Senate
21 February 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

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

page 75

PETITIONS

Education Funding

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions: Lone Parents

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 5 1 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 recipients of Supporting Parents Benefit are discriminated against compared to widows and divorcees who have the care of dependent children.

The main area for concern is their ineligibility for issue of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card. This card enables recipients and their children to receive free medical care, pharmaceutical benefits and optometrical benefits which are a vital necessity to the well-being of these families. The lack of this entitlement can cause extreme financial hardship and suffering from lack of necessary treatment and medication.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that in this International Year of the Child all Australian children be considered an equal part of this country’s wealth and that the Health Act be amended so that Pensioners Health Benefit Cards can be issued to those receiving Supporting Parents Benefit. We believe this to be an essential step to ensuring that all children in this country achieve their potential stature as human beings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Constitution

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 9748 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 facility for citizen initiated referenda exists in many other countries, notably the United States and Switzerland, but does not exist in Australia, and whereas no steps are at present being taken to investigate the ways in which this right could be granted to the Australian people.

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

Initiate necessary action for a referendum to be held to amend the Constitution to provide for Citizen’s Initiative, on the following conditions:

If a specified percentage of the voters (for example 2 per cent) sign a petition asking that a referendum be held on a certain question, then the Federal Government would be obliged to hold that referendum, and the result would become law.

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

Petition received and read.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 284 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 they disapprove of the proposal to withdraw Abortion as an allowable benefit from the medical benefits funds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Abortion is kept as an allowable benefit from the medical benefits funds.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

South Australian Country Railway Services

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I 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 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.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 2 1 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 Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the proposal by the Australian Government to abolish Paternity Leave and restrict the provisions relating to Maternity Leave which are currently contained in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 100 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments “that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate” is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:-

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of Average Weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator McLAREN:

– I present the following petition from 66 citizens of Australia:

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

And whereas the Government has now legislated 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 reintroduce twice yearly pension adjustments and that the amounts allowed for earnings by single and married pensioners be increased to a more comparable level to the high cost of living before it affects the pensions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Department of Social Security: Access to Files

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present two petitions from 109 and 220 citizens of Australia respectively:

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

That your petitioners request that officers of the Department of Social Security reveal all information that they have on a client to that client, whether it is contained in the files of the above-named Department or any unit responsible to the Department, for example the Rehabilitation Unit.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Social Services Act be amended accordingly.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and read.

Human Rights in the USSR

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 60 citizens of Australia:

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

Lithuania, a nation of over 3 million people, is deprived of human freedom and those national and individual rights which are deemed sacred in Australia today.

In 1940, Lithuania was occupied by the USSR in coalition with Hitler Nazi Germany. Lithuania, with a history of seven centuries as an indentifiable State and also twenty-three years as a modern republic, now represents a compelling case study of the violation of human rights by the Soviet Occupation Regime. The Lithuanian nation accepted Christianity in 125 1. By 1386 most of the Lithuanian State had accepted Christianity and Western European culture.

Those who have the courage to speak out in defence of national and human rights in Lithuania are dealt with by the Moscow government in a manner which is abhorrent to every freedom- minded person in Australia.

In recent times the following Lithuanian dissidents have been imprisoned in concentration camps: Viktoras Petkus, Balys Gajauskas, Nijole Sadunaite, Algirdas Zypre, Petras Plumpa, Sarunas Zukauskas, Vytautas Kavoliunas, Povilas Petronis, Ona Pranckunaite, Petras Paulaitis, J. Matulionis and many others.

We ask you to condemn the following methods which the Soviet Regime makes use of to silence dissidents- prison camps, psychiatric institutions, drug therapy and exile in Siberia. We further ask you to intercede on behalf of the above mentioned Lithuanian dissidents in order to free them from their imprisonment.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Sales Tax Exemptions

Senator CHIPP:

– I present the following petition from 222 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 sales tax as applied to articles handmade by artisans is unfair.

An artisan is a handcraftsman or handcraftswoman who exercises a non-agricultural activity, revolving around the transformation of materials with his own handwork or that of his family. On craft, above all, the accent must be on design, practicability and quality, where the craftsman must perforce pay highly for his raw materials and time must not be a conditioning factor in the making of an article.

This petition seeks the objective examination of the existing Sales Tax Acts in respect to persons seeking to earn their living by the labour of their hands alone.

Every day skilled artisans are being forced out of their livelihood, not by the competition of machine made goods, not by the high price of materials, but by the injustice of antiquated sales tax laws. The artisan, thus taxed out of his living, will then go onto unemployment benefits, or worse still, to prostituting his craft by sacrificing his professional integrity, forcing him to lower his standards of workmanship in order to conform to existing laws.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should immediately create a sales tax exemption for all hand crafted articles.

We also request that the current exemption limit of $ 1 ,400 and $1,000 respectively referred to in items 100-(1) and 100-(2) of the Sales Tax (Exemption and Classifications) Act 1935-1967, be immediately raised to a realistic figure, in line with current living standards and from then on to be periodically reviewed so as to keep pace with the Australian standard of living.

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

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 88 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Budget 1978-79

Senator MISSEN:

– I present the following petition from 26 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 state objectives by legislation and that such authority did not extent to acting otherwise or to enact legislation not previously submitted to he will of the people, namely:

Revoking the legislation for twice-yearly pension payments.

Imposing a freeze on the free-of-means-test pension.

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 as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education Funding

Senator MISSEN:

– I present the following petition from 30 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Indexation of Pensions

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button, Puplick, Lewis and Peter Baume.

Petitions received.

Indexation of Pensions

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 pension increases should be automatically adjusted half-yearly.

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

Petition received.

Senate Elections: Compulsory 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 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(1) 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 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 ever pray. by Senator Scott.

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That abortion is the deliberate killing of a human beinganathema to God and man.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House direct the Government-

  1. To remove items from the Standard Medical Benefits Table which currently permit Medical Benefits for Abortion and-
  2. To cease funding of Medical Benefits Scheme through which claims for terminating pregnancy can be made.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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

That the parlous state of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a matter of grave public concern, and because of the important role of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the culture and well-being of Australia, we urge the Government to institute an immediate Royal Commission into all aspects of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to allow for a full and open public inquiry.

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

Petition received.

Taxation Reform

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

That in spite of numerous measures taken by various governments, unemployment in the country has not significantly declined.

As a result, supplies of both goods and services have declined; human resources are wasted capital resources are not used and natural resources are left under-developed.

Both local and overseas experience shows that prosperity is encouraged when taxes, which penalise production are replaced by taxes which provide incentives for productivity. These also provide disincentives to idle speculation such as that which results in so called ‘windfall profits’ from land price increases.

The reduction of Income-tax, Sales-tax and Payroll tax is known to reduce the costs of production and to stimulate demand.

It is also known that when Land Tax or Council Rates are raised on the unimproved site value of land, then the development of vacant land and under-developed slum areas is stimulated.

It follows then, that the gradual replacement of taxes on production with taxes on non-production will create new employment, reduces the costs of production, reduces the rate of interest, the cost of housing and stimulates all industries.

We wish to point out that the replacement of production penalising taxes is a very practical proposal. According to official Municipal Valuations, it is estimated that unimproved site values have increased from $37,000m in 1973-74 to $67,000m by 1976-77. This represents $30,000m so called windfall profits’ which was completely unrelated to productive improvements.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should act to relieve unemployment by a Taxation Reform to replace taxes on production with taxes which provide incentives for the increased supply of both goods and services.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer and Senator Collard.

Petitions received.

Taxation Reform

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

That in spite of numerous measures taken by various governments, unemployment in the country has not significantly declined.

As a result, supplies of both goods and services have declined: human resources are wasted, capital resources are not used and natural resources are left under-developed.

Both local and overseas experience shows that prosperity is encouraged when taxes, which penalise production are replaced by taxes which provide incentives for productivity. These also provide disincentives to idle speculation such as that which results in so called ‘windfall profits’ from land price increases.

The reduction of Income-tax, Sales-tax and Payroll tax is known to reduce the costs of production and to stimulate demand.

It is also known that when Land Tax or Council Rates are raised on the unimproved site value of land, then the development of vacant land and under-developed slum areas is stimulated.

It follows then, that the gradual replacement of taxes on production with taxes on non-production will create new employment, reduces the costs of production, reduces the rate of interest, the cost of housing and stimulates all industries.

We wish to point out that the replacement of production penalising taxes is a very practical proposal. According to official Municipal Valuations, it is estimated that unimproved site values have increased from $37,000m in 1973-74 to $67,000m by 1 976-77. This represents $30,000m so called windfall profits’ which was completely unrelated to productive improvements.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should act to relieve unemployment by a Taxation Reform to replace taxes on production with taxes which provide incentives for the increased supply of both goods and services.

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

Petition received.

page 79

OIL EXPLORATION IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF AREA

Notice of Motion

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Aus tralian Democrats · Victoria

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

That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment:

Oil exploration in the Great Barrier Reef area, including all the possible effects of any such exploration.

page 79

CITIZEN INITIATIVE

Notice of Motion

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

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

That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs:

The petition relating to the right of citizen initiative presented to the Senate on 21 February 1979 by Senator Mason.

page 79

WHALES AND WHALING

Notice of Motion

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

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

That the Senate calls upon the Government to implement, in full, and at an early date, the recommendations contained in Whales and Whaling, the report of the independent inquiry conducted by the Honourable Sir Sydney Frost, presented to the Prime Minister on 1 December 1978.

page 79

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 79

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that one of the Federal

Government’s key advisory bodies, the Australian Manufacturing Council, has predicted that from now until 1986 Australia can expect an annual increase of 80,000 in the number of people unable to get jobs? Does the Minister agree with thU prediction? If so, does he regard it as being consistent with the Government’s economic strategy?

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

– I have not seen the publication of the Australian Manufacturing Council. Such a prediction would be based upon a series of assumptions. The Government would not support the concept that year by year the unemployment numbers will grow. On the contrary, there are signs, which I think even the Opposition has acknowledged, of a sturdy start of recovery in the community.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where are the signs?

Senator CARRICK:

– It does not surprise me that Senator Cavanagh should ask that question. Even his leader has indicated that there are signs. I suggest he ask his leader. The Government believes that we are starting a recovery and that this is proof that the economic policies that have been implemented are working. This is acknowledged by overseas countries and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We believe there should be a steady increase in employment.

page 80

QUESTION

ALTERNATIVE NAME FOR AGE PENSION

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I draw the Minister’s attention to the name presently given by her Department to the benefit payable to the senior citizens of this nation; that is, the age pension. I submit that this name has discriminatory overtones and smacks of charity rather than the just entitlement to which a person has contributed during a lifetime of endeavour. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider an alternative name which would remove this charitable syndrome and any suggestion of discrimination. Perhaps the Minister would consider the name ‘retirement benefit’ as an alternative.

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

– I can understand Senator Bonner’s concern if he feels the term age pension’ has discriminatory overtones. I have not had this matter raised with me to any great extent. In fact, I do not recall it being raised before. If there were widespread concern about it, it is something that could be considered. It is perhaps interesting to recall that the term ‘old age pension’ was used to describe the present age pension from 1908 to 1947, when the various benefits were then consolidated into one Act. It was considered at that time that the name change to age pension was more in keeping with modern usage and with the reason for the benefit. Since the term ‘age pension’ was adopted in 1947 it seems to have been acceptable but I take the point from Senator Bonner, that he believes the terminology should be considered.

The term ‘retirement benefit’ which the honourable senator mentioned as an alternative could have some problems inasmuch as there are retirement benefits, such as, for instance, the Defence Force retirement benefit, and there are people who retire on grounds other than age. It has been felt that the name age pension indicates that a pension has, for eligibility, a certain age. As I have said, if there seems to be any interest in reconsideration of the term, I will be responsive to that.

page 80

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, follows the answer given to the Senate yesterday by Senator Guilfoyle. Bearing in mind Senator Guilfoyle ‘s statement to the Senate yesterday that the first Commonwealth Police brief on the matter told her that the word ‘Greek’ did not appear at all on placards being held by alleged social welfare offenders being photographed by police but that yesterday she said she has since been advised that in at least five cases a placard bearing the date of birth and the word ‘Greece’ following it was used when police were taking the photographs, I ask the Minister whether he will ascertain and inform the Senate why that information did not appear in that first police brief given to the Minister? Secondly, what was the reason for the placards being used in the photographs? Thirdly, will he ask the Minister whom he represents in this place to order a thorough investigation to ascertain why the real facts were kept from the Minister for Social Security and thus denied to the Australian Parliament?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I shall convey the contents of that question and the requests it contains to the Minister for Administrative Services and seek replies for the honourable senator.

page 80

QUESTION

BRANDY AND GRAPE GROWING INDUSTRIES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the Industries Assistance

Commission inquiries into the brandy and grape growing industries. As this is a matter of great concern to South Australia, will the Minister say when these reports are expected to be presented?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-The honourable senator, I expect, refers to a reference given to the IAC on grapes and wine. It was sent to the IAC on 9 August 1978 for report by 31 July 1979. The honourable senator, coming from South Australia, reflects some of the concern that is felt in that State relating to the surplus of wine grapes. I understand that there were early estimates of a likely surplus of some 80,000 to 100,000 tonnes. Following more recent estimates that estimate now appears to be severely pessimistic. I am informed that in many areas yields are unlikely to be as high as predicted, due to unfavourable seasonal conditions. There have been very buoyant sales of white wines, rose and, to a lesser extent, fortified wines, creating additional demand which should more than offset any decline in the demand for grapes resulting from the loss of brandy sales. I understand that wineries in the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area have agreed to take in all available grapes and growers have agreed to accept reduced prices. In South Australia there has been an increase in the volume of sultanas dried. Some wineries have agreed to accept doradillo grapes in lieu of sultanas, and sultanas displaced in this manner will be dried. I inform Senator Jessop that current thinking in the industry is that there may be a surplus of 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes. The final surplus figure will largely depend on the extent to which the likely 40,000 tonnes surplus of red grapes can be used in white wine production. The honourable senator will understand from my earlier comment that we will not expect a report from the IAC until July.

page 81

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: MOUNT GAMBIER

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. I refer the Minister to the continuing increase in the number of unemployed throughout Australia, and in particular to the increase in the Mount Gambier area in South Australia. Further, I refer the Minister to the commendable proposal put to the Government by the Corporation of the City of Mount Gambier, wherein it has offered to match the Federal Government in a $50,000 contribution to provide employment-creating projects in the area. I ask the Minister: Would not such a proposal have the effect of creating greatly needed employment opportunities in the Mount Gambier area? As a consequence would it not also have the effect of saving the Federal Government money which would otherwise be spent on unemployment benefit? Finally, I ask the Minister: Will the Government review its firmly held opposition to schemes such as this one, in view of the critical state of the employment market?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not aware of the proposal envisaged by the Corporation of the City of Mount Gambier. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to the proposal if it is submitted to me. I would certainly want full details of it before I would do that. So, if the honourable senator wishes to promote that scheme, I request him to submit further details to me. However, I should like to say generally in relation to his question that these schemes for a special type of job creating- in many cases artificial job creatingwhich the honourable senator is now espousing, are ones which, of course, the Labor Government had espoused in its Regional Employment Development scheme which it decided to wind down. The policy of the present Government is to reduce inflation and thereby to stimulate economic activity in the community generally, and to create real jobs and real demands for employment. There are now signs that this policy is working. There are many indications. There are increases now in notified vacancies. In recent months there have been increases each month in total civilian employment and there is an air of confidence in the business community. I can assure the Senate that these policies that the Government has pursued have much more prospect of solving the unemployment problems of this country than the schemes that Senator Elstob is espousing.

page 81

QUESTION

SQUID FISHING FEASIBILITY PROJECT

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer the Minister to the recently approved project with two Japanese firms by the Federal Government and the governments of Victoria and South Australia which involves 12 Japanese squid jigging vessels operating in waters adjacent to South Australia and Victoria to determine the feasibility of developing a squid fishing industry in the area. Is this feasibility project to last for three years? If not, for how long? Is it anticipated that there will be any squid left in the area after 12 vessels have fished in it for three years? What limitations will be placed on these vessels to ensure that they do not take fish other than squid from the area? In what way will Australian fishermen participate in the project?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I acknowledge the great interest of the honourable senator from Victoria in the Portland area and in the squid fishing that is likely to take place. The answers to the questions that he asks are beyond my knowledge at present.

Opposition senators- Oh! Shame!

Senator WEBSTER:

– If members of the Opposition would like some further detail I can certainly get it here for them. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Primary Industry and get a comprehensive reply.

page 82

QUESTION

THE ECONOMY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, follows the answer given by the Minister to Senator Button earlier in Question Time concerning the Minister’s prediction about the improving state of the economy. I ask the Minister whether he recalls a statement by former Senator Cotton, as spokesman for the Treasurer in this chamber on 18 August 1976, in which Senator Cotton said that ‘there is now a strong recovery in new investment in plant and equipment’? Does the Minister also recall his saying that ‘economic recovery is beginning throughout the Australian scene. It is beginning as would be expected, that is, in an uneven form’ and that the employment position will improve very greatly’? I ask the Minister whether we can give greater credence to his predictions of improving economic conditions in Australia than we could to those of his counterpart 2Vi years ago?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not recall Senator Cotton’s making those statements in 1976. Nevertheless, perhaps I can respond in a very simple way. I was asked what are the signs that there will be more employment. Since this question follows another one and since I am invited to do so, I point out that retail sales grew strongly in December. That is not a prediction.

Senator Grimes:

– God help us if they do not.

Senator CARRICK:

– ‘In seasonally adjusted terms’, which Senator Grimes may understand, means that December is compared with December. Sales grew by 13.3 per cent over the previous December. Given the inflation rate of this period, this is a clear increase in real terms in excess of 5 per cent. I do not hear the laughter now.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Ha, ha!

Senator CARRICK:

-I heard that laughter from a Queensland senator. Motor car and station wagon registrations have strengthened. The growth over the whole calendar year was 4.8 per cent. The growth rate in the second half of the year, including the period in which the sales tax cuts have applied, has been more rapid. Seasonally adjusted, average monthly registrations during this period were nearly nine per cent higher than during the corresponding period of 1977. In fact retail sales, motor car registrations and housing indicators have shown an upturn. There is no laughter now. Funding for housing by the major lenders grew strongly in the second half of 1978- by 16.7 per cent. Lending in the December quarter was 23 per cent higher than the corresponding period in 1977. Private dwelling approvals rose by 5.6 per cent in December to the highest monthly levels since January 1977. They increased by 12.6 per cent in the December quarter.

Retail farm product rose by 17 per cent in the September quarter and the prospects now are for a very substantial rise in farm incomes. Income per farm in 1 978-79 is forecast by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to increase by 80 per cent in nominal terms and 66 per cent in real terms. Real investment in plant and equipment rose at the annual rate of 2 1 .4 per cent for the six months to September 1978. New capital expenditure by private enterprise rose by over 24 per cent over the year to the September quarter. Similar rises are expected to be shown in the figures for the December quarter. Several recent company announcements have foreshadowed significant new investment projects in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. Civilian employment, seasonally adjusted, has risen consistently throughout the first five months of 1978-79, reversing the declining trend. Recent surveys of business activity have reported strengthened performance. In a lesser vein, but as evidence, Mr Hayden says that we are showing signs of significant recovery.

page 82

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, follows questions answered by Senator Guilfoyle yesterday and a question asked by Senator Douglas McClelland this afternoon regarding the investigation of misleading information which had been given. Will the Minister also inquire as to whether it is true that the Commonwealth Police Force officer who led the raids was formerly a member of the New South Wales Police Force who left that force because of a scandal involving pay-offs in relation to migrants and pensions and whether it is true that these raids were carried out under directives not from

Commonwealth Police headquarters but from the Department of Social Security?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– As with the question asked by Senator Douglas McClelland. I will refer this question to the Minister for Administrative Services for reply.

page 83

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. I refer to the Antarctic and the successful ‘proving flight’ of late January when a Hercules aircraft landed for the first time at the Australian base at Casey. Will the Government now press on to ensure regular flights to Australian Antarctic bases during the summer periods beginning from the next season? Also, what operational costs may be estimated for regular flights and is there advantage for Australia in exploring joint arrangements with New Zealand and the United States of America in respect of the provision of these flights?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator can be assured that the Government intends to press on to improve the communications system in regard to such bases. The Senate would be aware that following a visit I made to the Antarctic in 1977 I negotiated with representatives of New Zealand and the United States of America the integration of our transport system with the transport system that they had arranged. It was necessary for that to be done because up until now it has not been possible to get to our continental bases other than by ship. Indeed, former Senator Devitt was one of the first members of the Senate to take the opportunity to go to one of our Antarctic bases by ship, and that was to his credit. Honourable senators will be aware that on this occasion the chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment accompanied me, thus opening the way for future flights to take place. It can be said that communication by way of Hercules CI 30 aircraft will now take place during the summer months. An example may be cited that this year in exchange for four-wheeled Hercules Royal Australian Air Force flights from Christchurch to McMurdo, which is a distance of about 3,800 kilometres, the United States, with ski equipped Hercules aircraft, took flights across the continent, which is a distance of about 2,200 kilometres, to our Casey Base. I expect that that arrangement will continue in the coming year. I have asked the Antarctic Division to make sure that we make the most economical use of the aircraft and that will be achieved by getting scientists quickly onto the field and taking appropriate action in regard to any logistical arrangements that are needed.

The honourable senator raised the matter of costs. When this was planned originally it was estimated that the two flights would cost Australia some $55,000. My recollection is that the allocation for this year was an amount of $95,000 which the Department of Science and the Environment would make available to the Department of Defence for its part in this matter. I would expect that amount not to vary very much in the forthcoming years.

The PRESIDENT:

– I regret to say that a little while ago I gave two consecutive calls to my left. To rectify that I shall now call Senator Watson.

page 83

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL SYMBOL

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry explain why the Australian Wool Corporation has been so tardy in its financial support of the Australian wool symbol, a mark which is designed to encourage greater use of Australian wool in manufactures here in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– My understanding is that the Australian Wool Corporation is the licenser of the registered trade mark, that is, Woolmark, which is promoted internationally as well as in Australia, basically through the International Wool Secretariat. The honourable senator draws attention to the fact that for some time Australian wool textile manufacturers have been discussing with the Australian Wool Corporation the use of a purely Australian wool emblem which the manufacturers propose to use in a promotional campaign for Australian-made wool manufactures. My understanding is that the Corporation has made available to manufacturers, for their free and exclusive use, a wool mark previously used by the Corporation and for which it held the copyright registration. The emblem comprises a stylised ram with a map of Australia superimposed upon it. The Corporation is unable at present to assist the proposed campaign with any funds but I take into account the honourable senator’s comment in relation to that. I will put to the Minister for Primary Industry that he should give this matter some attention.

page 83

QUESTION

HISTORIC BUILDING

Senator McAULIFFE:

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs aware of the growing public concern for the preservation of the historic Bellevue Hotel building situated in George Street, Brisbane? Can the Minister confirm that an objection has been lodged by the Queensland State Government to the inclusion of the Bellevue Hotel in the register of the National Estate?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to answer with any accuracy the questions that have been put to me by the honourable senator.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Have a guess.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If the Opposition would like me to have a guess, I certainly would be glad to do so. Knowing the honourable senator, I imagine that he speaks with some knowledge of this particular building. I imagine that the Bellevue Hotel in Brisbane, which I believe I have seen and which has some historic links with Brisbane, could well be the subject of an heritage report. I am unaware of whether the report has been prepared or whether the Queensland Government has lodged an objection, but I will obtain the information from the Minister whom I represent. I think it is the Minister for Home Affairs.

page 84

QUESTION

WILLIAMS COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Has the Minister any indication of when the Government will receive the report from the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, which was commissioned 2!£ years ago?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In answer to Senator Walters’ question as to whether we have any indication when the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training will come to hand, my understanding is that the Committee completed its report within recent days or weeks. It is now shaping in manuscript form. I take this opportunity to draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that the Committee recently put out a Press statement as a result of an article in the National Times. The Committee refuted the various allegations made in that newspaper. The Committee stated that it had reached a unanimous report. I think that it is to be congratulated on that. My understanding is that the report will be in manuscript form and available to the Federal Government, and no doubt the State Governments, within the weeks ahead. It ought to be in printed form by next month. I think that all educators in Australia will look forward to it.

page 84

QUESTION

ASSOCIATED SECURITIES LIMITED

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General would be aware of the collapse of Associated Securities Limited, which perhaps appears likely to leave many tens of thousands of shareholders and investors without effective redress- certainly without their money. He would also be aware that the commonly advanced reason for the failure was the disintegration of the real property market some years ago. Can the Attorney-General indicate any steps which the Government has instituted in response to this collapse or does it simply regard the failure as an unfortunate, likely happening within our present economic system? Will the Attorney-General seek an early meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to ensure that proposed State legislation to deal with the securities and finance industries includes provision for the requiring of disclosure of the difference between book and market values of interests in land? In the absence of State action in this matter will the Attorney-General consider introducing legislation into this Parliament, similar to that introduced by former Senator Murphy in his Companies and Securities Industry Bill 1974, to ensure that shareholders and investors are given a true picture of the value of real property held by corporations? Finally, does the Attorney-General agree that, quite apart from legislative command, directors of finance companies, and indeed other companies, would do well to present realistic valuations of property by way of self-regulation of their industry?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– This question really should be directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. As I represent him in the Senate I will respond to the question in general terms. I will refer the details of the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I am aware of the ‘collapse’, as Senator Tate calls it, of Associated Securities Limited. I am aware of the reasons that have been advanced publicly for that failure. The position as the law stands, as I understand it, is that at the moment the question of any action that should be taken would be a matter for the appropriate State law. But, as the Senate is aware, the policy of the Government since gaining office has been to reach agreement with the States for the establishment of a national securities and corporations commission in which all the States would participate. It would be a co-operative scheme. There would be uniform laws in the companies and securities fields. Negotiations have been going on with the States for a long time and they have reached a very satisfactory stage. Legislation broadly has been agreed upon and will be coming into the Parliament in the coming months. We believe that, by implementing that scheme, the laws and controls that will then exist in Australia to deal with matters of this kind and the various detailed matters that Senator Tate has raised will be improved greatly.

page 85

QUESTION

HISTORIC BUILDING

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask a question of the Minister for Science and the Environment which follows the question asked of him a short while ago by Senator McAuliffe. When the Minister is considering his reply to Senator McAuliffe in relation to the Bellevue Hotel, will he also extend consideration to the building called ‘The Mansions’, which is next door to the Bellevue Hotel? It is one of the very few historic buildings in Brisbane and is in the same position as the Bellevue Hotel. Will the Minister give concurrent consideration to The Mansions with the Bellevue?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I will certainly see that that question also is directed to the Minister whom I represent. I take it that the honourable senator is suggesting that the Australian Heritage Commission should give its attention to listing the building she mentioned. It is my understanding that the Heritage Commission is a statutory authority which reports to the Minister for Home Affairs.

Senator Button:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister’s understanding of the Australian Heritage Commission Act has nothing to do with the question he is purporting to answer. The answer to Senator Martin’s question surely is yes. An explanation of the Heritage Commission legislation is not relevant to Question Time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not sustained.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was commenting that I understand that the thrust of Senator Martin’s question was to suggest to the Heritage Commission that it should consider listing that particular building. I will put that to the Minister.

page 85

QUESTION

VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROLS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Science and the Environment whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday, 17 February, which referred to a study on vehicle emission controls prepared last year for the Australian Environment Council. Is it a fact, as reported in the article, that the study found that vehicle emission controls introduced in 1974 had led to an 8 per cent cut in fuel consumption of new cars and that this consumption level was maintained in new cars after the July 1976 controls? Is it also a fact that the study found that advances in engine design used in the United States and

Japan but not adopted by Australian manufacturers have given both better fuel economy and emission control? Will the Minister release the report of this study?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– It is not within my power to say yes or no to the release of the report. That matter does not come within the ambit of the Minister for Science and the Environment. As far as I know, the report would go to the Minister for Transport, but I will check that point. The comments the honourable senator has made are in accordance with my understanding. It is of interest to note that in the United States today it has been put to the motor industry that it should re-think completely the design of the motor car, and I think that relates to whether niters for lead should be fitted or whether there should be other devices, which of course have been bringing about greater fuel consumption, as the honourable senator suggested, and less efficiency in the standard engine produced today. The honourable senator’s questions are pertinent and I will put them to the Minister.

page 85

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS: TICKETING AND DISPATCH PRACTICES

Senator PETER BAUME:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. He might recall that I asked him a question on 24 November last concerning certain alleged illegal ticketing and dispatch practices which might have involved Qantas Airways and on which the Minister promised to let me have a reply. Is the Minister able now to say that it is correct that on or about 24 November last year an International Air Transport Association inspector discovered a number of passengers travelling to Damascus on tickets showing another destination and that the baggage of those passengers had been tagged ‘Damascus’, presumably by Qantas counter staff? Is it also a fact that connecting flights on a Saudi Arabian airline shown on the tickets either did not exist or did not operate on the day indicated? Is the Minister able to advise whether any of the tagging of baggage for final destinations other than those shown on the tickets was carried out by Qantas staff? Is he able to say whether there is any evidence of any breaches of the Air Navigation Regulations? If so, what corrective action, if any, has been taken by the Department? What further action is intended? Finally, can the Minister clearly indicate what role, if any, Qantas Airways Ltd or its staff have had in this incident?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have some information from the Minister for Transport on the matters which have been raised by Senator Peter Baume.

I am informed that on 24 November last year an International Air Transport Association inspector did find that a number of passengers were ticketed to Damascus with connections to a point beyond Damascus. The Senate is probably aware that Qantas Airways Ltd is the only airline that provides scheduled services from Australia over Damascus. It is therefore possible that Qantas staff in Australia could have been involved in the tagging of baggage for these passengers at the start of their journeys. This in itself does not necessarily indicate that anything improper was done or that passengers were not intending to travel beyond Damascus. It was subsequently found that the connecting flight beyond Damascus was not operating as ticketed. I am advised by the Department of Transport that it is awaiting further information on this aspect. At this stage it is not possible to know where the fault lies. The Department is investigating the whole circumstances of the matter with a view to determining what would be an appropriate course of action. Pending the outcome of this investigation, I am not in a position to give any further details.

page 86

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARCHIVES

Senator WRIEDT:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs aware of the statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, in January of last year indicating that a building to house the Australian Archives would be constructed at Bellerive on Hobart ‘s eastern shore? Is he aware that it was indicated then that the proposal would be submitted to the Government in the near future and that plans were being developed for its construction? Is it a fact that at this stage no plans have been received by the local authorities and that no official development application has been made for the construction of the building? Are we to assume that the whole program has been pigeonholed by the Government?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Leader of the Opposition can assume that the work is progressing. A project to erect a permanent functionally designed archives building in Hobart is actively under development. A suitable block of land has been identified at Bellerive. During the past year the archives requirements have been modified and a revised user brief has been completed. An estimate of costs is now being prepared and in due course the proposal will go forward for consideration by the Government.

page 86

QUESTION

SCHOOLS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister for Education. It relates to the issue of staffing and enrolments in schools in the Australian Capital Territory, which was the subject of some controversy and a teachers strike last year. Can the Minister say whether the problems which some people foresaw then have in fact eventuated?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The statistical returns from the schools showing the actual enrolments for 1979 are not due to be received in the office of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority until today, I think. So a precise answer cannot be given yet. But from the preliminary evidence available to the Authority the indications are that, with the removal of the automatic allowance for beginning teachers from the staffing of high schools and the adjustments to the level of staffing in secondary colleges, the ceiling of 2,772 will be adequate to staff Australian Capital Territory government schools in 1979. That is the view that was expressed by the Government and by me last year. As soon as more specific information is available I will provide it to Senator Knight.

page 86

QUESTION

NATIONAL ACOUSTICS LABORATORY

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to the fact that, due to financial cuts, the services provided by the National Acoustics Laboratory have been curtailed in many provincial areas of Victoria- to name three, Geelong, Bendigo and Warrnambool? If so, what action can we expect to be taken to overcome this situation, which is denying thousands of people ready access to these services?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I can offer no information to Senator Primmer in response to his question. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health and advise the honourable senator of his reply as soon as possible.

page 86

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport a question relating to what are believed by many Western Australians to be two areas of discrimination against Western Australians in regard to air fares. The internal air fares which are set advantage short flights and disadvantage long flights by an unrealistically low flagfall and a correspondingly high cost per kilometre charge. In regard to international flights, the Perth to Sydney portion of an international flight costs about four times the charge for the Sydney to Perth section of an international flight. Will the Government endeavour to correct those anomalies or do what the United States Government has done recently in removing government involvement from the industry altogether except in matters of safety?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– One of the two matters raised by Senator Thomas was raised in the Senate in a question asked yesterday by Senator Bishop. I said at that time that the question reflected interest in a number of States including Western Australia and South Australia. The first part of the question asked by Senator Thomas relates to the question of local air fares. At the moment domestic air fares between Perth and the eastern States are calculated according to the same formula as all major domestic network fares. That formula consists of a flagfall plus a cents per kilometre component. So there is direct relationship between the distance that is travelled and the amount of fare.

The domestic review of air transport policy last year recommended the introduction into the formula of two components for distance to reflect the lower costs associated with long distance services. The review recognised that these changes would have to be phased in over time and it is this change, I think, that is being sought by Senator Thomas on behalf of Western Australians. These matters are currently being discussed with the domestic airlines and it is hoped that there will be some progress. I should add that it is only comparatively recently that there has been a number of changes relating to domestic travel between Perth and the eastern States and there is now the full range of concession fares such as group travel, ofT peak, APEX- the advance purchase excursion- and stand-by. But we have yet to achieve the further change that Senator Thomas is seeking.

As far as international air fares from Perth are concerned, it would be known to all honourable senators that the new air fares are negotiated on a point-to-point basis so that for international flights leaving Perth the fares have been reduced and there are special fares available on flights from, say, Perth to London. As far as international routes are concerned, the problem arises where the point-to-point flights end in, say, Sydney or Melbourne, as of course is likely to be the case in respect of the great bulk of routes because of the concentration of population in the southeast corner of Australia. The Government, as I made clear, understands the problem and is in fact actively consulting both Qantas Airways Ltd and the domestic airlines to ascertain whether it is possible to introduce cheap domestic add-on fares for people travelling internationally. The Government is, in fact, committed to the principle of cheap add-ons and is pushing these discussions as a matter of urgency.

page 87

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Does the Minister representing the Prime Minister recall that in the 1975 election campaign the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, promised to provide jobs for all? Does the Minister also recall that in the 1977 election campaign the Prime Minister forecast that unemployment would fall from February 1978 and then keep falling? In view of the fact that the number of registered unemployed has increased by 230,000 since the Fraser Government has been in office and that the number is now 6 1 ,000 above what it was in February last year, does the Minister agree that in 1975 and in 1977 the Prime Minister misled the people of Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-No, I do not agree. The Prime Minister had a good past track record to rely on. For 23 years Liberal-Country Party governments had brought to Australia full employment, low inflation and a high home ownership rate.

Senator Walsh:

– Oh rubbish! What about 1951 -the highest ever?

Senator CARRICK:

– The interjection was in the same strident tones as the interjection to the Australian economy of the Whitlam Government from 1972 to 1975 which caused the fall from full employment to unemployment. May I remind those who interject that there was full employment in the 1960s and through till the Whitlam Government. As a result of the Whitlam Government’s disastrous record with inflation and as a result of its encouraging wages to rise by some 70 per cent -

Senator Walsh:

– Turn the record over.

Senator CARRICK:

-Mr President, is it not wonderful that honourable senators opposite can jeer, but when the facts are being given they want to drown them out? The people of Australia will know, despite this noise, that in 1 8 months from 1973 to 1974 wage rates in Australia rose by 37 per cent and that over three years they rose by 70 per cent. When the Australian Labor Party came to office Australia was competitive with the world; when the Labor Party went out of office we had been forced out of world markets. When the Labor Party came to office manufacturing industry was strong; in one year 1 10,000 people were shed by manufacturing industry and the 25 percent tariff cut -

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– It is worth knowing that Senator Button is laughing at this situation. The fact of the matter is that these statements are factual. We had a good track record. It was destroyed by the injection of an unfortunate government, the Whitlam Government. But it would be well to know that yesterday the Australian Financial Review in a major article analysing the figures for unemployment, pointed out that the absolute level of unemployment, both before and after allowing for school leavers, had ceased to rise. That is important. The article went on to conclude that the economy may be entering the recovery phase after the cycle I have mentioned. We are now settling into a recovery phase, the obverse of the cycle of the Labor Party. I thank the Opposition for the opportunity to remind the Australian people of the facts.

page 88

QUESTION

GOUDA CHEESE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry ascertain whether a proposition has been put before the Minister whom he represents, or whether a proposition is pending, concerning the abolition of the existing $250 a tonne Gouda cheese premium? Is that Minister in a position to reject such a proposition, particularly having regard to, firstly, undertakings given when the Gouda industry was established in Australia; secondly, the fact that Australian sales total approximately 10,000 tonnes a year, and, thirdly, the fact that if the premium were abolished the market and credibility would disappear?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to answer the questions that the honourable senator has asked. I do know that at the present time opportunities for cheese sales internationally are opening. Adding to Senator Carrick ‘s remarks, around the world confidence is being shown in the Australian Government and in Australian production. I am not aware of whether there has been any relief of a guarantee, but I will put the question to the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 88

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and concerns another apparently neglected contribution to Australian jurisprudence by His Honour Mr Justice Staples. Is it true that Mr Justice Staples, following his extended tour overseas, has recently produced a report recommending quite substantial changes in human rights law, which report the Commonwealth has refused to make public or, indeed, to produce on request to meetings of the FederalState Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral? If so, when, if at all, will that report be so produced, at least to the State AttorneysGeneral? Perhaps more importantly, when can we expect it to be tabled in this Parliament?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– When Mr Justice Staples was overseas he did send back from Canada- I think it was only from Canada but I am not sure- some reports on what he had found there. After he returned to Australia and just before the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Hobart in January, he wrote me a letter in which he set out a number of his views on the way in which Australia should deal with matters of human rights and in which he indicated that he thought that we ought to be looking at the European method of attacking the problem rather than at the international covenant. He made many other suggestions. He wrote to me in those terms because he was aware of the fact that discussions were to take place in Hobart shortly after that time. However, I did not regard that letter and the material he sent to me then, or the material he had sent from Canada, as amounting to a report in the sense that the Government expected to receive a report about the work that he had been doing and that he had been engaged upon over the 12 months or more that he had been overseas. He has had consultation with officers of my Department and I have written to him asking for such a report.

I do not propose to table anything that I have received from Mr Justice Staples until I receive a full report in the sense in which I expect to have it. I am hopeful that I will obtain such a report. Presumably that report would contain all the material, ideas, views and so on which he has expressed already but it would be in a form which I would regard as proper for tabling. However, I do not want to give the impression that there is anything secret about the material which I have received from Mr Justice Staples. As I said, I just do not regard it as being in a form which is a final and full report. At this stage I have not had any response from Mr Justice Staples as to when I might- or if I might- expect to receive a report as I have requested. So at this stage I am waiting to see what happens. If in due course no further material is provided- I do not expect that will be the case- it may be appropriate to table the material I have received. I shall certainly have no objection to doing so.

page 89

QUESTION

REPORT OF THE AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Senator PUPLICK:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Has the Government given any consideration to the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council on the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics? Specifically, has the Government made any decision on the central recommendation of ASTEC that the BMR be reorganised as a statutory authority responsible to the Minister for National Development? If no decisions have yet been made on these ASTEC recommendations, when is it expected that such decisions will be made and when will they be reported to the Parliament?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Minister for National Development whom I represent has advised me that he has the ASTEC recommendations under active consideration and that he will be bringing a submission to Government in the near future.

page 89

QUESTION

FIRST ADVANCE PAYMENT OF THE 1978-79 WHEAT HARVEST

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. My question arises from a report in the business section of today’s Melbourne Age, headed ‘Banks soak up money spill’ and Reserve neutralises that wheat boom’. I now ask the Minister: Can he confirm that the Reserve Bank of Australia will coerce the trading banks into funding some $250m of the first advance payment on the 1978-79 wheat harvest? Will the Australian Wheat Board be paying about 1 1 per cent interest on money borrowed from the trading banks, as against an interest rate of 9 per cent to 956 per cent if the money were borrowed in the traditional manner from the Reserve Bank’s rural credit department? If the Minister cannot provide an immediate answer will he undertake to endeavour to provide an answer before the suspension of the sitting of the Senate for dinner this day?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I shall seek to do as the honourable senator requests. I cannot confirm the article which I have seen in the Age and I am unable to confirm whether the interest rate that the Australian Wheat Board will be paying is as the honourable senator indicates. However, I shall put that question to the Minister for Primary Industry and attempt to get an answer before dinner.

page 89

QUESTION

AIR SAFETY STANDARDS

Senator MISSEN:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to my question of 29 May 1978, relating to the apparent erosion of air safety standards in Australia. In reply to that question Senator Carrick, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, stated: . . Government policies on capital and current expenditure will not be permitted to erode air safety standards.

I ask the Minister, firstly, is he concerned by recent reports of a number of near air collisions, and what investigations has he made as to the allegations of deterioration in Australia ‘s air safety record? I ask, secondly, whether the lack of adequate government funding has led to an insufficient number of air traffic controllers being employed in Australia and to an inadequate level of air safety equipment being provided at a number of airports. What action does the Minister plan to take in an effort to rectify this serious situation?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The Minister for Transport has provided me with some information on the matters raised by Senator Missen in his question. I am aware, of course, that there have been reports of so-called near air collisions and allegations of deterioration in Australia’s air safety record. I am advised by the Minister for Transport that all reports of incidents are fully and carefully investigated by the Air Safety Investigation Branch of his Department and that, if it is found necessary, appropriate action is taken by the Department of Transport. Some of the more recent reported incidents are still under investigation. The Department is continually monitoring Australia ‘s air safety position. There has been publicity recently on our radar facilities. I am advised that the present radar system is not out of date in any way. The equipment is continually updated and replaced as it nears the end of its service life, and it compares favourably with systems in use overseas. The present system provides operational capabilities commensurate with Australia’s traffic densities, and the Department has an ongoing plan to provide additional capabilities to cope with traffic growth and complexity. For example, systems will be provided at Sydney, Adelaide and Perth airports in 1980 to display aircraft altitude and identity, and these will be followed shortly after by upgraded systems at Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra.

Unions involved in the aviation industry have recently stated that immediate attention should be given to the installation of the T-VASIS visual approach guidance system at Melbourne runway 27, Sydney runway 07, Albury, Gladstone, Hamilton and Grafton. The Department is well aware of the value of the T-VASIS system. It was designed in Australia and adopted internationally. There is an ongoing program in which 85 of these systems are already in operation, and a further 46 are presently planned. Early installation already had been planned at each of the airports mentioned by the unions.

Considerable publicity has also been given to the introduction in November 1978 of revised traffic information procedures in uncontrolled air space. When announcing the new procedures, the Department stated that experience might show modifications to be desirable. Minor variations were made as recently as 14 February, following a meeting between the Department and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and agreement by other sections of the industry. The traffic information service provided in uncontrolled air space in Australia is of a quality and comprehensiveness not attempted in any other country with busy air space.

I make these points to emphasise that the Department of Transport and the Minister are concerned to ensure that Australia’s high standard of air safety is maintained at the highest level and to illustrate that continuing discussions with the aviation industry are taking place on these matters.

page 90

QUESTION

LEGAL AID FOR PENSIONERS

Senator SIBRAA:

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General: Will those pensioners eligible for legal aid in the alleged New South Wales social security frauds be able to brief their own counsel with whom they have been working for many months in actions before the Supreme Court and be granted legal aid to retain them?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will take a note of the question and make inquiries and provide an answer to Senator Sibraa.

page 90

QUESTION

EDUCATION: CHILDREN IN COUNTRY AREAS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education: In 1977 the Government introduced a new program aimed at extending education services available to children living in country areas. I ask the Minister: What is the current position in regard to funding of the program? How is it administered? How many schools are benefiting from it at the present time?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Messner refers to the country disadvantaged areas program. The program has been continued and in 1979 a sum of $4.6m has been allocated to the program. Under the program, 16 areas have been selected throughout Australia on the basis of their relative poverty, their special need for improved educational provisions and outcomes, and their lack of opportunities for employment and further training of young people. All schools in the declared areas, government and nongovernment, share the services and facilities provided through this program. Broadly-based State and area committees support and stimulate rural communities in their search for new and improved ways of providing education for their children. The program seeks to encourage them to identify and use what they already have in their communities and to use the special funding to supplement or mobilise these resources. There were 389 schools and 56,626 students participating in the program in 1978.

page 90

QUESTION

IRAN

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, relates to the recent events in Iran. Was the Australian Government warned by our Embassy in Teheran or by the Department of Foreign Affairs as to the possibility of the conflagration taking place in Iran which in fact did take place, or was the Government caught unawares by the events which occurred in Iran? Will the Minister consider making a statement to the Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity on the situation which has arisen from the events in Iran, both insofar as the energy resources of the world are affected by the events in that country and also the political significance of the resurgence of Islamic militancy in Iran, as in other parts of the Islamic world?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The substance of Senator Wheeldon ‘s question is whether the Government will consider making a statement.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Also whether it was warned.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes. I am aware of the first part of the question. I will ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give consideration to making a statement. I am not equipped with an answer to the first part of the question. I will seek an answer. I think it would be fair to say that the world in general was surprised at the rapid change of events in Iran and I have no doubt at all that Australia, in common with the world in general, did not anticipate the pace and turn of events that occurred. It is an important question and I will seek a response to it.

page 91

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM LTD

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Yesterday Senator Robertson asked me a question relating to pollution in the Ranger Uranium Ltd mine. I have an answer from the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. Senator Robertson is no doubt referring to recent reports in the Press, stating that during early January, clay silt, largely from sewerage channels being dug at the Ranger camp site, was washed into the Coonjima Billabong. The Billabong is situated on a small tributary of the Magela Creek.
  2. The Supervising Authority for erosion control and soil conservation measures within the Ranger Project Area is the Commissioner for Soil Conservation of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPWC) which administers the Soil Control and Land Utilization Act.
  3. Procedures for erosion control under the Act involve the issue of a Soil Conservation Order, to cover appropriate parts of the Ranger Project Area. Officers of the Land Conservation Unit visited the Ranger site on 18, 20 and 24 December to inspect the works and discuss the proposed boundaries of the Soil Conservation Order. The Supervising Scientist was present during the inspection of 20 December.
  4. It will be appreciated that the procedures for the preparation of the Order can be lengthy and complex. While the Order at the Ranger site has been in the course of preparation, there have been frequent discussions, inspections and consultation involving the Territory Soil Conservation Unit and the Ranger project manager. Ranger management has co-operated in adopting suggestions made by the Territory authorities during this interim period.
  5. It is expected that the Soil Conservation Order will be issued early next week.
  6. I think it is now generally agreed that this incident at the Coonjimba Billabong was considerably exaggerated in the early Press reports. In fact, a flight over the area by staff of the Supervising Scientist on 31 January 1979 indicated that Coonjimba Billabong was clear, and that the silt load was indistinguishable, visually, from much of the Magela system; parts of the system remote from any works were more heavily coloured than Coonjimba. Indeed, turbidity in the Magela may vary naturally by a factor of 10 during flood peaks. In effect, the silting at Coonjimba was transient, and no damage of a permanent nature occurred.
  7. Nevertheless, it is the Government’s aim to ensure that pollution of the environment due to uranium mining is reduced to a practical minimum, and we are confident that this can be achieved through the arrangements which both the Commonwealth and the Territory Governments have made for the control of mining in the Region.

page 91

QUESTION

AIR SAFETY STANDARDS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– An important element of the question asked earlier by Senator Missen was whether there was a lack of adequate government funding, leading to there being an insufficient number of air traffic controllers. I wish to add briefly to the answer I gave a few minutes ago. It is true that there is currently a relatively small shortage of controllers. However, steps were taken last year to rectify the position by accelerating the recruitment and training program. The situation should be fully rectified by August of this year. I am advised that the controller situation cannot be attributed to an inadequacy in government funding and that the level of funding has been appropriate to the established needs for air safety equipment.

page 91

INDEXATION OF PENSIONS

Matter of Urgency

Mr PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 21 February 1979 from Senator Grimes:

Dear Mr President,

Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I shall move- ‘That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

The restoration by the Government of twice yearly indexation for all pensions and benefits under the Social Security and Repatriation systems.

Yours sincerely, DONALD JAMES GRIMES Senator for Tasmania

Is the motion supported?

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

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

I move:

This matter is of political, social and economic importance and it has, of course, considerable emotional overtones in the community. It involves the welfare of the most vulnerable of our citizens and, probably equally importantly, it also involves their ability to have any faith in this Parliament and in promises made both by parties and individuals in this Parliament.

The Opposition has taken this very early opportunity to raise the question of the restoration of twice yearly indexation of pensions and benefits under our social security and repatriation systems because of the confusion that has arisen and the expectations that have occurred in the pensioner community as a result of widespread media publicity in the last two months following actions of certain Government supporters. There has also been an awareness in the community at large that a gross injustice has been done to those people in the community who depend on fixed incomes from the Government. I am aware that because of this publicity and because of the claims and counter-claims and the interpretative sort of articles that have appeared in the Press, many people in the community are confused as to what the Government will do and what this Parliament will do. I believe and the Opposition believes it is important that this matter should be cleared up.

The Opposition believes that the revocation of the twice yearly indexation of pensions and benefits in the Social Services Amendment Bill in October last year was a breach of a firm undertaking given by both Government parties. We believe it was unjust. We believe that the injustice is widely recognised as such in the community. Only a few feeble attempts were made to justify the action taken by the Government in the Budget. These attempts at justification have in fact been shown to be false in the few short months since they were made. The Government should reverse its decision, and it can do so without causing inflationary damage to the economy. It can do so without putting an excessive burden on the taxpayers of this community. The time has come for the Government to do the right thing- to change this Budget decision or, alternatively, to call on those of its supporters who are doing so to cease their pretence to the pensioners and beneficiaries in this community that they are capable of reversing the Government’s decision by actions in this place.

The Opposition has been consistent on this issue at all times. We opposed the change from twice yearly indexation to yearly indexation. We were in fact supported by one Government senator, by the Australian Democrats senators and by the independent senator. We were also supported at the time, in words at least, by other Government senators and by Government members in another place who expressed dismay at the move that the Government was taking but who felt that they could not support the retention of twice yearly indexation and hence abstained from voting. By doing so they effectively supported the proposal to remove twice yearly indexation.

Since then pensioners and members of organisations representing the various beneficiaries in the community have pressured Government and Opposition members to correct the injustice. As we know, one Government supporter has announced that he will introduce a private member’s Bill to restore the previous position. On Friday last at a large public meeting in Sydney he showed the Bill, or what he claimed was the Bill. He promised that he would introduce the Bill into this Parliament yesterday. He did not do so. Until a short time ago he had not done so today. Members of the executive of pensioner organisations have come to Canberra today as they did yesterday to support this gentleman and still he has not made any attempt to move his private member’s Bill. This does not surprise anyone on this side of the House. He has been known to behave before in this sort of way. He promised to cross the floor to prevent the abolition of the funeral benefit and he did not. He promised to cross the floor to support an Opposition proposal to increase the subsidy for apple and pear growers in Tasmania and he did not.

Senator Button:

– Who is this person?

Senator GRIMES:

-I do not believe that I need to name him. He promised to stay away from the Parliament until the Australian Trader was restored to the Tasmanian run. It was not restored and he has been here ever since. His proposals, his propositions, are part of a stunt to provide publicity for himself and they should be recognised as such. If he is willing to present the private member’s Bill, although I question this as a method of achieving the aim, the Opposition will support him. But he has not done so. We have grave doubts that he will do so but we are certain that he will continue to squeeze every bit of publicity out of this matter while he can. This is unfair to the pensioners of this country and to the beneficiaries of this country. It is obvious that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and, particularly, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) are not in favour of the reintroduction of twice yearly indexation and it is quite clear that sufficient Government supporters are not willing to support such a private member’s Bill to enable it to be passed in both Houses. It is unfair and cruel to raise the hopes of the pensioners and the beneficiaries in this country. We do not deny the honourable member’s right to introduce a private member’s Bill and we do not deny his right to question the Government’s decision. We will support him on this but we believe that it should be more than just the publicity stunt it seems to be.

The Opposition believes that the twice yearly indexation of pensions and benefits is a reasonable and just concept for protecting pensioners and beneficiaries in this country from the effects of inflation. From 1972 to 1975 it was necessary to increase pensions at twice yearly intervals by much more than the increase in the consumer price index to raise them to the 25 per cent of average weekly earnings that we considered at that time to be a reasonable minimum figure for single pensions. In fact in that time pensions rose by 80.4 per cent while the CPI increased by 50 per cent and average weekly earnings increased by 64 per cent. As a result of the introduction of twice yearly indexation in the time the present Government has been in office, pensions have increased at about the same rate as the consumer price index and at a slightly greater rate than average weekly earnings. This will not continue if yearly indexation is persisted with and because of that procedure pensioners will lose each year a varying sum depending on the rate of inflation.

Prior to the 1975 election campaign the then shadow Minister for Social Security, Mr Chipp, now Senator Chipp, promised, as he said with the full authority of both coalition parties, that pensions would be immediately and automatically indexed to the consumer price index. After considerable prompting by both the Opposition and Mr Chipp, then a back bencher in the Government, this proposal was partly legislated for at the end of 1976 by the introduction of twice yearly indexation. It was supported by the Opposition. It was pointed out that it was not quite what had been promised but that it was a reasonable proposal and a reasonable method of keeping pensioners up to date with inflation. This change was lauded to the heavens by the Minister for Social Security, by the Prime Minister, by Senator Baume and other luminaries in this House as the greatest change in social security provisions since Federation. Day after day we had long speeches of praise for the introduction of this change.

Before the 1977 election the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, promised that this policy would continue, as did the Prime Minister and, taking their cue from the Minister for Social Security and from the Prime Minister, as did every government member and supporter who campaigned in that election, lt was a firm promise given to every pensioner and every beneficiary in this community. When suggestions were made by some Labor members- I was one of them- to the effect that if the Government continued with its plan of economic stringency it inevitably would have to do away with twice yearly indexation, we were accused of indulging in fear tactics. We were said to be telling lies. One remembers how vigorously the present honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) refuted any suggestion of mine to this effect in the last election campaign.

The Liberal Party policy issued in 1975 stated that the Government would move towards the protection of benefits and pensions from erosion by inflation through automatically adjusting benefit levels every six months according to movements in the consumer price index. Mr Chipp said that the coalition had made the promise before December 1975; that he had promised on television that under a Liberal government pensions would be adjusted twice a year and would be geared to cost of living movements, and that he had made this promise with the full authority of his Party. He said that pensioners were not going to be made a political football but it seems that again pensioners are to be made a political football. In a television advertisement on 5 December 1977, just before the election, the Minister for Social Security said:

We have altered the legislation so that there is an automatic increase every six months and we accept that this is an increase in the social welfare bill.

I have had lots of people say to me: ‘You have given us dignity because you do not argue about our rises every six months.’

At the time Mr Fraser said:

We are committed to take politics out of pension increases by giving automatic increases in line with price rises twice a year.

On 2 1 November 1975 he said also:

The real value of pensions will be preserved.

It was not the Opposition which was lying at that time by suggesting that this policy may not be maintained; it was not the Opposition which was knowingly deceiving the pensioners and electors of this community; it was the Prime Minister, the Minister for Social Security and their colleagues in the Government parties. When in the last Budget the Government decided to break its promise, when the Government decided to destroy completely the faith of the pensioners in any promises that were made, when the Government decided to force the pensioners and those receiving benefits in this country to carry the burden of the economic policies of the Government quite out of proportion to their ability to do so, two reasons were given by the Government. The first reason was the reason most frequently given by the Prime Minister- that inflation was under control, that twice yearly indexation was unnecessary and that the rate of inflation would continue to come down. The second reason given was that it was an economic necessity for the welfare of the nation. Other members of the Government attempted to dredge up further reasons. One of the most novel was introduced into this chamber by Senator Walters. She explained to us that, because the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had changed from quarterly indexation adjustments for wages to six-monthly indexation adjustments it naturally followed that the Government should change from six-monthly to yearly adjustments for pensions. When questioned she did not go on with that argument for too much longer, realising that she was going to get herself into difficulties with some of the pensioners who were her constituents.

The latest figures for increases in the consumer price index have effectively torpedoed the first argument that inflation is again under control. It is obvious that inflation will not reach the low figure claimed for it by the Government. It is obvious from world economic trends that we are likely to get an increase in the inflation rate. We are certainly not going to get a decrease in the inflation rate this year. But the argument was not valid in the first place. Pensioners should be compensated for inflation at whatever its level and they should be compensated twice yearly. This has become a bipartisan policy in this Parliament and it had been accepted generally in the community.

The economic necessity argument does not hold water. The estimated savings this financial year from the changes is $27m and in a full year it is $60m. That is a pittance compared with the economic expenditure in other areas by this Government, such as the proposal to spend $300m on the new Parliament House, $40m on VIP jets and hundreds of millions of dollars on investment allowances to enable firms to take on machinery and shed labour. It is a feeble argument. It was not valid then and it is certainly not valid now. Senator Walters’ argument that, under some principle that is not understood on this side of the Senate, the Government should somehow index pensions at twice the duration that the Arbitration Commission increases wages is beyond comprehension by anyone on this side of the chamber and I believe anyone on the Government side. These arguments were not accepted at the time of the last Budget. They were not accepted by the Opposition. They were not accepted by the Australian Democrats senators. They were not accepted by the independent senator. They were not accepted by the media. They were not accepted by any expert or commentator on the subject. They were not accepted by the Australian Council of Social Service. They were not accepted by any welfare organisation at all. By their own words the arguments were obviously not accepted by many supporters of the Government. The move was condemned roundly by the councils of social service and it was condemned in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by some Government members.

Despite protests at the time, despite representations since and despite threats about the introduction of a private member’s Bill, the Government does not recognise the injustice of its actions. It is up to this Parliament to attempt to correct the situation.

The Government’s misguided restrictions in some areas of government assistance has meant a long and heavy burden on many people in the community. Supplementary assistance for rent, payments for pensioners’ children and payments to injured Commonwealth employees have not been increased for more than three years. Family allowances have not been increased since their introduction in the present form. Their value has depreciated. Families with children have been affected, as has been suggested many times in this Parliament. Services to disadvantaged people in the community have been affected through cuts in assistance to various welfare agencies and groups which assist these people. We are dealing today merely with the income support payments, merely with the payments which in most cases these people rely on completely for their existence. It affects a large number of recipients and it affects them in a particularly harmful way. We have a situation where we firmly believe that the Government’s policy was wrong and remains so. We have a situation where most observers in the community believe that the Government’s policy was wrong and is still wrong. We have a situation where its own supporters believe that the Government was wrong and is still wrong. We believe this situation should be reversed, which is the first reason that we bring up this motion.

Secondly, we believe that if the Government does not reverse the situation, if the Government persists with its attitude, and through the weight of numbers in this place we cannot change the situation, then those Government members who maintain the pretence that they can alter this situation should demonstrate to the pensioners of this country that they are not raising their hopes quite falsely by introducing a Bill and putting it to the test of this Parliament.

Senator Wriedt:

– It is deception.

Senator GRIMES:

-It is a deception, as Senator Wriedt has said. If such a Bill comes forward we will look at it and support it. We will seek to amend it to improve it if that is necessary. This is an important matter. It is too important to be kicked around in the media of this country. It is too important to be used for personal publicity by individual politicians. It is too important to be raised in the manner in which it has been raised in the last two months. It is too important to deceive the people who are being deceived. The Government must make its position clear. The members of the Government who claim that they have the influence to change the Government’s view or the Parliament’s view should either take the action that they claim will succeed or stop behaving in the manner in which they are behaving. Then and only then will the pensioners know where they are, will the Parliament know where it is and will some justice be done and be seen to be done for these people in the community.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator Grimes, in moving this urgency motion, said that it was a matter of political, social and economic importance. If one were listening carefully to him I think one could detect that to him his address was more of political importance, notably the importance that he placed on it in regard to the State of Tasmania. I do not argue with that. He is a senator from that State and undoubtedly he wishes to respond to moves that have been made by private members as regards the introduction of private members Bills and things of that sort.

In response to the motion moved by him I want to say that I regard it as a matter of social importance and economic importance to discuss the matter of the income security system in this country. I do not think anyone would argue that we would not want to see those who are dependent on the income security system receive as great a level of benefit or pension as can be found from the economic resources of this country. In saying that I am not in any way suggesting that we are not dealing with individual problems. I acknowledge that the office bearers of the Pensioners Federation are in the Senate today. They came here yesterday and put their views on behalf of the Federation’s members and pensioners generally. They told me about their concern about many individual problems. They did say to me that the people who are without the ownership of a home and who have to pay high rental are in very serious economic circumstances. I think we would all agree that there are differences in the way in which people are able to deal with their retirement stage.

We cannot look at the economics of the situation without giving recognition to the enormous growth of expenditure on health and welfare. I do not wish to be tedious in the use of figures but it has to be put on record so that there may be some informed debate on it just what has occurred in, say, the last 10 years with regard to income security and welfare expenditure. In the

Budget for the year 1967-68 the health and welfare allocation was $1.4 billion. It is now $ 10,000m. That is a sevenfold increase in a period of 10 years. I refer to those figures because they have to be recognised as a burden on the economic resources of Australia. Senator Grimes spoke of the burden on individual pensioners, and I also give recognition to that. Equally, I give recognition to the growth in the health and welfare expenditure of this country. I have a number of statistics, and perhaps I could refer to some of them. It may also be appropriate to incorporate one particular table which I think is important.

Dealing with the forthcoming year, our expenditure is expected to rise again through the sheer increase in numbers of pensioners in every category. We have reached the stage where, if our welfare bill is close to $ 1 1 billion, it will represent about $800 for every man, woman and child in Australia. That is the magnitude of the expenditure we are talking about. Another figure which I think indicates relativity is that about 85 per cent of all personal income tax collected in this country is spent on health and welfare. Those are fairly significant figures and we cannot ignore them. In last year’s Budget our welfare expenditure rose by about 7 per cent, but unless we give recognition to the numbers of people who are now social security beneficiaries I do not think we gain any understanding of what has occurred in the responsibilities we must accept. If I could refer again to some figures, and I will try to simplify them, about 10 years ago 1,000 people in the work force were supporting 176 people on income security programs. Looking at the figures for the current year, 1,000 workers are supporting not 176 people but 276 people.

Senator Harradine:

– We had better have a look at the birth rate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– But we cannot ignore the growth in numbers when talking about the growth we would like to see in the rate people receive. Senator Grimes referred to promises that had been made, and I do not argue that promises were not made because legislation was introduced to provide for two increases in each year. The legislation itself shows the promise, the commitment, that was made. It was a commitment that was unable to be sustained because of the increase in numbers and costs in general of the income security system. So again, if anyone wishes to be quite clear about the Government’s commitment, as Senator Grimes suggested, it is in accordance with the legislation that in November of each year there will be an increase to take account of the consumer price index.

When talking about promises and broken promises, perhaps it would be too non-political to ignore the promises of the Whitlam Government. In 1 972 Mr Whitlam promised to abolish the means test within three years. The Australian Labor Party has now dropped the abolition of the means test from its platform, and Senator Grimes said recently that he was responsible for having it removed.

Senator Grimes:

– Only as a top priority, that is all.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It is a change, and we cannot ignore the changes that must occur as we look at new realities, new figures. Mr Whitlam also claimed in 1972 that pensions would be lifted to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. As Senator Grimes acknowledged, that figure eludes us. We cannot quite reach it.

Senator McLaren:

– We are very little short of it.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– We are very little short of it, but Senator McLaren would be interested to know that with the November increase the figure paid from December 1978 is the highest we have achieved. The single standard rate is now 24.1 percent of average weekly earnings, which is the highest rate we have achieved.

Senator McLaren:

- Senator Carrick said today that the average weekly wage increased

dramatically under Labor too, so that has to be taken into consideration. You cannot have it both ways.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am taking into account the average weekly earnings for the December 1978 quarter, which I am told were $221.10. The standard rate pension proportion of that amount is 24. 1 per cent and the combined married rate pension is 40.1 per cent. However, 24.1 per cent is the highest rate we have achieved, and I do not think that we can look at the present situation without acknowledging that in October 1972 pensions at the standard rate were 19.9 per cent of average weekly earnings. They moved steadily in 1 973 to 2 1 .4 per cent and then back to 19.9 per cent, with further moves to 20.4 per cent, 22. 1 per cent, and so on. It might be appropriate to have this schedule included in the Senate record because I think it shows the achievements of both governments. It indicates achievements, movements, and a commitment to an increase in pensions to the point where they are now at the highest rate that has ever been paid in relation to average weekly earnings. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It was some time before Senator Grimes gave recognition to inflation. It is quite misleading to consider the indexation question in relation to pension income separately from inflation levels, as many people attempt to do. It is not realistic to talk about indexation without relating it to inflation. I think everyone would recognise that the greatest difficulty is caused to people on the lowest incomes- our two million people who are receiving income security payments- through a high rate of inflation. They are the people who are hurt the most, and unless a government has the resolve to reduce inflation to a point where pensioners are able, with in some cases their slender other income, to have greater purchasing power, we are not talking constructively about the purchasing power of the pension simply by relating it to twice yearly indexation. Figures could show that the loss that would arise through a 12 per cent inflation rate with two indexation increases a year would be the same as the loss through a 6 per cent inflation rate and one increase a year.

Our objective relates not only to pension income recipients, although we regard them as a special category. Our aim is to achieve low inflation for everyone in this country. To suggest that we can isolate one sector of the community in our economic policies is to overlook the fact that our economic policies affect those people perhaps more seriously than they affect anyone else. The inflation rates sustained throughout the 1970s, since the period of the Labor Government, have necessitated frequent increases so that people did not suffer from the rapidly increasing inflation. From our point of view, the person who has a small additional income from investment, security or some sort of superannuation from his former employment is the person who wishes to see a low rate of inflation so that that part of his total income has a greater purchasing power. In the three years of the Labor Government the consumer price index rose by about 50 per cent. In other words, the fixed income, the other income, that a pensioner had was halved in real terms. That is the thing we need to avoid when looking at the real benefit we are able to give to pensioners in the future. We have to ensure that there is greater economic stability, lower inflation, and a commitment in the legislation to annual increases.

It has been said that pensioners are confused and that there is no faith in the Parliament because of what has occurred. I must refer to the introduction of a private member’s Bill, which has been canvassed publicly, because I think it is confusing to people to be told that a private member’s Bill is a way of changing government policy, particularly government policy that requires expenditure. Every member of parliament knows that the management of the economy is the responsibility of the Executive, that the management of expenditure is the responsibility of the Executive. This is a very fundamental principle that it is governments which introduce Bills which require the expenditure of public money. I think everyone is aware of the procedure of the message from the Governor-General and the support of the Parliament for the legislation. I wish to make it perfectly clear that a private member’s Bill, even if it were passed by both houses of Parliament, would in the case of a money Bill still require government initiative to provide the funds. To suggest otherwise I think is confusing.

It ought to be firmly stated that it is the Government which would introduce any changes to legislation. I think the Senate is particularly aware of money Bills and the way in which the whole system works. I believe that no one in the Senate would be deluded into believing that someone talking of the introduction of a private member’s Bill would be able to achieve any change in Government policy or direction. That needs to be said and I think it needs to be said quite strongly.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr Goodluck will not be too pleased to read those remarks, senator. You have pulled the rug from under him now.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– But I think it has to be said.

Senator McLaren:

– We are aware of that, but he is not. There are many people he is trying to fool.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– If people are to accept the way in which the parliamentary system works, the way in which the system of government by which we live works, they have to accept that it is the Cabinet, the Executive, which introduces the Bills. We know of the message which must come, we know of the support of Parliament which is required. I just want to make that perfectly clear in case it is not clear. Senator Grimes said that we do not wish to see the pensioner population made a political football. I agree with that statement in every way. I agree with it to the extent that legislation which provides for an annual increase is the legislation which needs to be explained. It needs to be shown that the Government did change the legislation; that there was an amendment to the legislation which removed the May increase. I would do whatever I could to make perfectly clear that that is the way in which increases would be provided. They will be increases that will be provided at each November payment. In response to a question the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said yesterday:

The policy of full indexation once a year will preserve the value of pensions.

The Prime Minister went on to say:

It ought to be noted that there are some who say that pension adjustments should be put on the same basis as adjustments for wage earners.

The Prime Minister further said:

Quite plainly, on many occasions the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does not apply full 100 per cent indexation for wages and salaries. If pensioners were placed on the same basis as wage earners who received an adjustment every six months but who only receive that proportion of the change in the cost of living given by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, quite plainly pensioners would be much worse off than under a 100 percent adjustment which is the policy of the Government.

The Prime Minister has given that public commitment. The policy of full indexation once a year in accordance with the legislation will preserve the value of pensioners’ incomes. That is one commitment that has been made in advance of the forthcoming Budget. I believe that that commitment being made by the Prime Minister in a public way is an assurance that it is not subject to change in the forthcoming Budget.

Senator Grimes:

– But can we rely on it any more that we could rely on the promise of twice yearly indexation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Prime Minister has made that commitment. The Government has changed its legislation. The legislation which is in existence is to provide for that November increase. If we are really serious about talking of what has been promised and what has not been promised I should say that Senator Grimes made some note of the fact that supplementary assistance has not been increased and that the family allowance has not been indexed. I acknowledge that the child’s allowance has not been increased but I refer to the alternative Budget which Mr Hayden brought in last year in response to our Budget. He made no arrangements, no commitments. There was no allowance in his figures for the raising of pensions in any way other than the twice yearly indexes. He made a commitment to increase unemployment benefits for persons without dependents and he made a commitment for twice yearly indexes. He made no commitment with regard to additional pensions with regard to children, he made no estimate to show that he would give a greater allowable free area of income to pensioners. Do not let us make comments without showing what our own responsibility would be if we were in the position of having an opportunity to do some of these things.

Senator Grimes:

– Let us read what he said.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– If one of the Opposition members would read what was said by Mr Hayden when presenting his alternative Budget- after all, we would have to accept that Budget as being party policy- we would see that other than the commitment for twice yearly increases and the indexation of unemployment benefits and, at that time the restoration of the family allowance which was later changed by the present Government, he made no commitments for further expenditure. I believe that he understood the magnitude of the welfare bill, he understood the impossibility of making rash promises greatly to increase the rates and other benefits that are paid. I think the figures that I mentioned should also receive some consideration. I mentioned the sorts of figures that indicated the number of people who are being supported by a thousand people in the working population. But I doubt whether anyone in Australia realises that we pay pensions to over 2 million people- according to the figures that I have for December 1978, 2,146,000 and some others- and that we have 1.3m age pensioners. In 10 years that figure has doubled. It has doubled from 600,000-odd to 1,300,000. That is the sort of problem into which we are reaching and it is the sort of problem which I think has to be stated at a time when we are talking about what is able to be done and how we can help the people of Australia with their personal tax.

We do not have contributory schemes with separate entitlements to any of these benefits. It is from our taxing of the working population that we are able to provide this income security system. As a proportion of the residentially qualified population of age pension age, the age pensioners represent almost 80 per cent. In other words, of those who reach age pension age, about 80 per cent are receiving an age pension. If we are to look at these figures with a further refinement we find that a very high proportion of them receive a total pension. In other words, they have limited other income; they have arranged their affairs for their retirement years to be almost totally or very significantly dependent on the pension income. The proportion of the national Budget that is spent on income security, on welfare and on social security, is 27.8 per cent. In broad terms that is the commitment that we have as a priority to this area of government responsibility.

There are those who tell us that another dollar a week or something of that sort would help very greatly to ease hardship. I am sure that in many individual cases this would be so. But if we are to have a system of standard rates of pensions and if we are to recognise the number of people who receive them we should know that in a full year a dollar a week increase would mean about $1 16m extra to find. It was stated in many of the petitions that were presented in the Senate today that one of our objectives should be to increase all pensions and benefits to 30 per cent of the estimated seasonly adjusted average weekly earnings. I am sure that there are those who present petitions or sign petitions with high hopes but I would have to say that to increase all pensions and benefits to that level of 30 per cent instead of the 24.1 per cent that I mentioned would cost an additional $ 1,490m. They are figures of magnitude; they represent enormous commitments. This year the cost of restoring sixmonthly pension and benefit increases would be about S80m for the full year. It was in some way to restrain the growth that we needed to look at the over 70s with a means-test-free pension. We needed to look at the way in which we were indexing or increasing pensions to have some reality and some recognition of the burden on those who have to pay the funds to provide for these increases. As well as having a policy on the indexation of pensions we also had a policy on the indexation of personal taxes so that they would not automatically rise with inflation. We went to great lengths to achieve that but we were unable fully to sustain that in this year. I suppose that in looking at social security we probably had to take a decision on whether to uphold our commitment to full tax indexation or whether to find $500m from the family allowance scheme. The Government, in its wisdom and, I think, with the great support of the Australian people, decided to maintain the family allowance scheme. But in rough terms we needed another $500m from personal taxes, so that burden was spread right across the tax paying population.

Although I would agree with Senator Grimes when he says that pensioners, the people who are aged, invalid and sick, are the most vulnerable, I also need to recognise the needs of families- the single income family with several small children, the family with commitments to purchasing a house to give security to the family and the family with a woman who is unable to work and who has commitments at home to her own children and a desire to be at home with them. I feel that these people with a disposable income also are sometimes very vulnerable. There is within the responsibility of government a need to look at responsibility for all. I think that we have shown that we give very high priority to the income security system. We have shown, with the greatest of intent, that we will maintain the income security system. We have shown through our legislation that, having reached the highest figure that pensions have ever reached in comparison with average weekly earnings, we can look to the future for those increases to be made on an annual basis.

That is my response to the matter of urgency raised by Senator Grimes in regard to the restoration by the Government of twice yearly indexation for all pensions. I hope that I have been able to explain the Government’s policy, the effect of the legislation and the inoperable effect of any private member’s Bill which may be gaining support through petitions or in another way. The whole system, the whole structure of our

Parliament and of our government system, is not able to operate other than through the Crown, through requests to Cabinet for the money. To suggest that there is any other means of appropriating money is simply to make the system difficult for people to understand and I think that would provide an opportunity for people to become confused.

We are strongly aware of the needs of ageing people. I was interested in the question asked by Senator Bonner today. He felt that to describe a person as an ‘age pensioner’ was discriminatory. I think that is something on which we could have discussion. If we are looking at what is required by aging and frail people we will know that the need for hostel and nursing home beds and projects is important. I think that in the past three years we have been able to do a good deal but we still have an enormous unmet need in respect of hostels and nursing homes. We have been able to approve personal care subsidies for about 16,000 people in hostels. I think that in general the whole range of things that is being done is providing more comfort and more security for a greater number of people each year. But unless we understand the real responsibility of government in regard to the management of expenditure and unless we are prepared to look at the increases that are occurring in the number of pensioners as well as in the rates we are not being realistic. I do not think that any government could run away from its real responsibility to maintain the income security system, in some ways and at some times to be able to improve it, and, above all I think, to see itself in the position of having total responsibility for the raising of funds as well as the disbursal of them.

Senator Grimes said that the Government’s policy could be reversed without inflationary effect. I believe that what I have said in regard to the growth in numbers and the changes in the rate of inflation since the time when the Labor Government was in office would lead people who understand the facts as they are to reject the motion moved by Senator Grimes.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I support the motion moved by my colleague Senator Grimes. Before I move into the arguments I have prepared for my contribution to the debate I would like to make one or two comments on what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has just said. I am sure that we in the Senate, the pensioners and the beneficiaries of pension benefits generally will be grateful for the very lucid explanation the Minister has given us on the place of a private member’s Bill on this subject, and also for pinpointing very clearly the group which holds the responsibility for the decision in this matter and for the allocation of funds. I am sure that the pensioners will realise clearly that in future they must direct their comments to the Executive and any change which comes must come from that group.

I am surprised and perhaps a little mystified at the Minister’s exercise in semantics on whether the discussion we are having is political, economic or social. I find that any matters we deal with in this place are political. I find it difficult to define otherwise. Perhaps the Minister was looking rather in terms of motivation and was suggesting there was some political motivation behind the motion moved by Senator Grimes. I think that the record of Senator Grimes in this place and the record of his party speak for themselves. His motivation in moving this motion is based quite clearly on his knowledge of the needs of pensioners and the beneficiaries of pensions, and his compassion for them. I wonder whether the pensioners, in particular the age pensioners, throughout Australia who are cold and hungry would appreciate the Minister’s economic argument, one which she put with such skill. I supose it demonstrates quite clearly the different approach of the two parties. Labor’s concern in the area of social security quite obviously is for need, as it is in the area of education. We do not accept that we give pensioners what is left after we have bought VIP aeroplanes, after we have built High Courts and after we have given subsidies to people who do not need them. Rather we see that in matters of social security the need of the pensioner is the criterion, not what happens to be left over.

I could not appreciate the logic behind the Minister’s reference to the Hayden Budget. The Minister admitted that the Hayden Budget included six-monthly adjustments. She also admitted that it included the indexation of the unemployment benefit. Then in some way she justified her own action in not continuing that policy by saying that Labor did not do more. That is extraordinary logic for a woman with the Minister’s background.

My contribution in this debate will deal with the special problems faced by pensioners in the Northern Territory, particularly the age pensioners- those who qualify for benefits under the pensioner medical service; that is, those who are without other income. I refer to these people only because it is a graphic illustration of the effects of Government policy, of which annual indexation is one aspect although what I will have to say in this area applies to all pensioners and beneficiaries. There are several general factors that I might mention. Firstly, there is the high living cost in the Northern Territory. I am unable to give clear figures on this because despite the fact that I have asked for them on several occasions the Government says that it has no money to provide consumer price index figures for the Northern Territory. It says that it has no money for staff or expenses. However, it has been recognised in the district allowance paid by government and industry that there is a difference in the cost of living in the Northern Territory. There are different allowances for different areas but the cost of living is a significant part of the district allowance and, of course, pensioners get no district allowance.

Prices are high in the Territory because there is little local production. When people try to produce locally the big stores insist on buying from the south because they maintain that they can have a firm supply for the 12 months. This also adds to the cost of living. Freight is a solid component of the cost of living in the Northern Territory and basically all of the goods used in the Northern Territory come from the south and are subject to freight charges. There is no recognition of this fact in the rate of pension or in the indexation of benefits.

The next point is the steady increase in costs. Again, I can give no figures because we have no CPI figures. But quite obviously, we do have the effect of inflation on costs, including freight, all of which accumulate. I do not think that there would be any doubt that there is a steady increase in costs. Since this is the theme of the debate, I will not dwell on the point but will come back to it later. I wish now to raise a number of other matters.

I would like to look at the specific areas where the pensioners of the Northern Territory are disadvantaged- Firstly, they are disadvantaged by the high costs of goods and services. I have already referred to this matter. I will not dwell on that point as I think that that is accepted by those people who have knowledge of the situation in the Northern Territory. Pensioners in the Northern Territory are disadvantaged also by the lack of concessions or assistance from either the Territory Government or the Federal Government. I commend the Territory Government for setting up a board of inquiry into welfare needs, which will look at the problems of pensioners and other people with needs. Of course, until its report becomes public and the information it is going to give us is known to us we must assume that what exists at the moment will continue to exist. Too often people have missed out by anticipating what might come out of a board of inquiry. Nevertheless, I do commend the Government for doing this.

Another area in which the pensioners in the Northern Territory are disadvantaged is that of accommodation. It is common knowledge that housing is in short supply in the Northern Territory. Because of the normal market situation of supply and demand costs are high. Rent is high, the cost of buying a house is high and the cost of maintaining a house is high. Unfortunately, there is insufficient subsidised accommodation in the Territory. So many of the pensioners and beneficiaries live in single rooms. It would be disturbing to honourable senators to know that a pensioner in the Northern Territory might pay $35 a week for a single room without any cooking facilities- just a place in which to lay his head. The Australian Council on the Ageing has added to this picture by reporting that people sleep on the floor after they have found accommodation because they have not sufficient money to buy furniture after paying their rent. What an indictment of our community that is! What reward is it to give those people who have pioneered the Territory a chance to sleep on bare boards because they cannot afford to buy furniture after they pay rent?

The cost of subsidised accommodation in the Northern Territory is comparable with that in the States but the charges are not. In the States and in the Australian Capital Territory concessions apply which do not apply in the Northern Territory. I think it is important to look briefly at some of them. In the Northern Territory there is no concession for electricity, which everyone needs when living in an urban area. The charges are high and they are increasing. Water, sewerage and local government rates obviously affect those people who have their own homes or those who rent homes, but as well as that it would be a component of the rent paid by people who rent rooms or flats.

In New South Wales the concession given is that it is mandatory to write off 50 per cent to a maximum of $120 on general rates and 50 per cent to a maximum of $60 on water and sewerage rates. Indeed, some councils in New South Wales provide additional concessions. South Australia offers a concession of 60 per cent with maximum reductions and these reductions are very liberal. In the Australian Capital Territory a 50 per cent concession applies simply on the production of a pensioner card. In the Northern Territory no concession whatsoever applies. It must be admitted that the city council tends not to sue for payment and it has some discretion as to whether it will allow the debts to build up and be taken from the estate of the person concerned. But there is no firm policy and the council acts on the discretion of an individual officer. So it is fair to say that basically there is no concession.

I turn now to car registrations, which is an important matter. A group from the Combined Pensioners Association of Victoria who came to see us in late 1978 spoke of the great need that pensioners have for cars. They spoke of some pensioners having to pick up others to go to meetings and having to take shopping the people who could not drive or were incapacitated, or simply of pensioners getting out of the house, which is the only luxury that these people have. But surely we are not going to question the right of pensioners and beneficiaries to have a vehicle.

I deplore the sort of antediluvian approach which states that it is some sort of crime to be on a pension and that in some way it is a person’s own fault that he is on a pension and in receipt of some benefits. I deplore the concept of a pension being seen- apparently it was seen by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) as this- as some sort of largesse which is handed out by the state. I prefer to see it as moneys being repaid; moneys which are paid in during a lifetime of contribution being paid back to a person who needs them later. I make a side reference to the great advantages that the national superannuation scheme suggested by the Australian Labor Party would have in this sort of situation.

Let us look at the concessions that apply to vehicle registration. In New South Wales a 90 per cent motor vehicle tax concession applies. In Victoria the totally and permanently incapacitated receive free registration. In Queensland a remission of half the motor vehicle registration fee applies. In the Northern Territory no concession at all applies. Again, I have called on the Government to introduce such concessions for the Northern Territory and honourable senators who sit in this place have heard me make this call on the Government. The Government says that it is considering the matter, but as yet, after over 1 2 months, I have not heard of a decision- I have received no reply.

Let us look at the area of transport. In the Northern Territory pensioners and beneficiaries receive free travel on local buses. I commend the Government for that. It is a hangover from the days when the Commonwealth was responsible for the Northern Territory and this was allowed by the Commonwealth Government. For interstate travel the Commonwealth makes available half fares between capital cities, but of course charges for meals, sleepers and so on still have to be paid. Unfortunately, there are no trains in the Top End. We had a railways system- the North Australian Railways- which was cut out by the government of the day, the present Government. The only connection we have with capital cities is out of Alice Springs. As we all know, the bulk of the Territorians live in the Top End. McRobertson Miller Airline Services, to its credit, allows a 50 per cent reduction in fares in the off-peak season. But a pensioner’s fare is not paid automatically every two years, as is the case for other people in the Territory. It has been agreed that this two-year fare is necessary for the health of the people who are working. How much more necessary is it for those people who perhaps are not as healthy as the people who are working because they are approaching the end of their lives? It is worth noting that both government and private employers have accepted the proposition concerning a two-year fare.

I think I have said enough to demonstrate the special and specific disadvantages suffered by Northern Territory pensioners. Let us look briefly at the consequences of these disadvantages to these people. The situation has developed where pensioner associations and other groups have had to provide meals for pensioners because they cannot afford to buy them. I refer to the Pensioners Association and the Meals on Wheels organisation. They provide meals at a nominal charge of 80c and 50c a meal. I am advised by a field officer for the Council on the Ageing that for some people this meal represents their only meal for the day; their other two meals consist of, as he said, ‘tea and bickies’. As far as I am concerned, this sort of approach of voluntary groups going out and seeking money and contributions of food and then of getting voluntary help to prepare meals looks good and the people who do the work are to be commended but it is not the sort of philosophy we want to see being adopted. It is rather reminiscent of the old soup kitchen philosophy. I find it anathema to what we call our affluent society.

I refer again to a report from the field officer of the Council on the Ageing in which he told me that he sees the pensioners when they become down and out’. What does he mean by ‘down and out’? He means people who have lost their dignity; people who have found, because of the problems that face them, an inability to cope. He means people who are in despair, people who are sick. He said that they are people who need preventive medicine. I should say that they have come after that stage; that they have come when they can no longer cope. He told me that more of these ‘down and outs’ have approached him in the past two years than previously. The more astute honourable senators on the other side of the chamber will say that that would not be the result of government policies because this system of indexing pensions has been introduced only recently. The whole point of what I am trying to say in my contribution is that the present imposition is just one more factor.

The field officer reported to me an increase in illness among these people, particularly illnesses resulting from vitamin deficiencies and slow malnutrition. His comments are supported by the dietician at the hospital. There are answers to the particular problems faced by the Northern Territory pensioners. Obviously among them is the introduction of a district allowance and the provision of a set of rebates and concessions by the Northern Territory and local government, perhaps including concessions in regard to charges for rent and electricity. Since food forms the greatest part of a budget, what I see is needed is the provision of some sort of district allowance to compensate for high food costs.

Mentioning the cost of food brings us back to the terms of the motion before us. The simple fact is that the age pensioners in the Northern Territory who qualify for pensioner medical cards are living below the poverty line and the introduction of 12-monthly indexation will simply exacerbate the situation and ensure that these people live further below the poverty line. Some might say that the pensioners should just move out of the Territory. Many have done so because they cannot afford to live there. What an insult to our pioneers, to ask them to build our Territory for us, to get it ready for us and then to move out. It seems to me that this is the height of selfishness. Of course, many people would say that they cannot live in the south, that they must live in the tropics for their health.

I have run out of time so I finish up with the following comment: I have said much in this place about territorians being the poor cousins of Canberra. If we in the Territory are the poor cousins, on the whole, then pensioners are the forgotten ones, the fringe dwellers of our society. I call on the Government to recognise the contribution our pioneers have made and to show both justice and compassion towards their needs. I think that all of us in this place should support the proposition put forward by Senator Grimes not only on moral grounds and in justice, but also because of the simple, old truism: ‘There but for the grace of God go I’.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Senate is debating a matter of public importance which the Opposition has brought forward, namely:

The restoration by the Government of twice yearly indexation for all pensions and benefits under the social security and repatriation systems.

This relates not only to age pensioners as there are a variety of others to which I shall refer in a moment. Not many speakers have referred to those yet.

Before I begin, on this occasion I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and the Government Whips for including myself on the speakers list. I also wish to thank them on behalf of Senator Harradine, in his absence. I approached the acting Opposition Whip before and he said that his list was full. I am not complaining about that because the Opposition has been remarkably kind to members of the Australian Democrats since we got into this Parliament. I am just raising in passing the fact that Senator Mason and I, as the two Australian Democrat senators in this chamber, represent about one million voters. In fact, more people voted for the Australian Democrats than for the National Country Party of Australia. One in every eight Australians voted for our Party. I do not know what formula we can use so that we can have members of the minority parties and the independent honourable senator speaking in debates, but as we received over twelve per cent of the votes one would think that one-eighth of the speaking time would be reasonable. I raise this objection in principle. It does not seem right that we should be dependent on either of the Whips for the right to speak in this chamber. Mr President, we should be dependent on your call. Therein I immediately recognise the difficulty under which that places you because for the Senate to function in an orderly manner you have to have lists in front of you. After consultation with the two Whips it may be that we can regularise the situation and when we do get a formula that might help you in this dilemma, we will come to see you.

In my policy speech in 1977 it was announced that the Australian Democrats policy was clearly not for the restoration or maintenance of sixmonthly indexation of pensions but for quarterly indexation of all pensions. We stand clear and unequivocal on that indexation as part of our policy for reasons I shall mention. I support the statements of Senator Grimes and of other speakers on this side of the Senate when they say that there is an even more serious aspect to this matter. That is a breaking of an overt promise by a Prime Minister. On the basis of that promise he wooed hundreds of thousands of people to vote for the Liberal Party and for the National Country Party. There is no question that this matter of indexation of pensions is one of the biggest things weighing in pensioners’ minds, and it is one of the biggest things which influences them on how to vote at election time.

To illustrate that situation let me go back to something about which Senator Grimes reminded the Senate and that was the part I played in the changing of Liberal Party thinking in 1975. When the Liberal Party was reforming its policies in those days I was the spokesman or shadow Minister for Social Security. Under Mr Snedden and subsequently under Mr Fraser we formed a committee, of which I was chairman. The way in which my committee operated was not necessarily to go only to bureaucrats to find out what was wrong with the social structure but to go out to the people actually in the field of social welfare. After all, they are the people who know the problems of people in society. In determining our social welfare policy we went to organisations such as the Catholic Family Welfare Bureau, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Victorian Council of Social Service, various other social service councils around Australia, the society for the aging, the society for the crippled and pensioners associations. We really went into the hearts of people who were affected by social welfare.

The significant thing was that every one of the organisations on which we called was unanimous as to the number one social reform needed in this country, and that was to index pensions to take the fear of the future out of the minds of pensioners who are totally or substantially resting on the Government for their livelihood. No organisation came up with any other proposition as a number one priority. Therefore, it was included in the policy speech made by Mr Fraser at the time of the 1975 election. The words that he used were the words that I had written for him and which had been approved unanimously by a party meeting of Liberal and National Country Party members and senators. The words were that the Liberal-National Country Party would bring instant and automatic indexation of pensions in line with the consumer price index. I think the words ‘instant’ and ‘automatic’ are fairly easily understood in the English language and to my mind, even by stretching one’s imagination one could not believe that that means once each year, which is now the situation. In fact, it is worse than once each year because in most cases pensioners have to wait up to 16 months before the increases in the consumer price index are reflected in their incomes because of the time lag.

The reason these organisations said that this was the number one priority was that pensioners feared two things. This fear is a constant companion of all age pensioners. The two components of this fear are death and their future security, their future income support. To take away that priority after promising it is a matter which we regard as reprehensible. That is what is being done, notwithstanding a firm promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at the last election on which he must have won hundreds of thousands of votes- possibly millions of votes. To the Australian Democrats to break that promise is an act that is not to be commended. Let me give some figures as to the number of people affected. I have just taken out these figures today, and I am surprised at the numbers. There are 1.3 million age pensioners in Australia and an additional 30,000 wives of those pensioners are affected by this move. If I have erred on the side of conservatism in relation to those on unemployment benefits who might be affected it is because the junior rates are not indexed, so I say a quarter of a million people on unemployment relief are affected by this move. There are 485,000 repatriation pensioners affected by this move and 188,000 service pensioners. A grand total of something like 2.5 million human beings in this country were resting on an assumption that when Mr Fraser and his Government were re-elected they would continue indexing those pensions at least once every six months. It was a fair assumption because the Prime Minister said that he would retain that indexation. Now, that promise has been broken. Out of 7.4 million voters, 2.3 million is a substantial number to be affected by a broken promise. My thoughts and those of the Australian Democrats on this matter are well known. As I have said, it was in our policy speech that quarterly adjustments should be implemented.

I want to refer to a matter which I believe is even more significant than has been mentioned so far in this debate. We are supposed to have in the Parliamentary Press Gallery the doyen of political journalists in the country, and I believe we have. But I have said many times that I think it is a bad thing that journalists are allowed by their newpapers to remain here too long, because after they are here for a certain time they, too, accept the cynicism that is Canberra. They accept the farce that is Parliament. When an event happens that threatens the very power of this democratically elected institution- the Parliament- they do not even notice that it has occurred. Such an event occurred last week. I should like to put it on the record.

The Liberal and National Country parties considered at a party meeting a statement printed by the three most responsible Australian newspapers. Mr Fraser was reported as saying to Mr Goodluck, the member for Franklin, who gave notice that he intended to introduce a private member’s Bill the purpose of which was to restore six-monthly indexation: ‘Even in the unlikely event that you get a majority to pass your private member’s Bill, the Government will not fund it’. I have never before heard such a statement come from a government leader in any of the Western democracies. Certainly no Prime Minister of this country has ever issued such a statement. What does it mean? It means that the head of the Executive Government in this country has said: ‘I do not care what Parliament does. You can pass as many Bills as you like but we, the Executive, will have the final say’. But not one of these political pundits in this Press Gallery picked it up. I have not heard any member of any party pick it up. That is one of the most significant statements I have heard.

I have listened to and read speeches in the Senate and in the House of Representatives delivered by members of parliament who were seeking genuinely and sincerely to uphold the rights of the Parliament. The speeches have been fairly uniform in their content. They have said that the traditions of our Westminster system are protected by three sources of power in our country- the judiciary which interprets the laws, the Executive which frames the laws, and the Parliament which passes the laws. Every speaker on this subject says that these three sources of power must always be kept distinct so that one can have a check and a balance on the others. I have heard some magnificent speeches in this Senate which claims its independence from the Executive. Those speeches state that once the Executive gains control of the Parliament it will be the end of the Westminster system as we know it.

What did the Prime Minister say? At least in philosophical terms he was guilty of contempt of the Parliament, because what he, the Prime Minister, said was this: ‘I do not care what Parliament passes. I do not care what a majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people say by way of vote. That does not mean a damn to me or to the Executive. The only thing that matters in this country, the only thing that will pass in legislation is what I, the Prime Minister, and what we, the Cabinet, agree to. ‘ I sometimes wonder what is wrong with us as parliamentarians because we go through this charade of coming to the Parliament as the elected representatives of the people and we allow the head of the Executive Government to make a statement such as the one to which I have referred.

So to compound the error, I issued a Press release on 13 February. It was placed in every Press box in the Press Gallery. I think the case 1 have enunciated is unanswerable. The Prime Minister did say on this question of indexation of pensions that he did not care what Parliament said. Yet, to my knowledge, not one newspaper in Australia picked it up or printed it. Having made that additional point which is pertinent to this debate, I repeat that we of the Australian Democrats pledge ourselves to support the Australian Labor Party in any moves it might want to make in conformity with the Standing Orders in an effort to force the Government in some way to honour the promise on which it won millions of votes in 1977.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-I rise in this debate concerned that a government whose mismanagement has allowed the deficit to blow out by around $ 1,000m should be trying to retrieve the position by squeezing the people in need of government care and protection. In those areas where government should be using its powers to protect and to sustain those whose circumstances have placed them in a vulnerable position, this Government is pushing people further and further into the quagmire of extreme poverty. Merely paying lip service to the idea of pensions is not enough. One has to look at the real needs, the real justice, behind the whole idea of paying pensions to certain sections of the community. Although in many ways when one talks about pensions one thinks of elderly people, pensioners in our community today are of all ages. They all have human needs. They all need food, for instance. The elderly need good food to prevent illness, to prevent degeneration. Women who are chronically anaemic need good food and proper nutrition. Children need nourishing fresh food for their mental and physical development.

Yet at a time when pensions have effectively had a stopper put on them, we notice that the consumer price index shows that in the December quarter there was a 10 per cent increase in food prices. The pensioners who will have to buy food at that increased price will not receive an increase in their pensions until November 1979. One cannot help wondering how people will manage in these sorts of circumstances. For the elderly, in some areas, there are such organisations as Meals on Wheels to provide assistance. But when one remembers that the Government has cut the subsidy to Meals on Wheels and prevented its expansion in many areas, one has no alternative but to imagine that large numbers of our pensioner population will start to degenerate because they will be unable to eat properly. They will not be able to buy nourishing food to sustain themselves.

Right across the community, insufficient money to buy proper food means an increase in ill health, which means additional cost. We used to have Medibank to assist people in ill health, but this Government has destroyed Medibank. Now pensioners have to take out private health insurance, and that means more expense. Elderly pensioners in some areas will be lucky to be able to take out private health insurance because many of the health insurance funds have stopped offering health insurance to elderly people. They have said that the risk is too great; that they cannot afford it. So the pensioners are left with only their pensions, without the prospect of their being increased and with mounting expenses.

Families with young children make up a great part of our pensioner population today. Anybody who has had children, anybody who has any imagination, realises that when there are young children in a family the need for health care rises dramatically. Everybody knows that families have high expenses in this area and everybody knows that many pensioners are now left with the burden of covering the gap between the standard health benefit that they can claim and the actual fees that doctors charge. They cannot afford to pay high insurance premiums on a fixed income because the money runs out. So the health of these people deteriorates even more. There are, as I think all members of parliament will have realised by now, increasing numbers of people in our offices complaining bitterly about the fact that their pensions are being reduced; they are being reviewed and reduced. They are complaining more because it is becoming much more difficult for them to manage on what is left. It becomes more obvious to them that what they see as a reduction in their incomes has taken place, and they literally cannot manage.

All sorts of people need shelter, as has been said in this debate. People and families have to have a roof over their heads, and whilst every little ratty room in Australia has its rent increased every time there is a pension rise, there is no increase in the amount of decent and cheap accommodation into which pensioners can go. In Victoria the Housing Commission has been the body that has assisted pensioners with housing. It now has the policy of having its rents meet market-related rentals, which means, of course, that they will all be lifted substantially. The Commission has already started to lift its rents substantially and while its rents go up to the market value people stay on fixed levels of pensions. Somebody is going to have to suffer to cover that gap. How will a government which insists that pensions need only one cost of living rise a year 12 months after the costs have risen guarantee that people will have shelter? Yet at the end of last year in the debate on the Housing Assistance Bill Senator Carrick said:

This Bill reflects the Government’s firm view that the housing of Australians is an issue of national concern. It conforms with our basic policy objectives … to ensure that every household in Australia is able to obtain adequate housing within its capacity to pay;

How pensioners are going to find adequate housing within their capacity to pay is beyond one’s imagination at the moment. Already people’s standard of living has been drastically reduced. The Victorian Housing Commission, I repeat, has already started on its policy of raising the rents of people who have very little with which to pay them. Only today I had put to me a case of a widow with four children. The Victorian Housing Commission now offers no rent rebates for pensioners. They pay the rent and then apply for a rebate and the Commission decides whether they are worthy of it. This widow on a pension with four children was denied any rebate because one of her boys had just turned 16, could not get a job and was on unemployment benefit. So the amount of money which that woman has to stretch to feed her family has been, of course, reduced.

There is no more funding from this Government for hostel-type accommodation. All” over the country one finds areas where there are a large number of aged people in the population, -a large number of people on the waiting lists and no money to provide a hostel. There has been a cut-back in the amount of money made available for the sort of care which would keep aged people in their homes and the sorts of care which enables them to look after household repairs and maintenance. There is no more money for that type of assistance and there is no more money for the sort of accommodation to which aged people can go when they can no longer look after themselves or cope with those sorts of difficulties.

There is no good, cheap accommodation available in Australia for people living on their own or for families living in difficult circumstances.

There is also no logic in the Government’s persistence that unequal pension benefits should be given. We have families on different types of pensions. Some women bringing up families on their own have health care available to them and some of them have no health care; some of them are helped with prescriptions at the chemist and some of them are not; some are assisted with fares and some get no assistance whatsoever; some have assistance with rates or telephones and some have none at all. Yet they all have children to raise in this community. In January 1979 on the occasion of opening the International Year of the Child Senator Guilfoyle said:

This is a rare opportunity to demonstrate that intensified public and governmental awareness of children’s needs can lead to concrete action of immense and, above all, lasting benefit to mankind’s future- its children. There is no sounder investment than the future of the child and no greater responsibility for the adults of today . . . The great and promising potentials of the International Year of the Child require, deserve and depend upon the unreserved support of governments, organisations and individuals.

Those are fine words and yet some children on pensions are paid a larger children’s allowance than others, some children on pensions receive an education allowance and some do not, and some children on pensions receive the cost of school requisites, fares and other educational expenses. Very many receive none at all. Yet, as Senator Guilfoyle said, the ball is now in the Government’s court. It can now take on the greater responsibility of this investment in our future- our children. How can we differentiate between children? As the value of the pension goes down there is less money in these homes for education and so the children get worse and worse educations and a harder and harder start in life. Honourable senators should imagine these people trying to find money for a private education. Yet this Government has said so much about the freedom of choice in education. It is hard enough for these people to pay when they go into our so-called free school system. In the private education area the situation would be absolutely appalling. There has been no rise in the mother’s allowance in any of our pension schemes. There has been no rise in the children’s allowance in any of our pension schemes. Now we have an increase once a year while the cost of living rises week by week.

There is one other area that bears commenting upon, an area that I think is absolutely disgraceful. It is those people under 18 years who find themselves unfortunately on the unemployment benefit. They have had no rise at all since 1975. They have existed on $36 a week since 1975. Their parents, we are told, are expected to take the responsibility for them and to keep them. Yet so many of their parents now are on unemployment benefit. So many of their parents are fast approaching or are in fact below the poverty level. Fares have risen, the cost of food has risen and the cost of clothes and rent has risen. Yet all their needs are supposed to be met at the 1975 level of pension with 1979 prices. They bleed too. They need food, they need shelter and they need sustenance. They are a part of the community. They are a part of the unemployed. They are supposed to get up and show that they have some go in them and can find jobs. They are supposed to be dressed decently. They are supposed to ring up employers and to buy newspapers. Yet we expect them to exist on a pension that was set in 1975. Once again all those youngsters who were so good, worked so hard and had such expectations from us are being made the scapegoats by an older society that cannot cope with the problems it faces.

The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) made much of the numbers of pensioners and the increase in welfare payments. She said, ‘It does not matter what the increase in numbers is going to be, we will not increase the size of the cake’. But these people will not go away. The number of people seeking benefit will increase. Does that mean that we are going to have even lower pension payments in the future? It seems to me it is time that this Government set its priorities and put people first. People have always understood that a percentage of their taxes will go to social security and in their turn they will claim for social security. I feel that we want less emphasis on welfare in this area and more emphasis on people’s rights.

The cost of providing this twice-yearly increase would be $2 7m this year. One is reminded of how much the Utah company, for instance, has made out of coal in Queensland this year. Yet the Government refused to put a resource tax on the Utah company. If more of the wealth of this country flowed back to the people of this country, perhaps we would have less talk about welfare and more people would live with some decency. As Senator Chipp has said, we have an arrogant Government with an arrogant Prime Minister. Today we heard from a Minister whom I have not found arrogant before but who followed her Prime Minister when she said: ‘It does not really matter what private member’s Bill is introduced- the Government will not fund it’. I think it is time that the Government took note of the fact that it governs at the behest of the people of Australia. It should listen to them.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to take part in this debate with a measure of regret. I would agree with Senator Grimes in relatively few areas but I agree with his view that pensions and pensioners should not be treated as political footballs. Therefore I think it is unfortunate that this afternoon, at the behest of the Opposition, we are discussing a matter which on all grounds is an emotional issue. I believe that in one sense it is almost an insult to refer to those extremely valuable members of our community- there are nearly 2 million pensioners- as political footballs. They certainly would not regard themselves as political footballs. They certainly recognise, as we recognise, that they have made a great contribution to the development and maintenance of this country. If at times such as this we suggest in any way that this issue is a political football I think we do a great disservice to the pensioners of this country who, over the period of their lives, have contributed so much to Australia’s development.

I suppose that pensions, like every other area of government involvement, in the last resort must be included in a consideration of priorities. In the current financial year the Liberal-National Country Party Government is committed to spending in the social services area something like 21Vi per cent or 28 per cent of its total revenue. If we are talking about priorities, who could say that we do not hold the interests of the pensioner group in the community at a very high level of priority when in fact we are devoting almost 30 per cent of our total revenue to the social services area? When one looks at other areas of involvement, such as education, health, defence and communications, one can see that the Government’s program is quite immense. I believe that the proportion of funds allocated to the social services area is evidence of the very high priority that we place on the circumstances of pensioners in our community.

In a sense I think it is a shame that we should spend some hours discussing this matter this afternoon because it seems to me- and I have spoken with and continue to speak from time to time with great numbers of pensioners- that the majority of pensioners have decided that what was judged to be correct by the Government for last year’s Budget was in fact a responsible judgment. Of course, when the interval of payment is extended, the first reaction by those who are directly affected will be that that is a bad thing. That was the first reaction. A great many pensioners have examined all the circumstances of this decision and I believe that very largely they are prepared to admit that the capacity of the economy to pay and the direction of the economy- to control inflation above all thingshave been such that what was selected as Government policy for 1978-79 was after all, a reasonably responsible move.

I turn to the motion which refers in part to:

The restoration by the Government of twice yearly indexation for all pensions and benefits under the Social Security and Repatriation systems.

We are in a moving society. Because a certain circumstance exists as a result of the 1978-79 Budget it does not mean that adjustments and changes will not be made at the appropriate time and in the circumstances as they arise. Changes and adjustments will continually be made in this area, just as they will be made in areas such as defence and education. They will be made right across the board of human activity in Australia. That is why I somewhat abhor the constant references to broken promises and broken undertakings, of failing to live up to undertakings.

I think we should examine the words of the motion with a greater measure of reality. People in every walk of life are constantly making promises and giving undertakings. Indeed, Senator Guilfoyle, who spoke earlier this evening, indicated that even some of the undertakings and promises of Mr Whitlam were not accomplished. People are always making promises and there needs to be genuine concern to accomplish any undertaking. But I believe that people have an equal responsibility to understand that an undertaking cannot always be something of an iron-like or steel-like nature. It cannot be totally and absolutely inflexible. If it were one would have to assume that circumstances never change and that one would not need to consider what is constantly happening around us. Circumstances, emphasis and attitudes change within a month, within a year or within a number of years and Government has a responsibility to recognise this fact.

At long last the Government is reaching a successful point in the battle with inflation and this is of extreme importance to the pensioner section of our community, as it is to the whole community. During a period of three years we have seen the level of inflation drop from something like 17 1/2 per cent to 7.8 per cent last year- a reduction of more than half. This reduction is probably of more significance to the pensioners of Australia than to any other section of our community. This Government gave a basic undertaking at the last two elections that it would reduce the inflation rate. The Government is being successful in this respect. This fact is recognised around the world. Whether all of us like it or not, industry and commerce inside and outside this country are recognising that economic activity is turning upwards. This point has been emphasised by member nations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It has also been recognised and promoted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. There is a commonly held view that this economy is moving in an upward direction.

The reduction in the rate of inflation is the most significant contribution that this Government or any government can make for the welfare of all the people- pensioners and all others alike- in the context of our economy and our society. I suggest that no government in a social service based state, such as the one in which we live, would want to make matters more difficult for pensioners. There is no earthly reason why that would be an objective of any government. What a responsible government must do is to see that pensioners enjoy the best possible circumstances within the capacity of the economy. That is what a responsible government must do and that is what this Government has been trying to do and, I believe, has been succeeding in doing. From the best information I can obtain the pensioner group in Australia enjoys a standard of living which is equal to and probably better then the standard in any other country round the world. That is something of which we should be proud and which we should seek to maintain.

It is mighty hard in a debate like this one not to repeat some of the things that have been said before but again I draw attention to the words expressed earlier by Senator Guilfoyle when she explained that if an inflation rate is halved there is a good argument for extending the period between changes in pension rates; that is a 10 per cent inflation rate is reduced to 5 per cent, an annual change to pensions would be roughly as effective as biannual change in the former circumstance. Government action in regard to pensions was taken in the 1 978 Budget. I think that it is important to recall why the action was taken and to observe as time goes by whether it remains the most appropriate action or whether changes must in fact occur. Action was taken because the rate of inflation had fallen significantly- from 17.5 per cent to 7.8 per cent in three years. It was projected at that time that that inflation rate may be as low as 5 per cent by the middle of this year. That may or may not be true but that was the projection of the time and that was one of the basic reasons for the Government’s action.

The other point we should remember is that the adjustment of pensions has been maintained as being exactly referable- 100 per cent referable- to moves in the consumer price index. Of course, that is not so in the circumstance of wage adjustments in this country. The cost of biannual adjustment has been referred to before. There was a saving to the Treasury of something approaching $30m in the first case and between $60m and $70m in the case of a full year. I do not think that the extent of the cost to the community of adjustments in pensions is fully and clearly understood. An adjustment of $1 a week over a full year costs the revenue of this country- the taxpayer- something like $116m. To raise the level of pensions by 6 per cent to 30 per cent would cost $ 1.5 billion in a year. I am certain that the circumstances of the pensioners will remain a prime objective of this Government but I am equally sure that the pensioners themselves will recognise in the last resort that their income is related to the total efficiency of the economy. What they receive has to be referable to the capacity to pay of the total Australian community. I close by saying merely that to vote for the motion that is before us this afternoon, regardless of all pertinent circumstances, would have to be an irresponsible act.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– This afternoon we are debating an urgency motion which has been moved by my colleague Senator Grimes. It reads:

That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

The restoration by the Government of twice yearly indexation for all pensions and benefits under the Social Security and Repatriation systems.

This motion arose because last year the Government removed the twice yearly indexation of pensions. That removal was embodied in legislation which we debated in this chamber last year. I recall that when we were debating the Social Services Amendment Bill, the Bill which eventually took away the twice yearly indexation provision, something pertinent was mentioned by the speaker who then preceded me in the debate. She said- she was speaking from the Government side- that she did not like the legislation. I recall, too, that when I spoke about the legislation I said that for the first time she and I agreed because I did not like the legislation at all.

Since that legislation was placed in our statute book I have found that the people of Australia have expressed their dislike of the legislation as well. The more knowledge they have of what it has meant for the pensioners of Australia and its effects, the less they like the legislation. They can see certain things in it which should not be seen in legislation affecting the pensioners of Australia. For a start they can see the political implications. They can see the promises that were broken and, despite the comments of the previous speaker, Senator Scott, they were broken. I shall elaborate on these shortly. They see also serious implications for the pensioners of Australia because of the lack of money that they will have at their disposal. They can see a serious erosion of the value of their pensions. Some people also have looked at the economic implications of that social security legislation of last year. They can see that there will be a lack of purchasing power by the pensioners due to the fact that they will not receive the May increase they were expecting. They will have less money at their disposal. They will circulate less money throughout our economy. I think that most people would agree that any extra funds that pensioners receive are usually spent, that they are not saved. The spending of this money helps to create the type of economic climate that we want at the moment.

Let me mention now the broken promises. As I have said, Senator Scott disputed that there were broken promises, but there were. Many of the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have been broken. But the breaking of the promise concerning pensions was particularly shameful. The removal of the twice yearly indexation, as happened last year, was the most amazing about face and the most barefaced breaking of a promise that I have seen since I have been a member of this chamber. Let us look at the promises that were made. In 1975, in the Liberal Party’s policy speech, Mr Fraser said:

The real value of pensions will be preserved.

He said later:

These benefits will be protected against inflation.

That was in 1 975 before the election of that year. In 1977, just before the election which was called 1 2 months early, Mr Fraser said:

We have taken politics out of old age pensions and all other social welfare and repatriation pensions by increasing them automatically in line with inflation.

The implication was that the system prevailing at that time, which allowed twice yearly indexation of pensions, would continue. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, added to that statement during the election campaign in 1977 in an advertisement in which she featured. She was quoted as saying:

We believed it was important to take politics out of pensions and that’s why we altered the legislation … we said that when we came into government we would have an automatic increase. We’ve done that and whilst the Act remains as it is there is, every six months, an automatic increase to take account of the cost of living. I ‘ve had lots of people say to me ‘You’ve given us dignity because you do not argue about our rises every six months’.

We certainly do not argue about our rises every six months now because they are not there. I wonder whether there was a hint of what was coming in that 1977 promise by Senator Guilfoyle. She said atone stage:

  1. . whilst the Act remains as it is there is, every six months, an automatic increase . . .

But the Act did not remain as it was for very long. It was changed in the legislation which I referred to earlier. It is perhaps significant that that was mentioned in that policy document. The legislation which we faced last year, which we debated and which the Opposition most vigorously opposed, removed the promise on which pensioners in Australia have hung their hopes for their future security. Pensioners do look towards security. They do look towards their financial security after they have worked for a lifetime.

I wonder whether this Government should so readily cast aside the promises that it makes. Should it not perhaps give a lead to the community by keeping a promise when it is made. We should look at what happens in the home with regard to promises. I know that in my home as- I am sure happens in homes throughout the nation- I teach my children that if they make a promise they should keep that promise. It is something they should live up to all of their lives. I can remember that even at a very early age one of my own children sang a song which began ‘If you give a promise then keep a promise’. Throughout all of the homes in Australia people believe this. Should we not also believe it in government? Are we not to expect that the Government should keep its promises just the same as we teach our children in our own homes. Why should this Government continue to breach promises and thus give a sorry lead to the rest of the community? I would like to see a return to honesty in government; a government which once having given a promise will keep that promise. As an initial step to such a return to honesty in government I believe that this Government should immediately announce that it will revert to a six monthly adjustment of pensions because this is what the pensioners of Australia expected after the 1975 and 1977 election campaigns.

It is well to remember how many persons in the community are affected. The motion that we are discussing this afternoon mentions benefits under social security and repatriation systems. In the time that I had at my disposal before this motion came before the Senate, I had the opportunity of finding out only the number of people who receive pensions and benefits under the social security systems, not the repatriation systems. But even this is worth looking at. There are 1.2 million age pensioners in Australia. There are 50,000 people who are receiving a supporting parent’s benefit. There are 140,000 widowed pensioners and 240,000 people in the community who are receiving an invalid pension. A significant number of people were affected by the legislation last year. A significant number of people in Australia are listening carefully to what is being said in this chamber this afternoon. It is well worth remembering that in these groups I have mentioned each person is not a statistic. Each person has the same hopes and the same fears as any other person in the community.

One thing which has happened since the Parliament rose last year is that an increase in the consumer price index has been announced. Since pensions were increased last November the consumer price index has increased by 2.3 per cent. Pensioners are already behind. They are lagging behind by 2.3 per cent. They now will not receive an adjustment as they had expected in May. Why should they have to wait until November 1979 to receive an adjustment for this 2.3 per cent increase? There will be further increases in the consumer price index between now and November. Do these pensioners not have to buy their groceries, their bread, their milk and their tea or their coffee? Do they not have to buy clothing and pay for the heating of their homes in winter time? Do they not have to provide accommodation? Some of them have to rent accommodation. Of course they must provide these things. Should they not also be allowed to have some luxuries from time to time, at the time of their birthday or at Christmas? Of course they should, but they cannot if the present attitude of the Government of not providing increases to keep in line with the consumer price index continues.

Last year we were told why the practice of adjustments on a twice yearly basis was discontinued. We were told that there had been a reduction in inflation and that therefore the increases on a twice yearly basis were not required. A number of us on this side of the chamber last year pointed out what a spurious type of argument this was, because inflation was perhaps running at 7 per cent to 8 per cent but in 1971 and 1972 when inflation was running at a rate of about 5 per cent the McMahon Government decided that it should increase pensions on a twice yearly basis. Either the McMahon Government was wrong or the present Government was wrong last year when it announced that there would not be an adjustment on a six monthly basis. Clearly the Government was wrong last year. It put a misleading argument. I believe that the real reason was to save funds. By not providing indexation for pensions last year the Government will save $27m this year. It will save $60m in a full year. I believe that this afternoon when the Minister for Social Security was speaking she clearly suggested that it was mainly an economic consideration; that was the Government’s prime motive last year in removing the twice yearly indexation.

If the Government does not honour its promises as it has not honoured its promise in this area it is misleading the Australian people, just as I suggested earlier this afternoon that it misled the Australian people by its inability to provide more employment in the community. I further believe that if it cannot honour its promises one more step should be taken. This Government should say that it requires a new mandate. It should say to the Australian people, ‘We cannot have twice yearly indexation of pensions as we said we would at the 1975 election and the 1977 election. Because we cannot do this we want a mandate from you to have an increase of pensions only on a 12 months basis.’ So it should go to the people and ask for this mandate. We in the Labor Party would accept such a challenge from the Government. I am sure that if the challenge was issued and the Government went to the people the Labor Party would win. I support the motion that has been moved by my colleague Senator Grimes this afternoon.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Justice delayed is justice denied. That timehonoured legal principle deserves recognition during the current controversy over the indexation of pensions. How often I have used that particular principle in negotiations with employers and before wages tribunals. It has equal force when consideration is being given to the question of indexation of pensions for price rises. No one would deny openly the right of pensioners to have their modest pensions adjusted to keep pace with increased costs as reflected by increases in the consumer price index. The question is: How frequently should the adjustments be made? For years I have made no bones about where I stand on this question. Increases in prices are recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and announced every three months. Pensions and benefits should be adjusted quarterly and the increases paid back to the beginning of the first month of each quarter. The records of the Senate of 27 April 1976 show that I moved a resolution to that effect. Sadly, the records of the Senate also show that my resolution received no support. No other senator was prepared even to second that resolution.

To be fair, it is a different story now. There is substantial discontent with the annual indexation proposition contained in the Budget last year and subsequently introduced by amendments to the Act. There seems little likelihood of quarterly adjustments of pensions and benefits ever being achieved because of the attitude of both major parties. However, there is hope that twice-yearly indexation will be restored, and so it should be. The bread man, the milk man, the owner of the supermarket, the rent collectornone of these will hang about for 15 months waiting to be paid for their increased prices.

Senator Wriedt:

– Sixteen months.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Yes, it is 16 months. As at the present moment, pensions and benefits are adjusted every November for movements in the consumer price index for the 12 months ending on 30 June of that particular year. So there is already a catch-up period of four months in addition to the 12 months during which the pensioners have had to pay the increases without compensation. We are discussing this evening an urgency motion which states:

That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

The restoration by the Government of twice yearly indexation for all pensions and benefits under the Social Security and Repatriation systems.

It is a matter of urgency. It is a matter of public importance, and I was concerned that Senator Grimes, when introducing the matter of urgency, took time out, in my view undeservedly, to take the mickey out of members of the back bench of the Government in the House of Representatives for action that they are taking to achieve this effect. I ask: Did not their action contribute to the urgency of this matter? Did not their action contribute to the heightening of the public importance of this matter? Of course it did, and in my judgment it is totally unfair to chyack these members for attempting to reverse the situation and achieve twice-yearly indexation. It is also not in accordance with the facts. It has been suggested that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will not proceed with his Bill. I have not heard him say that. I suggest that if back bench members of the Government are prepared to stick their necks out on this particular matter they should not be chyacked, they should be supported and wished all the best. I remind Senator Grimes that people in glass houses should not cast stones.

I again remind the Senate that the resolution I put down on 27 April 1976 taking account of the principle that justice delayed is justice denied was not supported by Senator Grimes or by any other senator in this place. Indeed, I found that quite surprising, because similar attempts to mine had been made over a number of years to have pensions made retrospective to an appropriate date consistent with the application to wages of an increase in the consumer price index, which at that particular time which was quarterly. Senator Tangney in 1964 moved such an amendment. She moved it again in 1966. Senator Toohey moved such an amendment in 1967. Senator Fitzgerald moved it in 1968 and Senator Poke in 1969. When Senator Harradine moved such an amendment in 1976 it did not get the support of the Australian Labor Party. If amendments which have some merit in them are moved, surely they ought to receive support no matter who moves them, and that is my attitude in respect of the back bench members who are seeking the restoration of twice-yearly indexation.

If parliamentarians have personal vested interests in legislation they should declare them. On this issue I declare a vested interest in the 51,800 Tasmanian pensioners who are my constituents, 38,085 of whom are age pensioners. In addition, I, along with a lot of others, have a personal vested interest in the matter. I declare that both my parents are age pensioners, and they are typical of most age pensioners who scraped and saved to raise families through the economically difficult Depression, war and post-war years. There were no mod cons in those times. It was the era of scrubbing boards, coppers, bag freezers, and the rabbit trapping and wood carting to make ends meet. They were hard times but happy times. The pensioners are the last to complain but they deserve priority in the considerations and support of the rest of us for whom they sacrificed so much. In any event they have always paid their taxes and they are entitled to a realistic pension, frequently adjusted to keep up with prices. Of course, money is not everything. Consideration, recognition and, indeed, honour is due to our aged loved ones. A civilisation is judged, amongst other tests, on how it treats its aged and infirm. It is for us to ensure that the judgment of history is not harsh when this test is made on our own civilisation.

I turn to another important point. In periods of high unemployment such as we are experiencing now. positive incentives are required to encourage early retirement of those who wish to phase themselves into the new, for them, lifestyle of retirement. But the pensionable age, the rigid income test, the taking into consideration of moneys received from superannuation funds to which people were obliged to contribute when they worked and now the annual indexation of pensions are disincentives for a person to retire. I support the proposition that this is a matter of public importance, that it is a matter of urgency. I do so on the principle that if we delay justice any further, then justice will be denied for that period of time.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This afternoon the Senate has been debating an urgency motion which was moved by the Opposition and which calls upon the Government to restore twice yearly indexation for all pensions and benefits under the social security and repatriation systems. We have had a lengthy debate. The many speakers who have taken part in it have, I think, canvassed almost all of the ground and I certainly will endeavour to avoid going over ground that has already been covered. I want to direct my remarks to one aspect that has not been dealt with as much as I would have liked to have seen it dealt with and that is the fact that ever since 1972 there has been, I believe, common agreement between the major political parties in this country- especially the Labor and Liberal parties- on the question of pensions. The Senate will recall that before 1972 the subject of pensions was one for hot political debate in this country.

We as an Opposition felt in those years that the pensioners of Australia had not received adequate support in the pensions they received from the governments which had been in office until 1972. In that year we went to the people seeking their vote on the basis that we would increase pension payments to the figure of 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings. The Senate will recall that at that time in 1972 pensions were only 1 9 per cent of the average weekly earnings. In the three years in which we were in office we increased the percentage to just over 24 per cent. We did not quite make the proposed 25 per cent. As the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle pointed out this afternoon in her contribution, this Government has basically continued with the same policy that was adopted by the Labor Government in those three years. The task of the Labor Government was, of course, much more difficult because the pension increase from 1 9 per cent to 24 per cent of the average weekly earnings represented a much greater drain on the Government’s resources at that time than would have been the case during the last three years of office of the present Government because in our commitment to lift pensions in this country to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings we started off on a much lower base than this Government. It started off on a higher base and has essentially maintained that figure of about 24 percent.

Despite the differences which we may have in some other areas concerning pensions, such as the provision of supplementary benefits and, of course, the important issue which we are debating today, namely, twice yearly indexation for all pensions, a commonality of policy has developed because the relationship between the rate of pensions and the average weekly earnings remains the fundamental issue. If in fact a government is able to maintain pensions at a reasonable percentage of the average weekly earnings then at least it is providing to the pensioners of this country a guaranteed base income. I have no doubt that as time goes by the figure of 25 per cent will gradually be lifted even higher. I hope that when that happens both major political parties in this country will accept this principle. I believe that the fact that this more common ground has been achieved has been generally applauded by the Australian people. There has been a desire amongst most members of the federal parliament to see the position gradually evolve to such a stage. The continual battles and arguments that were so divisive during the 1960s and up until the 1970s in fact divided the Australian community. We have been able largely to overcome that divisiveness. This, of course, does not in any way detract from our concern about the fact that twice yearly indexation has been removed by the Government.

I believe that what we have seen in the past few weeks is one of the most distressing things that has happened in the Australian political scene in recent years. It is the result primarily pf the efforts in Tasmania of one person, namely, the honourable member for Franklin, Mr Goodluck, who for his own selfish political ends, has brought back into the Australian political scene this whole debate about pensions. He has re-introduced the political arguments and created divisions within the Australian community, within his own party and within this Parliament purely for his own selfish political gain. I do not for one moment apologise for what I am saying because he had the opportunity in this Parliament when the legislation went through some time last year to stand up and be counted, as he puts it, and to cross the floor and vote with the Opposition. But he did not do that. I will say that at least one member of the Liberal Party who is sitting in this Chamber tonight- Senator Townley- was prepared to do that. But I must say that Senator Townley has not gone about stirring up political divisions in this country in the manner that his colleague, the honourable member for Franklin, has done in Tasmania. I believe that the honourable member is guilty of bringing back into this country divisions which we thought had disappeared from the Australian political scene and that it has been done deliberately for selfish political ends. I believe that he stands condemned for what he has done.

I do not for one moment dispute that people are concerned about this matter. All of us in this place have been concerned about the decision by the Government to eliminate the twice yearly indexation of pensions. We believe that was a mistake but I do not think that anybody has endeavoured to take political advantage of it as an individual. More importantly, the actions of the honourable member for Franklin and his talk about introducing a private member’s Bill has, as Senator Grimes has said in this place today, raised expectations among hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country that the honourable member knew before he began that he could not fulfil. He knew before he started that there was no chance of that, as the Minister said in the debate in this place today. He knew, this Parliament knew and everybody who is interested in politics in Australia knew that he could not possibly fulfil what he was undertaking to do.

Senator Townley:

– Well, why did you move this motion today?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Hundreds of thousands of pensioners will be let down tonight, as Senator Townley knows. No matter what he might do in the other place tonight he will not succeed. We are acting as an Opposition in the Parliament, as Senator Harradine acted as a member of the Parliament last year or in 1976 when he moved a motion about this subject. What astonishes me is the fact that this person finds it politically expedient to rubbish his own party. Of course it is politically expedient to go out and rubbish one’s own political party. It is great stuff as the public does not like political parties. We know that they are not perfect and we know that they get a poor response in the community. But what sort of person would rubbish his party and then depend upon it to get him re-elected to this Parliament? How can a person in conscience rubbish the very vehicle that he is going to use to get him back into

Parliament? That is in fact the role that Mr Goodluck has been playing. I ask: What is the morality and what is the credibility of a member of the Federal parliament who will do that? Yet the honourable senators on the Government side who are seeking to interject are -

Senator Walters:

– Your party will not allow you to do it.

Senator WRIEDT:

– You will have your opportunity shortly, Senator. They will stand by a man whom they know is doing them nothing but harm, doing this parliamentary system nothing but harm, and creating divisions in our community for whatever personal political advantage he can get from it. This is an example of the work that this man has done and the threats that he has made ever since he became a member of this Parliament. He was going to do this and he was going to do that. He was going to stand up to the Government. All that we have heard on this issue has been a lot of talk.

We on this side of the chamber regard the issue of twice yearly indexation of pensions as important. We are supported by the Australian Democrats. I believe we are supported by Senator Harradine. I understand that he has indicated that support. Honourable senators on the Government side are always claiming that they are free to exercise a vote as they see fit and that they are not bound to vote with the party. So I suggest that we give them the opportunity to exercise that free vote. I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 33

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

-The past few minutes in the Senate tonight have certainly been very revealing. At last we have found out exactly what the Australian Labor Party was on about in raising this matter of public importance. It did not move the motion before us out of concern for the pensioners in Australia; rather, it moved the motion to raise the question of the honourable member for Franklin, Mr Goodluck, and the motion that for some time he has been talking about moving. In particular, this has been done to embarrass Mr Goodluck politically in Tasmania. It is as simple as that. It was a very simple political exercise and had nothing at all to do with the welfare of Australians, least of all the welfare of Australian pensioners. Having said that, I turn to the major concern which we on this side of the House have for the old age pensioners, the underprivileged people of Australia. Since coming to office in 1975 the Government has raised substantially the level of benefits paid to pensioners and other welfare recipients.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You could have fooled me.

Senator MESSNER:

– Exactly. That is because Senator Cavanagh cannot see the truth. For the benefit of the Opposition, I will cite one or two very simple statistics to show the force of my argument. In particular, let us compare the age pension paid in December 1975 with that paid today. In December 1975 the pensioner was receiving $38.75 a week.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But what were average weekly earnings?

Senator MESSNER:

– I will come to that in a very brief moment. In December 1 978 the pensioner was receiving $53.20 a week, representing an increase of 37.3 per cent since the Fraser

Government came to power. The Opposition is talking about average weekly earnings, so let us look at that. In December 1975 average weekly earnings were $167.50.’ Today they are $221.10. That represents an increase of only 32 per cent. So the age pensioner has received an increase of 37.3 per cent and average weekly earnings have increased by 32 per cent. But what about the rate of inflation? We will talk about that. As a result of the disastrous policies in the Hayden Budget in the Whitlam years, the consumer price index rose rapidly in 1976. Its rate of escalation slowed down substantially in 1977 and has slowed down to a very low rate this year. Because of those Whitlam policies, the overall rate of inflation since the Whitlam Government was in office has been 34.7 per cent. That means that the age pensioner has received a substantially greater increase in pension than the increase in the inflation rate. He has also done substantially better than the average weekly wage earner. That is a fact of life. The Opposition apparently does not recognise that.

Senator McLaren:

– Give us a comparison between 1972 and 1975. Tell us about those years.

Senator MESSNER:

– There seems to be some very great concern about that situation. Let us look at it. For the benefit of Senator McLaren let us compare December 1970 with December 1978. We find that the age pension has increased in that period by 243 per cent whereas the average weekly wage earner’s income has increased by only 168 per cent. During that time the rate of inflation has increased 126 per cent so that, in effect, the age pensioner has done twice as well when we look at the rate of inflation. That measures the total improvement in the position. Let us follow that up with one or two other small items.

Senator McLaren:

– Let us have a comparison of the pension rates between 1972 and 1 975.

Senator MESSNER:

-Let us have a look at that situation if I can find my notes. Senator McLaren asks about the pension rate in 1 973. Is that recent enough for the honourable senator?

Senator McLaren:

– No, 1972.

Senator MESSNER:

– The rate was 2 1 .4 per cent of average weekly earnings at that time. What is it today?

Senator McLaren:

– Give us the 1975 figure. Do not evade the question.

Senator MESSNER:

-In 1975 it was just on 23 per cent. What is it today? Under the Fraser Government it is 24.1 per cent. Let us look at the logic of the Opposition’s argument. Opposition members are trying to say that the pensioner has not been given proper consideration in the community because of the so-called negligence of the Fraser Government. But, in fact, there has been a substantial increase in real terms in the percentage of the pension when compared to the average weekly earnings. What is more, there has been a substantial drop in the rate of inflation in the last three years which means that the rate of adjustment is not so necessary. Let us consider the plight of the pensioners during those Whitlam years with inflation at 20 per cent per annum, when we found that, in fact, every time pensioners turned around in the supermarket the prices had gone up again. No wonder the pensioners needed the indexation which was brought in under the Fraser Government in 1976. The need is not there today, with inflation brought under control by this Government. Consequently, we find a very substantial difference by virtue of the superior management of this country under the Fraser Government.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– The Senate is debating an urgency motion moved by my colleague, the shadow Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, on the matter of twice yearly pension indexation. I want to say a number of things about Senator Messner who has just sat down. I can remember debating the Social Services Amendment Bill in October of last year when I mentioned that the majority of people, and particularly those on low incomes, measured the inflation rate in the market place, that is in the supermarket, in the butcher shop, when the telephone bill came in- if they were lucky enough to be able to afford a telephone- when the electricity bill arrived and on all those occasions when it was necessary to suddenly spend some money out of a restricted budget. At that time Senator Messner interjected on my speech and said that that was a lot of rubbish. He said that we do not measure the inflation rate in the supermarket. I assure the honourable senator that hundreds of thousands of people on low incomes- that is those on pensions and in receipt of government benefits- do measure the inflation rate when they go to buy tea, coffee, a loaf of bread or a pound of butter. These are the essential things. With the Government’s proud boast of the reduction in the inflation rate we have not seen a decrease in the prices of goods to the consumers. In fact we have seen a very large increase in the profits being made by a very few people.

Senator Lewis:

– What do you mean by a decrease?

Senator COLEMAN:

– We are talking about a decrease in the cost of living to go along with the decrease in the inflation rate. The Government is bragging at all times that it is bringing down the inflation rate. It is not bringing down the cost of living. Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that I am addressing my remarks in this portion of the debate to the subject matter under discussion. I am talking about people on low incomes. I am talking about people who have not seen a reduction in any one item on the supermarket shelves.

Senator Lewis:

– How can there be inflation if you are going to see a reduction in prices? Don’t you understand that?

Senator COLEMAN:

– We are seeing an increase in the profits being made by a few people. That is where the majority of people measure the inflation rate. That is where they have to measure their incomes and where they have to pay out their money. It is just not good enough.

Senator Walters:

– What about the price of eggs?

Senator COLEMAN:

- Senator Walters mentions the price of eggs. I remind the honourable senator of her speech on the Social Service Amendment Bill last year when she suddenly became very conscious of the increase in the price of a loaf of bread. Obviously she is no longer concerned with the increases in the price of bread or the cost of the provision of electricity or essential services. She is not concerned that many people in our community are on such a strict budget that they have to limit the number of letters that they write. People have to limit the number of bus trips they make because not all pensioners in all States are lucky enough to be provided with free travel. A lot of people rely on Senator Walters, as they rely on me, in this place to put forward their case. Frankly, I do not think she is doing a very good job of it.

Some very important statistics come out from time to time and they raise questions in my mind, perhaps because I am conscious of the needs of people. I do not believe that this Government is conscious of those needs. I was very concerned when I read in this week’s newspaper that Australia has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. One has to ask: From which group of people in our community do those in the high suicide rate come? Are these people low income earners, pensioners, rich people or poor people? Are they people who do not have adequate housing or are they people who have too many responsibilities and the Government is not recognising their needs? What sort of people are they, and are they people who have a need for governments to care for them? Is the situation that this Government is so preoccupied with the needs of this disastrous economic situation and with bringing down the inflation rate that it no longer cares for people? If that is the situation then it is time this Government stood up and was counted, as Government senators in this place should stand up and be counted. It may be interesting to know that the suicide rate in Australia is higher than it is in the United Kingdom, Japan, New Zealand, Canada and other comparable western nations. In fact, until recently the suicide rate in Australia was even higher than that in the United States.

Senator Lewis:

– Are you suggesting they are age pensioners?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am suggesting nothing. I am posing the question one has to ask: From which group of people in the community do these people who commit or attempt to commit suicide come? If they are people on low incomes then one has to look at the needs of the low income people.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Why do you not do some research?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I do not have the capacity for research because the Government has limited the number of people I can employ and how much research my office can cope with. The Government does not provide me with adequate facilities, with room or with staff to conduct all the research that I would like to conduct. Nor does it provide the Opposition with enough staff. Very many children are involved when we are talking about low income earners. When we are talking about pensioners’ benefits we are also talking about children. These are children of parents who are in receipt of unemployment benefits or who are in receipt of benefits of some sort from this Government. I remind all honourable senators that this is the Year of the Child and there are many children in Australia who are hungry, who do not have adequate housing and who do not even have adequate clothing. Senator Walters may smile. I hope that people listening to this broadcast are aware that she is smiling because I do not believe that her attitude is one which expresses the concern that should be felt by a person who has been elected to this place to cater for the needs of the people of Australia.

Senator Webster:

– That is unfair.

Senator COLEMAN:

-No, it is not unfair. If the Minister would look behind him he would see that Senator Walters is thoroughly enjoying herself, and I do not believe that the subject under debate at this time is a matter for hilarity.

Senator Walters:

– I was wondering why you did not research your speech.

Senator COLEMAN:

-As I have already explained, the Government is a little bit mean, not only in relation to the recipients of benefits but also in relation to members of parliament. I am simply saying that in this International Year of the Child there are in Australia many children who are hungry and who are not being housed or clothed properly because their parents happen to be in receipt of pensioner benefits from this Government. We have seen a dramatic increase in the cost of living over the last two to three years. We have seen a gradual reduction in benefits payable, and we have seen that people can no longer afford to provide their families with the positive things that they need. When I say ‘positive things’ I include housing, food and clothing.

Senator Messner said that age pensioners had had their benefits increased at a rate faster than that of inflation. That is a big deal, and I am sure that the pensioners will appreciate Senator Messner’s contribution to this debate. I did not, because I did not think he made a contribution at all. I think that his arguments were spurious. The arguments that he raised were less factual than those that should have been raised in this place and in a debate such as this. I believe that the present Government does have a responsibility to stand up to the pre-election promise that it made in 1975, namely, that it would maintain twice-yearly indexation of pensions. That promise was repeated in 1977, and it was one of the first of the promises to be broken by the Liberal and National Country Party Government after it was elected.

Honourable Senators opposite may not agree with all of the comments that I have made. That is their prerogative. I do not believe all of the remarks that they have made, and I certainly do not agree with them. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that we have a great many pensioners in the community who rely on us as their elected representatives to look after their needs, and this Government is not catering for the needs of people.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

– We have just heard a most extraordinary speech from Senator Coleman. What Senator Coleman tried to tell this Senate at the beginning of her speech was that, because she has not seen a decrease in prices, this Government does not have inflation under control. I tried to explain to Senator

Coleman by way of interjection that when we have inflation prices rise. That is what inflation is all about. It is a matter of limiting those rising prices to a moderate rate and keeping inflation under control. If prices were falling we would not have inflation. Surely Senator Coleman can understand that. It is not a difficult concept to follow, even for a member of the Labor Party. It is a simple proposition. At one stage during the Labor Party’s administration, over a period of 6 months, prices were rising at the rate of 19 per cent per annum.

Senator Gietzelt:

– That is not true, and you know it. Never at any stage.

Senator LEWIS:

-There is not the slightest doubt that this is completely true. For a half yearly period during the Labor Party’s administration inflation was running at the rate of 19 per cent.

Senator Messner:

– In 1 974.

Senator LEWIS:

-That is right, in 1974. Senator Coleman made it perfectly clear that she does not understand what the arguments are about. Then she had the audacity to say at the end of her speech that children in this country are not clothed and are going hungry because their parents are in receipt of pensioner benefits from this Government. Let us look at what the Labor Party did. The maximum rate of benefits given to pensioners in Australia by the Labor Party was granted in the quarter ending 1 2 June 1 97 5 when the standard single rate pension was 23.2 per cent of average weekly earnings. For the quarter ending 9 December 1978, under the present Government the standard single pension benefit was 24. 1 per cent of average weekly earnings. It is perfectly clear that pensioners are receiving more money in real terms under the present Government than they did under the Labor Government. Yet Senator Coleman has the audacity to say to the people of Australia that there are children in this country who are hungry and unclothed because their parents are in receipt of pensioner benefits from this Government. What did the Government of Senator Coleman’s political persuasion do for the people. Inflation ran at a rate of 19 per cent, which absolutely destroyed the savings of so many pensioners in this country. It sent them broke. These people had for many years saved their money and banked it in order to secure their future. Their savings were destroyed by that Government in only three years. Honourable senators opposite should never forget that, because the people of Australia will never forget it.

It is quite misleading for the Opposition to be talking in this debate about indexation questions apart from inflation levels. During this debate Labor Party senators have been talking so much rot about all this. What is the meaning of indexation? What we are talking about under indexation is applying the consumer price index to pensions. Let there be no doubt that many pensioners do not spend much money- in fact, some of them do not spend any money at all- on a number of items which are included in the consumer price index. For instance, pensioners get free public transport, but that is not taken into account when their pensions are indexed. However, such items are taken into account in the consumer price index. So pensioners gain a benefit to that extent.

The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has appreciated this position in regard to the consumer price index so far as wage earners are concerned. As honourable senators would well know, frequently the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has not passed on to wage earners the full consumer price index for the particular period under consideration. Under the present Government pensioners are receiving every year the full CPI increase. That is far better than the Labor Government ever did. The Labor Government had the opportunity to take similar measures for three years- let there be no doubt about that- but it did not get around to doing anything. Under the present Government the pensioners in Australia are being given the full CPI increase every year. There is no doubt that they are far in advance of the wage earners of the country because they are receiving full indexation.

I am not saying that I would not like to see their pensions indexed every six months. Maybe that should be the situation, but we have to achieve a balanced position. When the Ministers put forward their budget bids for the 1978 Budget, the Government was faced with the prospect of having a deficit of $6,000m. So it started to economise. It tried to cut down on government expenditure in as many areas as it possibly could. Ultimately it reduced its expenditure to produce a deficit of $4,500m. That is an enormous deficit. The taxpayers of Australia have to find this money. Opposition senators are always willing to spend money. They never find an opportunity to balance the economy and to come to some reasonable arrangement. When the Treasurer (Mr Howard) was faced with this situation of suffering a deficit of $4,500m the taxpayers of Australia faced a burden of finding about $ 1 ,600m extra in revenue. We did not do that by increasing inflation. We did not print the money. The taxpayers were told that this additional tax was to be imposed on them and that they would have to find the extra money to fund these benefits for the people of Australia. Opposition senators want to spend another $80m on the pensioners. They want no mucking around. They just want to spend another $80m on the pensioners of Australia. That would give the pensioners of Australia an advantage which they would be the first to acknowledge they do not need.

So long as this Government keeps inflation under control the pensioners are quite happy with their pensions being indexed annually. I have spoken to many pensioners and they have confirmed that view to me. So long as the Government of Australia keeps the inflation rate under control there is no need for pensions to be indexed other than annually. All that members of the Opposition have done today is to try to raise a political issue to embarrass a couple of fellows in Tasmania who have a personal belief about a particular matter with which the Government disagrees. When honourable senators opposite were in power none of them had the courage to say anything contrary to their government. I wanted to talk about what we could do in relation to the inflation rate and the -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The three hours allowed by Standing Orders for this debate having expired, the Business of the Day will now be proceeded with.

page 119

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1978.

Sales Tax Amendment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 978.

Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1 978.

Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1978.

Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1978.

Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1978.

Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1978.

Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1978.

Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1978.

States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1 978.

Bounty (Metal- working Machine Tools) Bill 1978.

Bounty (Drilling Machines) Amendment Bill 1978.

Metal Working Machine Tools Bounty Amendment Bill 1978.

Tasmania Grant (The Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978.

Science and Industry Research Amendment Bill 1978.

Primary Industry Bank Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 978.

Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1978.

Superannuation Amendment Bill 1978.

Public Service Amendment Bill 1978.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill ( No. 3 ) 1 978.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill ( No. 4 ) 1 978.

Income Tax (Non-Resident Companies) Bill 1 978.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1978.

Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978.

Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1978.

Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1978.

States Grants ( Roads ) Amendment Bill 1978.

Loans (Taxation Exemption) Bill 1978.

Airline Equipment ( Loan Guarantee ) Bill ( No. 2) 1978.

Export Expansion Grants Bill 1978.

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1978.

Asian Development Fund Bill 1978.

Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill 1 978.

Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1978.

Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Bill 1978.

Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1978.

Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1978.

Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1978.

Livestock Diseases Bill 1978.

Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 978.

Customs Amendment Bill 1978.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1978.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill(No. 4) 1978.

Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Amendment Bill 1978.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1978.

States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1 978.

National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978.

New South Wales Grant (Chrysotile Corporation) Bill 1978.

Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1978.

Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 1978.

Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Bill 1 978.

Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Bill 1 978.

Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Bill 1978.

Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1 978.

Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1 ) Amendment Bill 1978.

Sales Tax Assessment ( No. 2 ) Amendment Bill 1 978.

Sales Tax Assessment (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1 978.

Sales Tax Assessment (No. 4) Amendment Bill 1 978.

Sales Tax Assessment (No. 5) Amendment Bill 1978.

Sales Tax Assessment ( No. 6 ) Amendment Bill 1 978.

Sales Tax Assessment (No. 7) Amendment Bill 1978.

Sales Tax Assessment (No. 8) Amendment Bill 1978.

Sales Tax Assessment (No. 9) Amendment Bill 1 978.

Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978.

Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 978.

Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Bill 1978.

Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978.

Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978.

Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill 1978.

page 119

CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of Senator Guilfoyle and pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975 I present the annual report of the Capital Territory Health Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- As is obvious from the date of the report, it is some years behind, and this is a matter to which reference has been made a number of times by the

Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. So that the matter may be investigated and explained to the Senate, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 120

COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 122 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 1 present the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

In many cases . . . departments and authorities have omitted to include weekly payments under sub-section 45 (2a) in their returns.

Incidentally, these are payments of compensation during the first 26 weeks of incapacity. He cites another case as follows:

In the case of one of the larger statutory authoritieswhere statistics are recorded by computer- serious problems arose. The authority’s initial return was obviously incorrect. Inaccuracies occurred through: failure to refer all accident statistics, in certain areas of the authority’s administrations . . . failure to vary the total incapacity rates fed into the computer when national wage case increases occurred; failure to record statistics for cases that were determined outside the authority’s administration . . .

Finally, in his introduction he heavily qualifies the statistics available in this very important area. On page 4 the Commissioner reflects some of the concerns which are expressed by many of the unions whose members are being paid compensation under this Act and whose lawyers are trying to assist them under this Act. He refers to the delays and to the staffing difficulties which he has because of the very small staff directly involved in the office of the Commissioner. He says that although part of the staff are engaged in compensation work, he has no direct control over them; that most of the departments and authorities do not engage full time compensation officers; and that officers responsible for processing claims are not very experienced and delays often occur. Here we have the Commissioner admitting that the statistics are not too good and that things are not too good with the staff of the office and in the administration of this legislation.

All this is aggravated, if I may say so briefly, by another factor to which he refers. On page 8 he refers to the fact, which is well known to all unions with public service members, that the rates for employees paid under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 have not been increased since 1 September 1976. Despite inflation and despite previous Administrations increasing the sums annually, these people who are paid compensation for an injury or for the death of a spouse and who frequently have only a small amount to live on have not had an increase since September 1976. The Commonwealth rates are the second lowest in Australia. The only rates that are lower are in Victoria and the Government of that State is about to increase them, probably because there is an election in the offing. So the Commonwealth is paying very low rates which have not been increased since 1 976, the office is not working efficiently and the statistics are not accurate. I believe that this is not a very satisfactory situation. It is not a very satisfactory way to treat injured employees. It is not a very satisfactory report at all. I believe that at some time we should have debate and a proper investigation into this matter when we can look at the report properly. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 120

WAR PENSIONS ENTITLEMENT APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 82 of the Repatriation Act 1920 1 present the annual reports of the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals Nos 1,2,3 and 4 for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 120

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Administrative Review Council for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 121

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971 1 present the annual report of the Australian Institute of Criminology for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 121

FIFTH INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SEMINAR

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Fifth International Trade Law Seminar held in Canberra during June 1978.

page 121

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960 I present the annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 121

SILVER JUBILEE COMMEMORATIVE ORGANISATION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the final report of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

I say at the outset that it is not my intention to speak at length on the report because I have not had the opportunity to study it in detail in the time that has been available to me. I know that the Chairman of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation, Mr Harry M. Miller, has about one million other worries concerning him at the moment which are far more important and greater to him than the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation. We all know that in addition to this job that he has been performing on behalf of the Government he has been retained by the Government as an adviser for the Australian bicentenary celebrations, which are to take place in 1988, that he has been appointed by the Government as a member of the board of Qantas Airways Ltd and that he has also been appointed by the Government as a member of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. In view of the multiplicity of tasks that he is performing on behalf of the Government in addition to his own private interests, perhaps he has bitten off to much. .

Although only a short amount of time has been available for me to read this report I regret to say that frankly I regard it as a bit of a joke. It reads like a third class primary school essay. However, as I have only quickly perused the report, I will not dwell on that aspect of it. For a few laughs and a bit of a giggle I would suggest that honourable senators look at some aspects of it. Having made that brief comment, I say that I am more concerned with aspects relating to the financial arrangements that have been set out in the report. For instance, the following statement is made on page 1 of the report:

Establishment of the Organisation was announced by the Prime Minister in a Ministerial statement to the House of Representatives on 23 February 1977. He said the Government was pleased to have secured the agreement of Mr Harry M. Miller to serve in an honorary capacity as Chairman of the Organisation, and added: ‘ Mr Miller is admirably suited to this task, being a leading theatrical producer and an outstanding personality in Australian business and cultural life’.

If we turn to the preamble to the report we see that the report is addressed to Senator Chaney in his then capacity as Minister for Administrative Services and is signed by Mr Harry M. Miller, the Chairman of the Organisation. The third last paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of the report states:

The Federal Government authorised an allocation of $500,000 from the’ Depanment of Administrative Services’ vote to enable the Silver Jubilee Organisation to undertake its nation-wide activities. This sum is roughly equivalent to 0.035 of 1 cent per head of population.

Nowhere else in this report is any other figure of expenditure referred to. When one reads this report one assumes that the whole activities of the Silver Jubilee Organisation involved the expenditure of a mere $500,000. Over the two years since the establishment of the Organisation in February 1977 my colleague Senator McLaren and I have engaged in a study of this Organisation during sittings of the Estimates committees.

If Senator Chaney likes to refer to the explanatory notes that were sent to us during sittings of the Estimates committees and if he likes to ask the Parliamentary Library to conduct a survey of the expenditure of this Organisation, as I requested the Library to do today, he will find that in 1976-77 the administrative expenses of the Organisation were $45,058, that the expenditure in the program of events was $75,000, that there were additional administrative expenses amounting to $14,594 and that there was a Commonwealth contribution to the Silver Jubilee Appeal of $2m. In 1977-78 the administrative expenses were $278,102, the expenditure on the program of events amounted to $425,000 and the additional administrative expenses amounted to $283,549. Also there was an expenditure on Silver Jubilee Medals of $61,578 in 1976-77 and $1,759 in 1977-78. All told there was an expenditure of $2,196,230 in 1976-77 and an expenditure of $988,410 in 1977-78. There was a total expenditure of $3, 1 84,640. The report has the audacity to suggest that a mere $500,000 was all that was involved so far as expenditure was concerned.

If we turn to page 10 of the report we see the following statement under the heading ‘The Silver Jubilee Train’:

Agreement was reached with the Premier of NSW, Mr Wran, and the Minister for Transport, Mr Cox, for the NSW Public Transport Commission to undertake the extensive work necessary to refit the coaches, an operation carried out at the Commission’s Everleigh Carriage Workshops in Sydney.

When one reads that one would think that this work was done gratis by the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales. However, I want to draw the attention of the Senate to an answer given to me by Senator Chaney on 27 September 1978 in response to question No. 130. In his reply Senator Chaney said:

The Royal Silver Jubilee Exhibition train was specially fitted out by the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales to meet specifications of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation. The Organisation has paid to the Commission the sum of $250,000 in respect of the fitting out costs and running costs. Other amounts totalling $146,841 have been paid to the Queensland Railways, Victorian Railways, Australian National Railways and Western Australian Government Railways in respect of running costs incurred on those rail systems.

That answer involves a sum of nearly $500,000, which is practically the total amount that the Organisation tries to give the impression was the cost to the Australian taxpayer to organise things. Frankly I think it is a bit of a scandal that a report of this nature should be presented to the Australian people in this manner. All told, on the figures that I have worked out and those which have been provided to me by the Parliamentary Library, it cost $3,184,640 to run the organisation over those 2 years and the appeal that was launched collected a total of $5,400,000 of which the Commonwealth itself contributed $2m. When one takes into account the amount that was paid by the Commonwealth to the railways authorities throughout Australia one finds that the total expenditure- on my mathematics- is not $500,000 as is set out in this report but $3,571,480. 1 regret to say that I think that the exercise was nowhere near as successful or as popular as this report makes out and whilst it is said by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that Mr Miller gave his services in a voluntary capacity the fact is, from the unhidden figures alone, that it has cost the Commonwealth and the Australian taxpayers considerable amounts of money. If ever there were reports that should be referred to a Senate standing committee for investigation and report to the Senate, I suggest that this is one of them. I view this matter with some concern and I make those comments because I think it is important that if any of these organisations are being set up by the Government, ultimately to report to the Parliament, they should contain factual information. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

-by leave-I had intended to speak on the subject in any event in a slightly different vein from Senator McClelland because I was a little critical of the report but I must say that since listening to Senator McClelland my heart feels a little lighter. I am particularly gratified to hear of the substantial sum of money that was spent by the Government for the Queensland railways and others, presumably for providing substantial employment by government expenditure. I think that Senator McClelland probably has laid out a quite impressive case for why the Silver Jubilee celebrations were quite beneficial to this country. The point I want to raise is on a different level altogether because I am quite familiar with the questioning that went on concerning this subject during Estimates committee hearings. I found some curious features in this report about which I would like to seek some explanation from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). The report is labelled ‘Final Report of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation’. The frontispiece which has a letterhead The Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation’ is a letter to the Minister from Harry M. Miller, Chairman, in which he says:

I have pleasure in submitting to you the final report of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation.

This account of my stewardship as Chairman of the Organisation summarises the broad scale of activities undertaken in Australia to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Her Majesty’s reign.

Having got that far I was a little confused about whether we were getting the final report on the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation which ought to give some indication of what public funds had been spent, or whether we were getting an account of Harry M. Miller’s stewardship. As one reads on I think it becomes clearer that we are getting an account of his stewardship but not in the first person. I took the trouble to do something I do not normally do. I read through and looked for the trivial aspects of this report and I found that in the first five pages Harry M. Miller is mentioned nine times. Throughout the report he is in fact mentioned 19 times. The areas in which he is not mentioned are interesting in themselves. I would like to know from the Minister whether this is a report from Mr Miller on Mr Miller or whether this is a report from the Chairman of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation, as the frontispiece would seem to indicate, on the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation. If it is a report on the Organisation I find it slightly obnoxious because it has actually been used for Mr Harry M. Miller. I draw the attention of the Senate to page 1 which states:

This is a report on the organisation-

This is interesting. The report continues:

Establishment of the Organisation was announced by the Prime Minister in a Ministerial statement to the House of Representatives on 23 February 1977. He said the Government was pleased to have secured the agreement of Mr Harry M. Miller to serve in an honorary capacity as Chairman of the Organisation, and added: ‘Mr Miller is admirably suited to this task, being a leading theatrical producer and an outstanding personality in Australian business and cultural life.’

The Prime Minister said Mr Miller would be assisted by a small team of skilled personnel.

Mr Miller is mentioned three times on the first page. That is the sort of thing that makes me curious about whether this is a report by Mr Miller on the Organisation or a report by Mr Miller on Mr Miller. I think that we probably need a report from the Organisation given the fact that government funds were involved. If it is a report from the organisation. I suggest that this is not the sort of report that ought to come to Parliament and that should be pointed out. It is certainly not the sort of report on which public funds should be spent for printing.

It is quite interesting to glance through the report. One finds some rather curious quirks in the references to Mr Miller. For a few pages after page 1 he is referred to as Mr Miller. He is referred to in very favourable terms and undoubtedly he did a good job. At page 3 the report states:

While the Royal party was in Australia Mr Miller held a number of discussions with the Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, about the Organisation’s plans. Sir Martin promised to help wherever possible and his subsequent assistance was of great benefit.

As one reads on through the report one finds that it was very beneficial that Mr Miller established this sort of rapport with Sir Martin Charteris. But if one reads on a little further one finds something that sounds a little more in the interests of Mr Miller than the interests of the Silver Jubilee. At page 4 the report states:

Mr Miller led the Organisation’s staff in the planning and arrangement of each of these projects, all of which required a great deal of conceptual and administrative work.

Further down on page 4 the report refers to a subject of greater controversy which has been raised in the Senate on previous occasions. It states:

As a number of its major projects involved the need for assistance by authorities in the United Kingdom the Chairman, Mr Miller, decided to make a brief visit to London.

That visit has been the subject of some questioning in the Senate over a period of time with some questions being raised about expenditure and so on. I have not participated in that questioning but I doubt the wisdom of Mr Miller writing a report on himself in which he gives the sort of outline of his activities that he has done. It sounds a little bit like a justification in reply to questions that have been raised concerning the cost of that visit. At page 5 we are told:

In a visit lasting nine days, Mr Miller held discussions with officials of the Royal Household and the British Government relating to the proposals for the Royal Silver Jubilee Exhibition train and the Royal Coaches Exhibition. In addition, he and his officers set up plans with Capital Radio, London, for the series of Jubilee radio broadcasts to Australia, had a number of meetings with senior officers of the Central Office of Information and representatives of the London Celebrations Committee for the Queen’s Silver Jubilee, investigated numerous aspects of the British Jubilee program for possible adaptation in Australia, and represented the interests of the Australian National Queen’s Silver Jubilee Appeal Committee at meetings convened by the United Kingdom Appeal Organisation.

While in London Mr Miller also held a major news conference at Australia House during which he outlined the Organisation ‘s plans to representatives of the British and Australian media.

That is good because that give some sort of indication of Mr Miller’s stewardship. The context in which it is given is not so good. It would have been more helpful if, when following up all those points, this report was not quite so glowing in its praise of Mr Miller’s individual and personal involvement in a way which one suspects has a considerable bearing on Mr Miller’s business future in this country and his prospects of success in other areas. The report then goes on for a number of pages. First of all it deals with Operation Jubilee Bonfire and this takes up a number of pages. There is no mention of Mr Miller so perhaps he was not involved in that. At page 8 under the heading ‘Radio Broadcasts’ we find reiterated: . . during his visit to London Mr Harry M. Miller-

He has become Mr Harry M. Miller now-

  1. . held talks with the management of Capital Radio . . .

The next section deals with the Silver Jubilee train and this is introduced by the glowing statement:

By Tar the largest project conceived and undertaken by the Silver Jubilee Organisation was the Royal Silver Jubilee Exhibition train. Nothing like it had ever been attempted before.

The Exhibition train was the idea of the Organisation’s Chairman, Mr Harry M. Miller, who saw it as an opportunity literally to take the Silver Jubilee to the people.

Further on the report states:

The Exhibition project began to take firm shape during a visit to London early in May by Mr Miller.

On his return to Australia, Mr Miller began a round of discussions with railways authorities . . .

The content of the report comes across to me as just a little strange. Frankly, as a report from an organisation to Parliament it sounds altogether too much like an advertisement for Mr Miller. Once or twice he is referred to as the Chairman, Mr Harry M. Miller, but generally he is referred to a Mr Miller or Mr Harry M. Miller or sometimes just Harry M. Miller when he could quite easily be referred to as the Chairman. I find that when one reads the report the impression that is given is not of a straight report to Parliament but of a public relations exercise. I have no objection to any of the projects that were mounted for the Silver Jubilee. I think that probably our Silver Jubilee celebrations were quite encouraging, indeed very successful, and I think Australians generally supported them. I am a loyalist, not a republican. I declare my interests there. But if this is the sort of report that it appears from its front cover to be, I do not find it satisfactory.

I just draw one further particular point which is part of this subject to the attention of the Minister. Again Mr Miller does not receive a mention under ‘Operation Jubilee Salute’, the ‘Silver Jubilee National Essay Contest’, ‘Community Events’ or ‘Sporting Activities’. But under the heading ‘The Silver Jubilee Appeal for Young Australians’ we find these words:

Several events in the Jubilee Organisation’s program were conceived and arranged specifically to assist the Appeal. Among them the most important were the Royal Variety Performance at the Sydney Opera House and the Countdown Silver Jubilee Australian Top 20 Album, an LP record containing music by Australia’s leading pop groups and singers.

At the end of the report you are not very surprised when you find that the two most important events under this heading were produced by Harry M. Miller. The Royal Variety Performance, we are told, was ‘produced by Mr Harry M. Miller and directed by Peter Batey’. I smile at that point because there appears to be some doubt as to whether Peter Batey is a mister or not whereas there is no doubt at all about Mr Harry M. Miller. The other event, the Countdown Silver Jubilee Australian Top 20 Album, is said to be ‘an enterprise supported and assisted by a large section of the Australian entertainment industry and conceived by the Jubilee Organisation’, etcetera.

The document further states:

The idea was developed by Mr Harry M. Miller and Ian Meldrum, the talent co-ordinator for the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s national TV program ‘Countdown’.

What I have been saying might all have sounded a little trite, a little trivial, but frankly, when I received the report I was a little worried about the sort of report that was being introduced into the Senate. If it is the report that it appears to be, a report from the Chairman on his stewardship, I suggest that he might have used the first person I’ instead of modestly using ‘Mr Miller’ or Harry M. Miller’. If it is in fact a report from the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation then I think it really gives altogether too much notoriety to one individual when it is quite clear that many people, including officers of the Department and of the Government, made a major contribution. Their contribution is not detailed in this report.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I join with my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland in criticising the format of this report to the Senate by Mr Harry M. Miller, of whom Senator Kathy Martin has been very critical. I think I would agree with her that it is a biography by Mr Harry M. Miller and nothing else. Along with Senator Douglas McClelland I repeatedly asked questions during an Estimates Committee hearing and in the Senate about the payment which Mr Harry M. Miller was receiving. It seems rather strange that a man can serve in an honorary capacity and be responsible for the expenditure of more than $3m of public funds.

Senator Chaney:

– That is wrong.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Chaney says that that is wrong. Why was the total expenditure not set out in detail in this final report so that we could analyse it? Tonight Senator Douglas McClelland highlighted a lot of omissions in this report. I hope that Senator Chaney, as the Minister responsible, will come back with some very good answers so that the public at large can be assured that Mr Harry M. Miller in fact was serving in an honorary capacity. Senator Chaney will recall that on 2 1 November last year I asked him a question about a trip to Paris by Mr Harry M. Miller for one weekend. In order to refresh Senator Chaney ‘s memory I will repeat it.

Senator Chaney:

– It has nothing to do with this.

Senator McLAREN:

– It was to do with Mr Harry M. Miller. He is the person who is the subject of the debate tonight on this report. As Senator Chaney ‘s colleague, Senator Martin, pointed out, Mr Harry M. Miller’s name predominates the report. It mentions how he was elected to serve in an honorary capacity. As Senator Chaney said to me in his answer, Mr Harry M. Miller was serving in an honorary capacity. What the senators here tonight want to know and what the public at large wants to know is what expenses did this person incur while serving in an honorary capacity during the term that he was looking after this matter. That is what we want to know. There is nothing in that final report to show how much Mr Harry M. Miller received in out-of-pocket expenses.

I would like to know, as well as Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Martin and the public at large, how much of that $3m of public funds did Mr Harry M. Miller incur in outofpocket expenses. I pointed that out in my question to Senator Chaney on 21 November. Mr Harry M. Miller incurred expenses of $4,500 for a weekend in Paris. Yet Senator Chaney said to me in his answer that Mr Harry M. Miller was serving in an honorary capacity. I would not mind serving a government department in an honorary capacity if I could get my fare to Paris and return paid and whilst there be able to incur expenses of $4,500. 1 would not be able to spend it but obviously Mr Harry M. Miller was able to. This is the concern of the people who have spoken here tonight. It is not only Labor senators who are questioning this. Senator Kathy Martin is also.

She went on to say that she was rather pleased when she read the report to find that funds had been made available and that facilities had been made available by State governments for this

Jubilee Train. She was pleased about the employment that it would have created. I am sure that the people who were engaged in manning the Jubilee Train would not have got a minute percentage of the funds that Mr Harry M. Miller did.

I do not think I need to say any more because I am sure that when we consider the supplementary estimates we on this side will pursue this matter again if we have not been given a detailed account of the expenditure incurred by Mr Harry M. Miller. My colleague Senator Douglas McClelland has pointed out that Mr Harry M. Miller seems to be the hot favourite of this Government for being appointed to just about every vacancy that occurs on any board, whether it be Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation or whatever else. The Government goes first to Mr Harry M. Miller for his expertise. Of course, if we have read the Press in recent days I think that most of us would believe that he does not have much financial expertise. I am one person who objects to the use of public moneys by a person like Mr Harry M. Miller.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- by leave- I would hate to think that this debate is the final washup of the Silver Jubilee Celebrations because it would leave ohe with a very bad impression of what they were about. I would like to refer briefly to the statement which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in February 1977. This statement led up to the celebrations and finally to this report which we have before us. The Prime Minister said at that time that the Government had considered a number of proposals for special events. He detailed other things that were happening, including the establishment of a national appeal, which incidentally explains the $2m that Senator Douglas McClelland was talking about. It was a donation to the national appeal. It was established quite separately from any organisation with which Mr Miller was associated. In any event, having outlined things that were being done by the Government and stating the desire of the Government for a visit by royal personages and all the rest of it, the Prime Minister went on to say that he was pleased to announce that the Government had secured the agreement of Mr Harry M. Miller to serve in an honorary capacity as chairman of the organisation. The Prime Minister continued:

Mr Miller is admirably suited to this task, being a leading theatrical producer and an outstanding personality in Australian business and cultural life. He has generously placed his talents at the service of this and preceding governments. Mr Miller will be assisted by a small team of skilled personnel to help to plan and arrange selected activities. It is the Government’s earnest desire that Her Majesty’s visit to Australia and the Silver Jubilee year commemoration be a happy and memorable one for the Queen and for all Australians.

I remind the Senate that I think that objective was achieved. In fact, in a remarkably short time a substantial program of celebratory events was organised around Australia. They are detailed, to the extent that they were the obligation of this organisation, in this report. I remind honourable senators opposite that most of the events provided for participation by the great mass of Australian people. Items related to the monarchy were displayed around Australia. That explains the story of the trains that was raised by Senator Douglas McClelland. That was not just for the high and mighty of this country; it was an attempt to expose to the people of Australia some of the historic memorabilia of the monarchy. I remind the Senate of the massive participation by Boy Scouts and Girl Guides in the bonfire exhibition. It was quaint and old fashioned; perhaps it was just the sort of thing people did in Drake’s day. I would have thought it was a rather notable way to involve young people with the Silver Jubilee celebrations. I think that these sorts of things, promoted by a show business personality like Mr Miller, were remarkably successful. They were enjoyed by the mass of the Australian people. I believe that we should all be acknowledging, with some gratitude, the fact that he brought some flair and talent to the celebrations.

I would say to honourable senators opposite, and indeed to Senator Martin, that perhaps they have become too used to reading reports written by public servants, including the reports to which they sometimes append their own names. The dry as dust terminology that we have learnt to use and read is not the terminology you are going to get when you ask for a report from a leading theatrical producer. I suggest that the one thing on which the Senate can be quite clear is that this is genuinely a report from the person from whom it purports to come and that is a very welcome change.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Are you saying that $500,000 is the correct figure?

Senator CHANEY:

– I am saying that that is the amount that was paid into the trust account over which Mr Miller had control, and I will go on to explain that. Why is this report before the

Senate at all? It is before the Senate not because there is any statutory obligation to put a report before the Senate but because honourable senators suggested that they would like a report to be tabled. On 2 May 1978 Senator McLaren asked Senator Withers, who was before the Estimates Committee:

Is it intended to present a report to the Parliament on the activities of the Silver Jubilee Committee?

Senator Withers said:

I had not considered that, but I suppose there is no reason why, if Parliament wanted one, it could not be provided. No doubt Mr Miller could put one together.

As I understand it, that was the genesis of this report. A little later one of the public servants appearing before the Committee, Mr Palmer, who is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Administrative Services, said:

Mr Miller is, as pan of the winding up activity, preparing a history of the year. It was intended largely for archival purposes, as a guide for the future.

The report was put down on that basis and, in response to some interest from the Senate, has been produced to the Senate. The fact is that it is not the usual form of statutory report with which we deal. If it does not contain some of the information that honourable senators are used to receiving, that is a pity, but it is not a matter that I think can particularly be laid at the door of Mr Miller. I know of no request that was made to him to report in the form that has been suggested. In any event, could I deal with the question of accounting, about which honourable senators, as the custodians of public money, are quite entitled to be concerned.

Senator Grimes:

– That is very gracious of you.

Senator CHANEY:

– If I could proceed without the assistance of Senator Grimes I might be able to sit down a little more quickly. The financing of the Silver Jubilee commemorative program where it was under the direction of Mr Miller was by means of a trust account established under section 62aa of the Audit Act and financed by appropriations in 1976-77 and 1977-78 for a total amount of $500,000. Moneys received from the revenue-raising events were also credited to the trust account. Expenditures to be made from the trust account, after authorisation by Mr Miller, were processed in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act and finance regulations and directions. Moneys to be paid to the trust account in respect of the revenue-raising events within the program were also processed in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act and finance regulations and directions by the staff of the Department of Administrative Services. Details of all trust account transactions- this is a matter that perhaps honourable senators would be interested to know- are held by the Department of Administrative Services. So there has been proper and normal accounting of the trust account transactions. No doubt that detailed information is available although I do not have it with me in the Senate this evening.

The point made by Senator Douglas McClelland on an item of $2m is very simply explained. A quite separate organisation was established under the name of the Queen Elizabeth Silver Jubilee Appeal which was under the chairmanship of Sir Ian McClennan. That was to establish a commemorative trust, and as I understand the position, although I do not have the detailed figures before me, that $2m was the Commonwealth’s contribution to the trust and was not related at all to the activities of Mr Miller. With respect to the other items of expenditure referred to by Senator Douglas McClelland, for example, expenditure on trains, which I earlier indicated was related to carrying items around Australia for public exhibition, it is not known to me at the moment whether that came from the trust fund and was reimbursed from receipts. That is a matter which can be ascertained.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You do not doubt that you gave me that answer?

Senator CHANEY:

-Which answer was that?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer from which I quoted.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am not doubting it. What I am saying is that it is not known to me tonight whether those funds came from the trust fund and were partly reimbursed by receipts from income-earning activities or whether they were funded separately by the Government in some other way. That is a matter which can be ascertained quite easily and I will follow it up. I think that in this matter it ought to be noted tonight, when there has been significant criticism both of the report and by implication, of Mr Miller, that as Senator Withers pointed out to the Estimates Committee on 2 May, the fact is that Mr Miller did not receive a salary for his work. He undertook a program which had to be organised on relatively short notice and he succeeded in organising a wide range of events that involved a great number of Australian people in the celebration of the Jubilee. It would be a pity if this debate overlooked those very important facts.

page 127

FOREIGN ANTITRUST JUDGMENTS (RESTRICTION OF ENFORCEMENT) BILL 1979

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision for restricting the recognition and enforcement in Australia of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings.

Bill presented, and read first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for certain antitrust judgments of foreign courts not to be recognised and not to be enforceable in Australia. This is not the first occasion that efforts to enforce the antitrust laws of other countries have led to the introduction of a Bill into this Parliament. Honourable senators will recall that in 1976 the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act was passed to prevent Australian-based evidence from being used in foreign legal proceedings to which there was objection from the Australian point of view. That Act is not confined, as the present Bill is, to antitrust proceedings. However, as my predecessor, Mr Ellicott, explained in introducing the 1976 Bill, the need for it had arisen out of legal proceedings that were being taken in the United States of America under the antitrust legislation of that country. Those proceedings related to arrangements alleged to have been made in 1972 for the marketing of uranium. The proceedings included a grand jury inquiry and civil proceedings by the Westinghouse Corporation claiming some $7 billion from 29 United States and foreign uranium producers, including four Australian companies.

Mr Ellicott ‘s second reading speech in relation to the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Bill also explained that in the proceedings I have just mentioned claims were being made that the antitrust and related laws of the United States had a greater extra-territorial operation than that generally conceded in international law, and beyond what other countries were prepared to concede in the proceedings. That was the reason for the enactment of the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976, under which orders may be made on the basis of non-compliance by a foreign court with international law or comity, or on a need to protect our national interest. Two orders were made under the Act, and remade following the enactment of certain amendments to the Act. Both the orders related to the uranium marketing arrangements I have mentioned above, and were based on the need to protect our national interest. The orders have been effective in preventing the Australian-based evidence from being used for the purpose of the United States proceedings.

I am pleased to be able to inform the Senate, moreover, that the grand jury inquiry into the uranium marketing arrangements has been concluded and that no proceedings by the United States Justice Department have been instituted against any Australian company in consequence of that inquiry. The civil proceedings in which the Westinghouse Corporation was claiming treble damages from the uranium producers are, however, still pending. In those proceedings nine non-United States defendants declined to enter appearances: They did this because they considered there were jurisdictional objections to the proceedings against them and that they might be taken to have waived those objections if they were to enter appearances: The effect of their not entering appearances has been the entry by the United States court of a default judgment against them. The amount of the judgment still has to be determined, but there are indications that that could be done in the near future. It can be assumed that the Westinghouse Corporation will then take whatever action is available to it to enforce the judgment.

Whether a judgment of a foreign court is entitled to be recognised and enforced in Australia is, of course, a matter for Australian law. In general, two procedures for this are available. One is provided in the common law; the other is the subject of State and Territory legislation. At common law a foreign judgment cannot be directly enforced by execution, but, subject to certain qualifications, it may be recognised and found an action which could result in a judgment able to be so enforced. For that purpose, there is no requirement of reciprocal rights in the foreign country in respect of Australian judgments.

Under the State and Territory legislation certain classes of foreign judgments may be registered in the State or Territory, and then directly enforced as if they were judgments of the local Supreme Court. However, with the exception of the South Australian legislation, the applicability of their provisions in relation to a judgment of a particular country is dependent on an order in council being made upon satisfaction that substantial reciprocity is assured from that country, and no such order in council has been made in respect of the United States of America. The

South Australian legislation provides for the court of a foreign country to be proclaimed as a court of reciprocal jurisdiction, but such a proclamation is not essential to the operation of the legislation, which is based rather on the rules of private international law and comity.

Whether at common law or under the State or Territory legislation, the recognition and enforcement rights for foreign judgments are not unlimited. For example, judgments in proceedings in which the foreign court did not have jurisdiction are not recognised; nor are judgments that are contrary to public policy or of a penal nature. It would, however, be unsatisfactory that the defendants to the Westinghouse treble damages judgment should have to rely on those grounds in order to resist enforcement of that judgment. By the action it has already taken under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976, the Government has made clear its views that the Westinghouse proceedings are against our national interest. That being the position, it is desirable that legislative and executive action be taken which will leave no doubt that the judgment will not be recognised or enforced in Australia.

Whilst the immediate need for the present Bill arises out of the default judgment the Westinghouse Corporation has obtained, the Bill does not in terms refer to that judgment. As in the case of the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act, the Bill provides for the making by the Attorney-General of orders. Such orders are to be in respect of particular antitrust judgments, and before making an order the Attorney-General is to be satisfied that there has been inconsistency with international law or comity or that his action is desirable to protect the national interest. I inform the Senate that when the Bill has become law it is my intention to make an order in respect of the default judgment of the Westinghouse Corporation to which I have referred, and to do so on the ground that such action is desirable to protect the national interest. Any order that is made under the proposed legislation will have to be tabled and it will be subject to disallowance by either House of Parliament.

The Senate will recall that on 14 September last year, in answer to a question by Senator Young, I reported on the outcome of certain consultations that had just been had in Washington with the United States Attorney-General and representatives of his Department concerning the extraterritorial application of antitrust laws. I then indicated that the consultations had covered civil as well as criminal proceedings and that I was looking forward with some optimism to the prospect of an agreement being reached within six months. That allowed for a period during which the heads of agreement on which the consultations took place could be considered in detail by the Department of Justice and other United States departments involved. The present position in relation to those consultations is that we are still awaiting the response of the United States authorities on the proposed heads of agreement. I expect that we will receive that response very soon.

The response will not, however, render the present Bill unnecessary, because the proposals we are exploring with the United States authorities will be applicable only in respect of future marketing arrangements. They will not be applicable to the Westinghouse proceedings. It is to be hoped that it will prove possible to obtain a better understanding with the United States authorities in relation to the enforcement of their antitrust laws. For its part, the Government will certainly be pursuing that objective. In the meantime, however, there is a clear need for us to take whatever steps are available to us to protect the Australian national interest. That is the essential purpose of the present Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 129

STATES GRANTS (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to modify the fiveyear expenditure profile of Commonwealth funds provided to assist the States with urban public transport improvements. It has become necessary following decisions to defer a portion of the funds available in 1978-79 and 1979-80 in the light of wider budget considerations. As honourable senators will recall, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced in his election policy speech last November that the Commonwealth would initiate a new program for urban public transport. The program would provide $300m over five years to assist States with upgrading their urban public transport systems. It was to follow on from the earlier program. Under the Urban Public Transport Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, about $ 190m of Commonwealth funds had been provided to assist the States with urban public transport improvements over the five years to June 1978.

The States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1978 honoured our election policy commitment. As was pointed out in the second reading speech, the principles of the new legislation had been the subject of extensive discussions between my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and his State government counterparts, as well as between officials. The 1978 Act included provision of $200m of Commonwealth funds at the rate of $40m per annum over the period 1978-79 and 1982-83, with allocation between States as set out in the Schedule to the Act; and provision under section 8 of $ 100m, available at the rate of $20m per annum, for allocation between States on the basis of needs.

I would like to remind honourable senators that the Commonwealth funds of $300m provided under the 1978 Act represent an increase of more than 50 per cent over the funds provided by the Commonwealth to the States under the previous Urban Public Transport Agreement. The 1978 Act therefore reflects this Government’s support for urban public transport improvements. As honourable senators are aware, Mr Nixon has notified the States of the 1978-79 approvals. Whilst these approvals cover more than one year for some States, approvals have been restricted to the level of funds set out in the Schedule to the Act. It is the Government’s intention to maintain the total urban public transport program at $300m to 1982-83. However, decisions have been taken in the light of budget requirements to defer the allocation of $25m out of the full $40m otherwise available under section 8 in 1978-79 and 1979-80. The Bill before the Senate provides for the deferred $2 5 m to be included in an amended Schedule to the Act for the final three years from 1980-81 to 1982-83. The Commonwealth allocation by Schedule thus will be increased from $200m at the rate of $40m each year to $225m with yearly allocations as follows: 1 978-79-$40m; 1 979-80-$40m; 1980-8 1 -$45m; 1 9 8 1 - 82 -$ 50 m; 1982-83-$50m.

The total amount to be provided by way of Schedule allocations to each State over the five years to 1982-83 is as follows:

The apportionment between States in the amended Schedule is in the same proportions as in the current Schedule to the 1978 Act.

The remaining $75m in the $300m program will still be available for allocation between States on a needs basis over the remaining four years of the program as follows: $15min 1979-80 $20m per annum in 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83.

This Bill therefore maintains the Government’s longer term support for urban public transport, while meeting the current need for financial restraint. It does not impinge upon basic principles incorporated in the 1978 Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 130

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to introduce new citizenship provisions into the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 to extend Australian citizenship to any person, not already an Australian citizen, who was ordinarly resident on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands immediately before their transfer to Australia, who is now ordinarily resident in Australia or an external territory and who wishes to take up Australian citizenship. The Bill is an integral part of the Government’s comprehensive program for the advancement and welfare of the Cocos people. This amending legislation was foreshadowed in a statement issued jointly by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) on 6 July 1 978.

Under the existing legislation persons who were over 2 1 years of age at the time Australia accepted responsibility for the Islands on 23 November 1955 had a choice of making a declaration to become an Australian citizen in a period of 3 years and 6 months from that date. This provision expired on 23 May 1959. Persons who were under 2 1 years of age at 23 November 1955 were able to make a declaration to become an Australian citizen two years after that person attained or attains the age of 21 years. The value of this provision expired on 22 November 1978. Persons born in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands after 23 November 1955 are automatically Australian citizens. The present Cocos Malay population on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is about 270, of whom about 140 will become eligible under the proposed provisions. In addition, approximately 180 Cocos Malays now resident in Western Australia and Christmas Island would become eligible. The interim Cocos Malay advisory council has been consulted and supports the proposal. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 130

POSTAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill is part of the Government’s program for the future well-being of the inhabitants of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Bill will allow the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to establish its own postal and philatelic services similar to those conducted by Norfolk Island and Christmas Island. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands will obtain revenue from these operations, primarily from philatelic sales, and the revenue so derived will be retained on the islands for the welfare of the inhabitants. It is proposed that this Act should take effect on a date to be fixed by proclamation which will be the date when the ordinance establishing the postal service takes effect. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 131

POULTRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate at long last has before it the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill 1978. 1 would be remiss if I did not express in the Senate tonight the concern of the Australian poultry industry at the long delay on the part of the Government in bringing this Bill to finality tonight. In looking at the time span- and concern has been expressed to me on many occasions by many people in the industry- we find that the Bill was first presented and read a first time in the House of Representatives on 16 August last year. The Bill passed through that House on 17 November last year, a span of three months. The Bill came to this place and was read a first time on 21 November. It is now 21 February 1979. That is an additional span of three months during which the Bill has been in this place. Six months elapsed from the time this Bill was introduced until the Government finally brought the Bill before the Senate to have it passed.

I think that shows the very little concern that the Government has for the Australian poultry industry. It would appear from the time that has elapsed since the Bill was first introduced into the Parliament that the present Government puts the poultry industry right at the bottom of the ladder so far as primary industry matters are concerned. I want to express my very sincere concern on behalf of all those people in the industry who have approached me about the long delay in reaching finality on this Bill, and it is a very important Bill. Just before the Parliament rose for the Christmas recess I expressed my concern in the Senate at the delay and I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question on the placing of business. He said to me:

I am advised by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, that the non-passage of the Bill will cause some delay in payments particularly in the industry promotional area. However, every effort will be made to minimise this effect and to ensure that payments are not unduly delayed. The passage of the Bill is expected early in the autumn session of 1 979.

The Bill is now before the Senate. I hope that the industry has not suffered financially because of the long delay. I hope that the industry has received funds during the time that this Bill has been waiting to come before this House tonight. Earlier this evening we heard some criticism of the long delay in the presenting of reports to the Senate and I had occasion to refer to the delaying of reports pertaining to the poultry industry. I spoke about that in this chamber on 7 November 1978 and drew the matter to the attention of Senator Webster. He said that he would have a look at the remarks that I made. Senator Webster wrote to me on 15 November 1978. I will not hold up the Senate by reading out the answer that he gave about the delay in the presentation of those three reports. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Senator Webster’s correspondence to me.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

Dear Senator McLaren,

On the 7th November, 1978, you queried the lateness of the publication of the Chicken Meat Research Committee Annual Reports and sought leave to continue your remarks at a later stage.

I have been advised by the Minister for Primary Industry that the difficulties which have delayed publication of the numerous projects embodied in these reports, were largely due to the technical nature of many of the projects submitted for inclusion by their supervisors.

These reports required expert editing by people familiar with the technology, terminology and research areas involved, including accurate presentation in a precis form.

It is expected that these editing delays have now been overcome.

The fields of research have now’ been classified broadly under the headings of: Disease, Nutrition, Physiology, Anatomy, Management and Public Health.

I trust you find this explanation and reassurance satisfactory.

Yours sincerely, J.J.WEBSTER

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

Senator McLAREN:

– I thank the Senate. The people who are interested will be able to read the answer that Senator Webster provided to me.

Senator Webster:

– Do you find any objection to it, Senator?

Senator McLAREN:

– No, I do not find any objection. I accept the reasons that were given. I know the complexities of the poultry industry, particularly in the research area. The other thing that I want to place on record tonight is that the poultry industry in Australia has never sought or received a production subsidy. Being an ex-egg producer myself I am well aware that the egg industry in particular- and I am assured that this applies to the chicken meat industry also- has been able to look after its own marketing affairs. It has never had to come cap in hand to governments, State or Federal, seeking a production subsidy to enable it to market its production. I want to say that in my view both facets, the egg industry and the chicken meat industry, are very efficient and on the marketing side they are also very efficient.

There have been many great problems over the years going back into the early 1960s and the late 1960s, particularly about the marketing of eggs. We had what we termed parasites in the industry, those people who wanted to evade their responsibility under the egg marketing boards which were set up under the laws of the various State governments. I do not carry any torch for those parasites because I look upon them as one would upon a person who will not take a ticket in a trade union. They are scabs. They want to get all the benefits but they do not want to contribute to the industry. Those people are despised by the majority of commercial poultry farmers.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Including conscientious objectors? Are they scabs too?

Senator McLAREN:

– You cannot have a conscientious objector in an orderly marketing system set up under the law of the land. I would not carry any torch for people who claim that they are conscientious objectors. If they are conscientious objectors to the marketing of their products under a marketing board they ought not to be in the industry at all. They are only dragging down the people in the industry who are efficient and what is more they are putting on the market a very inferior product. The poultry industry, of course, at large is very concerned that the consumer who purchases the product, whether it be a dozen eggs or a broiler chicken, buys the best quality he can get. The only way the consumer is assured of getting quality is by buying the product- this applies particularly in the egg industry but not so much in the meat bird industry- which is marketed by the appropriate marketing boards which are set up in every State.

The reason I have spoken about these people is that in his second reading speech the then Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) said that the funds being sought under this legislation are being used for research in the control of diseases, for work on nutritional studies and in particular for investigation of egg quality aspects. This Bill will mean that the industry will have available to it $300,000 which is an increase of $ 100,000 over the existing amount that is available. So an additional amount of $50,000 will be provided by the industry itself and this amount will be matched by the Federal Government. So out of that total of $300,000 the industry itself will provide $150,000 and the Commonwealth Government will provide the other $150,000.

I want to mention the egg quality aspect and to talk about those people who want to trade outside the egg marketing boards. Many of us who take an interest in the industry will recall that last year there was a great upheaval in the Australian Capital Territory. Many Press reports claimed that the Victorian Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board was selling eggs in the Australian Capital Territory and undermining the local producer to the tune of about 20 per cent of the local market- there is only one main producer in the Australian Capital Territory- and because of this the producer had to market 20 per cent of his eggs in New South Wales. I want to put the record straight because in talking to people in the industry I have found that the person who was able to get all of this publicity in the local Press in Canberra and was trying to lay the blame at the feet of the Victorian Egg Board was in fact the first offender; the Victorian Egg Board marketed eggs in the Australian Capital Territory as a retaliatory action.

The firm I am talking about is Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd. It is owned by Bartters Enterprises of Griffith in New South Wales. I well recall that when the firm first moved into the Australian Capital Territory- and I had contact with many people well up in the industry- some people said that the firm moved to the Australian Capital Territory because it thought at that time that the Australian Capital Territory could be an outlet and it would be able to evade its responsibility under the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia plan. That plan was embodied in legislation brought into the Parliament by Mr Adermann when he was the Minister for Primary Industry. The legislation imposed a levy on the keepers of hens. Any person who had in excess of 20 hens over the age of six months had to pay a levy. That was the only way to catch these people who were evading their responsiblity under the egg marketing authority of each State. Birds could not be transferred across the border every day when they wanted to lay an egg in order to evade section 92 of the Constitution relating to free trade between States.

The only way we could overcome that problem was to impose a levy on the hen. I was a poultry farmer then and I well recall the politics of the situation. They went on for years. Every State in the Commonwealth except South Australia agreed to implement appropriate legislation. Mr David Brookman, who was then the Minister for Agriculture in the Playford Government, stood fast and would not agree to such legislation. I well recall 1968 when Mr Frank Walsh became Premier and Mr Bywaters, the then member for Murray, became the Minister for Agriculture. Within a short span of time he had agreed to support the Commonwealth Government in the implementation of the CEMAA plan. He did it to his detriment as he lost his seat in Parliament. We lost government over the issue. On many occasions Mr Bywaters has told me that if he were put in the same position again he would take the same action. He agreed to the legislation and the people in the electorate of Murray in South Australia vilified him so much that in the 1968 election he lost his seat and the Labor Government was defeated in South Australia. That all happened over the humble egg. But Mr Bywaters stood fast and his decision has stood the test of time. The egg industry in Australia today is on a very stable footing. I think that we have to give a lot of credit, firstly to Mr Adermann for having the courage to introduce the legislation and, secondly, to Mr Bywaters for having the courage to put his political career in South Australia on the line to ensure that the legislation was implemented.

When the legislation became law we found that Banters of Griffith thought that they would find a loophole in the Australian Capital Territory, buy up poultry farms there and set up a monopoly. They thought that in this way they would be able to evade the CEMAA levy. But that was not to be. We now know that the firm of Banters, which is now known as Parkwood Eggs here in Canberra, is virtually a monopoly producer in the Australian Capital Territory, producing 90 to 95 per cent of total production in the Territory. The action by the Victorian Egg Board of selling in the Australian Capital Territory is really in retaliation against Banters’ actions in selling eggs in Victoria from the Griffith farmnot eggs from the Australian Capital Territory, but the same company that operates in the Australian Capital Territory was marketing eggs over the border into Victoria under section 92. This has been upsetting the orderly marketing system of the Victorian Egg Board.

I have figures which I collected last year. I was prepared to speak on this legislation last year before the Parliament rose. I do not know what Banters are doing now, but last year they were believed to be supplying at least one million dozen eggs annually to Victoria. As I have said, this upsets the Victorian market and also results in an evasion by Banters of the contributions which each producer should make to cover the cost of export disposal. Only the imposition of a higher hen levy, which cannot legally be evaded, could rectify this situation. I hope that we will be talking about that matter later this session when the Government introduces legislation to increase the hen levy. At present, therefore, the Victorian producers are paying for the cost of the disposal of the Victorian eggs displaced by Banters’ eggs. The disturbance of the Victorian market has been so marked that the Victorian Minister for Agriculture has expressed the view that the Victorian hen quota legislation should be discontinued unless there is an increase in the hen levy maximum to $2. 1 hope that we will see the passage of legislation to effect that increase before the Parliament rises for the winter recess.

Further to that, and getting back to the few words in the Minister’s second reading speech I mentioned earlier which indicated that some of the research is to be into egg quality aspects, we find that last year there was an export into Victoria of contaminated egg pulp from Banters which did serious damage to public relations and to the confidence that had been built up by the Victorian Egg Board with its consumers. In November 1977 a Press report disclosed that the New South Wales Health Commission had closed down a factory in Griffith, New South Wales, belonging to the Bartters, which had been sending contaminated egg pulp into Victoria. The pulp in question was reported to have massive salmonella contamination and other bacterial infections. Large quantities of the pulp were seized and destroyed. The contaminated pulp had been traced as a result of the detection of a number of cases of food poisoning, culminating in admissions to hospital of people with quite serious illnesses.

So it is quite evident that the other side of the story had to be put at the first opportunity. Tonight, with this legislation before us, provides the first opportunity I have had to do this. Many people in the Australian Capital Territory are under the impression that the Victorian Egg Board, because of the publicity it was given last year, is doing its best to undermine an industry here in the Australian Capital Territory which, it is claimed, employs about 50 people. But these people do not know the other side of the story. They do not know of the damage that these eggs were doing and of the pulp that was sent to Victoria by the same company that is in the Australian Capital Territory, which has a farm in Griffith. I think I have stated the facts outlining why the Victorian Egg Board had to send its eggs into the Australian Capital Territory as a retaliatory action. I hope that in the future this does not happen because there is no room in a primary industry of any description for producers to pit their products against each other.

We have to have an orderly marketing system, not only for the benefit of the producers but also for the benefit of the consumers. We can be assured of satisfaction when we have a proper, orderly marketing system, with experts marketing our eggs, where the eggs are looked after in a proper fashion in cold storage and where an egg board is responsible for them. I might say that any woman who purchases an egg with an egg board stamp on it and finds it is not up to true quality has the right to go back to the retailer and to say that she had so many crook eggs in the carton. The retailer is then duty bound to replace those eggs and is then reimbursed from the egg board in whatever State. We cannot do that when people are selling unstamped eggs, as these interstaters do. I have been through all that because, as I said earlier, I was in the industry when we fought out all these issues.

I am not going to say any more on this because time is getting on and I know that other honourable senators want to speak on other legislation. I again want to emphasise my concern and the concern of the industry at the long delay in introducing this legislation. I hope that when the legislation to increase the hen levy is brought into the other place we will not have to wait six months before it is brought into this chamber and is then passed into law. The Opposition supports this legislation. That is all I need to say on the matter.

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I thank the Opposition and in particular I thank Senator McLaren for his comments on the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill. The Poultry Industry Assistance Act of 1966 currently provides for an annual maximum total of $200,000 to be spent on research in a financial year from matched industry-government contributions. That has been unchanged since 1966. The main purpose of that provision was to support a technical and biological research program. The Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia has offered to increase industry contributions to egg industry research by up to $50,000 annually providing a matching contribution is made by the Commonwealth.

I noted Senator McLaren’s comments and thank him for them. He claimed that delay with this Bill was embarrassing the poultry industry and he referred to remarks made by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). The honourable senator may note that the Minister in his remarks was referring to problems that had arisen within the poultry industry in certain States in efforts to obtain consensus on the need to strengthen funds for stabilisation purposes. Senator McLaren may note that agreement has since been reached on the stabilisation levy and that legislation to effect the wishes of the industry is being introduced in another place.

The Bill which is before us relates to research. More money is needed principally to provide for marketing and economic research projects. Some marketing and economic research projects have already been initiated and are designed to form a basis for determining the future direction of marketing research. These preliminary studies were funded from economies achieved in the financing of technical and biological projects. The effectiveness of the existing program has also been eroded through monetary inflation. As I indicated the existing financial limits have remained unchanged since the passage of the original Act in 1966. Because a ceiling is still imposed on annual research expenditure care will have to be maintained in the arrangement of priorities for research, which honourable senators will understand is particularly important. Of course the allocation of funds to support the most worthwhile of the projects must be provided. Industry expenditure on research is matched with Government contribution in other rural industry trust funds.

There is little more to say about this Bill. I think it can go to the Committee stage. So that the honourable senator knows I point out that projects to expend the enlarged funds will take effect in the coming financial year; that is, 1979-80. The time-table will be adequately met by the passage of this Bill in this session.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 135

STATES GRANTS (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– On behalf of the Opposition I move:

At end of motton, add ‘but, the Senate is of the opinion, that:

the Government should be severely criticised for reducing the amounts made available to the States for upgrading of urban public transport in 1978-79 by $20m and in 1979-80 by $5m.

this reduction in funds to the States will seriously disrupt the provision of improved transport facilities, and

this action of the Government is inconsistent with the development of urban public transport as an essential part of a responsible national energy policy for Australia’.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) stated that this Bill will modify the existing legislation which was passed in 1978, and in which the Government agreed to provide sums of money to the States for improvement of urban transport generally. That legislation was passed by the Parliament even though it did not match the promises that had been made by the Government at the time of the 1975 and 1977 elections, where it is on record that the Minister for Transport had, in fact, agreed to provide a very substantial sum of money- something like $300m- over a five year period for the purpose of putting into effect the Government’s policy. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his speech pledged to assist the States to modernise their public transport systems. He stated that the Federal Government would be happy to assist State governments to provide car parking at suburban public transport terminals to encourage increased patronage of such services.

In the policy speech the Prime Minister went on to say that a Liberal-National Country Party Government would encourage the States in the development of a rapid transport system. So not only did the 1978 legislation not put into effect the promises that were made by the Government in 1977, but also now the Parliament is being asked to modify the modified version of the Government’s policy which was presented for Parliamentary approval in 1978. In so doing it is reducing the sum of $25m, allegedly- to use the words of the Minister- in the light of wider budget considerations. Of course, that opens a real Pandora’s box as far as this Government’s general approach to the economy is concerned. I think we ought to reflect upon the fact that it is just as well we did not have Fraser-type governments in the 19th and 20th centuries when it was essential to establish a public transport rail system in our country, else we might never have been able to move from Sydney to Melbourne or from Sydney to Bathurst, Wagga Wagga, Broken Hill and other major centres. If governments of that day had taken the short-sighted approach that has been taken by this Government since it has come to office then we would never have built our transport infrastructure which has played such an important and significant part in the development of our industries and of our economy in the last 100 years or so.

The period of great growth in this country can be shown in different epochs, whether it be the latter part of the last century, the early part of this century, after World War I and in particular in the period after World War II when Australia’s population almost doubled because of migration and other factors. Of course, it is relevant to point to the fact that we can see that in the process of that growth there has been a decay, a decline, a deterioration in the whole urban public transport system. Contrary to what this Government is doing, it ought to be spending and allocating the sort of money to which it committed itself, through its Minister for Transport and its Leader, in both the 1975 and 1977 elections. It is no wonder that the Australian people are losing faith in political parties and in governments when election promises can be broken so glibly as though they have no value. Within a year- within a matter of months- we find the Government bringing in a further Bill which amends a Budget consideration, endorsed by the Parliament after consultation with State Ministers for Transport, and which seeks to spread the money over a longer period of time and, in fact, on a yearly basis reduces the amount of money. Of course, this flies in the face of all the experiences of anybody concerned with sociology, demography and the proper development of balanced economic growth. It ought to be understood- although it is not by this

Government- that an urban public transport system is an integral part of any growth and development program, particularly as it is related to urban growth.

In the post-war years we have seen a tremendous development of our major cities and of our urban areas. As all planners will say, and as all people who concern themselves with urban matters will say, an urban transport system is the very hub, the very focal point, and the very link between all that happens in a modern community, whether it be industrial or commercial activity. The success achieved in the movement of people, goods and services and in the matters of education and leisure depends upon a proper functioning urban public transport system. It was in recognition of this fact that the Whitlam Labor Government, when introducing its legislation in 1973 for the very first time, allocated $500m, at 1973 values, over five years, with compensatory escalation provisions to maintain the basic purchasing power of original grants. So, whatever the inflation rate, whatever the value of money, the Whitlam Government for the first time in the history of Australia accepted proper responsibility in respect of the urban transport system.

It is not often that credit is given. Certainly none has been given in this place by members of this Government to these important steps which were taken in the Whitlam period. However, at least there is on the public record a Press release which was issued by Mr Milton Morris, the Liberal Party Minister for Transport in the New South Wales coalition Government. That Press release dated 19 February 1973 reads:

The important thing is that the public transport system of Sydney will be transformed and I give full marks to the Federal Transport Minister, Mr Jones, for the part he has played. He is the first Federal Transport Minister in the history of Australia to have obtained Commonwealth assistance for public transport:

When we read all of the debates which have taken place in the intervening years, we find that no recognition is given to this pioneering work of the Labor Government in developing for the first time, a national conscientiousness and a national concept of the need for the Federal Government to become involved in upgrading and improving our urban transport system.

Of course, we are contrasting the action of a Labor government with the inability of a conservative government to put into effect its own policy and program. The present Government said in one of its official documents:

In 1 978-79 we will expand existing programs to provide a total of $60m annually for the next five years to improve urban public transport

We will also undertake a five year program to upgrade critical sections of the national railway network.

But what is happening? This piece of legislation to which the Senate is asked to consent will in fact reduce further the allocation of funds, reduced as they were in comparison with what was promised in 1977. All of this is done in the mistaken belief that by spending such public funds the Government would be contributing to some sort of decline in Australia’s economic situation. Of course, that epitomises the approach which has been taken by conservative governments in the post-war years, namely, that the private sector should be given unfettered rights to funds and resources in this country. In fact, the record of the dismal Menzies epoch- those long 23 years- shows that public transport, public education, public health and public services generally in Australia deteriorated to a marked degree. It was not until the late 1950s that the parents and teachers in the various States took up the cudgels and agitated to such an extent that finally even Mr Menzies was forced to take cognisance of the change in the public opinion and to begin to accept some responsibility for Federal funding for education.

Nothing was done about public transport until 1973, despite all the activities by the railway unions and by State governments of all political complexions. I give credit to both the Labor Government in New South Wales and the Liberal Government in Victoria which raised very sharply with the conservative national Government which was in power prior to 1972 the need for the Commonwealth to become involved in the herculean task of making funds available to improve our urban public transport system. No member of this Senate can travel throughout Australia and not be ashamed of the neglected state of our urban transport system in every State, no matter what the political complexion of the State government. The same neglect would be found in Queensland after long years of conservative government as would be found in Tasmania after long years of Labor government. I remember during an election campaign visiting the railway workshops in Launceston and being ashamed of the fact that public facilities had been allowed to deteriorate to the extent to which they had.

As we all know, public transport has become the principle cost factor in all State Budgets. It is the area that costs the States most money. The resources of the six individual States are insufficient to finance the sort of modernisation and improvement needed in urban transport systems. It was the recognition of this fact that prompted the Whitlam Labor Government, in its perception of what the needs were for urban transport in this country, to make $500m available over a period of five years. The Whitlam Government considered it its responsibility and obligation to recognise all the areas of neglect that existed throughout the public sector in Australia. We make no apologies for the fact that the Whitlam Government allocated funds and gave encouragement to the State governments so that public services throughout Australia could be provided in order to improve the living conditions of people in the major cities. We recognised that 87 per cent of the Australian population lived in the urban environment. It was the Whitlam Government’s intention to make improvements, whether it be to the sewerage program, to education, or, as in this particular case, to the urban public transport system.

It was in pursuit of that sort of objective that we changed the face of Federal-State financial relationships. We made large sums of money available to the States in order that they could improve their public facilities and, as in this case, to improve public transport. We were traduced and we were criticised. We were maligned by people in this place and by the leaders of the private sector, who dominate the whole of our economy. They said we were bringing about a better allocation of resources in this country. We make no apologies for that, because the present Government in its policies has pledged itself to make the necessary changes and to allocate the necessary funds to bring about the objectives which the Whitlam Government had set itself. In pursuance of that objective certainly we came into a deficit situation. But it is suggested that by the spending of money on urban public transport, on building schools, on building better hospitals or better sewerage schemes or even housing the Government was going bankrupt. Providing permanent public facilities is the sort of business acumen in which the private sector engages.

Indeed, as Sir William McMahon and William Wentworth have said from time to time, we were providing assets. Correcting the deficit was only a matter of making an adjustment to a financial arrangement between income and expenditure. If, in fact, assets were being provided for the Australian people, it should not be regarded as a deficit. In a previous debate, we heard even Senator Messner, Senator Lewis and others talk about the dreadful deficit that we had when we were in government as a result of providing money to improve the living conditions of the people in our cities, suburbs and country towns.

We criticise this Government because it believes that by not providing this sort of money it is going to solve the malaise that exists in the economy of this country. It says that it is because we placed great emphasis on public works and public sector expenditure that we are in this awful mess with the economy.

What is the comparable position about public sector expenditure in respect of the gross domestic product? Are these factors that can be borne out by comparisons with other countries? For example, in 1 970 we in Australia were spending on the public sector only 24 per cent of our national income, which figure was lifted to 32 per cent when the Labor Party was in office at the end of 1975. Let us look at a comparison with other countries whose transport systems leave ours for dead, are modern, run on time and are clean and efficient and whose public services generally would leave ours for dead. In a whole range of activities the people of Europe are able to enjoy decent community facilities. Canada spends 39.4 per cent of its gross domestic product in the public sector. West Germany spends 44 per cent. I had the opportunity to visit that country last year, to travel on its trains, and to see the improved conditions that people are able to enjoy in that country’s public transport system. In the Netherlands the figure is 53.9 per cent, which is almost double what we were spending in about 1973. In Sweden the figure is 51.7 per cent and in the United Kingdom it is 44.5 per cent. In the heartland of capitalism, the United States of America, the place of the big corporations where the private sector is so sacrosanct that one is not even allowed to think about the public sector, 35.1 per cent of the gross domestic product is spent in the public sector. Yet in 1975, the peak year of the Labor Government, we were spending only 32 per cent.

I wager that as a result of the inadequate policies of this Government that 32 per cent has dropped, because this Government is wedded to a concept that all it has to do is leave everything to the private sector and everything will come good. That, of course, is one of the great myths of the thinking of not only this Government but also those who control the media and try to develop the consciousness of the Australian people to support that point of view. Of course, it is a fallacy. It will not work. The private sector is concerned only with maximising its profit. Wherever it can make investments, whether it be in Singapore, Taiwan, the United States or in any of our own cities, it will concern itself with the objective because that is what it believes in. It ill becomes a government charged with the responsibility of a balanced development of a country to take the view that the public sector has to be reduced to the paucity it was in during those dim and dark days of the 1950s and 1960s when public sector activity virtually stood still. This Government has ignored the fact that planning means that when cities develop and grow, it is an essential part of that growth that there be an adequate public transport system. The Government’s own political documents, its own programs, pay tribute to the fact that one must have an improvement in the public transport system. We have this absurd position of workers now living at such distances from their place of work that it takes them an hour and a half or two hours to travel there from their place of residence. It is not within the province of the State instrumentalities to do anything to improve that system to any marked extent because of the tremendous costs involved and because, as I said earlier, of the great brake that transport places on State finances.

In pursuit of a wider budgetary consideration the Budget strategy makes urban public transport another casualty, just as Medibank and reduced taxes have been a casualty. Interest charges have risen; they are another casualty of the Budget. Another casualty is the minor credit squeeze which, it seems, was reported in the news this evening. Promises were made so glibly by this Government in relation to a whole variety of taxes which it said were going to come down; but we know that they have gone up. Interest rates were going to go down; they are now rising. We know that inflation is continuing to go up and not down. Whether it be in respect of public housing or public urban transport, funds are being decreased and decreased to a point where they lose their significance in respect of any capacity of a State government to plan for any improvement in its urban transport system.

Of course, as we know, this is an issue with the Australian people. It has been proved to be an issue in the last two elections in New South Wales. I do not know whether Senator Peter Baume is smiling at my reference, but he must surely recognise that one of the features of Mr Wran’s victories in the last two elections in the State has been his determination to improve the urban public transport system as far as the available money would allow. In fact a great deal has been done, at the expense unfortunately of other public activities and responsibilities, to improve the urban public transport system. It was in recognition of that need for improvements in urban transport that seats were won in the election before last in the key areas of Gosford and the Blue Mountains, which brought about the defeat of the conservative government. Because we in New South Wales have persisted with our responsibilities to improve the system as far as is practicable with Federal and State funds, some significant improvement has taken place in New South Wales. I can talk about the situation in the other States, including South Australia, where there is great disquiet as a result of the Commonwealth ‘s attitude in respect of the transport system there. The State having handed part of it over, the Commonwealth now is applying the squeeze and, of course, the same problem has developed -

Senator Bishop:

– It is the Federal Government, not the railways organisations.

Senator GIETZELT:

– That is right. It is an indictment of this Government that it should follow so glibly and so blindly the false premise that all it has to do is reduce public sector spending and the whole economy will be back on an even keel. In fact if it studies the experiences of other countries it will see that that is not borne out at all. In Japan, the countries of Europe and other modern and industrialised countries there has been an improvement in the urban public transport systems as a result of a national government accepting its responsibilities. We make no secret about and are not ashamed of the fact that we have moved an amendment condemning this Government for again attempting to modify and reduce the amount of funds available for urban public transport. We would hope that honourable senators opposite might give some mature consideration to our point of view or at least have the courage to stand up and say what the Government is endeavouring to do in respect of this Bill and so many other money Bills we have been concerned with in recent times and justify the drastic cutback in public sector spending.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Bishop:

– Yes.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-The Senate is debating tonight a Bill introduced earlier this evening which is entitled a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1978. The Bill deals with a number of matters in terms of amendment. It looks at the Government’s policy on federalism and on State relations. Also it draws attention to the situation of urban transport in our society. Urban transport and urban public transport are not only financial matters or federal matters but are also of some social consequence and importance.

First of all, let me look at the Bill and in particular refer to the second reading speech which was made in the Senate a little earlier this evening. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) has said, the Bill seeks to modify a five-year expenditure profile. This five-year expenditure profile deals with Commonwealth funds that are provided for the States in relation to urban public transport programs. As the Minister has pointed out, the Bill has become necessary following decisions to defer a portion of the funds- and that completely denies the arguments which have just been put forward relating to promises and the availability of funds to the States-available for 1978-79 and 1979-80. This deferment has been made in the light of wider Budget consideration.

The Senate, of course, will very well recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced in his election policy speech that the Commonwealth would initiate programs for urban public transport and that these programs would provide something like $300m over five years to assist the States in upgrading their urban public transport systems. I think the Senate should be reminded that this $300m provided under the 1978 Act represents an increase of more than 50 per cent. An increase in any terms is, of course, to be applauded and is appreciated and approved, but I think we should draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that in this case the increase is more than 50 per cent over the funds provided by the Commonwealth to the States under the previous Urban Public Transport Authority.

It is important to point out that the 1978 Act reflects very markedly the Government’s support for urban transport improvements. It is the Government’s intention to maintain the total urban public transport program at $300m to 1 982 and to 1 983. This, alongside the considerable percentage improvement, is a significant development in the Government’s interest in and maintenance of the urban public transport systems of this country. The Bill maintains the Government’s long term support for urban public transport and at the same time, in terms of good housekeeping, it meets the current need for financial restraint.

The background to the measure goes back a number of years. As was indicated earlier tonight the Commonwealth became interested some years ago in this field and commenced its assistance to the States in 1973 and 1974. Under the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974 the Commonwealth met two-thirds of the cost of approved urban public transport projects in the States. I suppose it is a fairly obvious follow-on that the major projects have included the acquisition of new rolling stock for train, tram and bus services as well as provision for ferries and the upgrading of certain railway systems.

The matter is not only one of public and urban transport. It is not only a matter of States grants or indeed of national economics. The matter of public and urban transport relates to a social situation that has some complexity and, indeed, some significance. It affects a wide range of people in a wide range of circumstances. It has a whole range of impacts on land development, suburban development, population movements and things of that kind. Australia is one of the world’s most urban societies. We are the most urbanised community on earth in spite of our size. Therefore we need to look very carefully at the development of transportation if our lifestyle and our quality of life are to develop in any sensible way so everyone has a good opportunity and so that there is an incentive for people to develop not only their business and their commerce inclinations but also to enjoy life. So the matter of public transport and urban transport is something that needs to be taken very seriously into account. I suggest that the funds which the Commonwealth is setting aside are a response to this need.

Australia has a very heavy record of car ownership and car use. We are really not noted for our use of public urban transport. I think much of this springs from our geographical situation, the size of our nation, the scattered nature of our population beyond the urban areas and generally our attitude to transport, our attitude to travel and our attitude to the transportation of goods and services. I think that more than anything else we like to be at the wheel of our own vehicles. I suppose this gives us a feeling of authority and power. Certainly it gives us a feeling of independence. We are not dependent on the movement of public transport and we are not dependent on or subjected to timetables or things of that kind. Whilst this may sound to be an interesting situation I think we have to remember that the people of our society are not always conveniently located to public or urban transport. I suppose this one of the vicious circles in which we as a society are placed. We do not use public transport and as a result public transport does not become available to people in a great many areas. So to a certain extent our society runs the risk of being disadvantaged in some ways.

As we develop as a nation and a society and as we face up to certain inevitable developments that appear to be taking place in the world I think the whole of our society at government and enterprise level has to look very seriously at urban transportation. This not only applies to a Commonwealth or national government in respect of the funding processes; it also very much applies to State governments and local authorities as they seek to work out the most suitable areas in which urban public transport might be related or directed and, indeed, might be used so that it provides a service for the people on the one hand and an economic and soundly managed unit on the other hand.

A city- and of course there are a number of cities in Australia in which most of our people live- is a dense distribution of people where social and economic activities are monitored, structured and controlled by the way the land uses are developed and by the way the transport facilities are worked out. The interaction between the two, of course, provides that which we know as traffic because the land use of a city can not provide traffic on its own nor can the transport facilities provide traffic on their own. In Australia over the past three decades our State capitals have virtually doubled their populations and our national capital in Canberra has increased its population fourfold. Over those decades we have tended to place millions of people in a kind of low density sprawl around the perimeters of our major cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane. We sometimes wonder why public transport simply cannot service those people. The melancholy truth of this fact is that we are in company, of course, with a great number of car dominated cities throughout the world.

I suppose one of the keys to the urban public transport situation and urban transport policies lies in the question of whether man wants to move himself or whether he wants to move himself and his automobile too. The answer is not easy. It is a complex situation, as I have indicated. We have to try to find a way to provide for the individual a choice between private and public transport systems. In all affluent urban communities in which virtually all the adults have access to a car the choice becomes very much one sided in favour of the car. But having said that I think that we have to remember that there are what I have seen described as captives of public transport. These are people such as school children, elderly people and appreciable numbers of citizens who, for one reason or another, do not wish to own or drive a motor car or automobile. Any policy on public transportation must therefore include what I would describe as a public service. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, when speaking earlier tonight, was wise to draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that the Bill which is before us maintains the Government’s longer term support for urban public transport and takes into account this balance whereby public transport is efficient and economic while at the same time providing for those people who desire and need, for one reason or another, to use it.

As the second reading speech points out, the Bill, in providing longer term support for urban and public transport, also meets the need for financial restraint on which the Government has placed so much emphasis and in which it has achieved so much success. Urban transport involves not only an extension of lines and roads but also the upgrading of services and facilities. We must have a very serious look at timetables and the use of appropriate, comfortable, effective and efficient vehicles. But I suggest that we are in a position whereby there could very well be some danger and some difficulty as far as our urban transport situations are concerned. We need to place a renewed emphasis on the fact that we are vulnerable to imported fuels. Indeed our situation is such that this vulnerability as far as the importation of petroleum and other fuels is concerned places our whole effective transport system within the cities in some difficulty and possibly even in some jeopardy. Only if petroleum and fuel supplies were cut off would the full capacity of public transport finally be needed. We need metropolitan transportation systems which can efficiently handle what I think can be described as a mass motorised society. Australia has such a society at present. In dealing with this society we need to be able to switch relatively rapidly to a reliance on public transport in the event of a serious fuel shortage.

I do not think that it is stretching the point too far when I make the assertion that we need cities which can handle both situations. At present we have cities in Australia which can do neither. The best strategy to cope with this uncertain future is to develop a network of efficient urban public transport routes so that most areas of a given city or a highly developed population centre are within reasonable walking distance of some form of public transport- a train, a tram or a bus route. I am critical of the present situation in

Australia as far as urban public transport is concerned. There is fragmented planning in Australian cities, with different authorities each concerned with one or another aspect of public transport. I think that all forms of public transport should be considered together in a system of integrated planning, taking into account land uses, population developments and trends as well as bearing in mind the scattered nature of our Australian population.

Whilst the Bill defers the provision of a certain amount of money it also draws the attention of the Australian people, indeed of the Australian Parliament, because it provides opportunities for extension and support of urban transport. The allocation of funds may be welcome but more research is needed. I suggest that we need to educate the publics’ attitude towards public transport. We must develop a sympathetic understanding of public transport and perhaps an attitude in favour of urban public transport so that the various issues relating to energy, commerce and the social wellbeing and convenience of the people may be effectively geared.

Even as one may make these kinds of observations the unresolved question is whether urban transport should be regarded totally as a business proposition paying its way or become a kind of social service in which facilities are provided. As a strict business operation it may very well be that in certain situations the transport system may have its limitations as far as services to the people are concerned. But I think that it is equally true to say that the community must be protected from providing vast sums of money for great transport systems that travel the various lines and roads and rails with no customers, no passengers no response and no income. The great transport systems of some countries which have been constantly held up to us as being of very great value may look very fine as we see them. They may be very fine as they service visitors. But a heavy taxation burden is demanded of the people so that those systems can be maintained. In any study of urban public transportthe community needs to give this further study- we have to balance the need for an effective paying operation on the one hand against a social situation on the other so that a community may be able to be effectively served and at the same time public money wisely spent. I support the measure.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I rise to second the amendment to the State Grants (Urban Public Transport) Bill so ably moved by my colleague Senator Gietzelt. Before addressing myself to the Bill I would like to make one or two observations. It has become clear to us on this side of the Senate that when it comes to election time the Liberals have no peers as promisers. I am reminded of Lloyd George who went to the polls in Great Britain as Prime Minister on the promise that if he was re-elected he would hang the Kaiser. We all know, as history reveals, that Lloyd George won the election but the Kaiser died peacefully in his bed 20 years later. Throughout the years, since Lloyd George’s time and to the present time, we have seen the Liberals establish a record of broken promises unequalled by any other political party. We on this side of the Senate know them to be people who change their minds every full moon. They twist and turn and change their minds at the drop of a hat. I have used the quotation I am about to read before but it is worth reminding Government senators opposite of it again. Somebody once wrote about them:

A merciful providence fashioned them hollow on purpose that they might their principles swallow.

It is equally true of them today as when it was written about them previously. In 1977 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised in his election policy speech to provide $60m annually over five years for urban public transport in all States. In other words, a total of some $300m over five years was promised to assist the States in upgrading their public transport systems. An Act was to provide payments to the States at the rate of $60m a year, of which $40m was to be allocated to the States in fixed guaranteed amounts with the remaining $20m to be allocated annually on the basis of needs and priorities assessed in the light of proposals submitted by the States themselves. In fact, honourable senators will recall that even at that time the States were unanimous in their opinion that the annual amount offered to them was barely adequate to sustain existing public transport services and facilities.

I refer now to what is happening at present. This year the needs component has been dropped altogether. The reason given is the difficult budgetary situation that existed in 1978 and still exists in 1979. It is a case of another broken promise, of another promise being repudiated by the Government. One of the great faults that we on this side of the chamber see with the new urban public transport scheme is that the escalation provision incorporated in the 1973-78 assistance scheme introduced by the Labor Government has been dropped completely.

Despite all the claims and the horrendous unemployment policies of the Federal Government over the past three years, the rate of inflation was in double digit figures until quite recently and, most importantly, it is still running at between 8 per cent and 9 per cent per annum. Between 1971 and 1975 it averaged 10 per cent. Despite all the talk, the Federal Government has made little impact on the inflation rate. Consequently, the value of the limited transport grants is being whittled away during each year of the five-year scheme. Obviously, the less granted in the early years the less value there is in the scheme. It needs to be recalled that the original offer by the Labor Government in 1973 was quite generous. lt was $500m in 1973 dollars, spread over five years with compensatory escalation provisions. All the State Premiers of the day hailed it as a massive breakthrough. It is a matter of some relief that the scheme is being continued at all by the scrooge-like coalition government, which seems dedicated to paralysing the community.

The Prime Minister conned the electors in his 1977 policy speech when he made the grandiose promise to undertake a five-year program to upgrade critical sections of the national railway network. The gloss soon wore off after the election. It transpired that only $70m was to be made available over five years, averaging out at $ 14m a year to be split between the States. This year the $ 14m is back to $3m for all the States, which is hardly enough to buy more than a few sleepers. We are now in the position where, our forebears having built the railway stations that we have today, we are having difficulty in finding enough money to paint them. That was said in the other place by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). How true it is. It also transpires that the present $3m for central railway works is to be in the nature of a loan to the States and not a grant. It will be up to the States to pay the interest on such a loan. So much for the Commonwealth’s concern for the country’s railway system.

The whole situation has to be considered against the background that the Commonwealth still commands the major taxation resources of this country. One has only to look at the $300m ripped off the motorists in 1977-78 by the 10c a gallon world parity crude oil levy and the even more horrendous 16c a gallon levy imposed this year to yield $676m from the same source. Despite the claims of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), levies of this kind have proved worldwide not to be fuel conservation measures. They are a naked tax on the motorist pouring millions of dollars into the Commonwealth coffers. We on this side feel that there might be some justification if the money were channelled into areas that would promote fuel conservation by the construction of adequate road systems, the funding of oil research programs or improvements to alternative public transport facilities. Unfortunately this is simply not happening.

Let me turn my attention closer to home. What is happening in Queensland? A prominent person in Queensland said firstly that increases from the Federal Government would have to be across the board before he would be satisfied. Similarly, he is far from happy about the matter of cost escalation and the Federal Government’s barefaced withdrawal from the commitment made under the Labor Government to support automatically cost escalation. Secondly, he has publicly stated that the electrification of railways, the wider urban public transport issues and the expenditure on roads should be coordinated rather than separated as they are now. As a result of the separation we sometimes find the thought and purpose behind the policy running in contrary directions. Honourable senators may well ask me this evening who was the author of those words. Was it the Leader of the Labor Opposition or a prominent Labor front bencher? No, it was none other than the National Party Minister for Transport in Queensland, the Honourable Russell Hinze, a man everyone will agree not renowned for his Labor Party sympathies.

It appears to me that for the ratepayers of Brisbane the two issues which we are discussing this evening are of particular importance. After all, the Brisbane local authority which is Australia’s largest is the only capital city authority responsbile for public transport. For those who live and work in the metropolitan area, a large proportion of the cost of local authority road maintenance as well as maintenance of the public transport system is carried by the local ratepayer. From the point of view of protection of the public interest, we all agree that it is eminently sensible that Brisbane’s metropolitan bus services are provided by the City Council.

The 2 1 aldermen of the Council are directly responsible to their constituents for the nature and standard of the bus service provided in that area. While on the one hand it can be readily and undeniably demonstrated that Brisbane’s bus service is best administered by the City Council, it is most difficult to justify the Council’s having to bear from the general rate the majority of costs associated with providing this fundamental service. If it is accepted that the provision of unprofitable bus services in Brisbane is a legitimate metropolitan function, then it is difficult to understand why that should be funded from general taxation and duties. No other capital city in Australia funds its public transport services from property taxes. Every metropolitan public transport undertaking in other States and the suburban passenger division of the Queensland railways derive their funding support from the Consolidated Revenue accounts of their respective States.

page 143

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 144

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Grants to Schools in Victoria (Question No. 1044)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 6 November 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Which Government and which non-Government schools in the electoral division of Melbourne, Lalor, Batman, Gellibrand, Henty, Scullin and Wills have received Government grants during the period from 1975 to 1978.
  2. Where grants were made: (a) what was the amount of each grant; (b) for what purpose were the grants made; and (c) from which fund were they paid.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It is not possible to provide information in respect of payments to individual government schools except in relation to grants made under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program and the Disadvantaged Schools Program of the Schools Commission. The Commonwealth Government provides bulk funding to the Victorian Government for government schools programs to disburse on a needs basis as it sees fit.

Funds for non-government schools in the electoral divisions in the period in question have been made available under programs administered by the Schools Commission.

Payments for the years 1974-1977 are set out in the reports which were tabled in the Senate on the dates listed below:

Repon- States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 -Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1974-75- 19May 1976

Repon- States Grants (Schools) Act 1972- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1975-76-2 November 1977

Report- States Grants (Schools) Act 1972- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1 976-77- 23 February 1978

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1974-1 October 1975

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1975-30 November 1976

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1976- 25 August 1977

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1976- Financial Assistance granted to each State-23 February 1 978

Report- States Gants (Schools Assistance) Act 1976-24 November 1978

Information in respect of 1978 is not covered in the above reports. In relation to non-government schools it is set out in the schedules below for the electorates in question.

Information concerning the electorate of Lalor is contained in the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 2486 (Hansard, 16 November 1978, page 3007).

The following funds have been allocated to government schools in Victoria through Schools Commission programs:

Community Languages (Question No. 1067)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) What criteria are proposed for the determination of the languages to be regarded as ‘main community languages’ following the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations on pages60-65 of the Galbally Report that various facilities be publicised in the ‘main community languages’.
  2. When will the Government release information on language use taken from the 1 976 Census statistics.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Firm and static criteria are not used to determine the languages into which community information should be translated. The languages to be used vary according to the circumstances surrounding each publication. Languages most frequently in demand also vary with time, depending upon the composition of the Australian population with little or no ability to read English. For example, increasing amounts of material are now being translated into Arabic and Vietnamese.

The survey of migrant information needs recommended by the Galbally Report (page 58) began in November 1978 and is expected to be completed by May 1979. The survey findings, together with the Census data will contribute an understanding of the translation needs.

  1. I am informed by the Australian Statistician that information is now available on the numbers of persons (5 years of age and over) who:

    1. a ) speak English only ;
    2. b) speak English and one other language;
    3. speak English and two or more other languages; and
    4. speak no English at all.

The information is classified according to whether the persons concerned are Australian-born or overseas-born. It is available for each Census Collection District, Local Government Area, and State.

During the first half of 1979 data will be released, on a Local Government Area and State basis, indicating the use ofindividuallanguages.

Medibank Private (Question No. 1072)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 November 1978:

Is Medibank Private permitted to refuse membership of its 100 per cent table, and of its ‘Extras’ table, as implied by the statement in the Medibank brochure dated November 1978 that ‘Benefits on the 100 per cent medical table may be reduced to 75 per cent, and benefits on the Extras tables may be refused, for a pre-existing condition’; if so, does this action have the approval of the Minister for Health.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Most private health insurance funds apply a pre-existing illness exclusion in relation to supplementary (i.e. non-basic) benefits tables. The tables in question operated by Medibank Private are supplementary tables. Pre-existing illness exclusions have a long-standing history in private health insurance and have applied to supplementary insurance since the advent of such insurance in 1975. Exclusion provisions in respect of pre-existing illnesses have been permitted to protect the funds from abuses. To a large degree, such exclusions assure the funds of continued financial viability. Since the advent of supplementary health insurance, the funds have been allowed latitude for innovation and flexibility in respect of such insurance. They have been given a degree of freedom to determine the nature and extent of supplementary benefits provided, and the terms and conditions applied in the payment of those benefits.

The above arrangement in relation to supplementary insurance has operated quite satisfactorily over the years. This is because the funds generally have interpreted their rules in a compassionate and sensitive manner. It was only recently that it came to the Government’s notice that one fund was applying its rules relating to supplementary benefits to discriminate against chronic sufferers. Legislation was enacted to protect the rights of contributors whose claims for benefits are refused by funds on the grounds of improper discrimination in relation to: chronic or particular conditions; the age of a person; frequency of rendering of medical services; the amount or extent of benefits paid or payable or any other matter prescribed by regulations.

I am examining the application of funds’ rules in the light of this legislation.

Thursday Island State School (Question No. 1073)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) What Federal financial assistance was provided to the Thursday Island State School for its 1 978 Dance Tour.
  2. What was the contribution made by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the School for the same Dance Tour.
  3. Were all admission charges paid by students in Queensland schools to hear and view the Thursday Island State School’s songs and dances paid to the Dance Tour; if so, what were the total receipts; if not: (a) what were the Dance Tour’s net receipts for admission charges; (b) what percentage of the total admission charges did the receipts represent; and (c) to whom was the remainder of the admission charge paid.
  4. 4 ) What was the total cost of the 1 978 Dance Tour.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. My Department approved a grant of $5,000 to the Thursday Island State School for its 1 978 Dance Tour.
  2. to (4) The Queensland Department of Education is the appropriate authority to provide this information.

Trade and Resources: Transfer of Powers to States (Question No. 1075)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 24 November 1978:

What powers within the Minister’s jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1 975.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

None.

National Women’s Advisory Council (Question No. 1104)

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1978:

Do members of the National Women’s Advisory Council receive travelling allowance under appropriate circumstances.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The Remuneration Tribunal determined sitting fees and travelling allowance for the Convenor and Members of the National Women’s Advisory Council in its 1978 Review, to be paid whenever members undertake Council business at the rates set out below.

Therapautic Goods Advisory Committee (Question No. 1 106)

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

Is travelling allowance paid to members of the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee, including ex officio members who are on the Committee to represent specific organisations.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Yes.

Immigration Task Force (Question No. 1107)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

  1. How many and what personnel comprised the Immigration Task Force, referred to in the Minister’s answer to Question No. 1746 (House of Representatives Hansard, 21 November, page 3 146).
  2. Do the patrols to islands in the Torres Strait visit all populated islands in the Torres Strait.
  3. Are persons from Papua-New Guinea able to arrive on Thursday Island ‘ for the purpose of working at an occupation’ or stay on the Island without documentation from their own country.
  4. What training is given to Quarantine personnel to carry out adequately the aerial surveillance two or three times each week.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following information in answer to Parts ( 1 ) and (3).

1 ) The personnel of the Immigration Task Force referred to comprises a Senior Migration Officer Grade 2 (Clerk Class 9) and a Migration Officer Grade 2 (Clerk Class 6) from the Canberra Office of my Department.

The provisions of the Migration Act 1958 apply to Papua New Guineans entering Australia, as they do to other overseas nationals. In the course of visits to Thursday Island and other islands in Torres Strait in 1978, the Immigration Task Force located a number of Papua New Guineans resident in the area without documentation or proper authority. The Task Force has returned to the area to begin regularising that situation.

Patrols to the islands in Torres Strait include visits to all the populated islands but it is not practical to cover all the islands in a single patrol. Quarantine officials on patrol contact the appropriate persons on the islands visited to obtain information on the movements of islanders.

The senior quarantine officers responsible for quarantine aspects of coastal surveillance attended a three day training course on coastal surveillance in Canberra during early August 1978. These officers subsequently organised training courses for quarantine personnel in their respective States. In Queensland, the officer concerned spent four days lecturing the quarantine personnel in Cairns and Townsville. This initial training period has since been reinforced by regular oversight of quarantine observers by senior officers from my Department and from the Coastal Surveillance Organisation.

Aviation: Hand Baggage Searches (Question No. 1112)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

  1. To whom has the Secretary to the Department of Transport issued a direction that passengers shall submit themselves and their hand baggage to a search if required (see answer to Question No. 1012).
  2. What is the text of the Secretary’s direction.
  3. 3 ) When was the direction issued.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) To the passengers through the airlines. In this regard notices are displayed in terminal buildings informing passengers that they and their carry-on baggage may be subject to search.
  2. The following is the text of the direction made by the Secretary to the Depanment of Transport in relation to Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Hoban, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney aerodromes. A separate direction, containing the same text, relates to joint-user aerodromes, namely Canberra, Townsville and Darwin:

Every person proposing to board an aircraft departing from any of these aerodromes shall submit himself and his carry-on baggage to be searched by an employee of the operator of the aircraft on which he proposes to travel, a person authorised for that purpose by that operator, an officer of the Depanment of Transport, or a member of the Commonwealth Police or a police force of a State, in any case in which an employee of the operator or an officer of the Depanment of Transport requires in the interests of the safety of air navigation that all or any of the passengers proposing to travel on a particular aircraft departing from the aerodrome or their carry-on baggage should be searched, provided that a female shall not be searched except by a female.’

  1. 21 January 1974.

Telephone Services: Free Calls (Question No. 1113)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) How is it possible to offer a free call to telephone users throughout Australia, as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs indicated would be offered to persons telephoning Customs officials in Canberra.
  2. Could a similar system be introduced for rural people who have a need to ring Government Departments, but who cannot ring for the cost of a local call.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In view of the importance of the Drug Intelligence Reporting Centre Telecom made special technical and operational arrangements whereby calls incoming to that Centre are charged to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. These arrangements were undertaken as an interim measure because of the urgent nature of the request and pending consideration by Telecom of a new service known as INWATS (Inward Wide Area Telephone Service). Telecom is currently preparing the network for the introduction of an INWATS service similar to the type of service already operating in several overseas countries. The facilities provided by this service will enable callers to gain access to particular organisations over the trunk network for the price of a local call. The organisation providing this service will be required to lease special lines from the network to their answering positions and to pay the trunk charges incurred in excess of the local call fee paid by the caller.
  2. This INWATS service would meet the situtation raised by the honourable senator provided that the Government Departments concerned are willing to pay the appropriate charges for the service, Le., rental for the special lines plus the appropriate trunk call charges. Telecom expects the service to become progressively available to customers in the second half of 1979.

Australian Taxation Office: Investigating Officers (Question No. 1119)

Senator Evans:

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

  1. 1 ) Will the Treasurer provide a table showing, for each financial year from 1973-74 to 1977-78 and from 1 July to 23 November 1978, the average annual employment in the Australian Taxation Office of officers whose main function is to investigate taxation returns.
  2. Will he, in each case, show, as nearly as can be estimated, the number of officers investigating: (a) returns by pay-as-you-earn taxpayers; (b) returns by companies; (c) returns by business and professional persons, including primary producers; (d) returns involving investment and property income; and (e) returns of trust estates and partnerships.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The following table shows the average number of officers engaged during each year on investigation activities:

(Since 1 July 1978 approximately 250 further officers have been engaged on auditing of taxpayers returns).

  1. The number of officers engaged in investigating different categories of income tax returns is not available. It is estimated that the time spent by Taxation Office staff in relevant years on investigation activities was devoted to companies and other taxpayers in the following proportions:

Sale of Butter to Russia (Question No. 1121)

Senator Archer:

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

  1. 1 ) What price was obtained for the sale of butter to Russia.
  2. What were: (a) the budgeted quantity of butter for export in 1 978-79; and (b) the anticipated budgeted average return on the 1978-79 export sales.
  3. Have these estimates now been revised, in view of the sale to Russia.
  4. Has any significant change developed in the supplysale pattern of other export dairy products as a result of the underwriting decisions; if so, will the changes be recommended by the Australian Dairy Corporation for the next season ‘s underwriting.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) This was a commercial transaction and details of the contract price are confidential to the parties involved. The normal practice adopted by the Australian Dairy Corporation, with which I concur, is not to divulge details of prices of individual export sales as the release of such information could be to the detriment of the Corporation and Australian exporters vis-a-vis our overseas competitors.

  2. (a) The Corporation’s budget for 1978-79 provided for total exports of around 40,000 tonnes of butter and butteroil ex 1 978-79 season’s production.

    1. The Corporation had originally estimated, on a conservative basis, the final export pool return for butter/butteroil for the 1978-79 season at around $827 per tonne. The Corporation ‘s current estimate is around $855 per tonne.
  3. No.
  4. In the first four months of the 1978-79 season, production of cheese (leviable varieties) was 41,800 tonnes or 25 per cent up on the same period in 1977-78. The Corporation currently estimates production for the 1978-79 season at 1 10,000 tonnes or 16.5 per cent up on 1977-78 season’s production of 94,400 tonnes. Even at this level of production, the Corporation has estimated that there will be a production shortfall of at least 5,000 tonnes of leviable cheese to meet our traditional market outlets.

Butter production in the first four months of 1978-79 season was 43,000 tonnes which was equal to the level of production in the first four months of the 1977-78 season. Wholemilk powder production, however, decreased by around 5 per cent from 27,500 tonnes in the first four months of the 1977-78 season to the 26,200 tonnes for the same period in 1978-79.

It is premature at this stage for the Corporation to be making any recommendations in respect to the underwriting arrangements that may apply for the 1 979-80 season as there is still over six months of the current season remaining.

Telephone Calls to Government Departments

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 26 September 1978:

I have noted advertisements in certain mainland newspapers today for people to invest in a Telecom loan, for which purpose STD calls to Telecom are free of charge. As it appears technically possible, and as many people live in areas which are away from Government departments, will the Minister request the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to examine the feasibility of allowing persons who live in remote areas to telephone Government departments for the charge of a local call? Does the Minister agree that such a facility may help a great many people?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Telecom Australia is planning the introduction of a new type of service- known as Inward Wide Area Telephone Service- whereby subscribers such as business firms or Government Departments will be able to lease special lines at appropriate charges (rental plus charges per call) to enable persons at distant locations to make STD-type calls to them but pay only a local call free.

This service would, of course, be of benefit to people located in areas remote from Government Departments and other organisations, providing the Departments and organisations are willing to pay the appropriate charges for the service.

Technical modifications are necessary to provide this facility and Telecom expects the service to become progressively available to customers in the second half of 1979.

Public Telephones: Use by Handicapped People

Senator Bonner:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 26 September 1978:

I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether he is aware of the near impossibility of handicapped people, particularly those confined to wheelchairs, being able to use public telephones because of the width of the doors of the telephone boxes and the height at which the telephones are installed. Will the Minister give serious consideration to increasing the width of the doors and lowering the telephones, particularly those telephones at post offices and other places where there are a number of telephone boxes, so that handicapped people can at least have the use of these public facilities?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Telecom is aware that handicapped persons and especially those who are confined to wheelchairs would encounter some difficulty in using a public telephone enclosed in a full length booth.

For this reason Telecom is, wherever practicable, ensuring that where there are a number of public telephones in a group at places such as post offices, airports, railway stations and other similar locations that at least one is installed at a suitable height so that disadvantaged people may use it. This service is already provided by Telecom at many of the locations mentioned and by signposts and other means. Every effort is made to ensure that handicapped persons are made aware of this facility.

Telecom will provide additional public telephone facilities for handicapped persons as part of its current national modernisation program to replace all older type public telephones with the new STD units.

Australian Telecommunications Commission

Senator Bishop:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 27 September 1978:

I think the Minister for Post and Telecommunications would be aware by now of the substance of the representations that have been made by the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists in connection generally with the very heavy increase in the cost of sending lettergrams and telegrams, which approximate a 300 per cent increase, and in particular with its concern about the future of the employment of its trained members in that occupation. Whilst the union has in mind the heavy losses incurred in providing this service, it has made representations to the Australian Telecommunications Commission asking for a review of what seem to be very heavy charges and for some added measures to be taken to publicise renewed services. I ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to request his colleague to consider the representations that have been made by the Union about whether some modest increase might be applied and whether some review of services could be made urgently.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

I am advised by Telecom Australia that a marked decline in the use of Australian public telegram and lettergram services has occurred over a number of years. This decline has been accompanied by a growth in telephone and telex services, however, the Commission is most concerned at the annual losses consistently being incurred by the telegram service.

In 1977-78, after allowing for tariff increases and cost reductions, the public telegram service recovered only SO per cent of its costs from telegram users. The subsidy, therefore, paid by telephone customers to maintain the telegram service was $9.00 per telephone service. Had charges remained at 1974-75 levels the subsidy would have approximated $ 1 2.00 per telephone service.

Further tariff changes were introduced from 1 October 1978 in order to reduce the extent to which the service was subsidised.

Under the new system there is a fixed charge, which reflects the underlying costs incurred in handling each telegram, plus a charge for each word contained in the message with a minimum of 12 words. The word rate remains unaltered at 1 5 cents. For ordinary rate telegrams to a street address the fixed charge is $1.50 and telegrams attracting this charge are delivered by the fastest normal method available at the office of destination. A lower fixed charge to 50 cents applies where the sender addresses his telegram for delivery by telephone or to a telegraphic code address. If addressed for delivery by telex or mail there is no fixed charge component and the charge for the message is calculated solely on the word rate.

Although lettergrams were a little cheaper to handle than telegrams, the revenue per word derived from lettergrams was much lower than that from telegrams and consequently the service was most uneconomic. In view of the unfavourable economic position of the service and the fact that demand had so declined that it was being utilised by very few of Telecom’s customers, it was decided that the service would be replaced, from 1 October 1 978,. by the mail delivery telegram service.

This financial year a loss, on average, is still being incurred on each originated telegram and, consequently, any successful action by the Commission to promote the use of the telegram service, as suggested, would only result in an increased loss in this area of its operations. The Commission has an obligation under the Telecommunications Act to cover its operating costs and provide at least 50 per cent of its capital needs from revenue. Any increased losses, therefore, could only be covered by the Commission raising the charges for its other telecommunications services. The Commission believes that any such promotional action would not be in the best interest of its users overall.

Industrial Safety

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 27 September Senator Button asked me a question concerning the compilation of statistics in relation to time lost through industrial accidents and industrial disease.

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

The Deputy Commonwealth Statistician in each State publishes statistics, derived from workers’ compensation claims, of details of industrial injuries and diseases. In Western Australia, details of injuries only are compiled.

Because of differences in (a) the basis of collection and ( b) workers’ compensation laws, the statistics are not uniform between States and cannot be directly combined to give national totals. However the Department of Productivity, in consultation with the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the State Departments of Labour, produces estimates of the national situation.

The following estimates are based on statistics of claims finalised during 1973-74 under workers’ compensation insurance and on special extractions compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from data supplied by the States. Unfortunately the estimates for 1973-74 are the latest available from the Department of Productivity, and even these can only be regarded as approximations. For 1973-74, fatalities are estimated at about 300, temporary disabilities involving the loss of one or more working days or shifts are estimated to be 360,000 and working time lost from disabilities of one day or longer, 1 ,0 1 0,000 man weeks.

The figures relate to employment injuries only. They exclude diseases and injuries occurring between home and place of work, but include figures for Commonwealth Government employees.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is at present examining the feasibility of producing more uniform statistics between States.

Press Release by Administrative and Clerical Officers Association

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 28 September 1978 (Hansard, pages 1041-2) Senator Wriedt asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning a Press Release issued by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

See my answer to a question without notice in the House of Representatives on 28 September 1978 (House of Representatives Hansard, pages 1491-2).

School Holidays

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 17 October 1978 Senator Colston asked me the following question without notice:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports in yesterday’s Brisbane ‘Telegraph’ that a Liberal Federal Minister and a Liberal back bench member of the House of Representatives declared a holiday for the Everton Park State Primary School in Brisbane? Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to the comment from the Queensland Education Department that Federal members of Parliament, including Cabinet Ministers, had no right to go around handing out holidays to Queensland school children? In view of the distress caused to pupils and the relief of many mothers when the holiday did not eventuate yesterday, will the Minister lay down guidelines to his Liberal colleagues in relation to the granting of such holidays?

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

I now have information from all State education authorities. The situation is that the granting of holidays in State schools is strictly governed by regulations. Although these vary from State to State, visiting Federal Parliamentarians have no rights to grant holidays. In all cases, the prior approval of the State Minister would be required, together with the concurrence of the school principal and school council. As State authorities are anxious to restrict the number of additional holidays granted, it would seem that approval to grant a holiday should be sought only in exceptional circumstances.

Some State authorities have also commented in more general terms on the question of school visits by Federal parliamentarians. Although there are no formal procedures laid down, it is very clear that all States would like normal courtesies to be observed on all occasions. When visits are planned without specific invitations from schools, members of Parliament should contact the office of the State Minister to seek approval, and ensure that principals and school councils are informed.

When invitations to visit are issued to members direct by individual schools (eg for national flag presentations), it can usually be assumed that the school has undertaken to notify the appropriate authorities. In such circumstances, however, it might be desirable also for members to notify the office of the State Minister.

Mail Deliveries to Remote Areas

Senator Rocher:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 17 October 1978:

Is the Minister aware of problems encountered by citizens living in remote areas in obtaining regular mail deliveries? Does he agree that many people who live on station properties do not have the benefit of any deliveries at all? Do any provisions exist which allow for relief in cases of hardship arising amongst families which rely on the mails for educating outback children?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Australia Post has assured me that it is very conscious of the communications problems of people living in remote areas of Australia.

While mail is delivered to as many station properties as practicable there are some stations where delivery services are not provided. Mail is only one of the commodities for distribution in outback areas and is generally so small in volume that it is rarely practicable for Australia Post to provide a transport service purely for mail conveyance. Mail deliveries to station properties in these areas are provided generally where they can be associated with an existing transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods. The establishment of mail delivery services is thus determined largely by the overall transport needs of the area and the transport services available.

Whilst no provisions exist under postal legislation which would provide relief for outback families where children are being educated by correspondence, the Government does provide correspondence allowances under the Assistance for Isolated Children scheme. This scheme is administered by the Minister for Education.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Change of Government in Sweden

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 17 October 1978:

My question concerns the recent change of government in Sweden. Has the Centre Party in Sweden been thrown out of office by the Social Democrats on a pre-uranium issue? Does this mean there is now in office in Sweden a predominantly Labour government dedicated to making Sweden the world ‘s most advanced nation in harnessing nuclear fission? Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has not reported any of these events? Can the Minister say whether it is true that the newscasters of the ABC and the producers of the ABC commentary sessions such as ‘AM’ and ‘ PM ‘ have in fact refused to report these events?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Chairman of the ABC has informed me that it is not true that either ABC News journalists or officers responsible for public affairs programs refused to report the change of government in Sweden. The fact was reported in the national radio news bulletin on the morning of 6 October and a further national news item referring to the appointment of the new Swedish Cabinet was broadcast on 19 October. The election of a new Swedish Government was not considered to be of sufficient interest to Australian listeners to also warrant inclusion in ABC public affairs programs.

Aircraft Industry

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, without notice, on 8 November 1978:

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 Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Early this year, the Government and the Australian aircraft industry became aware that the Boeing Airplane Company was contemplating launching new civil aircraft programs in 1 978. As a result of approaches made, Boeing offered Australian participation in the Boeing 767 project on a commercial basis, as it had already done to the Italian and Japanese industries under long standing arrangements.

The manufacturing task offered by Boeing was for the sole source manufacture of Boeing 767 wing ribs. Hawker de Havilland Australia Pty Ltd was to be the Australian prime contractor, with a substantial part of the work to be subcontracted to the Government Aircraft Factories. Substantial investment in capital facilities was required. The value of the task was in the order of $50m.

In the development of an Australian program to meet Boeing’s manufacturing requirements, including cost estimates and pricing proposals, Hawker de Havilland worked closely with the Government authorities concerned, primarily the Department of Productivity and its Government Aircraft Factories. The pricing proposal was framed to recover all direct costs of production as well as investment costs; some fixed overheads of the manufacturing organisations (already financed from Departmental appropriations) were not apportioned to the project in the pricing proposal.

In September and October, Boeing negotiated in US with senior executives from Hawker de Havilland and the Government Aircraft Factories. These negotiations were supported by the Government. However, in the event Boeing did not accept the price offered by the Australian industry and has since placed the work elsewhere.

The Australian Government and the Australian Aircraft industry are disappointed at losing this contract which would have represented a substantial workload for the industry and a major gain in technology. However, in the Government’s judgment the pricing offered by the industry was the lowest that could be made commensurate with the inherent risks associated with a new civil aircraft program.

The Government recognises offset work such as this to be of major importance to the aircraft industry as a source of workload and technology contributing to our overall defence production capability. Several major US and European aircraft companies have placed offset orders on Australian industry. Indeed Boeing has within the last two months placed further orders valued at about $20m on both Hawker de Havilland and the Government Aircraft Factories for major components for Boeing 727 aircraft, bringing the total quantities ordered to 972 ship sets. I expect that further orders will be placed in Australia in line with the continued world wide orders Boeing is receiving for that extremely successful aircraft.

Offset work will continue to be sought from overseas companies supplying Australia with major equipment such as, in the aircraft field, civil aircraft for the airlines and military aircraft for Defence. The offset proposals made by suppliers are one of the criteria against which competing proposals are judged. Nevertheless the Government recognises that Australian industry must be cost competitive in bidding for offset work, and there is a limit to the level of support the Government can provide.

Achievement of offset work requires an energetic and hard working business approach by the Australian industry. So far the Australian aircraft industry has received offsets valued at nearly $120m, and I see no reason why the industry should not continue to win substantial offset orders in the future.

Whyalla

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 15 November (page 20 1 3 of Hansard) Senator Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce a question and a supplementary question without notice concerning industry developments in Whyalla.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following reply:

As the Senator would be aware, the Premier of South Australia has established a Working Party on Whyalla with a view to identifying measures which might assist with countering the effects of the closure of the shipbuilding activities. The Commonwealth Government has assisted the Working Party wherever possible in its investigations of industries and products and in other ways. I can assure Senator Bishop that such co-operation is continuing. Other contacts between Governments include those maintained through regular Commonwealth/State Industry Ministers’ and Officials’ Meetings and through the Premiers’ Conference and Loan Council Meetings.

On the employment and welfare side, the Commonwealth Government has taken steps to ensure that the services of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security are strengthened as necessary to meet the particular needs of the Whyalla situation.

In respect of particular proposals relating to industry development in Whyalla involving the Commonwealth, steps taken by the Government are as follows:

financial assistance has been offered to Pacific Salt Pty Ltd through the Decentralisation Advisory Board for the establishment of a salt processing plant in Whyalla.

a builder of small boats in Whyalla, Spencer Engineering Pty Ltd, was recently registered as a shipyard eligible to seek bounty on vessels constructed within the terms of the Ship Construction Bounty Act.

the recent Loan Council approval of a special borrowing program for the Redcliff project will be of major significance to Whyalla and the nearby region. The program provides that in the event of the project going ahead, the South Australian Government will be able to borrow for essential infrastructure subject to separate Loan Council consideration in the light of particular requirements of the project and economic and financial circumstances at the time. Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd has subsequently announced that it will undertake a final feasibility study to determine whether to go ahead with this project.

the Premier’s Working Party put to the Commonwealth a proposal for the establishment of a railway rolling-stock facility at Whyalla. The proposal was subjected to careful and detailed examination by Commonwealth officials and the Commonwealth’s response has been conveyed to the Premier of South Australia. 1 am informed that this matter remains under active consideration by the State Government.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce on his visit to Whyalla in June 1978 discussed progress on a number of projects involving Commonwealth action including the Redcliff project, railway rolling-stock, manufacture of bailey bridges and the registration of Spencer Engineering Pty Ltd. The position on three of these is noted under (b), (c) and (d) above. 1 understand that the question of bailey bridge manufacture is being pursued by the South Australian authorities.

In addition, the Minister stressed that the Commonwealth Government would assist the South Australian Government and the Whyalla community in responding to changed circumstances.

Income Tax

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 17 November 1978 (Hansard, page 2182) Senator Primmer asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning a report on income tax from the Australian Taxpayers

Association. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In his Electorate Talk of 29 October 1978, the Prime Minister stated that:

The facts are clear. Let’s look at a taxpayer with a spouse and dependent child on average weekly earnings of $220.38. Under Labor’s 1975 Budget tax scales, in January next year, that taxpayer would be paying tax of $49.85 per week. Under this Government, he will be paying only $40.85 a week- and this includes the 1.5 per cent temporary tax surcharge. Accordingly, despite the surcharge, the taxpayer on average weekly earnings is $9 a week better off because of this Government’s tax reforms. This figure takes no account of the family allowance scheme which provides mothers with significantly higher benefits than the old child endowment’.

The amounts of $49.85 and $40.85 are the appropriate PA YE deductions for a weekly income of $220 under the schedules effective from 1 January 1976 (introduction of scale announced in 1975-76 Budget for PA YE purposes) and 1 November 1978 respectively. This calculation accurately shows how much less is paid now by a taxpayer currently receiving average weekly earnings, than would be paid by him if the present Government had not introduced any reforms to the personal income tax system, but had continued to levy income tax on the basis of the Hayden system and rate scale.

In the leading article of The Taxpayer dated 1 8 November 1 978, which is published by The Taxpayers ‘ Association the Prime Minister’s statement is described as being ‘misleading’ and it is suggested that in fact, the average man is ‘more than $7.50 a week worse ofT. The conclusion drawn by the Taxpayers’ Association relates to a completely different comparison to that made by the Prime Minister.

The analysis by the Taxpayers ‘ Association seeks to compare the real disposable income of a taxpayer receiving average weekly earnings and with a wholly dependent spouse and two children in 1975-76 and 1978-79. In respect of 1975-76 the average earnings level selected is $8819, which is the average level for the whole of the 1975-76 year. In respect of 1978-79, however, average earnings are assumed to be $ 1 1 ,2 10 which is (or is very close to) the yearly equivalent of average weekly earnings for the June quarter 1978. The Budget estimate of 7.5 per cent implies that the level of average earnings for the whole of 1 978-79 will be about $ 1 1 ,700. In order to maintain a consistent approach as to the level of average earnings in each year, the appropriate levels would be $8819 and $11,700.

To summarise, the conclusion drawn by the Taxpayers Association does not contradict the Prime Minister’s statement because two quite different comparisons are involved. Further, the calculation by the Taxpayers’ Association uses an inappropriate earnings figure for 1978-79 which produces misleading results.

Taxation: Gifts to Charities

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 17 November 1978 (Hansard, page 2179) Senator Davidson asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the income tax gift provisions. It was suggested in the question that the minimum amount that might be claimed as a gift could be lifted above the present $2 and that a review be made of the organisations which are eligible for the gifts concession. The Treasurer has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As I understand the purpose of increasing the $2 minimum, it would be to put donors in a position where they could not claim an income tax deduction unless they increased the size of their gifts, possibly substantially. I am not in favour of any such change to the gift provisions. Whether it would lead to greater or smaller giving I could not say without a good deal more research, but one thing is obvious: any increase in the minimum would quite unfairly penalise the donor whose gift has to be small because that is all he or she can afford.

I am more attracted to the idea of a review of the coverage of the gift provisions which, as the honourable senator has suggested, may no longer be altogether appropriate to present community needs and funding patterns. There could, of course, be losers as well as gainers from such a review, and quite recent experience suggests that the possibility of losers emerging from a review can generate strong feelings. I shall, however, keep the idea in mind.

Whaling Legislation

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 21 November 1978 (Hansard, page 2251) Senator Mulvihill asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question, without notice, concerning the Whaling Amendment Bill. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The purpose of the amendment was to give effect to Australia’s commitments resulting from membership to the International Whaling Commission and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. In addition, the Bill would have given effect, in respect of whaling, to the Government’s decision to extend Australian fisheries jurisdiction out to the 200 mile limit.

The original intention was that the Bill would be debated together with the Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill. However, the Government decided that the Bill should not be proceeded with pending the outcome of the Inquiry into Whales and Whaling. The Report, which the Government is now considering, will undoubtedly lead to a review of the Government’s policy on whaling and it seemed appropriate at that time not to proceed with the Bill until the Report and its implications had been fully considered.

Pritchard Steam Engine

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 22 November Senator Collard asked me a question concerning financial assistance to the Pritchard steam engine.

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

It is true that, at present, the Commonwealth Government has declined to provide further financial assistance to Pritchard Steam Power Pty Ltd to allow it to continue its tests on the 3 power units already made for the company by the Commonwealth at no cost to the company. The present grant has not been curtailed, nor has the company yet spent all the moneys provided. The present Government position is based on the rather slow progress the company has made in the tests with the money now being provided, its failure to raise the supplementary funds that it undertook to raise when the present agreements were entered into, and the lack of success the company has had in generating any contributing interest in its work on the new power units.

I understand that the company has recently run into some mechanical problems with the units which are likely to delay progress for a while; I do not have specific details.

Government Purchases of Flags (Question No. 1033)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many Australian flags were purchased by the Commonwealth Government in 1977-78, and what was their cost.
  2. What other national Baes were purchased by the Commonwealth in 1977-78, and what was the cost of the purchase.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (2) In order to answer the honourable senator’s question it would be necessary to obtain details of flags purchased from all departments and various statutory authorities. This would involve a considerable use of resources for research, typing and collation of information which I am not prepared to authorise in the present period of financial restraint.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 February 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790221_senate_31_s80/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant