Senate
8 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

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

page 1745

PETITIONS

Pensions

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 20 1 citizens of Australia:

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

We. the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the CPI, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determine-

That pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the CPI as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1975 policy speech.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I bravely present the following petition from 74 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 1 6 of 1978): has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

South Australian Country Rail Services

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 90 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 any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the Railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for

Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.

That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest.

Petition received and read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 6 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 term of the current Staff Elected Commissioner expires on the 22nd October 1978. We pray the Government will direct that this position should continue, and that the Minister will authorise the Commonwealth Electoral Officer to proceed with an election, by all ABC staff, of a new commissioner, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions: Lone Parents

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 57 citizens of Australia:

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that Parliament take immediate steps to instigate one ( 1 ) category of Lone Parent Pensions to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 10 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 whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index figures; and whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November; it is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics of democratic government and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their subsistence.

The foregoing facts impel the undersigned. Petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that the trustworthiness of governments should at all times be above question, and to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship upon Australian pensioners by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of pension rates.

And Your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Budget 1978-79

Senator McLAREN:

– I present the following petition from 8 citizens of Australia:

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

That because this Budget will further increase the number of persons unemployed, because it reduces the average worker’s spending power by $ 10 per week, because it will reduce the incomes of pensioners, because it is unfair in placing a greater burden on the poor rather than the rich, and because it is driving this country into a depression.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that

The Federal Government withdraws this Budget and provides Australia, within this Session of Parliament, with a revised Budget that increases the level of economic activity in Australia, lowers unemployment, removes the burdens placed on the disadvantaged, and revives business and consumer confidence in the future of this potentially great country.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 1 33 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 induced 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 induced abortion, except one performed when a mother’s life is endangered.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 384 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition ofthe undersigned respectfully showeth: -

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 1 6 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

I ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Senate Elections: Optional Preferential Voting

Senator MASON:

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

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

That on the 10th December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that, ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration . . .’ (Article 2) that ‘Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent free voting procedures.’ (Article 21 (l)and(3).

Elections for Senators meet all requirements except one. Senators are elected periodically, by secret ballot, with universal franchise, and the quota-preferential method of proportional representation ensures that the vote values within states are equal as nearly as can be.

However the provision of the Electoral Act that compels voters to show preference for ALL candidates on the ballot paper interferes with the free expression of the will of the voters, and is unjust.

Australia, as a Member State of the United Nations, is pledged to achieve observance of Human Rights and Freedoms.

We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, therefore humbly pray that the Senate will fulfil the pledge of a Member State of the United Nations and take steps to remove the compulsion from the Electoral Act in order to allow freedom of expression for everyone who has the right to vote for Senators. and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 68 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 or 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

retain this Ordinance: and

) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Budget 1978-79: Pensioners

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 5 citizens of Australia:

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

That the people of Australia having taken part in the government of Australia through universal suffrage in December 1975 and again in December 1977 and that on the basis of their expressed choice at the ballot box the people of Australia gave authority to the LiberalNational Country Party Coalition to form a federal government to bring into affect specific policies promulgated throughout the length and breadth of Australia by the said Coalition and that, whereas by virtue of being elected through universal suffrage, the Government Members now sitting in the House of Representatives were authorised to implement their stated objectives by legislation and that such authority did not extent to acting otherwise or to enact legislation not previously submitted to the will of the people, namely:- ° Revoking the legislation for twice-yearly pension payments. ° Imposing a freeze on the free-of-means-test pension. ° Unemployed divided into those with dependents and those without. ° Imposing income tax on pensions under age pension ageinvalid and repatriation service pensions: rehabilitation allowances and incentives; sheltered employment and allowances for tuberculosis sufferers (civilian and service) and any other impositions.

Your petitioners submit that all or any of the foregoing proposed legislation of the Lower House, if implemented, will greatly disadvantage many thousands of citizens as either against their expressed will or not submitted to universal vote as the democratic right of the Australian people, therefore,

Your petitioners call on the Senate as the House of Review to take appropriate action to release these persons from burdens unfairly placed in order to finance a deficit not of their making.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator TATE:

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

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

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 1 6 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Pensions: Lone Parents

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that Parliament take immediate steps to instigate one ( 1 ) category of Lone Parent Pensions to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Sheil.

Petitions received.

A.C.T. Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

  1. 1 ) retain this Ordinance, and
  2. ) reject any move to dissallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (3 petitions), Rocher (2 petitions), Scott, Chipp, Mason, Button, Carrick, Thomas, Martin, Hamer, Jessop, Keeffe, and Chaney.

Petitions received.

Senate Elections: Optional Preferential Voting

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That on the 10th December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that ‘ Everyone is entitled to all the rights of freedoms set forth in the Declaration . . . ‘ (Article 2) that ‘Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent free voting procedures.’ (Article 21 (l)and(3).)

Elections Tor Senators meet all requirements except one. Senators are elected periodically, by secret ballot, the universal franchise, and the quota-preferential method of proportional representation ensures that the vote values within states are equal as nearly as can be.

However the provision of the Electoral Act that compels voters to show preferences for ALL candidates on the ballot paper interferes with the free expression of the will of the voters, and is unjust.

Australia, as a Member State of the United Nations, is pledged to achieve observance of Human Rights and Freedoms.

We. the undersigned citizens of Australia, therefore humbly pray that the Senate will fulfil the pledge of a Member State of the United Nations and take steps to remove the compulsion from the Electoral Act in order to allow freedom of expression for everyone who has the right to vote for Senators.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senator Peter Baume.

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 Senators Webster, Jessop, Evans, Chipp, and Hamer.

Petitions received.

page 1748

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my Gallery of a highly esteemed former member of this chamber in the person of Don Cameron. We express our pleasure at your company with us.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear.

page 1748

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ORDINANCE

Notice of Motion

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I give notice that contingent upon the Senate agreeing to the motion moved by Senator Ryan for the disallowance of the Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance 1978I shall move:

That the resolution of the Senate of 9 November 1978 disallowing the Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance 1978 be rescinded to provide the Government with the opportunity to make a new ordinance containing a provision the same in substance as the provision so disallowed relating to the treatment for the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

page 1748

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1748

QUESTION

CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL PATROL FRIGATES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows a question I asked yesterday concerning the cost of construction of two Australian patrol vessels in the United States of America. The Minister will recall that he provided a cost for the first two ships at January 1 977 prices. In view of the fact that that figure was the price of the two vessels in January 1977 and not the current price expressed in January 1977 prices, I ask: Does the contract provide that the Australian Government will pay for escalation in the cost of the ships and has there already been substantial escalation? Secondly, in view of the fact that the cost of the first two vessels is now approximately $500m, why is the Department of Defence unable to provide up to date estimates of the costs? Thirdly, in view of the fact that the cost estimate provided to the Parliament is now 21 months out of date, when will an up to date estimate be provided?

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Firstly, I will update some of the information that I provided yesterday in general terms. I am advised that the United States Government has formally advised the Australian Government of the financial difficulties of the Todd Shipbuilding Corporation. We are being kept fully informed on the situation. The financial problems relate mainly to cash flow and they have arisen from losses suffered by Todd over recent years on non-Navy business, mainly prior to the placement of the FFG contracts. The contracts for the Royal Australian Navy FFG ships are between the Australian Government and the United States Government which, in turn, has placed United States Navy contracts, including contracts for three ships to be constructed by Todd. Todd Pacific has orders worth over $US845m for FFG ships including 14 of the 26 FFG ships on order from the United States Navy. The United States Navy has advised that it is confident of Todd’s ability to improve its financial health and that it is continuing to place naval overhaul contracts with the shipyard. The Department of Defence and the Crown Solicitor’s Office are continuing to monitor the situation. That information is background material for the answer I gave yesterday. The honourable senator has asked me a series of questions relating to escalation of costs and an updating from January 1977 prices. I do not have the information available but I will seek it for the honourable senator.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the Minister’s answer, could he also indicate to the Senate the date on which the Australian Government was advised of the financial difficulties of the Todd Shipbuilding Corporation?

Senator CARRICK:

-I will seek that information and let the honourable senator have it.

page 1749

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. The Minister will be aware that opponents of the use of nuclear power for the purpose of energy generation have alleged that nuclear power generation is more costly than power generated from conventional sources. Is the Minister aware that the latest annual report of the Atomic Energy Authority in the United Kingdom states that nuclear power stations generated electric power 35 per cent more cheaply than coal fired power stations and 50 per cent more cheaply than oil fired power stations, with 16 nuclear power stations providing more than 15 per cent of the United Kingdom’s electric power needs? ls he also aware that as three new advanced technology power stations come into operation, this proportion will rise to 20 per cent? Is the Minister also aware that the Central Electricity Generating Board in the United Kingdom estimates that each of its new power stations will reduce the cost of overall electricity generation by about $2. 6m a week?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not seen the report of the Atomic Energy Authority of the United Kingdom to which the honourable senator referred and from which he quoted quite extensively. I think the Senate must be indebted to him for providing such particularly interesting and valuable information in relation to the respective costs of nuclear power generation and power generation by conventional sources. I certainly will refer the information that was contained in the question to the Minister for National Development whom I represent here because I am sure that he will be as interested in the material that is supplied in that report as I am and as I am sure honourable senators on this side are interested, even though the Opposition seems to be determined to fly in the face of all facts in relation to the question of nuclear power and the development of uranium resources.

page 1749

QUESTION

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is he aware that the amount by which Australia was failing to pay its way in trading in goods and services as at 30 June 1978 was represented by a deficit of some $2,4 10m? Is the Minister also aware that for the three months ended September the deficit on current account was even worse, running at the annual rate of $3. 900m, and in two months will reduce our international reserves which are approximately $3,000m to bedrock unless the Government continues heavy borrowing overseas? Will the Minister defend the Government’s position and deny that capital inflow to cover our excessive imports is proving to be a bad deal, getting us further and further into debt and under foreign control? Does not the Minister think it is about time the public was told how the Government proposes to get us out of the mess into which it has put us?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question, of course, is based on an entire misrepresentation. It is not this Government that got Australia into the mess in its balance of payments; it was the Whitlam Labor Government of which the honourable senator was a member which costed Australia out of world trade. Anyone who has the most elementary knowledge of the component parts of the balance of trade and the balance of payments will know that because we could not export our goods and because a 25 per cent acrosstheboard tariff cut flooded Australia with goods, we had an enormous upsurge in imports and an enormous decline in exports, thereby severely damaging the balance of trade. That, of course, is a badge that Senator McAuliffe and his party can wear. The way in which this country will come out of its balance of payments situation is the way in which this Government is going about it, that is, by getting inflation and interest rates down so that we can be cost competitive on world markets. When we do that, indeed the balance of payments will be assured.

page 1749

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: TELEVISING OF SPORTING EVENTS

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware that Channel 7 and Channel 9 in Queensland were successful recently in getting broadcasting rights for international sporting functions in football and tennis, and cricket respectively? Is the Minister aware that large areas of Queensland are covered only by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that the achievements of the commercial channels in arranging sporting tie-ups means that many Queenslanders will not receive a telecast of these sporting events? Is the Minister further aware that Channel 7 and Channel 9 have indicated to the Australian Broadcasting Commission their preparedness to allow the Commission to beam these programs into areas which are not covered by the commercial networks and that the Commission has not accepted this offer? Can the Minister tell me why this has happened?

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

– lt is a fact that over the last year or two the commercial television operators in Australia have become much more aware of the attractiveness of telecasting international sporting events. As a result they have gone into this field and have tended to purchase the rights to international events to the exclusion of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I must say that the reason why they have been able to do this on occasions to the exclusion of the Commission is that they have simply been able to outbid the Commission. That has resulted in the sort of situation which has been outlined in Senator Martin’s question whereby commercial organisations which do not have total national coverage have exclusive rights to a program.

I would perhaps quarrel with one line in Senator Martin’s question. The honourable senator referred to the preparedness of the commercial channels to allow the Australian Broadcasting Commission to beam these programs into the areas not serviced by the commercial channels. I would perhaps quarrel with that statement if it is implicit in it that that is some sort of free offer. My understanding is that the commercial channels are prepared to do that but they are prepared to do it only at a price. The ABC’s position is–

Senator McAuliffe:

– The Commission will not tolerate it at any price- free or otherwise.

Senator CHANEY:

– I think the ABC’s position is that it would tolerate it if the price was right. In any event, it is a matter of concern that people in many areas cannot see these programs because undoubtedly sporting spectaculars have become an important part of the television fare in Australia. The Australian Broadcasting Commission itself has commented on this matter in its last two annual reports. The matter is currently under the attention of the Minister, who is working towards a solution of the problem in consultation with both the commercial interests and the Commission. I will refer the honourable senator’s question to Mr Staley to underline the concern which is felt in the community about this matter. I am sure that will be an added spur to his endeavours.

page 1750

QUESTION

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows the answer he just gave to Senator McAuliffe in which I understood him to say that the balance of payments problem of this country was started by the previous Government and that the present position is a result of that. I ask: Is it not a fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on the balance of payments situation show that the position for Australia has worsened by Vh times in the last three years? Is it not a fact that the balance of payments deficit for this country in 1974-75 was $922m and that in the financial year 1977-78, under this Government, it was $2,410m? Will he explain how it is that this Government has allowed the balance of payments figure to expand in the manner that it has?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Quite clearly Senator Wriedt does not understand the lead time of the consequences of the Whitlam Government’s actions. Let me simply remind Senator Wriedt and the members of the Australian Labor Party who find mirth in their own actions that in a period of 18 months during 1973 and 1974 the Whitlam Government talked wages up in Australia by 37 per cent- in fact, it increased wages by 70 per cent over the period it was in office. Quite clearly the costs were forward costs running into the trade of the years ahead. The real decline came from the fact that inflation was running at about 1 8 per cent when the Whitlam Government left office. Since the payments are made in a lag time for overseas production, of course the fruits of the misdirection of the Labor Party were revealed in later years.

page 1750

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, follows the question asked by Senator Sim. I ask whether I am correct in stating that Senator Sim’s question clearly spelt out that the United Kingdom intends to Start building another three nuclear reactors in England this year. Further, has this had the agreement of the British Labour Party, which forms the present Government of the United Kingdom?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– It is quite obvious that the United Kingdom Labour Government takes an attitude to this question very different from that taken by the Labor Party when in Opposition in Australia, although, as I pointed out in answer to a question yesterday, the Australian Labor Party took a rather different attitude to the development of uranium when it was in government. As I said in answer to Senator Sim’s question, I have not seen the full report of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The more questions I am asked today about it, the more important a document it appears to be and the more interesting and the more important it would be for me and particularly for the Minister for National Development to read.

I am not aware of the details of development of nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. Of course it is a well known fact that the necessity for development of nuclear power stations in Europe is clear, and European countries have been relying on the development of such stations for some time. Nevertheless, I will refer the question asked by Senator Young to the Minister for National Development and draw the Minister’s attention further to the interesting material that obviously is contained in this report.

page 1751

QUESTION

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION BY SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It follows the recent controversy about discrimination against Jewish airline travellers by Qantas Airways Limited. I must pay a tribute to those who acted with such alacrity to ensure that this very reprehensible practice was discontinued. But is the Minister aware that cheap package flights to South Africa are not available to non-whites? Although these holiday flights are widely advertised in Australian newspapers, South African Airways has refused to sell a ticket to a Tasmanian citizen of nonwhite descent- he is of Indian descent- even when he offered to opt out of the hotel and social aspect of the holiday so as to take advantage of the cheaper flight. Will the Minister review the right of the South African airline to continue to operate to and from Australia?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The matter raised by Senator O ‘Byrne is a matter which certainly I have not heard of before. I very much doubt whether it has previously been brought to the attention of the Government. I think at the time of the incident relating to the alleged problem with respect to Jewish passengers not being permitted to go on certain Qantas Airways Ltd flights the Government made it very clear that it was not prepared to sanction that sort of activity. I would have thought that the present Government made it clear that it was not tolerant of distinctions on the grounds of race or religion and so on. Therefore I will certainly refer the matter raised by Senator O ‘Byrne to the Minister for Transport for investigation and will let the honourable senator have a detailed report on it.

page 1751

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the statement made by Mr Uren, the Labor shadow minister for urban and regional affairs suggesting that the Labor Party would terminate uranium agreements with overseas clients if it became the Government. Would such action, firstly, remove the opportunity for Aboriginal employment in the mining operations and associated industries; secondly, cancel the very considerable financial benefits agreed to be paid on establishment of the mining of uranium; and thirdly, cancel out the royalty payments to which the Aboriginal people would become entitled and thus prevent them from assisting all other Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to improve their living standards and way of life?

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

- Senator Kilgariff has raised three questions with regard to Aborigines and uranium mining. I think it is understood by everybody that if uranium mining did not take place in the areas concerned there would certainly be fewer opportunities for Aboriginal employment than otherwise would be the case. Senator Kilgariff mentioned the cancelling of financial benefits and royalties. These matters were part of the agreement and it is understood that the financial benefits to Aboriginal communities which would enable them to progress further in the direction of self management would result from the mining of uranium. These benefits would not be received by Aborigines if this mining did not proceed. I have not read the statement made by Mr Uren. I am not aware whether he made specific reference to these things, but I make the general comment that if uranium mining did not proceed the financial benefits and the employment opportunities would certainly be minimised.

page 1751

QUESTION

FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer to the Government’s direction to the Prices Justification Tribunal to inquire into the food industry in

Australia and ask: What is the reason for the inquiry? Is it that the processed food industry is now substantially foreign owned and that there is evidence of a marked degree of market concentration? Is it that the Government is concerned about the degree of advertising which affects the cost of food items? Is it that the Government is concerned about the impact of such food price increases on the consumer price index?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Prices Justification Tribunal was directed by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to inquire into the food processing industry, not the food industry generally. I will refer the question to the Minister. I presume that he has made some statement in relation to the matter. If he has not, I will ask him to provide the information sought by Senator Gietzelt.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I direct a supplementary question to the Minister. Is he saying that he is not able to tell us the reasons for the inquiry being conducted? In the statement that the Minister has put out he does not state the reasons for the inquiry.

Senator DURACK:

– I am simply saying that I am not able to state the reasons for the inquiry because I have not seen the statement made by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I only represent him in this place. I will make it my business to obtain the statement, to draw to the Minister’s attention the criticism that Senator Gietzelt has made of it and to provide a fuller statement for the Senate.

page 1752

QUESTION

WORK EXPERIENCE IN SCHOOLS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. In the light of the rapid advancement of new technology, it is becoming increasingly obvious that new mechanisms are needed to facilitate the transition from education to work. Does the Minister agree that children very rarely have first-hand experience of adult work? Is it a fact that in the United States of America some companies have developed arrangements with secondary schools to afford youngsters the opportunity to learn about the real world of work before they make their own career decisions? Would the Minister consider initiating such an arrangement in Australia and possibly expanding it so that every business could adopt a nearby school so that children could regularly visit the business for the purpose of inspecting and learning production processes, as well as adult endeavours, through in-plant and in-office involvement?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The matter that Senator Messner raises is one of the most significant ones that are today before educationists and, indeed, Ministers for Education. It is the question of whether, firstly, we are equipping our young people well enough vocationally and for vocation orientation. Secondly, it involves whether there is sufficient counselling or direction within the families or schools to enable the students to find careers of their choice and their aptitude. Then it is a matter of whether we can link them together.

Senator Georges:

– What about supplying the careers? If you supplied the careers you would not have this problem.

Senator CARRICK:

– The fact that Senator Georges is sitting on the Opposition benches means that the people of Australia rejected him not only as a Government senator but also as an authority on education and everything else. I think that we can disregard his gratuitous comments. Senator Georges can try to interject again. All his interjections do is point up his crass ignorance.

This is a serious question. Numerous experiments on work experience are being conducted within the States. In other words, groups of students in various schools are seeing jobs each week and learning the nature and background of them. Students are learning whether they have an aptitude or an inclination for a particular job. But the whole question is wider than that. A working party is looking at the aspect of transition from school to work. I think that the report of the working party is available. My departmental head recently visited the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and studied what has happened in Europe. The Chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission, Professor Karmel, at this moment is leading an OECD evaluation study on related matters in the United States. My own Department, in co-operation with the States, is looking to see what can be done in relation to what I regard as one of the most significant problems confronting education.

page 1752

QUESTION

PENSIONER FRINGE BENEFITS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Social Security aware that many pensioners, with very little warning, have suffered extreme hardship because their allowable income has increased by as little as $ 1 or $2 a week, sometimes without their knowledge, and that as a consequence their pensioner medical benefit cards have been taken from them? Is the Minister also aware that in some cases pensioners have had to pay back remissions on telephone accounts as well as other benefits provided by the respective State governments? Will the Minister see that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Social Security give these pensioners adequate notice that their fringe benefits are to be withdrawn so that they can assess their financial positions in an endeavour to meet the full amount of their future commitments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am unaware that any specific problem has arisen with fringe benefits. Of course, fringe benefit entitlement is dependent on other income. The limit of $33 a week in the case of a single person has not been changed for some time. I understand that some pensioners, through superannuation or other payments over which they have no control, may receive more than the limit. To suggest that those pensioners are not aware that fringe benefits are means tested I think is not a statement of fact. Pensions always have been means tested and the level of the means test has not changed. Telephone concessions are means tested also. The concession is granted to applicants who live alone, who live with another eligible person or live with a person whose income does not exceed a certain amount. Again, the concession is available to people in certain circumstances. The circumstances have not changed. Many State governments base eligibility for some State benefits on the Commonwealth level of eligibility. If a person’s income exceeds $33 a week I accept that certain other State benefits may be withdrawn. The Federal Government has made no changes. The criteria for the testing of fringe benefits have remained the same. 1 believe that most pensioners in this country are aware that fringe benefits are means tested and that the means test will be applied.

page 1753

QUESTION

ADVANCES TO STATE LAND COMMISSIONS OR COUNCILS

Senator ROCHER:

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development advise the Senate of the estimated value of the advances in 1978-79 to State land commissions or councils? Will he also indicate how much is to be allocated to each recipient State or Territory? On what dates do the agreements with each State and Territory expire? Has the Government reached a decision in principle to review any or all of the agreements? If so, are any changes in terms contemplated?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– There were no advances to land commissions or urban land councils in 1978- 79 and the funding commitments which were entered into in the last Budget were met in that year. There were no allocations to any States in 1978-79. 1 know that the matter of review was of interest to Senator Rocher long before he became a member of this place. No review is under way at the moment, but in fact the agreement with South Australia provides for a review at the end of 1978-79, the agreement with Western Australia provides for a review by the end of 1979- 80, and the agreements with New South Wales and Victoria can be reviewed at any time at the request of the Commonwealth or the relevant State.

page 1753

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is prompted by the recent statement by the Deputy Prime Minister to the effect that Australia can look forward to a glowing future if it enters into co-operation with the People’s Republic of China. Does the Minister recollect that only a few years ago members of the present Government parties accused the Australian Labor Party of subversive intent when it advocated the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China and that indeed those parties when in government -

Senator Lewis:

– No, that is not true.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Indeed they did. They said it very frequently. Is it not also a fact that the present Government parties, when previously in government, conscripted Australians to fight in Vietnam, one of the reasons claimed for so doing being that the People’s Republic of China presented a threat to Australia and that Australians needed to fight in Vietnam to halt the downward thrust of menacing Chinese communism? Can the Minister explain to the Senate when the nature of China so changed as to bring about this remarkable reversal in form by the members of the present Government parties? What was it that happened in China? When did it happen? What assurances can the Government give us that the Chinese are not as bad as it said they were a few years ago? If the Minister is unable to do this, will he admit that the Government was wrong when it conscripted young Australians a few years ago and when it attacked the Australian Labor Party merely for wishing to have diplomatic relations with China?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Anyone who has any understanding of what has happened with regard to the emergence of China as a nation knows that for decades post-war China pursued an inward-looking policy- in fact, one that did not seek to reach outwards to establish links with the outside world. That is a simple fact of history. It was not Australia alone which did not have diplomatic relations with China in those years. That was a fairly common situation throughout the world. My Government welcomes the fact that it has been able to establish good and overt working relations with a significant nation such as China. I do not think that Senator Wheeldon really is serious in raising the question of IndoChina because it would do no good for his advocacy if he were to look today at the pitiful state of what is happening to the people in the IndoChina area and the absolute bloodbath of very recent years- for example, the literal bloodbath in places such as Cambodia and Laos. This moment is not a suitable time to make a statement on this matter in any depth but I should think that all would be concerned, for example, that Vietnam has given away its policy of being free and unattached and has in fact made in recent times a treaty with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So in point of fact the area concerned is not one for simplistic headline seeking at all; it is one for very deep soul searching by the people of the world who believe, as does this Government, in freedom for the people of the world.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Mr President, I ask a supplementary question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I think that Senator Carrick may have misheard me. I was asking for an explanation of the change of policies not towards Vietnam but towards China. I wonder whether the Minister could explain when it was that the change took place in China which has transformed that country from being one which the Australian Liberal and Country parties refused to have diplomatic relations into a country with which the Deputy Prime Minister says we ought to have close co-operation?

Senator CARRICK:

-If Senator Wheeldon looks at tomorrow’s Hansard he will find that I have indeed answered that, but I simply repeat that for several decades post-war China itself pursued inward looking policies and not international policies at all. As a result of its inward looking policies a significant number of countries did not have diplomatic relations with China. Along with the change of China’s policies and a widening of her international links Australia in common with other countries was happy to make the diplomatic links with China.

page 1754

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY: COIN SIZE AND DENOMINATIONS

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Will the Minister representing the Treasurer consider redesigning the coin size and modifying the denominations of the Australian currency as the effects of inflation and the growth of coin operated machines make some revision imperative, especially in relation to the most commonly used 20c coin? It could well be replaced by a 25c coin, only four of which would be required for an outlay of $ 1 , at least one third the size of the present 20c coin?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not know whether the Treasurer or the Treasury has given any thought to this matter. I will bring the question to the attention of the Treasurer and seek his comments.

page 1754

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development or the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Last week Mr Newman with a party of United Kingdom and Australian defence scientists inspected the Maralinga site and met officials and Ministers of the South Australian Government. As there was little comment on the matter in the Press last week I ask the Minister whether he can inform the Senate of the results of that inspection and whether consideration is now being given to a public request reported in yesterday’s Advertiser that the South Australian Government has sought the transfer of the plutonium deposit at Maralinga to the United Kingdom, if possible. Can a more detailed statement be made on the situation notwithstanding the fact that some of the information is classified?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to the reported statement by the Deputy Premier of South Australia in the Advertiser to which Senator Bishop has referred. As is well known, the facts are that a British expert team has come to Australia and has inspected the site. The Minister for National Development has also inspected it and has had and is having discussions on this matter. At this stage the Government is not really in a position to make any further statement. I understand that Mr Newman has said that the pit containing the half kilogram of plutonium which was the subject of concern was inspected and that the substance is in a safe state where it is buried. What is to be done further about the matter is something which the Minister and the Government are still considering. Certainly the matters raised by

Senator Bishop and Mr Corcoran are being considered. The Minister will make a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so.

page 1755

QUESTION

COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMERCIALS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to a series of community service commercials produced by Channel 10 in Sydney which run under the slogan ‘Have a Go Australia’. Is the Minister aware of these commercials which endeavour to promote national pride and enthusiasm in Australia? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission will be exhibiting these advertisements? Will he encourage their use by commercial television stations?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have not actually seen the commercials referred to by Senator Missen in his question. They were the subject of a newspaper report about a week ago which I did see. I must say that the general idea of the commercials which, in the words of the sponsor are non-political advertisements designed to stimulate enthusiasm and pride in Australia and to help get things moving again, seems to be a very good one. I might say that that is very good advice for all Australians except perhaps for the Opposition and for Senator Missen. As I understand it there is no immediate prospect of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s adopting these advertisements although the ABC is independent in its programming and it is up to that organisation to decide whether it wishes to use the advertisements. It is not possible and the Government would not wish to direct the ABC in a matter of that kind.

I will refer the advertisements and the honourable senator’s question to the Minister and ask him at least to draw the matter to the Commission’s attention. As far as commercial television stations are concerned, once again the Government does not purport to direct the stations as to what they can broadcast. I have little doubt that the stations are aware that this sort of thing is very much what the Government would like to see and that similar action by them would be welcomed. I think that I can only leave the matter at that point.

page 1755

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION FOR REDUNDANT FEMALE WORKERS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is based on dialogue between Mr Tregillis, the

Deputy Secretary of the Department, and me about the serious implication of an article in the National Times that there is a lack of industrial protection for redundant female workers in the clothing, textile and kindred industries. Mr Tregillis promised to inquire into and investigate the matter. I wonder whether the Minister could tell me what the Industrial Relations Bureau in particular is doing in this field.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Senator Mulvihill raised a question in relation to this matter at the Estimates Committee hearing of the estimates of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. As Senator Mulvihill is not a member of that Committee he has not been provided with the answers that have been given. However, an answer has been provided by Mr Tregillis and this will be tabled in due course by the Estimates Committee, presumably for the purposes of the debate in the Senate on the Appropriation Bills. It may well be incorporated in Hansard but of course that is a decision for the Senate. 1 have been provided with a fairly lengthy answer -

Senator Mulvihill:

– I will settle for the salient points.

Senator DURACK:

-I think that the matter would take up a fair bit of time and as it will be made available later, I wonder whether we might leave it at that for the time being.

Senator Mulvihill:

– How long?

Senator DURACK:

-I understand that it will be tabled tomorrow.

page 1755

QUESTION

EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS

Senator TEAGUE:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, concerns educational standards in Australian schools. I refer to Professor Chipman ‘s call yesterday for a new national school examination to evaluate the basic skills of children in arithmetic, elementary natural science, English expression and comprehension and clear thinking. Is it true that Commonwealth Department of Education surveys show that of 10 year-olds, 8 per cent cannot state correctly the letters of the alphabet and 10 per cent cannot perform simple, everyday calculations with whole numbers? Is it true that at the root of the malaise lie false doctrines of teacher education? Can the Senate expect that the Auchmuty inquiry into teacher training will directly address itself to these false doctrines? Finally, what is currently the status of the proposal to introduce a voucher system of education funding to individual families which would have advantages by way of greater accountability in schools, freedom of choice and greater incentive for schools to achieve basic educational standards?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Mr President -

Senator Georges:

– Can you associate yourself with that question in the Senate?

Senator CARRICK:

-It is always a joyous thing to hear Senator Georges’ interjections. The fact that he does not add anything of substance -

Senator Georges:

– See what you can add to that question.

Senator CARRICK:

-I will be very happy to give a factual answer. It is true that I have been made aware of Professor Chipman ‘s comments. I imagine that Senator Teague is referring to the very well known survey on literacy and numeracy in Australian schools which was carried out by the Australian Council for Educational Research following an approach made by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties. The reasons for the failure of some students to reach acceptable standards of literacy and numeracy are revealed as very complex. This was made clear in the 1976 report of the Select Committee which was titled ‘Learning Difficulties in Children and Adults’. It is true that 7.4 per cent of 10- year-old students could not supply the appropriate missing letters in the alphabet. This could prevent students from using efficiently a dictionary or other information arranged alphabetically. It is also true that 9 per cent of 10-year- old students could not add two whole numbers. This is not good. We do not know how this position relates to the past because we have no evidence of the situation in the past. The standards are not good enough. My Government and the State governments are making major efforts to improve numeracy and literacy. My Government has set up the Auchmuty Committee to inquire into all aspects of teacher education. One of its fundamental terms of reference will deal with the upgrading of the quality of numeracy and literacy.

Finally, Senator Teague asked about the progress of the voucher system in terms of freedom of choice. I draw Senator Teague ‘s attention and that of the Senate to the report I tabled yesterday on the Schools Commission discussion paper on financing of schools. One of the options canvassed in that report was the voucher system. I will not go into that matter now. However, I stress that another real freedom of choice option is before the Senate, that is, the provision within the States Grants (Schools) Act of a sum of funds to the States for pilot studies to allow freedom of choice as between government schools. I stress that education, being of such significant value to the community, is one of the few essential products that offers very little consumer choice. One of the things that we could do in the Territories and in the States is to develop first of all a real freedom of choice as between government schools and then as between the two streams of education. I invite all honourable senators to support the legislation which sets up this pilot scheme.

Senator TEAGUE:

-Mr President, I ask the Minister for Education a supplementary question. I welcome his remarks but I want to ask more specifically about the Auchmuty committee’s terms of reference. I am also aware that there are many children in the Gallery who have a direct interest in this question. Are the specific terms of reference of the Auchmuty inquiry to include consideration of this alleged malaise in teacher training which is at the root of the problem?

Senator CARRICK:

-It is true that I have some of the terms of reference of the Auchmuty committee with me and I will make them available to Senator Teague and to any other honourable senator who requests them. The terms of reference are comprehensive. The committee will examine the aims, the content and the structures of the pre-service teacher education programs. It will also examine the nature and provision of in-service training for specific purposes, one of which is to ensure that the teaching of numeracy and literacy is effectively carried out throughout Australia.

page 1756

QUESTION

WORLD WINE EXPOSITION

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General in his capacity either as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources or as Minister representing the Minister for Special Trade Representations. I am endeavouring to get some information in relation to the world wine exposition which I understand is to be held in Singapore in May of next year. I have received a number of complaints relating to the Australian Wine Board’s activities in this area in that it is proposing to wine producers that they should not participate in the exposition on the grounds that accommodation is not available, the sites are not up to standard, et cetera. I have received a further complaint that the Australian Trade Commissioner who is based in Singapore is reported to have said in public- I quote the words that were expressed to me: There is something wrong with the contract’.

In view of the comment by the Minister for Primary Industry when he launched the world wine exposition that the exposition that is to be held in Singapore in 1979 deserves our commendation and in fact has been given our sponsorship, I ask: Has the Government checked the contract relating to the world wine exposition which is to be held in Singapore? If not, will it now do so? Providing that the contract is found to be in order, will the Minister make some public statement to the effect that it is in order in an endeavour to assuage the fears of Australian wine producers and perhaps encourage them to participate in a project which may assist in a substantial recovery of the Australian wine industry?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The honourable senator asked a fairly detailed question on what is certainly a subject of some considerable importance. I will refer it to the Minister for Trade and Resources- I think he is the appropriate Minister- to endeavour to obtain further information in regard to some of the matters that the honourable senator raised in that question. I agree that it is a matter that should be clarified and that producers are entitled to know what is the Government’s attitude and what are the facts in relation to some of the complaints that have been made. I will endeavour to obtain an early answer from the Minister.

page 1757

QUESTION

EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. It follows from the question that was asked by Senator Teague in relation to Professor Lauchlan Chipman ‘s address that was delivered yesterday in Brisbane. Does the Minister agree that there is substantial public agreement with the Professor’s views regarding inabilities to add, read, understand the alphabet and spell? Does he agree that considerable community and social problems emanate therefrom? Also, does the Minister favour a school examination at national level which the Professor proposes and, if so, will he have some consultation with the State departments of education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have no doubt at all that the community is in substantial agreement with Professor Chipman ‘s remarks. There is a widespread feeling throughout the community that the basic skills have not been developed sufficiently in the schools. There is a widespread recognition that this is a major community problem. I must say that because we do not know what was the problem in the past, we cannot tell whether this is a degeneration or a failure to meet the problems themselves. Two things of major importance that have to be recognised are taking place. A greater stream of students than ever before is moving through the education age groups and onwards to matriculation. Therefore, it is a different kind of stream. Indeed, next year for the first time the percentage of girls going for matriculation will be higher than the percentage of boys. That is an interesting social comment to make.

Secondly, of course, in the past 20-odd years the pattern of immigration has changed the whole face of the community. We now have a considerable number of migrants who have particular problems in this regard. The question of school examinations can rouse fretful instincts throughout the community, particularly at this time of the year. I wish all those students who will be sitting for examinations in the weeks ahead the fullest of success. I simply say that there is evidence of a need within schools for tests to be applied on a national quality and evaluation basis to bring out the evidence of whether we are succeeding or failing in the basic skills. Therefore special tests on basic skills are being devised in some systems in parts of Australia.

page 1757

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER

Senator MASON:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, relates to the answer that he gave earlier today to a question asked by Senator Sim about the cost of nuclear power. Did the assertion in his answer that nuclear power is in fact competitive with other fuels take into account two factors- firstly, the cost, which apparently is very high, of the demolition of nuclear power stations past their useful life and, secondly, the cost of the permanent and safe disposal of radioactive waste resulting from both the operation and the demolition of nuclear power stations?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Senate will recall that I said that I had not read the report to which Senator Sim referred but that I intended to familiarise myself with it and refer it to the Minister for National Development. I do not know whether the report contains any of the matters referred to by Senator Mason. Presumably I will be wiser in relation to that matter when I have had the opportunity of reading the report.

page 1757

QUESTION

EXPORT INCENTIVES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources aware that a wide cross-section of potential exporters is anxious that the Government proceed as a matter of urgency with the improvements to the export incentives scheme? Can the Minister say why the Government did not introduce legislation for export market development grants when last month it introduced the Export Expansion Grants Bill 1978 and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1978? As delays to the package of Bills are inhibiting industry planning, will the Minister expedite the introduction of the export market development grants legislation so that it can be enacted before the end of this session?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Some time ago the Government announced policies in relation to improvements to the export market development scheme and the export expansion scheme, which replaces the export incentives scheme. Funds for these purposes have been provided in the Budget. As Senator Jessop has recognised, part of the legislation has been introduced. The legislation is fairly well advanced. I understand that the intentions are to proceed with it as soon as possible. However, I am not aware of the actual timetable that the Minister for Trade and Resources has in mind. I will refer the honourable senator’s question to him.

page 1758

QUESTION

LEBANON

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that there is widespread concern in the Lebanese community in Australia at the inaction of the United Nations in regard to the civil war in Lebanon? Will the Minister undertake to have Australia sponsor a resolution in the United Nations calling for the international peacekeeping force to intervene in the Lebanon crisis and for the withdrawal of all Syrian troops from the region?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government, I think in common with all the people of Australia, has been greatly distressed at what is happening in Lebanon and the extent and nature of the civil war there. Senator Sibraa has asked whether the Government will initiate a particular action in the United Nations. This would be a matter of Government policy. I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek his response.

page 1758

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC BASES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. With Royal Australian Air Force aircraft now providing services to the Australian Antarctic bases by operating out of New Zealand in conjunction with and supplementing the United States and New Zealand air force transport pool, will the Minister advise for how long these arrangements are to continue and whether it is proposed that consideration be given to the eventual establishment of a base in Tasmania for these operational flights?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the Royal Australian Air Force, at the request of the Department of Science, has accepted a commitment to fly four flights to Antarctica in the summer of 1978-79 in conjunction with United States and New Zealand forces participating in what is known as Operation Deep Freeze. Further RAAF involvement will depend on the outcome of this initial participation and on future operational commitments of the Hercules force. The range capability of the Hercules does not permit safe operations to Antarctica from a base in Tasmania, I regret to say. The uncertain weather conditions which prevail in Antarctica necessitate the aircraft carrying sufficient fuel to fly to a safe diversion field if a landing at the Antarctica base is not possible. This cannot be done from a base in Tasmania.

The present RAAF involvement in Antarctica is a small part of what is essentially a large United States operation. The RAAF relies upon United States facilities and equipment to support its involvement. For the same operational reasons as affect RAAF aircraft, the United States Navy must operate from Christchurch and consequently would not contemplate a shift of location. So Tasmania is not winning at the moment. Finally, for Australia to mount a separate operation would necessitate the establishment of independent weather reporting, communications and safety and survival facilities. The RAAF does not contemplate establishment of independent operations from Tasmania or elsewhere.

page 1758

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I remind him that when the Minister for Primary Industry returned to Australia on 27 October he claimed that he had instigated all the inquiries into his business affairs. I ask the Minister: Is the Minister for Primary Industry claiming that he initiated an investigation into the transfer of some $164,000 from various funeral companies to the Sinclair Pastoral Co. during 1966 and 1967, that is, the investigation which the Bulletin of a couple of weeks ago revealed that the Corporate Affairs Commission was undertaking? If so, did the Minister for Primary Industry initiate that CAC investigation? If he did not initiate the CAC investigation what inquiry on these matters did the Minister initiate?

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

-The honourable senator who asks the question obviously knows that I would not carry that information with me. I think the way in which honourable senators in the Opposition ranks have been very active in recent years in questioning the financial affairs of Mr Sinclair, the Minister whom I represent, is quite interesting. Perhaps it would be appropriate if some of those honourable senators who ask such questions were willing to disclose some of their own financial affairs before they start to question the financial affairs of others.

page 1759

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator Walsh having addressed a supplementary question to the Minister for Science-

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I must insist that all supplementary questions be directly relevant to the initial question asked. The question is out of order.

page 1759

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator LEWIS:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity. The Minister will be aware of negotiations between the United States Boeing aircraft company and the Government Aircraft Factories and Hawker De Havilland Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney, for the manufacture of the internal wing ribs of the new Boeing 767. Have these negotiations been going on for nearly three months? Is it true that the negotiations now seem to have stalled so that Australia is in danger of losing $60m to $80m in offset manufacturing arrangements and may lose the opportunity to acquire some of the most sophisticated air frame manufacturing equipment in the world? In view of the importance of this offset manufacturing to the future of Australia’s aircraft industry and defence production capability for the next decade, what steps is the Government taking to ensure that these offset contracts are not lost to the country?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The honourable senator raises a matter which is of considerable importance to the Australian aircraft industry. It is a matter of which I do not have any close knowledge. I will refer it to the Minister for Productivity for a reply.

page 1759

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Walsh proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Prime Minister’s failure to honour his 1977 election promise to provide, through the Primary Industry Bank, long term credit at concessional rates of interest.’

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– At a farmers’ meeting in Warrnambool on 18 April 1975 the then Leader of the Opposition asserted on behalf of the then Opposition that funds would be available for the purchase of land for up to 30 or 35 years. In Mr Fraser’s 1 975 policy speech he promised to ‘establish a rural bank for long term finance ‘. For nearly two years after he became Prime Minister he did nothing in this direction. In the dying days of the last Parliament the Government hastily passed the Rural Bank Act. In Mr Fraser’s 1977 policy speech, he promised that the new bank would provide ‘long term credit for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest’. That promise is now, to use that delightful Nixonian euphemism, inoperative. It should be noted that the Prime Minister promised credit for up to 30-year terms and on concessional rates of interest.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) was once equally magnanimous. In the West Australian on 26 September 1975 it is reported that he said in Perth that ‘a new national rural bank would provide long term finance to producers at low rates of interest’. The Primary Industry Bank story is another important chapter in the history of the duplicity of this Government in general. The Government’s betrayal of farmers on the question of interest rates was the ultimate product of its earlier betrayals on the bank’s control and structure. The initial legislation which was passed just a year ago made no mention of important details such as interest rates, equity capital distribution, the magnitude and source of funds for lending or the directorship of the corporation established by the Act. It said that there would be 12 directors, including a chairman and one other government appointee and two appointees of primary industry. Who the other eight directors would have been was, at that stage, a complete mystery.

The 1977 Act explicitly forbade the Bank to deal directly with customers. It could provide funds only for what was termed ‘on-lending’ by the trading banks and other financial institutions. There is no doubt that the Australian Bankers Association demanded that restriction or that Mr Fraser, as is his custom when confronted by determined opponents who have some independent source of power, weakly complied. Mr Michael Davidson, formerly the President of the politically conservative and now amalgamated Graziers’ Association of New South Wales and also a director of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, on 1 1 August last said, speaking for farmers:

The policies that we wanted adopted were not adopted by the Government. The Government chose to institute a bank that had largely been prepared by the Australian Bankers Association. I still say that we would prefer to see a bank with a different structure, a different board structure to more of a prime lending role.

At that stage the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council was saying similar things. It appears to have changed its mind since then. I will give some details of that later. Denying the bank a prime lending role naturally induced suspicion by many people that the trading banks would simply use the rural bank as a receptacle for their bad debts. This was explicitly denied on 25 May by the then newly appointed Chairman of the Bank Board, Mr Ives, when he said:

An impending borrower will go to his own bank and if that bank decides that his proposition is viable, then that bank will go to the Primary Industry Bank and ask for funds. But the prime lender -

That is the trading bank- takes the risk.

Thus we have a farmers bank that does not lend money to farmers. The trading banks assess the commercial proposition and carry any risk of default. Money is lent at or slightly above overdraft and Commonwealth Development Bank rates of interest. Collectively, it is quite clear that these attributes leave no valid reason for the Bank’s existence. The legacy of the Prime Minister’s recklessly dishonoured promise is a totally superfluous institution which adds to the cost of finance by interposing an extra tier of bureaucracy between the borrowers and the money.

After innumerable delays and postponements the Primary Industry Bank finally started operating this week. In the meantime in June the Government amended the original legislation. The amendments completed the Australian

Bankers Association’s domination of the new institution by giving the trading banks a clear majority on the board and giving the board more power over the conditions of borrowing and lending. It is no exaggeration to say that during this series of manoeuvres and betrayals the Government has been assisted by some of its more loyal farm leaders, the most prominent among these being Sir Samuel Burston, the President of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, who appears to have tailored his demands to what the Government has promised already. As the Government has progressively reneged on its several undertakings, Sir Samuel has obligingly watered down his requirements. In April of last year he was advocating, among other things, that the Commonwealth Development Bank be split in lieu of the establishment of a separate institution, that the interest rate paid on income equalisation deposits be increased as a result of their being made available to the bank and that there be, as he put it, predictability of financial arrangements from the outset. But by November, when the Bill actually appeared just in time for the election, Sir Samuel had come up with a completely new set of requirements which included ‘facility for producers to approach the bank without first being referred by the trading banks’ and a ‘guarantee of increased skills of loan appraisers’. Neither of those requirements has been met.

The next major re-writing of the proposition of the President of the AWGC on this matter occurred on Budget night. Within half an hour of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) delivering his Budget Speech, the AWGC issued a Press statement in which Sir Samuel said:

I am particularly pleased that the Government has acted upon AWGCs representation to utilise lEDs -

That is, income equalisation deposits- as a means of reducing interest rates for loans made by the new Primary Industry Bank. As a result, interest rates will be set in the region of 9 to 10 percent.

Strangely enough the same organisation was silent when the rate of 10!£ per cent was finally announced. A few days later, after the interest rate was set, the line which emerged from the AWGC was that the overall level of interest rates was more important than the particular rate of interest applied by the Primary Industry Bank in relation to interest rates in the community as a whole. On Budget night the important thing was that the use of income equalisation deposits would enable the rural sector to obtain an interest rate concession vis-a-vis the other borrowers. A few weeks later the overall level of interest rates was the important factor, according to the President of the AWGC. It was perhaps fortunate that the Council had managed to get this idea around when it did because last week when every bank in Australia apart from the Primary Industry Bank lowered its interest rates the AWGC was still particularly pleased. Although the PIBA did not bring its rates into line with those of other trading banks until last night, the AWGC had no hesitation in issuing last Thursday a Press statement welcoming the 16 per cent cut in interest rates that at that stage had not been adopted by the Primary Industry Bank. Despite those valiant efforts by Sir Samuel Burston to sell the Primary Industry Bank and despite the Government’s specious rationalisations of its switches in policy, the great majority of farmers know that they have been deceived and betrayed. Like other Australians, the farmers know now that the Prime Minister’s promises become inoperative each election night.

In the Budget Speech it was announced that $30m from the income equalisation deposits would be made available to the Bank at 5 per cent interest. This is to dilute the $50m to be obtained from the private loan market, presumably at interest rates of 9% per cent or 9Vi per cent. Thus the average cost of funds to the bank will be below 8 per cent. Its minimum lending rate was to have been 10% per cent- it is now 10 per cent- which emphasises the fact that this phoney Bank simply adds to the cost of borrowing. It is very important to note that we have not been told where the $80m is likely to be lent in the first year. If all or almost all of it is not lent in the first year the Bank’s impact on the total rural lending of about $3. 1 billion will be negligible, which emphasises again that the whole institution is an expensive political gimmick. If the $80m is lent this year, will another $30m at 5 per cent interest be available next year and for every future year if the Bank is to continue to lend $80m each year? If the Bank loses this cheap IED money its interest rates must go up by about 2 per cent, which would put them well above the overdraft rates and the term loan rates. The Bank’s current interest rates are, of course, identical to overdraft rates and to those rates which have long been available from the Commonwealth Development Bank. In prime ministerial newspeak, all that will comprise a concessional rate of interest. I might observe here that the questions that I have just asked ought to have been asked by the agricultural Press and the farmer organisations, but they have not been asked. Whatever the answers to those particular questions may be, there is no doubt that $30m will not be available indefinitely each year from the income equalisation deposits. It is highly doubtful whether S60m would be left in the IED account next year if another $30m is required for the Primary Industry Bank. It must be doubted whether even S30m will remain in the IED account next year. The reason is that the tax advantages that these deposits once had were almost wiped out by changes to tax averaging following the 1977 Budget. The probability is that these IEDs will be substantially withdrawn over the next 12 months. They may be running down even now. As was observed in the Bulletin today, the Primary Industry Bank has broken the cardinal rule of banking in that it has borrowed short and it intends to lend long; it has borrowed virtually on call.

On the question of the current level of the IEDs, I have had on the Notice Paper for two months a question seeking the monthly balance in this account over the last 12 or 1 5 months. It is question No. 784, if anyone wants to look it up. I do not believe it is conceivable that this simple, piece of information could not have been supplied within a week. The fact that it has not been provided in eight weeks certainly suggests that the deposits are running down and that the Government wants to avoid drawing attention to that run-down. The Prime Minister has tried to divert attention from his dishonoured election promise on interest rates by emphasising that money may be provided on long terms of up to 30 years. He alleges that the extended term is far more important than the interest rate. A few gullible farmers and journalists have swallowed that line. But what is the truth? Firstly, the Prime Minister promised both loan terms of up to 30 years and concessional rates of interest. More importantly perhaps, the Primary Industry Bank may provide loans on terms of up to 30 years. I stress the word ‘may’; there is no obligation necessarily to do so. The Commonwealth Development Bank has long provided and still provides loans for up to 20 years at the same rate of interest. Thus the possibility now exists of the terms being up to 30 years instead of up to 20 years. That is the only change vis-a-vis the Commonwealth Development Bank as far as the borrower is concerned.

On the mathematics of the question, the annual repayment of a loan, as I suppose most people realise, is affected by both the rate of interest and the term of the loan. What is less generally realised is that the higher the interest rate is the less important the loan term becomes. That is the way the arithmetic works out. Ironically at interest rates above 10 per cent little reduction in annual payments accrues from extending the loan term beyond 20 years. In other words, what the Government has done in extending the term makes very little difference. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics report entitled A Review of Credit in the Australian Rural Sector which was published some time in 1977 makes this very observation. On page 5 it states:

There is little reduction in annual repayments through extending the term of loan repayment beyond 20 years at current commercial interest rates. The major factor influencing annual repayments of long term loans is the rate of interest.

If we look at specific examples of credit foncier arrangements, we will see that the annual repayments for a 15-year loan at a 6 per cent interest rate are lower than those for a 30-year loan at a 10 per cent rate of interest. The specific figures are $102.96 for a $1,000 loan over 15 years at 6 per cent and $106.08 for the same loan over 30 years at 10 per cent. At an interest rate of 8 per cent the annual repayments for a 15 -year loan are almost identical to the annual repayments for a 30-year loan at an interest rate of 1 1 per cent. So at current interest rates the extension of this term is almost meaningless. In this context the Government’s claim that the loan term is more important than the interest rate is almost as counterfeit as the Prime Minister’s election promises. Whether as an ongoing policy the agricultural sector should have interest concessions or cheap money must be seriously doubted for a number of reasons. Equity considerations aside, if as an ongoing policy money is to be made available for the purchase of land at concessional interest rates, it is inevitable that the interest rate concession will ultimately be capitalised in the price of land and that borrowers will finish up paying the same amount of interest on a higher principal and at a lower rate; and, of course, the initial equity requirement will go up. Moreover, many farmers are beginning to realise now that the interest concessions will adversely affect the volume of rural credit. In an article published in April of this year in the Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, B. J. Standen of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture made certain observations in this respect. In an examination of the history of rural lending Standen came to the conclusion that interest rate concessions induced a greater proportionate reduction in the rural share of advances. Perhaps that is not put as clearly as it could be. But the point that is being made is that if there is an interest concession the volume of credit available will fall, which really is not surprising. In the same article Standen makes this observation:

Farm Development Loans simply replaced overdraft advances; rural borrowers were not discriminated against in periods of tight credit; . . .

That opens the possibility that whatever finance is provided by this institution will simply replace finance currently being provided from other institutions. But whatever the justice or the wisdom of providing or not providing cheap credit for agriculture, there can be no justification for cynical pre-election prime ministerial promises to deliver cheap money- promises which are inoperative as soon as the votes are safely in the ballot box.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I pause to wonder why in the name of goodness the Opposition has introduced this matter for discussion as one of public importance in the terms submitted when these can be demolished outright on simple facts. The facts are totally against the terms of the Labor Party’s proposal for discussion. I can only think that this is the last grudging, jealous kind of bleat of a Labor Party which in office did nothing to create for the farmers helpful institutions and a Party which now in Opposition is trying to demolish something by rhetoric. Incidentally, I hope that all of those institutions, including the graziers associations and the various farming interests, which have come out in support of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia will note that Senator Walsh and the Labor Party regard the people they represent as gullible farmers. I think that that should be put on the record.

Let us look at the substance of the Opposition’s proposal. Let us deal with it calmly and coldly. The Labor Party Opposition in this Senate has submitted as a matter of public importance ‘the Prime Minister’s failure to honour his 1977 election promise to provide, through the Primary Industry Bank, long term credit at concessional rates of interest’. One would have thought therefore that one would have heard evidence of that alleged failure. I direct the attention of the Senate and the Australian public to the 1 977 election promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). In that election policy, which of course was not read by Senator Walsh, honourable senators will find these words:

The Bank will provide, in conjunction with the banks and other lenders, long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest.

The Senate will note what that policy says. It says that the Bank will provide, in conjunction with other banks and lenders, credit. So in the first place the fact that the Primary Industry Bank is a refinancing institution is stated in the policy.

That policy says that long term credit will be provided to borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional interest rates. I turn to the supplementary policy statement of the Government. It says:

The new Australian Rural Bank for which legislation was passed in the last Parliament will be established without delay: the principal function will be to re-finance loans made by banks (including the Commonwealth Development Bank), other financial institutions and other lenders to rural producers and fishermen; it will provide, in conjunction with the banks and other lenders, long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest. The board of the Bank will include two rural representatives.

The simple fact is that every one of those promises has been delivered. Today a Labor senator is attacking us as though it were a breach of promise by the Government to set up a refinancing institution which works through other banks when it is in fact in the very discharge of our policy that we do so. If honourable senators care to look at our 1975 policy they will find that it was the same. So one wonders what was the purpose of the Labor Party in submitting this matter for discussion. I analyse the three elements of the Opposition allegations. The first is the Prime Minister’s failure to provide a bank which will work in conjunction with other banks. Indeed, that is the very thing which we have done and to which Senator Walsh is taking exception. He wants the bank not to be a refinancing bank, not to be a bank which will work with other banks but a bank that will work as a primary lender itself. But whatever he may want and whatever he may fail to deliver, what we have done is wholly within our policy. The second element is long term loans for up to 30 years. They are precisely what the Bank will make, and at concessional rates.

Senator Walsh:

– Tell us about that.

Senator CARRICK:

-I would be delighted to do so because anybody at all with any understanding of the prevailing interest rates throughout the community will know that long term loans for up to 30 years would be at far higher interest rates commercially than has been prescribed through this Bank. The fundamental error of the Labor Party is that it has not come forward with any comparison between the concessional interest rates of 10 per cent and 12 per cent, which incidentally were reduced yesterday by half of one per cent, and other rates applying throughout the community. If the Labor Party wanted to support its argument then it should have shown that one can go on to the commercial market today- the pastoral houses, the banks and lending institutions- and borrow long term for up to 30 years at 10 per cent or 12 per cent. I challenge the Labor Party to come forward with the names of such institutions. Indeed, those gullible’ farmers that have been sneered at by Senator Walsh will be eager to find the institutions to which he says he can lead them in his pious hopes that they can borrow at 10 per cent or 12 per cent. The fact is that anybody who understands the lending market knows that he can get those kinds of interest rates only on short term loans.

The fundamental of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia is that it shall be for long term lending- a deficiency within the banking industry. It is a phoney bank, says Senator Walsh. He is just knocking, knocking and knocking. He is not putting up any evidence at all to support his argument. This Bank will do something that is vital to the development of farms. It will allow the farmers to borrow long term. Where else can they get long term credit? I think that for the edification of the Labor Party it might be important to recall our policy statement in November 1975. It reads:

Over recent years the demand for rural credit for capital expenditure, working capital needs, and other uses, has grown considerably.

Primary producers have experienced difficulty in building up their earnings to finance their needs. This means that the demand for credit is likely to grow- particularly as new technology, and changing markets, offer profitable investment opportunities.

Access to capital on suitable terms and conditions is an increasingly serious problem for the farm owner-operator. Longer term loans are essential.

We see the need for a special institution for this purpose as there are many types of investment in primary production which require a variety of medium to long term lending arrangements. With long term finance the producer is best able to avoid unpredictable price variations due to varying seasonal conditions or world demand for agricultural products. With this in mind, we intend to establish a National Rural Bank in conjunction with trading banks and other lenders in the rural sector to provide rural credit to cover the investment in land.

The bank will also finance machinery, plant, stock and farm equipment, lend for farm development projects for the expansion of existing projects and refinance existing short term rural debts. The terms of lending would be appropriate for the purpose of the loan. Interest payable would be at bank interest rates for medium term loans and marginally better for long term loans.

It is envisaged that the bank would function by relending through existing financial institutions but may bc involved in direct lending in some instances.

As a refinance institution, staff would be kept to a minimum and security and other documentation held and processed by the on-lending financial body.

In the absence of Senator Walsh, who has now left the chamber, no doubt because of the demolition of his arguments, let me simply say that our 1975 policy and the 1977 policy are clear proof that this Government has done precisely what it had set out to do. It has done it in conjunction with banks. It has provided long term loans for up to 30 years at concessional interest rates. It is one thing to look at a 10 per cent interest rate if one is looking for a short term loan- incidentally, it will be interesting to find those places where that rate can be obtained- but if one is looking for long term loans one should not look to the pastoral houses, the commercial banks or any lending institutions. One should look to a bank which offers rates substantially lower than would be offered otherwise for long term lending. That makes me wonder why the Labor Party takes up the time of the Senate in bringing forward such a matter as being of public importance. Every fact is against it. The Government’s purposes in regard to refinancing have been achieved without the creation of large and expensive direct lending institutions. Does the Labor Party suggest that the Government should waste valuable public moneys setting up institutions when the existing institutions can do the job? The Bank has only a small staff and administrative structure which will make use of existing expertise in the area of rural lending. I should have thought that a virtue and not a vice. Obviously Senator Walsh sees it as a vice.

He used rhetoric where facts were not available to him and that was all the time. For example, he talked about the overwhelming majority of commercial bankers on the board of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. Commercial bankers represent six of the 12 members. I think the earlier remarks in Question Time today about basic skills in numeracy and literacy must have evaded the Opposition. One has only to look at sentence after sentence of the empty rhetoric- I say that with some sadness- to realise that there were no grounds for bringing this forward as a matter of public importance. For example, it is not true to suggest, as Senator Walsh has done, that the ratio of income equalisation deposit funds, or IEDs, to public borrowings will be constant at 3:5. IED funds will be allocated to the Bank in portions through the course of 1978-79 and beyond to enable the Bank to keep interest rates to end borrowers within the announced maxima. That is just one of the points that emerged. Senator Walsh’s comments are those of a destructive knocker, a person who has realised that in its time the Labor Government did nothing to help the primary producers with long term lending or concessional interest rates. Indeed the reverse applies.

I remind the people of Australia that in that period inflation rose to 18 per cent, interest rates soared to unprecedented heights, the short term lending market was in a desperate situation, the whole economy was overheated and the primary producers, along with others, had enormous difficulties because of basic costs in getting their goods onto world markets. I need not elaborate on that. Yet in the face of that kind of situation nothing was done by the then Labor Government to set up an effective long term lending agency with concessional interest rates. Nothing was done to help the farmers. Now as an alternative policy we have the Primary Industry Bank of Australia which, a day or so after the Bank has started, the Opposition describes as a phoney bank. The Opposition’s argument might have been worth listening to if, in a year or two, after the Bank had gained some experience and had seen the movements in the situation, Senator Walsh had come forward and said: ‘Here is the record of trading. It has not lived up to expectations ‘. What kind of nonsense is it that the Opposition brings forward this as a matter of public importance now without a tittle of facts in the arguments it is presenting?

If one wants to discover whether the rates to be applied by the Bank are concessional rates, there is available now a volume of publications put out by the principal rural agencies and primary institutions which states that the solid and unanimous argument is that the most important thing of all is that we should have long term lending; that is, the length of the lending period is vital over and above the actual interest rate. By that I do not minimise the interest rate. All of the agencies have produced ample evidence to show that the best help we can give to the farmer is to give him his loan for capitalisation and development purposes over a long term so that his annual repayments are smaller and so that his cash flow is better. Does anyone argue that that in itself is not an enormous concession? That is right at the heart of the situation. To charge interest rates which are comparable with the short term market is to give a concession of enormous importance. I will not weary the Senate by quoting primary industry institutions which have pointed out the vital effect this has had in helping them along the journey.

Here we have a bank, unique in itself, which has been set up for primary industry and to offer long term loans at concessional interest rates. For some unaccountable reason it is being criticised on the very brink of its launching in a grudging, miserable, parsimonious and, I fear, a jealous way.

Senator Young:

– I think that is it.

Senator CARRICK:

– It has been criticised in a jealous way. There cannot be any other reason. One would have thought that today, following a steady reduction in interest rates, there would have been an acknowledgement by the Labor Party that here is a progressive policy, a means of helping the primary producers and the ordinary families of Australia. Did we hear that? Not one little bit of it. The fact is that the Government originally fixed the lending rate at 10.5 per cent and 12.5 per cent and that yesterday .we reduced it by 0.5 per cent. With the policies of the Government on course this can be a pattern for the future. If we can extend the term of lending and at the same time bring down interest rates we will have done for the farmers a great deal to rectify the great damage done to them and to the rest of Australia by our predecessors.

I must make the point that the rates are concessional in themselves. If one searches the pastoral houses, the commercial banks and other institutions nowhere will one find these kinds of rates. I simply remind the Senate as I did earlier that if the rates are not concessional the thrust of the Labor Party’s argument should have been: Here we are. We have gone on to the commercial market and we are able to show you that we can go to pastoral houses, the commercial banks, the Government bank or any other lending institution and get long term loans at concessional interest rates.’ That would have been a significant rebuttal for the Government to face. But honourable senators opposite were silent on that point because the world knows that, in fact, the kind of concessional interest rates offered by the Primary Industry Bank, comparable with the long-term bond rate, are related to short-term lending, not to long-term lending. Indeed, significantly higher interest rates would have had to be paid otherwise.

I do not think there is a need to go further. We said that we would put two primary producers on the Primary Industry Bank board. We have done that. We have kept our promise in every way. I think that at no time in my period in the Senate have I confronted what was supposed to be a debate on a matter of public importance which demonstrably was destroyed before it started. It was destroyed and doubly overkilled as Senator Walsh pursued his speech. If ever somebody unwittingly argued for the Government cause, Senator Walsh did today. His arguments did nothing for his own cause and everything for the Government’s cause. He invented ideas and then knocked them down. He invented Aunt Sally after Aunt Sally and then knocked them down. I repeat that this is what the Senate is supposed to be discussing as a matter of public importance:

The Prime Minister’s failure to honour his 1977 election promise to provide, through the Primary Industry Bank, long term credit at concessional rates of interest.

I have read the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). We have carried out every word, phrase and idea of it. I have gone further; I have read the supplementary policy statement made in 1975. I have shown that we have created a Bank which is essentially a refinancing bank working with other institutions. The Bank is designed to direct itself to long-term lending at concessional interest rates. Senator Walsh has put up arguments which he has invented and which are as ashes once examined. Documents and statements of primary industry organisations are available in very large measure. No doubt my colleagues will refer to them. They all place the greatest of emphasis on long-term lending. Incidentally, they say that even if concessional interest rates are given they are nowhere near as important. No doubt South Australians will be aware of the major article in the Advertiser of 26 September arising out of a rural finance seminar at Roseworthy Agricultural College which was organised by the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Agricultural Technologists of Australasia, the Australian Farm Management Society and farmers. Mr David Trebeck, an economist with the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, said:

A longer term for loans was far more important than a lower interest rate.

I emphasise that he used the words ‘a longer term for loans was far more important’. He is quoted as saying:

In terms of a producer’s annual cash flow, a reduction in interest rates of say, 2 per cent, will do far less than an extension of the term of a loan from eight to 20 years.

I wonder at the remarks made by honourable senators in the Australian Labor Party. Senator Walsh and other members of the Labor Party were members of Senate Estimates Committee A which met on 26 October. They had the benefit of senior Treasury officers to examine the situation. Indeed, the Hansard report of Senate Estimates Committee A proceedings of Thursday, 26 October is available to all honourable senators. In those proceedings Senator Walsh and Senator Wriedt pursued this question of whether the Bank justified a separate existence and whether it did, in fact, grant special interest rates. I refer to page 1065 of Hansard and the responses given by Mr J. Hartwell, a senior Finance Officer in the Fninancial Institutions Division of the Department of the Treasury. Senator Wriedt asked:

What is the financial advantage of a primary producer borrowing through the Primary Industry Bank, forgetting any other advantages that may exist?

Here is the nub of the question. Mr Hartwell was asked what was the financial advantage? He replied:

I suppose that the prime advantage is that he is able to achieve a long-term loan at what might be considered very favourable interest rates- a loan for a longer term than he might otherwise have been able to obtain.

Here was a disinterested expert saying that, in fact, the advantage was very considerable- that the interest rates were very favourable. Senator Wriedt went on to ask:

When you say at more favourable interest rates, I thought you agreed earlier that substantially the interest rates would not differ, except where loans in excess of $100,000 were negotiated by a trading bank at more favourable terms, which would probably be exceptional?

Mr Hartwell said:

Are you comparing the Primary Industry Bank with the Commonwealth Development Bank?

Senator Wriedt said yes. Mr Hartwell said:

The Commonwealth Development Bank is a special bank to the extent that it is a lender of last resort, so to speak. It provides finance only where appropriate finance is not otherwise available on suitable terms and conditions. Therefore the Primary Industry Bank facility, one might suggest, does widen the scope of loans and financing facilities available to primary producers.

Here again was a disinterested expert talking about the quality of the Bank. Senator Wriedt continued:

Let us compare them with the pastoral houses. What difference would you see between the Primary Industry Bank and pastoral houses? What advantages would flow? ‘

Mr Hartwell replied:

Pastoral houses are essentially in the business of carry-on finance and usually provide seasonal finance, normally of 12 months ‘ duration, or even shorter in certain circumstances. The sort of market that the Primary Industry Bank is appealing to is a much different market. I am not sure that you could really compare them in that sense. I do not have any figures available, and I am not sure that there are a lot of figures available, on the sort of rates obtainable from pastoral houses, but I am sure that they would not be any cheaper than the Primary Industry Bank.

This theme continued right through the questioning. Out of the evidence from expert witnesses emerged the fact that disinterested experts thought that long-term lending was being made available at very favourable interest rates. The same thing can be found if one looks at statements from members of primary industry, such as the Graziers Association of Victoria. I suppose they are the gullible farmers.

Senator Walsh:

– Yes, they are. Kelly is another Liberal toady.

Senator CARRICK:

– Let it be recorded clearly in Hansard that Senator Walsh said: ‘Yes, they are’. He believes that they are the gullible farmers.

Senator Walsh:

– Kelly is another Liberal toady.

Senator CARRICK:

– The honourable senator should not try to retract that statement now. If he is on a slippery pole let him remain on it. The slide has been profound, anyhow. The fact is that the president of the Graziers Association of Victoria said:

From the outset we have emphasised that long-term credit is essential for the rural sector. The principal reasons for this are the length of the production cycle, the influence of production variability, the length of time before cash flows are generated for new development and the low turnover in relation to capital employed.

I take it that those are the words of the gullible farmer. The statement goes on to outline what the Graziers Association of Victoria said was the benefit of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. Senator Walsh and the Labor Party have achieved, as they often do, the distinction of being the only ones in the regiment in step. The facts show that they lose out. The rural community has welcomed this institution. On the evidence concerned clearly it is offering a new, unique and favourable facility to farmers. I suggest that the farmers will put aside the rhetoric of Senator Walsh and the other Opposition senators who have spoken for the real and tangible benefits of the PIBA which all good Australians would welcome to the Australian scene as a new and vital institution for primary industry.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– It ill behoves Senator Carrick as Leader of the Government in the Senate to attack Senator Walsh and the motivation of the Australian Labor Party in moving this matter of public importance and to say that in so doing Senator Walsh’s contribution was rhetorical. Not only could one describe Senator Carrick ‘s contribution as rhetorical but it was also 10 minutes over time. In fact he did precious little to create a better awareness within the community about the implications of the new financing bank for rural producers. In fact he might well adopt the title of ‘Leader of the rhetorical party’. There is no doubt that the question of finance for the rural sector has worried that sector of our economy for many years. Rural producers have been concerned for generations about the inadequacies in the provision of rural finance and in particular the lack of long term lending facilities. I find it rather strange that the Leader of the Government in the Senate in the last weeks before the end of this session should suggest that the

Government was acting in the interests of the rural community, bearing in mind the tremendous problems that faced the rural community through the Depression and particularly in the post war years and the fact that it has moved from a labour intensive industry.

When the Liberal Party Government took office in 1949 about 20 per cent of our work force was involved in agriculture. That figure has now dropped to 6 per cent. Of course in moving from a labour intensive industry to a capital intensive industry there has been a great need for the rural community to be able to use finance in that process of change. When one looks at the record of the conservative governments in that time, that is, in the 33 years since the end of World War II, 27 of those years have been years in which the conservative parties have ruled this country; 27 years in which the Leader of the Country Party has been the Deputy Prime Minister. Yet now in 1978 we are told about the failures of a short period in which Labor was in office in 1972-75 and the great virtues of the Liberal Party in bringing forward this legislation. It is rather ironical that honourable senators on the Government side did not see that they failed the rural sector in those years in which we suffered drought and other difficulties and in which the sector moved into a new era, that is, one of capital investment.

The concern that has been expressed about this change has been reflected in a number of official reports that have been published over the years. For example, the 1971 Bureau of Agricultural Economics report which dealt with debt reconstruction and farm adjustment stated:

There is a need for a long term credit facility for agriculture because access to capital will become an increasing problem to the predominantly unincorporated enterprise type of farm business, and particularly because it is necessary to facilitate the development of farm enterprise.

Then of course the very important report, the 1974 Green Paper entitled Rural Policy in Australia, which was brought down by the Labor Government stated:

There has been a gap in the long term credit facilities available to rural producers . . .

Obviously the banking institutions, the pastoral houses and the other lending authorities have failed in this respect; otherwise those comments would not have been made, neither would there have been the need for the Government to move as it has suggested that it has done properly in this respect. Further the Green Paper stated:

Access to capital on suitable terms and conditions - . . may become an increasing problem for the predominant unincorporated enterprise type of farm business where the farm has in practice largely to be repurchased in each generation; farm liquidity is likely to come under pressure again from time to time- leading to an increased demand for longer term loans. Without some type of government participation, it is unlikely that the supply of longer term rural credit would be adequate.

The nature of Australian agriculture and in particular the length of the production cycle, the influence of production variability, the length of time before cash flows are generated from new development and the low turnover in relation to capital employed demands that longer term financial arrangements ought to be provided than for other industries. Within the rural sector there is a considerable demand. I suggest that that demand has not been realised by this Government’s decision. There is considerable demand for finance with terms exceeding 15 years for land purchase, developmental purposes, reconstruction of short term debt of producers outside the scope of the rural reconstruction authorities and the reconstruction of short term emergency finance debt that could not be cleared within a reasonable period. We all know of the deficiencies that exist in respect of rural reconstruction schemes, particularly the limitations that are placed upon them in the Commonwealth and State areas. Senator Carrick referred to the policy statements of the Liberal Party in the last two election campaigns. Let us look at them. In 1975 and 1977 those statements were couched in terms that were very appealing to the rural community. They were obviously baits to get support from that community. Prior to the 1975 Federal election the Liberal and National Country parties’ joint primary industry policy statement outlined that a Federal government would ensure: . . the establishment of a national rural bank in conjunction with trading banks and other lenders in the rural sector to provide rural credit to cover investment in land. The bank will also finance machinery, plant, stock and farm equipment, land for farm development projects for the expansion of existing projects and refinance existing short term rural debts.

In the supplementary statement to the 1977 policy statement of the Liberal Party it was mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the Rural Bank

  1. . will provide, in conjunction with the banks and other lenders, long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years-

This is the most important point which Senator

Carrick ignores completely– at concessional rates of interest.

Of course the Minister made no mention of that point. We are aware of the fact that refinancing of rural debts is a significant problem because about 75 per cent of all such debts can be put into the category of being short term debts. If there is to be a refinancing of them it must be, as the Prime Minister suggested in his policy speech, at concessional rates of interest. That is not what is envisaged in the Government’s propositions. Unfortunately those people who believe that statement have been well and truly fooled. The Prime Minister made certain promises in order to gain votes; with a cynical disregard he has dishonoured those promises; just as he promised that he would maintain Medibank- we know what has happened to that institution; just as he promised that he would support wage indexation- we know what he has done; just as he promised that he would reduce interest rates by 2 per cent- there are only eight weeks left for him to fulfil that promise because he said that he would do it during 1978. He promised tax cuts- we know that in this Budget tax has been increased; he promised in the last election campaign that unemployment would fall steadily during 1977- we all know that the figures that will come out this Friday will show that that promise has not only not been fulfilled but that unemployment will increase. The performance of this Government with regard to the Primary Industry Bank is typical of a long list of broken promises. I suggest that when those promises were made there was no intention by this Government of honouring them.

The Fraser Government was committed to provision of long term credit at concessional rates of interest. That is what is promised and that is what it has not delivered. The interest rates for loans from the Primary Industry Bank which were announced in a joint statement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) after a long period of speculation- it was made in 1975 so it has taken three years to get the actual institution and process into operation- on 15 October could be and have been described in many ways, but they could hardly be described as concessional. I do not think that even Senator Carrick has the gall to suggest that. According to the statement, loans made by the banks and refinanced by the Primary Industry Bank were to carry interest rates to the end borrowers of 10.5 per cent per annum for loans less than $100,000 and 12.5 per cent for loans of $100,000 or above. Senator Carrick did not indicate that that is any different from any of the other loans that are available for investment or development purposes, whether they be in the rural or secondary sector.

The main interest rate of 10.5 per cent was, at the time it was announced, no better than the bank overdraft rate. It was the same as the commercial overdraft rate and it was only marginally lower than the 1 1 per cent or 1 1 lh per cent maximum rate set at that time by the lending authorities for fixed, medium and long term loans. It is true that last night it was announced that the interest rates of the Primary Industry bank are to be 10 per cent per annum for loans less than $100,000 and 12 per cent for loans of $100,000 or above. But this is subsequent to and follows the decision made by the trading banks last week to reduce their overdraft rates generally throughout the whole of the community. So the loans offered through the Primary Industry Bank are at interest rates no better than the normal bank overdraft rate and follow the norm of falling interest rates generally.

Government senators might suggest, as Mr Sinclair has suggested, that it is the term of the loan that is important and not the interest ratethat is not what was said by the Government when it went to the polls in 1975 and 1977- in regard to reducing the annual repayment and loan service burden of borrowing. I suggest that the Government knew that in 1977. That was clearly set out in the 1971 report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on debt reconstruction and farm adjustment and it was clearly set out in the 1974 Green Paper entitled ‘Rural Policy in Australia’. Yet in the face of that advice the Fraser Government deliberately suggested that it would provide long term loans at concessional interest rates. This can be seen as nothing more than a grossly misleading approach and some might even say a deliberate falsehood. No wonder there is cynicism in the Australian community about parliamentary promises and parliamentary democracy.

The Fraser Government’s actions over the last week have clearly shown that it has no intention of establishing concessional interest rates for the rural sector. In fact, it is the trading banks which set interest rates for the Primary Industry Bank. They set their overdraft rates and the Primary Industry Bank follows. Little wonder that Mr Barry Cassell, the Executive Director of the Cattlemens Union of Australia, has described the interest rates for primary industry as a sellout. Little wonder that the National President of that organisation has said that all farmers will be disappointed with the Bank. Little wonder that all primary industry organisations have roundly condemned the interest rate structure of the Primary Industry Bank. Little wonder that the Fraser Government is rapidly losing credibility in all sections of the Australian community. I make no bones about that. One has only to read the Press statements and Press articles on this subject. One Press article reported that Mr Don

Eckersley, the President of the Australian Farmers Federation, said that the Bank was nothing more than a joke. The Australian Farmers Federation issued the following Press statement:

At their meeting in Sydney this week the AFF Executive described the new Primary Industry Bank as completely unacceptable to rural industry in its present form.

Another Press article reported that Mr Cassell said that farmers would treat the news of the interest rates with dismay. The same article reported that Mr James, the president of the Stock Owners Association of South Australia, said that producers would be extremely disappointed with the lending rates, particularly in view of the promises about concessional interest rates that were made over the years. The Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation has expressed extreme disappointment with the new Primary Industry Bank. Mr O’Brien, the President of the Federation, has stated that primary producers have not received the type of banking institution suggested in 1975. One can go on and on in respect of the way in which the rural sector is viewing this cynical misuse of words and promises by this Government. The Fraser Government has deceived the farmers by making a dishonest election promise. In effect it promised to farmers cheap, long term loans, but it has not provided anything of the sort.

Another feature of the Bank which must be questioned is the method of funding it. Mr Sinclair and Mr Howard proudly announced in a joint Press release that the Commonwealth Government had agreed to place Commonwealth funds with the Bank. What has it done? It has decided to use the income equalisation deposits as the base amount for the funding of this Bank. We all know that this means that the funds of the primary producers themselves are being used as the base for the operations of this Bank. There is no suggestion that Commonwealth funds will be placed at the disposal of this Bank. The Government is so obsessed with Budget deficits that it is using this stratagem to provide the Bank with a small amount of money to overcome the tremendous re-financing problems that beset the rural sector. The IEDs have been given to the Bank at 5 per cent interest. So the opportunity existed for a concessional rate of interest to be applied.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I agree that the subject we are debating is a matter of public importance. It is a matter of great importance as it concerns long term rural finance. Industry organisations generally and political parties across the board should be aware of the importance of long term finance to primary industry. The Government recognised this importance and prior to the 1975 and 1977 elections it gave various undertakings in respect of the construction and implementation of a Primary Industry Bank. For a significant period those undertakings have been an important and basic part of the policies of the Liberal and National Country parties.

I agree that the provision of long term finance at the best interest rates possible is certainly a major concern of primary industry, but I do not agree with the wording of the matter of public importance raised by the Opposition, which reads:

The Prime Minister’s failure to honour his 1977 election promise to provide, through the Primary Industry Bank, long term credit at concessional rates of interest.

That statement has already been quite successfully demolished by Senator Carrick. It is not terribly difficult to treat the statement in this manner because it does not appear to me to be in any sense true. Let us look for a moment at the wording of that statement. It refers to long term credit. The Primary Industry Bank has established just that. It is offering the longest term credit available in the whole banking system of this country. The statement then refers to the long term credit being offered at concessional rates of interest. There has been an enormous squeal from certain sections that that has not occurred, but in the sense of the term involved the rate of 10 per cent is indeed a concessional rate. It is probable that money borrowed in any other area for a term of 30 years would attract an interest rate of about 13 per cent. It is perfectly obvious that if money were available elsewhere over this sort of term at an interest rate of less than 10 per cent this banking organisation would have nowhere to go and nothing to do. There is no suggestion that people will not attempt to borrow from the Primary Industry Bank. There is no doubt that everyone would like a lower rate of interest to apply, but what is the rate of interest? The rate of interest is the price of money. If in this instance we were to lower the interest rate continually we could do so only by asking the taxpayer to make up the difference. In effect we would be asking him to subsidise the rate of interest. That would not be terribly popular with the community as a whole.

There is constant reference these days in some areas of the Press and, significantly, by some members of the Opposition to the effect that the Government is continually breaking promises and failing to live up to undertakings. Are the

Australian people to assume that every undertaking that is made at a specific time in the history of this country will remain a solid, factual and absolute undertaking regardless of time, circumstance and change? I do not believe that the average Australian would be so stupid. 1 believe that the average Australian is prepared to look at the circumstances. As I said, the Primary Industry Bank has created the availability of long term credit at concessional rates of interest so this matter of public importance is virtually meaningless and certainly incapable of being proved.

It is more important, I think, to reflect on the fact that in bringing this matter to our attention this afternoon, the Opposition has contributed virtually nothing to the progress and development of Australian primary industry. The Opposition’s only contribution, by way of reckless use of adjectives, has been to confuse and distort issues that are of enormous importance. So if the proposition put forward by the Opposition brings only a measure of confusion and distortion, then in the long term this can only jeopardise the success of the very industries at which we are looking.

I remind the Senate very briefly that various undertakings of the Government parties referable to a primary industry bank have been fulfilled. Because it is important, I refer once again to the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 21 November 1977. He said:

The new Australian Rural Bank for which legislation was passed in the last Parliament will be established without delay;

The principal function will be to re-finance loans made by banks (including the Commonwealth Development Bank), other financial institutions and other lenders to rural producers and fishermen;

It will provide, in conjunction with the banks and other lenders, long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest. The board of the Bank will include two rural representatives.

Those undertakings have been carried out virtually to the letter of the law and so negate the whole of this proposition that the Opposition has put to us this afternoon.

As has been mentioned on a number of occasions in a number of places, it is immensely important that primary industry has available to it long term money at the lowest possible interest rate. But above all, it is important that the money be made available long term because primary industry itself has a slow developmental process. It needs to be able to look forward not for five, six, seven or 10 years but more for 15, 20 or 30 years. It has a slow developmental process. Of course primary industry not only is subject to the short term vagaries of climate but also- and this is particularly so in Australia- depends from year to year and from decade to decade on fluctuations in overseas markets, fluctuations which sometimes virtually bring about price crises in the industry.

Let me look very briefly at the Primary Industry Bank, on which basically this discussion revolves. The Primary Industry Bank was established to provide long term loans. Those loans, in the range of 10 to 30 years, clearly are just that and, from the point of view of the length of their term, they meet the requirements of the industry they are basically meant to serve. In spite of what has been said this afternoon by some members of the Opposition, there is very considerable support amongst producer organisations for the proposition implemented by this Government. Indeed, it is my view that the great mass of primary producers, as individuals, have come to realise that this is an important step in the right direction for long-term finance. No one would suggest that the establishment of the Primary Industry Bank was a perfect solution to the industry’s problems. I do not think we can find a perfect solution. We cannot find an easy, cheap way of pricing money. To do that we would have to take toll of the taxpayer very significantly, and that ultimately would not be to the advantage of the primary producer or anyone else in the community.

It is sometimes said that it is a bad thing that the Bank is not a bank totally of itself; that it is not in a sense an entity of itself, totally divorced from the existing banking system. There are a number of ways of looking at that proposition. Of course the Government discussed it at great length with industry, with its own members and with those in the policy forming areas. The fact that this Bank will operate through the existing trading bank system is in many senses an advantage. It gives the borrower an advantage because it enables him to be in closer contact with people he knows and with people who basically know his circumstances. It avoids that remoteness that is so often the weakness found in many organisations. So from that point of view it is an advantage that the Bank will operate within the existing system. In so doing it avoids the establishment of yet another massive bureaucracy, with an entity of its own, working by itself and operating outside the competitive area of the trading bank system. Such a bureacracy would involve a vast establishment of employees and bureaucrats.

Mention has already been made of the fact that the board of the Bank will include two primary producer representatives, whose capacity to advise the board of the real needs of the industries they represent is deemed to be extremely important by the people they represent. After all, we are not always concerned purely with the statistical element; we are concerned with quality and the capacity to do a job. The two primary producer representatives have a very responsible job to do and in the view of their organisations, their supporters, their industry operators, they are people with the capacity to represent them properly on that board. There is a 50-50 representation of the trading banks on the board.

The advent, through Government action, of $30m worth of income equalisation deposits has enabled the interest rate to be kept at a minimum. I think it is important that we should recognise this fact. I recall reading the report of an Estimates committee debate in which Senator Walsh suggested that significant profits would be made. Of course the margin is 1.5 per cent, and even if a measurable and significant profit is made, is this to be condemned? Do we want a financial organisation backing Australian rural industry- a massive industry- to operate on a shoe string; to be semi-broke or in danger of becoming insolvent? Of course we do not. It is important that its financial strength be commensurate with the responsibility that it has to take.

I conclude by saying that I recall among the adjectival phrases used by Senator Walsh the suggestion that the Primary Industry Bank is ‘ an expensive political gimmick’. That may be the view of Senator Walsh; it is not the view of the great mass of primary producers in this country. It is not the view of the Government. We believe the establishment of the Bank to be a responsible step in the right direction.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I rise to support the matter of public importance raised by my colleague Senator Walsh. Let me say at the outset that as a person who went on to the land fairly young- I was in my early 20s- and as a person who sought to get into agriculture, I came to the conclusion within a very short time that the banks are about the last thing that primary producers want. My own experience has indicated that a young person who seeks to get into agriculture by applying to his bank for capital either to purchase a property or to build up a property is the last person the bank manager wants to know. The bank managers use the excuse that such a person has no equity or very little equity in his property.

In normal circumstances, by dint of hard work, perhaps with some luck from mother nature in the way of good seasons and with reasonable prices, one eventually gains reasonable equity in one’s property. It is at that stage that the opinion of the bank manager changes. He regards the now 30 to 35-year-old farmer as being one of the best bets he has. He is ready to lend him almost any sum of money he wants. As time moves on and the farmer reaches the age of 50 to 55 it may well be that, as I said, given favourable circumstances he will have total equity in his property. At that stage the farmer has time to play golf with the bank manager or to meet him on equal terms at the gentlemen’s club or somewhere similar. He is then regarded by the bank manager as being his best customer and, should he so wish, can obtain virtually the maximum credit that the bank extends to a customer.

It has often been said, particularly in rural areas, that the banking institutions are like a person who lends one an umbrella on a fine day and takes it away immediately the rain sets in. One of the unfortunate quirks of agricultural life in Australia is that by this device thousands of young farmers in particular are forced into the hands of the fringe banking institutions. In my opinion, that is one of the great problems besetting agriculture in this country. I shall refer now to the Green Paper on rural industry that was brought out in 1974 under the sponsorship of the Australian Labor Party which was then in Government. It contains some rather interesting comments. In paragraph 2.24 it is stated:

Almost half of all agricultural business units (including sub-commercial farms) were estimated to have no debts and a further 24 percent had debts of less than $10,000.

The most interesting comment of all is the following:

Indebtedness is lower and less frequent on the smaller farms.

That would seem to indicate that smaller farms may be more economically viable than some of the larger enterprises into which this country is currently moving or has moved. The report goes on to say:

A significant proportion of farms however, do have relatively high debt levels. The level of outstanding debt became an important social problem during the rural depression, but the recent high levels of income have permitted a substantial repayment in major industries.

In paragraph 5. 108 of the report it is stated:

The generally declining levels of farm incomes in the 1960s were associated with increasing debt levels and a running down of farm savings. Despite this, as we saw in Chapter II, many farmers do not use credit and between a third and One half of farm producers have no outstanding debt. Nevertheless, in the longer term the demand for financial capital is likely to rise, and so too is the dependence on credit to finance capital expenditures.

Paragraph 5. 1 14 of the report states:

Without government intervention, farmers would no doubt have had more difficulty in obtaining credit on terms reasonably related to the long productive life of their assets. The BAE concluded that there has been a gap in the long term credit facilities available to rural producers.

I think any person who has been on the land would understand that last remark very well. In paragraph 5. 1 16 the document states:

One of the difficulties of devising suitable credit arrangements is in the instability in rural incomes discussed in Chapter IV.

Paragraph 5. 1 16 goes on to say:

There is a need for flexibility in repayment terms to harmonise the flow of income and credit commitments and therefore stabilise consumption and investment expenditures by farmers. The provision of such flexibility does however, place strains on the financial institutions in devising such arrangements. In the light of the terms on which resources are made available for lending from the Term and Farm Development Loan Funds, it would be reasonable to see some flexibility in such lending and in practice Development Bank lending is operated with a degree of flexibility.

I think those few words about the Development Bank deal with one of the most important aspects of this whole debate which revolves around the establishment which is now called the Primary Industry Bank.

As has already been said, the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in 1975 first floated the idea of establishing a rural bank. That was at a time when the present Government was in Opposition and was seeking to make all sorts of promises to primary producers in order to get them back on side. In 1 977, during the election campaign, the matter was floated again. In fact, the matter had been floated around the countryside for over two years. The present Government was in power during those two years but nothing was done. Of course, the original move by the Government established the Rural Bank. Its establishment was immediately followed by the realisation that the name conflicted with that of the Rural Bank of New South Wales. A consequent amendment was required to the Act to change the name, to as we currently know it, the Primary Industry Bank. As we well know the Bank has become operational of recent date- three years after the idea was originally floated.

I wonder how many farmers who heard the Prime Minister make his statement in 1975, or who have read his statement, and who saw a glimmer of hope in it have in those intervening years gone to the wall. We have had three years of promises and talk but no action. As we well know, thousands of farmers have fallen by the wayside in the meantime. I sometimes ask myself, as do many primary industries leaders and many of the farmers to whom I have spoken of recent date: What is in the current legislation for those people still in the game? I suggest that nothing more than a bureaucratic device has been thrust between them and the funds which they may well need. Quite frankly, I believe that every farmer in Australia who listened to the words of the Prime Minister over those couple of years believed that he was to see the establishment of a totally new bank which would deal solely with the problems of people in primary industry. The farmers have not got a shop front bank.

Any farmer requiring credit will still have to go to the manager of his traditional private enterprise bank. It is my guess that if the farmer is deemed by his manager to be viable the manager will extend that primary producer’s overdraft. If the farmer is deemed to be unviable or somewhat of a financial risk the bank manager will don his other mantle and become the manager of the Primary Industry Bank and forward the farmer’s application to the PIB. I suggest that because the farmer has already been told that he is unviable the PIB will accept that as fact and say: ‘No money for you sport. We are sorry’. I suggest that that tactic will be adopted.

I have been all around Victoria in the last month. Primary producers there realise that a real thimble and pea trick was being played by the Prime Minister when he originally floated the idea of a rural bank and was posing as the friend of farmers and of their organisations. As I said, farmers now realise that they have been conned. I believe that the option that should have been taken up was that which was supported by the Labor Party in discussions prior to the implementation of legislation to establish this bank. I refer to the proposition put forward by the people’s own bank, the Commonwealth Bank. That organisation has been involved with primary industry for many years. It has shopfront facilities in every major town of the Commonwealth. Its bank managers and loan officers have expertise in the field and know primary industry intimately in the various regional areas. That option was given away by this Government, I suggest, under pressure from the Australian Bankers Association. Members of the Association have been renowned for years as being the friends of the Liberal Party and this is known by primary producers in Australia. The Australian Bankers Association interposed itself between the primary producers of this country and an opportunity for them to obtain finance at reasonable rates of interest. I have said already that the same group of people will now push the primary producers of Australia back into the hands of the fringe banking organisations. These people, as managers in our regional towns and cities, will not see thousands of primary producers as being viable economic operators of their properties.

Senator Carrick suggested that it may be wise for some people to wait for a couple of years and then to look at the record of the PIB. I forecast that if we do that we will see, purely and simply, more bureaucracy, less farmers getting access to capital and, worst of all, no finance available for young people trying to get into agriculture, which is exactly the same situation which has prevailed in this country over the last 40 or 50 years.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– My attention was drawn to an article that appeared yesterday or today in the Melbourne Age headed: ‘ALP men claim Whitlam failure’. I have not the time to read the whole of the article but I will read extracts from it. It states:

The Whitlam Government at times gratuitously disregarded the sensibilities or rural Australians, according to a Labor Party committee.

The criticism is contained in a discussion paper on ‘issues in non-metropolitan Australia’ issued by the party’s committee or inquiry, consisting of MPs, academics and trade unionists.

At the time there was a somewhat simplistic feeling within the ALP that the country had been unfairly cossetted and that it was time to redress the balance ‘, the paper said.

The paper urged the party to sympathetically consider equalising costs of communication, transport, health, housing, welfare and education between cities and country areas.

The paper referred to in the article was launched by Senator Button, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I wonder why it was not issued by Senator Walsh who is the Opposition spokesman on primary industry. When introducing the paper Senator Button said:

  1. . the party’s efforts would not be directed to farming communities ‘with a great degree of optimism ‘-

How much I agree with that last statement. We are debating a matter of public importance proposed by Senator Walsh which reads as follows:

The Prime Minister’s failure to honour his 1977 election promise to provide, through the Primary Industry Bank, long term credit at concessional rates of interest.

Let me go back a little in time and refer to the primary industry policy statement of the Liberal and National Country parties in 1975. It stated:

  1. . we intend to establish a National Rural Bank in conjunction with trading banks and other lenders in the rural sector to provide rural credit to cover the investment in land.

The bank will also finance machinery, plant, stock and farm equipment, lend for farm development projects for the expansion of existing projects and refinance existing short term rural debts. The” terms of lending would be appropriate for the purpose of the loan. Interest payable would be at bank interest rates for medium term loans and marginally better for long term loans.

It is envisaged that the bank would function by relending through existing financial institutions but may be involved in direct lending in some instances.

As a refinance institution, staff would be kept to a minimum and security and other documentation held and processed by the on-lending financial body.

Let me now move to more recent times and refer to an extract from the supplementary statement that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made to this policy speech of 21 November 1977. Under the heading of ‘Rural Bank’ the statement reads:

The new Australian Rural Bank for which legislation was passed in the last Parliament will be established without delay; the principal function will be to re-finance loans made by banks (including the Commonwealth Development Bank), other financial institutions and other lenders to rural producers and fishermen; it will provide, in conjunction with the banks and other lenders, long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest. The board of the Bank will include two rural representatives.

The only conflict between those two statements is that the more recent policy statement is far more generous on interest rates.

The matter of public importance says that the action of the Government in establishing a rural bank conflicts in some way with the Prime Minister’s policy speech. I contend, as strongly as possible, that that is not so. Let us analyse the policy speech and look at the facts. Has there been a delay? It is less than 12 months since that policy speech was delivered. I think that any responsible government would give a great deal of consideration to such an important new policy as the establishment of a rural bank. As a member of the Government parties’ rural committee I was closely involved in the establishment of this bank, as also was the Government parties’ Treasury committee. We had lengthy consultations with rural industry groups and with representatives from the banking organisations, including the Commonwealth Development Bank and overseas rural banking bodies. However, the delay is not the subject of the matter under discussion.

The second point was that the Bank would refinance loans. It is certain that this will be done.

The third point was that there would be long term credit for viable borrowers. The policy is that the new Bank will loan for up to 30 years the money that will be available. Of course, the terms will depend on the reason for the loan. I think that this is only reasonable. Senator Walsh seemed to make great play about the fact that not all loans will be for the maximum period. How can any reasonable person expect money to be lent for 30 years if a farmer is to use it to purchase a header that will normally last for six or eight years? A farmer makes certain purchases, such as a shearing shed or land, that will last much longer than 30 years and it is expected that loans for the maximum period will be used for these sorts of purchases. Are the concessional interest rates concerning the Opposition? There is no doubt that a 10 per cent interest rate is a substantial concession. As Senator Carrick very correctly pointed out, no member of the Opposition has yet pointed to any source from which cheaper funds are available. Certainly a 10 per cent interest rate for amounts below $100,000 and a 12 per cent interest rate for amounts above $100,000 are substantial concessions. A further promise was that we would have two rural representatives. That has certainly come true.

Where is the substance of this matter of public importance? I firmly believe that the main reason for bringing on this matter for discussion is that the Opposition generally is worried that this new Bank will work. Let me look a little further into this subject. I think that I have demonstrated, as Senator Carrick and other speakers on the Government side have demonstrated, that the new Bank will do everything that was promised in the Prime Minister’s policy speech. In the hearings of Estimates Committee A on 26 October, Senator McLaren asked why the Commonwealth Development Bank was not used as the foundation for the new Primary Industry Bank. On the surface that is a quite reasonable question. But I recommend that honourable senators read the reply that was given to that question by Mr Hartwell. I quote from page 1065 of the Hansard record of the Senate Estimates committee’s hearings on 26 October. Mr Hartwell said:

The Commonwealth Development Bank is a special bank to the extent that it is a lender of last resort, so to speak. It provides finance only where appropriate finance is not otherwise available on suitable terms and conditions. Therefore the Primary Industry Bank facility, one might suggest, does widen the scope of loans and financing facilities available to primary producers.

I think that is a perfectly good and reasonable reason that the Commonwealth Development Bank could not be used for the purpose of establishing this Bank. Although it has not yet said so, it is certainly implicit in what it says that another reason that the Labor Party suggests such a move is that it has always believed in very rigid government controls over finance. One way that this could be achieved would be for the Government’s own bank to have such a large measure of control over rural finance. One of the criticisms of this new Bank which has been made in the rural Press, which strangely enough has not been raised by the Opposition and to which I subscribe is that the new Bank will not provide staff who are specialised in the area of rural banking. In many of our lending institutions there is certainly a shortage of people with specialised knowledge of the rural industries. For this reason, 1 wholeheartedly applaud the actions of the Commonwealth Development Bank in training and providing many specialists in this area who have made a great contribution to the rural industries and to the banking facility.

One of the advantages, which has not yet been mentioned, of the new structure over the proposed structure of using the Commonwealth Development Bank is that the Commonwealth Development Bank is a lender of last resort but the potential clients of the new Bank will have the facility to go from bank to bank, from bank to stock company or from stock company to insurance company until they receive a favourable reaction to their application. If a potential client is refused support by the Commonwealth Development Bank he has very few other places to go. I guess that the Labor Party is concerned about interest rates. Contrary to what Senator Gietzelt claimed, Senator Carrick spent a great deal of his speech in talking about the interest rates and demonstrated very clearly that the interest rate of 10 per cent on amounts below $100,000 is a considerable concession compared with what is available on the open market. Senator Walsh alluded in his speech to the fact, to which I subscribe, that those people who support a greater interest rate concession are doing the industry a great deal of harm. I like to think that I am an economic purist and I believe that if any greater interest rate concessions were made, unnecessary distortions would be created.

In the short time available to me I would like to allude to some of the other points made by Opposition speakers. Senator Walsh made quite a short speech. I agree in principle that speeches should be short, but I suggest that on this occasion the reason that it was short was that he had very little to say, strangely enough, about the matter for discussion that he proposed. He talked about the 1.5 per cent so-called profit that the trading banks will be receiving from the new Primary Industry Bank. I must be remembered that this amount of 1.5 per cent is to cover the banks’ cost of handling the loans and also their risk. I suggest that a return of 1.5 per cent is a very poor return to any businessman for any sort of effort. Senator Walsh seemed to make great play of the fact that loans can be obtained from the Commonwealth Development Bank at interest rates similar to the 10 per cent and 12 per cent rates. I remind him that that is a terribly significant thing. I point out to Senator Walsh and to the Opposition that the Commonwealth Development Bank loans are quite substantially subsidised.

Senator Gietzelt started his address by suggesting that Senator Carrick spoke for longer than he should have done. That is a rather strange thing to say. He spoke certainly well within the time allocated to him. Perhaps the reason that he spoke for five minutes longer than Senator Walsh spoke is that he had more to say. Senator Gietzelt certainly did not listen to what Senator Carrick had to say because, contrary to what Senator Gietzelt claimed, Senator Carrick spent a great deal of time talking about the interest rates. Senator Gietzelt claimed that to use the income equalisation deposit funds is somehow to cheat the farmers of something that is really theirs. I put to Senator Gietzelt this question: Why not use the IED funds? He also advocated the old-fashioned Labor philosophy of pumping huge amounts of taxpayers funds into this Bank. The farmers know now to their cost the sort of results that can be expected from this policy. I just ask this question: Will the Labor Party ever learn? In response to Senator Gietzelt ‘s comments, I point out that it must also be understood that the funds that will be available from the IED trust fund at an interest rate of 5 per cent will only balance the other borrowings that are available on the market.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– As the last speaker on the Opposition side in this debate may I say firstly that I can assure Senator Thomas that the Opposition ‘s reason for proposing as a matter of public importance a discussion on the Primary Industry Bank of Australia is not that we are afraid that the Bank will work. We are not concerned about that. We hope that the Bank will work for the benefit of primary producers in Australia. What we are primarily concerned about is that the Bank formed by this Government is a breach of an undertaking given by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, in 1977 and also in 1975. That is the essential reason that we have introduced this matter of public importance. In 1975 it was made clear by Mr Fraser that he was going to form what he then called the ‘Australian Rural Bank’ which would be a bank specifically for the purpose of financing the rural sector of the community and that esentially the bank would provide loans at concessional rates of interest. I suggest that that is precisely the reason that the Opposition has introduced this matter for discussion. This is one of a long string of commitments which were entered into by Malcolm Fraser both in 1975 and in 1977 which he has not fulfilled and which he did not intend to fulfil when he made them, but more of that later.

In the course of the debate statements were made, particularly by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, on which I must spend a couple of minutes in reply. Senator Carrick particularly attacked Senator Walsh for his so-called rhetorical speech. In fact, Senator Walsh made out a case which I believe was at all stages right to the point of what the Primary Industry Bank was intended to do. It was Senator Carrick who in fact was guilty of the rhetoric, and as one would have expected he reverted to his normal rhetorical form by making accusations in respect of matters with which obviously he is not conversant. I realise that his role in this matter is as the Minister representing the Treasurer and that he has to speak on a subject in which he may have only limited experience. But if he had stuck strictly to the financial provisions of the Bank and had not wandered into areas about policy and actions taken years ago by the Whitlam Labor government in the agricultural or primary industry sector he would have been on safer ground.

I must refer to the comment that he made that the previous Labor Government had done nothing at all- they were his words- to establish rural institutions of any value to the rural sector. Even Senator Young, who is sitting opposite listening to me, knows full well that that statement is not correct because, as a farmer, he remembers what the Labor Party did in respect of, for example, the creation of marketing institutions, the substance of which has remained unaltered by this Government. Even the people who were appointed to those organisations and who were the very best personnel throughout Australia that we could get have largely been retained in their positions by this Government because it knew that what we had done was of benefit to the rural sector.

Senator Carrick either has forgotten or would not know about the $20m augmentation made available to the Commonwealth Development

Bank by the Labor Government to enable an extension of rural reconstruction loans at 4 per cent interest. It was of no great credit to the Labor Party then because the previous Government had been doing the same thing. We continued that policy and the present Government also has continued it. Senator Carrick has forgotten also about the $28m interest free loans made available by the Labor Government to the dairy industry with no interest charge whatsoever. When did the Liberal-Country Party Government do that sort of thing? It has never done that. At the same time even Senator Webster, who was allegedly representing in this place the rural community, complained about the treatment that was being given to the dairy industry by the Labor Government.

I remind the Senate, and Senator Carrick in particular, that had he been aware of those things I feel certain that he would not have made the grossly inaccurate statements that he did. Many of these things will not be forgotten. I do not wish to spend the very brief time available to me in this debate going over that again. Suffice it to say that this Primary Industry Bank was promised in 1975 and when the Government came into office it did nothing about it. Very late in 1 977 it decided to take some action. Now the Bank is actually commencing operations but not, of course, in the form that was originally intended. When I say that I mean that it is not to operate in the form in which we were told it would. I want to quote specifically what Malcolm Fraser did say in 1977. He said:

The new Australian Rural Bank for which legislation was passed in the last Parliament will be established without delay;

It will provide, in conjunction with the Banks and other lenders, long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest.

During the debate Senator Carrick quoted some questions on this very subject that were asked before Estimates Committee A only two weeks ago during the examination of the estimates for the Department of the Treasury. Of course he was quite selective in what he quoted. So I will quote some other questions and answers, specifically those referring to concessional interest rates. Questions were asked of Mr Hartwell, Senior Finance Officer, Financial Institutions Divisions, of the Department of the Treasury. I posed to Mr Hartwell this question:

The interest rates appear to be similar to those that would apply to a normal loan through, for example, the Commonwealth Development Bank.

Mr Hartwell replied:

Certainly, for loans of less than $ 100,000 it is true that the general lending rate of the CDB is 10.S per cent, which is similar to that for the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. Interest rates on loans of $ 100,000 and above from the CDB are subject to individual bank-customer negotiation, whilst those from the Primary Industry Bank have been announced at 12.5 percent.

That is a fixed rate of 1 2.5 per cent. I then asked:

But essentially the rates are the same?

Mr Hartwell replied:

Yes, essentially.

And that is the truth. Mr Hartwell, the very officer whom Senator Carrick was quoting as an authority to substantiate or support his own argument was saying that the rates being charged by the Bank were essentially the same as the rates charged, by trading banks. The question arises of course- and quite legitimately: What does the Labor Party think about this? Is it saying that in fact there should be specific concessional interest rates available to primary producers for development loans and so on? It is a fair question and it should be answered. The answer of course is quite obvious, and it is that the majority of the people in the rural community are not seeking preferential treatment different from that which is available to other sections of the community for normal financing purposes. This is spelt out quite clearly in the submission that was made to the Government by the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council. This is a different matter from the one raised by Senator Walsh, but it is worth quoting. The Council said: . . the Council was reinforced in its belief that the following features were essential in the provision of credit to the rural sector:

I will not read them all, but the third one which is the one that concerns us today, reads:

  1. Interest charged at the prevailing overdraft rate.

Our complaint is that the Government has been dishonest with the primary producers. Naturally in 1977 when it was going to an election the Liberal Party dangled a bait before the rural sector. I suppose that there would be no more inviting bait to dangle in the front of any section of the community than the offer of concessional interest rates on finance. It is appealing to everybody; of course it is. No doubt many farmers and rural people in this country would have believed that Mr Fraser meant what he said at that time, but of course he did not mean it. He knew it was an excellent bargaining point in the face of an election. Now when the crunch comes he is saying to these people: ‘I am not going to give finance to you at concessional interest rates because I do not believe that you even want it and obviously I do not think that you deserve it’. That is the nub of the reason we have raised this matter for discussion today. It highlights another example of undertakings and commitments given by Malcolm Fraser during that campaign which now without any equivocation whatsoever he simply revokes. He is now saying: ‘I am going back on it and therefore it is your misfortune’. But it will be to the misfortune of the Liberal Party at the next election because every primary producer will be reminded of the manner in which Malcolm Fraser let them down. That is the strongest terms which I am permitted to use in this place.

One other aspect that I want to deal with was raised earlier by Senator Walsh. It is important to understand the uncertainty of future loan funds. During the consideration of the estimates for the Department of the Treasury Senator Walsh raised the question of the interest rates being charged under the income equalisation deposits scheme. I have been informed that I have only one minute remaining to me in this debate, but I just wish to say that during the evidence given at that hearing, as is shown at page 1065 of the Hansard Mr Hartwell was asked this question:

If in fact there were insufficient funds in the IED’s to supplement proposed borrowings by primary producers, presumably the fund would have to be supplemented by some other source, and that could only be the Government. Would that be right?

Mr Hartwell replied:

Again that would be a decision for the Government at the appropriate time.

That illustrates how much assurance this Bank and subsequently the legislation is giving to the rural producers of Australia.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scott)- The discussion is concluded.

page 1777

COMMISSIONER FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 46 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Commissioner for Community Relations for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1777

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Construction for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 1777

DEPARTMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Productivity for 1977-78 entitled: ‘Productivity 1978’.

page 1777

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: GUARD BOXES

Motion (by Senator Knight) agreed to:

That General Business Order of Day No. 103, relating to the construction of guard boxes at Parliament House, be discharged from the Notice Paper.

page 1777

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1978-79

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I confine my remarks to that part of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) which deals with the appropriation for the Attorney-General’s Department, and in particular to Division 175 dealing with the Australian Legal Aid Office. The total appropriation provided for the Australian Legal Aid Office for the current financial year is $ 19.6m, in round figures, which compares with an expenditure last year of $19. 9m. The figures in the Bill, both in total and when dissected into their component parts, reveal quite starkly the dimensions of the crisis which legal aid is now experiencing in this country. The failure to make a more substantial provision for legal aid once again, just as it has done in the last two Budgets of this Government, makes nonsense of Mr Fraser’s 1975 policy speech promise when he said:

We shall ensure that no person is denied legal aid because of lack of means.

The reality is that people are being denied legal aid on the basis of their means; not only if they are rich, not only if they are earning in excess of average weekly earnings and not only if they are earning about the same as average weekly earnings in this country. They are even being denied legal aid if their disposable income is less than the current Henderson poverty line. And people are being denied legal aid in many instances even if their only source of income is a Commonwealth social security pension. So much has been admitted often enough in this chamber by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in recent weeks. The fact that this is so stands as an absolutely disgraceful monument not only to this Government’s incapacity to keep its word but also to its total indifference to the plight of the less well-off in this community.

The key to understanding the dimensions of the current crisis and the way it has come about through the steady erosion of the real value of Commonwealth legal aid funding since it was introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1975 is to refer not just to the figures which are set out on the face of this Bill but also to another set of figures which are concealed within the figures in the Bill and which have been painfully extracted only by long and difficult cross examination of departmental officers and the Minister during the recent Estimates Committee hearings. I refer to the figures which concern the permissible commitments of funds for the referral of matters to private legal practitioners. Because of the Government’s refusal to provide adequate salaried staff for ALAO offices, the main burden of delivering legal aid, of providing actual legal aid services has been borne- it must be said much to its delight- by the private legal profession. The crucial figure, therefore, in determining the real extent of the provision of that aid is the amount of funds which has been specifically allocated or earmarked for that particular purpose. Under this heading the really crucial figure is the amount of funds which is allowed to be committed, as the expression goes, by ALAO offices for that purpose in each financial year.

There is a distinction in this respect, which is rather peculiar to the operation of the legal aid system, between expenditure on the one hand and commitment on the other. ‘Expenditure’, which is the amount which appears in the Bill before us, refers to the amounts which are actually paid out, the cheques which are actually drawn, in any given year. Such amounts may be paid in many instances in respect of cases which started one, two or three years earlier whereas ‘commitment’ represents the amount of new business which is allowed to be undertaken in each given financial year. The commitment figure, therefore, is the crucial figure that one needs to look at when one is trying to assess the legal aid services that are currently being delivered.

What, then, is the situation with respect to commitment funds? In 1975, when the Legal Aid Office was originally set up by the Labor Government, the commitment level of funds for 1975-76 for private legal practitioners concerning matters referred to them by the Legal Aid Office was set at $12m. With the change of government at end of that year, and notwithstanding the substantial increase in the consumer price index and the continued inflation which took place, the commitment level for the next financial year, 1976-77, was maintained at exactly the same amount of $ 12m. In 1977-78, again notwithstanding the continued serious effects of inflation in this country, the commitment level was again set initially at $12m although it was allowed to ride up to $ 12.8m during the course of that year. When we look at the figure for the current financial year, 1978-79, we find that the commitment figure has gone back to $ 12.2m. So far from there being an increase in the commitment of funds for this purpose, over the last four years there has in fact been a reduction. Let us consider the dimensions of that reduction. As I have said, for four years we have had a commitment level for funds hovering around $12m while during that time the consumer price index has increased by of the order of 30 per cent. It must be said that that increase has certainly been reflected in the costs charged by the private legal profession, as all too many litigants will have experienced to their regret over the last few years. Thus the reality is that the real value of the funds committed for legal aid delivered through the private profession has declined spectacularly by an amount of the order of 30 per cent, over the three years that the Fraser Government has been in office. That decline in the real level of commitment funds has been reflected in both the quantity and the quality of the services that the legal aid system has been able to provide. The level of those services, as a result, has declined spectacularly over the last four years. There has been a spectacular decline in the ability of the legal aid system to meet the real legal aid needs of people in the community who cannot afford to pay legal costs and who desperately need this aid.

The way that that decline has shown up is evidenced in two separate ways. In the first place, the decline in the ability of the system to deliver services is indicated by reference to the increasingly stringent means and needs test which the Australian Legal Aid Office has been forced to apply under the direction of the Government. In 1975, when the first means test guidelines were introduced, a limit was set on the ceiling of disposable income which one could have in order to qualify for legal aid. That limit was set in 1975 at $50 for a single person with further provision for another $20 to be added to that for a first dependant and $15 for each subsequent dependant. The notion of disposable income, I might interpolate, is that of gross income less provision for tax, rent, rates, hire purchase payments and certain other specific outgoings. Moreover, it must also be said in respect of those original 1975 guidelines that they were, and were meant to be, essentially flexible in their operation. They were not absolute. They were not strict. There was a lot of room for manoeuvre and many people who exceeded the guidelines in terms of their income were able to get legal aid for expensive cases which they could not otherwise possibly have afforded.

But, once again, with the change of government in 1 976, we had a complete change of heart in the way those guidelines operated. They became infinitely more stringent. That situation has prevailed to the present day. The basic $50 limit was reduced to $40. That $40 was the maximum disposable income that a single person could have in order to qualify for legal aid. The dependant’s allowance similarly was reduced from $20 to $ 1 5 for the first dependant and from $ 1 5 to $10 for each subsequent dependant. Let us take the situation of an ordinary family composed of a breadwinner, his spouse and a couple of children. The total disposable income that that family could have in order to qualify for legal aid was thus reduced from the grand sum of $85 a week- bad enough, but that is what it had been- to the miserable sum of $65 a week. Moreover, the element of flexibility was completely withdrawn from the system. That guideline became absolutely determined, absolutely fixed, absolutely unchangeable and unable to be waived. The result was, of course, that the pool of those people eligible, particularly taking into account the effect of inflation on incomes during this period, was reduced drastically. This situation prevailed right up until the new guidelines were introduced just a couple of weeks ago by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). I will refer to those again in a moment. That is the first way in which that drastic surgery, in terms of the real value of the funds available for legal aid, has operated to the detriment of potential beneficiaries in the community. The potential pool of applicants has been drastically reduced.

The second way in which the crisis in funding to which I have adverted has really bitten, and bitten hard, on those people in the community who most need legal aid has been evidenced in the number of cases which have been accepted for aid from the Legal Aid Office and, in turn, the private practitioners to whom the Office refers the bulk of its business. Even with the drastically reduced pool of applicants to which I have referred, confined in effect to those people absolutely poverty stricken, the result of the steady deterioration in the value of funds available has been a growing number of applicants who simply have been turned away from the system and entirely denied legal aid. That number has been growing steadily over the whole three years of this Government’s term of office and it has reached quite gigantic crisis proportions over the course of the last two months. In my State of Victoria the position has been more acute than in almost all the other States put together.

As at the end of September- these figures emerged from Senate Estimates Committee hearings- it would appear that over half a million dollars worth of cases were stockpiled around the nation. By that I mean that legal aid totalling that sum had been approved but was unable to be delivered because of a shortage of funds currently available. In practical terms, that means something like 2,000 cases, many of them involving family law maintenance, property, custody and access matters and how distressing those matters are when they involve children. All these cases were simply not getting before the courts, not being litigated and not being resolved. The hardship that that was causing to people right around the country was absolutely incalculable. By the end of October- a month later- when the Government finally took the action to which I will allude in a moment, by virtue of an absolutely ruthless application of the guidelines by the legal aid offices and the turning away of many more cases than were even being accepted, that stockpiled figure had been reduced to the order of $330,000. That meant that the number of cases outstanding, which had been approved and which were waiting to go before the courts and could not go before the courts because the money was not available to pay the lawyers, had been reduced from something like 2,000 to 1,500. But there were still that many cases waiting to be heard around the nation, including nearly 800 cases in my own State alone. The legal profession estimated that if action were not taken, this number would escalate in the next few weeks to a total of something over 2,000 cases in Victoria alone waiting in the queue.

That was the legacy of three years of Fraser government, three years of apparent devotion to the principle enunciated in Mr Fraser’s 1975 policy speech- that no person was to be denied legal aid because of lack of means. It is absolutely impossible to overstate the dimensions of that crisis which has all come about as a result of the mean spirited penny-pinching which is once again embodied or embalmed, perhaps I should say, in this year’s Appropriation Bill.

To the credit of the Government, the Attorney-General has finally, reluctantly and cautiously, with his usual dilatoriness, come to recognise and concede the dimensions of this crisis and has resolved to take some action upon it. So in all fairness, let us now consider just what action has been taken. In considering the action, let us appreciate just how little generosity, how little sensitivity and how little humanity has been demonstrated in this new package of guidelines which is now before us. Let us appreciate what a sad anti-climax the Government’s action has been for those who hoped that it would grapple imaginatively, effectively and, above all, compassionately with the crisis to which I have referred.

Let us be clear at the outset, however, about what the Government has not done in its new recently announced solution to the legal aid crisis. Certainly, it has not provided one cent more in cash for legal aid this financial year. The total expenditure remains as it is set out in the Bill now before us. There has been no suggestion of any amendment being made to any of these figures. The expenditure remains at $19. 6m- exactly as was anticipated on Budget night a few months ago. Even the commitment of funds to which I referred earlier in my speech, so far as I have been able to establish, remains at $ 12.2m. It is true that the Attorney-General said in his statement of 26 October that he would release commitment funds amounting to $333,000 in order to enable the present backlog of cases to which I have referred to be taken up. But he has not indicated to this Parliament or to this nation that the total commitment figure for this year will be increased accordingly from $12.2m to $12. 5m as would be the case if that were so.

Senator Missen:

– Surely it must be more than that.

Senator EVANS:

– No, there is every indication that the Attorney-General is simply hoping that the new stringent economy measures which he has introduced will make it possible for economies to be exercised over the next few months and thus that it will not be necessary for the commitment level to be increased. I would be delighted if the Attorney-General would come into this chamber and say that the commitment level has been increased accordingly but the remarks that he employed in his statement made in October and everything that he has said in public Press releases has skirted delicately around this issue. One is left to assume that the present respite in the legal aid crisis will be at best quite temporary and that within a matter of monthsperhaps even weeks- we will once again have the situation of people being turned away, desperate and distressed, as has been the case so often in the last few months.

That is what the Attorney-General has not done. In fairness, let us now turn to what he has done. Two basic elements are contained in the ministerial statement of 25 October. On one side of the ledger is a set of mean spirited attempts to reduce expenditure in the legal aid area, and on the other side is a mean spirited little relaxation in the eligibility requirements so as to enable, it is said, a slightly larger pool of applicants to qualify for legal aid. Viewed as a whole, the newly announced guidelines and measures must be construed as no more than essentially an accounting exercise. There has been a shuffle of figures from some columns of the balance sheet to others. The Attorney-General has not increased in any way the total funds that are available. He has done absolutely nothing to reverse the steady downward plummeting in the real level of the total legal aid funding and accordingly the real amount and quality of the actual legal aid services which are able to be delivered. It is a classic example of the well known phenomenon which has been immortalised in the language as ‘shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic’.

In the all too short time that is left to me to consider these matters- I indicate my regret that the Government apparently has been unable or unwilling to make time available for a full debate specifically on this ministerial statement- let me draw attention to the main features of this accountancy transaction. On the money saving side, first of all, we have a provision now which requires a rninimum contribution of $20 to be paid by anyone who is to receive legal aid. What a mean spirited imposition that is, Mr President. It is true that such an amount is hardly to be regarded as excessive for earners like you and I or my fellow parliamentarians or members of this Government. Perhaps it is not even an excessive imposition for the ordinary level of income earners. But we are not talking about ordinary income earners when we are talking. about legal aid. We are talking about people who have to budget each week down to their last single cent; we are talking about people for whom $10 may very often represent the food bill for a whole week. A sum, like $20, viewed in that context, is a very great sum indeed.

It is true that the new guidelines provide that that amount may be waived in cases of what are referred to as ‘demonstrated hardship’. Think of what it means for a person to have to crawl on bended knees and ask for this kind of charity to be dispensed. When Federal legal aid was first introduced by Senator Lionel Murphy on behalf of the Whitlam Labor Government it was introduced on the basis that legal advice and assistance should be available as of right to every member of this community. It was central to the concept of Federal legal aid as it was then introduced that it be both claimed and dispensed in a way that was fully consistent with the dignity of the individual. Now, however, we have a situation in which the whole legal aid system is permeated with the reek of the charity ward. What the Fraser Government has done with Medibank, with the 75 per cent fee level for the so-called ‘socially disadvantaged’, has now been introduced with a vengeance into the whole legal aid system.

This concept crops up everywhere. It crops up in the context of the $100 fee which is now payable to the Family Law Court of Australia in dissolution matters, where it is provided that that fee can be waived if the applicant demonstrates what is described as ‘substantial hardship’. Again we find that assistance has been abandoned altogether for dissolution proceedings where there are no accompanying custody, maintenance or property matters in issue, but this new provision will not apply to those people who can prove to the satisfaction of the Legal Aid Office that they are in a position of ‘special hardship’. All the apparatus of social stigmatisation is thus laid out before our eyes in these criteria: Demonstrated hardship, substantial hardship and special hardship. Is this the Fraser Government’s contribution to the development of a civilised society? If it is, it ought to be ashamed of itself.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator EVANS:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to that aspect of Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) which deals with legal aid. I was discussing the nature of the crisis which has developed in this area of government expenditure over the last three years of office of the Fraser Government and I was referring to the inadequacy and, indeed, general heartlessness of the measures which have been proposed by the Government to resolve, at least temporarily, this crisis. Those measures involve a number of attempts to cut expenditure. On that side of the ledger I have already referred to the requirement that a minimum contribution of $20 be demanded of every recipient of legal aid.

The second initiative which has been taken on the expenditure cutting side is the rather drastic one of abandoning altogether provision for legal aid in the case of undefended dissolution of marriage proceedings not involving any other ancillary proceedings. It is true, it must be conceded, that undefended divorces of this relatively simple kind have certainly placed a great strain on the limited legal aid resources and there may have been a case for applying some surgery in this area. But, once again, that surgery has been excessively drastic. Such are the procedural complexities that remain under the Family Law Act that it is still true that most people will require legal aid and assistance if they are to be able to manage the conduct of dissolution proceedings. They certainly will not get such assistance from the understaffed personnel of the Family Court and they certainly will not be able to get it from the grossly understaffed salaried complement of the Australian Legal Aid Office, who have been forced by the present Government to operate under severely restrictive staff ceilings- so restrictive that the ceilings have not only been not increased over the years since the Fraser Government has been in office but in fact have been reduced from 442 to 364 during that period. The reality is that legal costs for a simple undefended divorce will be still of the order of $300 or more for any litigant in this area, and this sort of sum is just hopelessly out of the reach of many people in the community. As a result many people will continue to be trapped in the formalities of marriage relationships which have hopelessly broken down. Once again this Government has demonstrated that it just does not care.

The major initiative which the Government has now taken on the expenditure cutting side has been in the area of drastically revising cost scales for lawyers in the area of Family Court proceedings generally. This must be said to be the area of the new proposals with which I would have least disagreement. The complexity of the new cost scales is such that it is difficult to estimate precisely what their impact will be. No doubt that is the major reason that the profession has reacted to the new scales with somewhat bemused silence. But what the new cost scales would seem to amount to is, roughly speaking, a reduction of the return to lawyers in Family Court matters from the existing 90 per cent to something like 80 per cent of their normal fees. I believe that those lawyers who have the interests of their clients and, indeed, of the community as a whole at heart- there are some still in the profession who satisfy that description- will accept this new imposition reasonably cheerfully if, and it is a very big if, it means that legal aid in the future in fact will be delivered more widely and more effectively than it has been in the last three years and if it means that they will be able to get on with the job of litigating cases and representing people in need and will not be in a position of having to defer endlessly urgent cases and, even worse, in many instances to turn away people who are desperately in need of help and who are just not getting it.

The other side of the ledger is the new provision announced by the Attorney-General that is supposedly to increase the pool- the pool so drastically reduced over the last three years- of those eligible to receive legal aid. We have the so-called relaxation of the guidelines. But what a fraud that is! In a fit of enormous generosity the Attorney-General announced that the income test has been amended so as to increase the basic disposable income for a person without dependants from $40 to $52. In other words, the ceiling of disposable income which will entitle a person to legal aid, or disentitle him to legal aid if his disposable income is above that limit, is now $52. There has been no consequential increase, however, in the allowances for dependants. They remain as they were at $15 for the first dependant and $10 for the second and subsequent dependants. That does no more than simply restore the income test to where it stood in 1975. It does absolutely nothing to compensate for the 3 1 per cent increase in the consumer price index that has occurred during that period.

However much the Government and the Attorney-General may twist, turn, evade and seek to rationalise their position on this matter, the reality still is that very many pensioners and others below the current Henderson poverty line will still miss out on legal aid. It is true that single people whose sole income is the unemployment benefit- we know how many of those people there are now in the community- will just squeeze within the test, to the extent that the current single person’s benefit is $51.45. But- and what a breath-taking little bit of irony this is- a single person who is in receipt of an age pension, an invalid pension or a widow ‘s pension will now be prima facie disentitled to be eligible for legal aid. This is because just six days after the Attorney-General announced the increases in the legal aid means test, those pensions were increased from $51.45- it will be noticed that this is just under the $52 level-to $53.20. So people in receipt of the age pension, the invalid pension or a widow’s pension will now be over the income entitlement level.

The reality, thus, is that legal aid is still in a shameful and discrediting mess in this country and no one has been more discredited by this mess than the Fraser Government, which has allowed it all to happen. The only immediate way out of the mess is for the Government to do what it has not done in this legislation before us- that is, to make a massive injection of funds into the federal legal aid budget. It is only by doing that that we can restore sanity, credibility and, above all, humanity to the operation of the federal legal aid system.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I point out to honourable senators that the speech we are about to hear is the maiden speech of Senator Watson. I trust that the courtesies that are usually extended on an occasion such as this will be extended to the honourable senator. I have pleasure in calling Senator Watson.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I wish to congratulate you on your reelection as President. I am aware of the qualities of impartiality, sense of dignity and respect of individual differences that you bring to this high office. I also wish to congratulate my fellow new senators on the success they have had in representing their States and their parties in this chamber. May we all work together in harmony to achieve tolerance, assistance to those in need and security for present and future Australians.

I am deeply conscious of the duties required of a senator and of the contributions made by my predecessors. I particularly wish to refer to the Honourable Sir Reginald Wright who, for 29 years, untiringly fought to uphold legal and constitutional propriety and sought to maintain the Senate as a strict House of review. His utter.ings were not always popular but his speeches were thought-provoking and his messages were clear. As a new senator I recognise that my obligations extend far wider than to the people who directly elected me as I now have responsibilities to the whole community of Tasmania- a State that I am proud to represent. In this southernmost State the feelings of kinship are generally strong and protection from the dictates of the decision-makers of the more greatly populated mainland areas is sometimes required. It is for this reason that the Tasmanian contingent from both sides in each House is often a vocal one. Regrettably, to some, the glitter of the Tasmanian Emerald Isle’ is a little tarnished at the moment not only by government actions but also by corporate decisions because demands of profits have caused certain established companies to leave the State, all too frequently neglecting obligations to employees and townsfolk in decentralised areas. The vacuum causes difficulties as alternative job opportunities are frequently lacking and labour mobility is low. Displaced persons in such situations find themselves with either no employment or a job where their capabilities far exceed those required of the position.

Naturally morale in such an environment is not always high.

In this setting I mention the closure of Kelsall and Kemp, regarded for many years as the finest woollen mill in Australia. This is one of the reasons for my presence in this Parliament and the tone of my speech tonight. Hopefully my contribution will bring a degree of sanity to our protection policy and prevent similar occurrences. At that mill there was a working environment that would be the envy of most industrialists because people were not regarded as cogs in a machine but as contributors to a joint working experience producing high quality products based on a pride in workmanship frequently handed down within the family circle. I recall one such dedicated group where 19 members were employed in various departments. Another unit boasted of service through three generations. One such member wanted to be the last to leave despite other job opportunities that were offered in the meantime. This was typical of the loyalty of those men and women.

The effect of government decisions on people was therefore brought home very strongly to me during those tortuous months of closure of the mill. On one occasion a government official spoke glibly of the little social consequence of the closure since in his mind most of the men could obtain jobs and a high proportion of the women were married. In such a plaintive analysis, by merely examining the prefix ‘Mrs’ to a person’s surname, he did not account for the social implications to the divorced, the separated and the effective breadwinners often because of a strained domestic situation or because work was a means of supporting a family suffering tremendous financial hardship due to illness or accident or even a means for a mother to seek relief and companionship on a five-hour twilight shift while the husband handled the family pressures of a prolonged terminal illness of one of their children. I ask honourable senators not to take decisions lightly when people ‘s livelihoods are in jeopardy because the spin-off effects on social life are tremendous.

Governments in nearly all highly developed countries provide a measure of protection to their industry. North America, the European Economic Community countries and Japan perhaps provide the best examples. In the interests of Australia, the popular academic and Treasury thinking now prevailing must be tempered by examining Australia’s position in 1978-79 rather than by what may be good theoretical economics as taught by the London School of Economics in earlier years and which apply to a typical British

Isles situation of a small, densely populated country surrounded by world markets on its doorstep.

Many of our economists refer to the ‘inefficient manufacturing sector’ of the Australian economy, but in so doing ignore five important factors. Firstly, Australia, since the Harvester decision, has been a high labour-cost country and our past tariff policy has rightly contributed to a reasonable and, until now, growing standard of living for the majority of Australians. Secondly, the size of the Australian market often places limitations on the scale of manufacturing operations. Thirdly, balance of payments difficulties, which, despite some statements to the contrary, are not entirely new to this country, in the near future will place increasing pressures on government to restrain imports and so save a deteriorating foreign exchange situation. Fourthly, there is a need to maintain a reasonable level of selfsufficiency in times of national emergency. Fifthly, and most importantly, there is the employment crisis, especially amongst the young. This situation will not be resolved while the manufacturing sector’s proportion of the gross national product continues to fall. It should be a matter of Australia-wide concern that the numbers employed in manufacturing over the five-year period to June 1978 decreased by 18.8 per cent. No wonder we have an unemployment problem. This situation must be reversed. I therefore call upon governments to reverse this trend.

A part of the price of reducing unemployment from the present unacceptably high levels is to encourage, by appropriate quotas and other measures, protection to manufacturing industry. Manufacturers in this country do not ask for 100 per cent of the market, but what they do seek is that their market share will not be continuously eroded. I know of one sector of industry where in 1973 imports accounted for 10 per cent of the market. Now those imports account for 40 per cent of the market and are growing steadily. With capital investment costs increased because of inflation and a fall in share of the market due to the impact of imports, I ask from the manufacturer’s point of view: Is there any justifiable reason why investment decisions should not be pruned or placed under close surveillance? Industry needs to be assured that provided it is reasonably efficient in terms of output per man hour, there is a reasonable expectation for it to have an agreed share of the Australian market, whether it be 30 per cent, 50 per cent or 80 per cent, depending on the government’s philosophy, which in turn is an expression of its own political priorities. Manufacturing industry provides for a diversity of employment opportunities and a fulfilment of educational training by applying high technical skills to the practical needs of business. This expertise requirement rubs off onto the tertiary industries, to universities and to technical colleges.

I think it is important that in quite simple terms 1 should come back to this question of efficient industries. During the last 12 months a major manufacturer mentioned to me that during his visits to places such as the Philippines, Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Italy and the United States of America, despite ‘sweat workhouse’ conditions in some of those countries, he could not find one case where the output per employee for a certain packaged lingerie item exceeded on average production in his own plant. But according to Industries Assistance Commission criteria, he was regarded as an inefficient operator. He agreed that his labour costs were significantly higher than those overseas but I must stress that this was due to government and union policy in maintaining a reasonable standard of living by way of paying an adequate wage. Therefore, if it is government policy to maintain a high level of wages in Australia, surely the victims must not be the source that provides this remuneration.

Textiles have traditionally been regarded as a dispensable industry because of so-called failures to meet standards of efficiency or because of ancient plant. However, I could show honourable senators the most advanced computerised cutting section at Wentworth outside Sydney that draws industrialists in textile technology from all round the world to view this particular plant. Bonds Industries was also amongst the world leaders in developing the revolutionary open-ended spinning process, and that company pioneered the commercial technique in Australia. The reduction in textiles output and employment levels has been quite disastrous, especially in areas outside the major capital cities. For example, the decline in the number of people employed from June 1973 to June 1978 was 44.7 per cent in Tasmania compared with the Australian average of 28.2 per cent.

Traditionally primary producers have been against any measure of protection. In simple terms their philosophy has been one of free trade. But now the situation is changing. For example, imports of fruits and vegetables to Australia have increased almost four-fold since 1972-73, and imports for the year 1977-78 exceeded $92m. That is a matter of increasing concern to local growers. Many Tasmanian producers are only too well aware of the difficulties faced by certain manufacturers and primary producers in that State because of the free trade agreement with New Zealand. Despite criticism, which has come principally from automobile associations and farming groups, the policy of increasing oil prices was not only realistic but also in Australia’s long term interests. The sooner we find an alternative fuel to oil the more insulated the Australian economy will become and the less vulnerable it will be to the political manipulations of the oil exporting countries. The Government’s policy recognises that world supplies in terms of world production are falling. Therefore, irregularity of supplies and further price escalations by exporting countries must be anticipated. The increases in the price of petroleum fuels must lead to an increased interest in oil exploration in Australia. This will be a factor of considerable importance in improving our balance of payments situation. I would like to see greater funds provided for research into alternative fuels because I feel that this is essential for Australia ‘s prosperity.

The exploration industry provides the best example of the need to ensure an adequate return for risks undertaken. The often maligned concept of profit deserves some analysis and it is one to which I shall give increasing attention during my term in this Parliament. Profit and exploration are not synonymous terms. I now wish to distinguish at least three contributors to profit. The first is a return on investment for capital equipment. Such a reward should be somewhat higher than the long term bond rate. The profit is therefore related to the cost of finance; in other words, it is an excess over the cost of capital. Secondly, there must be a further reward for special entrepreneurial expertise or innovative skills. The third contributing factor to profit is the concept of a reward for risk taking. In this last component of profit the reward must understandably be high since managers are not in a position to chart a profitability graph as they can when they are in a position of uncertainty or a still happier position of complete knowledge. Regretfully, none of the contributors to profit appears to have been fully recognised by the Prices Justification Tribunal or by government departments. As a senator who is deeply conscious of the contributor of Australian-owned companies, I stress the importance of maintaining a high and increasing equity in Australian mining, manufacturing and tertiary industries.

I wish to place on record the tremendous work undertaken by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in securing Australia’s future. That company has provided Australia with a low cost iron and steel industry. It continues, despite poor returns, to invest new funds in its steel division. For example, for the year ended 31 May 1978, $107m was expended and it is expected that this figure will be exceeded in the current year. The company operations are highly decentralised. They extend from Mount Newman in the west of the country to Queensland, from Groote Eylandt in the north to Temco in Tasmania where that raw material is processed. Had it not been for BHP investing substantially in the Sarich orbital engine, this invention would surely have been lost to overseas interests. BHP’s contribution in buying back the farm- in other words, putting Australian ownership in the hands of Australian corporations- has been quite significant. The best example of this contribution was the purchase of the American Peabody’s interest in the Moura coal field in Queensland. This was the first Queensland coal interest which had large scale exports to Japan. Three years ago, BHP purchased the interest of the British company, Burmah, in the North West Shelf project. With the technical and financial help from the Shell company which is a joint manager, this project has great possibilities. In the new development area, BHP pioneered the manganese deposits on Groote Eylandt with the result that that mineral is now exported all over the world.

However, the company is not involved only in exploitation, namely, the quarrying of the raw product for direct sale to overseas markets. Much of the manganese from Groote Eylandt is further processed at Temco in northern Tasmania. A new development involves a coal project at Gregory where $230m will be expended and in relation to which the first deliveries are due to take place in 1 980. BHP provided the initiative in offshore drilling for oil which commenced in 1954 not far from Sydney. This culminated in the successful discovery of oil and its commercial recovery in collaboration with Esso in Bass Strait. A further project could involve the liquefying of natural gas in Western Australia. Feasibility studies on this project are now in their final stages and a decision on the future of it may be made next year. To proceed with this project, an investment of $2,000m will be required. A further study involves the new oil discovery on the Exmouth Plateau which is 200 kilometres offshore. This area is regarded as the last prospect for a major oil find off the Australian coast. It is anticipated that $10m could be spent on a single oil well. A new technology will be involved as the drilling is expected to commence at 1,000 feet below the sea surface. The first of these wells will be drilled next year. This is the sort of company that Australia requires. It is a company that is Australian owned, staffed and managed. It develops products that the country needs and at a price that it can afford.

In many ways our tax laws are archaic and hinder both progress and enterprise. Furthermore, they do not recognise many new situations faced by today’s industries or assist in tackling community problems. I will cite one example. There is a need for the creation of a completely new subdivision to deal with forestry, with provisions as extensive as those sections which deal with mining. The Asprey Taxation Review Committee provided a comprehensive scheme for the overhaul of our taxation system. Despite the need, little has been done, apart from the haphazard closing of loopholes. Many of these changes required up to 40 pages of amendments. Private companies have been suffering a financial dilemma ever since the increase in the levels of private company taxation to levels commensurate with public company rates, simply because there were no offsetting amendments to the Division VII provisions. An urgent overhaul to section 260 of the Act is needed. Anti-tax avoiding provisions are well overdue because it is widely recognised that artificial schemes are on a grand scale flouting the present intention of the law. I would also like to see the States relieved of the burden of payroll tax which is an iniquitous tax in times of unacceptably high unemployment.

In our budgeting processes, we need to plan in detail over a longer period than just 12 months. This would involve adopting a concept known as rolling budgets. The adoption of such a concept would take out many of the antics and uncertainties which occur in the long and unnecessary waiting period involved with the present practices.

In concluding, I wish to refer briefly to my own State, which is blessed, for the most part, with a great variety of scenery, good rainfall, plentiful rivers and lakes. The free source of water provides the State with pollution free hydro-electric power producing an output in excess of at least that from two of the other geographically larger States. Tasmania is a major producer of 1 7 micron and finer superfine wool and a major contributor to Australia’s foreign exchange earnings in terms of dollars per head of population. Being an island State, and despite its convivial and envied life style, structural changes, regrettably, have not assisted its economy. For example, the Apple Isle’ description is hardly relevant nowadays, for while Tasmanian apple production in tonnes for the five years to 1977-78 declined by 53.7 per cent, production in New South Wales rose by 7. 1 per cent. Such structural changes as are occurring in the fruit industry are happening in other areas and causing difficulties not only to governments but, more importantly, to people.

Finally, 1 wish to pay recognition to the sacrifices of and the assistance from my wife, Jocelyn, and four children. I wish to express my appreciation for the help of my friends, for the support of the Party, for the wisdom of Senator Rae and, for the guidance of Kevin Newman. I also want to thank Don Wing, State President of the Liberal Party in Tasmania. Not only has he been a personal friend from school days; he is a man of integrity. Under his direction the Liberal Party has organisational leadership with an ethical standard seldom equalled in the realms of business or politics.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– On behalf of the Opposition I commend the sincerity expressed by Senator Watson in his maiden speech. Earlier some of us saw the great diligence that he applied to his assignment on an Estimates committee. I am sure that the theme that he developed, an effective manpower policy, will be a subject of tremendous importance over the next five years. I think that the best way to commence my submission is to develop that theme a little before I refer to two other matters. Not so long ago Senator Harradine, I think, canvassed the idea of an additional Minister being appointed to deal with employment opportunities. Strange as it may seem, representatives of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union suggested before a Senate Committee last week that another Minister should be appointed in this area. I believe that we should note the concern expressed by Senator Watson. The existing troika, consisting of the Minister for Productivity, representative Macphee, the Minister for Immigration, Michael MacKellar and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, has to devise a more integrated policy rather than the addition of an extra Minister.

With a number of my colleagues I was a member of Estimates Committee B which inquired into the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Early in that discussion, Senator Tate bore down very closely on the extent to which Mr Street’s Ministry becomes involved with Mr MacKellar’s Ministry in relation to the intake of migrants. When other facets are involved Mr Macphee also enters the play. I think we can now go beyond that and consider how we can use our Foreign Minister in relation to job opportunities in Australia. Let us look at the recipients of World Bank aid. Australia plays its part in this field as an advisor. I know that during most of the post-war period we have recognised our obligation to develop Asia. Today both North and South Korea are highly productive. We have not much control over North Korea but we have some over South Korea. I remember several years ago, with my illustrious South Australian colleague, Senator Reg Bishop, taking umbrage at a request of the Council of Churches and the Catholic Church about the very right-wing government of South Korea. If any chaplain, irrespective of his denomination, suggested that there was underpayment or exploitation of workers in the textile industry which is so competitive with us today, they simply were assumed to be an agent of some foreign power, which usually implied a government of the Left, and they were shipped out of the country. In future I would like our Foreign Minister Andrew Peacock, and for that matter the Treasurer, Mr Howard, to have a good look at these corrupt right-wing governments that we are supporting.

Honourable senators might say: Is it better to have an ultra right-wing government than an ultra left-wing government? I will not get into that argument. If we prop up right-wing governments which are commercial opponents of ours we will create a situation in our manufacturing industry like that to which Senator Watson referred. We can talk about the commitments of the husband and wife, the single women and all those people who are part of the manufacturing industry. Dictatorial countries like South Korea have the effrontery to attend trade conferences and expect the inside running. Our Foreign Affairs Minister ought to be in conclave with the other three Ministers involved in this area to devise an integrated policy. It is no use shillyshallying. Some of the millions of dollars that we have put into the World Bank would be better spent back here on expansion of our own industries.

Let us look at the other side of the coin- the European Economic Community. I have had distinct reservations about what constitutes a genuine political refugee. What commensurate contributions do fat cat nations like France and Belgium ever make to world refugee and health programs? They make very little. Those countries are only running true to form. Let me go back to the era of President Kennedy. One of his first jobs when he ascended to the American Presidency was to take on West Germany and to tell it that it was time it lived up to its obligation to help build a better world. West Germany had done well out of the Cold War. It is time that those countries put something into the international welfare schemes. They are not doing so now. If our Foreign Affairs Minister can use foreign policy as an economic weapon to take the pressure off our manufacturing industry he should do so.

I know that the Prime Minister of Singapore in earlier days was a super socialist. I do not know anyone today who has a more inverted attitude. It is rather ironical that the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce- it is chaired by Senator Jessop- of which I am a member had some of the captains of industry before it and they could not deny that probably the salvation of the Australian manufacturing industry is more militancy from the Asian trade unions. The higher the wages are in Asia the more we are put on a competitive plane. If we have to play the game that way let us do so.

Senator Watson spoke about the slowness of some Commonwealth or, for that matter, State public servants. One of the dilemmas in a private enterprise economy is the difficulty of getting employers to work in tandem. Let me turn back the clock. Some 10 or 15 years ago we knew we were well endowed with deposits of coal. I often wonder how far we would have advanced if we had utilised coal along the lines of some European countries in a much broader sense than we have. It is debatable how the big overseas companies nobbled such projects. I know that my New South Wales colleagues Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Gietzelt will agree with me on this point. In the 1950s we were only coming up in the ranks of our Party. I recall attending Labor Party conferences just after the Menzies Government came to power. If we had saved the Glen Davis project and the Captains Flat area we might have been in a positon to resist the machinations of the oil barons of the Middle East. But that time has past.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And we carried resolutions on it at the conferences.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-We did carry resolutions, as Senator Douglas McClelland has emphasised. I know that we cannot turn back the clock to what might have been. I think the moral of the story is to have strong and firm Federal Government directions.

We listened with extreme interest to the compassion that flowed from Senator Watson in his speech about the people who have been made redundant. Let me refer to the Telecom dispute. Whatever the mistakes that might have been made, it was the first time that we have witnessed the full impact of automation. In the present dispute in the paper industry the unions, the employers and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have been working very hard to resolve this problem. The fact is that government has a role in this area. I know that there are all sorts of areas of competition, but this is where firm government is needed. There is one matter on which I differ slightly from Senator Watson. He is entitled to give the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd some credit. On the other hand, that company has its minuses. Anyone who takes the trouble to look at the records of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales for 1943 will find that the Prime Minister of the day, John Curtin and the State Labor Government caused senior officers of BHP to appear before the State Industrial Commission because the company had illegally locked out two shifts at the open hearth foundry in Newcastle. Whatever bouquets BHP may have to accept, I say respectfully that when people read of Mr McNeill lecturing the trade union movement on what it ought to do they ought to remember that in 1943 when this country was under seige the BHP board room put profits before the security of this country. That cannot be denied. There have been several booklets about it. 1 know that if Mr McNeill ever reads this speech he will not be happy about what has been said. The BHP company is not the white angel it is assumed in some areas to be. I wind up on that particular area by saying that I know that the formulation of a manpower policy is an extremely complex matter.

I come now to immigration policy. Last night I gave an example of a case and I will be repeating it in a moment. My colleague Senator Douglas McClelland played a notable role in assisting the Australian film industry and he knows that we and the unions concerned resented very strongly ace cameramen from overseas coming here on tourist visas and seeking work. Whilst that industry is reasonably viable we cannot have people coming in on that basis and that situation has been resisted. In the main this Government has maintained this policy. To illustrate the real dilemma that we have I refer again to the proceedings of Estimates Committee B. Senator Tate and Senator Messner, who also played a role in this matter, and I were probing the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations about the classified skill categories. We asked whether we should visualise a society in which we will educate a new teenage group to a fairly high degree and whether we are going to get a situation in which every boilermaker ‘s help will be a Bachelor of Arts. I do not take a view on that either way. I am just trying to illustrate the dilemma that we have today. People say to me: ‘We think we will provide sufficient higher educational opportunities for the better educated boy’. That is well and good. But if anybody has the idea that all is well they should read the sobering article in today’s edition of the Age- I know that there will be another such article tomorrow- and take out the regional statistics. The fact is that the proposition is not a goer. I think that it is accepted by everybody, whether he has a socialist or a nonsocialist attitude, that for the next eight years the problem we will be facing is to provide over 120,000 new jobs. I emphasise the word ‘new’. Whatever may have been said by government sources about trade unions rightly trying to defend job security, the fact is that there have been no massive Luddite attitudes. The great tragedy is that some people have said to me that the money saved by more automation in manufacturing industry to compete with our Asian brothers and, for that matter, a few European countries will be picked up in the service industries. That is not on. Although I have not got the document, I understand that a federal conference of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association visualised that within three years in Japan, with its highly developed electronics industry, one will be able to go into a supermarket and press a button to get a tin of preserved apricots or a bottle of tomato sauce. A person who just has to press a button and not push a trolley around a supermarket might say that that is a better way of life, but what is going to happen to the denied purchasing power of the people in that industry? I take that example deliberately because they are the cold, hard facts. If we cannot place people in the higher echelons of job opportunities we will also be denying job opportunities to people in the lower grades of work.

Last week, together with Senator Jessop, Senator MacGibbon and other people, I was in Queensland talking about power alcohol. I appreciate that the employer representatives tell us what they believe in and that people make comparisons. It is said that it is easier to have somebody in South East Asia wearing a shift or a loin cloth, receiving very little pay and with a few nuts to chew weeding a cultivated plant, but what does this mean with regard to working costs? If we accept that situation and apply it to our regional areas what is going to happen to the purchasing power in those areas? I have in mind the areas around Bundaberg. Senator Watson and I are projecting ideas, but I have grave doubts about the extent to which the Government at a combined ministerial level is looking at these things. We all know that they are unpalatable.

I know that people from rural areas, such as Senator Maunsell, would agree with me that the European Economic Community countries have adopted a high and mighty attitude now and yet every time there is an earthquake or something like that in Europe they expect Australia and Canada to come to the party. We all try to balance our nationalism with our internationalism and it would be wrong if we got the wrong mix, but I believe that we have to use our foreign ministry in a far more attacking mood, whether it be telling South Korea that it cannot have the best of two worlds or telling the European Economic Community countries that we baled them out in World War II and that we were a party to the martial aid scheme. Senator Bishop will agree with me that people in our Party had genuine inhibitions about the scheme but he and I supported it, as did Senator Douglas McClelland. People talk about putting a beggar on horseback, but the most actute nationalists today are the Belgians, the French and the Dutch and they were the greatest recipients of martial aid.

I want to get back now to the two matters that originally motivated me to participate in this Appropriation Bill debate. Last night I made a plea to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) about the case of Sydney Widjaja. This brings me to this question of how we place people in semi-skilled work. I mentioned last night that this chap is an Indonesian national. He has been a wardsman at the Dame Eadith Walker sub-acute hospital in the electorate of Lowe for just on two years. In this era of tight employment 60 fellow employees have signed a petition that he should remain there. But I want to go beyond that, and the Minister is aware of the facts to this point. This chap was a medical student in Indonesia, which is a country full of turbulence. I know that people such as Senator Primmer, who know more about Indonesia than I do, would agree with me about the political climate that exists in Indonesia. The point I want to make is in regard to what I call the lack of a refined manpower policy. I spoke to senior officers of that hospital and asked them whether they could find from our existing work force somebody competent enough to take this fellow’s job. I know that it is fashionable today to believe that everybody has to be in an airconditioned office in front of a desk full of gadgets and feel that he is the only one who makes this country operate. A very great Prime

Minister, Ben Chifley, always talked about the people in the engine room who keep the wheels rolling. Nobody want to get incompetent attention in a hospital, whether it be from a humble wardsman or anybody else. He has his place and his dignity of labour. With all the eloquence that I hope I can command I again request the Minister that this matter be treated in that light.

Now I come to a very difficult assignment. It is a question of the extent of censorship in a democratic state. I have here correspondence from the Polish- Australian Olympic Club. The club’s headquarter ‘s is located in Bankstown. I propose to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter from the club and the protest which I now show to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for perusal. These Polish people are taking umbrage at a film called The End that has just been released in Australia. I know that the star of the film, Burt Reynolds, is a heart throb of some people in the community -

Senator Sibraa:

– What is the name of it?

Senator MULVIHILL:

-It is called The End and the actor is Burt Reynolds. I think he did appear in the magazine Cleo. These Polish people are protesting about this film. The protest reads:

We, the undersigned, who are Polish or Australian of Polish descent, do hereby strongly and solemnly protest against the screening in Australian cinemas and television of the film titled The End.

The film is currently being shown in the USA where it is being boycotted by all Americans of Polish descent.

These people feel that the film is inclined to burlesque and slander the Polish people. I am being very careful about what I am saying because I know that as parliamentarians any one of us may feel that there is a suppression of ideas by political censorship but on the other hand we get back to the very fine distinction between liberty and licence. These people are protesting because they feel the film belittles the concept of all that the Polish people believe in. These people feel that in some scenes the playing of the Polish anthem is done in a very reprehensible fashion and they have developed their protest along that line. I do not unduly want to delay the Senate so I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter I received from the President of the PolishAustralian Olympic Club, copies of which have been sent to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Premier of New South Wales and the Commissioner for Community Relations, together with a copy of the protest which has been signed by a vast number of people.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Sydney. 25th Oct. 1978

Sen. J. A. Mulvihill

Australian Parliament House,

Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Sir,

I enclose herewith our Protest against screening of the film The End’ which is discriminating and slandering the Poles, Polish Nation and the Polish Anthem.

We hope that you will kindly arrange for this type of discrimination against Poles to end, as soon as possible, as we are pan of the ethnic community in Australia. 1 will be obliged to receive your reply, and remain,

Yours faithfully,

Balcer

President

Encl.:-

Copiessent to:-

The Hon. N. K. Wran

Premier ofNSW

The Hon. M. J. R. MacKellar

The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

The Hon. A. J. Grassby

Commissioner for Community Relations

PROTEST

We, the undersigned, who are Polish or Australian of Polish descent, do hereby strongly and solemnly protest against the screening in Australian cinemas and television of the film titledThe End’.

The film is currently being shown in the USA where it is being boycotted by all Americans of Polish descent. The Polish Government representing the Polish Nation has lodged a strong, formal protest to the United States Government.

In addition many Americans have joined in the protest, in this way stressing their support, friendship and solidarity against the slandering of the Polish Nation and the Polish peoples highest esteem for their National Anthem.

We are very proud of our ties with Australia, a country where we have settled since the second world war, raised our families, and worked hard for the benefit of all Australians. Although we fully respect the country of our residence, in the name of justice we have the right to defend the honour and good name of the country of our origin.

In adhering to the principle shared by all honest, law abiding and honourable people, we demand that the film ‘The End ‘ not be shown in any form whatsoever in Australia, and we hope that the proper Australian authorities will take heed of our protest.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I have taken the opportunity of conferring with an extremely dedicated public servant- a man I know to be well known to a former and very successful Labor Minister, Senator Douglas McClelland. I refer to Mr Prowse, the Chief Censor of the Film Censorship Board in Sydney. I regard him to be extremely objective in a very tough assignment. He told me that what might be called the Australian reaction to the film was such that the Board was fairly wary. The censorship people did refer to one or two quotations from the film dialogue that may be considered to be semiobscene. There were one or two other scenes which the censorship people felt warranted an M’ classification. The point I am getting at is that I do not believe governments should hide behind senior officers especially an extremely dedicated man like Mr Prowse. I notice from a copy of a report that this film is a United Artists production. I think it is agreed that the United States of America, Australia and Canada are all multi-cultural communities and that the people in these countries have played a big role in the development of these countries. By all means films should be allowed to be shown but why can there not be a few cuts to the film instead of putting the onus on Mr Prowse, who may have to face court action?

I think that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) should call in the representatives of United Artists and say to them: You people are very good in your own country when it comes to talking about the American way of life and you are very good when it comes to talking about freedom but this does not give you an open licence.’ Surely in this country, in America and possibly in Canada, where there are many people who originally came from European Slavonic countries, there should be tighter standards or controls. According to a colleague of Mr Prowse, the censorship people place greater emphasis on obscenities and sexual innuendoes. But the Polish people are protesting about the manner in which their national anthem is prostituted in this film and things like that which grate on them. I admire their pride. I do not want to be put in a situation in which it is said that I am advocating censorship in the broad sense. After all, it was not that long ago when action was taken on behalf of our Cypriot brothers about a film that was to be shown here and which they claimed white-washed certain occupying forces and made the Cypriots appear in a very poor light. This is an area which has to be handled very carefully. I believe that the Government should not shelter behind senior public servants.

In deference to the Polish community in Australia, surely the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs could call in the Sydney representatives of United Artists and suggest to them that populations change. It was not so long ago when the only role in a film played by a negro in the United States was that of a very humble and servile person. This does not happen any more although there is still much to be done in the fight against racism. However, the negroes have fought and opposed this sort of thing. It would be a funny situation if after achieving so much we found that many people in Australia of European origin were suffering because these money makers from Hollywood produced for snide humour films depicting scenes which affect these people who have played a very good role in the community. If 1 may I would like to put it to the directors of United Artists there were people in the Army during World War II under General Anders who should be eulogised but to get a fast buck now the film makers use perverted humour. I have simply put this to the responsible Minister in the hope that he will take it up with his ministerial colleague, Mr Fife, to see that some redress is given to the Polish community.

The PRESIDENT:

– In the acceptance of the incorporation of the letter and the protest to which you, Senator Mulvihill, referred, the contents will be incorporated in the Hansard and the number of signatures recorded.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I said that there was a considerable number. There are approximately 80 signatures. I think the message will be there.

The PRESIDENT:

– As long as that is clear.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I should like to comment on Australia ‘s defence situation and in particular on the statement made recently in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). After all, defence is one of the major items of government expenditure involving more than $2 billion this year, which represents about 2.16 per cent of the gross domestic product. But is this enough? And are we getting value for money? These are questions we must ask and questions on which we must satisfy ourselves. Before we can consider expenditure we must decide what we are trying to do. Since the Second World War we have pursued five different strategic policies. In the early 1 950s we were preparing- urged by Winston Churchill, who felt that war was imminent- for a nonnuclear war as one of an alliance against Russia. Our main contribution then was to be two divisions to the Middle East- almost a replay of early World War II. Accordingly, equipment was ordered on a large scale. When the development of nuclear weapons rendered this strategy no longer credible our strategy shifted to the possibility of a limited non-nuclear war with China as part of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation alliance. Then, in the early 1 960s it changed to a limited war in the archipelago to our north, possibly without allies. By the mid-1960s this had shifted to counter insurgency operations on the mainland of Asia in co-operation with major allies, particularly the Americans.

Finally, in the early 1970s, we again changed to the defence of continental Australia. This is where we are now, although not in the rather fatuous version adopted by the Whitlam Labor Government. The Minister for Defence in that Government advanced the proposition that our strategic frontier was our coastline- a strategic doctrine the like of which has not been heard since the death of King Ethelred ‘the Unready’. The present Government understands the importance of defence in depth and the way in which the control of our northern approaches is vital to our strategic security. The trouble with rapid changes in strategic policy is that different strategic policies require different force structures and different equipment. The equipment ordered for one policy has tended to arrive one or even two strategic policies later. I am sure that everyone could point to numerous examples of this.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The Liberal Party was prepared for the last war, wasn’t it?

Senator HAMER:

– We were fairly well prepared for the Second World War but there was very little support for those preparations from the Labor Party. What we ought to look at now is more strategic stability. Every country’s strategy must be determined largley by its geography. This is certainly the case with Australia. The needs of our geography and the pattern of our trade dictate that we must pursue a maritime strategy. We must not fall for the trap of being invited to nominate particular enemies who will attack us in particular ways on particular days. This is a common tactic of the Treasurer to imply that once an enemy is identified the necessary funds will be provided to meet the threat. The trouble is that by the time the threat is evident and accepted by the Government and the voters it is probably too late to prepare adequately. The ten year no threat rule is dangerous nonsense. In this uncertain world it is impossible to look that far ahead. I refer to an old example. In 1792 William Pitt said -

Senator McAuliffe:

– And the Corn Laws.

Senator HAMER:

– No, you are thinking of the wrong British Prime Minister. The Corn Laws did not concern Pitt. You are thinking of Peel. In 1972 Pitt said:

Unquestionably there never was a time in the history of this country when … we might more reasonably expect 15 years of peace, than we may at this present moment.

He said that in 1 792. Within one year Britain was involved in a war which lasted with brief intermissions for 22 years. If honourable senators would like an example closer to home, who in this country in 1931 when we were in the depth of the Depression would have thought that in 10 years we would be at war with Germany, Italy and Japan? What then can we do? I believe that we must look at our geographic setting and design our forces to do the things we might have to do on our own. Such a concept would immediately limit the threat in terms of both scale and sophistication. There are scales of attack which would be beyond us if we were totally unsupported which I do not believe for one moment we would be. Let us not waste our scarce resources on preparing to deal with such threats. As I said, let us concentrate on things that we might have to do on our own. Forces designed for such tasks might not be ideal if a wider, more sophisticated war broke out but at least they would be a useful contribution. If we continue as we are going we will have tiny token samples of each type of sophisticated equipment, too few to have much impact on a wider war and too few and oversophisticated for the tasks we might have to do on our own.

This concept would have enormous effects on our force structure. I will give a few examples. For many years a major role of the Navy has been the defence of merchant shipping against submarine attack. But whose ships would these be? Overwhelmingly our trade is carried in foreign bottoms. In a war in which their countries were not involved there is no way in which such ships would come here to be convoyed by our Navy. They would either come here unescorted as neutrals or, more likely, not come here at all. If they were attacked the war would soon become a much wider one, far beyond our capability to deal with on our own. We should concentrate on doing the things within our power, not frittering our efforts on making token contributions to things beyond our power. What then should the Navy do? I believe that it should be primarily a deterrent force. Submarines are the most effective deterrent to any possible future invasion. I draw the attention of the Senate to a fact that we must consider soon, namely, that any future submarines we order will have to be nuclear powered. There are no diesel electric powered submarines of a modern type available in the world today. If we want to get a new type of submarine it will have to be nuclear powered. The Navy must also be capable of supporting military operations in the archipelago to our northamphibious landings, interdiction of coastal traffic and air and ship bombardment being the obvious operations. By definition the environment would not be a technologically sophisticated one. The Navy must also be capable of controlling the waters we claim around our continent.

The Army’s main role surely should be the provision of a mobile, quick reaction force able if necessary to operate in the archipelago to our north. I want to refer now to suggestions about Army operations on a large scale in northern Australia. I think that there we get involved in a circular argument. There is no way in which we could maintain, say, a division in northern Australia except with supply by sea. If we are to supply it by sea that means that we have command of the sea. If we have command of the sea the requirement for such a large force does not arise. We have to be very careful that we do not get involved in a circular argument. 1 believe that the role of the Army is to be sufficiently mobile and quick reacting to cause any potential invading force to concentrate in such a way that it would be destroyed by our maritime forces. This was the role of the British Army prior to 1914 and it is a proper and effective role for our Army now. A battalion in position before a landing is very much more valuable than a division arriving there three weeks later. We need a small, highly mobile and efficient Army.

The role of the Air Force should be complementary to these. I do not believe that for the things we have to do on our own we need a strategic bombing capability or air superiority fighters. By the time these were being used it would be a much larger scale war. What we do need from our Air Force is transport, surveillance and Army tactical support in much greater quantities than we have at the moment. In my opinion we do not need frigates costing $130m each. These are in fact highly sophisticated antisubmarine escorts. We want many much less sophisticated destroyers for much more limited purposes. By the same token we would be mad to spend $ 1,000m on air superiority fighters. If we are to control our force composition, we must have a clear concept of the sort of operations we might have to do on our own. I am not satisfied that such a clear concept is available to defence planners. It must be produced and the Government must enforce this concept. It will not be easy but risks must be run in peace as in war. If we do not enforce this type of discipline we will inevitably finish up with tiny handfuls of the most sophisticated types of equipment in each category.

In this respect I think that there are dangers in one of the concepts which is gaining currency. 1 refer to the core force. This is a phrase one often hears bandied about in defence planning circles. The core force, as I see it, is the regular force which must be prepared to deal with immediate low level threat. It must also be capable of expansion to meet a higher level threat. As I said, there is a great danger that this core force will be equipped with a tiny number of highly sophisticated weapons which will be too elaborate, too expensive and too few for the task which the core force will have to do on its own and which will also be an unsuitable basis for the mass expansion that will be required to build up the main force. I am also suspicious of the concept of the core force being used as the method of maintaining what is called the state of the art.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Did you say ‘call force’?

Senator HAMER:

– I said ‘core force’. It has been argued that this is a method of maintaining the state of the art in our Defence Force. Certainly, the acquisition of very advanced equipment is one way of our forces keeping up with the state of the art. But it can be an extraordinarily expensive way. Let me give one example of an alternative. Great Britain designed the tank. Between the two World Wars it maintained a small core tank defence force. The Germans were forbidden by the treaty of Versailles to have tanks. However, the Germans experimented with models. They thought about tanks and carried out some trials in Russia. Germany was permitted to rearm in 1934 and by 1939 it had a far more efficient concept of the operation of tanks and had better tanks than the British who maintained a core force throughout that time. It is true that one way to keep up with the state of the art is to have a core force. But is it sensible to spend $100m to keep a tiny token force of tanks at Puckapunyal? I would much sooner save that money and send a relatively small number of officers and commanders on secondment to the British army or the American army to keep up with the technique of tank operations. We must look very carefully at any claims that a core force is a means of keeping up with the state of the art. It can be but it also can be wildly extravagant.

I would like to explain to the Senate how dangers arise. The Services start off with a simple piece of equipment but almost always finish up with an enormously expensive and elaborate piece of equipment. I would like to tell the Senate the saga of the light destroyer, the DDL, which was cancelled when its cost reached $ 100m. This destroyer had its origin in 1965 when the then Chief of the Naval Staff was concerned that the naval construction program was reaching an end. He also was concerned that ships were being used very uneconomically in Vietnam and in the confrontation between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. I was there myself on a destroyer. I do not know of any other words with which to describe the position than these: With 300 men, six 4.5 inch automatic guns and bofors one felt like a bully when bailing up a fishing boat with a Malayan family on board. We had to check whether they were infiltrating. This was absurdly uneconomic in terms of the the use of-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Unreal.

Senator HAMER:

– It was unreal in that sense. It had to be done but it was not an economic way of doing it. The Chief of the Naval Staff conceived the idea of getting a cheaper platform just for this role of interdiction and, if necessary, bombardment. By chance, the representatives of an English firm, Vosper Thornycroft, visited Australia at that time with a design for a destroyer that the company was providing to the Persians. It had one 4.5-inch gun, a couple of gas turbine engines and was capable of 40 knots. The Chief of the Naval Staff said: ‘A 1,200-tonne ship is just what I want’. He referred the matter to the naval staff for examination. As staffs always do, this staff made a number of objections. One was that the equipment was not shock mounted and there were no proper damage control facilities. So he said, quite properly: ‘Take the concept and prepare a design to meet these requirements’. So a ship was produced just for this limited role of bombardment and interdicting small craft. It was a small craft of 1,500 tonnes with one five-inch gun, two gas turbines, a good range and a speed of 36 knots.

Senator McAuliffe:

– How many torpedo tubes?

Senator HAMER:

– It had no torpedo tubes. It had just one gun and not much else. When this design was submitted to the fleet, the fleet commander made the valid objection that for the role they were considering, the interdiction of inshore traffic, a helicopter was necessary. In order to put a six tonne helicopter into the ship, its displacement had to be increased by 700 tonnes. The ship had to be lengethened to reduce its pitching and broadened to stop its rolling. The helicopter deck had to be raised because helicopters do not like salt water. We finished up with a good ship of 2,300 tonnes with a five-inch gun, a helicopter and with a speed down to about 34 knots.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How many on them? What was the complement?

Senator HAMER:

– The complement was about 120 personnel at this stage. I must say that it finished up much higher. What happened next was that members of the naval staff who had been serving in Vietnam on our American built

DDG ships and who had been using five-inch guns said: ‘For the role you want the ships to play, if you want one gun to fire you had better have two guns on board ‘. They had had certain serviceability problems with their five-inch guns. I would have thought that a better approach would have been to improve the serviceability of the gun. In fact, they put in a second gun. This put the tonnage of the ship up to about 3,000 tonnes and reduced the speed to about 32 knots. I would like to emphasise that none of this was improper. This was perfectly natural staff work. I am only trying to describe the consequences.

Simultaneously, a study was being done of the employment of helicopters in this interdiction role. The study pointed out that for the role intended one helicopter was inadequate and that two helicopters were needed. So a second helicopter was put on the vessel. The tonnage increased to 3,400 tonnes and the speed came down to about 31 knots. Then someone said: You have quite a big ship here- about 3,000 tonnes to 3,500 tonnes. It has two five-inch guns and two helicopters. Do you realise that it has no anti-aircraft defences?’. So out went the aft fiveinch gun and in went a missile system. Up went the tonnage of the vessel to about 4,000 tonnes and down came the speed to about 30 knots. At this point, we had a ship with a five-inch gun, a missile system with all associated radars and two helicopters. It had a good range and gas turbine propulsion. Then it was said: ‘Yes, but for the role you are looking at, this is a valuable unit. You must have jammers, decoy launchers for the missiles and intercept sets’. All these facilities were put on to the ship. Up went the tonnage to 4,300 tonnes and up went the cost to $100m a ship. At that point the orders for the ships were cancelled. It was said that a ship of 4,300 tonnes was a major fleet unit. It could not possibly be used for the role envisaged, that is, bombardment and in-shore interdiction. I mention this because it is a classic case of the way in which always- not usually- these initially simple projects end up. Unless they are controlled ruthlessly, they always finish up as the most elaborate, complicated and expensive pieces of equipment we could possibly envisage. This a cautionary tale. I am not trying to blame anybody. Every step taken was logical and rational but the result was catastrophic.

I would now like to turn to a somewhat sensitive subject. I have been speaking about an insensitive one so far. I refer to the role of the Department of Defence. I say that it is a sensitive subject because I have a great admiration for the

Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) and what he is trying to do. But I must say that-

Senator McAuliffe:

– The best potential he has is that he is a Queenslander.

Senator HAMER:

– He is a Queenslander. That is one of his virtues. He has others. But the Defence Department is widely regarded by the Defence Force as being a disaster area. The Defence Force is always critical of defence headquarters. There is a story that illustrates the point. A man in Whitehall in London during the Second World War was looking for the Admiralty Office. He could not find it. He saw a sailor and thought that the sailor would know where the Admiralty was. He went up to the sailor and said: ‘Excuse me, Jack; what side is the Admiralty on?’. The sailor said: ‘I have never thought. They are supposed to be on ours’. That is the sort of feeling we always have. That is a lighthearted story. Nevertheless, there is a very deep-seated feeling- it concerns me- that the Defence Department, as at present structured, is not really responsive to the needs and problems of the Defence Force. This worries me because-

Senator McAuliffe:

– Did you think it was better when it was separated?

Senator HAMER:

– I would like to come to that in a moment because I have some thoughts on the matter that I would like to develop in sequence. These remarks are in no way a crticism of the Minister. He is concerned and compassionate. But I think that the Defence Department, as at present structured, is beyond the effective political control of anyone. I am sorry that Senator Bishop, who was the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence, has left the Senate chamber. I am sure he would agree with me that really those in political control do not know and cannot know what is going on throughout the Department. The Secretary of the Department, in evidence given before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, admitted that the Department was not designed for war. My difficulty is to find what it is designed for. My real worry about the Defence Department is that I get a strong feeling that many people in it do not really believe that the Defence Department controls a Defence Force that might have to fight and that their decisions might affect the lives of the people concerned and even the security of the country. It seems that many of them- this may be unfair but I have this very strong feeling- are more concerned in the status of the Defence Department on the pecking order in Canberra rather than its efficiency as a method of controlling the Defence Force of this country. That is a feeling which I have and which I know is widely shared throughout the Defence Force.

What is wrong with this Department? I would like to say at the outset, in answer to an earlier interjection, that I am strongly in favour of a single defence department. I think the idea of separate service departments competing with each other was an absurd anachronism. That does not mean to say that I am in favour of any scheme that merges the service departments. What one wants is a scheme that is responsive to the needs of the services. The scheme was produced by direction of a Liberal Minister for Defence and was introduced by a Labor Minister for Defence and has been in force now for some years. It has had a fair trial and in my view it has been convicted. I do not think it is a satisfactory system to run the armed services. In essence the scheme involved a Public Service takeover of the Defence Force. I shall give one simple example. When I was talking earlier about strategic policy and the central nature of our strategic policy to our Defence Force and our defence preparations, I did not make the point then but I would like to make it now that when one looks at who is responsible for strategic policy one goes down through four layers of public servants- Secretary, Deputy Secretary, First Assistant Secretary, Assistant Secretary- before one reaches the first professional service man. In my view the lack of clarity of our strategic planning needs no further explanation.

There is another very damaging effect of the Defence Department as it is now; it is ludicrously over-ranked. This scheme for the amalgamation of the three separate service departments into the Defence Department was produced by an extraordinary document. That document referred to Public Service appointments as one star appointments, two star appointments, three star appointments and four star appointments, using American military terminology for general ranks. These people are absurdly over-ranked. An enormous debating society with committees everywhere has been set up where these overranked public servants are matched by grossly over-ranked servicemen. I shall give one simple example. In World War II the size of the Navy was 40,000 servicemen. It operated then with three admirals and three commodores. The Navy now has 16,000 members. It has nine admirals and 12 commodores. This is absurd. It is worse than that because not only are the people over-ranked at defence headquarters but also it reflects right through the structure of the service.

It is desirable that for a man in defence headquarters who is a sailor he should go to sea sometimes; if he is a soldier he should see some other soldiers: and if he is an airman he should fly. This means that the sea jobs, to use the naval equivalent, have to be over- ranked. I will give just two examples. The USS Enterprise, a nuclear powered carrier, has more fighters and bombers than our entire Air Force has in Australia. It is commanded by a captain. HMAS Melbourne is commanded by a commodore. The United States and Australia have some identical ships, American built guided missile destroyers. The Americans have a senior officer, one commander. We have one captain and four commanders on board. This is most damaging because junior officers can do and learn things a senior officer cannot. We have a grotesquely over-ranked service.

I shall just turn very quickly to what we should do. Firstly, at the top we need a proper defence council, statutorily established and presided over by the Minister. The various sections of the Defence Department should be responsible to individual members of the defence council who predominantly should be professional servicemen. Secondly, we need a sharp reduction in the number of public servants. I have been unable to obtain the figures for the number of public servants involved but I was not surprised by a statement that was made recently to an estimates committee that 32,000 public servants were employed while the Army consists of 31,000 members. This is quite possible but I cannot confirm those figures. As I suggested, we need a reduction in rank throughout the whole structure of the Defence Department, I also think the chiefs of staff of the Navy, Army and Air Force and the chief of the Defence Force staff are misnamed. Their role is not that of chief of staff of anything; they are or are supposed to be the commanders of their respective services and that is what they should be named. It would describe them more accurately and would give them more status.

We need to sort out the command structure of the three Services. Each Service operates under a different command structure which is highly undesirable. Both efficiencies and economies should be achieved by having the three Services under a common functional structure. Finally, we need better political control of the Defence Department. We used to have five Ministers dealing with this scope of activities. Now we have one Minister and one part-time assistant Minister. I think that somehow- perhaps by the use of parliamentary secretaries- we have to increase the scope of political control because our activities in defence may be of crucial importance to the future of this country. Defence is the first duty of a government and I would like to see us performing it with more efficiency.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I welcome the opportunity that is presented to the Senate this evening by the discussion of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1978-79 to raise a particular question of concern to me and I expect to all honourable senators in reviewing the expenditure of public moneys. The issue of concern about which I would like to make a few remarks this evening is the accountability of certain statutory authorities to the Parliament. It is a matter of great concern that authorities such as the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the Australian Postal Commission and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, commissions which now spend annually a sum in excess of $2, 300m, are not accountable in any detail to the Australian public through this Parliament. None of these bodies receives a Budget allocation in the Appropriation Bills but they represent a very large investment of public moneys. Of even greater concern is the unpreparedness of bodies such as the Australia Council and the National Gallery to give full account to the Senate estimates committees of their expenditure of public moneys. Unlike the statutory commissions to which I referred, the National Gallery and the Australia Council derive their income mainly from the public purse and thus of course they receive a Budget allocation in the Appropriation Bills.

Yet during the course of the Senate estimates committees’ hearings officers from these two bodies revealed an inability, if not an unwillingness, to explain to the committees for what purpose their appropriations were to be used. Honourable senators will be aware that until this year the same criticisms had been levelled at the Australian Broadcasting Commission, either that one line appropriations without explanation were tendered or that officers of insufficient authority or lacking detailed knowledge were present at Estimates hearings. I am pleased to state that the standard of written and oral presentation by the Australian Broadcasting Commission officers to Estimates Committee F was on this occasion all that could be asked by honourable senators. I might remark that it is a sign of the impact which the Government’s 23 per cent cutback in funding for the ABC since 1975 has had that the Commission must now look to every cent that is available to it. The failure of statutory authorities to fully understand their accountability to parliament has been a recurrent problem since the estimates committees were established in 1970. On two occasions since that time the Senate has affirmed the principle that there is no area of expenditure of public funds by statutory authorities which cannot be examined by Parliament or its committees.

The problem with Telecom, Australia Post and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission is not an unwillingness on the part of their officers to answer questions; indeed officers from these commissions were very helpful and co-operative when questions were put to them. The problem is that these bodies receive no direct appropriation from Consolidated Revenue and therefore there is no satisfactory mechanism by which honourable senators may question officers during the course of Estimates committee proceedings. I feel that such a situation is not acceptable because the Estimates committees represent the only real opportunity to consider and examine the activities of these bodies.

It might be argued that the tabling of the annual reports of those bodies also presents an opportunity for the discussion and consideration of their activities. To some extent this is the case. However, it is also the case that the opportunities presented by the tabling of annual reports are limited. They are not as great as the opportunities presented at Estimates committee meetings in respect of the consideration of the expenditure of government departments and bodies such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. So we have a situation in which institutions such as Telecom are able to proceed along selfdetermined paths of growth and development without any comprehensive public review or discussion.

I am suggesting that statutory authorities and commissions must be publicly accountable. This is especially true of Telecom, Australia Post and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, whose projected expenditures represent a sum equal to that allocated for defence this financial year. Expenditure on defence is rigorously analysed. In fact, a further analysis of it was just made by Senator Hamer. The defence allocation is analysed and examined in great detail by the Estimates committees. Each item of expenditure on new equipment is reviewed and debated. Debate over large items of capital expenditure, such as the Mirage replacement program, may take several years. I believe that that is how it should be when many millions of dollars of the taxpayers money are involved. Such diligence is also to be expected in a department of state under ministerial control and accountable through the Minister to this Parliament.

The same situation is not the case with regard to expenditure by and capital outlays for Telecom. Telecom is Australia’s largest enterprise. It employs 83,000 people and has assets worth $6,500m and earnings of $ 1,800m a year. It has now embarked upon a capital program that is in many ways equal to that being currently considered by the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence, in deciding upon a replacement for its 100 Mirage fighters, will commit the Australian taxpayer to an investment of between $ 1,700m and $2,000m. That decision has not yet been made even though there has been intense debate about and detailed examination and evaluation of the different aircraft available. The decision will not be made without further exhaustive debate and consideration in this place.

Telecom Australia has embarked upon a program of computerising its telephone exchanges and switching centres, a program which will cost the Australian public between $ 1,700m and $2,000m over the next decade. That program is commonly known as the ARE 1 1 program. It has already raised severe doubts among Telecom’s employees about the technological and social path which Telecom has determined for itself. Although the ARE 1 1 program is comparable in cost to the decision which the Department of Defence must make over a fighter replacement, there has been no debate in the Parliament on the ARE 1 1 program. This chamber has not been afforded the opportunity to review and consider the wisdom of Telecom’s investment decision.

It might be suggested that as a statutory commission Telecom ought not to be subject to continued review by Parliament of its commercial dealings and decisions. I recall that when the independent commissions for the telecommunications and postal services were created during the period of the Whitlam Government there was a desire that the commissions be able to meet their dual obligations of operating as efficient commercial enterprises while still observing and protecting the public interest and, given their expertise and abilities, that they be able to observe those obligations without outside help or independent review of their actions. I am not suggesting that the status of these commissions should be changed so that they would become exactly the same son of bodies as Commonwealth departments. I suggest that what is necessary for public accountability are properly audited detailed accounts for each year and forward estimates embracing annual business outlooks and the longer term corporate plans.

Yet the performance of an institution of the importance of Telecom cannot be reduced solely to an auditor’s report and an annual balance sheet. Telecom ‘s activities affect the daily lives of all Australians. To many, such as the elderly and the invalid, a telephone is no longer a luxury but a necessity, an essential technological element in our present social fabric. Therefore I believe that investment decisions which affect the pricing and hence the availability of telephone services are matters of policy which this Parliament should review and debate. Because Telecom and Australia Post fund their activities from internally generated revenues or loans raised on their own accounts rather than appropriations from Consolidated Revenue, we should not be denied completely the chance to review their activities.

Telecom and, to a lesser extent, Australia Post seem clearly committed at this stage to the pursuit of profit with the measurement of their achievement by the balance sheet rather than their overall social as well as economic performance. Communication and information services are now central to the functioning of our society. It must be asked whether public corporations can be trusted to exercise the monopoly with which they are entrusted without public accountability through this Parliament. Telecom’s decisionmaking, in spite of the undertakings about open planning given in its report entitled ‘Telecom 2000’, is not accessible to the majority of Telecom customers- the ordinary telephone user. Without doubt Telecom is accessible to big business, such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd, Esso and Ansett, which seek the use of publicity funded services at discounted rates. In essence, the ARE 1 1 program is about the provision of services to business and corporate interests at a cost subsidised by the ordinary telephone user.

I think the following questions should be asked in this place: Does the ordinary subscriber really want automatic accounting of international subscriber trunk dialling calls? Does the ordinary consumer really want touchphones? Will the ordinary subscriber be pleased when the ARE 1 1 program brings about timed local calls and a two-tier priority service that in many cases they will be unable to afford? I believe that the elected representative; **f the Australian people are not at present in . position to influence

Telecom on these matters. We cannot influence or determine how the $ 1.800m revenue raised this year from the public is to be spent. Telecom has developed a dynamic of its own. It appears now to have an obsession with growth and with new technology which precludes the lowering of tariffs and the provision of a telephone service at a cost which all Australians can afford.

How are Telecom and other statutory commissions to be made accountable for their expenditure? I would not suggest, as I said before, continued direct ministerial supervision or intervention in the day-to-day management of such authorities, but I would suggest that greater accountability is necessary than that provided by annual reports and certified accounts. It is not accountability merely to submit an audited report each year. To be accountable means to give reasons for decisions and actions taken. An account sheet rarely provides an explanation and it never gives reasons, nor can it be regarded as a record or statement of policy. An audited account is protection against fraud and the criminal misuse of public money. But the usefulness of such an account is limited. To this extent the role of the Estimates committees in regard to public authorities such as Telecom is severely limited. I would suggest that what is necessary is an independent source of information or a fuller arena of debate to ensure that no problems remain uninvestigated and no policy issues remain unexplored or unquestioned.

The Estimates committees, as they are currently structured, provide the basis for such accountability. Their powers ought to be enhanced and clearly defined. Their inquiries ought to be able to determine such things as social need. Their activities ought to be augmented by adequately trained staff and fully empowered audit of all government activities whether by departments, commissions or other bodies. Such procedures, I suggest, would provide the public accountability which this Parliament lacks in part at this stage.

I would like to pass to two other statutory bodies which are different from Telecom and the Postal Commission and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission in that they do receive appropriations under the Appropriation Bills. They are the Australian National Gallery and the Australia Council. Both of these bodies have a crucial role in the development and restoration of Australian culture. The Australian Labor Party thoroughly supports the continued adequate funding of both institutions. Speaking on behalf of my Party, the Federal Opposition, I say that in general terms we are satisfied with the overall development of the activities of both the Australia Council and the National Gallery. In respect of the National Gallery, it would appear that when the building which will house the national collection is finally finished, it will be a building from which all Australians will be able to benefit. It will also have a collection which will have international prestige and a role in developing cultural and artistic tastes in Australia and in other countries. We are very happy that the National Gallery is developing such an important international collection.

However, I must comment in a critical way on the inadequate presentation of information by officers of the National Gallery when they came before Estimates Committee D. Really no detailed information was provided by officers of the National Gallery even though the Gallery receives a very considerable allocation of public money. When officers were questioned as to why there was no detailed information as to their use of this public money, the answers given were not satisfactory. The senators questioning the officers from the Gallery were told that the Gallery needed to get the approval of its council for programs and that there had been some difficulty in getting the council to meet. I suggest that this sort of answer is not a satisfactory answer to be given to senators attempting to ensure accountability for the expenditure of public money.

In my view, information on staffing and other areas of expenditure such as touring exhibitions, travel and so forth could have been and should have been provided to honourable senators. No information was forthcoming on plans for acquisitions. In answer to a query by my colleague, Senator Robertson, about what sort of acquisitions were being planned, Senator Robertson was told that he should be content with the annual report, which gave the previous year’s expenditure. Of course again that answer was unsatisfactory because the 1977-78 annual report will not be ready until next year, and I remind the Senate that the 1976-77 annual report of the National Gallery was tabled during this year’s Budget session.

Senator Missen:

– It is a very common problem, is it not?

Senator RYAN:

– It is a very common problem. I am pleased to hear Senator Missen interject at this point that it is a common problem. The late presentation of annual reports reduces their usefulness to honourable senators seeking information and seeking accountability as to the expenditure of public money.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Do you not think that when you review it perhaps in a year or so you can form a more reasoned opinion?

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Wheeldon also makes a useful contribution to the debate. I am afraid that even with Senator Wheeldon ‘s very helpful contribution, I am still dissatisfied with the situation which prevailed during this year’s Senate Estimates committee hearings when no detailed information was prepared for us by National Gallery officers, nor did we have a current annual report which could give us details regarding this year’s allocation. So we really did not have answers to the questions that Senator Robertson or I were seeking. We had no information really that could be of any use to any of our constituents who might express an interest in what the National Gallery was doing, how it was developing and which area of acquisitions it was developing at this stage. Nor did we have any information on those very reasonable requests that come to us from time to time via our constituents or which we might even wish to pursue out of our own interest.

The National Gallery, like any other publicly funded body, has an obligation, a very clear obligation, to the public to explain what it is doing and why. For example, we finally discovered, through questioning, that a considerable amount of the Gallery’s allocation is spent on travel for its officers. I accept completely that there is a genuine need for officers of the Gallery to travel so that they can keep up to date in their various areas of expertise and so that they can make knowledgeable and sound decisions about acquisitions. I accept that and I am sure that the members of the public would accept it if the information were given. But the National Gallery is no different from any other publicly funded body in that it does not need to give explanations for expenditures such as expenditure on travel by its officers. I think that quite acceptable and sound explanations were there to be given but I was disturbed that the officers were unprepared or unable to give honourable senators these sorts of explanations.

I would say at this point, Mr Acting Deputy President, that although the Australian Labor Party has a very strong policy in favour of public funding and public support for the arts, as indeed the present Government has a policy of public support for the arts, it is a sensitive area as far as many Australians are concerned. We do not have a very developed arts education program in this country. Therefore many people are not particularly familiar with the reasons why very large sums of public money have to be spent to acquire certain major works of an. Perhaps people who are trained in these areas and who have a personal interest in these areas do not need explanations, but there are many citizens who would like more information as to why a certain acquisition was made, why it was important to our national collection to have a particular acquisition, why it is that certain aquisitions cost certain amounts and so forth. I do not think that anything is to be gained by maintaining an air of mystery about the business of acquisitions.

From the response of officers from the National Gallery it did seem that there was something of an air of mystery about this. 1 understand, as one of the senior officers said, that it is not in the interests of the National Gallery to give a detailed account of its intentions with regard to acquisitions. It could disadvantage the purchases of the National Gallery on the world market if every detail of what the Gallery intended to do and how much it could spend on a particular item were to be made publicly available. Certainly I would not wish to see the National Gallery officers suffering such disadvantage. But senators were not seeking information of such detail or information, the exposure of which would have been to the disadvantage of the Gallery. What we were seeking was general information on policy, on the extent of money spent on wages, on any training programs being undertaken, on the proportion of fund spent on touring exhibitions and things of that kind. It was very disappointing for all honourable senators attending that Committee that such information was not available. In conclusion in respect of the National Gallery, I do not feel that the fault is particularly that of the Gallery officers. I feel that there is a need for the Senate, as a body, to clarify its requirements from bodies such as the National Gallery. This is the main purpose of my raising this matter this evening.

Similarly, in respect of the Australia Council, in the course of questioning officers representing that Council, it was suggested that those officers could not answer questions with regard to the appropriation for the Australian Opera or the Australian Ballet. Again I would like to make quite clear that I think both the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet are very fine national institutions which do justify the expenditure of a considerable amount of public money. I look forward to their further development so that they can become accessible to all Australians who have an interest in these matters and indeed to overseas people who may have an interest in our national cultural bodies.

I do not argue with the fact that both these bodies receive considerable amounts of public money, nor do I argue with the policy adopted by both bodies of pursuing the highest standards of artistic excellence. However, I cannot accept the position as described by officers of the Australia Council, namely, that no information can be given about policies or the areas of expenditure entered into by the Australian Opera or the Australian Ballet. Both of these bodies have a degree of independence. Certainly they should have independence in the matters of artistic policy, performance, programs and so forth but they are not truly independent of the Parliament. They are funded by the Government almost entirely. Some private assistance is given to both of those bodies, but that assistance is very small. They are funded by the Government. I think it is appropriate that officers from those bodies answer very general questions asked by senators in relation to the use they make of public moneys.

Again, the activities of bodies such as the Australian Opera and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Australian Ballet, are very public; people take a great interest in them. The use of very popular performers and directors with international reputations draws public comment and arouses public interest. Sometimes the public interest is in the nature of a critical inquiry. Why is it that the Australian Opera spends a certain amount of money on a particular production? I do not think it is improper for such a question to be asked either by a member of the public or certainly by a senator on an Estimates committee. I think that general matters of policy, such as why it is that the Australian Opera has decided to pursue excellence in a certain sphere, ought to be able to be discussed by members of this Parliament through appropriate procedures. I hope that at future meetings of the Estimates committees the Australia Council officers will be able to answer the sorts of questions which honourable senators were anxious to put to them during the hearings of Estimates Committee D.

I have taken the opportunity tonight to make comments on some of the less satisfactory aspects of the accountability of public bodies to this Parliament. I have instanced the case of those bodies which do not receive direct appropriations but which represent very large public investments. Those bodies are, of course, Telecom, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Postal Commission. I have asked that consideration to be given to establishing machinery whereby these bodies may be answerable in a general sense for the policies under which they operate and the services that they offer to the community. I have also raised problems associated with the Australian National Gallery and the Australia Council. Both of these bodies receive Budget allocations. They are primarily funded out of the public purse. Both of them are national institutions in which people of this country have a great interest. They are bodies which I think should be accessible to all Australians but which are not, at this stage of their development, accessible to all Australians. I am reminded that my colleague in this place, Senator Wheeldon, has remarked to me that the Australian Opera does not go to Perth at this stage. Indeed it does not. We have to consider whether a greater responsibility should be placed on bodies which are funded by the Australian taxpayers, such as the Australian Opera, to make themselves available through touring to Australians other than those who live in Sydney or Melbourne.

Senator Wheeldon:

– And the National Gallery collection.

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Wheeldon reminds me that the National Gallery collection has not, so far, toured extensively. I am pleased to note that in the last 18 months two major exhibitions have been mounted out of the National Gallery collection for touring. I think Senator Wheeldon is suggesting that they have not got as far as Western Australia. This is not a satisfactory situation. These bodies are important and nobody would argue with their right to public support. If we are to continue to adopt the policy that they should be heavily supported out of the public purse, then I think we should be asking also that they be made available to people in all parts of Australia and perhaps that a greater attempt on the part of those responsible for the programs of those bodies be made to achieve greater accessibility, mainly through touring. I hope that honourable senators who have been listening to my remarks tonight will give some thought to adopting procedures whereby all public bodies, independent statutory authorities though they may be, will be more fully accountable to this Parliament and therefore to the public which pays for their existence.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I take this opportunity to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79 to raise an important matter which has been canvassed to some extent already this evening by Senator Evans. I refer to the state of legal aid in this country and the extent to which the Budget and this particular Appropriation Bill make provision for payments of legal aid. We must note at the outset that it makes a reduction, which I think is a generally agreed figure of something like $400,000, in the provision for this year as compared with that of last year. I regret very much not only this reduction but also the lack of interest which is seen in this country in legal aid. Unfortunately there is no substantial increase in this particular item in the Budget, nor have the activities and interests of the people of this country increased.

I have taken an interest in this area for many years and I have seen it as a long continuing saga. It has not yet had any satisfactory ending. We know that in the present period a number of legal aid commissions are developing. They are amalgamating the arrangements in the different States so that the somewhat disparate organisations which at the present time are run by the legal service, by the profession- others are run by the Government, the Australian Legal Aid Office and still others by private organisationswill be able to work together. I think that is a good development. Indeed, it is desirable that such commissions should be created. I regret very much the very slow progress that they have made in recent years. Nonetheless, one faces a situation in which legal aid in this country is not recognised, I believe, as being of the importance that it should be. We are spending less than $20m a year on the legal aid apparatus. We are spending $7,000m or $8,000m on the area of health which is a very important area. We are spending something like $ 1,000m on defence. They are very big areas.

However, to my mind legal aid is one of the most important areas because it guarantees- it should guarantee- that the citizen has equal rights before the law. That is one of the things of which we are proud and one of the things about which we speak occasionally but it is something which I am afraid we have not yet practised in this country. I do not think it is sufficient to say that because a pensioner is covered by legal aid that is a satisfactory situation. Figures were recently provided by Professor Henderson which relate to the poverty line. They are the latest figures which were released on 18 August 1978. Looking at these figures, one sees that an unemployed married couple with two children on the pension which was allowed before the Budgetfortunately it was increased- received $109.30. The poverty level shown by Professor Henderson is $121.44. That is the amount which they would need to be able to live reasonably. However, the Australian Legal Aid Office means test provides for a disposable income of S75. Of course, a person is not entitled to legal aid until his income is below $75. Therefore, it is seen that people on very low incomes are not receiving legal aid in this country. The same situation could be shown to apply to people who have more than two children and to single people.

My contention is that legal aid in this country requires millions of dollars more to be spent on it so that the people who are on low incomes- not necessarily pensioners- and who have litigation which they need to pursue will be in a position to pursue that litigation and not have to say that they cannot do it because they cannot afford to run the risk and because they do not have the money to pay for lawyers. New guidelines were introduced recently by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). These guidelines make some changes to the situation. I think the most significant claim is that the maximum disposable income allowed for people receiving legal aid will rise from $40 a week to $52 a week. This brings the income up to that of a pensioner. Therefore it is hoped that pensioners will be able to receive legal aid. I think that that is one of the important aspects. The Attorney-General had this to say when announcing the guidelines:

For some time I have been concerned that the operation of the means and needs guidelines of the Australian Legal Aid Office, which were fixed in 1976, has become increasingly severe. This has been because there have been rises in wages and in pension rates without changes in the guidelines. The result of this has been that many persons who would have been eligible for legal aid in 1976 are not now eligible, and legal aid is being refused persons in real need.

The Attorney-General certainly recognises the need and the difficult situation which people are in at present. The guidelines endeavour to improve that situation to some degree. But they have been criticised already in this chamber. They do not really overcome the important position which the lack of legal aid in this country involves.

One of the changes made in the guidelines was the removal of eligibility for aid in simple dissolution of marriage cases. I am speaking tonight mostly in relation to legal aid in the matrimonial area which constitutes about 80 per cent of the total of legal aid money spent in this country. I am concentrating on that area but I do not ignore the fact that legal aid is important also in other areas. It is expected that by removing simple divorce cases from legal aid in excess of $2m will be saved. This will be used in other legal aid areas. I think a case can be made for the removal of aid in this area. I think it is a fact that if no difficulty or ancillary problems arise, very often divorce proceedings can be handled without the intervention of a lawyer. In any event, this is perhaps one of the less needed areas of legal aid.

One looks at other aspects of the provisions of the new guidelines somewhat dubiously. We know that today a court fee of $100 is payable to the Family Law Court. This originally was intended to be a payment towards the cost of legal aid. I do not think it has operated that way; the payment goes into revenue. Apart from the fact that those who obtain legal aid do not have to pay the fee of $100, people who want to escape the payment of this fee must show substantial hardship before they can do so. In this and some other areas of the guidelines it is necessary for people to demonstrate substantial hardship to registrars or to other authorities. I query the obligation put on people in this community to establish to an official this somewhat undignified criteria that they are in a state of substantial hardship.

Other areas of the guidelines which really do not greatly vary the substantial overlay of legal aid have been criticised by the legal profession. I mention but one area- the provision that in future the cost of a solicitor travelling to and from a court and waiting at court will not be granted as legal aid. I will have more to say on the chaotic state of legal costs and the effect they have on citizens in the community. These provisions will have the substantial effect of saying to lawyers in rural areas or small country towns that they will not be able to charge for travelling to court. It will be all right for the city solicitor who may have several cases at court but a suburban or country lawyer will find that the business that he is engaged in will be much less economic than at present. He may well not engage in it, and the monopolisation of work may become much more substantial.

Senator Wheeldon:

– With the abolition of the payment for waiting time even a city lawyer could be in a serious position.

Senator MISSEN:

-That is so. The abolition of payment for waiting time is a very significant and unfortunate change. It has been put to me that the scales of payment are very poor and contain many defects. The non-payment of waiting time would be all right for someone who is fortunate or someone who has many cases at court, but someone who has to wait around all day will not find this area an economic part of law. I am not concerned here to talk just for the benefit of the legal profession- law is something which I do not actually practise these days. I believe that if the new guidelines make members of the legal profession find that this field is uneconomic they will not practise in it. Therefore, the community will suffer a great deal of disadvantage due to the loss of the ability of people who might otherwise engage in this field.

I have noted with some dismay the attitude expressed by many different people about the state of legal aid and the state of the guidelines provided at present. I believe that what some people say is true, unfortunately. I want to refer to a number of these statements. I suggest that the Government needs to look in a much harder light at legal aid and to make much better provision for it in future. The Law Council of Australia, in a short but 1 think very important statement in September after the Budget about the effect of the provisions of the Budget and the legal aid provisions on the legal profession, stated:

At its meeting in Sydney this weekend, the Executive of the Law Council expressed its grave concern with the increasing number of people, many of them pensioners, now unable to obtain legal aid.

The Law Council considers that legal aid must be adequately funded by both Federal and State governments.

Whilst the profession, on its part, will continue to cooperate fully in the provision of legal aid, it is the responsibility of governments to provide proper funding which will fix the level of legal aid.

The President, Mr David Ferguson, said that the Federal Government’s budget allocation will not even maintain legal aid at the existing inadequate levels.

The private legal profession has contributed its services either entirely free or at heavily discounted rates for many years because it regards the provision of legal aid as a vital need.

The increasing contribution of the profession has not been matched by the Federal Government.

I think it is important to realise that the Law Council of Australia is a non-political body representing lawyers in all States of Australia. The Council expressed its criticisms in measured but pretty strong terms. Likewise let me take another example. The Fitzroy Legal Service in my State of Victoria is a noted and excellent organisation which does an enormous amount of voluntary work for people and handles many legal aid applications. The Service stated that the position of legal aid is even more grave in Victoria where legal aid has come virtually to a standstill. The standstill, I think, has been overcome by some further action. Nonetheless, according to the description of the Fitzroy Legal Service, a ‘desperate situation’ exists in Victoria at present. The Fitzroy Legal Service stated that legal aid moneys had run out and that no money was left for the month of November. We know that the Government has made moneys available in the sense that it has stopped the situation arising of no money being left for a certain month because the allocation has been taken up already.

But, as the Attorney-General said later, the Government found an amount of about $330,000 which was applied to cover the total backlog of 1,259 cases. The Attorney-General made this announcement in his statement of 22 October. That situation improves the position to an extent. I have had brought to my attention many cases of people who were in desperate need of legal aid to proceed immediately with applications to the court but who were not able to do so and had to wait for a month or six weeks before the matter could even be considered. The situation has been improved a little but not to the extent that is necessary. Likewise, the President of the Law Institute of Victoria in a letter written to me on 20 October of this year said that in its estimate the problem of the growing list of people wanting legal aid is increasing with between 600 and 800 applicants waiting for aid. By the end of October that number was expected to be 1,000 and to grow later to 1,500 or 1,800. He said:

The problem has been aggravated I understand by a rapid increase in applications. I have been unable to obtain the figures to verify this but 1 am told by people working in the legal aid field that the number of applications for aid to both the Australian Legal Aid Office and the State Legal Aid Committee is much higher than in the past. The cause of this is not known but it has been suggested that the problems of the current economic situation, particularly large scale unemployment had much to do with it. I am informed that the number of applications to the legal aid Committee-

That is the one run by the profession- increased 25 per cent this month. This is attributed partly to the growing need for aid.

His council then expressed the hope that a legal aid commission will be established soon in Victoria. I think that the situation was at its worst in Victoria. To an extent it has been ameliorated by this provision of moneys or by the taking up of the backlog, but I do not think that means that there has been any substantial increase- perhaps none at all- in the total amount of money being applied to legal aid over the year. I think that the situation becomes more complicated when one considers another aspect of it. I have mentioned briefly the fact that the legal costs position of lawyers in Australia dealing with these matters is chaotic and has not been changed for some years. This is not a new matter so far as I am concerned because when I made a speech on the Family Law Amendment Bill on 25 August 1977 I spoke about the confusion that was arising then in regard to the costs regulations which in their original formulation had mistakes and which needed redrafting. I said then:

The position is that people who practise in the family law jurisdiction do not know what their situation is at the present time, what their entitlements are, and their clients do not know what are the amounts that should be charged. I understand that those redrafts-

That is the redraft of the rules- were carried out. They were to be gazetted, the Sydney practitioners believed, in December of last year. 1 understand that they have not been gazetted. I have not seen them. I hope that I am wrong in saying that.

I was not wrong. I went on to say:

But 1 wonder why this matter has not been given the clarification which is needed by the people who practise, and who are specialists in the family law jurisdiction.

In reply to me on that occasion Senator Durack, the Attorney-General, said:

Senator Missen also raised the question of the regulations concerning costs. I understand that the matter of costs will be incorporated in new regulations dealing with other matters which have a bearing on costs and may perhaps result in a saving of costs, lt is hoped that these will bc gazetted probably in October this year.

That was said in October 1 977 and they have not yet been gazetted. The situation is that the original scales of costs under which solicitors were expected to operate have remained the same since 1975. They were then inadequate, uncertain and vague and they have not been replaced since that time. They are described as totally inadequate by solicitors who have written to me. Not only do they not cover the real situations which are found in family law practice but also they do not take into account that the legal profession has been accepting a reduction of about 8 per cent per annum by reason of inflation over each of these years. Some lawyers have said that when they take legal aid cases they are paid about 90 per cent of the total bill, but that amount is depreciating and losing value year after year and there has not been any real improvement in the situation.

Another solicitor in Melbourne has written to me drawing my attention to what he describes as the total shambles of the family law costs regulations. He has drawn my attention to the case of Schulsinger in which Mr Justice Fogarty, a judge of the Family Court in Melbourne, had to point out that the costs scales did not apply to party and party taxations but only to taxations between a solicitor and his client. In other words, he came to the conclusion that there was not an appropriate scale to cover that area of costs and that there is thus no scale of costs directly applicable to a party/party taxation. The Court will need to give appropriate directions’. In other words, we have a chaotic situation affecting a profession which remains uncured in November 1978, to which I drew attention about 14 months ago and which then had been in a state of near completion for some time. I do not think that is good enough. When one takes into account that we have new guidelines and new costs but that we do not provide proper scales of costs the situation is highly unsatisfactory. The profession is very considerably up in arms about it. I believe that the position is quite serious. That the present guidelines are so regarded by the profession has been drawn to my attention very closely by the President of the Family Law Lawyers in Victoria, Mr Ian Kennedy, who has told me that the situation is not that 90 per cent of the costs are being paid but that the costs themselves have really greatly reduced because of not only the inflation to which I referred but also various other things which are not included in them. When one sees in the guidelines which the Attorney-General laid down a figure of $3 12 as a composite fee in a one-day trial and when one considers that this may be a custody proceeding that has gone on for a year or a matter in which many affidavits are prepared and in which many attendances at court may take place, it is no wonder that I am told now that many of the solicitors who are practising in this jurisdiction are threatening to withdraw from it because they say that it is entirely uneconomic for them and that they cannot continue to carry the burden. The existing scales have been out of date for years. The proposed new scales have never been gazetted. What is really needed is something which logically describes the sort of work which is done by members of the legal profession and which does not fix lump sums with which they are expected to comply. That is one aspect which I have suggested is important and which has not been dealt with.

In addition to this there are other problems in respect to legal aid which nobody seems to have looked into or tried to cure. People have come to me in situations where one party to litigation has been granted legal aid. Perhaps that person may be fortunate and come within the $40 a week guidelines because he or she has heavy mortgage commitments and other things which bring down his or her income. That person is entitled to legal aid but the other party, the husband or the wife, is not entitled to it. Thus there is a great tendency, which is constantly seen and referred to by lawyers, for the party who is entitled to legal aid to find every reason to pursue every remedy and every delaying tactic, to go to court for an application over access, to be difficult about access and to create problems in the knowledge that he or she may drive the other party into bankruptcy and destroy the assets of the other party who has not legal aid. Unfortunately, this is the situation, although it does not mean that we should not have legal aid. Of course we should, but what it does mean is that there has to be a close examination to ensure that legal aid does not become a weapon of injustice exercised by one party against another party who because of additional assets or additional income is not entitled to receive legal aid. This is another area which I have raised because it is an area which seems to have been just overlooked and ignored and not one in which the Government, I think, has paid adequate attention.

There are, I believe, many things that should concern us in this area, but above all I return to the aspect which I dealt with in the first place. I believe that one of the essential parts of legal aid is to give to the citizen an equal opportunity or some ability to use the law to enable him to go to the courts and be able to litigate. Unfortunately this area has become very costly and has been put beyond the range of the ordinary citizen. We are concerned not merely with the person who is a pensioner; we are concerned in this area with people who have lowish incomes and those who have ordinary incomes who find that they cannot afford the very expensive costs of trying to get justice in law. Unfortunately these people are deprived of the opportunity to have legal aid and we have not yet picked up this burden. We have provided a relatively small amount for legal aid in a huge Budget this year but the allocation for legal aid has not grown; in fact, it has fallen back a little. I want to say, as I have said before in this chamber, that I believe that injustice is being done. I believe that legal aid is a very important area which is being neglected and one which is not being looked at thoroughly by governments or by members of the Parliament. I hope therefore that it will get further attention and I hope we will develop a sense of justice and a desire to see that these things are remedied. That is the reason I have raised this matter tonight.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Some little time ago in this chamber I made a few passing references to sport in Australia. I outlined the view that perhaps in Australia we had become too much spectator sportsmen or sportswomen. I am convinced that Australians could be a more healthy group if they were to participate in active regular sporting programs more than they do. Nevertheless, there is a place for spectator sport. Why. for instance, should a keen golfer not be able to see good professional golf being played? Why should an average football player not be able to watch the best players in his code? To take a further example, I see no reason why our future sportsmen or sportswomen- today’s school childrenshould not be able to view good professional sport performances. Watching sport can be not only an enjoyable pastime but also educational for the active participant. In recent years, because of television it has become increasingly easy to become a sports spectator. Some would say it has become too easy. Yet this is probably part of a general argument against television in our society rather than a specific argument against the watching of sport on television.

Nowadays, the golfer, the footballer and the schoolchild to whom I referred earlier, can view sports performances with a minimum of personal discomfort. We now have the facility to bring good quality sports programs directly into our lounge rooms. Provided that television sports programs are viewed intelligently by the viewer they are of actual or potential benefit to all Australians. Certainly there would be many cases in which too much viewing is taking place, but this could be due largely to a lack of viewing discipline. In general television sports programs are now an accepted feature of the Australian way of life. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they are an accepted feature in most of Australia.

It is in this area that I wish to make some comments because some Australians are deliberately being denied the right to view some good sporting programs on television. Some areas of Australia, of course, do not have television reception, but it is not those to which I refer tonight. I refer to areas where there is television reception, where viewers have invested heavily in both black and white and colour television sets but who are denied the right to view some fine sporting programs. I shall shortly illustrate my argument by reference to some Queensland areas, but honourable senators representing other States, and I imagine honourable senators from the Northern Territory, would be able to provide similar illustrations in the areas they represent.

Before mentioning anything further in relation to sporting broadcasts, however, I would like to make a few comments in relation to the television service in rural areas of Queensland. In some instances viewers have only one channel which they may view. This is the Australian Broadcasting Commission channel. One channel, of course, is better than none, but it is easy to imagine the frustration of some viewers when repeat programs are transmitted. They cannot change to another channel. One resident of Hughenden in Queensland said to me recently: After the same program has been repeated three times I know it offby heart’.

Returning to the theme of my comments this evening, I would like to quote from two letters which I received in Canberra today. One is a letter written to the Winton Shire Council by a member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. The other letter I received came from the Winton Shire Council itself. These letters clearly outline the problems faced by people in western Queensland in relation to sporting broadcasts. They also outline possible solutions to those problems. The first letter was one which had actually been sent to the Winton Shire Council from the member for Gregory in the Queensland Parliament. This letter reads:

It is with concern Tor the people of Central Queensland that I write to your Council for assistance by way of concerted protest to the ABC regarding future telecasts of international sporting events being made to people of our area.

It was through efforts last week to have the recent football test between Australia and England televised to Western areas that 1 learned that the ABC’s attitude is now that, to use their own words- they are not going to get the commercial stations off the hook regarding telecasts of sporting functions- when they have been granted sole television rights.

Channel 7 (football) and Channel 9 (tennis and cricket) have indicated their consent to allow the ABC to beam into areas which are not covered by their network, but the ABC states emphatically they will not accept responsibility. Therefore, in the future, we cannot anticipate the opportunity of anyone to view these sporting events in inland areas.

Your co-operation and support in lodging protests through the ABC Manager and the local Member and Senators would be greatly appreciated.

The other letter was written by the Winton Shire Clerk. Copies of this letter were probably received today by all honourable senators representing Queensland. It reads:

Dear Sir, re: Television- Sporting Programmes

It is with feelings of utter disgust and astonishment, that this Council reads of the rulings given by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in relation to the televising, of future International Sporting Events, to the people of Inland Australia. (See attached letter from W. H. Glasson, M.L.A. Member for Gregory, Queensland).

Does the Commission assert that such people are less than second rate Citizens of Australia and are therefore not worthy of having such events televised to the major portion of our Country?

Even though Commercial Enterprise has captured the sole television rights to these events, and we speak of Channels 7 (Football) and 9 (Tennis and Cricket), these stations have offered their consent; to allow the Commission to beam such programmes into the Inland areas, not serviced by them, and it is the considered opinion of this Council that the Commission should accept the offer gratefully and sincerely.

The televising of such events would eliminate a few of the continual repeat shows televised by the Commission, which after the second repeat are completely useless in the viewer’s opinion and an utter waste of time.

The Commission does have direct televising of some golf and other sports and has films of many others so why must it take the attitude of sour grapes over the good fortune of Commercial Stations.

It is requested that you. Sir, assert through the Federal Parliament, that the Commission accept its responsibility and televise to the people of Australia such International Sporting Events and so allow us to enjoy our leisure hours instead of having to suffer the viewing of repeat after repeat of shows, some thirty years old, or alternatively switching off our Television sets.

Thank you in anticipation of your complete support in this matter. Your faithfully,

Scrimgeour,

Shire Clerk

The Channel 7 football telecasts to which the Winton Shire referred are of the series of rugby league tests between Australia and England and between Australia and France. The first two Australia versus England tests were played on 2 1 October and 5 November. The third is to be played on 18 November. The two Australia versus France tests are still to be played, the first on 26 November and the second on 10 December. These tests are shown through the Seven network and then later through certain commercial television stations in country areas. I am informed that in Queensland television stations in Toowoomba, Maryborough, Rockhampton and Townsville have accepted the programs for later transmission. The cricket which was attributed to Channel 9 in the Winton Shire Council ‘s letter is the World Series cricket. I believe that the tennis referred to was the Wimbledon championships. The World Series cricket will be shown on Australian television in December this year and January next year. The Wimbledon championships were shown in July this year. The letter from the Winton Shire Council stated that the Seven network offered its football program to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for transmission in inland areas. I tried to check this today but was unable to obtain definite confirmation. All I can do at this stage is accept the Council’s assertion and the assertion of the State member for Gregory.I have no reason to reject that information.

I was able to establish today that the Nine network did offer the Wimbledon championships to the ABC for screening in rural areas but that the ABC did not accept the offer. In Queensland there was some coverage of the Wimbledon championships on commercial television in areas outside Brisbane. These areas were

Maryborough and Townsville. Those who are aware of the difficulties existing between World Series cricket and establishment cricket would not be surprised to learn that the Nine network did not offer World Series cricket to the ABC. So far, however, it has been accepted for showing in Rockhampton in Queensland. The information which has been made available to me, therefore, is that there were and will be significant sporting events which could have been shown by the ABC in remote areas. For some reason the ABC has chosen to deny country viewers the opportunity to enjoy these events.

What was the reason for doing so? Honourable senators will recall that today Senator Martin asked a question on this matter during Question Time. Senator Chaney in reply seemed to suggest that financial considerations precluded the ABC from accepting the commercial networks’ offers. After looking at the two Appropriation Bills which are under consideration I find it quite conceivable that financial considerations were the cause. The vote for the ABC in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in constant money terms is 3.8 per cent less this year than it was last year. It is from this vote that payment would have to be made to the commercial networks for the sporting programs I have mentioned. It may be that this direct cut in funds for the ABC resulted in people in remote areas being deprived of the opportunity to view significant sporting events. If this is so, as it appears to be, it is shameful. I hold that there is no reason why citizens who live in remote areas of Australia should be deprived of the opportunity to view significant sporting events. The isolation in many parts of Australia is sufficiently real without the deliberate withholding of interesting, educational and entertaining programs from people in these areas.

I recognise that the ABC is independent in its programming and rightly so. Nevertheless I have a perhaps old fashioned view that the ABC should provide a service for the people of Australia. That service should not be confined to the capital and regional cities. Country towns and rural communities deserve similar consideration to that given to their city counterparts. Perhaps the ABC will take some action as a result of my comments this evening. Nevertheless, I urge the Government to use what influence it has to make sure that the necessary funds are made available to ensure that the ABC investigates the possibility of televising to the remote areas of Australia the sporting events to which I have referred this evening.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– Tonight I want to address my remarks on the Appropriation Bills to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which was reviewed by Estimates Committee B, of which I was a member, under the able chairmanship of Senator Peter Rae. In particular I want to draw the Senate’s attention to the worthwhile contribution made by the Department, which was revealed to the Committee during its hearings, in its submission to the study group on structural adjustment in industry currently being undertaken and which is commonly known as the Crawford Committee. I found the report which came into our hands of very great significance and interest in outlining the difficulties which the Australian economy faces and which it will face for years to come. I believe that it puts into proper context the directional changes that have occurred in the economy in the longer term.

Perhaps it would pay us firstly to look at some of the reasons why’ the labour force in Australia has developed in the way it has over the last 30 years. I extend our thinking back to the commencement of the application of the Government’s White Paper on manufacturing industry which applied in 1945 and which has been the basis of industrial policies until recent times. In particular I believe that the report is correct in outlining the three major reasons why the work force has developed to the extent is has. The three areas that are covered in the report are: Firstly, immigration, which has occurred very substantially since 1945; secondly, the influx of married women seeking and finding employment within the work force; and thirdly, the fluctuations in the proportion and number of young people who are entering the labour market, accompanied by a trend towards longer average periods of full-time education. Of course, that has occurred through positive government policies at State and Federal Government levels to encourage tertiary education to a degree higher than had previously applied and to provide better opportunities for children at the secondary level. We have seen an extension of the primary school leaving age. It has risen from 1 4 years to 1 5 years over the last 10 years or so.

I will examine each of these three points and consider, firstly, immigration as a factor in the growth in the labour force over the period I have mentioned. In fact, the proportion of the civilian labour force born overseas represented only 12 per cent of the total Australian civilian labour force in 1947. It rose to 18.9 per cent in 1954, to 23.3 per cent in 1961 and to 26.9 per cent in 1971. The sources of that work force varied greatly. The increase in the work force averaged out at about 40,000 per annum during the 1 950s and 1960s and peaked at an average annual growth rate of 49,000 in the years from 1 96 1 to 1966. The direct effect of immigration for those 20 years was a contribution of at least 40 per cent to the annual increase in the Australian labour force. Indeed, in the 1950s the contribution would have been as high as 50 per cent.

The next point is female participation in the work force. This has been a major factor in the development of the labour force over the period that I am considering. The female component of the labour force rose from 22.8 per cent in 1954 to 25.1 per cent in 1961. In 1966 it reached 29.5 per cent and by 1971 it was 31.7 per cent. Over the same period, the married female component of the female component of the work force rose from 6.9 per cent to 9.6 per cent, and then to 1 4. 1 per cent. In 1971, it represented 18 per cent of the total female component. So the contribution to the labour force arising from the participation of married females really was dramatic insofar as there were increases of up to 300 per cent in roughly 30 years.

The labour force growth was caused by this greater participation of females. The growth rate rose frome an average yearly increase of 3 1 ,000 between 1954 and 1961 to 51,000 between 1966 and 1971. While females accounted for 40 per cent of the labour force growth from 1954 to 1 96 1 , the proportion of females in the work force rose dramatically to 60 per cent between 1961 and 1966 and was 54 percent between 1966 and 1971. Therefore, married women accounted for over 80 per cent of the escalation in the labour force growth rate due to the addition of females. That is a very significant factor which has great social implications, apart from economic implications. When we look at the percentages of changes in relation to the total number of persons in the labour force, including both males and females, we find that over this period the percentage rose from 1.9 per cent to 2.8 per cent and then settled back to 1.9 per cent by 1971. The position in regard to married women in the work force had changed. The number of married women in the work force had increased from 6.7 per cent to 11.1 per cent, and in 1971 it was 6.9 per cent. Again, this demonstrates the very significant contribution that married women made to the work force during that period from the early 1 950s to the present day.

The third area I wish to refer to is that of the teenage labour force. We know that this has been affected by many factors. The increase in the numbers of teenagers entering the labour force between 1954 and 1971 is as follows: Between 1961 and 1966, persons in the 15 to 24 age group accounted for approximately 43 per cent of the labour force growth. This increase was absolutely astronomical. That 43 per cent growth rate should be compared with the earlier growth rate of 34 per cent. From 1966 onward education started to have longer-term significance. The trend was for young people to stay at school longer and to take on full-time education in the new colleges of advanced education. Of course, there was a considerable easing in the position of students who wished to enter universities at that time. The number of teenagers continuing their education grew considerably. Between 1966 and 1971 the number of teenagers entering the work force had dropped to 18 per cent of the labour force growth. It was down from 34 per cent in the 1954 to 1961 period. Very largely, that significant characteristic of the labour force over the last 20 years has had a considerable influence on the changes in the needs of the labour market insofar as married women have found jobs in areas which had not previously been available to them. Because of changes in the education system, teenage labour did not find opportunities to obtain jobs in industry. One can easily see by making a rough comparison that the teenage labour force was not growing at the same rate as it had previously and that the jobs available were being absorbed by the female labour force. I believe that that at present is still a very significant factor within the labour market.

Factors influencing the growth in Australia of the teenage labour force are of more than just casual interest when Australia’s experience of employment and unemployment in the 1960s is compared with the experience in North America. For instance, the United States of America has an average annual growth in its labour force of about 2 per cent. Canada has an average annual growth rate of 3 per cent and Australia has a growth rate of Vh per cent. All three countries experienced a very big rise in their labour forces in the 1 960s. However, of those three countries, only Australia managed to maintain very low unemployment rates. One of the pressures during that period in the United States of America and Canada, unlike Australia perhaps, came from that fast growing teenage labour force which within Australia was being absorbed very largely into the education system. The teenage labour force of both the United States and Canada grew at an average rate of 4.3 per cent during that period whereas Australia’s teenage labour force grew at an average rate of only 0.4 per cent. If that factor was important to the different unemployment experiences of the three countries, it is impossible to isolate its influence from so many other factors.

It is interesting to note that the projected teenage labour force growth of the three countries to 1985 shows a total reversal of that pattern. In Australia there is likely to be a very significant growth in the number of teenagers coming into the labour market whereas in the United States and Canada the reverse will be true. Consequently a very significant problem will arise in the future in that area in Australia. Perhaps it might seem absolutely pointless to remark upon it here because clearly the teenage labour force problem is very well known to members of the Senate and indeed the Government.

I will just give a few more statistics to demonstrate the effects on the various sections of the labour force and the economy insofar as they have been affected by changes within the various sectors. If we compare the percentages of the work force which have been involved in the various sectors, we find that in 1 950-5 1 rural industry accounted for 14 per cent of the work force whereas in 1977 the percentage had dropped to 6.4 per cent; the mining industry accounted for 2 per cent of the work force in 1950-5 1 but the percentage had dropped to 1.3 per cent in 1977; manufacturing industry accounted for 29 per cent of the work force in 1 950-5 1 but in 1 977 the percentage had dropped to 21.6 per cent, a drop of about one-quarter on the 1950 figure which is a very significant change in the light of the very great growth that has occurred in the economy and the manufacturing sector since the end of World War II.

Of course the very significant area of growth in the labour force has been in the services sector. Whereas in 1950-5 1 that sector accounted for 55 per cent of the work force, in 1977- the latest available statistics- it accounted for 70.7 per cent, a growth of about 30 per cent. I must mention of course that services includes that sector covering the Government’s employment and consequently probably demonstrates a very significant growth over those 25 years of employment in that area, quite apart from the normal contribution of growth in services, such as those available through financial institutions, areas of entertainment and activities of that sort. To demonstrate also the similar pattern that has occurred in that sector, I would like to point out that in that period the services sector increased from 49.9 per cent of the total gross domestic product to 66.9 per cent in 1974-75. Clearly that area has been the most significant area of growth in the economy over those 25 years.

When we consider the forces that are working to move jobs from one sector to another, it is quite clear that while there has been a very significant period of boom in those 25 years when viewed in the longer term, there have been very great changes with people moving from one sector to another upon incentives that have occurred more or less naturally in the economy as a result of increasing profits in one sector as against another and increasing developments brought about by definite government policy; for instance, the encouragement of development in regional areas, in sections of States and indeed in some States as against others. In that context I mention the development of manufacturing industry in a regional area such as South Australia. Although it is a State with a small population, it has indeed attracted significant manufacturing industry over the last 30 years which of course has led to a dramatic change and increase in the level of population in the State. Those changes have resulted from deliberate policies of protection and specific incentives being offered by State governments and of course in some instances local governments to encourage development. It is pretty clear that had some of those industries been exposed to the fullest impact of imported goods they would not have survived. But, through conscious government policy, those changes have occurred.

As we consider the impact of and the reasons for change in those areas, it becomes pretty clear that, because of the development of certain industries which have been based on noneconomic factors- that is, they have developed under the protection of government tariff policies and through other more or less artificial devices- there is a continuing pressure from imported goods on those particular industries. In fact, this effect has been heightened in recent times by the process caused by economic recession. It is pretty fair to say that had the recession not occurred and had the Australian economy remained as buoyant as it was in the 1960s and early 1970s very little would have been heard of the problem of structural change. In fact the problem has become clearer insofar as there are now very real needs to transfer people more rapidly from the unemployed sector- the sector which is likely to be most exposed to rapid change caused by economic difficulties- to other industries that are of greater potential. Those are the factors to which the Government is addressing its mind. The paper which has been put forward by the Department to the Crawford committee suggesting ways in which this might occur is of very great interest.

I for one strongly support policies which are aimed at gradual change through tariff reform and, allied to that, adjustments through the taxation system. I refer to action on the part of the Government to seek change in industry and to develop industries in more profitable areas and areas of greater potential in order to ensure that such changes are made smoothly and without the enormously disruptive effects that could occur through straight out structural change resulting from actions of government aimed at reducing the protection through tariff and other measures that are presently available to various sectors of industry. This sort of approach, I think, is vital to the future development of Australian industry. Quite clearly, Australia’s economic potential lies in developing industries which have a real future in the development of goods and services that can be sold on the world markets but which in fact are developed better in Australia than anywhere else. That, of course, is basic economics. We face the difficulties of regional development and development within various States. The sudden removal of protection in those areas would result in massive unemployment and dislocation of social and economic services. We would be faced with a very real community problem that could not be matched by sufficient performance on the part of the Australian Government. It seems to me that we have very clearly a challenge in this regard. For example, I refer to South Australia. There is a need to effect structural change in industry in various part of South Australia. It is clear that the Government will need to consider the process of change in such States as South Australia which are affected by economic pressures from overseas to the point that they can in fact move into areas of more economic potential for the future.

Debate interrupted.

page 1809

ADJOURNMENT

Presentation of Petition

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to take a few seconds of the Senate’s time to set the record straight. Earlier today I presented a petition on behalf of 8 citizens of South Australia. Some of the remarks made by honourable senators opposite implied that one could have been wasting the time of the Senate by presenting a petition from 8 citizens. I do not know whether my remarks in reply to those remarks were recorded in Hansard. However, if they were, perhaps they have been misinterpreted. I said that I would be concerned about one citizen. I think it has been said around the place that I am concerned only about myself. What I intended to convey to the Senate was that I was concerned about any citizen and I would be prepared to present a petition on behalf of any citizen if that citizen duly felt that he had a problem that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Senate. I have risen tonight to set the record straight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator adjourned at 11.1 p.m.

page 1810

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Gold Coast: Allegations of Prostitution and Drug Use (Question No. 609)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the Attorney-General aware of allegations by Mrs June Smith (Gold Coast Bulletin, 26 July 1978, page 3) concerning prostitution and narcotics operations on the Gold Coast.
  2. Have Commonwealth Police asked Mrs Smith for the names of the solicitor and a student doctor she referred to in her Press interview.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. ) I am informed that the Commonwealth Police Force is aware of the names of the persons referred to in the newspaper report and that allegations by Mrs Smith are being investigated by the appropriate law enforcement agencies. I understand that the death of Mrs Smith’s daughter, the event that gave rise to the allegations, is soon to be the subject of a coroner’s inquiry.

Political Advertisements on Radio and Television (Question No. 638)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) How much time was made available to broadcast election speeches or political advertisements in respect of each political party on each radio broadcasting station and television station in connection with the State election in New South Wales on 1 May 1976.
  2. What was the percentage distribution of time purchased by parties and candidates on metropolitan and country commercial broadcasting and television stations.
  3. What were the costs charged for this time and what was the percentage distribution of these costs between parlies.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. to (3) I refer the honourable senator to the information provided in answer to House of Representatives Question No. 259 (Weekly Hansard of 2 June 1977. pages 2555-67).

Rhodesian Nationals: Permanent Residence in Australia (Question No. 6S2)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) How many Rhodesian nationals have been granted permanent residence in Australia.
  2. Has the Government entered into any plan to accept increasing numbers of alleged Rhodesian refugees who are of European descent; if so, how many Rhodesians are likely to be granted permanent residence in the financial year 1978-79, and how many were given permanent residence in this country during the previous two financial years.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Statistics regarding immigrants from Rhodesia have been recorded separately only since January 1974. The following table shows the number of Rhodesian nationals who arrived in Australia for permanent residence in each financial year since that date; arrivals whose country of last residence was Rhodesia; and arrivals whose birthplace was Rhodesia.
  1. No. On the basis of current trends in arrivals, some 500 former residents of Rhodesia are expected to arrive in 1978-79. This figure would include a number of Rhodesian nationals. For number granted permanent residence in 1 976-77 and 1 977-78 see part ( 1 ) of this question.

Ethnic Television (Question No. 708)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What individuals and groups have so far been consulted in connection with the establishment of an ethnic television service.
  2. What criteria were used for selecting those individuals and groups.
  3. Has the Minister established any avenues by which ethnic communities are kept informed of the development plans for ethnic television, and through which the ethnic communities can contribute to the planning of programs.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The Government has now decided that the Special Broadcasting Service, in conjunction with NEBAC, should co-ordinate the preparation of a public discussion paper on needs, programs and administrative options for a special purpose’ television service, which will include a major ethnic service component. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications will be arranging an extensive program of consultation on these and other matters to ensure that all ethnic communities have the opportunity to contribute to the planning of ethnic television services.

Rehabilitation Medicine in Australian Universities (Question No. 714)

Senator Knight:
ACT

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

  1. Did the Universities Commission Working Party on Rehabilitation Medicine and Geriatrics recommend:

    1. ‘That the teaching of rehabilitation medicine should be encouraged by the appointment of Co-ordinators of Rehabilitation Studies, responsible for coordinating the teaching of rehabilitation medicine in Australian universities ‘; and
    2. ‘That the Universities Commission should earmark funds for the support of these posts in the 1977-79 triennium’.

  2. What action has been taken, or is proposed, concerning the Working Party’s recommendations, in view of the stated understanding of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped (Second Report) that, although these proposals were accepted by the Government, lack of funds restricted the implementation of the recommendations, and the failure of the Tertiary Education Commission to make provision for the implementation of the proposals.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. (a)Yes. (b)Yes.
  2. In the current financial circumstances it has not been possible to earmark funds for the development of rehabilitation medicine in universities. However, the Universities Council, in Volume 2 of the Tertiary Education Commission’s Report for 1979-81 Triennium (paragraph B52), has stated that it believes thatopportunities exist for the redeployment of resources within the field of medical education generally to such areas as rehabilitation medicine. Such a re-deployment could include the use of general development grants in those universities where such grants are available.

Statutory Corporations: Reports to Parliament (Question No. 721)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1976-77.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The only corporation is the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation.
  2. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974.

Section 88 ( 1 )- annual report to be presented to the Minister, together with financial statements in a form approved by the Minister for Finance as soon as practicable after 30 June.

Section 88 (3)- financial statements to be submitted to the Auditor-General.

Section 88 (4)- audited accounts and annual report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

  1. Annual report and audited accounts for 1976-77 were presented by the Corporation on 1 8 November 1977.
  2. Annual report and audited accounts for 1976-77 were tabled in the Parliament on 28 February 1978. Parliament was not sitting between 10 November 1977 and 20 February 1978.
  3. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation.
  4. No reasons were required.

Statutory Corporations: Reports to Parliament (Question No. 726)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1 976-77.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australian National Airlines Commission, Australian Shipping Commission, Australian National Railways Commission.
  2. By Section 40 ( 1 ) of the Australian National Airlines Commission Act, Section 39 ( 1 ) of the Australian Shipping Commission Act, and Section 41(1) of the Australian National Railways Commission, each of the above Commissions is required to provide to the Minister for Transport, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, a report of its operations during that year, together with financial statements for that year.

Further, by Sections 40(3), and 39(4), and 41 (3) respectively, the Minister for Transport is required to table such reports and statements, together with the AuditorGeneral ‘s reports, in each House of the Parliament within 1 5 sitting days of receipt.

  1. Audited accounts and the annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission for the year 1976-77 were forwarded on 18 October 1977. Those for the Australian Shipping Commission were forwarded on 4 October 1977. The audited accounts for the Australian National Railways Commission for the period have not been completed (see 6).
  2. Audited accounts and the annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission for the year 1976/77 were tabled in the Parliament on 25 October 1977. Those for the Australian Shipping Commission were tabled on 18 October 1977.
  3. Australian National Railways Commission.
  4. The Australian National Railways Commission has not yet presented audited accounts for 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, i.e. for the period of operations since the establishment of the Commission on 1 July 1975 and its assumption of responsibility for the Tasmanian and non-metropolitan South Australian railways as from that date.

Preparation of accounts by the Commission has been delayed because of the need to develop procedures for a new accounting structure to be applied to the amalgamated railways making up the Commission ‘s railways.

Statutory Corporations: Reports to Parliament (Question No. 733)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Attorney-General to the Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Attorney-General for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1 976-77.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The statutory corporations that have a responsibility to report through the Attorney-General to the Parliament are:

Law Reform Commission

Legislative Drafting Institute

Australian Institute of Criminology

Criminology Research Council

Legal Aid Commission (ACT)

Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission.

  1. In each case the legislation requires the corporation to furnish its report to the Attorney-General. Tabling in Parliament is required to be effected within fifteen sitting days after receipt by the Attorney-General.

Relevant dates by which the reports of each corporation have to be lodged with the Attorney-General are as follows:

  1. Law Reform Commission

Legislative Drafting Institute

Australian Institute of Criminology

Criminology Research Council.

  1. The delays in tabling the reports were caused in each case by the delays in the finalisation of the AuditorGeneral ‘s reports.

Youth Employment (Question No. 756)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

How much has been spent under the Special Youth Employment Training Program and the National Employment and Training System (on-the-job training) on trainees placed in the retail trade.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Separate figures relating to the amount spent on trainees placed in the retail trade under the National Employment and Training System (NEAT) (which includes the Special Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP)) are not kept by my Department.

Ethnic Television (Question No. 777)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government considering the use of Channel 5 A for the Government’s proposed ethnic television station.
  2. Will the choice of Channel 5A subject ethnic television viewers to interference from radio amateurs using the two metre band because of the poor bandpass characteristics of television receivers.
  3. Alternatively, will this choice force radio amateurs to abandon the two metre band, with consequent loss of investment in equipment usually worth several hundred dollars.
  4. Will the Government consider the use of Ultra High Frequency television for the proposed station, thus abolishing Channel5A and bringing Australia into line with international practice.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. Yes- UHF channels will be used for ehtnic television services.

Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Visit to West Germany (Question No. 781)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister cable the Australian Embassy in Bonn before his recent visit to West Germany, requesting that the following arrangements be made for a week-end excursion: (a) bookings on the hydrofoil down the Rhine; ( b ) the services of two chauffeur-driven Mercedes cars for a tour of the wine districts: and (c) accommodation in ‘that castle that is on the Lufthansa posters’.
  2. Did the week-end excursion cost the Australian Government approximately$3000.
  3. What were the costs, item by item, of the week-end trip, including the cost of hotel accommodation.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) (a) Yes. (b) No request was made for chauffeur-driven Mercedes cars. Hire cars had to be used for the Minister’s visit to West Germany as all Embassy cars were required for the Prime Minister’s visit to Bonn. (c) Yes, or the Hotel Bremmer. Koblenz.
  2. No.
  3. (a) Hydrofoil trip from Cologne to Mainz, $40 per head for four people, (b) Overnight accommodation at the Hotel Bremmer, Koblenz, for the Minister and party. $247.16.

Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme (Question No. 787)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

Are details similar to those given in answer to Question No. 448 (Senate Hansard, 9-10 June 1978; page 2822) now available for the financial year 1977-78; if so, what are they, if not, when will they become available.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

During the year 1 977-78 the premiums received and claim payments made under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme, for each State and Territory are set out in the following tables:

Cape Flattery Silica Sand Mining Company (Question No. 796)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

Was the Cape Flatter)’ Silica Sand Mining Company (Queensland) recently purchased by the Mitsubishi Company of Japan; if so, is the purchase of the company in line with the Foreign Investment Review Board guidelines.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes. The proposal was examined by the Foreign Investment Review Board and no objections were raised in terms of the Government’s foreign investment policy.

Arnhem Highway (Question No. 836)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Did Pancontinental Mining Limited bulldoze areas in the Northern Territory in preparation for the construction of a road before receiving the necessary approval.
  2. Has steel which is required for an extension of the Arnhem Highway already been purchased, and is it located in Darwin; if so, why was this done before an environmental impact study had been prepared and before authority to proceed had been given.
  3. 3 ) Has the Minister given any assurance, either formally or informally, to Pancontinental Mining Limited that its application to construct the road will be approved.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. In a statement made on 21 August 1978 the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development said that Pancontinental had given an assurance that no work had begun on the Arnhem Highway extension and that no activity beyond the permitted survey had been undertaken on the highway’s proposed 25 kilometre extension. In an answer to a question on notice in the House of Representatives on 24 October 1978 (Hansard, page 2245), the Minister said that the initial survey required for the preparation of the impact statement would need to cover land on both sides of the centre line including, for example, streams and other features relevant to drainage considerations and it is possible some limited clearing may have been necessary in connection with the preparation of the EIS. The Minister also said that he had been advised that no work had commenced on actual construction of the extension.
  2. ) Any decision as to the purchase of any steel is the sole responsibility and risk of the company.
  3. In a joint statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Northern Land Council on 8 September 1978, the Government gave an undertaking that unless the Northern Land Council agrees, no construction on the Arnhem Highway beyond the existing bitumen would lake place before a final decision is made by the Government on whether or not the Pancontinental deposit at Jabiluka can be mined. That statement also said that the Government has not made a decision to allow Pancontinental to mine and that the Government will not be making a decision until the required processes of the law regarding the environment and Aboriginal land claims have been completed.

Venereal Disease in Northern Queensland (Question No. 839)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did a statement, attributed to the Queensland Minister for Health, Dr Edwards, and published in the Innisfail Advocate on 14 June 1978, suggest that birth deformities in North Queensland were not caused by the herbicide 2,4,5-T but possibly by a very high incidence of venereal disease in far North Queensland.
  2. Is there any documentary proof that the incidence of venereal disease is higher among residents of far North Queensland than among other Australian residents.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. A newspaper report purporting to give the substance of some of Dr Edwards’ remarks has been seen.
  2. Although the notification rate for venereal diseases from the far north statistical division of Queensland is above the average for Queensland, that for Queensland as a whole is below the Australian average. It is emphasised that only figures for ‘notifications received’ are available. This may not be the true incidence in the community because some cases of venereal disease may not be reported to health authorities.

Technology in Industry (Question No. 842)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 26 September 1 978:

Has an interdepartmental committee, concerned with the impact and implications of new technology in industry, been established, as indicated by the Minister in a statement on 1 September 1978; if so: (a) who are the membersof this committee; (b) what are their respective positions; (c) in which departments are they employed; and (d) what are the terms of reference of the committee.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I announced the establishment of an interdepartmental committee on the subject of the impact of new technology on 1 September 1978. (a) and (b)- Representation on the committee changed from time to time. The designations of officers attending meetings of the interdepartmental committee have been appropriate to the matters under discussion, (c) Initially the committee included representatives of:

The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

The Department of Industry and Commerce

The Postal and Telecommunications Department

The Department of Productivity

The Department of Science

The Public Service Board

Subsequently the committee also included representatives of the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Treasury, (d) The committee was required to report on studies which might be commissioned in Australia as to the effects of the introduction of new technology on industry and employment. Besides considering the nature of such studies the committee was required to prepare broad terms of reference. Particular attention was also drawn to the need to assess the impact of not introducing new technology as well as its introduction.

Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards (Question No. 843)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 26 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Are Commonwealth postgraduate research awards considered to be research grants; if so, will these awards be taxable.
  2. Will the Government increase its financial contribution to postgraduate research awards if they are to be taxable, in view of their depreciation in value over the last five years.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Postgraduate research awards under the Student Assistant Act are not considered to be research grants. They are scholarships made available in annual competition to persons undertaking higher degree studies at Australian universities. These awards will be taxable from 1 November 1978.
  2. There will be no increase in the allowances under the awards for 1979. The basic stipend was increased from $3,250 p.a. to $4,000 p.a. for 1977 and to $4,200 p.a. for 1978. The allowance for a dependent spouse was increased from S780 p.a. in 1976 to SI.508 p.a. in 1977 and to $1,632.80 p.a. in 1978.

Construction of Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong (Question No. 849)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Which consultancy firm was engaged to assist the Department in the design of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, Victoria.
  2. ) When was the firm first engaged.
  3. ) What fee is the firm receiving for its services.
  4. What was the initial anticipated cost of the laboratory and what is the current anticipated cost of its completion.
  5. 5 ) What were the reasons for the delay in the commencement of construction after the first announcement that the Laboratory was to be constructed.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Department of Construction has commissioned a number of consultants to assist in the design and documentation of this project. The names of the consultants, dates of engagement and fees for services are as follows:

  1. The estimated cost of the project when examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in September 1974, was $67m. The current estimate (October 1978)is$83m.
  2. Commencement of construction of the laboratory was delayed by budgetary constraints.

Airports: Searching of Passengers (Question No. 856)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What authority enables searches of passengers’ hand luggage, and articles carried on passengers, at airports in Australia.
  2. What action is taken if a passenger refuses to submit himself or herself to a search.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Air Navigation Act and the Air Navigation Regulations made under that Act.
  2. There are no exemptions from searching. If a passenger refuses to submit, carriage is denied.

Pine Gap Installation (Question No. 873)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

Are plans being prepared by the United States of America to upgrade further the seismic station at Pine Gap; if so, have the plans been prepared in consultation with, and with the approval of, the Australian Government.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The seismic station, which is known as the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station (JGGS) is nol at Pine Gap. It is located at Alice Springs.

Information concerning the intention to upgrade the station to improve its seismic monitoring capability is contained in a Ministerial Media Release of 13 July 1978.

Prime Minister’s Lodge (Question No. 877)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have a new table tennis table and accessories been installed at the residence of the Prime Minister (The Lodge).
  2. ) Was the cost approximately $ 1 30.00.
  3. Was this sum oulaid by the Prime Minister, or was it paid for by the taxpayer.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 5126.80.
  3. The purchase was funded from moneys appropriated in 1977-78 by the Parliament for the purchase of furniture and fittings for the Official Establishments. The table will remain the property of the Commonwealth for use at The Lodge.

New and Permanent Parliament House (Question No. 884)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. Has the construction of the new Parliament House been deferred indefinitely.
  2. Is the existing Parliament House to have a ‘face lift’, and is a large sum of money to be expended on additional construction work.
  3. What form will the construction work take; what is the estimated expenditure; and when will work commence.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The Government is giving consideration to the reports of the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House.

Domestic Airline Fleets (Question No. 888)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

How many and what type of aircraft are in the fleet of (a) Trans-Australia Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines of Australia.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. At 17 October 1978, Trans-Australia Airlines’ fleet consisted of 8 Boeing 727/200s. 4 Boeing 727/ 100s. 12 DC9s, 1 3 F2 7s and 4 DHC.6 Twin Otters.
  2. At the same date the fleet of Ansett Airlines of Australia consisted of 8 Boeing 727/2005. 4 Boeing 727/100s, 12DC9s, 1 1 F27s. 3 L.188 Electras and 2 Sikorsky S61 helicopters.

Princess Alexandra: Visit to Australia (Question No. 892)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

Were any motor vehicles carried by RAAF aircraft in relation to the visit of Princess Alexandra to Australia; if so, what are the details.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes. Two Rolls Royce cars were carried by RAAF C 1 30 aircraft for use during the Royal visit by Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra. The cars, one open and one closed, were carried from Richmond to Oakey on Friday, 29 September 1978. The closed Rolls Royce was unloaded at Oakey for use at Toowoomba and the open Rolls was flown to Brisbane for use in the Warana Festival by Princess Alexandra.

The CI 30 re-positioned to Oakey to carry the closed Rolls to Rockhampton on Saturday, 30 September 1978 for use during the Royal visit to that city. On Sunday 1 October 1 978 the closed Rolls was flown from Rockhampton to Brisbane where the open Rolls was loaded and both cars were flown to Richmond.

Archerfield Aerodrome (Question No. 898)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Is there a definite risk of collision at Archerfield aerodrome, as stated in an article in the Sunday Mail, 8 October 1978, headed ‘A double Check for Air Safety’; if so, what steps are being taken to rectify the situation.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Aircraft operations at Archerfield are conducted to satisfactory standards of safety. If this were not so, the Department of Transport would restrict the level of activity.

The Department is conducting trials of proposed new operating and control procedures at Parafield which are designed to improve the flow of traffic and make the most efficient use of available facilities. On completion of the trials, consideration will bc given to introducing some or all of the new procedures at Archerfield.

Fire Hose Couplings (Question No. 901)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

Which Federal departments and authorities have adopted the recommendations on the standard: (a) fire hose coupling; and (b) hose sizes, which the Fire Board made at its meeting on 4 to 5 May 1977.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (b) The Commonwealth Fire Board’s report on the standardisation of fire hose couplings was tabled on 27 September 1978.

Since then the report has been distributed to Departments and other interested organisations.

It is too early to expect reaction from Departments and this reaction will depend to a large degree on the acceptance or otherwise of the Commonwealth Fire Board recommendations by State Authorities.

It would be expected that if the coupling recommended becomes a national standard then Departments would naturally follow this standard.

Sugar (Question No. 905)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 October, 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the report of the Industries Assistance Commissioner relating to the sugar industry been completed.
  2. Is the report to be made public; if not, is this a result of pressure applied to the Federal Government by: (a) the Queensland Government; or (b) by a section of the sugar industry.
  3. If the latter, which section of the sugar industry was involved.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Acting Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following reply:

  1. 1 ) No. The Inquiry Committee has been instructed to report as soon as possible and in ample time for consideration and, if accepted, implementation of the recommendations by 1 July, 1979. This is the date from which the next Sugar Agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments is due to commence.
  2. and (3) The Commonwealth Government supports the view of the major sugar industry organisations (cane growers, millers and refiners) that when the Inquiry reports at the conclusion of its investigation it would be desirable to release the report before decisions are taken. However, in this particular case Commonwealth/State relations are obviously important and the Government will be taking this question up with the Queensland Government in due course.

Alice Springs Community College (Question No. 906)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 12 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Will the Alice Springs Community College remain the responsibility of the Minister’s Department when the Northern Territory Department of Education is transferred to the Legislative Assembly on 1 July 1979; if so, what is the future of the Alice Springs College and, in particular, its relationship to the Darwin College.
  2. ) Will the Minister make available to the Senate the two reports ofthe Further Education Council making recommendations on this matter.
  3. Is the delay in making a decision having adverse effects on the planning and administration of the Alice Springs College.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The Alice Springs College, which is pan of the Darwin Community College, will become a responsibility of the Northern Territory Government on 1 July 1979 when its future will be a matter for consideration by that Government.
  2. The reports of the Northern Territory Further Education Council are internal documents and are not normally made available.
  3. As 1 said in my reply to (1), the future status of the Alice Springs Community College will be a matter for the Northern Territory Government to decide. In the interim, I can see no reason why the College should not give active consideration to future options, and continue to provide, within the limits of its funding, courses appropriate to the needs of Central Australia.

Nuclear Safeguard Agreements (Question No. 907)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

What were the ‘over fifteen potential customer countries’ to which the model bilateral safeguards agreement referred to in the Minister’s answer to Question No. 689 (Senate Hansard, 10 October 1978, page 1 178), was distributed.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 refer the honourable senator to the reply provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Question No. 147 1 (Hansard, 12 September 1978, page 896).

Papua New Guinea: Sugar Imports from European Economic Community (Question No. 918)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) How much white sugar was exported by the European Economic Community to Papua New Guinea during the period 1 October 1977 to 30 September 1978.
  2. Did any of the sugar exported to New Guinea comprise “C quota sugar; if so how much.
  3. Is ‘C quota sugar required to be disposed of at the expense of the manufacturer in the European Economic Community.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to he honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) Statistics for the period requested are not available, However EEC exports of sugar to Papua New Guinea in 977 totalled 2,6 1 9 tonnes and 1 ,500 tonnes were shipped in he first eight months of 1 978.
  2. The available EEC trade statistics do not distinguish etween ‘ A ‘, ‘ B ‘ or ‘ C quota sugar.
  3. Under the EEC’s regulations, “C quota sugar must be xported. It is not eligible for export restitution payments.

Farm Income (Question No. 940)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many farming establishments earned negative cash incomes in the financial years 1975-1976 and 1976-77.
  2. What percentage of total farming establishments do these establishments represent.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 have been informed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the Agricultural Finance Survey indicate that in 1976-77 an estimated 28,000 Australian farm enterprises earned negative cash operating surpluses. This represents 16.5 per cent of the total number of farm enterprises in that year. A similar estimate is not currently available for 1975-76.

The BAE’s continuous survey of the Australian grazing industry also provides estimates for selected industries of numbers and proportions of farms with negative cash incomes. Data derived from this survey for 1975-76 and 1976-77 are summarised in the following table:

Minister for Primary Industry: Use of Hire Cars (Question No. 9S5)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 October 1 978:

  1. 1 ) If, as stated in the Minister’s answer to Question 909 (Senate Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1370), the amount of $1,265.90 paid to Avis Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd ‘was settled personally and is of no concern to the Senator’, why did he provide full or partial answers to Question 853, 871, 886 and 908 (Senate Hansard, 27 September 1978. page 1031; 10 October 1978, page 1 184; 1 1 October 1978, page 1254; and 17 October 1978, page 1370, respectively).
  2. Why has the Minister repeatedly avoided disclosing, or refusing to disclose, the date on which the accounts were paid.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Acting Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following reply:

  1. 1 ) and (2) Answers have been provided to establish the basis of settlement of amounts for car hire with Avis RentACar System Pty Ltd to which the senator’s questions have referred.

Television: Use of Teletext

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 20 September 1 978:

I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the fact that experimental operations involving a new communications technology called Teletext are at present being conducted by several television stations throughout Australia. As the Australian Broadcasting Commission so far has been excluded from the experimental development of Teletext, can the Minister indicate whether the Government has any intention to involve the national broadcasting service in this important new development?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Australian Broadcasting Commission already has some basic Teletext equipment and has been carrying out tests in Sydney since 29 September 1977. Tests were also commenced in Melbourne during the early part of 1 978.

My Department will shortly be issuing draft technical standards on Teletext for comment by the industry. Comment will also be invited from the Commission, and I would anticipate subsequent co-ordinated field tests between the Commission and my Department.

Natural Disaster Relief: Funding

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 21 September 1978 (Hansard, page 816) Senator Walsh asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning disaster relief funding. The Minister for Finance, to whom the honourable senator’s question was referred, has provided the following information:

Natural disaster cost-sharing arrangements do not involve sharing the costs of particular disasters: Their purpose is to provide a basis for sharing all expenditures by a State attributable to major disasters in a financial year. Disasters can occur at any time and it is normal at the start of any year for some States to be involved in relief and restoration measures relating to disasters which occurred or commenced in the previous year. The long-standing practice has been to base all cost sharing calculations on disbursements from State public accounts within a financial year, irrespective of the timing of the disasters giving rise to those disbursements. The revised cost-sharing arrangements conform to this practice.

The ‘base’ amounts which applied until the end of 1977-78 were arrived at in 1972 as a proportion of each State’s revenue at that time. Given the impact of inflation, and the large increases in funds available to the States, these base amounts were clearly no longer the maximum amounts which the States could reasonably be expected to meet from their own resources. It was against this background that the Commonwealth moved to adopt the changes announced in the Budget Speech.

Natural Disaster Relief: Funding

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 21 September 1978 (Hansard, pages 816-817) Senator Walsh asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice seeking details of the new natural disaster assistance cost-sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States and inquiring whether the new arrangements would apply, in the case of Western Australia, to expenditure arising from damage caused in the previous financial year by Cyclone Alby. At the time I indicated that this matter had been discussed at the June Premiers’ Conference. Subsequently, there was correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Premiers from which revised arrangements emerged. Accordingly, the Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The new natural disaster cost-sharing arrangements are as follows:

In respect of ‘major’ disasters the Commonwealth will continue to assist with expenditures on agreed relief and restoration measures beyond the capacity of a State. However from 1 978-79 the following changes have been made:

The State base contributions have been doubled to:

Above base expenditures are to be shared on a $3 Commonwealth to $ 1 State basis.

  1. The Commonwealth still stands ready to join the States on a dollar for dollar basis in meeting expenditure on the immediate relief of personal hardship and distress.

The previous base contribution levels were set in 1971 and given the impact of inflation and the increasing range of generosity of measures receiving Commonwealth support it was clear that the States, which have the prime responsibility in this matter, must meet a greater share of expenditures on natural disaster relief.

From their inception the cost-sharing arrangements were designed to provide a basis for the sharing of all expenditures by a Slate attributable to natural disasters in a financial year and not the sharing of the costs of a particular disaster. Liabilities for natural disaster relief are frequently carried over into the next financial year and funded in that year. Because of this, the long standing practice has been to base calculations for cost-sharing purposes on overall annual State expenditures irrespective of the timing of disasters which gave rise to these expenditures.

The new cost-sharing arrangements, therefore, apply to on-going expenditures by the States arising out of disasters which occurred prior to the current financial year, including Cyclone Alby.

Technical Help to Exporters Scheme

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 26 September 1978, Senator Archer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question, without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources aware of the reported successful operation of the technical help to exporters scheme available to New Zealand exporters, which allows exporters to tap research and advisory services in more than 80 countries? Can the Minister advise or ascertain whether the Department of Trade and Resources has investigated the scheme and, if so, whether such a scheme is seen to have advantages for Australian exporters and potential exporters?

In answer to the honourable senator’s question, the Minister for Trade and Resources has informed me that he is aware of the THE, or Technical Help to Exporters scheme, which has been operated by the British Standards Institution for some twelve years. THE provides on demand and for a variety of fees, up to date information on standards, regulations, codes of practice, testing and inspecting procedures operating in most foreign countries. Since earlier this year New Zealand manufacturers can avail themselves of the services of the British THE through the New Zealand Standards Association. All services are charged to the recipients and cover the cost of publications and the time involved in the preparation of reports.

The Department of Trade and Resources investigated the scheme in 1972 and held discussions with the Standards Association of Australia and a number of exporters to establish whether exporters would wish to avail themselves of the facility.

The prevailing attitude was that the THE had considerable merit but that requests for information of this type could be handled by the Australian Trade Commissioners. In addition, the Standards Association of Australia has a library of overseas standards available for viewing at its offices and also operates an ordering service whereby copies of standards are obtained from many countries.

The Department of Trade and Resources has continued to follow the operations of the THE and has held discussions with executives of that organisation as recently as August of this year. However, it has not yet been in a position to recommend that a similar facility be established in Australia. When existing plans by the THE to establish a computer link with a number of the established Standards Associations and also with the International Standards Association come nearer to fruition, the possibility of Australia joining that network will be re-examined.

Export Expansion Grants Bill

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 11 October 1978 Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question, without notice:

My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. I seek information regarding the Export Expansion Grants Bill, which was introduced into the House of Representatives on 6 June 1978. Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in the export industry about the slow progress of this important Bill and that this has inhibited planning and expansion by Australian exporters? Can the Minister inform the Senate when this Bill is likely to be further debated in the Parliament?

The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Export Expansion Grants Bill was introduced into Parliament on 6 June last. Since that time the provisions of the Bill have been available for scrutiny and, as a result, the Government has received representations from various interested parties including individual exporters and industry associations. Some amendments mainly aimed at clarifying certain aspects of the Bill will be introduced by the Government. It is the Government’s intention that the Bill be passed through both Houses during the current Sittings.

Copyright: Photocopying (Question No. 704)

Senator Colston:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did Dr Judith Wright, an Australian poet, comment, in the Courier-Mail, 22 August 1978, that she was ‘starving’ and blamed an unfeeling education system and ‘a pirate photocopying machine’?
  2. Can anything be done to protect the rights of Australian authors against the abuse of photocopying facilities outlined by Dr Wright?
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Franki Committee on Reprographic Reproduction has considered and reported on this question. The Government proposes to introduce legislation to amend the Copyright Act so as to establish a scheme enabling authors to claim remuneration from educational bodies for the photocopying by those bodies of literary works and text books. The proposed legislation will in substance implement the recommendations of the Franki Committee.

Education: Northern Territory (Question No. 709)

Senator Robertson:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the allocation for school libraries in the Northern Territory been cut by $77,000 and the allocation for the Media Centre by $67,000; if so, where was the decision to reduce these allocations made.
  2. If the decision was made in Darwin, will the Minister ensure that further consideration is given to this matter which has caused so much concern among both parent and teacher organisations in the Northern Territory.
  3. If the decision was made in Canberra, will the Minister ensure that the brunt of the cut in allocation is spread over a whole front to avoid disadvantage to Aboriginal schools.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) The allocation Tor government school libraries in the Northern Territory for T978-79 is $70,000 and for Media Centre operations is $90,000. The allocations are less than the 1977-78 expenditures but I believe that they will permit the operation of school libraries and the Media Centre at acceptable levels.

The reductions are the result of Government decisions which required that an overall reduction of administrative expenditure be made by deparments and statutory authorities for non-wage and salary costs. The decision to reduce the two allocations in question was taken in consultation with the Central Office and Northern Territory Divisional Office of my Department.

Over the past five years SI. 5m has been provided (Sim in the last three years) to Northern Territory schools to upgrade their library holdings. Consequently, they are comparatively well slocked. The current allocation permits expenditure on the libraries of newly established schools and of those schools which have not received allocations in the last 2-3 years. The funds available in 1978-79 for textbooks and consumable items for classroom-related activities, seen as a priority area, have been increased.

My Department will ensure that priority attention is given to the safeguarding of the situation in Aboriginal schools.

Aboriginal Affairs: Statutory Corporation (Question No. 732)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts and the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1 976-77.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies; (b) The Aboriginal Loans Commission; (c) The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission.
  2. ) (a) See Section 30 of Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964-1973; (b) See Section 36 of the Aboriginal Loans Commission Act 1 974; (c) See Section 29 of the Aboriginal Land Fund Act 1974.
  3. (a) 10 February 1978; (b) 9 May 1978; (c) 30 May 1978.
  4. (a) 14 March 1978; (b) 24 May 1978; (c) 31 May 1978.
  5. (a) The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies; (b) The Aboriginal Loans Commission; (c) The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission.

  6. (a) The time taken to prepare financial statements and to obtain a report thereon by the Auditor-General (Statements finalised 25 August 1977 and report thereon obtained 14 October 1977) resulted in the Report not being tabled before Parliament was dissolved for the 1977 general election.

    1. The Commission had to co-ordinate financial statements from over 300 housing agents, and was not in a position to present its financial statements to the AuditorGeneral until October 1977. The Auditor-General provided his certificate on 17 January, but subsequent printing delays meant the Report could not be tabled until May.
    2. The Commission finalised its statements on 29 August 1977 and presented them to the Auditor-General for his certificate. Amendments to the statements were required and the Auditor-General’s certificate was not obtained until I November 1977. The sudden retirement (on grounds of illhealth) of a senior officer of the Commission and the transfer of other Commission officers meant that the Annual Report was not forwarded for printing until 3 February 1978. Printing delays meant that the Report could not be tabled until May.

Administrative Services: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 748)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1 976-77.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Commonwealth Police.
  2. Section 1 1 of the Commonwealth Police Act 1957 provides that the Minister shall, once in each year, cause a report containing a general review of the operation of the Commonwealth Police Force and a summary of its activities during the year to be prepared and the report shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
  3. The annual report for the Commonwealth Police for 1977-78 was presented to the Minister for tabling on 15 August 1978.
  4. The annual report for the Commonwealth Police for 1 977-78 was tabled on 23 August 1 978.
  5. 5 ) and (6 ) Not applicable.
  6. 1 ) Commonwealth Grants Commission.
  7. None.
  8. to (6) Not applicable.
  9. 1 ) Remuneration Tribunal and Academic Salaries Tribunal.
  10. None.
  11. to (6) Not applicable.

Cape Flattery Silica Sand Mining Complex (Question No. 801)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1978:

Are any royalties paid from the Cape Flattery Silica Sand Mining complex to Aborigines of the Hopevale community, or are royalties paid directly to the Church administering the Hopevale community.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs has advised me that: ‘. . . the Company pays to the Aboriginal Welfare Fund annually an amount of profit participation, based on the audited annual net profit derived from mining and associated benefication activities’.

Cape Flattery Silica Sand Mining Venture (Question No. 802)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many Aborigines in the Hopevale Community are employed at the Cape Flattery Silica Sand Mining venture.
  2. Are the Aborigines employed on a casual basis or do they have full time work; if the latter, are proper award wages being paid.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs has advised me that: ‘The Company is required to employ Aborigines and /or Islanders in all positions and occupations which they are capable of filling and to pay the usual Award rates applicable to the particular occupation. Where no specific award applies, employees are to be paid a minimum of not less than the State Basic Wage. Full time employment opportunities are offered to Hopevale residents. At the present time I understand that fifteen (15) such persons are employed at Cape Flattery’.

Trade Practices Act (Question No. 861)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 28 September 1 978:

Has the Government yet decided whether it will implement the recommendations in the Annual Report of the Trade Practices Commission, tabled in the Senate on 1 9 September 1978, relating to those directors, agents or servants of a company who must be in possession of knowledge before their knowledge can be imputed to the company; if so, when will the necessary amendment to the Trade Practices Act 1 974 be brought forward.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The recommendations of the Trade Practices Commission referred to in the question are currently under examination by the Government.

Aboriginal Affairs: Financial Allocation (Question No. 862)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister request the Government to give consideration to the restoration of funds cut from the allocation to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for 1 978-79.
  2. If funding is reviewed and restored, will the Minister also ensure that an allocation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ Housing Panel is included in such funding.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Funds provided in the 1978-79 appropriation for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provided an overall increase of 9.1 per cent as compared to funds provided in 1977-78. The matter of restoration of funds is therefore not an issue.
  2. It was decided that further financing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Housing Panel beyond September 1978 was not justified in the context of budget priorities related to programs for Aboriginal advancement in the field of housing. It was determined preferable to use available funds for additional housing. Up to and including 1977-78, $590,000 had been provided by way of grant funding to the Panel. In accordance with an earlier Government decision the Department of Construction will provide technical advice to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs where that is required for Aboriginal housing organisations.

Aboriginal Organisations and Associations (Question No. 875)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Have certain Aboriginal Organisations and Associations applied for registration under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976.
  2. What are the reasons for the delay in granting registration.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Since the proclamation of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act on 14 July 1978 two Aboriginal organisations have applied for registration under the Act; one from the Australian Capital Territory and the other from the Northern Territory.
  2. These applications are being processed by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations in accordance with the Act.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19781108_senate_31_s79/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant