way or another, a huge proportion of our people are sick, either physically or mentally. I wonder how long we can let this situation continue without taking decisive and effective measures to change it. I think we have to get the poorhouse mentality, which is now creeping into the society, right out of our minds and we have to remember that we are a modern twentieth century society which should at least be able to look after all of our people decently. When we let that standard go I suggest that we will have nothing left of any value. We will have nothing except money grabbing, self-pursuing selfish interests which unfortunately emanate too often from the example in high places.

The Australian Democrats believe that one great error of government is to tend to monopolise the area of social services or, more accurately, to allow specialised public servants to do so. This might seem laudable at first sight, but it makes the community at large feel that the disadvantaged people are no longer of its immediate concern. It makes the community feel that the Government will look after these disadvantaged people. Therefore, the natural feelings of compassion that should come from community involvement are stifled. The blind, the disabled and the homeless are to be tucked tidily away from any community involvement. This is very much an increasing tendency in government and one which we deplore. It contributes to what Mr Rupert Murdoch has called the ‘me generation’ because we allow our young people to grow up with the feeling that they never have to help anybody with anything; it will be done by the government.

As honourable senators might or might not know, the Australian Democrats in forming its policy in this area has tried to consult the community as widely as possible before our suggested policies are voted on by all our members in a secret written ballot. Our social security paper was referred to well over 100 individuals and organisations before it was even put to a ballot. Their comment on it was sought in every possible area. Our feedback stressed more than anything else that community groups should more and more be given the responsibility for social services, with public servants and social workers fulfilling the role of informing and guiding such groups. I agree with the Government that the society must become more frugal. This is definitely on the cards for us over the next decade. Evidence from all areas is to the effect that it is much cheaper anyway to allow the community to be involved. Therefore, I suggest that that is the proper direction from which social services should be provided.

As my colleague Senator Chipp said, we can never see why governments persist, for instance, in filling expensive hospital beds with the aged when excellent religious and community groups are willing to provide this service and could do so much more cheaply. I hope that a more human and wider view on homelessness will be taken when this matter hopefully is considered again in consultation with the State governments and I hope also, as I said before, with voluntary organisations. So there are three major points I would like to bring to you Mr Deputy President, and to honourable senators. I hope that community groups and voluntary organisations will be consulted, encouraged and financed in every possible way to assist the homeless and that the true nature and extent of the problem of homelessness- its rapid growth and its association with economic circumstances in this society- will be properly recognised.

Finally, I would like to say that it is not enough just to feed and clothe a human being. I suggest that people are homeless because they feel that they have failed or, to an increasing extent, because society has failed them in some way. Whatever the fault, they can no longer help themselves. In these circumstances, I think that a decent society will see an obligation to help these people. It is up to a humane and concerned government to set the guidelines and to provide the right conditions for that community involvement.

Debate interrupted.

page 731

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scott)- Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

page 732

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Proportional Income Tax (Question No. 334)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the then Treasurer refuse, on 22 September 1977, to make public the papers and reports prepared by his Department relating to the feasibility of proportional income tax proposals; if so, why.
  2. ) Will the Treasurer reconsider that decision.
  3. 3 ) How does the Treasurer reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In response to a request from Mr J. McMillan, Lecturer in Law at the University of New South Wales, for access to any report that may have been prepared concerning the amendment of the taxation scales, the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer advised Mr McMillan that officers of the Treasury had prepared papers on various income tax proposals including those advocating a proportional personal income tax, but there was no comprehensive paper relating specifically to proportional income taxes that was available for public inspection. The Minister further mentioned in his letter to Mr McMillan that of the papers that were thought relevant to his request, these were prepared for the Government’s consideration and therefore he did not think it appropriate that they should be publicly released. The papers were in fact prepared for senior Ministers as a basis for initial consideration of taxation aspects of the 1 977-78 Budget.
  2. and (3) The decision to refuse access was consistent with the recommendation contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 400, ‘Policy Proposals for Freedom of Information Legislation- Report of Interdepartmental CommitteeNovember 1976’, and the provision of clause twenty-six of the Freedom of Information Bill introduced into Parliament on 9 June, which provides that matter in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation prepared for the deliberative processes involved in the functions of the Government, disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest, should be exempt from mandatory access. I am also of the opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest to publicly disclose advice from officials to Ministers on this matter of Government policy. Against this background I have reconsidered the decision and confirm that the contents of the papers should not be disclosed.

Her Majesty’s Silver Jubilee Appeal (Question No. 489)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What organisations or individuals have made application for assistance from the Silver Jubilee Appeal.
  2. ) Which applications have been acceded to, and what is the amount in respect of each application.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1) and (2) The Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Trust for Young Australians invited applications for grants towards the cost of projects to be undertaken by individuals and organisations. Applications from organisations closed on 30 June 1978, but the closing date for applications from individuals was extended until 18 July. These applications are being examined by the Regional Grants Committee in each State and the Australian Capital Territory.

Each Committee will make its recommendations to the national headquarters of the Trust which expects to announce the successful applications in late September.

As the Trust is an independent body, my Department has no information regarding the organisations or individuals applying for assistance.

His Royal Highness Prince Charles presented special awards made by the Trust in November 1977. Details of these which were the first grants to be made are as follows:

Handicapped Persons (Question No. 598)

Senator Knight:
ACT

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

What action has been taken, or is proposed, concerning the recommendations in the Second Report of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped that:

the Government adopt the theme of access to community life and the prevention of disability, with public education as an integral part of both themes; and

as a part of the program for prevention, the Government sponsor a national seminar on safety in the home.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (b) I take it that the honourable senator’s question relates to the proposals of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped concerning the International Year for Disabled Persons, proclaimed by the United Nations’ General Assembly for 1981.

The Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Rehabilitation, which is chaired by my department, is I understand developing specific proposals which are based on the suggestions put forward by the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped for the Australian program for the Year.

There is, of course, very close liaison between SIDCOR and NACH and I would anticipate that the views of NACH will be influential in the Government’s ultimate determination of a national program for the International Year. The particular suggestion of a national seminar on safety in the home will be considered in the light of the overall program.

Insurance Brokers (Question No. 635)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

  1. Is the Insurance Brokers’ Council of Australia seriously concerned about government delay in taking any action to regulate the conduct of insurance brokers.
  2. Does the Government intend to proceed with legislation, either of the self-regulatory type proposed by the Insurance Brokers’ Council of Australia in a letter to the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer, on 25 July 1 977, or of any other type; if so, when will the legislation, or any other action, be announced.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Council has advised me that it wishes to see a scheme for the supervision of insurance brokers introduced as soon as practicable.
  2. This question raises policy issues which are now under consideration. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Fi: re Brigades: Finance from Insurance (Question No. 636)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is there dissatisfaction in the insurance industry over the current method of financing fire brigade services, by which 75 per cent of the cost of such services is met by a levy on insurance policy holders.
  2. Will the Federal Government undertake to provide the requisite extra funds to the State governments if they agree to end this inequitable system by which one section of the community pays for a service available to all.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has received a number of representations from and on behalf of the general insurance industry suggesting that the Commonwealth assume responsibility for the financing and co-ordination of State fire brigade services.
  2. No. The Government has responded to representations on this issue on the basis that this is a matter which traditionally and constitutionally rests with the States.

States Grants (Home Care) Act (Question No. 641)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what date did the Minister communicate with the relevant State Ministers informing them of the cuts in subsidy rates and allocation of finance under the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969.
  2. What responses have been received from State Premiers and/or the relevant State Ministers.
  3. 3 ) What is the 1 978-79 allocation to each State.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The announcement of the Government’s policy on the program was made in the context of the Premiers’ Conference in June last. On 29 June 1978 I wrote to the respective State Government Ministers and informed them of the Government’s decision to vary the rate of Commonwealth Subsidy for home care services and welfare officers under the States Grants ( Home Care) Act.
  2. Responses have so far been received from Western Australia and Tasmania.
  3. There is no specific allocation to each State. The Government is committed to reimbursing each participating State on the basis of $ 1 for $ 1 on all expenditure by them for approved home care services and salaries of welfare officers.

Australian Wool Corporation (Question No. 670)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. When will the 1976-77 Annual Report of the Australian Wool Corporation be tabled.
  2. What is the reason for the delay in its release.
  3. When will the 1977-78 report be tabled.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The 1976-77 Annual Report of the Australian Wool Corporation was tabled in interim form on 2 1 September 1977. The report has now been produced in its final form and will be delivered to officers of the Parliament for tabling in the near future.
  2. Presentation of the final report was held up because of Commonwealth Audit requirements.
  3. The Wool Corporation has completed the preparation of an Interim Annual Report for 1977-78 and printing arrangements are now in hand. It is expected that the report will be available for tabling at the usual time toward the end of September

Casey University (Question No. 677)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What precise plans does the Government have for the development of Casey University.
  2. Is there still a formally constituted planning committee for Casey University and what is the current status of that Committee.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government intends to proceed with the establishment of Casey University-Australian Defence Force Academy as soon as practicable, subject to a favourable resolution by the House of Representatives following the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Public Works and to the enactment of the required legislation.
  2. Yes. The Development Council for Casey UniversityAustralian Defence Force Academy was established in 1 97S. It will remain in existence until, following passage of the required legislation, the first Council can be convened.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 682)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August, 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Social Security Department withhold unemployment benefits from people who are living with an employed person of the opposite sex, even if no de facto relationship exists.
  2. Does a similar provision prevail with people who live with someone of the same sex.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Where two persons of the opposite sex are living together, but not on a bona fide domestic basis analagous to that of a husband and wife, only the income of the claimant is taken into account, along with other relevant criteria, in determining eligibility for unemployment benefit.
  2. Where two people of the same sex are living together, the question of a husband and wife relationship does not arise under the Social Services Act.

Tourist Resort, Yeppoon, Queensland (Question No. 690)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Treasurer state, in relation to the international tourist resort project at Yeppoon, that ‘approval was given subject to a number of conditions . . . one condition states that the company is to make all reasonable effort to take on Australian partners, and involve Australians in management as the project develops ‘ (The Courier Mail 3 1 July 1978).
  2. What does the Government consider to be a ‘reasonable effort’.
  3. ) What time is to be allowed for the company to comply with this condition.
  4. Will approval for the project be withdrawn if this condition is not met.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My press statement of 30 July 1978 set out the conditions attached to the Government’s foreign investment policy approval of the Iwasaki Sangyo project at Yeppoon Queensland. One of these conditions reads as follows:

As the project develops, the company make all reasonable effort to take on Australian partners and involve Australians in the management of the company and undertake to consult with the Foreign Investment Review Board on progress.’

  1. , (3) and (4) In its consultations with the company, the Foreign Investment Review Board will keep closely under review the efforts being made by the company to provide opportunities for Australian participation and the progress achieved. The Board will advise the Government as necessary on the matter.

Handicapped Persons (Question No. 713)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

What action has been taken, or is proposed, concerning the recommendations in the second report of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped that:

‘sales tax exemption be abolished and replaced by a program which will offer eligible persons a choice of a weekly transport allowance of $12, or a 4: 1 subsidy for purchase of a motor vehicle, up to a maximum of $4,000, both to be subject to an income test’;

‘eligibility for such transport assistance be granted to handicapped people in gainful employment or undertaking vocational training who, by virtue of the severity of their handicap, are unable to use public transport without special assistance’; and

‘if the Government is not disposed to accept at the outset the full program outlined above, then transport allowance be accepted as a first priority and the motor vehicle subsidy be introduced at a later stage ‘.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. to (c) The Government is conscious of the limitations of the present scheme of sales tax exemption for the purchase of vehicles by certain categories of handicapped people. However, in the current budgetary context it has not been possible to make provision for the scheme of assistance suggested by the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped. Nevertheless, the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on rehabilitation, which is chaired by my department, has been asked to further review the possibilities for transport assistance to handicapped people in the hope that an acceptable scheme can be developed to meet the needs of a range of people who are not able to benefit from the current sales tax exemption.

Solar Energy

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 2 March 1978 (Hansard, page 269) Senator Archer addressed a question without notice to the Minister for Science concerning incentives for the installation of solar heating devices, possibly along the lines of a subsidy scheme formulated in the United States. Senator Webster undertook to convey the question to the Treasurer who has provided the following reply:

Greater recourse to solar energy devices has been advocated for several reasons, notably the conservation of fossil fuels and the abatement of pollution. These ends are being pursued in Australia in a number of ways: I mention in particular crude oil pricing policy and the imposition of exhaust emission standards.

I have had quite a few ways suggested to me in which household energy consumption might be reduced, for example, income tax concessions for the cost of insulation and the exemption from sales tax of solar devices for heating swimming pools. These suggestions were considered in the 1978-79 Budget deliberations. The Government decided, however, that the budgetary position was such that it would not be practicable to include such a concession among the taxation proposals included in the Budget.

I add that, according to the latest advice I have, the American subsidy system to which the honourable senator has referred is a provision in a Bill which, along with other energy Bills, is still in conference between the two Houses of the United States Congress.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 September 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780919_senate_31_s78/>.