Senate
24 October 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1673

PETITIONS

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 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, as it is clear that unemployment is a long term problem in Australia, the Government should extend to the unemployed the same assistance as is given to any other disadvantaged member of the community. There is an urgent need to alleviate the financial hardship and emotional stress that the unemployed are suffering.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment.

That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson.

In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20 per week.

That the financial penalties above the earning of $20 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits.

That the Commonwealth grant subsidies to state governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised in job seeking.

That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Radio and Television: Code of Ethics

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 1 ,073 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 we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believe there are conflicting community standards prevailing relating to offensive language. Citizens are frequently charged and convicted by law for the use of offensive language in public whereas obscene and profane language can be beamed into the privacy of the home and heard by people of all ages by way of Television and Radio and offended citizens have no redress.

The Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take all possible steps to ensure all personnel associated with the transmission and broadcasting of Television and Radio be required to adhere to an acceptable code of ethics relating to language thus giving community members confidence that breaches of common decency codes will not occur.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

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

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia; That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia; That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by . their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

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

Petition received and read.

Nuclear Disarmament

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 532 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the very survival of mankind is at stake, with the stockpile of nuclear weapons able to kill every person on earth 24 times over and with conventional arms of increasing sophistication having enough destructive power to destroy most life on earth;

Noting that, while millions starve, expenditure on the arms race is $1000 million per day for the World, and $7 million per day for Australia;

And noting that the U.N. Children’s Fund, UNICEF, has listed ‘peace and disarmament’ as a theme for the International Year of the Child; and further noting that a reduction in expenditure on arms could contribute in both developed and developing countries to the eradication of hunger and disease and to the provision of more adequate housing, education, health services, economic security and social welfare for all people:

In the interests of children in Australia and around the world, particularly in developing countries, and as a matter of highest priority during the International Year of the Child.

We call upon the Australian Government to give political leadership both nationally and internationally in working towards:

general and complete disarmament under effective international control;

) the establishment of the Pacific and Indian Oceans as nuclear-free zones; and

the disbanding of all nuclear bases.

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

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 1 7 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfuly showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia; That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia; That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

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

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Indo-Chinese Refugees

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.

That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.

As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.

It should be possible for Australia to: establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia ‘s standing within the region.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senators Guilfoyle, Hamer and Missen. Petitions received.

page 1674

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National University Act 1 946.

page 1674

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967.

page 1674

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

page 1675

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1675

QUESTION

HOMELESS YOUTH SERVICES

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Social Security to a statement put out by her and the then Minister for Community Welfare Services in Victoria, Mr Dixon, in April of this year in which she and the Victorian Minister announced matching grants for youth services totalling $526,200 a year for emergency accommodation and related services for homeless youth in Victoria. I also refer the Minister to a more recent statement of hers in which she announced that $3m will be offered to State governments on a dollar for dollar basis for similar services over a three-year period. I ask: If the Victorian Government is to receive $ 1.5m- half the total sum that is to be allocated by the Commonwealth for these services- under what criteria will the moneys be distributed to the other States? Have the other States all agreed to participate in these services?

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

– A number of States have agreed to participate but I would need to check the actual position today with regard to what participation there is and what the allocation of funds amongst the States is. I will call for that information from my office and see whether I can give it before the end of Question Time.

page 1675

QUESTION

UTOPIA LAND CLAIM

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to a report in the media that the Northern Territory Government is to institute a challenge in the High Court of Australia regarding the Utopia land claim. Having in mind the many contentious views that are being expressed in regard to recent Aboriginal land claims in the Northern Territory, I ask: Is the Minister in a position to advise what is the present position in regard to the matter?

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

-The Utopia land claim has been before the Land Commissioner. I think that the hearing is to resume shortly. In the interim, it appears that a particular point of law is being taken to the High Court of Australia by the Northern Territory Government. The issue is whether land held by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission is land held on behalf of Aboriginal people and therefore subject te claim under the Act. That is a matter which is sub judice. It would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on the substance of the matter. This is but one of a number of issues which have been raised with me as being in the class of practical problems which arise under the administration of this legislation. Matters have been raised by a great mixture of people: Aboriginal organisations, Aboriginals, the Northern Territory Government, pastoralists, mining companies and individual territorians.

With respect to some of these difficulties, the Government has made it clear on a number of occasions, both through the Prime Minister and through me, that it affirms the principles behind the land rights legislation in the Northern Territory. The legislation is of course pioneering legislation and the Government accepts that there can be practical difficulties affecting all the groups that have made the representations. It is perhaps worth remembering that Mr Justice Woodward in his second report referred to the need to examine at intervals the working of the system. I would agree also with Mr Justice Woodward when he stressed, however, the importance of the broad bases of the arrangements remaining undisturbed. Because I have had all these representations, subject to the normal conditions applying to the engagement of consultants, the Government will be engaging Mr Barry Rowland, Q.C., to advise me on the practical difficulties in the operations of the Act. Mr Rowland, in his examination of the Act, will be consulting all interested groups. I have had discussions with two of the three land councils about this proposed appointment and I expect it to occur very soon.

page 1675

QUESTION

SPECIAL YOUTH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PROGRAM

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, refers to the abuse by some employers of the Special Youth Employment Training Program. The Minister will no doubt recall that recently he was advised by Senator McClelland that there had been 62 cases where it had been proven that the scheme had been abused and that there had been 62 cases where the Department had decided not to subsidise such employers in future. Will the Minister ask his Department to investigate a complaint, which I received today, that one of the largest employers of labour in Adelaide has recently retrenched a large number of senior people and has in turn recruited a number of younger people on the basis of the scheme to which I have referred and see to what extent his Department may be able to carry out a survey or give assistance in an attempt to reduce the incidence of this sort of abuse, if it is going on?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The question of abuse by some employers of the Special Youth Employment Training Program is one that does arise from time to time. I can recall some discussions at the Senate Estimates committee. I think Senator Bishop raised this matter on at least one occasion. Any scheme is open to abuse. It is to be regretted that these things do occur. I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs is only too anxious to be advised of cases where they occur, and will investigate those cases. If Senator Bishop could perhaps give me particulars of the case privately, I will certainly arrange for them to be brought to the attention of the Minister immediately.

page 1676

QUESTION

NOONKANBAH MINING AGREEMENT

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I draw to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs an article which appeared in the Perth Daily News of 22 October 1979 headed ‘Minister Criticizes Aborigines’. Is it a fact that the Minister has criticised the Noonkanbah community for repudiating an agreement with a mining company? Has such an agreement, if it exists, been repudiated? What is the present position concerning mining on Aboriginal pastoral leases in Western Australia?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I did see the report in the Daily News headed ‘Minister Criticizes Aborigines’. It referred to some comments I made in the Senate in the early hours of last Thursday in response to Senator Coleman when she spoke in the adjournment debate. I would prefer to describe the actual comments I made in the Senate as expressions of regret rather than criticism. In particular in that speech I used the words:

For that reason I would like to express my very great regret at the repudiation of the agreement by the Noonkanbah community . . .

Later I said:

  1. . what we should all be trying to encourage is a situation in which the miner and the leaseholder get together and make arrangements of the sort that were apparently made with Conzinc Riotinto of Australia, which ensures that the community gets some protection in both a social and a spiritual sense.

I certainly stand by those comments, but I am very pleased to say that earlier today I was advised by the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia that the Noonkanbah community has reaffirmed its agreement with CRA and that the agreement is now on foot again and will apply for the balance of this year. In addition, there are to be further negotiations between the

Aboriginals and the company with respect to what might occur after that.

I express that satisfaction because I think it is important, particularly where there are Aboriginal communities on pastoral leases without any formal protection against mining, that they are able to enter into arrangements with mining companies which do protect both their spiritual values and the communities that they are building on those properties. I very much welcome the agreement and the return to it by the Noonkanbah community.

The last part of the question asked by the honourable senator relates to the present position on pastoral leases. The position is quite straightforward. Under Western Australian law and indeed under the law of other States and Territories relating to pastoral leases, leaseholders do not get protection against mining. Miners are free to go and to explore and usually to work minerals, subject to State mining laws. Aboriginal owned pastoral leases in Western Australia are no exception to that rule. Aboriginal pastoral leases, like other areas of land, do have protection for special sites of significance, or sacred sites. That is available generally.

The Noonkanbah case has raised questions as to precisely how effective that protection is. That is one of the issues before the Supreme Court of Western Australia at the moment. This whole area is one of very great significance for Aboriginals. I welcome any sign that governments and miners are alive to the very real needs of Aboriginals and are taking them into account.

Senator Georges:

– I rise on a point of order. The answer just given was of such substance that it should have been presented as a statement, which could have been enlarged by way of debate. I think that this is the first time Senator Chaney has misused the forms of the Senate at Question Time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot sustain that point of order.

page 1676

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS

Senator TATE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware of the media reports of a speech over the weekend by Mr Ian Spicer of the Victorian Employers Federation in which he stated that the man hours lost to commerce and industry through accidents at the work place are 40 times those lost due to industrial disputes and cost the community many hundreds of millions of dollars? Senator Carrick will recall the large amount of time allocated by the Government to Senate debate last week on legislation dealing with industrial disputes. In view of the concern expressed by this member of an employer group that our parliamentary sights are too much set on the lesser evil, I ask: How much time will the Government allot in the last few weeks of this session for discussion by the Senate of industrial accidents, which are so much more destructive of our industrial and economic well-being?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I did not see the report of the speech made by Mr Spicer but I have no doubt that what he said is true. I had some experience, many years ago, in the industrial field and I am very well aware of the tragic impact of industrial accidents. I accept Senator Tate’s statement and the relativity of that statement. Without seeking in any sense to use an alibi, I remind him that constitutionally industrial accidents are entirely a State matter. The departments of labour and industry in the States have as their specific role, as their primary role, accident prevention and safety measures.

Senator Bishop:

– Except in your own Territories.

Senator CARRICK:

– That is a very important point. I acknowledge Senator Bishop’s interjection. Of course we have a role in our two Territories.

Senator Bishop:

– As employers.

Senator CARRICK:

– We have a role as employers. Again, 1 acknowledge that. I think these are valuable interjections. We should be pacesetters in that regard. As to the States, it is good to underline the importance they should place upon this matter. I cannot give a guarantee as to how much time we can give to it in this session, but ample opportunities are available to individual senators if they wish to proceed in debate upon what is an important subject.

page 1677

QUESTION

ARAB OIL PRODUCING STATES

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer him to a recent statement by Mr Farouk Khaddoumi, head of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s political department, that the Arab oil producing states would use the oil weapon to influence next year’s presidential elections in the United States. I ask the Minister: Has any oil producing country attempted to ‘use the oil weapon’, to use Mr Khaddoumi ‘s words, to influence Australia on any matter and, if so, with what result? Can the Government assure the Australian people -

Senator O’Byrne:

– They are doing it in relation to liquid petroleum gas.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I note Senator O ‘Byrne’s interjection. Can the Government assure the Australian people that it would not allow itself in any way to be party to the kind of oil blackmail suggested by the Palestine Liberation Organisation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am aware of the newspaper report to which Senator Baume has referred. I imagine that most, if not all, honourable senators have read the report. I think it is worth noting, as it is clear from what the Palestine Liberation Organisation leader said, that the PLO has no control over the production or marketing of oil. Such political pressure could come only from governments which produce and sell oil. So the basis of the statement is heavily suspect. Australia’s relations with the governments of these countries are, happily, very good indeed, as was demonstrated by the successful visit by Mr Garland to Iraq earlier this month and the visit by the Deputy Prime Minister to several Arab oil producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, early this year. Australia’s trade with these countries is developing rapidly. This is occurring in full co-operation with the governments of those countries and there is no reason to believe that this co-operation will not continue. We will work towards the maintenance and expansion of those good relations. Australia’s Middle East policy is known to the governments of those Arab countries and is understood by them. Australia, for its part, looks to reliability in its international trading relations and to good neighbour relationships, whether as a supplier or as a consumer.

page 1677

QUESTION

ARAB OIL PRODUCING STATES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate follows the one just asked. Is the Minister saying in effect that the Australian Government has not received official advice that member countries of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries may require some political conditions for the continued export of oil to Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The answer is that the question just asked by Senator Wriedt bears no resemblance to anything living or dead in relation to the question that was asked of me. I was not saying that at all. If he is asking me to get information, I will seek it from the Minister concerned. I can see no relationship between the answer I gave, which related to some report that the Palestine Liberation Organisation would use oil as a weapon, and whether or not good neighbour countries- OPEC countries- have made some attempt at reciprocal arrangements.

page 1678

QUESTION

HEALTH EXPENDITURE

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Health to an item in the daily Press which quotes the Minister for Health as stating that in 1970-71 the total expenditure on health was less than $2 billion, whilst it is now between $7.5 billion and $8 billion. The Minister stated further that, even accounting for inflation, health expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product had grown from 5 per cent to nearly 8 per cent in the past eight years. Can the Minister inform the Senate how the present per capita expenditure on health in Australia compares with such expenditure in other countries?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that in Australia expenditure on health costs is approaching 8 per cent of gross domestic product. I was asked to compare this with the position in other countries. I am informed that the figures for the United States of America and Sweden are significantly higher- about 9 per cent or more of their gross domestic product. Canada and a number of European nations spend a similar proportion to Australia and I am informed that the New Zealand and the United Kingdom figures are lower- 6.7 per cent and 5.7 per cent respectively. These are 1 978 figures.

The strategy of the Commonwealth Government has been to contain health costs, and the actual rise in total health costs between 1 976 and 1977-78 was successfully held to about 10.7 per cent, compared with a 35 per cent increase a few years previously. State governments are increasingly supporting the Federal Government in the containment of health costs. I think the Senate is aware of the major step taken by the medical profession with the commencement of the peer review programs and other matters which are being dealt with by State governments at present.

page 1678

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA: WORKING CONDITIONS

Senator CHIPP:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether it is true that for two years two female employees, who worked as night telephone attendants in the Allora telephone exchange in Queensland before it became automatic, worked a total of 62 hours over seven nights a week and were paid $65.23 for their services? Were these people employed on contract and thus ineligible for holiday pay, sick pay, redundancy pay and workers compensation for injuries? ls it also true that the same conditions operate presently in over 350 manual exchanges throughout Australia? How can Telecom Australia j justify this situation?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I regret that I am not in a position to confirm or to refute the alleged facts which have been raised by the honourable senator in his question. If the facts are as he alleges, there may be a variety of explanations. The work may be intermittent or part time, and so on; I just do not know. I will seek a precise answer from Telecom for the honourable senator. That inquiry will have to be directed through Mr Staley to the Telecommunications Commission which, as the honourable senator would understand, is an independent statutory body. The matter lies within its province.

Senator CHIPP:

– I have a supplementary question which is in no way critical of Senator Chaney. By way of preface to the supplementary question -

The PRESIDENT:

– You will make it relevant to the original question, Senator, will you not?

Senator CHIPP:

– Yes, indeed. As a matter of courtesy I telephoned Mr Staley ‘s office on Monday to say that I would be asking this question on Wednesday. Will the Minister ask Mr Staley to suggest to Telecom that it be as efficient and diligent in answering senators’ questions as it is in sending out notices of intention to cut off people’s telephones when they have not paid their accounts? Can he guarantee me an answer or communicate that request by this afternoon?

Senator CHANEY:

– We could always wish that all government agencies were as quick to pay their bills as they are to demand payment, and that applies to government departments as well as to independent statutory corporations. I undertake to pass that message to Mr Staley. I am very surprised that Senator Chipp is prepared to admit to the heinous offence of advising Mr Staley ‘s office. I am sure we will all know that the bruises which will be obvious on his face after Question Time will come from Senator Mason, who strongly objects to that practice.

page 1678

QUESTION

GRAPE PRODUCTION

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the critical reports from various sources that there is a continuing rise in acreages planted to vines in all States, but particularly in South Australia? Whilst this is true, is it not a fact that total grape production has declined from 733,000 tonnes in 1975 to 693,000 tonnes in 1978? Does this indicate that the so-called grape surplus of recent years is not due, as is commonly supposed, to indiscriminate and irresponsible vine plantings but is related to other factors, particularly demand in the market place, and is likely to be a function of product price?

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

– I think that the honourable senator from South Australia has included the answer in his question. I have noted the reports that he has mentioned. Over the past few years it has been brought to my attention that in Victoria- and I presume in South Australiagreater acreages of vines have been planted. I am not aware of the figures that the honourable senator gives in relation to the decline in grape production, but I will attempt to have them verified by the Minister whom I represent. As Senator Messner suggested, there are other factors- undoubtedly you, Mr President, know of these from your own experience- that can affect the production of grapes in any particular year. I will certainly bring the critical comments of the honourable senator to the notice of the Minister whom I represent.

page 1679

QUESTION

AVAILABILITY OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the Attorney-General seen a report of remarks attributed to the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, who apparently has strongly criticised the lack of availability to the public of texts of government regulations? Do the unavailability of government regulations and the remarks of the Chief Justice concern the Attorney-General in any way? If so, will he discuss the matter with his colleague the Minister for Administrative Services, who is the Minister in charge of the Australian Government Publishing Service, to see that action is taken to overcome the problem and to ensure that copies of government regulations are made available for purchase by the public at all Australian Government bookshops?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have seen a newspaper report of remarks made by the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, when delivering a judgment in the High Court, I think yesterday or the day before, concerning the question whether copies of regulations were available at a place notified, at the time such regulations were made. I think that what the Chief Justice said was of great importance. I agree with him concerning the objective which should be achieved in making copies of regulations available. However, in the practical world, it is not always possible to meet the ideal standards and, regretfully, regulations do go out of print. In the case in question, I think it was alleged that copies of regulations were not available. That occasionally happens as well. The honourable senator might remember that recently in this Parliament an amendment was made to the effect that, if copies of regulations are not available when the regulations are made, the Minister for Administrative Services is obliged to make a statement to that effect to the Parliament. It was hoped that, by that means, more pressure would be put on the Government to make sure that copies of regulations were available to avoid having to make such a statement.

My Department is engaged in a program which is the subject of a statement that I made in the Senate several months ago as a result of a report of the Joint Committee on Publications of this Parliament. We are seeking to engage in a more speedy updating and reprinting of both Acts and regulations and in making available annual volumes of statutory rules, all of which have got very far behind in recent years. We are making quite a lot of progress with that work and also with the updating and reprinting of large numbers of regulations under the various Acts of Parliament. All I can say is that I agree with the remarks which the Chief Justice has made and that we are doing our best and will continue to do our best to meet the ideal requirements which he mentioned. I have not had any recent discussions in relation to these matters with the Minister for Administrative Services. I will draw his attention to the remarks which Sir Garfield has made.

page 1679

QUESTION

AID TO KAMPUCHEA

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a television news film this week which showed a planeload of food leaving Melbourne for Kampuchea. In the film there were many sacks marked ‘white refined sugar’. Many Australians hold the view that white refined sugar has very low nutrition value. Why then is white sugar being sent by Australia to Kampuchea? Is it true that sugar is one ingredient of a wellattested gruel of high food value for malnourished people? Can the people of Australia who are so concerned to assist the people of Kampuchea be reassured of a sound nutritional basis for sending sugar in this way?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am advised that before a decision was made on the contents of the Australian relief flights to Kampuchea- the honourable senator may know that one relief flight is landing in Phnom Penh today- the Department of Foreign Affairs sought guidance from the International Committee of the Red Cross and from the United Nations Children’s Fund. These agencies are working in the field and have firsthand knowledge of the requirements of the Kampuchean people. On their advice Australia is providing vegetable oils, sugar and vitamin A enriched skim milk. Sugar is added to the milk powder in the ratio of one part sugar to two parts milk. This mixture can be digested by the Kampuchean people, whereas skim milk powder by itself apparently cannot. I am informed that from a nutritional point of view- I hope that the Queenslanders do not object- there is little difference between raw sugar and refined white sugar. As the Government has sought and acted on the best advice available, I believe that the people of Australia can rest assured that there is sound nutritional reason for including sugar in the relief consignments.

page 1680

QUESTION

IMPRISONMENT OF ABORIGINAL CHILDREN

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that three Aboriginal children and a young Aboriginal woman were sentenced to a period of nine years and two months gaol for their alleged involvement in an incident which resulted in the death of a man at Huckitta Station in the Northern Territory on 1 January this year? Is the Minister also aware that when Mr Justice Gallop passed sentence in Alice Springs on 19 October he strongly recommended that none of the children be imprisoned in an adults gaol and that all of those convicted are now in the Alice Springs prison? What action is the Government taking to remove the young people from the adults gaol? Will the Government make available additional finance to the Aboriginal Legal Service in Alice Springs in order to allow it to contest an appeal against the sentences?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware of the matter raised by the honourable senator- both the conviction and what has happened subsequently. My advice is that under Northern Territory legislation people who are found guilty of murder are to be held in prison. There is no stipulation as to different treatment for offenders who are children.

Senator Melzer:

– That is disgraceful.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am advised that the Northern Territory Administration is addressing itself to the problem which has arisen out of this case in which juveniles have been found guilty of murder. I note that an honourable senator interjects and says: ‘That is disgraceful’. This is the first time that this situation has occurred. Apparently attention has not previously been directed to it.

Last financial year requests were made for additional finance. My recollection is that additional finance was given to the branch of the legal service which was involved in that case. A great deal of expense was involved because it was a very lengthy trial and involved a large number of counsel. I have had no request with respect to any question of an appeal. If such a request is made it will be given appropriate consideration. The legal services in the Northern Territory have been granted additional funding this year because it appeared to me that they were not as adequately funded as legal services in some other parts of the country. I anticipate that they would have funds to handle what would be regarded as the normal requirements of the services this year. If this or other cases put exceptional strains on their resources I will give consideration to making further funds available.

page 1680

QUESTION

JAPANESE FISHING VESSELS

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask a question of the Minister for Science and the Environment. It refers to reports that the Queensland State Government is suggesting that observers should be placed on Japanese fishing boats in order to monitor marlin catches in waters off north Queensland. Apparently this is being done in response to a submission from the Queensland Amateur Fishing Council. Is the Minister aware of this submission and the fact that the Queensland Minister for Maritime Services has suggested that the observers could be supplied by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Royal Australian Navy or the Army at Japanese expense? In view of the fact that the marlin and long-liners vacate the seas off Cairns from late December to July, meaning that effectively there is only eight weeks in which facts on marlin can be collected before the renegotiation period of the recently signed Australia- Japan agreement, will the Government give urgent consideration to the suggestion so that next year’s decision on the renegotiation can be based on sound data?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The honourable senator brings forward a very important matter. I will immediately see that the Minister for Primary Industry is alerted to the situation if it appears that information cannot be gathered in relation to marlin catches from December 1979 to July 1980. I have been made aware of the Queensland Amateur Fishing Council memorandum on this matter. In line with what apparently is done within the United States 200-mile fishing limit, it proposed that the country utilising the area fund the cost of inspectors on board the vessels. That matter can be put to the Minister for Primary Industry for his consideration.

I am not aware of the proposal that observers should be found either from the Australian Institute of Marine Science or from our armed Services. However, that proposal also can be submitted to the Minister. At present the Government is considering further the possibility of taking a stronger interest in the research detail available on board vessels in Australian waters. It has been suggested that it might be appropriate that vessels undertaking this particular type of fishing call at Australian ports before they commence, and perhaps when they finish that exercise call back for inspection purposes. Having an official on every Japanese fishing vessel would involve considerations of cost and manpower, and the competence of the person concerned to carry out such research. I doubt very much whether the Australian Institute of Marine Science could supply personnel for this purpose, but that matter will be discussed with the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 1681

QUESTION

OPEN-PLAN SCHOOLS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister for Education by referring to a report headed ‘Criticism of Australian Capital Territory Schools “uninformed” ‘ in yesterday’s Canberra Times, in which the Chief Education Officer of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, Dr Beare, is reported to have stated that ‘scare talk about open-plan schools caused public concern’. Is the Minister aware of any research which has evaluated the educational progress of students in open-plan schools, compared with that of students in conventionally built schools?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question is an important one. Many parents are concerned about the particular orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of teaching practices. If I were to answer in general terms concerning research throughout the world on the subject of open-plan schools, I would have to say that all research shows that the actual quantity or quality of the physical resources available- their shape, size or nature- is largely irrelevant to the qualitative outcome of the education. The one factor that is vital is the skills and communication abilities of the teacher. Translated that means that open-plan schools are good or bad depending upon the capacity of those within them to teach in such schools. They are very difficult areas for people to cope in. One of the difficulties is compatibility of staff in working together. Quite frequently principals discuss that with me. Good teachers will make good open-plan schools work. Good teachers will make orthodox schools work. In fact, it is good to have a diversity of school types. I cast no reflection at all upon the method employed. It all comes back to the fact that the result is related to the skill and dedication of the teacher. Thank goodness, if I may say so, we have in the Territory teachers of skill and dedication.

page 1681

QUESTION

TELEVISION ADVERTISING: NUTRITION OF CHILDREN

Senator WALTERS:

– I draw to the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health the fact that today is Universal Children ‘s Day and that the theme ‘Adequate NutritionThe Right of Every Child’ is being promoted. Will the Minister advise the Senate what steps have been taken by the Department of Health to implement the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts report on children and television, which was tabled in the Senate last year and which referred to the health and nutrition of children? Has there been a meeting between the Commonwealth Department of Health, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with a view to drawing up a set of proposals to control the advertising on television of products which pose a health and nutrition risk to children? Can the Minister advise the Senate what action will be taken in this regard in this, the International Year of the Child?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am advised by the Minister for Health that in June of this year a working party of the National Health and Medical Research Council was set up to consider television advertising of foods which was directed to children. The membership of the working party includes representatives of the Commonwealth Department of Health, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Also represented on the working party are the Australian Association of Dieticians, the Food Industry Council of Australia and the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. To date two meetings have been held. At the present time the working party is addressing itself to such areas as patterns of television viewing by children, the amount and nature of food advertising, patterns of food consumption in children, nutritional and dental concerns relating to these patterns, and regulatory procedures in overseas countries. The working party is aiming to complete its report by mid- 1980. I am sure that the Minister for Health will make a comment at that time.

page 1682

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is he aware that the permanent head of the South African Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Brand Fourie, is on a semisecret visit to Australia and is currently having discussions with Mr Henderson and other officers of our Department of Foreign Affairs? Will the Parliament be advised of the reasons for these clandestine discussions which are reported to cover migration, trade, apartheid, Namibia and other related matters? Does the Minister support the principle that the Parliament and not only the Executive should be fully informed of all matters affecting the security of this country in relationships with other countries?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the suggested visit or of the suggested circumstances of it. I will refer the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek his response.

page 1682

QUESTION

NATIONAL FLAG AND SONG

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer the Minister to a statement made by the Honourable John McLeay in the other place on 10 May 1979 when he was dealing with the extension of the free issue of the Australian national flag and in particular to the following words:

The national flag is our symbol of national unity. As such the Government is concerned to encourage the flying of the national flag as widely as possible. The proper and dignified use of the national flag can only encourage national consciousness.

I advise the Minister that I requested an Australian flag and cassette recording of the national anthem for the Ipswich College of Technical and Further Education on 10 August last. I was informed by the Department of Administrative Services by letter dated 19 October that these were not issued to tertiary institutions. Therefore, I request the Minister to include such institutions within the eligibility criteria for free issue and thereby encourage national consciousness, unity and pride in the thousands of young Australians who attend these tertiary institutions.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The honourable senator in his question has accurately quoted both Mr McLeay and the sentiments of the Government in its desire to promote national unity and pride. Pursuant to that wish, the Government has in the recent past extended the range of organisations which are entitled to receive the flag as a free issue and has made available the national song on a cassette. I will note the request by the honourable senator that the list be further extended to include tertiary institutions. I will refer it to my colleague, the Minister for Administrative Services, for consideration and reply.

page 1682

QUESTION

SENATOR CARRICK

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister in possession of a communication dated 15 October 1979 addressed to him and other leading members of the Liberal Party from one James Twaddell who describes himself as an experienced investigator and secretary of one of the branches of the North Sydney Federal Electorate Conference of the Liberal Party? I ask whether this document contains, in addition to a number of matters going to the credit of Dr Peter Solomon, the following extraordinary statement:

There is good evidence to indicate that Senator Carrick is neither a tool of the KGB or a plant of the socialist Left.

I ask the Minister: What were the nature and the source of the original allegations apparently made against him which gave rise to this statement? Do those allegations have any substance? If they are as palpably absurd as Senator Carrick might be inclined to claim they are, can he tell the Senate why it was necessary for a private investigator to investigate and to refute those allegations in the highly solemn manner disclosed by this document?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-You, Mr President, would know that the question does not relate at all to my ministerial responsibilities.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I was about to observe that a question must relate to the ministerial responsibility of a Minister or must have direct bearing on the serious aspects of a Minister’s representative capacity. I will pass the question to the Leader of the Government. If he wishes to reply to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, he may do so.

Senator Evans:

– On a point of order, Mr President: The nature of the allegation here is, in fact -

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled on the question.

Senator Evans:

– That Senator Carrick is a member of the KGB. What could be more relevant to the conduct of his Ministry?

Senator CARRICK:

-As to the first part of the question, it is not a matter relating to my ministerial duties. As to the second part of it, every day the members of the socialist Left, who confront me from the Labor Party benches, reject my philosophy. I am delighted that they should do so. So, if there is any need for day-to-day proof as to whether inadvertently or otherwise I was a member of the socialist Left, I call the whole of the Labor Party in Opposition to refute it as it does day by day. It is palpable nonsense and, of course, is peddled by people who want that nonsense peddled.

page 1683

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY AGREEMENT

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for National Development to the meeting of Ministers held in Melbourne on Monday of this week to consider amendments to the River Murray Agreement in order to update the powers of the River Murray Commission. Is it a fact that, following the meeting, the Commonwealth, New South Wales and South Australian Ministers will now authorise crown law advisers to start negotiations on the new agreement? Can the Minister explain why the Victorian Government has not taken a similar step? Can he also explain why the Victorians appear to be continually frustrating these negotiations? Is this an ‘I’m all right, Jack’ attitude on the part of the Victorian Government or is it a result of bureaucratic blockage? As the Commonwealth Government announced in 1976 that the way was then clear to amend the Agreement, when can we expect to bring this badly needed updating process to a conclusion?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have been informed that the concerns expressed by Senator Jessop about the attitude of the Victorian Government are no longer valid because yesterday at a Press conference the Victorian Premier announced that the Victorian Government had decided to drop its proposals for a ministerial council and would be co-operating with the other three governments concerned in drawing up the agreement. No doubt Senator Jessop will be pleased to learn that his fears, which had been justified on previous attitudes, no longer apply. In these circumstances, of course, the crown solicitors of the four governments will be working on drawing up the new agreement.

page 1683

QUESTION

MILITARY EXPENDITURE

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minster representing the Prime Minister. It was reported in the Age of 15 October 1979 that world-wide military spending reached a massive $US425,00Om last year and that military expenditure has been increasing at a rate faster than that of world inflation for the seventh year in a row. Will the Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement condemning this outrageous waste of human and natural resources?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– That appears to be a question that the Prime Minister alone could answer, not 1. 1 will refer it to him.

page 1683

QUESTION

CHEESE IMPORTS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry to a recent submission to senators by the Food Importers Section of the Melbourne and Sydney chambers of commerce entitled: ‘The Endless and Unwarranted Attacks on Cheese Imports’. I ask whether the Minister is aware of this submission which claims:

It is unlikely that local manufacturers will bother with the specialised, costly and quantitatively restricted production of fancy’ cheeses, opting rather for the assured, ready and lucrative market that can be satisfied with a technically simple, automated and less labour intensive end product.

Will the Minister comment on this claim and in doing so inform the Senate why duties and quotas are still levied on imported European cheeses, even though cheddar has accounted for over 70 per cent of our total production since 1971 and non-cheddar cheeses are produced only in small quantities in Australia? Does the Minister agree that the Australian consumers’ preference for imported varieties suggests that local producers’ prospects for an increased market share depend wholly on their ability to produce cheeses which appeal to consumers? If so, will he investigate ways in which government assistance can be directed to stimulating and not protecting local cheese manufacturers?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator included in his question to me much of the argument relating to the inhibitions placed on the import of fancy cheese and other cheeses over some years. The basis has been for many years that in this country we are most anxious to sustain a viable and healthy dairy industry. Indeed, that has been done. At the same time there are prohibitions against the export of our products to other countries which, incidentally, are quite vocal on requiring that we give freedom of entry to their particular products. However, the honourable senator is correct when he indicates that there is a choice by the consumer of certain types of cheeses which are not produced in Australia. Indeed, some of the imported cheeses are good sellers on the Australian market.

I agree with his comment that there should be action- certainly there has been action over the past years- to stimulate a diversity in production of Australian cheese. This has taken up some of the market demand which has appeared for a variety of cheeses over the years. The point that he makes relating to larger imports of fancy cheeses is one which I will refer to the Minister for Primary Industry. Of course, other Ministers ha ve an interest in this matter of imports.

page 1684

QUESTION

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Senator O’BYRNE:

-I draw to the attention of the Minister for Science and the Environment reports that are abroad that the Government is set to opt out of environmental control. Can the Minister substantiate or deny these reports? On the other hand, does he have confidence that each State would always act in the national interest if primary responsibility for the environment were to return to the States?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Over some years now it has been an on-going matter for government to review legislation of all types, and the legislation relating to the environment in Australia is no exception. My own Department has been involved in the assessment of the various activities. Indeed, encouragement to the States with regard to environmental assessment is a most important matter with which both Federal and State governments should be associated.

I would think that the reports that have appeared in newspapers recently have appeared because the newspapers which have had them sleeping for a year or two all of a sudden they have brought them forward because a report on environmental legislation was brought down in the House of Representatives last Thursday. That report suggested certain moves and activities which the Federal Government should take in relation to legislation on the Federal books. There is no credence whatsoever to be given to the suggestion that the Federal Government will seek to lessen the requirements or to weaken environmental legislation. That has not been a consideration. Various departments have various attitudes, and at times they consider their own interests, as well they should, in relation to what the procedures should be.

However, I can assure the honourable senator that over the past few years there has been the greatest co-operation, so far as I am aware, between the Federal Government and each individual State in bringing forward environmental impact statements where necessary. I expect that that will continue to be the situation. There is a variety in the quality of environmental legislation within the States, and one hopes that that will become more unified over a period. For instance, in some States there is legislation; in other States there are only regulations. I believe that some States have nothing other than policy guidelines indicating the way they should proceed. During recent years I have found nothing that has led me to believe that there is anything but the greatest co-operation between the States and the Federal Government in the way in which environmental impact statements are carried out.

page 1684

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA-JAPAN FISHING AGREEMENT

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and follows the excellent question asked earlier today by Senator Martin. Since the Australia-Japan fishing agreement has a duration of only 12 months, that is, to the end of September 1980, when will the renegotiations start between the two governments? Will it be as early as February or March 1 980?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to state the date on which the renegotiation will take place. My understanding is that the Department of Primary Industry is in constant touch with those individuals to whom permits have been issued and that there will be a constant re-evaluation and assessment of the effect of the agreement. I will alert the Minister for Primary Industry to the question asked by the honourable senator and attempt to provide an answer.

page 1684

QUESTION

OIL REFINERY WORKERS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to Senator Durack as Attorney-General and as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. Do I detect an acute feeling of remorse in his make-up today in view of the role he had to play at 3 a.m. last Friday in the debate on the punitive industrial legislation and in view of the fact that we have had no report whatsoever on the protracted talks with Mr Hills about justice for the refinery workers, who suffer an overlapping of Federal and State awards? Those talks have gone on for weeks and weeks.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I regret to say that I have no feelings of remorse about any role I played in the Senate last Thursday night or Friday morning. I am sure that the Senate as a whole was very relieved to have that matter disposed of. even though it was in the early hours of the morning. The serious aspect of Senator Mulvihill ‘s question related to the problem of the Kurnell dispute, which is still with us, and the talks that have been going on between Ministers and others in relation to that problem. I do not have an up-to-date brief on it from Mr Street, but in the light of Senator Mulvihill ‘s question I will seek to obtain one. I will provide an answer as soon as possible on the progress that is being made in that matter.

page 1685

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: COMMERCIAL LEASEHOLD SYSTEM

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory aware that the system of commercial leasehold in the Australian Capital Territory is now clearly acting as a disincentive to private investment in the Territory? Is the Minister aware that the Master Builders Association in the Australian Capital Territory indicated recently that, if the commercial leasehold system were reformed to extend the duration of leases and to simplify some aspects of those leases, then private commercial investment in the Territory might increase in this year from around $30m to $60m? I therefore ask: What action can be taken to simplify the commercial leasing system in the Territory to provide a positive incentive to greater private investment in the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Capital Territory has advised me that the recent establishment of the Canberra Development Board indicates his recognition of the importance of attracting new private industrial and commercial activities to Canberra. I understand that he has been told by local business organisations that the commercial leasehold arrangements currently in use are inhibiting new development in the Territory. I further understand that he is examining this position and, in line with the comments brought forward by the honourable senator who represents the Australian Capital Territory and the advocacies that he may make to him, the Minister will be able to make an announcement soon.

page 1685

QUESTION

POLITICAL PRISONERS IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs or to Senator Chaney, who on 1 9 September undertook to convey to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the contents of speeches made during the adjournment debate concerning Czechoslovakian political prisoners and to seek a response to them. Now that the show trials of the six signatories to the Charter 77 human rights manifesto have proceeded, what has been the Government’s response to the speeches made in the Senate on 1 9 September on that subject, and has the Government made any public statement whatsoever or does it intend to join with the protests that have come already from many Western European countries and from the head of the European Parliament?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have no recollection of any public statement of the son mentioned by the honourable senator in his question, but I will check on it and seek the information he requests from the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1685

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Gietzelt asked me a question today about which I now have some information. The fact is that the Government’s policy towards South Africa is unchanged. Mr Fourie is here on a post inspection visit. This is not regarded as an official visit by either the South African Government or the Australian Government. Mr Fourie will be paying a courtesy call on the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs. He will not be entering into substantive discussions with Australian officials during his stay.

page 1685

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS DISARMAMENT WEEK

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Wriedt asked me a question about United Nations Disarmament Week. He asked me whether I could indicate, in view of the fact that Disarmament Week commenced today, what initiatives the Government proposed to take to highlight the needs for arms control and disarmament, which the Minister for Foreign Affairs described as the greatest problem facing the world today.

To mark the first Disarmament Week, the report of the Australian delegation to the 1978 special session of the United Nations General Assembly on Disarmament was tabled in Parliament on 25 October 1978. As part of the efforts to engender greater public awareness and understanding of the issues involved, the report was also circulated widely to educational institutions, libraries and interested community organisations. To mark Disarmament Week 1979 the Minister for Foreign Affairs plans to present to the Parliament on 25 October the report of the Australian delegation on its participation in the

Committee on Disarmament this year. The special session recommended that the Committee on Disarmament replace the conference of the Committee on Disarmament as the principal international disarmament negotiating body. Australia succeeded in securing membership of the new committee.

The report of the Australian delegation will be given a distribution similar to that of the delegation to the special session on disarmament. The Department of Foreign Affairs has also drawn to the attention of interested organisations the declaration by the United Nations of Disarmament Week. As a result, the Canberra branches of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the United Nations Association of Australia and the Human Rights Council will jointly sponsor a seminar on arms control on 30 October.

page 1686

STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Georges asked me what attitude the Government had adopted towards the United States consideration of the possibility of establishing facilities for the storage of spent nuclear fuel on a number of islands in the South Pacific. Senator Georges noted that the proposal is opposed by the countries of the area. At its tenth meeting held at Honiara on 9 and 10 July the South Pacific Forum unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the use of the Pacific area as a place to dump nuclear waste. Australia supported the resolution. The United States has sought consultations with Pacific basin countries on the possible interim storage of spent fuel on a Pacific island. It is well aware of the sensitivities of the states of the South Pacific to the proposal. Australia was consulted at an early stage and made clear to the Americans the adverse reactions which the idea was likely to attract from South Pacific countries.

The United States is undertaking preliminary studies of the possibility of locating a facility for about 30 years on Palmyra, Midway or Wake islands. The facility would handle spent fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors located not in the United States but in other countries of the Pacific area which have nuclear power programs. The studies derive from the requirements of the United States non-proliferation Act and are aimed at providing an alternative to reprocessing of spent fuel by giving those countries a means to store their spent fuel. No decision is expected in the near future on the selection of a site or the construction of such a facility. The United States has made clear that a primary consideration in deciding whether to proceed will be the health, safety and environmental impact of such a project.

Australia shares the concerns of South Pacific countries about the location of a spent fuel storage facility on a Pacific island. We also appreciate the potential proliferation risks posed by the existence of large amounts of spent nuclear fuel and the importance of international solutions. We consider that the whole issue of possible international spent fuel storage facilities needs close examination and study before any decisions are taken about specific sites. International spent fuel management is currently receiving attention in an expert study being carried out under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency in which Australia is participating.

page 1686

HOMELESS YOUTH SERVICES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Earlier today Senator Grimes sought information regarding the youth services program. I now have figures which show the funding that was offered to the States for a full year. They are as follows: New South Wales, $335,120 and Victoria $263,100. 1 might clarify that the figure of $526,200 mentioned in the Press release included the State’s matching Commonwealth funding dollar for dollar. The list continues: Queensland, $153,580; South Australis, $92,580; Western Australia, $83,800; Tasmania, $31,820; the Northern Territory, $12,000; and the Australian Capital Territory, $28,000. I am advised that all States and Territories, except Queensland and South Australia, have participated at this stage in the program. Those two States are discussing the matter with us.

page 1686

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Over the last few weeks I have answered, on behalf of the Minister for Health, questions from both Senator Collard and Senator Cavanagh relating to individual aspects of a study of causes of death amongst miners formerly employed at Radium Hill. On 1 7 October Senator Cavanagh asked whether I would expand on one aspect of my statement of 1 1 October. The figures for which he has asked will not be understood unless I first repeat some of the background. I am advised that there is no formal written report of this study, which is being carried out by officers of the South Australian Health Commission. The officers attempted to trace former employees of the mine, but only a minority of the 3,000 who worked there from 1954 to 1962 were actually located. This deficiency in follow-up made it necessary to restrict the analysis to the causes of death of the 58 whose deaths could be confirmed and who died more than five years after taking up employment. This restriction was to exclude those who were likely to have acquired their fatal illness before they started work at the mines.

In the analysis miners who had died were divided according to whether they had worked underground for more than 12 months, had worked underground, but for less than 12 months, or had worked above ground only. Senator Cavanagh has specifically asked me to provide percentages of deaths from cancer. As I said in the Senate on 11 October, the investigation of these former miners disclosed 22 deaths amongst those who spent in excess of 12 months underground. Nine of the 22- that is 40.9 per cent- had died from cancer. Of those who had worked underground for less than 12 months, 16 had died. Of this 16, three- that is 18.8 per cent- had died from cancer. Of those who had worked above ground for the whole time, 20 had died. Of this 20, three- that is 1 5 per cent- had died from cancer. Further information on those deaths is shown in a table which I was given leave to have incorporated in Hansard on 9 October when answering a question asked by Senator Collard. The percentages I have just given were taken from that table. With the deficiencies in follow-up, those percentages of cancer deaths need to be interpreted with considerable care.

The investigators also examined statistics of causes of death among miners throughout Australia for the years 1968 to 1975 and found that 17.8 per cent were due to cancer. Comparison of that data with data from Radium Hill showed that miners who had worked underground at Radium Hill had a higher cancer mortality rate. That was solely for lung cancer, which caused six of the 22 deaths- that is, 27.3 per cent- among miners who worked underground at Radium Hill for more than 12 months, but caused only 5.9 per cent of deaths among Australian miners from 1968 to 1975.

As I said in an earlier reply to Senator Collard, there is a number of well-established causes of lung cancer among miners and it would be important to exclude them before it could be inferred that the excess lung cancer mortality rate was due to radiation. Exposure to many occupational dusts compounded with cigarette smoking can give a greatly increased risk of lung cancer. In the absence of information on the smoking habits of the Radium Hill miners, that possibility cannot be excluded.

As I have said before, it is very doubtful whether the study would have any application to present-day mining. To protect miners’ health, the Department of Health developed the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores in 1975. The Code is now being redrafted for inclusion in the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978. The Code already has been included in legislation in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The Code in its preparation was sent to over 90 organisations, including governments, employer groups and unions. Comments were provided by some of those organisations and those comments were considered when the Code finally was developed. The Code was stated to be an ‘authoritative document’ by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and no union has objected to the Code. In today’s circumstances, all staff and employees engaged in the mining of radioactive ores in the Northern Territory wear personal dose meters which are reported on each month by the Australian Radiation Laboratory.

page 1687

QUESTION

IMPRISONMENT OF ABORIGINAL CHILDREN

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Earlier today, Senator Keeffe asked me a question about the imprisonment of certain children who were convicted of murder. It probably will be of interest to Senator Keeffe and other honourable senators to know that documents for an appeal with respect to children have been prepared and are in the process of being lodged. It is anticipated that an appeal will be made for the adult defendant and that a bail application is also being prepared and lodged. That does not deal with the matter of internment, if those people are to be interned, but it is relevant to the general matter raised by the honourable senator.

page 1687

QUESTION

LIFE. BE IN IT’ CAMPAIGN

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 9 October, Senator Bonner asked me about the absence of references to Aboriginals in the ‘Life. Be In It’ television advertisements and about Project Australia. I have received from the Minister for Industry and Commerce some advice about the Project Australia campaign which refers to the fact that there has been some Aboriginal involvement in the sense that the boomerang has been isolated as one of the great achievements of Australian ingenuity. Mr President, I seek leave to have the answer to Senator Bonner’s question incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

One of the publicly stated aims of Project Australia is that it be a national apolitical community involvement program among all people within the Australian community: to increase senses of national identity, pride and purpose towards our country, our people and our achievements, skills and potential.

The television commercial to which Senator Bonner has referred was purposely designed to avoid being identified with any one field of endeavour, personality, or community group with the exception of the cartoon character of ‘Norm’ who makes a brief appearance to introduce the commercial. The aim of this commercial as part of the initial public awareness program is to relate to all the objectives of the campaign. One of its main messages is that there is an urgent need for Australians of all backgrounds to draw together in a common endeavour to support our way of life- to give ourselves- individually, our families and our nation a better chance in a changing world.

However in one of the follow up commercials specific reference was made to the Aboriginal community. This commercial proclaims Australians’ practical ingenuity and inventiveness with the goal of fostering awareness and increased pride in the nations’ achievements. The ingenuity of the boomerang was one of the achievements mentioned.

page 1688

QUESTION

PHARMACIES: TELECOM LANDLINES

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 16 October, Senator Messner asked me a question without notice concerning rental concessions for Australian Telecommunications Commission landlines used by pharmacies in burglar alarm systems. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided a reply which indicates that it is difficult to differentiate between users of those facilities. Mr President, I seek leave to have that answer incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has informed me that in determining its price structure for any services Telecom must have regard for the use to which a service is to be put and generally the users of that service are expected to meet its costs- the so called “user-pays principle”. In the case of landline rentals this policy has been following particularly having regard to the specialised nature of the facility.

Telecom receives numerous approaches from various organisations including service type organisations for concessional charges and without doubting the worthiness of the claims for preferential treatment, Telecom believes that it is wrong in principle for Telecom users generally- rather than the community at large- to bear the cost of these concessions. An example of the applications of that principal is the pensioner telephone rental concession in which the Department of Social Security reimburses Telecom for the ‘A rental granted to eligible pensioners.

An obvious difficulty arises if action were taken outside of these principles to discriminate in favour of a particular organisation as this would make it very difficult to decline extending a similar preferential treatment to other groups which may claim entitlement to concessional rates.

page 1688

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT CARRYING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 1 1 October, Senator Knight asked me a question about aircraft carrying radioactive materials. He referred to the 1976 report on Canberra City waste of the Parliament’s Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. I have been provided with the following further information: Radioactive materials may be carried in Australian aircraft only in accordance with the safety requirements for the carriage of dangerous goods which are prescribed in Air Navigation Orders. Those requirements limit the quantities which may be carried in any one consignment and prescribe requirements for the packing, handling and carriage of such goods. In regard to the carriage of radioactive materials, as with all other classes of dangerous goods, the requirements include provisions for notification when such materials are being carried and for notification to the various emergency authorities should an accident occur to an aircraft carrying them. The situation in respect of the carriage of radioactive materials is common to Canberra and all other Australian airports.

page 1688

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Walsh. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator CHIPP:

– Today a document came into my hands which is purported to have been written and authorised by Senator Walsh. I paid him the courtesy of telling the Opposition Whip that I would be making this personal explanation. I thank him for coming into the chamber. If my information is untrue, I would be pleased if Senator Walsh would interrupt me because the last thing I want to do is to misrepresent him. I refer to a paper headed ‘Democrat Deceit ‘ which states:

On July 1 9th Senator Don Chipp, Leader of the Australian Democrats had a letter published in the ‘National Farmer’ (circulation nearly 200,000).

Senator Chipp informed its readers that his Party would have the balance of power in the Senate and would then introduce private members’ Bills to reduce sales tax, telephone call charges and petrol prices in country areas.

The first would be a tax Bill, -

This is Senator Walsh ‘s commentthe other two would require an appropriation of money.

Section 53 of the Australian Constitution states:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or money or imposing taxation shall not originate in the Senate’.

Presumably Senator Chipp did not study law, spend 20 years in Parliament and several years in the Ministry without discovering Section 53.

One can only conclude therefore, that Senator Chipp was trying to take country people for a ride.

I presume from Senator Walsh’s silence that he is proud to be the author of that piece. I think it is appropriate that I read an extract from a letter which I wrote to the National Farmer on 1 9 July. I was replying to the newly appointed Federal Director of the National Country Party who made some critical remarks about my party. I wrote:

I wish to notify Mr Osmond, and am pleased to tell the National Farmer’ again, that the Australian Democrats are totally committed to the equalisation of petrol in country areas; rationalising telephone charges, basing them on time rather than distance; reducing the sales tax on goods transported to rural areas, and introducing orderly marketing for all primary products. The Australian Democrats believe it is immoral for farmers to be working for a negative wage.

Further, we remind Mr Osmond that his Party has been in total control in Queensland as a coalition partner for over twenty-two years, and yet hundreds of Queensland farmers are leaving their homes each year, and country people are still paying substantially more than city people for their telephones and petrol.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Chipp, will you please explain where you have been personally misrepresented as briefly as you can?

Senator CHIPP:

– I am sorry, Mr President. I know that I am taking a long time, but it is essential to my personal explanation to tie the two documents together. There is only one more paragraph. Obviously it is the one to which Senator Walsh refers. It states:

In 1 980, it is likely that the Australian Democrats will gain the balance of power in the Senate. We will then introduce private members Bills to meet our commitments to people in rural areas.

Mr President, you will see that at no stage did I say that private member’s Bills would be appropriate to all of the areas; I said that rather they would be appropriate to our commitments. I wonder whether Senator Walsh has heard of Bills being introduced in the Senate the net effect of which is to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. They are passed with one clause, the appropriation clause, omitted.

Senator Georges:

– I must take a point of order. I have used devices to bring material before the Senate on broadcast day and I have been suitably corrected. I think that Senator Chipp ought to be brought to order. He is not giving a personal explanation or supporting the case that he has been misrepresented. He is merely stating or debating a wealth of material which, in fairness, may lead to Senator Walsh ‘s seeking leave also to make a personal explanation. My feeling is that we ought not permit it. If Senator Chipp has been misrepresented he should raise this matter at the time he was misrepresented. Apparently he has been misrepresented in a document printed outside this Parliament. I am not quite certain. Nevertheless, he has debated the matter. I cannot see how he has been personally misrepresented. For that reason, he should not be allowed to continue.

Senator CHIPP:

– Would you like to be called deceitful?

Senator Mason:

- Mr President, I would like to speak to the point of order. Senator Chipp has every right to refer to precedents in the Senate in order to make his point.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have heard arguments in respect of the point of order. The fact is that the Senate has given the honourable senator leave to make an explanation on a matter in respect of which he claims to have been misrepresented. He is proceeding to do so but I would remind him not to debate the question but rather to indicate the areas in respect of which he has been misrepresented, and to do so briefly. Otherwise, it may become difficult to obtain leave to make personal explanations in this place.

Senator CHIPP:

-Mr President, the last thing that I would do would be to canvass your ruling or to abuse the time of the Senate. I do not know about anybody else, but when someone calls me deceitful I regard that as a serious allegation that has to be denied.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear the word deceitful’ used.

Senator CHIPP:

– This man has put out a document saying that I am deceitful. Have I not the right to deny that charge and to prove, by a reference to authorities, including Mr Odgers, that I was not being deceitful, that I was acting quite within any sense of responsibility in writing that letter to the National Farmer. When a man uses that kind of language, which he is loth to do, he has to be prepared to cop it as well as give it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Was the word ‘deceitful’ used in this chamber? I did not hear it.

Senator CHIPP:

-‘ Democrat deceit’.

Senator Mason:

- Senator Walsh acknowledged that he made the statement in the chamber.

Senator Walsh:

– I did not acknowledge making it in the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear that word used.

Senator CHIPP:

-Senator Walsh acknowledged in the chamber that he wrote that document, in which he called me deceitful.

Senator Walsh:

– I think it was quoted correctly. I do not have it with me.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would have no jurisdiction in that case. I would if it were said in this chamber.

Senator CHIPP:

– It is a very big point, apart from my having been misrepresented. The allegation has been made that neither the Democrats nor any other senator could ever bring in a private member’s Bill which would take the freight component out of the unit cost when one was calculating sales tax. That is the point that I have been making and I have been called deceitful for writing a letter along those lines.

In conclusion, I would like to quote two authorities as cited in Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice at page 390, Odgers says:

In 1923 an Income Tax Assessment Bill was originated in the Senate by a private member. Upon a Minister taking a point of order, President Givens ruled that the Bill did not come within the category of those which cannot be originated in the Senate, and he ruled that the Bill was not out of order. This ruling confirmed an earlier ruling by President Givens in 1921 that an Income Tax Assessment Bill can originate in the Senate.

Odgers says further:

In November 1960, upon the Senate amending the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill . . .

That is the very Bill that I want to amend- the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr Calwell) contended that the Bill was a Money Bill under the Constitution and therefore was a Bill which could not properly be amended or altered in any way by the Senate. However, the Leader of the House (Mr Holt) pointed out that, while Sales Tax Bills are proposed laws imposing taxation, the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bills are not. They merely state the goods exempt from sales tax and classify certain other goods for the purposes of the imposition of sales tax.

Mr President, I thank you for your indulgence. I believe that I was misrepresented and I am pleased to have had the opportunity of saying so.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Peter Baume:

– Does he claim to have been misrepresented?

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator WALSH:
The PRESIDENT:

-The honourable senator seeks leave to make a statement. Is leave granted for that purpose?

Leave granted.

Senator WALSH:

– Firstly, as far as I am aware, it is without precedent that, by way of a personal explanation, an honourable senator should take the opportunity to reply to a statement that was not made inside the Parliament; but leaving that aside, I will grant Senator Chipp the privilege of making the statements that he has made. His explanation for having said that the Democrats, whom he expects will hold the balance of power after 1980, will introduce private member’s Bills to do three things appears to be that, from the Bills that he proposes to introduce, the sections that actually appropriate the money will be omitted and therefore the Bills will not be disqualified by virtue of section 53 of the Constitution. What he is really saying is that the Democrats propose to introduce meaningless Bills as some sort of a political stunt by which they hope to secure support within the country, without delivering the goods that they have promised to deliver. If that is what Senator Chipp is saying, I think the description ‘Democrat deceit’ was appropriate.

page 1690

EXPENDITURE ON ARMAMENTS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The increasing world expenditure on arms and the need for all governments to exercise their influence to arrest this trend for the benefit of mankind.

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

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

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Because today marks the start of Disarmament Week, it is appropriate for the Senate to consider again the effect of recent attempts to limit the arms race.

The notion of Disarmanent Week arose from consideration by the United Nations General Assembly of the various recommendations and decisions of the Tenth Special Session on Disarmament. One of the resolutions that it adopted was to invite states to carry out effective measures to expose the dangers of the arms race, to propagate the need for its cessation and to increase public understanding of the urgent tasks in the field of disarmament. Today those tasks are more urgent than they have been at any other time in our history. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) said in his address to the inaugural session of the Committee on Disarmament in January of this year:

There has in the past been a lack of substantial progress in reaching effective arms control and disarmament measures.

He went on to say:

The Special Session, however, marked a turning point because it was there that Governments demonstrated a willingness to confront directly problems of conventional and nuclear arms build-up.

Even at that time, that very guarded statement seemed somewhat optimistic for two reasons. Firstly, the sixties and the subsequent period had seen substantial progress in the development and negotiation of arms control measures but the momentum of that period had gradually been lost. Secondly, although a consensus was reached at the Special Session on Disarmament, many people felt that the fine words uttered during the Session were merely a cloak for inactivity. By the time the Session had concluded, many community leaders were prepared to write it off as merely a public relations exercise. Unfortunately there have been some recent events which suggest that the problems surrounding disarmament may be going through a critical phase. The arms control measures of the sixties, together with the process of detente and the development of the strategic arms limitation negotiations, promised real progress in the field of arms control. With the benefit of hindsight it can now be seen that these processes, though valuable, were not having sufficient impact to result in any real restraint in the growth of weapons.

In the past twenty years, world military expenditure has quadrupled and is now running at over $ 1,000m per day. This amount is equivalent to two-fifths of the combined domestic product of all Third World or developing countries. During this period, the arms trade from the industrialised world to Third World countries grew rapidly and, during the past decade, transfer of arms to the Third World has increased annually by no less than 15 per cent. This rapidly increasing expenditure on arms has led to the development of a quite fearsome arsenal of weapons which could now annihilate all of the world’s major cities.

In the early sixties, the United States and Soviet Union had some hundreds of nuclear warheads each. Today, that figure has been increased tenfold. By no stretch of the imagination could this increase in weaponry be called arms limitation. Another important factor is the cumbersome nature of arms control negotiations. The recently concluded SALT II agreement took seven years to negotiate and has still not yet been ratified by the United States Senate. During these negotiations, all other major issues slowed down as resources were directed to the conclusion of the SALT agreements. Even with this large expenditure of time and resources to the detriment of progress in other areas, agreement has been reached on a treaty which provides some limits on the growth of the arsenal available to the world’s super-powers, but does nothing to reduce the quantity of those weapons- a process which is left to the negotiations of SALT III. All of this means that arms control negotiations are keeping abreast of neither changes in technology nor political developments.

If one looks at the agenda for the 34th session of the United Nations General Assembly, one could be led to believe that substantial progress has been made in arms control matters. Seventeen items relating to questions of disarmament and international security are listed on the agenda and they include major issues such as the implementation of the recommendations of the special session, a strengthening of security of non-nuclear weapon states, the implementation of the declaration of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace, the prohibition of the development and manufacture of new weapons of mass destruction and so on. Yet, if one looks at the history of these issues, it is clear that they are items that have been on the agenda for many years and on which progress is painfully slow. It is to be hoped that the activities of the Committee on Disarmament will speed up this process, but if such is to be the case, then there will have to be a more positive attempt on the part of members of that Committee to achieve that end.

To date, progress on the Committee has been disappointing. So far no agreements have been concluded but this may be because much of its earlier work at the beginning of the year involved the settlement of issues relating to its procedures. Now that those issues have been substantially clarified, the Committee must make substantial progress in the next 12 months if the optimism generated by the establishment of the Committee is to be sustained. Unfortunately, in some ways the role of the Committee on Disarmament is limited in that important negotiations are carried out outside the framework of the Committee. For example, the comprehensive test ban treaty is being negotiated by the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Great Britain, while the treaty on the prohibition of chemical weapons remains the province of the two super-powers, the United States and the USSR. Notwithstanding the new democratic structure of the Committee, the large powers still retain substantial control over disarmament measures.

While it is obvious that progress to date has been slower than expected, we must not discount the substantial gains that have been made. There are likely to have been a number of side benefits as a result of the continued process to conclude the SALT agreements. For a start, as progress on reaching agreement occurred, both the United States and the USSR developed a vested interest in concluding the treaty which caused them to act with restraint in other areas to prevent negotiations breaking down. For example, it is likely that because the SALT II negotiations were in an advanced and critical stage early this year, both the super-powers acted with restraint when confronted with the conflict between China and Vietnam. Even though it is not necessary to argue that the SALT negotiation’s must be linked to other factors in the super-power relationship, it is almost certain that those negotiations have a beneficial effect on that relationship because they are central to it.

Another advantage is that the long drawn out negotiations gave both of the super-powers a much clearer understanding of the capacity and intentions of the other side, thus reducing the chance of a conflict based on a misconception of their respective intentions and capabilities. Moreover, the process involves a considerable degree of public debate, thus bringing the issues out into the open causing increased pressure on both sides to be reasonable. For these reasons, the SALT negotiations have benefits which extend far beyond the actual agreements concluded by the parties. The real value in the SALT negotiations is the increase in trust which occurs between the two super-powers, because I take the view that the success of any arms limitation measures depends upon the degree to which the level of trust between the nations is increased.

In recent times, we have seen striking examples of how an increase in the level of distrust can lead to very dangerous consequences. For some time one of the critical arms limitation discussions involved an attempt to control the growing arsenal in Europe through the negotiations on the mutual reduction of forces and armaments. At the recent Vienna talks, both President Carter and President Brezhnev emphasised the great importance that both sides attach to these negotiations and agreed that a reduction of the military forces of both sides would be a major contribution to stability and security. Yet, within three months of the conclusion of that conference, both sides are involved in potentially major escalations of forces in Europe.

To counter the superiority of conventional weapons under the control of the Warsaw Pact, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces have decided to deploy new medium range missiles in Western Europe, The use of these weapons has been justified on the grounds of distrust of Soviet intentions in Europe, particularly in view of the belief of increasing superiority of Soviet forces in that area. The deployment of these missiles by NATO is based on distrust of the Soviet Union and a growing realisation that the United States would not necessarily risk a nuclear war in the event of Western Europe being attacked by Warsaw Pact forces. This deployment is supported by the United States which has gone so far as to launch a concerted campaign to win public support for the use of these missiles.

The Soviet response has been predictable and it has warned that if these missiles are deployed retaliatory measures by the Warsaw Pact countries will be inevitable. In other words, the arms race in Europe will accelerate and all thought of a mutual reduction of forces will be ignored. This growing level of distrust has caused the West to reject an offer by the Soviet Union to withdraw a limited number of troops and tanks from East Germany over the next 12 months. The Soviet union has also offered to cutback the number of its medium range missiles if the West does not go ahead with its plan to upgrade its own missile arsenal.

The reason for rejection of this approach is based on a suspicion that it does not constitute a genuine attempt to reduce the level of forces in Europe. The Soviet offer has been seen by the United States and some European countries as a trick, as the reduction in Russian forces stationed in East Germany would be almost meaningless. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the particular issue, the circumstances demonstrate that unless the level of distrust between nations is lowered, even minor matters can lead to another outbreak in the arms race. When it is taken into account that even in times of comparative peace, expenditure on arms increases rapidly, it can be seen that outbreaks of hostility and distrust lead to rapid acceleration in development of the world’s store of weapons.

There have been other developments in the past few months that cast doubt on the likelihood of success of arms control measures. The price of the ratification by the United States Senate of the SALT treaty will be almost certainly a substantial increase in expenditure on arms by the

United States. Only last month, a report produced in France by the Prime Minister of that country proposes that France modernises its nuclear arms to match the quality of the United States and the Soviet Union.

One of the major problems in the progress of the Indian Ocean zone of peace discussions is the possibility of Pakistan and India acquiring nuclear weapons. One could go on citing example after example and there would be one common thread with all of them- the development of weapons programs in so many countries based on distrust and mutual suspicion. Part of the responsibility lies with the defence planners who concoct amazing theories to justify rapid expansion of weapons programs. The now discredited doctrines of mutually assured destruction and counterforce, both of which were developed by the United States, were used at that time to justify the rapid build-ups in weaponry. Yet, the people who are responsible for those doctrines have now recognised the futility of them.

Only just recently Henry Kissinger made reference to the ineffectiveness of these strategies. Recent pressures to build up forces in the United States of America and in Europe have arisen because of the decrying by senior defence planners of the credibility of the United States nuclear umbrella. What can Australia do in such a situation? It is true that Australia has played a constructive role in various disarmament forums in recent times. It was active in making suggestions in the lead-up to the special session of the United Nations and has played an active role in the committee on disarmament since it became a member of that committee. I do not think it is being harsh to suggest that we might have done more. I have already referred to the resolution of the 33rd session of the General Assembly which called for the dissemination of information and for the organisation of symposiums, meetings, conferences et cetera, to expose the danger of the arms race and to increase public understanding of the urgent tasks. I know that these are issues which are not ones that command, perhaps, a great deal of interest or wide interest within our country, but I put it to the Government that more could be done to make the Australian people aware of the enormous dangers that are evident and that are with us all the time.

Again I say that Australia has been active in forums on disarmament issues, but there is a tendency by the Government to take what the Opposition believes to be a conservative view. For example, it is unfortunate that Australia disassociated itself from the document to go to the General Assembly on the question of the establishment of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean. Whilst Australia’s objections to the final document have considerable force, the suspicion remains that the Australian delegation was not committed enough to the question of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean to work towards achieving a consensus document. We have the opportunity to exercise some influence in this whole question of establishing greater measures of trust between nations. But we will of course not achieve it if we are to allow ourselves to be put into a position where we are forced to take sides in issues which are not of direct concern to us.

I am not suggesting that we can do a great deal on our own, but what I am suggesting is that positive work can be done in international forums backed up by government action which is consistent with a view that disarmament will follow only from a lowering of tension between nations. So, it is in our interest to aid that process whenever we get the opportunity to do so. In making these comments I am trying to avoid being provocative because I believe that the issue before the Senate is one on which there is genuine bipartisan support, especially on the issue of disarmament. I believe that the responsibility is upon us as a part of the Australian Parliament and as a part of the nation to do the maximum that we can to lower tension throughout the world and to increase trust among all governments.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I believe that the sentiments expressed in this matter of public importance would reflect the views of all thinking people in Australia. Disarmament, I think, is like motherhood- everyone approves of it. But today, I guess, thanks to the advances of medical science, motherhood is rather more easy to control. It is very easy, I suppose, to over simplify the issues involved in disarmament. It is not a matter of clever mechanism. It is a matter of trust and confidence between sovereign states. That is a matter to which Senator Wriedt addressed himself.

Measures which reduce security among nations do not help to obtain the ultimate objective. I refer to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) given to the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament on 5 June 1978 wherein he dealt with this matter. I will quote from a part of this speech. The Prime Minister said:

Australia believes that the realistic approach to disarmament lies in the step-by-step development of arms control. It is essential at each step that all who are affected should feel their security is- at the very least- not weakened. Otherwise, the prospects for effective arms control will be destroyed.

But we should not limit ourselves merely to preserving a precarious status quo. We must aim at increasing the security of nations. Concentrating on disarmament techniques and mechanics is important-but it is not enough.

I think we now come to the crux of the problem:

We must confront the underlying political and economic anxieties and suspicions which impel nations to arm themselves. Only if the causes of international tension are removed can there be any realistic hope of achieving a meaningful and long-lasting reduction in arms.

I will come back to that question in a few moments. Disarmament is a painstaking- I think Senator Wriedt discussed this also- process to develop confidence and trust between nations. If I may have the liberty again to refer to the Prime Minister’s speech, I point out that he said:

It is in the building of well-founded trust and confidence that real hope lies of slowing and reversing the growth of conventional arms levels. We need approaches which, while limited and specific in scope, are practical, achievable, and contribute to security at lower levels of armament.

I believe that that statement quite realistically states the problem. It is towards the overcoming of tensions and problems which face nations and which create distrust and lack of confidence that our policies must be directed.

There is another problem. In dealing with sovereign nations, there are some nations whose policies are not influenced by public or international opinion. Having said that, I say a few words about the nature of the problem of the world’s arms expenditure and what is being done about it, particularly the attitude in the United Nations. We must be concerned about the sheer scale of investment in armaments and the consequent denial of funds for development which would overcome or would help to overcome some of the problems to which I have alluded.

World arms expenditure cannot, as I have said, be divorced from the world ‘s political problems. One of the factors which also was referred to by Senator Wriedt is the massive amount that developing countries are spending on arms. Looking at the global picture, we see that global defence expenditure is running at over $350 billion a year. Two super-powers account for some 60 per cent of that sum. But the governments of the Third World are now spending as much on military programs as on education and health care combined. I think that that is indeed a deplorable and alarming state. The drain on any country’s national resources due to defence needs is colossal. In manpower alone, the world total of armed forces is around 22 million people.

Energy consumption of the world ‘s armed forces is estimated at 3.5 per cent of the total world consumption or twice as much as the whole of Africa consumes each year. Of course, this matter has been for long before the United Nations. What is being done about it? Senator Wriedt detailed some of the matters which have been dealt with by the United Nations.

I should like to make one or two comments about Australia’s attitude towards disarmament. Following a meeting of the General Assembly, resolution 33/67 requested the SecretaryGeneral to carry out a practical test of a reporting instrument recommended by a panel of experts. The Secretary-General has circulated to all member states a request for their voluntary participation in a test of the proposed standardised reporting instrument on military budgets drawn up by this panel. I am pleased to be able to say that the Australian Government, as announced by the Prime Minister, has agreed to participate in this request. In the same speech to which I have referred, the Prime Minister said:

Australia in principle supports such reductions carried out in ways which would not be destabilising or create new tensions.

There is the need to overcome the practical problems of defining and measuring military expenditures and establishing machinery for verifying compliance with any agreed reduction. All this requires thorough examination, and my Government has recently informed the Secretary-General that we are willing to submit our Defence Budget for analysis as part of a pilot project on military budgets. Any significant reductions in military budgets could release substantial resources for economic and social development.

The Australian Government has responded to the request from the Secretary-General in relation to this matter. I have been referring to the effect upon social and economic development, as has the Prime Minister. A 1977 United Nations study noted that compared with world annual expenditure on arms of over $350 billion official development assistance amounted to only $17 billion, or roughly 6 per cent. Another study noted that half the funds spent on armaments in 1970-75 had been invested in the civilian sector; annual output could have been higher by $200m- more than the aggregate gross national product of southern Asia and Central Africa, the large regions of accute poverty and slow growth in the world. The Secretary-General is to report to the current General Assembly on the relationship between disarmament and development, following the appointment in late 1978 of a group of qualified governmental experts.

In January 1979 the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) told the committee on disarmament that if significant reductions in military expenditure could be achieved in the manner which provided countries with undiminished security in the lower level of armament, this would do much to help reduce international tensions and to assist the release of resources both nationally and internationally for economic and social development. Australia sees the high level of arms expenditure as a symptom of underlying tensions and lack of confidence which persists between states, and this is what we have been discussing. I believe that this should be addressed to all appropriate forums. The obvious way to reduce expenditure on armaments is to reduce political tensions. I think this is the practical problem that we face. If we are to move realistically towards solving this problem, it is in this direction that our policies must be directed. I think it is a prerequisite for any real progress that tension should be relieved.

Let us look at our own region, and as an example, look at the situation in Indo-China today and the massive increase in weapons into Vietnam, where it is estimated that the Soviet Union has supported Vietnam militarily by approximately 100,000 tonnes of military aid this year. It is estimated that Soviet equipment is being given to Vietnam at the present moment at the rate of approximately $2m a day. This of course creates feelings of insecurity in neighbouring countries, for example China and Thailand. The result of Thailand feeling insecure is that it is seeking more arms to protect itself. It is in this context that I am speaking of the question of tensions and insecurity. As other countries around the region bordering Indo-China feel threatened, they too seek more arms for their own protection.

Let us look at the Middle East, a situation which is always threatening. Let us look at the situation in Iran, another example of internal instability creating problems of security both internally and externally amongst its neighbours, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which then take action to secure more arms to protect themselves against what they perceive as a threat- the external instability and the questions and doubts about Iranian policy. If we turn to Africa, amongst the Third World countries, we find the situation created by the massive supply of arms to countries like Ethiopia, for example, one of the poorest of the poor countries, and the insecurity that is posing to its neighbours which in turn seek arms to meet what they regard as some perceived threat.

When I speak of the need to relieve political tensions, it is quite obvious that where they exist nations feel that their security is threatened. They then seek more arms to defend and protect that security. The massive build-up in arms in one country raises doubts and fears in neighbouring countries. Therefore the picture continues. I believe that one of the most constructive ways in which we can go about trying to overcome the problem of increased expenditure on armaments is to relieve political tension, promote economic growth and social growth and increase the internal stability of countries and confidence between one country and another. I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister also acknowledged this and I think this is worth quoting. In the speech to which I have referred relating to the build-up of arms in the Third World countries, the Prime Minister said:

A sudden expansion of arms, an unexpected concentration of military forces, the growth in a country’s military capacity in excess of perceived defence needs- all these produce suspicion and counteraction.

I believe that our policy should be directed towards increasing understanding, removing suspicion and building confidence and trust, no matter how slow and painful that process might be. It certainly will not be achieved overnight.

I end where I started. I believe that until tensions, lack of confidence and all those elements which cause instability both internally and externally between nations are removed, then the prospects for disarmament are not bright. Therefore our efforts must be directed towards removing these causes and adopting a constructive and realistic approach to this problem. It is in this area that I believe we and other nations can exercise the most positive influence and exert pressures by adopting policies that will, at least in the long term, reduce the need for countries to engage in this massive expenditure on arms and the threat to world peace. Above all, by spending on arms they are not helping the development of their own countries and are causing increasing misery and hardship amongst their own people. Whilst I have every sympathy for resources from the developed world going to the developing world, when one looks at some leaders whose priorities lie not in the development of their nation and the interests of their people but gaining more sophisticated weapons with which to kill each other and their neighbours, one must question the priorities of those leaders.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-Today, 24 October, is United Nations Day, and it is known also as Disarmament Day. It is the last part of the decade for disarmament which was determined by the United Nations in 1969. It is relevant that Lord Tennyson referred to disarmament in the following terms:

Ring out the thousand wars of old, ring in the thousand years of peace.

That was the aspiration that prompted the United Nations to take the step of trying to bring about a realisation in the world community of the responsibilities associated with disarmament. That 1969 decision was made some ten years after the President of the United States, General Eisenhower, had this to say:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in a final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed.

When he was still in the White House as President, he said:

War in our time has become an anachronism. Whatever the case in the past, war in the future can serve no useful purpose.

He said that nothing in the world is as important and urgent as world disarmament. He continued:

The alternative is so terrible that any risks there might bc in advancing to disarmament are as nothing-

Nothing ‘is the word he used-

  1. . compared to the risks of not disarming, the risks of sitting on your hands’, of drifting on with the arms race and the so-called balance of power.

General Eisenhower was a life-long soldier, devoted to the study of war, and to the build-up of United States military might. He was chosen, from all the generals of the Western world, to command the greatest armed forces in the greatest battle in the history of war. With the elements against him- the storm in the Channel- his invasion of Normandy was victoriously achieved and the aggression of that period finally defeated.

In the speeches I have quoted, Eisenhower provides the final answer to any militarist who tries to argue that wars are still inevitable and may be useful; or that armaments are a source of security, influence or prestige; or that defence should have priority over aid to the poor. Yet the United Nations, in a recent publication in 1979, had this to say:

Like a juggernaut defying all attempts to control it, the arms race today continues with mounting speed and intensity. The nightmare threat of nuclear war still haunts mankind and the world’s arsenals grow in size and sophistication, fuelling tensions and engendering a mindless waste of resources which could help to alleviate the plight of millions whose basic needs are not met.

This is a question with which we would expect the Parliament of Australia, the Senate, to concern itself. Many honourable senators may say: What can we do?’ I think we have to do more to create the sort of climate, the change in attitude, that is necessary in the Parliament, in Australia, and in the world scene. Despite the efforts of the United Nations, we have seen a continuation of the arms build-up. Others will say that the attempt to reach some agreement on the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty is a step in the right direction. Let us look at that. It is becoming clear that the SALT agreements play a different role from that portrayed in the media. Let us look at what Kissinger himself said in an interview in The Economist on only 3 February this yean . . Our strategy was to agree on a five-year freeze- the interval we judged would enable us to catch up by developing cruise missiles, a new submarine (Trident), a new ICBM (MX) and the B-l bomber . . . We stopped no program; we accelerated several … If there had been no agreement, we could have done no more . . .

The viability and ratifiability of SALT depend importantly on those programs we will carry out, as permitted by the agreement. It therefore must be presented as ushering in a new period of peace . . .

President Carter was quoted in Aviation Week and Space Technology of 26 February this year, somewhat the same period, as saying that SALT II would allow the United States to pursue all the defence programs it believed it may eventually need. He specifically mentioned the MX missile, the Trident submarine, missiles, aircraft to carry cruise missiles, and a new, penetrating bomber.

In the United States Senate, Senator Mark Hatfield said that SALT was another one of those escalating steps in the nuclear arms race which would stimulate production of new weapons. The United States and the Soviet Union would race to reach the maximum levels of nuclear weapons allowed under the Treaty, including missiles suitable for destroying the other nation’s offence. The MX missile, which the Carter Administration is developing to replace Minuteman ICBMs, is specifically allowed under SALT II, Senator Hatfield said. Its increased accuracy would give the United States the potential by the 1980s to destroy Soviet land-based missiles. This threat would prompt the Soviets to take counter measures, escalating the arms race to still more dangerous levels. He also contended that the cruise missile allowed under SALT II is so easy to deploy in quantity on land and at sea that it poses unique problems for arms control in the future. He said that the proposed treaty was further flawed because it did not outlaw guidance improvements that would give nuclear warheads absolute accuracy, and that this was needed only for a first-strike capability.

It is clear that the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be growing, not shrinking. The current size of these arsenals is terrifying. It is a small wonder then that the United Nations should continue to call for the world community to concern itself with disarmament. The major powers practise secrecy about their nuclear arsenals and particularly about the number of tactical nuclear weapons. We could talk at great length about the rights and wrongs of those who claim that there is a lack of surveillance and proper supervision of each of the major powers to this extent. We could talk at length of the fact that a first strike would probably destroy 140 million people in the Soviet Union in a major nuclear war and that, similarly, something like 105 million to 1 30 million would be destroyed in the United States. These are not the only countries involved in disarmament. The bulk of the annual arms expenditure is accounted for by six countries- the United States, the USSR, China, France, Britain, and West Germany. Something like $ 1 m is spent every minute on the arms race. As Senator Sim has said, between 5 per cent and 6 per cent of the world’s total output of goods and services is diverted to military ends. In individual countries the percentage diversion is mostly in the 2 per cent to 8 per cent bracket, although in some cases there are expenditures ranging from one per cent to 30 per cent of the gross national product on the arms race.

Let us consider the connection between the arms race and poverty. The arms race, with its economic cost and social and political effects, nationally and internationally, constitutes an important obstacle to effective progress in establishing a new international economic order. Resources now being absorbed by the arms race are scarce and are needed for socially constructive ends. Every year, military activities throughout the world absorb a volume of resources equivalent to about two-thirds of the aggregate gross national product of those countries which together comprise the poorest half of the world’s population. In the world as a whole, there are almost as many soldiers as there are teachers. Public health expenditures amount, on a world scale, to only 60 per cent or so of military expenditures. The resources devoted to medical research on a world-wide basis are only about onefifth of those devoted to military research and development. In all cases, the amount of resources consumed in the military sector is very large compared with the social expenditure of governments, even in such important fields as education and health, indicating the unfortunate priorities that govern the allocation of public funds throughout the world. In 1970, Third World countries spent something like $3,000m on defence, or on arms. In 1976, the last year for which I was able to get figures, that had risen something like $7, 3000m. This is in countries in which poverty, malnutrition, disease and hardship are the orders of the day. It is no wonder that the United Nations should consider that there is a responsibility on parliaments and communities to concern themselves with the problems of military expenditure. In 1977, the United Nations Secretary-General Waldheim said:

The vast benefits which could result from even trifling cuts in military expenditures and the reallocation of the funds thus saved are particularly obvious in the field of health. The World Health Organisation spent around $83m over ten years to eradicate smallpox in the world. That amount would not even suffice to buy a single modern strategic bomber. The WHO program to eradicate malaria in the world, at an estimated cost of some $450m, is dragging on due to lack of funds. Yet its total cost over the years is only half of what is spent every day for military purposes, and only a third of what will be spent, strictly for procurement, for each of the new ‘Trident’ nuclear missile submarines.

When we think of Biafra, Bangladesh, Timor, Ethiopia, Kampuchea and all the suffering in the Third World countries and look at the photographs of people who are, for example, currently dying of malaria and suffering from lack of food in countries such as Kampuchea, we must accept some responsibility for the fact that the Western World and the elitists who are so active in the governments of many of the Third World countries have failed in their responsibilities to their own people. Thus, disarmament and development must not be seen to be separate problems. They are parts of the one problem and must be solved together, or neither will be solved at all. This is quite apart from other economic problems the arms race causes. The demand on resources can spark inflation, as well as divert research and development from more productive uses.

Another factor in the growth equation is technological change. Throughout the world an estimated 400,000 engineers and scientists are working on military projects. The opportunity cost of this diversion of resources is impossible to quantify. Its magnitude is suggested by recalling that whilst scientific and technological advances have yielded enormous benefits for mankind, some 40 per cent of the financial resources devoted to research and development since World War II have been used in the military field. Military technology is moving further away from any conceivable civilian use and is, in any case, focusing on fields most irrelevant to the solution of more important present and future problems of the world. There can be no doubt that in the final analysis technological innovation in the civilian sector and with it, growth, are not furthered by military research and development but are greatly impaired by it. In the last minute or so of my speech I would like to quote from the last paragraph in the recent journal published by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. It states:

On several occasions it has been seen how the public, when adequately informed, can exercise a moderating influence on developments in the field of armaments, and fostering a genuine and widespread public concern about the dangers of the arms race may be one of the most important ways of giving a new momentum to efforts towards disarmament. This need for an active and well-informed public opinion capable of opposing all incitement to war and of channelling its concern in constructive directions is of vital importance, for where questions of armament and disarmament are concerned the very survival of humanity is at stake.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

-No one could reasonably quibble with the terms of the matter for discussion put before the Senate by Senator Wriedt, namely:

The increasing world expenditure on arms and the needs for all governments to exercise their influence to arrest this trend for the benefit of mankind.

I think that statement is unexceptionable. There are three main aspects of this problem that must concern all of us. There is the sheer scale of world investment in armaments and of course the consequent denial of funds for other purposes, such as development. Most seriously, if these armaments exist there must be the possibilityperhaps the probability- that they will be used.

Global defence expenditure at the moment is about $350 billion a year-$350,000m a year. Of this expenditure, Russia and the United States of America together account for about 60 per cent. What is of concern at the moment is that the governments of the Third World, the underdeveloped countries, are increasing their expenditure on armaments at the expense of urgently needed programs for education and health and the development of their infrastructures. It is worth looking at what the defence expenditures are. At the moment the United States spends about 5 per cent of its gross domestic product; the United Kingdom, 4.7 per cent; Sweden, a country with which we often compare ourselves, 3.4 per cent; and Australia, 2.6 per cent. The highest figure is that for Israel, which spends 24.5 per cent of its GDP on defence; Saudi Arabia spends 15 per cent. I am sure all honourable senators are aware of the special circumstances in the Middle East that dictate this level of expenditure. Away from the Middle East, the two highest spenders on defence are the Soviet Union, which is spending between 1 1 per cent and 14 per cent of its GDP on defence, and the

People’s Republic of China, which is spending 10 per cent of its GDP. It is most notable to someone looking through the list of expenditures on defence that the high spenders are the communist countries. This has a very serious influence on stability in the world.

What can we do about this? As Senator Wriedt said in his opening remarks, today is United Nations Day and it is the start of Disarmament Week. For some time the UN has been preoccupied with the issue. For instance, the program of action of the 1978 Special Session on Disarmament called for concrete steps to be taken to facilitate the reduction of military budgets. Our Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said publicly at the United Nations that Australia in principle supports such reductions, carried out in ways that would not be destabilising or which would create new tensions. But, what can we do apart from talk? The most dangerous area for the world involves nuclear weapons, both the possession of these weapons by the super-powers and the possibility of widespread proliferation. Oddly enough, I share some of Senator Gietzelt ‘s concern about SALT I and SALT II. It is probably proper for the United States to ratify them but I cannot think of any marked effect they will have on the likelihood of a global nuclear war. There have to be other ways in which we can prevent the outbreak of such a war. Both the United States and Russia, for the foreseeable future, will maintain enormous arsenals of immensely destructive nuclear weapons. At the moment they have between them about 1 5,000 warheads, each of them incomparably more damaging than the Hiroshima bomb. We must look for ways in which we can prevent the possible use of this arsenal and anything Australia can do in this field must be a contribution to world peace.

This is the great importance of the American communications station at North West Cape. It is designed to communicate with American ballistic missile submarines, which because of their invulnerability, are second strike weapons designed, to enable the United States to retaliate if a surprise attack is launched on it. Their very existence is the strongest deterrent there can be to the outbreak of a global nuclear war. By providing the facilities to make this deterrent effective, Australia is making a major contribution to the prevention of the outbreak of a war, the results of which would horrify us all. I am sorry that not all members of the Labor Party are prepared openly and willingly to support this proposition.

The second area of great concern must be the possibility of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The trouble is that the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is seriously defective, particularly because three nuclear powers- France, China and India- are not signatories to it. Since the Treaty has been in existence nuclear weapons have proliferated. India has exploded a nuclear weapon, using indigenous uranium. There are rumours of similar developments in South Africa, Pakistan, Israel and possibly other countries. There is no future in attempting to control the spread of nuclear weapons by controlling the supply of uranium. There is far too much of it about from too many sources. If we are trying to stop nuclear proliferation, which I am sure is the aim of all of us, what we should be doing is not to waste time on the hopeless task of trying to control the availability of uranium but to concentrate on what can be done, that is, to control the process of enriching it into weapons grade material. Uranium 235 is present in very small quantities in yellowcake. To be usable in a power reactor U235 has to be enriched to 3 per cent. That is no more explosive than soap. It cannot be used as weapons grade material. To be usable for weapons purposes it has to be enriched to 90 per cent. This is the point on which our controls must focus. We can do it, if we have the will.

The other thing we must do if we wish to stop the spread of nuclear weapons is to see that plutonium is not extracted from the wastes of nuclear reactors and that countries do not go in for fast breeder plutonium reactors. The key to this is the ready availability of uranium at reasonable prices. If we try to restrict the supplies of uranium and artificially create a shortage, we will not stop countries from using nuclear power but we will force them into recycling their nuclear power plant wastes and extracting plutonium- a great danger to the spread of nuclear weapons- and going into fast breeder plutonium reactors. This is the most dangerous thing that we can do. If we ensure- as we can- that there is a ready supply of uranium at reasonable prices we will be making a major contribution to the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We must also fight to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency is given effective monitoring responsibilities over the enrichment of uranium to make certain that highly enriched uraniumthe 90 per cent weapons grade material- is not being produced. It should also continuously monitor spent fuel, the wastes of nuclear reactors, to ensure that plutonium is not being extracted.

As a major uranium exporter we have a chance to have a significant influence on these matters both in terms of the controls and safeguards and also in terms of ensuring that there is a reasonable supply of uranium at a reasonable price. By our influence we can convert the IAEA into an effective monitoring body. If we bury our head in the sand and refuse to export our uranium we will be throwing away a unique opportunity. The main short term beneficiary of that policy would be South Africa, a result which I am surprised the Labor Party accepts with such enthusiasm. If we do not assist in the achievement of these essential controls, in the long term the world community will be the loser and, by the way, we will not be acting in accordance with the wording of the matter of public importance proposed by Senator Wriedt which states in part: . . for all governments to exercise their influence to arrest this trend for the benefit of mankind.

But it is not only nuclear weapons that are concerned. As I have said, in two key areas of nuclear weapons proliferation we have a chance to play a significant role, if we use our power. There is also a very significant level of conventional arms throughout the world. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) told the United Nations Committee on Disarmament in January 1979 that significant reductions in military expenditures achieved in a manner which provided countries with undiminished security at a lower level of armament would do much to help reduce international tensions and to assist the release of both national and international resources for economic and social development. I must emphasise that this process must not be unilateral. One way disarmament does nothing. If one side disarms and the other does not, we will be back to the situation in Europe in the 1 920s when the British Labour Government, under Ramsay MacDonald, disarmed and its ineffectiveness led directly to the rise of Hitler, Mussolini and Japan. Disarmament must be common; it must be on both sides.

The proposition put forward by the Minister for Foreign Affairs is fine as far as it goes but to some extent it is a chicken and egg proposition, because armaments will be reduced if tension is reduced and tension will be reduced if armaments are reduced. The problem is how to make the break. We must try to build up more confidence and trust between countries. This will not be easy because the existence of armaments is evidence of the lack of trust. We must also do our best to ensure that there is adequate surveillance, adequate scrutiny, of what is going on, because without that I do not think sufficient trust will be achieved so that significant disarmament is possible. I think this must be our first diplomatic priority.

I return to my point that we can play a significant part in the prevention of the outbreak of a global nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The reduction of conventional armaments will be more difficult, but I think that we can and should endeavour to play a part in relieving tensions and ensuring that some reduction is possible. I maintain that until that reduction of tension has been achieved we must not disarm unilaterally. It must be done in combination and at the same time. We must always remember the Latin tag- si vis pacem, para bellum- which is of great validity and which I am sure Senator Tate, who is following me in the debate, will be able to construe.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-The Senate is discussing as a matter of public importance:

The increasing world expenditure on arms and the need for all governments to exercise their influence to arrest this trend for the benefit of mankind.

When I saw that topic for discussion I was reminded necessarily of that quotation from the prophet Isaiah in the Jewish tradition when he said:

They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Who would deny that in that quotation there is harboured the deepest aspiration of mankind- to live in a peaceful society where, in harmony, he can come to full human development. It is more than a yearning; it is a deep ethical imperative. Yet we as a world community continue year after year to pursue policies and to implement programs which are diametrically opposed to that yearning of mankind. We have no right to be surprised, therefore, when in turning our back on that imperative we find a world community which is unable to bear the strains, conflicts and distortions which have brought about the virtual collapse of much of the economic system as we know it and certainly of the social and political interrelations that should obtain between sovereign states. It is a fact that today the world is spending $1.2 billion a day on military expenditure. Even Australia has an expenditure rate of $8m a day. But Australia’s expenditure is fairly minor compared with that pursued certainly by developed industrial countries and also by some of the developing countries, as was pointed out by Senators Sim and Hamer.

However, I must, if I may, take issue with both those honourable senators for what I thought was an unfortunate tone in their castigating of developing countries for pursuing military expenditure at the rate at which they do. That they do so is reprehensible, but who taught them? Who taught their leadership? Who seduced their leadership into adopting military force as the way in which to exercise political authority? Where are the arms manufacturers located? Which governments sponsor and have within their defence agencies teams of salesmen who go out into developing countries and encourage them to spend billions of dollars on those armaments, on those types of expenditures, on that infrastructure, rather than on the needs of their people? We have them in Australia. Senator Hamer is shaking his head. He obviously does not know that our own Department of Productivity sells $22m worth of arms to more than 26 countries around the world, to say nothing of what private Australian firms sell and to say nothing of the so-called defence co-operation gifts. So, let us not forget that it is a two-way process.

I am being diverted from the main topic, which I would have hoped could have been considered in a bipartisan manner. Senator Hamer also brought up the matter of the United States of America bases. Let me put the matter in a general context. We bring up this topic because, among other things, in the world we have a balance of terror which is sustained by nuclear weapons on the part of both major super-powers. Subsumed under that general structure we have conventional weapons which are able to be unleashed with all their destruction and malicious effect on human beings around the world. Only yesterday I read of a jumping booby-trap which, when activated, leaps up to about eye level and destroys a person. Of course, boobytraps lie around, to the great danger of civilian populations, for many years after a war has ceased in an area. What is immoral about this is the fact that an innocent civilian may be put at risk. That is precisely why members of the Australian Labor Party are concerned.

The issue is not simply about United States bases in Australia. Australia is participating in a system of deterrence which is fundamentally immoral in that it is ultimately directed and promises- -retributively perhaps, second strike perhaps- to destroy civilian populations which, by definition, are innocent. It is directed against cities. President Carter, when trying to convince the United States Senate that he was not undermining United States security, made this point in 1979:

Just one of our relatively invulnerable Poseidon submarines . . . carries enough warheads to destroy every large and medium-sized city in the Soviet Union.

It is directed against cities, against innocent civilian populations. They are innocent because they are civilian and not military personnelevery commentator on war since the just war theory was invented says that that is immoraland innocent in a double sense because, living under totalitarian regimes, they have no means of rejecting their government and its policies, which may have led to the war.

I am being diverted. I wish to return now to the main point of this discussion, which is to the effect that the military expenditure of $420 billion a year is not for the benefit of mankind. That is so in some very simple pragmatic senses, which should appeal to anyone who wishes to see a prosperous, developed Western world, for that matter. Such expenditure has disastrous effects on our economic growth.

Let me sustain that argument in this way: The arms race is fundamentally inflationary. Military spending generates a stream of buying power without producing an equivalent supply of economically useful goods for the civilian market. The excess of disposable income over available supplies steadily builds up a generalised pressure on prices. In time that excess becomes a prescription for permanent inflation. Military demand also adds directly to the pressure on prices for specific goods. Military programs are heavy buyers of many of the commodities and labour skills that are in shortest supply. I think it was Senator Sim who pointed out that the consumption of petroleum products by the United States military machine alone is equivalent to all of that consumed in Africa in any one year.

These are some of the distortions that creep into our own economic relationships. Research and development, of particular concern to Senator Puplick, for example, are completely undermined by a distortion whereby our major scientific endeavour- our best brains- is perverted into evermore refining processes of destruction. That would be easy to demonstate by a comparison of the growth of the United States economy, as opposed to the Japanese economy since the Second World War. There is an inverse relationship between military expenditure and capital expenditure in civilian investments, which has corresponding effects on the growth of the national product. The Japanese national product of course has expanded very rapidly because funds have been available for research and development and for capital expenditure in the civilian sense, whereas in the United Statesalthough starting from a higher base- the gross national product has not grown as rapidly. This has been partly caused by the proportion of expenditure devoted to military capital goods and research and development in those areas.

Whilst these facts alone should give us pause and remind us of how blind we are to our very own well-being in pursuing military expenditure on the scale that we are, there is a deeper, more ethical and more compelling reason for bending every effort to bring about disarmament, or at least a reduction in arms or military expenditure. We need to recognise the virtually irreparable damage we are doing to the social fabric and to human beings by their hundreds of millions around the world. A fundamental and grave injustice is being done to hundreds of millions- to billions- of people around the world without a shot being fired. I remember Pope Paul VI making the statement: ‘Armaments kill the poor by causing them to starve’. I believe that in that quotation one has a ready summary of the effect, the distortions, that creep into the balance between military and social expenditures which should characterise any civilised world community.

That was starkly and clearly illustrated by some figures which were brought forward by Senator Gietzelt. He pointed out that even trifling cuts in military expenditure could bring about immense benefits for mankind, particularly in the field of health. He pointed out that the World Health Organisation spent around $83m- a mere $83m, mere compared with military expenditure- to eradicate smallpox over a 10-year period. That amount would not buy a modern strategic bomber. The program to eradicate malaria, estimated at a cost of some $450m, is dragging on owing to a lack of funds, yet that total cost over the years is only half of what is spent every day for military purposes and only a third of what will be spent strictly for procurement to set up a Trident nuclear submarine. We have 66 million people living in countries in which malaria is endemic. Malaria compounds the effects of malnutrition and adds its effects to all the privations of poverty. That leads to a very high disease rate and to a very high mortality rate, especially among the young.

There are so many things which any reasonable, rational, world community should set out to do with even a fraction of the funds which at the moment are being spent on the accumulation of vast arsenals directed to destruction. We have an absolutely irrational, diabolical situation in which the world continues to engage in expenditure which has as its aim the maiming and killing of fellow human beings instead of the re-creation of the face of the earth, sustaining people and enabling them to grow in a relative degree of health and with hope. If there is something which pervades every part of the world- certainly amongst the youth- it is this feeling of hopelessness that we live in an age which seems to be in the grip of diabolical perversions of the sorts of social expenditures which governments are willing to undertake.

I refer to a very good study called ‘ World Military and Social Expenditures 1979’ by Ruth Sivard. Taking 10 per cent of the moneys presently spent on world military expenditures, she devised some eight or ten programs which would bring about a tremendous increase in meeting the essential needs of humanity. She wants safe water for all within the decade. She stated that contaminated water was responsible for four out of five infectious diseases, with diarrhoeal disease being the most common cause of death in young children. She wants to set aside $4 billion for that purpose. Vaccine protection for all children would be another program. In the developing world 15 million children die in a single year. Many are killed by diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis and so on. These children could be saved by adequate immunisation programs.

I believe that this matter of public importance has the support of all members of the chamber. It is saying that the real human and social requirements of the world ‘s population need to be met by governments. The Australian Government can take it from this debate that this chamber, this Parliament and all right thinking Australians of goodwill will support and demand every effort on the part of our diplomats around the world and our Ministers, to try to divert some of the tremendous expenditure on armaments and the military into projects which are creative and fulfilling for human beings- not only this generation, which seems trapped in this folly, but also future generations which I hope will look back to us in 1979 and perhaps to the United Nations Disarmament Week and say that at least we began to tackle this immense problem with humanity.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I begin by endorsing what Senator Tate said. I believe the matter before the Senate is a bipartisan one. The terms of the matter of public importance are:

The increasing world expenditure on arms and the need for all governments to exercise their influence to arrest this trend for the benefit of mankind.

The two elements of the matter of public importance are the increasing expenditure on armaments around the world by governments and the efforts that should be taken by all of usincluding the Australian Government- to try to reverse that trend. I believe that the issue is of great moral as well as practical importance and complexity. At one point Senator Tate said that surely this truth would be self-evident to a reasonable and rational world community. Often the world community, as a community, does not act reasonably and rationally. Perhaps we ought to be directing our attention- I suppose we are in a sense- not just to the surface issue of armaments, expenditure on armaments and the proliferation of weapons but also to the measures that might create a more reasonable and rational world community so that we will all behave more reasonably and rationally in our attitudes and relationships with one another on this very small globe that we inhabit.

Of course it is appalling that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually on armaments. Estimates range from $350 billion a year to more than $400 billion a year. Whatever the amount, we know that it is in the vicinity of $ 1 billion a day. This beggars the imagination. This is happening in a world where- again the figures are uncertain- it seems that at least 400 million children go to bed hungry every night and where thousands of children die every day through hunger. This happens unnecessarily and because the world does not act reasonably and rationally. There are issues beyond armaments and the proliferation of weapons that I think are important when addressing this issue. It is patently obvious that what is happening in this respect is not in the interests of the human race and its survival. It is essential that a country such as Australia- I am speaking in realistic terms, given that the world is not as reasonably and as rational as we would like- should maintain a real deterrent. It must have effective defence forces. Genuine efforts at general disarmament would obviate that need. It is towards that end and towards lasting peace in the world that we all direct our efforts. The question is how we do it and to what issues we direct our attention. It is obvious that we have to support the measures being taken in the United Nations, whatever reservations we may have at times about the sincerity with which some who are involved in those discussions approach the issues. We must hope that the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the super-powers will lead to greater mutual restraint on their part and that that, in the longer term as we approach SALT III, might lead to some reduction in the proliferation of the highly destructive armaments which the super-powers possess more than any other nation. We have to play our part by supporting the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. I think that earlier speakers expressed reservations about the effect of that treaty. Nevertheless it is there and it may be an instrument that we can support to some end. Obviously, wider disarmament must be the ultimate objective.

I conclude by saying that obviously the matter is of public importance to this chamber, to the Parliament, to the people of Australia and to people all over the world. There has been extensive debate this afternoon on this important issue. As Senator Tate suggested, this debate will provide the Government with a clear message: The Senate clearly believes that we must direct our attention increasingly to the question of arms expenditure and the need for disarmament in a world where hundreds of millions of people, particularly children in this International Year of the Child, are undernourished and suffering. As I said at the outset, I believe that there is a bipartisan approach to the issue and particularly to the objective. There may be a different approach as to how certain things might be achieved. I suggest the goal of disarmament is as obvious as its achievement is difficult. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1703

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

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

– by leave- On Senator Carrick ‘s behalf last Thursday Senator Chaney informed the Senate that the Government had some 10 Bills or groups of Bills listed for debate in the Senate this week. The Bills were set out in the program circulated before the Senate adjourned that day. It is now apparent that there could be some difficulty in achieving the program. For this reason a motion may have to be moved in respect of General Business on Thursday, but it is still hoped that the program can be completed in time to permit discussion of General Business. The social servicesrepatriation package did not, as honourable senators will be aware, become available for introduction in the Senate yesterday as the debate on these Bills in the House was delayed in order to permit the Opposition spokesman to attend an Estimates committee. The Government expects the debate in the Senate to proceed today as originally planned. Honourable senators will be aware that the increased benefits provided for in these Bills are to be paid to social service and repatriation beneficiaries as from next month. Although the same urgency does not attach to all other Bills in the program, it will be necessary to maintain progress if all of the measures that were announced in the Budget, and other essential legislation, are to be dealt with adequately before the end of the present sittings of the Parliament.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leaveThe Opposition wishes to make its usual protest about the sort of statement that has just been put down by Senator Webster. The Social Services Amendment Bill, the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill and the National Health Amendment Bills account for some 25 per cent of Budget expenditure, and some 50 per cent of taxation revenue. It is certainly not the fault of this House that these Bills were not passed through another place until last night. It is not the fault of the Opposition or anyone else in this place, except the Government, that they have been so late in arriving in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; yet we see employed again the old, old tactic that has been used by the Government since it came to office. We are told: ‘Unless you people go along with us the pensioners will miss out on their pension increases ‘.

We believe that these are important Billsmore important than the Government makes them out to be- and that they deserve full debate. They affect not only the pensioners but also the rights of people who, because of strikes, are out of work or who, for all sorts of reasons, have had to leave their employment. They should be fully debated. We will not do anything that will prevent a responsible and proper consideration of these Bills, but that does not mean that we will be willing to shorten debate or to force ourselves not to make the points that necessarily should be made, merely because of the blackmail- that is all that it can be described as- by the Government in suggesting that if we debate them fully we will be depriving pensioners of their payments.

I know, as does every other senator, that if necessary the Government will gag the legislation through, but that does not mean that we will fail to debate it fully and make the very important points that should be made. We have certain rights in this place. They should not be adversely affected by what happens in the other place or by the Government’s inability to get important legislation such as this before the Parliament in time for it to be passed in time for payments under it to be made. Therefore, I make the formal protest that the Opposition has made every time this has been attempted since the Government came to power.

page 1704

NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

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

Leave not granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– This Bill is the first step towards giving effect to the legislative obligations of the Commonwealth under the formal agreement which was executed by the Commonwealth and all States on 22 December 1978. A copy of the agreement, setting out the obligations of the parties, is a schedule to the Bill. The Bill establishes the National Companies and Securities Commission. The Commission will be a body corporate responsible to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities which has been established pursuant to the formal agreement. The Commission is to have such functions and powers as are conferred on it by Commonwealth and State companies and securities industry legislation.

In order that this national commission will have the necessary powers to administer that legislation in the States, each State is required under the agreement to pass legislation which complements this Bill. An Australian Capital Territory ordinance is also being prepared to provide for the establishment of the Office of Commissioner for Corporate Affairs for the Australian Capital Territory to enable the companies and securities industry legislation to be administered in that Territory.

On 6 March 1979, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) outlined the main elements of the scheme in the House of Representatives. The main elements of the scheme are embodied in the formal agreement which provides the framework for a cooperative, Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry.

The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. There is also provision for the scheme to be extended to the Northern Territory and to the external territories of the Commonwealth.

This Government believes that it has certain national responsibilities in the field of companies and securities which can only be discharged by a significant level of Commonwealth involvement. In 1974 the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange found that the present system of regulation of the securities markets in Australia was fragmented and unco-ordinated. That is equally true of the other areas of company law that may not impinge directly on the securities market. The Senate Committee accordingly proposed a national system of regulation.

There is widespread support in the community for Commonwealth involvement in a national system of companies and securities industry regulation. There are, however, differences between this Government and the Opposition on how that involvement is to be brought about. The former Labor Government opted for unilateral action by the Commonwealth insofar as it proposed to legislate without consultation with the States and rely solely on the Commonwealth’s legislative powers. This Government, however, has consistently preferred an approach of co-operation with the States to enacting unilateral legislation. We have recognised the importance of both Commonwealth and State interests and expertise in this area. Accordingly, the Commonwealth negotiated the formal agreement with the States for a Commonwealth and State co-operative scheme.

It is the Government’s firm view that joint Commonwealth and State involvement is the most effective way of promoting commercial certainty, bringing about a reduction in business costs, encouraging greater efficiency of the capital markets, and maintaining investor confidence in the securities markets through suitable provisions for investor protection. The National Companies and Securities Commission Bill is an historic piece of legislation. It is tangible evidence of the success of the Government’s policy of co-operative federalism.

This co-operative scheme is a model for joint Commonwealth and State action in other areas where there is a requirement for uniformity of laws and administration in the national interest. I must commend the State Ministers and their governments, along with the Commonwealth and State officers who have worked diligently on the scheme. Their co-operation and genuine spirit of teamwork has led to the successful development of the scheme. There have been difficulties from time to time. That must be expected in negotiations which have led to major changes in corporate regulation in Australia. However, all States have recognised the need for uniform national legislation. The differences have been overcome.

As I have said, the National Companies and Securities Commission Bill is the first of the series of Bills required to give effect to the Commonwealth’s legislative obligations under the agreement. Once this Bill is enacted, members of the Commission can be appointed, staff employed and the necessary administrative matters carried out so that the Commission will be ready to administer the substantive companies and securities industry legislation when enacted.

Bills regulating company take-overs, the securities industry and companies, will be introduced in the House of Representatives as soon as they have been cleared by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities.

I now turn to some of the specific provisions of the Bill. The Bill establishes the National Commission and sets out its powers and functions, staffing, financing and other operational aspects such as meetings and hearings. The Commission’s substantive powers and functions will be derived from Commonwealth and State companies and securities industry legislation.

State administrations will continue to operate with their powers and functions being delegated from the National Commission. The State administrations will be subject to direction by the Commission. The Commission will have between three and five members, at least three of which, including the Chairman, will be full time. Appointments, which will be made by the Governor-General on the nomination of the Ministerial Council, are for up to five years. There is provision for re-appointment. However, full time members may not continue beyond the age of 65. Remuneration and allowances of members will be determined by the Ministerial Council. The Council will be able to consult tribunals with experience in fixing rates. I should mention here that the Ministerial Council has already appointed a firm of managment consultants to handle the recruitment of the members of the National Commission. The positions have been advertised widely in the national Press. The management consultants are to prepare, for the Ministerial Council, a short list of applicants.

The Bill provides for the establishment of a register of financial interests to record interests of members and staff of the Commission. The Bill also provides for the notification of interests held by other persons performing functions under the Act. The Commission will appoint its own staff on terms and conditions which are determined by the Commission and approved by the Commonwealth Public Service Board. Ministers propose that the Commission will be a small, highpowered body with probably a staff of less than 100. There is also provision for engagement of consultants and interchange of staff between the Commission and the States and other Commonwealth bodies. The finance provisions of the Bill take account of the fact that the Commission is subject to joint Commonwealth-State control and will receive moneys from the Commonwealth and the States. The States will contribute 50 per cent of the costs and expenses of the Commission. The Bill allows the Commission to hold hearings in public or private in order to perform any of its functions or powers. Members of the Commission are empowered to summon witnesses to give evidence, and to administer oaths or affirmations. The delegation provisions allow for hearings to be conducted by State and Territory administrations.

The Government sees the establishment of this National Commission as the single, most vital step towards achieving uniformity both in companies and securities industry laws and in their administration. The Commission, and the scheme in general, will lead to the development of a more effective regulatory system and will facilitate a more efficient securities market in Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1705

SOCIAL 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill embodies the Government’s Budget proposals for improvements in Social Services pensions and benefits. It demonstrates the Government’s determination to continue to provide for those in need, notwithstanding the necessity to restrain Government expenditure. The proposals will add to reforms which have already benefited low income families generally. Honourable senators will recall that the current family allowance scheme brought increased assistance to some 300,000 families with 800,000 children who, simply because of their low incomes did not benefit fully, or at all, from the previous system of tax rebates.

The main provisions of the Bill are:

  1. Provision of twice-yearly indexation of pensions and benefits.
  2. Extension of the income limits for pensioner fringe benefits.
  3. Extension of wife’s pension to women who are in approved benevolent homes.
  4. Extension of wife’s pension to women who have no child in their care or who are under 50 years of age where their husbands are in benevolent homes.
  5. Extension of the standard rate of pension to wife pensioners where they or their pensioner husbands are likely to lose the economies of living together by reason of failing health.
  6. Provision for the payment of family allowances on a daily basis where the child moves from one person to another or enters or leaves an institution.
  7. Provision for the continuation of handicapped child ‘s allowance to a person ordinarily caring for a child where the child is temporarily in an institution approved for the payment of family allowance.

Other matters dealt with in the Bill, to which I will return later, include maintenance payments made on behalf of pensioners in benevolent homes, entitlement to double orphan’s pension, entitlement to unemployment benefit in cases of industrial action, postponement of unemployment benefit, and the effects of compensation awarded for the same incapacity as that for which sickness benefit has been granted.

Twice- Yearly Indexation

The Bill provides for twice-yearly indexation of pensions and benefits. Indexation increases will be made in May and November of each year. The next increase will come into effect on 1 November of each year. The next increase will come into effect on 2 November 1979 and will be paid on pension payday 8 November. I will refer to details of this increase a little later. The following automatic indexation increase in pensions and benefits will ocur in May 1980. The additional cost of providing twice-yearly indexation in respect of social security pensions and benefits is estimated to be $5 1 m in 1 979-80

Under the existing indexation provisions of the Social Services Act the following payments are automatically indexed in November each year on the basis of the percentage increase in the consumer price index between the two preceding June quarters: Age, invalid and widow’s pensions; wives’ pensions; sheltered employment allowances; supporting parents’ benefit; unemployment benefit for persons aged 18 or more with dependants; unemployment benefit for married persons aged 16 or 17; sickness benefit for all persons aged 1 8 or more; and the sickness benefit for married persons aged 16 or 1 7. All pensions and benefits now indexed once annually will continue to be indexed under the proposed twice-yearly indexation provisions. These adjustments, as appropriate, will apply also to special benefits.

In November 1979 the basic single rate of age and invalid pensions, sheltered employment allowance, unemployment benefit for persons aged 18 or more with dependents and sickness benefit for all persons aged 18 or more will be increased from $53.20 to $57.90 a week. The same increase will apply to widow’s pension and supporting parent’s benefit, to bring the basic rate for those payments to $57.90 a week also. The combined married rate of pension or benefit will be increased from $88.70 to $96.50 a week. These increases reflect the full 8.8 per cent increase in the CPI between the June quarter 1 978 and the June quarter 1979.

The Government will maintain the free of income test pension currently payable to those aged 70 or more. The rates are $5 1 .45 a week for single pensioners and $85.80 a week for married pensioner couples. People in receipt of these pensions may be eligible for a higher rate of payment depending on how much incomeexcluding pension- they receive. A single pensioner who, just before his 70th birthday, is receiving a reduced pension at say, $30 a week because of the income test will, on attaining 70 years of age, immediately become eligible for an increase in his pension to $51.45 a week. Similarly, a married man aged 69 with a wife aged 66 receiving reduced pensions, at say $30 a week each, because of the income test will, when the husband reaches 70 years of age, have his pension increased to $42.90 a week, but his wife will continue to receive a pension subject to the usual income test provisions until she reaches 70 years, whereupon her pension will also be increased to the basic free of income test pension rate.

Action will be taken to identify all pensioners who may be eligible for a higher rate and to invite them to test their eligibility for an increase if their income is below the relevant limit. I will return to this matter in a moment. The following table sets out the rates of pensions that will be payable to pensioners aged 70 years or more:

The new rates of pension and supporting parent’s benefit will come into effect on pay day 8 November 1979. The new rates of unemployment and sickness benefit will operate in respect of payments due on and after 1 November 1 979.

Fringe Benefit Income Limits

As the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) indicated in his ministerial statement on 21 August one area of great concern to pensioners has been the income test limits for pensioner fringe benefits. Commonwealth fringe benefits available to pensioners holding pensioner health benefit cards include access to bulk billing of medical fees; a range of free pharmaceuticals; access to free optometrical consultations and hearing aids; a one-third reduction in telephone rentals and some reductions in fares on Commonwealth rail and shipping services. In addition, State governments and various private organisations provide assistance to these pensioners.

At present a pensioner loses all of these fringe benefits if his private income reaches $33 a week for a single pensioner and $57.50 a week for a married pensioner couple. These amounts are higher in the case of recipients of sheltered employment allowance and where there are children. While it is difficult to calculate the value to the individual pensioner of fringe benefits, it has been suggested that, on average, they could be worth up to about $10 a week. The income limits for fringe benefits have been fixed for some time. Some pensioners have lost entitlement to fringe benefits as a result of increases to their superannuation or war pension over which they have no control. Accordingly, the Government has decided to amend the Social Services Act to increase the fringe benefit income limits to $40 a week for single pensioners and $68 a week for married pensioner couples. Increases for recipients of sheltered employment allowance will be slightly higher in order to maintain the prevailing differential between the limits for this group and pensioners.

The following table sets out the current and proposed fringe benefit limits:

It is estimated that some additional 25,000 pensioners and recipients of sheltered employment allowance with 5,000 dependants will qualify for pensioner health benefits as a result of these increases. Action is being taken by the Department of Social Security to identify those cases where departmental records indicate that a pensioner over 70 years of age could be entitled to a consumer price index related increase. Where the position is not clear, a letter will be sent to the pensioner or pensioner couple concerned, indicating the relevant income limit below which a CPI increase or fringe benefit entitlement will exist after 1 November 1979 and these pensioners will be invited to test their eligibility for a CPI increase and /or fringe benefits if their incomes are below the appropriate limit.

As the Minister for Health also indicated in his ministerial statement of 2 1 August, the Government has for some time been aware of differences in the treatment of sole parents receiving Class ‘A’ widow’s pension and supporting parent’s benefit. When we came to office, there was no specific assistance available to sole fathers and supporting mothers were not eligible for the full range of pensioner fringe benefits. They were not eligible for pensioner health benefits. In November 1977 this Government introduced the supporting parent’s benefit which replaced the supporting mothers’ benefit and extended eligibility for assistance to sole fathers on essentially the same basis as for sole mothers.

We have now decided to extend eligibility for pensioner health benefit cards to supporting parents subject to the liberalised pensioner fringe benefit income test outlined above. The extension involves amendments to the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act. As a result, Commonwealth fringe benefit assistance for supporting parents will be exactly the same as that for Class ‘A’ widow pensioners. The rates of pension and benefit are already the same.

It is estimated that some 56,000 supporting parent beneficiaries, including 2,500 men, with 96,000 dependants will qualify for pensioner health benefit cards. As a result their health costs will be reduced significantly. This will be of special assistance to those with young children, particularly children suffering from chronic illnesses. Eligibility for fringe benefits provided by State government and other organisations is usually restricted to holders of pensioner health benefit cards. The extension of these benefits to supporting parent beneficiaries and to pensioners with private income between the existing and proposed income limits of pensioner health benefits eligibility will be a matter for the States and other responsible bodies.

Wife’s Pension

A wife’s pension is payable to the wife of an age or invalid pensioner where the wife is not qualified for such pension in her own right. Payment is subject to the income test. As I have already indicated, wife’s pension will be extended to women who are in benevolent homes and to women with no child or who are under 50 years of age where their age or invalid pensioner husbands are in benevolent homes. Benevolent homes are approved as such by the DirectorGeneral under authority contained in the Social Services Act. Another change in relation to wife ‘s pension is that the standard rate in lieu of the married rate will be paid where the living expenses of a married couple are likely to be greater than they would otherwise be by reason that they are unable, as a result of the illness or infirmity of either or both of them to live together in a matrimonial home- for example, where either or both partners enter a benevolent home, a nursing home or hospital. The proposed changes for wife pensioners will place a married couple in the same position as a couple who are both age or invalid pensioners.

Maintenance of Pensioners in Benevolent Homes

Consistent with the proposal which the Commonwealth has put to the States and the Northern Territory that the Hospital CostSharing Agreements be varied to provide for charges in respect of nursing home type patients in recognised hospitals, it has been decided to bring the contribution which pensioners in benevolent homes make for their maintenance in line with the contribution which the Government has adopted as a desirable objective for hospital patients generally. Under current arrangements pensioners in benevolent homes retain up to $18.75 a week from their pension including supplementary asistance for their own use. The balance of the person’s pension is paid direct to the benevolent home for his maintenance. Under the new arrangements, which will come into effect on a date to be proclaimed, the contribution made to the home for persons entering benevolent homes will be increased to $54.95 a week to bring it in line with the contribution by patients in non-Government nursing homes. This will leave a pensioner receiving supplementary assistance with $7.95 a week for his own use.

A savings provision has been inserted in the Bill to ensure that when the new arrangements come into effect no existing benevolent home pensioner will be paid an amount lower than that which he is then receiving. The savings provision will provide that any subsequent increases in pension will be applied towards the maintenance of the pensioner until such time as the amount of maintenance equals the contribution by nursing home patients. I should emphasise that the proposed deduction from pension will in no way reduce a person’s total pension entitlement. It will merely mean that a greater amount than that which is currently deducted from pension will be paid to the home for maintenance purposes.

Family Allowance, Double Orphan’s Pension Handicapped Child’s Allowance

At present, family allowance is payable in periods which commence on the fifteenth day of one month and end on the fourteenth day of the next month. Payment is made, for the whole period, to the person or approved institution having the care of the child on the first day of the pay period. This can mean that a person or institution having the care of a child for the greater part of a period but not the commencement, receives nothing by way of family allowance in respect of that period. Broadly stated, the conditions for payment of the. family allowance apply also to the double orphan’s pension and the handicapped child’s allowance, but the handicapped child’s allowance is not payable to an institution. Consequently the absence of a child from the family home for a few days covering the commencement of a family allowance period can result in the non-payment to the parent or guardian of amounts of $47.70 and $65 a month respectively. To correct this the Government proposes that, where a child moves from one person to another or enters or leaves an institution, entitlement will be decided on the basis of the number of days for which a child is in the care of the person or institution.

In respect of a handicapped child ‘s allowance the absence of a child from the private home for a short period can be disregarded and payment continued uninterrupted provided family allowance continues to be payable to the parent or guardian. However, under existing conditions, if a child enters an institution to which family allowance is payable the parent or guardian loses handicapped child ‘s allowance. It is proposed to amend the law to enable handicapped child ‘s allowance to be paid to the parent or guardian where the child is in an endowed institution for a temporary period. However, as at present, the handicapped child ‘s allowance will not be payable where handicapped children’s benefits or nursing home benefits is paid to an institution.

Double Orphan’s Pension

In order to qualify for a double orphan’s pension a person must be caring for a child, other than a child he has adopted, both of whose parents are no longer living, or one of whose parents is deceased and the other is not able, because of specified circumstances, to support the child. Honourable senators will be aware that some people have travelled overseas to adopt children under the laws of other countries or to bring children to Australia with a view to adoption under Australian law. Overseas adoptions may not be recognised under Australian law. While there is no barrier to payment of a double orphan’s pension where a child, Australian born or otherwise, is awaiting adoption in Australia, it has never been the intention to pay the double orphan’s pension for any adopted child, including those adopted under the laws of another country. The proposed amendment in this Bill will ensure there is no doubt about this.

Unemployment Benefit- Industrial Action

It is a condition of eligibility for unemployment benefit under section 107 of the Social Services Act that the claimant must satisfy the Director-General that he is unemployed and that his unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike. In the interpretation of this provision successive Governments have followed two basic principles: Firstly, the Government cannot permit unemployment benefit to in effect become strike pay; secondly, responsibility for sponsorship or support of a strike by a trade union must be accepted equally by all members of that union.

Doubts have been expressed as to whether these principles are fully supported by the existing law. It is for this reason that the Act is being amended. The Bill provides that unemployment benefit will not be payable to a person whose unemployment was or is due to industrial action by himself or by members of a union of which he is a member. The disqualification for unemployment benefit will continue while the industrial action is in force but will no longer apply after the industrial action has ceased. Industrial action will not only include a strike but will also include such action as bans, go-slow tactics or other unauthorised limitations on the performance of work. However, the definition expressly excludes bans, limitations or other restrictions on work which are authorised by the employer of the person concerned.

The Bill provides that the rate of unemployment or sickness benefit for a married person shall be at the unmarried rate plus additional benefit for children, if the spouse is not or would not be qualified for unemployment benefit by reason of taking industrial action. The Bill also provides that special benefit will not be payable to a person in respect of a period for which he is not qualified for unemployment benefit as a result of industrial action.

Unemployment Benefit- Postponement

At present the Director-General has the authority to postpone for such period as he thinks fit, the date from which unemployment benefit shall be payable where: Firstly, a person’s unemployment is due, either directly or indirectly to his voluntary act which, in the opinion of the Director-General, was without good and sufficient reason; secondly, a person’s unemployment is due to his misconduct as a worker; or thirdly, a person has refused or failed, without good and sufficient reason, to accept an offer of employment which the Director-General considers suitable. Provision is made in the Bill for postponement of unemployment benefit for a minimum period of six weeks and a maximum period of 1 2 weeks in these circumstances.

Sickness Benefit and Compensation

When a person receives compensation in respect of the same incapacity and in respect of the same period for which he is qualified to receive sickness benefit the benefit otherwise payable is reduced by the extent of the compensation payment. There is no dual payment of benefit and compensation unless the rate of compensation is less than the rate of sickness benefit. In these cases the amount of benefit paid brings the persons ‘s total income to the maximum rate of sickness benefit otherwise payable. In the usual case it is intended that sickness benefit should be paid only until such time as the person receives compensation. In the event of a lump sum award covering the same period for which benefit has been paid and being in respect of the same incapacity, the amount of benefit paid is recovered from the client or the person responsible for paying compensation or the insurer. Over recent years, however, practices have come to notice which limit the Commonwealth’s ability to reduce or recover sickness benefit in these cases.

Amendments proposed in the Bill will ensure that the Department of Social Security has power to effect recovery of sickness benefit payments once compensation has been received for the same incapacity in respect of which sickness benefits have been paid. In addition, greater responsibility will be placed upon the client, the person responsible to pay compensation and the insurer to notify the Department of events which impinge upon recovery of amounts paid out by the Department.

Machinery Amendments

There are a number of machinery amendments in the Bill. These will: Firstly, authorise the appointment of a second Deputy DirectorGeneral of Social Services; secondly, authorise the appointment of Directors of Social Services in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; thirdly, make amendments consequent upon the new self-governing status of the Northern Territory; and, fourthly, make several drafting amendments of a correcting or consequential nature. These amendments do not involve any additional expenditure.

Costs

Expenditure from the National Welfare Fund on pensions and benefits payable under the Social Services Act is estimated to be $7390m for 1 979-80 which will be an increase of $650m over expenditure in 1978-79. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made in an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I just want to speak briefly to the motion. For the reasons which were stated by Senator Grimes earlier and in spite of what happened last week, the Opposition has agreed to the incorporation of the second reading speech because we believe the Bill to be an urgent one. Nevertheless, the Opposition was provoked last week because of the failure of the Government to agree to reasonable debating time. However, because of the reasons stated by Senator Grimes, the Opposition agrees to the incorporation of the second reading speeches of the Bill just presented and those about to be presented.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1710

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

In introducing the Social Services Amendment Bill 19791 referred to the Government ‘s decision to extend the eligibility for pensioner health benefit cards to supporting parents. This will mean that supporting parents and their dependants, other than those excluded by the income test provided in the Social Services Act, will be entitled to receive certain fringe benefits. Under the National Health Act the holders of pensioner health benefit cards are entitled to free pharmaceutical benefits, and hearing aids. Clause 3 of this Bill amends the definition of ‘pensioner’ in the National Health Act to include supporting parent beneficiaries. Eligible supporting parents, along with recipients of age, invalid, widows and service pensions and of sheltered employment and tuberculosis allowances, will be entitled to be supplied with pharmaceutical benefits without charge. This entitlement extends to the pensioners ‘ dependants. This initiative is evidence of the Government’s concern for pensioners on low incomes, and others, such as supporting parents, who are among the disadvantaged in our community. Mr President, I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1711

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

I have already introduced the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979 which extends entitlement to free pharmaceutical benefits to supporting parents. This Bill contains a further measure to give effect to the Government’s decision, as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget Speech, to extend eligibility for pensioner health benefit cards to supporting parents.

By virtue of section 10 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, eligible pensioners, as defined in the Act, are entitled to Commonwealth medical benefits at the rate of 85 per cent of the schedule fee, or the amount of the schedule fee less $5, whichever is the higher. Clause 3 of the Bill before the Senate amends the definition of ‘eligible pensioner’ in the Act to include recipients of the supporting parents benefit. As honourable senators will realise, the effect of the amendment will be to entitle supporting parents who satisfy the pensioner health benefits income test to Commonwealth medical benefits at the level applicable to eligible pensioners generally. A further effect will be to enable supporting parents, as is the position with all eligible pensioners, to assign to the practitioner rendering the service the Commonwealth medical benefits involved.

As I stated when introducing the National Health Bill (No. 3) 1979, the extension of these benefits is further evidence of the Government’s continuing concern for pensioners on low incomes and other disadvantaged persons in the community. Mr President, I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1711

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill provides for amendment of the Repatriation Act and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act to give effect to the Government’s Budget decisions covering introduction of service pensions for allied veterans; twice-yearly indexation of the main repatriation pensions; increases in the contribution that service pensioners in benevolent homes must make towards meeting the cost of their care and accommodation; easing of access to pensioner health benefits by raising the maximum levels of income that a service penioner may receive before becoming ineligible to receive such benefits; and increases in the levels of Attendant’s Allowance and Orphans’ Pension.

In respect of veterans of allied countries, this Bill honours an election promise of the Government made in 1977. It will mean recognition in a material way of the contribution which allied veterans made in war against common enemies. From 7 February 1980 eligible veterans will be able to receive a service pension on a similar basis to that applying to British Commonwealth veterans.

For the information of honourable senators I would like to explain that the service pension is similar to the age pension granted under the Social Services Act. It is granted five years earlier than the age pension to a veteran who has served in a theatre of war, has reached the age of 60 years if a male, or 55 years if a female, or has become permanently unemployable. In relation to an allied veteran the specific requirements he will have to meet are that he- served as a member of a formally raised force; served in a theatre of war; resided in Australia for at least 10 years; satisfies the income test applicable to Australian and British Commonwealth veterans; and reached 60 years of age if a male or 55 years if a female or become permanently unemployable.

For the purposes of the legislation, an allied country is one which was engaged with Australia in a war or war-like conflict against a common enemy and would include forces of governments-in-exile during the 1939-1945 War and includes members of the Free French Movement under General de Gaulle and comparable forces.

Since the announcement of the extension of service pensions to allied veterans, there has been some speculation about who will be eligible. Mr President, for the benefit of those who require clarification of this aspect, I would emphasise that service pensions will not be available to persons who served in irregular forces such as partisan groups. We all admire the excellent record and results achieved by such people but it is almost impossible to establish whether individuals who claim to have been partisans or members of other irregular forces were actually members of those forces and fought against a common enemy. The policy adopted is no different from that applicable to Australians who may have been in like circumstances.

To be considered to have served in a theatre of war, a person would need to have been exposed to danger from hostile forces by serving outside the country of his enlistment or to have actually been engaged against the enemy in his own country. A person who, at any time, served in the forces of a country that was at a particular time at war with Australia, or engaged in war-like operations against Australian forces, is precluded from receiving a service pension. For example, if an Italian fought against the allies in the early part of the 1939-1945 War and subsequently fought with the allies he would be ineligible to receive a pension. Again, a member of the French forces who fought with the allies in the early part of the war and subsequently fought with the Vichy French forces would also be excluded from receiving a service pension. To assist in the processing of claims, documentation associated with a claim will, of necessity, require translation into the English language.

Mr President, there has been some lack of understanding of the Government’s intention as to what extension of the service penson to allied veterans involves. I take this opportunity to make clear that allied veterans will not, under repatriation legislation, be eligible for income tax concessions, a defence service homes loan, or repatriation medical treatment benefits. Allied veterans will be eligible to receive only an income-tested service pension and funeral benefits. The only other benefit which they may be able to receive would be a pensioner health benefits card, issued to age and service pensioners by the Department of Social Security and the Depanment of Veterans’ Affairs respectively and which requires the veteran to satisfy a further income test.

Any allied ex-serviceman who considers that he is entitled under the provisions of the legislation to receive a service pension should contact the Depanment of Veterans’ Affairs to determine his eligibility. Each case, of course, will then be examined and decided in accordance with the legislation. I should mention that officers of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs have already done a great deal of research into matters related to theatre of war service and will be in a position to assist and verify claims in this respect.

Turning to other aspects in the Bill, Mr President, the main repatriation pensions will, in line with proposed changes to pensions paid under the Social Services Act, be increased automatically from the first pension pay day in May and November of each year to take account of changes in the consumer price index. The pensions affected by this change are the special rate- totally and permanently incapacitatedpension, intermediate rate and general rate pensions as well as the war and defence widows’ pensions and service pensions.

Honourable senators will be aware that the Social Services Act is to be amended to bring the level of the contribution which pensioners make for their maintenance in benevolent institutions in line with the contribution which the Government has adopted in respect of nursing home type patients generally. In line with the changes proposed to the Social Services Act this Bill proposes that service pensioners receiving long term care in benevolent homes will be required to make similar contributions to those made by age and invalid pensioners.

Service pensioners in benevolent homes currently retain up to $ 1 8.75 a week from their pension including allowances for their own use. The contribution to be made by a service pensioner after the new arrangements are proclaimed will be increased to $54.95 a week and this amount will approximately accord with the contribution of pensioners in non-government nursing homes. This will leave the pensioner with $7.95 a week.

The Government is mindful of the burden placed on the wives of such pensioners and, therefore, the rate of pension payable to the wife of a service pensioner in a long term nursing institution is to be increased to the standard rate of $57.90 a week from 1 November 1979. Any additional payment for children will be made to the wife while they are in her care, custody and control. The standard rate pension payable to a wife will continue in payment while the veteran continues to be cared for under long term care arrangements. If a veteran is discharged from, or dies whilst in a benevolent home, the service pension will revert to the married rate, but in the majority of cases, it will be to the widow’s advantage to transfer to a Social Security pension. Of this she will, of course, be advised. A service pensioner who is currently a long term patient will be protected and the level of his pension will not be reduced below the amount currently payable under section 95 of the Repatriation Act, provided he remains an in-patient, but if discharged and re-admitted, the new provision will apply.

The maximum levels of income which a service pensioner may earn before becoming ineligible to receive pensioner health benefits, repatriation medical treatment and other Commonwealth benefits, such as telephone rental concessions, are to be increased from 1 November 1979. In the case of a single pensioner the limit will be lifted from $1,716 to $2,080 per annum and for a married pensioner from $ 1,495 to $1,768 per annum. A blinded veteran or one suffering a spinal incapacity who requires an attendant, will have his attendant’s allowance increased from $14.70 to $17.50 a week. In the case of a veteran who has been blinded and is afflicted with total loss of speech or total deafness the allowance is to be increased from $14.90 to $35 a week. Similar increases in attendant’s allowance will be made for severely disabled amputees who require an attendant.

The levels of orphan’s pension are also to be increased. The rate applicable for a child in the care of his mother, adoptive or step-parent, will rise by $2.05 to $12.50 a week. If both parents are deceased, or the child is not being maintained by a parent, adoptive parent or stepparent the rate will rise by $4.10 to $25 a week. Increases in attendant’s allowance, orphan’s pension and the prescribed maximum level of income set in respect of service pensioners are to come into effect from the first pension pay day in November 1979.

An opportunity has been taken to incorporate in the BUI some very minor machinery amendments desirable to facilitate administration of the Act. They are not of such significance to warrant the attention of the Senate. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1713

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Grimes had moved by way of an amendment:

At end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should legislate for increases, in line with increased costs caused by inflation, in the food and accommodation subsidy paid to those who provide assistance to homeless persons. ‘.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– Before the sitting of the Senate was adjourned last night, I was addressing myself to the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill 1979 and to the amendment moved by my colleague, the Opposition spokesperson on social security, Senator Grimes. For the benefit of honourable senators, the amendment reads:

At the end of motion, add ‘but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should legislate for increases, in line with increased costs caused by inflation, in the food and accommodation subsidy paid to those who provide assistance to homeless persons. ‘.

Senator Mason during his supporting speech last night, provided the Senate with figures which he said related to the situation of homeless persons in Melbourne. I queried whether the figure he mentioned of 7,000 homeless persons could be considered a true and accurate figure. I doubted whether in fact there had ever been a survey done to establish just how many homeless people there are in our communities. I certainly do not know of any such survey. In my mind I am quite positive that one has not been carried out on all of those people whom I consider would come into the category of homeless people in the State of Western Australia.

I question whether in fact a survey has been done of those people who, I regard, would perhaps constitute tile largest number of homeless people in Western Australia. I refer to the Aboriginal population, a large proportion of whom would be centred on the metropolitan area where they are still in some large numbers sleeping under bridges and sheets of tin, on vacant blocks of land, under trees, in parks or wherever they can get shelter. Of course some of them are aware that shelters are available to them; and they attend these shelters on a fairly regular basis. I do not think these people have been taken into consideration when figures such as 7,000, have been mentioned. I believe that the figures would be much greater in the highly concentrated population areas of Melbourne and Sydney.

I would think that even the figure of 7,000 would be a conservative estimate in the city of Perth alone. I made the point last night that when my office contacted the Department of Social Security in Perth yesterday it could not obtain any information about the sorts of organisations which had made submissions for assistance under this program and which had had those submissions rejected. I also made the point that the Department of Social Security is obviously not concerned with organisations that are unsuccessful. Yet people in those organisations may be the very people who could give the Department most valuable information as to the number of homeless people in a community. I am rather surprised that the Department of Social Security has not seen the necessity to keep an accurate list of organisations that apply and individuals who apply for grants, no matter under which Act they apply for subsidies. That practice would assist governments in establishing just how many people in the community are disadvantaged in some way. One has to suggest that perhaps these people are considered to be statistically invisible- the unknown. Perhaps there is a department already established that is supposed to cater for their needs even though that department may not be fulfilling their needs.

As I also mentioned last night, a large number of people have been forced to migrate to the cities from country centres because no work is available for them in the country. These people are mainly young men and women who have found no employment opportunities in their own home-town centres where their parents reside. They then gravitate to the cities. They hope- I think rather vainly at this point in time- that perhaps the situation in the city might be better for them. Many of them are extremely disappointed to find that employment opportunities are just as scarce in those city centres as they are in country centres. Many of them find it impossible to live on $36 a week. I imagine that it would be extremely difficult for any of us in this place to live on $36 a week. It is no less difficult for those young people. I suggest that many of them do in fact join together and live in a communal-type housing area where perhaps they can share the cost of a house or flat. They can share the cost of food and, therefore, be able to eat more cheaply and perhaps at a little higher standard. As a result of all those things, they may even manage to live with a little dignity.

Some young people are not in a position to take advantage of knowing other people in a like position. I imagine that those people gravitate to crisis centres or refuges. As I have said in this place many times, a number of women’s refuges in Perth find that they have to cater for the needs of young women who suddenly find themselves destitute and without a place to stay. For instance, in Perth there is a refuge known as Nardine which has actually taken over a house next door to it. The house has been devoted almost entirely to providing accommodation for young people but it does not qualify for a subsidy. I do not think it would qualify for a subsidy under this Bill either. That disturbs me a great deal. The people who use that service are homeless. Because of their youth, they are possibly more homeless than a lot of other people in the community. All of us are aware that a large number of young people have become unemployed or have never been employed in the community. I think the figure in July last was something like 150,000 young people unemployed and who were under 20 years of age. I imagine that at that age a person is in an extremely disturbing situation when he finds that he is rejected not only once but also sometimes anything up to ten or perhaps 12 times in a week when he applies for a position. He would have $36 a week unemployment benefit coming in and absolutely nowhere to stay.

A number of crisis centres are run by voluntary organisations. For instance, in Western Australia we have the Jesus People, an organisation amongst a number of others. The Jesus People organisation is the group I know best. Up until May this year it ran a hostel in Adelaide Terrace, Perth- right in the city- which was capable of accommodating 70 people a night. I have been assured that very few nights went by when it was not fully booked out. At times, people were sent to another refuge because the accommodation for them just was not available. The hostel was situated at the old Westminster Hospital. That property was required for a multi-storey development and the facility is now lost. Young homeless people in Perth have lost that facility in the centre of the city. At the moment the Jesus People organisation has a crisis centre which can cater for the needs of some 25 boys and 10 girls, which is a big difference to the 70 people it was accommodating up until May of this year.

The figure of government subsidies that I was most interested in relates to the financial year ended 30 June 1 979 when the group still had the Westminster Hospital operating as a hostel. In that period it received Federal government subsidies of only $9,344. If one notes the fact that the hostel was almost fully occupied each nightthat is, with up to 70 people- one sees that $9,344 does not go very far. The subsidy not only related to 75c a night a person for accommodation, but also to 25c a meal a person. Of course, the hostel provided far in excess of that number of meals each day. People in the community perhaps would not consider going to a crisis centre and asking for overnight accommodation. They might go for a meal on a onceafortnight basis when they are waiting for their unemployment benefit or pension cheque to come through. They may occasionally go for a meal, possibly once a week. They may be in the habit of going there once a day because they know that the facility is available. I imagine that many of them would go there purely and simply for company because they are so alone and feel so homeless in a society which has virtually turned its back on them. One of the most disturbing elements of my conversation with the Jesus People about homeless people was that I was told that the large majority of homeless people appear to be between the ages of 16 and 19. When I asked them what was the major cause of so many young people being homeless to the extent that they went to crisis centres and to hostels, their spokesperson said, without any hesitation at all: ‘Unemployment’. I said, ‘Is this unemployment that they are affected by directly, or is this unemployment in their immediate family?’ I was told that as a general rule it was their own unemployment that was the cause of their being homeless, because of the effect their being unemployed had on their own immediate family.

It is not infrequent now for parents of young people to find that they suddenly become unemployed. That creates more tension in the home, and that in turn creates more homelessness in society, because it makes it extremely difficult for a person who has held a job, sometimes for a number of years, to suddenly find out that that job is taken away from him and he is no longer able to be accommodated in another like position. Suddenly he is at home, and if there are already unemployed young people in the same household more tension is created. I believe that governments do have responsibilities to all of these people. We on this side of the chamber are concerned that there has been no increase in the subsidy since it was introduced by the Whitlam Government in 1974, despite the fact that there have been dramatic increases in costs in that time. We believe that it is quite unrealistic for the subsidy to remain at 75c for accomodation and 25c for meals. There has been no recognition even of inflation by the Government in the amendment that has been put forward.

The second reading speech of the Minister ki Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) referred to the Youth Services Program under which $3m has been offered to State governments on a dollar-for-dollar basis over a three-year period. I must admit that I was concerned that when the Minister originally announced this problem, which from memory was almost on the eve of the Victorian State election, it appeared that Victoria would receive the lion’s share of the $3m. I understood her to say at that time that half a million dollars would be allocated to Victoria each year for three years, and that would have meant that only $ 1.5m would be divided among the other States and the Territory over the same three-year period. I am therefore extremely grateful to the Minister and to my colleague, Senator Grimes, for the question that was asked at Question Time this afternoon and the reply given by the Minister in which she clarified the situation. That half a million dollars related not only to the Federal Government subsidy but also to the matching dollar-for-dollar by the Victorian State Government.

I was also under the impression that the Western Australian State Government was not very enchanted with the youth services program and indeed had showed some reluctance to participate. I am feeling quite a bit better about it now that the Minister has clarified it for us and has been able to tell us today that there would be a grant of $83,800 from Federal funding- and one presumes on a dollar-for-dollar basis- an amount in excess of $160,000 available to the people of Western Australia through the State and Federal governments for a much needed program. I do not believe, however, that that is a sufficient amount. At least it is an amount. Perhaps we will see that during the three-year period there will be increases from the federal sphere.

Whilst I have devoted quite a bit of my speech to the problems of the young people who must be classified as homeless, there are other people in the community who also qualify. I read last night into the Hansard the definition that was given by the Law Reform Commission as to who constitutes a homeless person. I have mentioned the Aboriginals, who do not have a permanent residence, and the fact that they are perhaps more obvious in city areas than they might be in outer metropolitan or country areas. Then there are the older people who are perhaps suddenly faced with unemployment and unable to keep up their payments for either rent or the purchase of their home, either for themselves or for themselves and their dependants. They are all homeless people in the strict definition of the word.

I want to clarify the Hansard record, a copy of which I saw this morning, which does not seem to tally with the figures that Senator Grimes gave last night. I think it is a simple error. There appears to have been a line left out. The figures which I have had provided to me by the Estimates committee indicate that over the various years there has been an amount of money that has been allocated and a lesser amount spent. I think it is important that the record is set straight. I think it is important for people to realise that these figures are presented by responsible officers of the Department in reply to questions by members of the Senate Estimates committees following the Budget and the Supply Bills each year.

In 1975-76 the allocation was $4.4m, of which only $ 1.6m was spent. In 1976-77 the allocation was $2.8m, and $ 1.5m was spent. In 1977-78 the allocation was $5. 57m, and $1. 73m was spent. In 1978-79 the allocation was $3. 88m and $2.08m was spent. If we add all those figures together we get a total allocation over those four years of $ 16.65m, and a total amount spent of $6.83m. In other words, more than $10m was returned to the Treasury. I believe that there have been plenty of opportunities for that money to have been spent. I am sure that with the increases in prices and costs the demand for subsidies must have increased over those four years. I am very disturbed to find that there has not been one year when more than half of the money allocated by this Parliament under the homeless persons assistance program has in actual fact been spent and to find that over four years $ 10m, or $2. 5m a year, has been returned to the Treasury. That is nothing short of criminal.

I believe that people who are considered homeless are extremely vulnerable. Last night we heard Senator Grimes, as a medical practitioner, speak of some of the pressures which are being applied to those people and which are affecting their health. I believe that their morale is very low and that the opportunities are always there for people who are homeless, people who do not feel that they are being supported by the community, to venture into petty crime, into problems of drugs which are so prevalent in our community. Governments have to accept some responsibility to ensure that every possible assistance is given to those people who are homeless, in the same way that I expect them to accept their responsibility with regard to those people who are disadvantaged in any way. Those people are part and parcel of the Australian community. They are entitled not only to be accepted by government but also to be treated by the Commonwealth Government and the State Government concerned as Australian citizens. I commend Senator Mason for the words that he expressed last night, and I support the amendment.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I thank the honourable senators who have spoken in the debate on the Homeless Persons Amendment Bill. Several matters were raised during the debate, and I would like to refer to some of them. The matters that were raised by Senator Grimes with regard to the way in which the Act has been administered perhaps leads me to go back to the beginning in 1 974 when, at the introduction of the Bill, Mr Hayden, the then Minister, stated that it was a Bill that would provide for homeless persons. He also stated that many of the men and women who would benefit from the improved services for the homeless were people who were receiving income security benefits at rates and under the conditions which had been liberalised since the end of 1972. Mr Hayden further stated that they could therefore be expected to contribute towards the cost of these services, and that eligible organisations receiving grants and subsidies would be able to make an appropriate charge for services provided to the homeless. I think that point should not be overlooked, when we are talking about the level of subsidy that is given. Although I certainly would not argue that there has been no increase in costs, it -has not been possible to increase the subsidy levels for meals and accommodation that have been provided.

I think that some of the things which were mentioned by Senator Grimes with regard to the operation of the program overlook the objective of the Government at the time, when it was said that it was hoped that the scope might be widened in light of the experience to extend eligibility also to State departments and to authorities. In regard to the homeless persons assistance program, the activities of the States now indicate an interest in some of the matters covered by the program. The Government attempted to interest the States more actively in the Homeless Persons Assistance Act and to see whether they would be prepared to work with the Commonwealth Government under the Act in some sort of matching arrangement, but the States were not inclined to do that. However, as has been stated throughout the debate, the youth services program is one in which the States are working on a matching basis with the Commonwealth Government, and the community health program, under which women’s refuges are funded, is another program where the States are working well with the Commonwealth Government.

In these other programs we can see what Mr Hayden outlined in 1 974 becoming the way in which the States and the Commonwealth worked together to meet a very distressing need. The fact that not all these programs are financed under the Homeless Persons Assistance Program may be a matter for comment, but I do not know that it is one for concern. I can see that the homeless persons program is an appropriate place in which to deal with the youth refuge program and the women’s refuge program. However, Government funding being as it is, the Ministers concerned with these problems use the funds that are available to them. In the case of the youth program, 1 was able to use funds through the Office of Child Care in my own Department and institute a new program in which the States worked with us.

Matters were raised about Government spending in each year. Although I think Senator Grimes answered his own questions, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the difficulties that have occurred for those organisations which were given approval but were not able to use the funds in the year in which it was expected that they would be called upon. The total Government spending on recurrent expenditure has increased from $676,000 in 1975 to $974,000 in 1978. The delays on capital projects are mostly attributable to the two large Brisbane projects, which are now to be completed this year. The $4.9m that was provided in each of the years mentioned by honourable senators and which was of concern to them were delayed by appeals in local government courts. There were difficulties with some of the other projects at the time when we hoped that they would proceed. It will be recalled that this Bill was introduced on a three-year basis. In the amendment before the Senate we are providing for the removal of a terminating date for the Bill and are proceeding to use the Bill as a permanent piece of Commonwealth legislation, without the restriction of a time. These matters commend themselves to all those who are interested in homeless persons assistance. (Quorum formed). I was talking about the expenditure under the Bill, the difficulties that many organisations have found in actually using the capital, and the difficulties which have arisen. The Bill now contains no terminating date and is one under which the Government can now give consideration to the future funding of the program.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Grimes’ amendment) be added.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 30

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 6.6 to 8 p.m.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) whether we can have some clarification as to just what the future of the projects under this legislation will be. Is it likely that any more will be approved this year or are the only ones to be approved and funded this year the two projects in Brisbane, which were approved last year and delayed because of local difficulties? Is there any likelihood of what the Opposition considers to be quite unreasonable levels of payment of 75c for board and 25c for meals, which have been in existence since 1974, being raised before the next Budget?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-The legislation is now a permanent piece of Commonwealth legislation under which at Budget time or any other appropriate time in the future projects can be considered for funding. Additional capital funding was considered this year, but it was considered that the only funds that could be made available were those to complete the projects that had been approved. The Government will need to consider what funds are to be applied to this legislation in the future. I have no statement to make at present with regard to any consideration of the matter prior to the next Budget. Of course, it is always competent for the Government to consider these matters. I have arranged to meet with the homeless persons advisory committees on 5 November. They wish to talk with me about the future of the homeless persons welfare program. I know that they have been giving their attention to the direction of the program. I think I would be safe in assuming that they would also have the same problem as Senator Grimes has seen with regard to recurrent costs. These were considered in the Budget and were not increased this year. I hope that on some future occasion it will be possible to give the sort of support to homeless persons programs that everyone in this place would like to see.

As I mentioned before the suspension of the sitting, the Government has given the funds to complete the two large Queensland projects and I do not think honourable senators should discount the effectiveness of the programs when it is considered that in this year the Government is providing for almost 950,000 bed-nights and over one million meals. This shows that the Homeless Persons Assistance Act is fulfilling many of the hopes that people had when it was introduced. I can only say that in the Budget context or at some appropriate time the Government will consider funding further programs under the legislation. We have a number of applications and I think that very useful work could be performed. I would certainly be putting to the Government applications for future funding.

I think Senator Coleman said that she was unable to gain from the Department of Social Security figures on the numbers of applications that had been lodged. I am advised that my Department in Perth was not able to release figures to her because some of the figures requested would have taken some time to obtain and could not have been given immediately on the telephone and others were being treated as confidential between the agencies and my Department and could not be released without the authority of the organisations concerned. All applications which have been received and which come within the program are in hand within the Department and it is a matter of having funds authorised by the Government to enable some of these projects to be approved in the future. But it is now a permanent program of the Commonwealth Government and it will seek funds as does every other program from time to time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) for the information she has given. I just make the plea that was made by myself, Senator Mason and others who spoke in the second reading debate. We are facing an increasingly difficult problem in this area of homeless persons assistance, with economic difficulties, unemployment and the number of people coming under the care of the various organisations which look after the homeless in this country increasing. Already under the existing programs, and even with the two large projects in Brisbane, charitable organisations will have to turn people away. We always seem to be chasing deficits in this area and chasing problems after they have occurred, when there are organisations with vast experience in this field who attempt at least partially to anticipate the problems. I believe it is the duty of government and the duty of this Parliament to assist these organisations in anticipating the problems and helping to make life a little easier for both them and those for whom they care.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Having not spoken in the second reading debate, I direct an appeal to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to give urgent consideration to an increase in the amounts which are to be made available under this Bill. One often wonders whether it might have been better not to have given anything at all. That is not quite correct; even the 25c meal subsidy does achieve something. But, to go from nothing to 25c is to move in a very small way to try to correct a very serious situation. Senator Grimes and others in their speeches at the second reading stage identified and emphasised just what the needs are. It seems to me that every honourable senator would voice some concern that only 25c is to be provided to assist organisations in the provision of meals to homeless persons. Such a small subsidy will only add to the frustration of those who give so much voluntary effort to assist these people. The amount we give is so little when the need is so great.

One evening recently- one of the few evenings that I had available- I was involved in helping the Society of the Helping Hand in Brisbane. I went to one of its hostels to assist workers in the preparation of a meal. I was appalled by the conditions under which young people in particular were endeavouring to survive. The facilities were so poor and the food available was so inadequate. Nevertheless, in a self-help situation they were endeavouring to do the best they could. It seems that if we accept that some assistance ought to be given, the amount ought to be substantially beyond 25c. I know that many of these people receive social security benefits but those benefits are not sufficient to meet their ordinary needs. They have to go to voluntary organisations to be fed, to be sustained. Such organisations place a tremendous amount of effort into this task and receive for all their effort the support of the Government to a level of 25c a meal. That is really not good enough. I think the priorities are wrong. If there are Budget difficulties, perhaps we ought to let some other concern or program meet the brunt, not these people.

Most of the people who seek and receive assistance from these organisations are people who have become alienated from society in a variety of ways. They have become more than just a feeding problem. They have become very much a social and medical problem. They need greater sustenance that the normal person in the community needs. I stress to the Minister that there ought to be an immediate reconsideration of this legislation. That reconsideration ought not to be delayed and ought not to wait until the next Budget. When considering legislation of this sort the Government should accept the spirit of the amendment which was proposed by the Opposition to the second reading motion but which was defeated. The Minister should make representations to the Cabinet to have these amounts increased immediately. Surely she would accept that if she did so she would have the support of honourable senators on both sides of the chamber.

It is not acceptable for people to live in the conditions in which they live if they have entered that area of underprivilege. By way of a question I expressed my concern at the increase in the number of homeless in Brisbane and it was accepted that certain programs were under way. Unless I have misunderstood their direction, they seem to be bricks and mortar programs and not programs which will immediately feed and sustain people. It is not sufficient to say that social service payments are available. It ought not to be our judgment that, because those social service payments are sometimes misused, people should starve or should receive 25c a meal. That amount of money will not buy even a quarter of a packet of cigarettes, half a pie or a quarter of a bread roll. It seems to me that the amount of 25c is an insult to us and a challenge to us to do somewhat better.

The amount of 75c which is provided for accommodation is again far too small. I am not one who normally pleads and I do not know why I should be so lacking in aggression tonight, but I plead with the Government to reconsider this matter and to provide immediately an increase in these amounts. I know that the amendment proposed by the Opposition at the second reading stage has been refused and that the Minister has spoken of budgetary restrictions. However, I say to her that humanity should prevail on this occasion. I know that she has taken certain objections to the Cabinet in the past and that she has won. I suggest that this is an occasion when she should take further objections to the Cabinet. I am certain that if Government senators and Opposition senators were to mount a campaign in respect of this amount of money, this pittance- and surely that is an apt description for this 25c and 75c-

Senator Bonner:

– What about the amounts they got in social services before the 25c?

Senator GEORGES:

-Senator Bonner should be the last one to interject on me because he and I, having come through that period in 1934 just after the Depression, suffered considerably. We can recall the day when fathers of families lined up at soup kitchens. I will nominate one- Peel Street, South Brisbane- where fathers lined up in a queue to obtain soup and bread so that there was one less mouth to feed at home. I say to Senator Bonner that we are rapidly approaching the same sort of situation. The number of homeless people and the number of people in want are increasing. Do they receive social service benefits? Yes, they do. But the amount they receive by way of social service benefits for one week is less than Senator Bonner receives by way of allowance for one day.

Senator Bonner:

– We went out and fought for it, and we went out and worked for it and we went out and walked for it.

Senator GEORGES:

-What Senator Bonner wants is a repetition of those conditions so that people can walk from town to town to claim further amounts of money. He wants to keep people on the move, to keep them starving.

Senator Bonner:

– You wouldn’t know.

Senator GEORGES:

– I know as well as Senator Bonner knows. I am sorry to see that he is starting to support something which offended him in the past. I have deviated from my line of thought because of the interjections, but it seems to me strange how people are forgetful of the past, because the past often becomes the present. For the underprivileged that is exactly what is happening, and we hand out 25c to them. That amount will feed a parking meter sometimes for two hours. It certainly will provide half a pie, as I said previously. If this Government has senators such as Senator Bonner in its ranks, it is necessary for it to reassess its position. I can see the difficulties that the Minister now faces. If she went to her caucus room with a proposition to increase these amounts, it would be resisted by Senator Bonner. That seems to be the reality of the position. If he is one who would resist, how much more easy it would be for others to resist, not having had the experience that Senator Bonner has had.

I appeal to the Minister for a reconsideration of these amounts. Some sort of assessment should be reached with those who are able to use the available moneys. She has mentioned that there will be further consultations. Let her take notice of what they require, make it a matter of urgency and forget about the other priorities that we have. This morning we had a debate on disarmament. If we have to take $10m off the defence budget, let that be an acceptable proposition if it will feed the underprivileged. If we are to take $10m extra in taxation, in some way, let us take it if it means that we can adequately feed and provide for these people. Do not let us be caught in a situation where budgetary restrictions prevent us from being human.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I join Senator Georges in his plea to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) that an added amount of money be given to these very desperate people. I was very disappointed that Senator Bonner interjected on Senator Georges when he was making an appeal to the Government and that he insinuated that the people we are talking about do not deserve any assistance. I am very pleased that organisations such as the Smith Family and the Salvation Army do not adopt the attitude that Senator Bonner adopts. We know that people in these organisations go into the field and work their hearts out, for no reward, in an endeavour to raise money and to get assistance to help the people who are mentioned in this piece of legislation. Senator Georges has pointed out that it is indicative of the thinking of this Government that it is prepared to allocate to those voluntary organisations only 25c by way of subsidy on the meals that these organisations provide to needy people and to homeless men and women and only 75c towards the cost of a bed provided for these people at night.

I ask the Government: ‘Where is its heart for these people’? I think it is quite unbecoming of the Minister for Social Security to say that, because of budgetary restrictions, the Government is unable to find the money required. Only last week, when I was speaking on another piece of legislation in this Parliament, I mentioned that it costs the taxpayers $4,000 every time the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) flies home to Nareen. Yet we cannot find any more than 25c a meal to subsidise the voluntary organisations in providing food for the homeless people of this country and 75 cents a night in trying to put a blanket over those people on the cold nights of winter.

The Government ought to be ashamed of itself. It was not so long ago in this Parliament that we saw the Government trying to take away the $40 funeral allowance for pensioners. Yet Government members go out in the community and say to people that they have the interests of the needy people of Australia at heart. Every piece of legislation the Government brings into this Parliament proves that it has the very opposite in mind. The Government could not care less about needy people. All it is interested in is dollars of profit going into the pockets of the capitalist section of the community. The Government has yet to prove to the people that it has any interest in those who really need assistance. I support Senator Georges in his plea to the Government to give some thought to this issue and to try to bring about a better lifestyle for those people.

Irrespective of whether they are people who have fallen by the wayside through their own fault, they are not to be thrown aside as people who should not be assisted. They are in desperate need of assistance from the wealthy section of this community, which can well afford to pay. When thinking of the 25c subsidy for a meal for a needy person, it is no good saying that that person is in receipt of an invalid or age pension or the unemployment benefit. How much subsistence does the pension provide today? How many honourable senators who sit on the opposite benches would like to live on what pensioners get? The pension provides barely subsistence, particularly for people who do not have a home or relations or friends to care for them. I join Senator Georges in his plea to the Government to give second thoughts to the needs of the needy people. The Government should at least show that it has some heart and should not have to be forced into doing something about the situation by honourable senators on this side of the chamber.

We well recall that no legislation to this effect was in operation until the present Leader of the Opposition, Bill Hayden, brought it in when we were in government. The parties now in government were in office for 23 years before that. It could not give a damn about the needy people. It was a Labor government which brought in legislation to provide a form of subsistence to those people. We find now that this Government will not even increase the subsidy from what it was set at when the legislation was introduced five years ago. The Government tells people all over Australia that it has the economy back on the rails; that it can handle the finances of this country. If the Government is doing all that- if it believes what it is saying- why can it not find the extra few million dollars required to give those people a form of subsistence instead of making them suffer? Many of those people have to sleep on park benches with a newspaper over them at night and have to buy a meat pie to eat. As Senator Georges pointed out, today the subsidy of 25c would not buy half a meat pie a day for those people. I think it is high time that the people of Australia were alerted to the fact that this is a heartless government which could not care less about the needy people in the community.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I think we should draw attention to the fact that, because no increase has been made in the subsidies provided under this legislation, it has become extremely difficult for the voluntary organisations operating in the community not only to continue with the programs which they already have established but also to expand any of those programs. This afternoon I spoke about the Jesus People in Western Australia. I was disturbed by the reply I received when I asked them what type of meals they would provide because I knew that they would have no idea of the numbers of people they would need to cater for. I was told that in the main it would be stews, casseroles and meals of that nature which could be eked out. When I questioned them how often they would provide people with a roast of beef or lamb they did not bother to answer because they know that they will not be able to do that at any time.

I think we have to acknowledge that it costs more than 75c to put a person into a bed. It costs more than that just to launder the sheets that a person uses. It costs more than 25c to feed a person. At today’s prices, for 25c a person could not even have a bowl of porridge with the necessary milk and sugar to go with it. This means that sooner or later those organisations which are working in that capacity in the community will have to take up other activities to raise funds in order to continue those projects. I would hate to think that those organisations might have to resort, as a lot of women’s refuges do, to lamington drives and the like simply in order to provide a service to the needy people of the community.

I made my plea this afternoon. I simply join with other senators on this side of the chamber in requesting that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) now go back to the Government and ask that more money be made available for this purpose. It is very easy for us in Disarmament Week to spout about the amount of money which is being provided throughout the world for arms and armaments. Today is International Child ‘s Day. I have not heard any mention being made of that in this Parliament.

Senator Peter Baume:

– You were not here. Senator Walters raised it at Question Time.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I apologise to Senator Walters. I was not in the chamber at that time; obviously I was engaged in other parliamentary duties. Nevertheless, today is International Child ‘s Day and a lot of children are starving in the Australian community because their parents are starving. Their parents are starving because no work is available. We all admit that over the past few years the level of unemployment has increased dramatically. Whether we want to accept blame or to cast blame on governments or oppositions or whatever really is not the issue. The issue is that there is a high level of unemployment. High numbers of people in the community cannot afford to eat. I simply request that the Minister now go back to the Government and suggest that funds can be made available. As has been suggested already, funds can be made available by imposing higher rates of taxation on the people who are making a profit out of the provision in the community of those very services about which we have spoken so much today. I refer to the food services in the community- to the very small number of people who control the food industry, who dictate not only the price a person will pay for the food but also the quality of the food a person will eat.

Senator Walters:

– They also employ people.

Senator COLEMAN:

– They do, indeed. Senator Walters has reminded me that people in that industry employ people. They do not employ people anywhere near in proportion to the amount of profits that they make. We have had evidence to that effect not only before this chamber but also before various committees and non-government organisations throughout the community. It is time now that we sat and had a good, long, hard look at ourselves. The situation will not improve tomorrow. It has not improved in the past four or five years. It will not suddenly be better tomorrow. It certainly will not be better for the majority of the people concerned next week and possibly even next year. By that time the level of unemployment could have risen to such an extent that the figures which have been cited here today will have doubled.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-Just in case the interjection that I made when Senator Georges was speaking has been misunderstood, I make it quite clear that I have no objection whatsoever to the voluntary organisations providing assistance to people who are in need. I support those organisations. I think that I am on record as having done so because of my involvement with World Vision of Australia.

Senator Georges:

– Give them more than 25c.

Senator BONNER:

- Senator Georges has had his say; he should let me have mine. When Senator Georges spoke, he Whinged about the 25c subsidy. What he forgot to say was that the people who are going to the voluntary organisations for assistance in the first instance have received their social security entitlements. They have used their entitlement as they have thought fit. How they use it is their business. But if they have used it and they go somewhere for some extra assistance, for goodness sake, they should be satisfied with what assistance they get because they have already used their entitlement from the Government- from the taxpayers of this country- because they are unemployed. I have no quarrel with that at all. If a person is genuinely unemployed, I believe that this nation has a responsibility to make sure that that person is given some assistance while he is unemployed, until he is in full employment again. I have no quarrel with that whatsoever.

Senator Georges had the audacity to say that I would not know about this. Is that so? With my background, sure I know. From my travels throughout the world, looking at what is happening in underprivileged countries, all I can say is that we live in a very, very lucky country. We live in a very wonderful country in which at least we can get social security benefits. That is something a lot of people in this world cannot get. Some people are starving to the point of death. People should be grateful for what they have and should count their blessings that they live in a country such as ours where they can at least go along and get social security. That cannot be done in some other countries. If people use social security benefits wilfully and wastefully it is their own fault; it is not the fault of the Government. If people use social security benefits wilfully and wastefully and then go to a voluntary organisation and get only 25c that is just too jolly bad.

I support voluntary organisations. I always have and I always will. But my goodness, once people have received their social security payments, as they are entitled to do, they should be grateful for what they get afterwards. That is the point I made when I interjected while Senator Georges was speaking.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I am sorry to intervene after this breast beating exercise by Senator Bonner. I have to because all he did was demonstrate that he did not know what the homeless persons assistance program was about at all. I recommend to Senator Bonner that he go away and read a document called ‘A Place of Dignity’ which has been produced by the Department of Social Security. It is an excellent document which demonstrates that certain people amongst the homeless persons group are overrepresented when compared with their percentage in the total population. Included in this group, unfortunately, are alcoholics, epileptics, people suffering from chronic chest and liver diseases, people suffering from venereal diseases, people who are unemployed and Aborigines. A considerable percentage of this group- I think from memory some 26 per cent to 30 per centare not receiving social security benefits at all because they are not entitled to or because they are ignorant of our system or cannot handle it. They are assisted by voluntary agencies such as St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, the Smith Family, the Jesus People and various city missions in this country. They are assisted and given shelter, counselling and a place of dignity with which to be associated. The 25c and 75c mentioned by me, Senator Georges, Senator Coleman and Senator McLaren, is given to the voluntary organisations to help feed and give people shelter. It is not given to the unfortunate people who go to the voluntary agencies for help.

I think that before Senator Bonner interjects in the manner in which he did or contributes to the debate in the manner in which he did he should go away and read ‘A Place of Dignity’ and various poverty reports. He can then come into the chamber and interject and speak from more certain knowledge of what the homeless persons assistance program is all about. He would not then come in to the chamber and abuse people who are asking the Government to reconsider the amount of money which is paid not to the individuals who cannot help themselves anyhow but to the voluntary agencies which are supporting them. The money does not go to the individuals; it goes to the voluntary agencies. The voluntary agencies are in a very difficult situation at the moment because of the economic situation in this country.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-I would not have spoken again in the Committee stage of this Bill except for the fact that it has been obvious from the comments of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and other comments from honourable senators on the Government side that the Government does not have the faintest inkling of the nature of this problem or of its enormous proportions. If it has an inkling of the problem then Government senators simply do not care about it. When I spoke in the second reading debate last night I pointed out, from accounts that I have had from people who are actually involved in working with homeless people, that young people- as young as 11 years old- are wandering around homeless in Kings Cross and are involved in prostitution. They are there through no fault of their own. They are literally adrift in this society. The last thing that I expected was the sort of bland utterances that we have had from the other side that some time something might be done about this problem. Perhaps when there is another Budget the Government may consider these people when they have been well and truly damned to some kind of perdition.

I raise again some points that I raised in the second reading debate in the form of questions to the Minister which so far I have not had any reply to. My first question, through you, Mr Chairman, is: Will her Department at least attempt some kind of assessment or survey of the actual number of young unemployed people who are homeless in our cities? It should not be impossible to come closer to this problem. Earlier this evening Senator Coleman mentioned that my estimate of 7,000 homeless people in Melbourne could well be astray. I made that point myself. Surely we need to know about these things.

I ask the Minister again, as Senator Grimes and others have done, to go back to the Government now, not when the next Budget is being discussed, to see whether she can get more than this 25c subsidy to buy, what I think Senator Georges charmingly referred to, as half a pie. I think this certainly brings the point home to honourable senators. I also ask the Minister whether she is really aware of the deep disillusionment of the voluntary organisations which are bearing the brunt of this problem. They have been left to carry the can. They have to try to cope one way or another. The Government has washed its hands of the matter. It has said: ‘We will give precisely the same meagre amount of assistance that we have given in the past. We will let it go at that’. I suggest that that is simply not good enough.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I was quite disturbed that Senator Bonner adopted the attitude he did when he replied to the remarks made by Senator Georges. The Minister’s second reading speech on this Bill shows that an amount of $4m will be made available this financial year to build two major replacement hostels for homeless people in Brisbane. The very fact that Brisbane was mentioned in the second reading speech points out that in Senator Bonner’s home State many people are deserving of assistance. Yet he says that these people who will benefit from the expenditure of $4m have been wilful and wasteful with the money that has been provided to them through social services. I repeat that I was most disappointed with the comments by Senator Bonner who comes from the State which will benefit most from the money mentioned in this Bill. It appears that he is completely out of touch with the needs of homeless people in Queensland. As Senator Grimes pointed out, we are not debating a social security Bill. We are debating a Bill which is titled the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill 1979. It deals with the very people about whom honourable senators on this side of the chamber expressed concern.

I want to ask the Minister about one other matter. It relates to clause 3 of the Bill which states:

The title of the Principal Act is amended by omitting Australia’ and substituting ‘the Commonwealth’.

Could the Minister explain to the Senate why it is necessary to change the title of the original Bill which was introduced by Mr Hayden when he was Minister for Social Security in a Labor government?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have noted the comments that have been made by several senators during the Committee stage of the Bill. I was impressed with Senator Georges’ concern regarding the levels of recurrent funding. I indicated that this funding has not been increased for a number of years. It was considered in the recent Budget but was not increased at that time. That does not mean that at an appropriate time it could not be considered. The decision taken by the Government when it put forward this amendment to the Bill was that the funding would be considered at the appropriate time. I have said that I am meeting with members of the homeless persons advisory councils in November and will be discussing with them the future of the program. I cannot foreshadow what representations will be made to the Government on issues of this kind. I give my personal assurance of the value that I see in the Homeless Persons Assistance Act. It is a necessary Act covering a necessary service. We have worked very closely with magnificent voluntary organisations which have given compassionate and marvellous service to those people who are covered within the ambit of this Bill.

When I wrote the foreword to the booklet ‘A Place of Dignity’ I said that an estimated 10,000 homeless men and women in Australia were being assisted by welfare agencies.

In answer to Senator Mason I say that at present no survey is being conducted with regard to the matters that he raised in respect of young people. Perhaps I could take it up with my advisory councils and seek their views on how one could best survey these homeless people, who may be temporarily homeless, mobile, in a personal crisis and in need of emergency assistance. Many different circumstances lead people to seek the accommodation that is provided under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act.

For the benefit of Senator Georges I wish to clarify the fact that although the two programs in Brisbane are capital projects under the Act recurrent support for them will be provided. Recurrent support for meals and accommodation in respect of all of the projects that we are talking about is met from the National Welfare Fund. There is no restriction on the provision of such funding. Indeed, organisations which at present are not approved for capital funding may nevertheless apply for meals and accommodation subsidies, which will be provided from the National Welfare Fund. That is why we do see increases in the numbers who are being assisted in respect of meals and accommodation.

Over the last 4Vi years almost $ 10m has been spent in this activity and this year $5.6m will be spent on the two programs that we have been discussing. Therefore, by the end of this year the objective of the former Government which introduced the Bill will have been attained. We wish that the Queensland project could have been completed sooner and provided the accommodation needed in that State. Funding for the future development of the program will be considered by the Government at the appropriate time. I am reassured by the comments that have been made in this place this evening that this Bill enjoys the support of the Parliament and the commitment of honourable senators on both sides. I regard it as most worthwhile legislation and feel sure that the voluntary agencies that are seeking funds under the program will feel secure in the knowledge that the Bill has removed time limitations from the legislation; that it is now a measure under which funds may be sought and approval given in the future.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-The Minister has not told us why clause 3 seeks to amend the principal Act by omitting the word Australia’ and substituting the words ‘the Commonwealth’.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I apologise to Senator McLaren. Clause 3 gives effect to a change that has been made to the Commonwealth Acts by the present Government. The opportunity is taken to bring this legislation into line with other Commonwealth Acts. As the Bill was being brought down to remove the time limitation the opportunity was taken to bring the Act into uniformity with other Commonwealth legislation.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-In view of the Minister’s answer, I would note that in a year in which the Federal Government is spending a large amount of money so that the Australia flag can be presented to many institutions in this country, and is trying to promote Australia for Australians, it is very unusual that the Government is hellbent on deleting from all of the Acts of this Parliament the word Australia’ and substituting the words ‘the Commonwealth’. One can only assume that it is an attempt by the Government to erase from all of our legislation anything that was implemented by the Labor Government under the prime ministership of Mr Whitlam. The supporters of that Government were very proud to be Australians. The present Government apparently believes on the one hand that we ought to be proud to be Australians and thus makes available flags to be flown at the masthead of many institutions, but on the other that at the masthead of all of our Acts we should delete the word Australia’ and replace it by the words ‘the Commonwealth’. That is another action for which this Government ought to be severely criticised.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– The Minister stated that $5.6m would be spent under the homeless persons assistance program this year. I ask whether that figure includes the amount of $4m which, according to the second reading speech of the Minister, has already been allocated to projects in Queensland, or whether she is expecting, or already has, an additional appropriation of $5. 6m for the program.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The figure mentioned represents the total of capital funding under the Act and of the subsidies that will be paid from the National Welfare Fund.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– Does that mean that $4m is to be provided from the capital fund and $5. 6m under the subsidy arrangement, or that in fact there is a total of only $5. 6m of which $1.6m would be in the form of subsidies?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The total amount for the year is $5.Bm

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1725

NATIONAL LABOUR CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time. ( Quorum formed).

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Senate is considering an amendment to the composition of the National Labour Consultative Council. The proposed changes are not objected to by the Opposition, but it might be well to spell out what is proposed. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has advised the Senate that the changes are necessary because of the division of the old Department of Industrial Relations. The first amendment provides for the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and the Secretary to the Department becoming members of the National Labour Consultative Council.

The second amendment provides for a name change in respect of the employer group, which will now be called the Confederation of Australian Industry, National Employers’ Industrial

Council. Although the Opposition does not oppose the amendments, it believes that the occasion might well have been taken by the Government to reconsider the representations that were made by the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations in 1977, when the Council became a statutory body. At that time the Government decided that because of the arguments in respect of sanctions, ACSPA should not be represented on the general Council. The Council as such was derived from the earlier advisory bodies. The earlier advisory bodies were well supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I suppose it is fair to say that in their early stages they brought about a number of important changes in the Australian industrial scene. That enabled the employers, the Government and the unions to get together on areas which were very contentious. When the Government decided to make the National Labour Consultative Council a statutory body in 1977, it set down the purpose of it in section 5 of the Act, which reads as follows:

  1. 1 ) The purpose of the Council is to provide, in the public interest, a regular and organized means by which representatives of the Government of the Commonwealth, of employers and of employees may consult together on industrial relations matters, and manpower matters, of national concern.

That section goes on to set out who should comprise the Council. There has been some criticism of the actions of the Council, particularly in the arguments which took place last week regarding the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. For a short time the ACTU decided to withdraw from the Council as a protest against the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment Provisions) Bill. You, Mr President, will remember that at that time the Government felt that it should have been represented on the Council when these changes to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act were contemplated. Nevertheless, in the main, some important studies have been agreed to by the Council, in particular that in respect of manpower problems. I turn my mind to these matters because it seems to me that, in looking at the general question of unemployment in this country, the difficulties which the country is facing regarding the economy and the ability to make sure that people can be employed, it is important that the Government or, in fact, the Minister requires the Council to look into the question of employment generally in respect to the economy.

Of course we know that unemployment is a very serious problem in the country. Whilst we have about 400,000 people out of work, and whilst of that number 144,000 are teenagers, we are still short of some 2,000 or 3,000 skilled workers in the work force. In addition, the various schemes which the Government is trying out, I suggest, are only a palliative. In respect of the special efforts which have been made regarding youth training, we have found that one of the schemes has been abused by the employers. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will recall that this morning I asked him a question in respect to the Special Youth Employment Training Program. It was revealed that over a period of 18 months 62 employers abused the scheme ar ‘ as a result had been refused further subsidies. A recent conference was held which was attended by Mr Viner, who took over general responsibility in relation to employment from Mr Street. In a recent report which he gave to that conference, he said some things which we can agree with. He talked about young people leaving school. He said that the problems for young people are very important when they leave school and try to find jobs. He went on to say:

Traditionally, the pattern for most school leavers, especially early school leavers, was to try a number of jobs until they found one in which they could settle. The movement from school to work was thus accomplished by the very effective process of trial and error, learning by experience the kind of jobs and the work available.

This option is no longer open to many young people. Many cannot find a first job for a long period of time, and others get caught in the switch from one job to the next. Unemployment levels are very high in those early age groups.

In these circumstances, I believe the present situation where young school leavers can be faced with long periods of unemployment and inaction, is unsatisfactory. Especially as they are not allowed to receive training or education if they also receive the unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit was not designed for this purpose but for support during comparatively short periods between jobs.

The Government then developed another policy- it was one of a number of policies- which talked about the transitional need to train young people to equip them in a better way for jobs. The problem is that there are no jobs. However much we might train young people, there are no jobs. Something has to be done about that situation. When the Liberal Government came to power, it was expected that there would be a change in the situation. I remind honourable senators that in 1975 Mr Fraser was elected because he promised the Australian people that only under a Liberal government would there be jobs for all who wanted to work. He said:

We will introduce a number of new measures to expand investment, create jobs and increase revenue; measures which are essential if we are to get rid of the deficit. In addition, a growth rate of 6 or 7 per cent in inflation is possible.

In November 1977 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said:

Because of our job assistance strategy, because of the growth and development our policies made possible, unemployment will fall from February and keep falling. Our training and job assistance schemes are getting the unemployed into real jobs, productive jobs, jobs that they can keep.

In September 1 978, just before the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations was split into two departments, the Prime Minister said to Willesee on the Willesee at Seven program that the Government’s training schemes, together with increasing profitability in industry, would mean that anybody who wanted to work would have the opportunity to do so. Shortly after the Prime Minister made that statement- I am recounting what were the expectations; people expected the economy to improve- the Minister who then had responsibility for the whole sector of employment and industrial relations, Mr Street, said in the House of Representatives on 14 September 1978 that there were no signs of an immediate significant improvement in the employment situation. He said:

On present indications it seems likely that a new peak will be reached in January- February 1 979.

He went on to say:

Unemployment is a social as well as an economic problem. Some 1 6 per cent of the labour force aged between 1 3 and 1 9 years of age is unemployed. The periods of unemployment are lengthening noticeably and the percentage next year of unemployed in this age bracket could be even higher. By the early 1980s the situation could be one where, in addition to the problem of IS to 19 year olds being unemployed, there will be a growing proportion of people in their early 20s who will have little work experience or prospects of employment. In other words, the social problem could significantly increase.

We know that that has happened. As a result of that we concluded, and the Opposition has said, that it was necessary in the Government’s interests in some way to relieve Mr Street of the responsibility of giving the real position in the economy and to hand over to another Minister, Mr Viner, who had had some success in public relations in the Aboriginal field, a new obligation. As a result of that change Mr Viner has been very active in all sorts of public relations exercises. I suggest that those public relations exercises have done nothing to encourage young people to think that they are going to have a job in the work force. The real problem is the economy. We know that during the setting up of the two new departments and at the time when Mr Viner took over responsibility for unemployment he had to oversee and to supervise the cuts which were applied to departmental training programs. Whilst there have been general changes in respect of training programs, generally they have been cut.

One of the things which concerns me is the abuse of the Special Youth Employment Training Program which I referred to earlier and in relation to which I asked a question this morning at Question Time. I am appalled to think that such a program could be used by employers to reduce the workforce by dismissing older employees. We know that that has been done elsewhere. I was told today that in South Australia at least one large employer of labour has tried to do the same. He in fact sacked or retrenched people with nine or 10 years service, and has taken on in their place a lot of young people. As a result, such an employer can apply for the subsidy. That sort of practice has to be vetted. It has to be surveyed by the Government. Certainly, we do not want that situation to develop. Otherwise it will spoil whatever chances there are of training schemes to equip people for jobs even in circumstances where no jobs are available at present.

As we all know, an additional factor is involved. In the Senate and during estimates committees, questions have been asked about statutory authorities and departments in which there has not been general acceptance of apprenticeships and trainee schemes as there has been in the past. The Opposition puts forward the argument that departments and statutory authorities should be allowed to take more apprentices and trainees than their present quotas permit, so that a group of skilled workers will be available at a time when the economy recovers. We know that ultimately the economy will recover, even by its own actions. I have previously pointed out to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, cases in which statutory authorities have been prevented, because of government staff ceiling policies, from taking on the skilled trainees whom they need and want. That is a fault in the present policy. It should be changed. The Government should now be considering what might be an extension of the present schemes to provide jobs so that people may get training on the job. No substitute exists for training on the job. I contend- and I think honourable senators will find that the people with some experience in industry will support the idea- that it is better to have a young man in any occupation in which he can learn the industry, the management policies of the industry and the style of employment and management at any level and thus equip himself for training at a later stage, than to try to enforce upon him the training for a job that he may never get.

At this stage, I suppose I am most precisely and strongly supporting the argument that we now have an opportunity to make some progress with this important body the value of which has been tested over the years. I can remember when it was first set up in the time of Albert Monk and tested in the waterside workers’ industry. Many goods things came from its establishment. I know that on occasions unions will reject in some respect, recommendations which are adopted. But I feel that at this stage an important task for the Government is to consider to what extent the Council might embark upon a tripartite study on the question of employment generally within the community. We are all concerned about the future of employment of young people, particularly young people with no prospects at all, even when trained and even when we have exhausted all the presently available schemes to equip them for a new society. Unless there are jobs available, nothing can be done to ensure the security and stability of the economy.

I hope that in this discussion the points which the Opposition has made, while not opposing the changes proposed by the Government, might be considered; and the question whether the Council might take upon itself such a program will be considered. I think that is possible. It would probably be in an arena where one would have more fruitful discussion than one would have in a direct confrontation with the Government. It might be possible to reach agreement on programs. We would then make great progress in the restoration of the Australian economy.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I enter this debate to seek to supplement the submission made by Senator Bishop. I do so on slightly different grounds. The whole gamut of the Government’s industrial relations policy concerns three Ministers, not two. In that respect, I mention the Cabinet responsibilities of the Minister for Productivity, Mr Ian Macphee. Some time ago at an estimates committee hearing, we ascertained that he played a vital role with respect not only to productivity but also to safety measures in industry.

Let me illustrate his role. About three weeks ago, I had the difficult job of taking the Federal President of the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia, Mr B. French, M.L.C., and some employer representatives to see Government spokesmen. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, Mr Ian Viner, deputised Mr Macphee to speak to us. What happened confirmed all of the doubts that have been expressed by Senator Bishop about employment expectations. The Australian tyre industry imports three million of the ten million tyres which are sold in Australia each year. The imported tyres come from South East Asia. To be fair to the Minister for Productivity, I must mention that he worked very hard in concert with a committee which was involved in the matter to see that those working in the industry were not retrenched but were directed to other work. We will experience many cases similar to that of the Firestone (Australia) company.

May I comment as I did in an aside to Senator MacGibbon the other night that, in dealing with restructuring, the committee turned its attention to what period people should be in limbo when transferring from one job to another. The litmus test with respect to restructuring comes in how effectively a person can change from one job to another. I am concerned by the fact that a ministerial troika exists. I refer to Mr Street, the Minister for Industrial Relations, and to Mr Viner and Mr Macphee, whom I have mentioned already. That must affect the charter of the National Labour Consultative Council.

I am sure that the discussion which Mr Macphee had with the representatives of the rubber workers’ union will be fruitful. That industry is but a component of the many manufacturing industries which are so vulnerable to overseas competition. I cannot see why the Government did not grasp the nettle and include Mr Macphee as a member of the Consultative Council. As an alternative, all of the functions associated with the Council could have been consolidated with one Minister. I do not dispute that placing people in jobs is a complex matter. I am not opposed to specific tasks being assigned to different Ministers. When it speaks of productivity, the Government appears to expect trade unions in some areas of activity to adapt quickly to changed techniques. We all recall the dispute with Telecom Australia, the upheaval that occurred and the dismal picture that was painted of what might happen when in five to ten years time the working life of employees in that industry could be terminated much more quickly than they think.

Senator Chipp:

– It will be in three years time.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Yes, exactly. I stand corrected by Senator Chipp ‘s interjection. I was being rather conservative. The mind boggles at the complexities of the problem created. My hope is that a lesson will be learnt from any long and tedious negotiations by a union or a group of unions with Ian Macphee, which results in a formula for settlement being achieved, and that the Minister will carry that experience to the Council to assist when other plans must be evolved.

Let me take that argument a little further. During the debate last evening on the immigration legislation, I commented that even with the wisdom of Solomon many problems will not be able to be solved. I mentioned seniority and the greater meaning that that has when people over 35 or 40 years are transferred. Their physical capabilities are not what they were. I refer to the many jobs in respect of the performance of which, despite automation, a fair degree of physical well-being is required. When people reach that stage of their working life, I believe they are rightly entitled to expect that the seniority will bring with it a task which is a little lighter. I take as an example the case of the boy who has been out of school for two or three years, has reached 20 years of age, and is regarded as being at a higher level than a junior labourer. Such a person is unable to obtain an apprenticeship. Yet he is endeavouring to enter industry. At the other end of the scale are the people in the older age range that I mentioned earlier, who are moving from one position to another.

The other vexed question facing the Government- and this one will not go away- is concerned with the continuing intake of political refugees. Rightly, high physical qualifications or trade skills should not be imposed on these people. This is one of the major problems in respect of manpower policies. When I was speaking to Mr Macphee when he was grappling with this situation, if I had said to him ‘You had better lower the tariff a bit further on these tyres’ he would have had to find jobs for another 700 people. He would have jumped out of the window. So I restrict my comments to the complexities of the problem with which we are faced.

I think all parties know, and I know from my own party, that we try to blend our international obligations with our national obligations, and it is mighty hard at times. I simply wind up on this basis. I believe that from the very manpower complexities that I have enunciated there is a case to have Mr Macphee a member of this body. Maybe the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will tell me that in regard to all these negotiations that I have mentioned Mr Macphee fills in a report and it goes to Mr Viner and Mr Street. This is not mentioned in the second reading speech, and I am very anxious to know what the anatomy of it is in the light of these problems which will be with us for a long time to come.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its support of this measure which is really making small changes in the National Labour Consultative Council Act. The purpose of it is to enable the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and the secretary of his Department to be members of the NLCC and to change the name of the National Employers Policy Committee to the Confederation of Australian Industry National Employers Industrial Council. These changes to include the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs arise out of the new departmental arrangements which were made at the end of last year and which split the former Department of Employment and Industrial Relations into two departments. That has occurred since the present Act was passed which provided for the representation of the one Minister. Now, of course, there are two Ministers concerned with this vitally important area.

I have noted some of the points that have been made by Senators Bishop and Mulvihill in the course of their remarks on this amendment. As I have said, they are supporting it. They have raised more general matters which are not really specifically relevant to the terms of this Bill. As I said, I will draw the Minister’s attention to some of the remarks that have been made.

The only comment I wish to make is in relation to some of the points made by Senator Bishop about training schemes. The fact is that under the special training schemes, which have been initiated and maintained by this Government, particularly those directed at young people, many thousands of young people have been assisted to obtain skills which they would otherwise not have had. It is true that by attaining those skills they have been able to obtain jobs. Their main problem, which now seems to be quite clear with youth unemployment, is the need to acquire skills for jobs. If they do acquire those skills, not only do they have a very much better chance of getting a job but also in a great many cases they do obtain jobs. The Government is very conscious of these matters and has embarked upon very successful programs in training young people in skills and thereby for jobs which in a great many cases they have obtained.

As I said, I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting this measure. It is important that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs be a member of this most important institution. The Government hopes that the problems which have arisen recently where some peak union councils have not attended meetings of the NLCC will be reviewed, and that this most important tripartite body will resume its full meetings as soon as possible, and contribute to the important subjects which it discusses.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1730

COAL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– These amendments are what could be called machinery proposals. They flow generally from agreements with the Government of New South Wales which have followed from the time when Mr Justice Gallagher was the Coal Industry Tribunal, and later was appointed to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The objectives are, firstly, to enable that person constituting the Coal Industry Tribunal also to be appointed to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, also to the Industrial Commission of New South Wales. Secondly, provision is to be made for leave of absence entitlements of the Tribunal to be in accordance with an arrangement entered into with the Government of New South Wales, in the same way as the Tribunal’s salary is now specified in arrangement.

An important note by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) was that there was no intention presently to appoint the present Tribunal, Mr David Duncan, either to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or to the New South Wales Industrial Commission. The legislation will ensure that those appointments would not in any way invalidate his actions where he served elsewhere. There was also an arrangement, an understanding with the Government, that the Tribunal should have the same leave entitlements as an officer of the Australian Public Service. Since there have been some subsequent proposals relating to these amendments, there is no reason why the Opposition should oppose them. Accordingly we support the amendments.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its support of this measure. There are some further machinery amendments to be moved in Committee, and I will deal with them at that stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

-On behalf of the Government I have circulated several amendments. I presume that they have been seen by the Opposition. I should just like to explain briefly the purpose of the amendments. Over a period the Commonwealth has had discussions with the New South Wales Government concerning the salary and allowances of the Coal Industry Tribunal and those of the Chairman and other members of the Joint Coal Board. It has been agreed by the governments that, when considered desirable, such salaries and allowances should be capable of being related to determinations by the Remuneration Tribunal from time to time. A recent advising from the AttorneyGeneral’s Department indicated that the current wording of sections 8 and 31 ought to be amended if the Government had such an intention. Accordingly, the Government is taking the opportunity while this amending Bill is before the chamber to propose that sections 8 and 3 1 be amended.

The present provision in each case is for such salary and allowances as are fixed by the arrangement which is entered into, in pursuance of previous sections, by the Governor-General and the Governor of New South Wales. The proposed amendment, which has been agreed by both governments as required in the preamble to the principal Act, will provide that such salary and allowances are in accordance with the arrangement. I seek leave to move five amendments together.

Leave granted.

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

  1. 1 ) Page 2, after clause 3, insert the following clause: 3a. Section 8 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted: “8. The Chairman and the other members of the Board shall be paid salary and allowances in accordance with the arrangement entered into in pursuance of section 5. “. ‘.

Third Reading

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

page 1731

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Social Services Amendment Bill 1979 is typical of the social services amendment Bills we get each year in the post-Budget session in that it contains a large number of changes to an already complicated piece of legislation, and those changes cover a variety of subjects. The Opposition’s attitude to the Bill is mixed, as it always is. There are technical and unobjectionable amendments. There are amendments improving the lot of some pensioners and others in the community, of which we approve. There are amendments which arise out of circumstances that were unforeseen at the time of previous changes, which we do not oppose. There are amendments which we consider are discriminatory against the unemployed and against trade unionists in this community, to which we have considerable objection and which we will oppose. It is impossible in the time allotted in the second reading debate to deal with all the amendments. However, in the Committee stage we will consider some of them in more detail.

As well as what we consider are sins of commission in the legislation, there are sins of omission in regard to the unemployed without dependants, the level of family allowances, the level of supplementary allowances for rental paid to pensioners and beneficiaries and the level of allowances to pensioners’ children. For this reason the Opposition will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading which expresses our disapproval of some of the sins of commission and omission that we see. We will move it in this way so as not to hinder the passage of those clauses of the Bill to which we do not object and which we support. I therefore move:

At the end of the motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that it should provide for-

twice yearly indexation of benefits for the unemployed without dependents;

) an increase in unemployment benefits for those under 18 years;

removal of the provisions relating to the mandatory postponement period for the “voluntary” unemployed and those who fail the work test;

removal of the provision of refusing unemployment and special benefit to those unemployed through the industrial action of others;

the updating of supplementary allowances and allowances for pensioners’ children to compensate for inflation, and

an increase in family allowances to compensate for their erosion by inflation ‘.

The amendment is not all-inclusive of the things we would like to see in social security legislation in this country, but it covers most of the things in this legislation about which we are concerned at the moment. As I said, it will be necessary to spend some time in the Committee stage seeking clarification of some of the clauses and changes of wording that have been included in the Bill.

Before I deal in detail with the Bill, I repeat the plea I make each year that work on rewriting the Social Services Act be expedited to bring this cumbersome piece of law to a state we can all more readily handle. It is a complex piece of legislation, it has been amended ad infinitum, and it is becoming very difficult and tedious to consider. At least one of the amendments being made this year results from an error made last year, and a couple of others are the result of unforeseen consequences of amendments made last year which may not have occurred if the Act had been more straightforward and if it had not been so difficult, as it always is, to consider the amendments. I do not feel sorry only for myself; I feel sorry for the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and anyone else who has to deal with this Act. I know how difficult it is for the public servants to keep the Act consolidated and up to date.

The provisions in the Bill to which the Opposition has no objection are those which provide for twice-yearly indexation of pensions and benefits; those which provide an extension of income limits for pensioner fringe benefits; the extension of the wife’s pension to women in approved benevolent homes; the extension of the wife’s pension to women who are separated from their husbands because of illness or because they or their husbands are in benevolent homes; and the correction of the anomaly in the payment of family allowances and handicapped children’s allowances monthly which occurs when children are in institutions or away for a holiday. We have no objection to the technical amendments concerning self-government in the Northern Territory, orphans’ pensions, and compensation payments.

We welcome the easing of the means test for fringe benefits for pensioners and supporting parents from $33 a week to $40 a week for single pensioners and from $57.50 to $68 for married pensioners. We point out that this draws further attention to the fact that there are now very much two clauses of social security recipients. At the end of 7 June 1979 there were 3 12,000 people on unemployment benefits, 32,400 on sickness benefits, and 12,000 on special benefits, making a total of 357,300 beneficiaries who are not entitled to health, pharmaceutical, transport and telephone concessions. These non-financial benefits make a considerable difference to the level at which people live in this community. The Minister for Social Security, and the DirectorGeneral of Social Services, Mr Lanigan, have admitted in Estimates committees this year that there are no administrative costs of any significance in extending fringe benefits to the unemployed in certain circumstances, and to sickness and special benefit recipients.

So, if the Government had a policy to increase these benefits, as the Opposition believes it should, it could do so with very little administrative change or administrative cost. In fact, the Government has a policy to save money at the expense of some of the poorest people in the community. I will deal with them later.

The introduction of twice-yearly indexation corrects a gross injustice and a breach of faith perpetrated by the Government last year. It causes some amusement on this side of the chamber to see various characters, particularly on Government back benches in another place- I do not think it is necessary to name them- some of whom voted for the abolition of twice-yearly indexation, now clawing over one another, particularly in their own electorates, to take the credit for having had the Government change its mind and reintroduce twice-yearly indexation.

At the time the Opposition, every pensioner organisation in the country, every newspaper except the Australian, every political commentator except a well known one from the Bulletin and every political party including many branches of the Liberal Party- branches in Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmaniacondemned the change from twice-yearly indexation for what it was. It was a broken promise and an unjust burden on the pensioners. I suppose it is unfortunate that the reintroduction is a heaven-sent opportunity for the headline seekers on the Government back benches, but at least we can welcome the fact that the Government has seen the injustice of its actions and has reversed its previous decision. I suppose we may be thankful for small mercies. I remind the Government that even now twice-yearly indexation is not the indexation which was promised by the conservative parties in their election campaign in 1 975. It is not the automatic and immediate indexation which was promised then, but I suppose the time has long passed when we could consider it possible that that sort of indexation would be introduced.

The unemployed without dependants have been neglected again in this legislation. Many of these people are adults of middle age who have been put out of work by technological change and structural adjustment in industries and who get no increase at all to cope with inflation. The other neglected group comprises the unemployed under 18 years of age. They remain at the level of $36 a week that they were given in 1975, despite escalating costs, despite a great increase in their numbers and particularly despite the fact that, as was noted by all speakers on the legislation dealing with the homeless persons assistance program, they are increasingly joining the ranks of the homeless in the community because of their own unemployment and because of family stress caused by adult unemployment in their families and homes. Unemployment increases and the unemployed suffer, but the Government sticks to its resolve that market forces will somehow solve this problem, and anyone who has the temerity to suggest a different approach- such as the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace or the Anglican Synod in Tasmania- is likely to be labelled as marxist by people such as Mr Carlton, the honourable member for Mackellar, who apparently believes that anyone who advocates redistribution of wealth in this community from the more well off to the poorer is automatically a marxist. One would have thought that that was a fairly basic principle of the Christian faith and a basic principle of any humanitarian approach. But, no, the name calling starts and anyone who issues a pamphlet, as the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace did, is labelled marxist in the pejorative sense for suggesting some change or some new approach to the very real problems which face us in the community.

It is actions like this- the failure to index unemployment benefits for those without dependants and the failure to recognise that those under 18 years of age have a considerable problem when they are unemployed- that belie the statement which is repeated in various forms by the Minister for Social Security in every second reading speech which has been made in the social security and health package of Bills. I quote from the second reading speech of the Bill with which the Senate is now dealing. The Minister states:

It demonstrates the Government’s determination to continue to provide for those in need, notwithstandiing the necessity to restrain Government expenditure. The proposals will add to reforms which have already benefited low income families generally.

I wish to examine this statement and look at the low income families to see how they have been treated by the Government. In doing so, I wish to draw attention to an area of need not considered by the Government, and question seriously the priorities that this Government has in dealing with the so-called low income families. To do so I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two tables. The first is a comparison of poverty lines and the disposable incomes of various low income families in the community, produced by the Statistical Service of the Parliamentary Library. The second is a comparison of family allowances as they have been paid since they were introduced in 1976 and as they would have been paid had they been indexed to this time. They illustrate the point I want to make.

Leave granted.

Senator GRIMES:

-The first table demonstrates that the single income family in this country is below the poverty line on $ 140 a week with three or more children; on $160 a week, with four or more children; and on $ 1 80 a week, with five or more children. All those single income families with the head of the family working are below the poverty line. I know the Minister has little faith in the poverty line but it happens to be the only reputable yardstick we have in this country. I do not think anyone believes that it is anything other than a fairly austere measure, as it was described by Professor’ Henderson. The second list of low income families shows that the pensioner or the unemployed person with more than one child is always below the poverty line if he has no income other than his pension. In fact, the unemployed are worse off than the pensioner. If the pensioner earns $20 a week he is lifted above the poverty line by that extra income but, even with $20 a week more, the unemployed person with two children or more remains in a poverty trap because of the low level of income allowed to the unemployed. I must point out that these figures are purely cash figures. They do not include health care entitlements and other fringe benefits available to pensioners and not available to the unemployed. They count only for the financial aspects of poverty. The single parent on a pension or the single unemployed on a benefit is similarly very badly treated by our system, as an examination of the figures in the table will show. They are all below the poverty line; they all stay below the poverty line despite extra incomes of up to $20 a week.

These are the lowest of the low income families in the community. I think an investigation of these tables will reveal just how these people get into poverty traps and stay in them. We may ask how the Government, which expresses such concern for low income families, has treated them under the social services provisions of our legislation in general. Since it came to power in 1 975 the Government has not increased by one cent the allowance for pensioners’ children, despite the fact that there has been a 40 per cent increase in the consumer price index since then. Secondly, it has not increased by one cent the supplementary benefit which is paid to very poor pensioners who live in private rental accommodation and who have an income of no more than $5 on top of their pensions. Since 1975 there have been many rent and cost increases, but there has been no increase in the supplementary rent allowance. Incidentally, this year the Government has also cut expenditure on public housing by some $18m.

Thirdly, family allowances have been allowed to deteriorate in value to the extent indicated in the second table which I have incorporated in Hansard. Since the initial benefit given to low income families by the introduction of family allowances in 1976, a family with three children is $20 a month worse off and a family with five children is $39 a month worse off in real terms. So much for assistance to the really low income families in this community. I would like to point out that the low income families who increase rapidly in numbers and who, of all the families shown on these tables, are worse off are the families of the unemployed. They get no extra benefits of note unless they are fortunate enough to have access to a sympathetic medical practitioner who will consider them disadvantaged or unless they have adequate access to public hospital facilities. In most States they get no transport concessions. The average duration of their unemployment is increasing. All they get are lectures on how they must suffer while market forces will look after them. I suggest to the Government- I implore the Government- that now that it has taken the step of giving the pensioner health benefit card to lone parents, having ignored the objections of and not having consulted with the medical profession, it is time for the unemployed, or at least the long term unemployed, to be considered disadvantaged in the terms of the National Health Act for the period of their unemployment as part of the law of this land and for the medical profession to be required to treat them as such.

Earlier in my speech I mentioned the unemployed without dependants. We believe that this legislation should aim at providing the basis of a social security service which provides for those in need in the community. In its obsession with cutting expenditure, particularly in relation to the unemployment benefit, the Government has picked on the least organised group in the community, the group with the least political cloutthe single unemployed of all ages. Above all members of the community they are refused cost of living increases. They must wait on the whim of the Government to get an increase. They have not received an increase in the last two Budgets. The poor families and the single unemployed will suffer.

In the 1930s in the United States there was a situation similar to the situation we have now. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected on a policy that under his New Deal he would do something to correct the difficulties. After his first term in office he was one of the few leaders of governments in the world who actually did something about the difficulty that was facing his country, which was a divided society facing incredible unemployment and incredible poverty. He was not a socialist but he was an active man who did not sit back and allow market forces to take their place. In his second inaugural speech, when talking about the progress that had been made, he said:

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

I suggest that those words could well be taken up by the community in general. If one were very optimistic one could ask even the Government to take them up and to consider whether there has been any progress in this country in providing enough for those who have too little. There is no question that the Government’s economic policies have added more to the abundance of those who have much. If we do this, if we keep adding to the difficulties of the unemployed and the numbers of unemployed and disadvantaged in the community, we will imbue in people a chronic sense of injustice, that things are not fair. I quote another American who was quoted by Professor Sackville in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. In Justice and the Poor Reginald Heber Smith said:

Nothing rankles more in the heart than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with; but injustice makes us want to pull things down.

If we have this chronic sense of injustice we will have more of those demonstrators who upset members of the Government so much. We will have more people who will rise up in anger. It will be of no use Government members blaming political agitators or some foreign conspiracy. They will have to look nearer to home for the reasons for these protests and demonstrations. We will have a divided society; we are heading for it right now.

The second aspect of the legislation I would like to deal with is the amendment dealt with in clauses 35 and 42 of the Bill. The clauses provide that unemployment benefit or special benefits shall not be paid to members of a union put out of work by that union’s industrial action, even if the strike or industrial action is hundreds or thousands of kilometres away and the affected employees know nothing about the strike, had no pan in its initiation and may have opposed it. Under this legislation we may have a situation in which workers who have been laid off are being paid unemployment benefit while their work mates- even people on the next bench in the same factory- may be refused that benefit because they belong to a union which is taking part in industrial action many miles away. Neighbours in the same street may be treated differently. Even in cases of extreme hardship, special benefit, which of all social security benefits has the most stringent set of conditions attached to it, is to be denied to these people.

This is not a new suggestion. It was proposed by Government members in 1977 at the time of the La Trobe Valley power dispute. At that time the suggestion was mooted that people should not receive unemployment benefit when they are out of work as a result of industrial action anywhere. At that time welfare agencies in Victoria were flooded with people in distress. Some of them had to close their doors. Eventually they all needed assistance from governments to survive. At the time many comments were made by many interesting people about what they saw as the justice or injustice of such a proposal. I will quote some of them. The first one is Mr P. F. Falconer who was then chairman of the Government’s industrial relations committee. He urged the Government to reconsider such a proposal. He told the Government parties that a large number of rank and file members who had nothing to do with the strike would find their benefit cut. Senator Steele Hall, who was then a Liberal senator, said that the Government was making the innocent do its dirty work for it. He said that the proposal was unjust and that he had the gravest doubts about it. Mr Dixon, who was the social welfare Minister in Victoria, telegrammed the Federal Government warning it not to introduce the proposal because it would increase the number of family breakdowns. The Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, said that he believed that people stood down through no fault of their own should be paid unemployment benefit. The conservative journal the Melbourne Herald stated: it would be outrageous to deny sustenance to stood - down unionists and their families not involved in the dispute. The Government should take care that no substance exists for such stories in future.

The Melbourne Age condemned the proposal and stated:

Unemployment benefits should be regarded as a right for those people jobless through no fault of their own. They are not a privilege and they most certainly are not a plaything for politicians.

As recently as a few weeks ago the Canberra Times and the Sydney Morning Herald condemned such a proposal. They can hardly be called radical journals and their objection is the same as that of the Opposition: This is social services legislation; it is designed to help people in need; it is not legislation which should be used as a bludgeon to attempt to cower unions into obeying the Government’s dictates whether they should strike. They object to the legislation because it is unjust. It is unjust because, as former Senator Steele Hall said, the innocent will suffer and will be asked to do the dirty work for the Government. Also, we believe that the legislation will be difficult to administer. We will say more about that in the Committee stage. We do not know how the legislation will work, without creating gross injustice. We believe that this legislation is just another excuse the Government is using to cover its economic difficulties.

The final objection that we have to this legislation- I can mention it only briefly but I will mention it again in the Committee stage- is that it changes the discretionary power of the Director-General to withhold benefits from people who, he thinks, have voluntarily left employment or who have been guilty of misconduct. This legislation provides for a mandatory period of six weeks, with a discretionary period of up to 12 weeks. We believe that that is unjust. Senator Colston will speak further on that aspect and we will continue to bring up the matter in the Committee stage. We believe that those two aspects of the legislation are unfair. They are quite inappropriate in social services legislation. They should not exist at all. They are unjust and discriminatory and we will oppose them in the Committee stage.

Senator Peter Baume:

– In order to permit the conduct of a little formal business, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1736

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

Mr Deputy President, 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 authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1979-80 totalling $415,000,000. This amount represents the grant component of the Loan Council program for State governments in 1 979-80 and is one-third of the total program of $ 1,245m agreed at the June 1979 Loan Council meeting. The Bill also provides for the payment of capital grants in the first six months of 1 980-8 1 up to an amount equal to one-half of the 1979-80 amount, pending passage of legislation to authorise grants in 1980-81. Payments authorised under this Bill may be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Loan Fund, and appropriate borrowing authority is included. This is consistent with past practice.

These grants represent a continuation of arrangements initiated by the Liberal-Country Party Government in June 1970, which provided that portion of the State government’s Loan Council programs should take the form of interest-free non-repayable grants in lieu of what would otherwise be interest-bearing borrowings by the States. The effect of the grants is to relieve the States of debt charges which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the States’ financial positions. The grants were introduced to help the States finance work such as schools, police buildings and the like from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The States are, however, entirely free to apply these grants as they choose and no terms or conditions are attached to them.

I turn now to the general context in which this Bill is being introduced. As I have mentioned, the grants which are the subject of this Bill comprise one-third of the States’ Loan Council borrowing programs in 1979-80. The program is some 13.2 per cent lower than the program for 1 978-79. This does not mean the States are being required to make a corresponding reduction in their works programs. A proper comparison with last year can only be made in the overall context of total Commonwealth payments to the States and borrowing by State authorities. Funds to the States from the Commonwealth Budget are presently estimated to be $1 1,168m in 1979-80, which would be an increase of 6.6 per cent. If the State authorities’ borrowings are added to this, the estimated total figure is $ 13,408m, an increase of 8.6 per cent. Even though they are not included in Commonwealth Budget outlays, a full consideration of State financing should take account of these borrowings by State authorities. They are an important source of funds for the States and their level has implications for the market for Commonwealth bonds and the extent of Commonwealth support needed for the State Government borrowing programs, which are underwritten by the Commonwealth.

As honourable senators may recall, in November 1978 the Commonwealth supported large special increases to State authorities’ programs in the form of infrastructure financing for a number of major developmental projects. In June this year the Loan Council gave inprinciple approval to the admission of two further projects to the infrastructure program. In all, these funds approved under the infrastructure program are to be of the order of $ 1 .9 billion over eight years, with some $400m approved for 1979-80. These borrowings have, and will continue to have, a considerable impact on the size of total State authorities ‘ programs.

This matter aside, it may be noted that Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States, which are the most important element of overall payments to the States and of which the grants proposed in this Bill form a part, in total are estimated to increase by 7.1 per cent to $6, 677m. The general revenue assistance component to the States, essentially comprising the tax sharing entitlements, is estimated at $5, 432m this year, an increase of 13.2 per cent. These funds may, of course, be spent by the States however they see fit, including on capital works projects. The reduction in the 1 979-80 State Government Loan Council program must therefore be viewed in the particular context of the strong growth in the States’ tax sharing entitlements. No responsible government could possibly ignore this factor.

The other main area of payments to the States, specific purpose funds, are estimated to increase by about 6 per cent in 1979-80 compared with last year. One particular specific purpose payment of relevance is the local government tax sharing entitlement which is passed on to local authorities as general purpose funds. The local government share of the previous year’s net personal income tax collections is to be increased to 1.75 per cent in 1979-80. The States will receive $22 1.7m for this purpose, an increase of 23.6 per cent. These decisions, including the size of the States’ Loan Council program, have been taken within the framework of the inescapable need to contain the expansion of the public sector.

In recent years the States have been able generally to achieve balanced budgets- some have maintained budget surpluses- despite the fact that at the same time they have been reducing or abolishing certain State taxes. The Commonwealth has made a balanced judgment on funding for the States in 1979-80 and has made every effort to give the States flexibility in managing their affairs within the constraints of responsible funding arrangements. This Bill provides onethird of the State Governments’ Loan Council programs by way of an interest-free grant. It is an important measure in the overall arrangements for Commonwealth assistance to the States. I commend it to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1738

OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Senator Georges:

– No. We would prefer to have the second reading speech on this Bill read.

Leave not granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The purpose of the Bill is to put into effect the Government’s decision to introduce an annual charge on overseas students studying in Australian universities and colleges of advanced education. This policy was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget Speech and elaborated in a statement made by the Minister to the House of Representatives on 22 August. At that time the Minister mentioned that the Government has been anxious to make available additional educational opportunities for overseas students. In the Minister’s earlier policy statement he outlined new provisions that will make this program more responsive to the needs of people seeking to study here and the needs of their home countries. At the same time the Government has been concerned at the cost of providing educational opportunities for overseas students attending educational institutions wholly or partly funded from public moneys. Indeed, for some years the total numbers were subject to an arbitrary limit mainly because of these costs.

The Government believes that these new policy initiatives will result in increased numbers of overseas students coming to Australia and improvement in selection criteria and arrangements. With these considerations in mind, the Government has decided that private overseas students attending Australian universities and colleges of advanced education, which are fully funded by the Commonwealth, should be called upon to contribute towards the cost of their education. The charges do not apply at this time to overseas students attending other educational institutions which receive funds from the Commonwealth. The question of applying charges to overseas students at those institutions is currently being examined but there is no likelihood that such charges will be introduced for the 1980 academic year.

The level of charges set by the Government has been determined after taking into account the costs of providing the courses as well as fees charged by other comparable countries. We have also been conscious of the need to set charges at a level which will not unduly deter overseas students from undertaking studies in Australia.

I now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. I will also refer to matters that we propose to include in regulations that will be made under the Bill so that honourable senators will be able to obtain a full appreciation of the legislation. Clause 5 of the Bill imposes the charge on overseas students enrolled in a prescribed course for a year. Clause 4 of the Bill defines the term ‘overseas student’ and provides definitions of the courses and educational institutions to which the charge will apply. The charge will apply to persons other than permanent residents who enrol in certain courses at universities and colleges of advanced education. Courses concerned will be those leading to a degree, diploma or associate diploma, as well as compulsory prerequisite courses for which no tuition fee is charged. The charges to apply from 1 January 1 980 will range up to a maximum of $2,500 per annum. The actual charges to apply will be prescribed in the regulations. They will be based on the costs of providing particular courses and will be: Students undertaking a master’s or Ph.D. degree will be charged $2,500 per annum; students undertaking a medical, veterinary science or dentistry course will be charged $2,000 per annum; students undertaking other award courses will be charged $ 1 ,500 per annum.

It is estimated that about three-quarters of the students affected by the charges will pay the minimum rate of $1,500 per annum. The regulations will provide that in the following circumstances students will be required to pay only half the charges which I have listed:

  1. Where a student undertakes a course of study for which the course load, as assessed by the institution concerned, is no more than half that of the normal full-time award course; or
  2. Where a student commences the first semester or year of his course in the second half of the year, or completes the final semester or year of his course in the first half of the year; or
  3. Where a preliminary prerequisite course is of no more than six months ‘ duration.

This Bill provides for the charge to be paid by overseas students commencing new courses at prescribed institutions from 1 January 1980. Students continuing courses at these institutions will not be affected. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1739

OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE COLLECTION 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted. 77ie* speech read as follows-

The Overseas Students Charge Collection Bill provides for the collection of the charge to be imposed by the Overseas Students Charge Bill 1 979. Clause 4 of the Overseas Students Charge Collection Bill 1979 provides that the charge will be due for payment at the time of enrolment or 15 March, whichever is the later. However, payment of an amount equal to the charge will be required prior to visa issue for persons who are to travel from overseas or prior to the issue of a further temporary entry permit for students remaining in Australia. An exception to these arrangements will apply in respect of overseas students who come to Australia under Australia’s development assistance programs. The Bill includes provision in clause 7 for these students to be relieved of liability to pay the charge where a scholarship is awarded by a Commonwealth department or authority. This provision was included principally to cover the case of scholarships awarded by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. In these circumstances the charge would be paid by the Bureau, which will receive additional funds for this purpose within the appropriate aid vote, to ensure that the overall level of assistance to developing countries is not reduced. It will mean that there will be a more accurate reflection of the true level of assistance Australia makes available under these programs.

There is also provision to permit development assistance funds to be applied to meet the charge in respect of students sponsored for entry by the governments of developing countries, if the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) agrees to such an arrangement. In addition, where a home government is to meet the charge, there is provision for payment to be deferred beyond the issue of a visa or entry permit subject to agreement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Government has also agreed that there should be other exemptions from the charges on a continuing basis. These will cover the following:

  1. Post-graduate students who are the holders of a scholarship providing a basic stipend of at least $3,500 per annum awarded by a university or college of advanced education for study at the institution concerned
  2. Students undertaking post-graduate courses who are the holders of a scholarship awarded by the Australian-American educational foundation
  3. Students who are the subject of approved reciprocal exchange agreements between Australian universities or colleges of advanced education and overseas tertiary institutions
  4. Students coming to Australia as part of an external studies course
  5. Students holding post-graduate fellowships awarded by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, an international organisation or an overseas government, who are undertaking a course funded by these bodies; and
  6. Residents of external territories.

These categories of exemptions will be prescribed in the regulations. The Government also proposes that some students will not be liable to pay the charge. They are, firstly, students already in Australia who were admitted specifically to undertake the final two years of their secondary education in Australia as a preliminary to an approved tertiary course, and who commence that course in 1980 and 1981. The Government has decided to exempt this group of students from charges because they came here in the expectation that they could proceed to their chosen tertiary course without charge. The Government is aware that by coming to Australia these students have already committed themselves to education in Australia and may have adversely affected their prospects of further study in their home countries or elsewhere, if they are now unable to pay charges in Australia. Secondly, they are students already in Australia who commence new courses at the same level of study that could be regarded as a normal progression from their current course. However, they will need to be capable of completing the new course in the minimum time which would have been taken if they had enrolled in that course initially. This will include students changing from, for example, a B.A. to a B.A./LL.B. degree or continuing to a diploma of education on completion of a first degree. This exemption would not however apply to those commencing a post-graduate degree. Included also are students changing from masters to doctoral awards or vice versa, but only where either award has not been conferred, and finally, students currently undertaking English language courses as a preliminary to an approved tertiary course but only in respect of tertiary courses which are commenced in 1980.

It should be noted that these exemptions are of a transitional nature as they apply only to students already in Australia. Provision will also be made in the regulations for a refund of the charge in full where a student withdraws his enrolment within two weeks of commencing his course, or where liability is not in fact incurred. A partial refund will be payable where a greater amount has been paid than the amount of charge for which the student is legally liable. It is also proposed under the regulations to refund half the amount of the charge where a course has run for no more than half its normal duration in any year and in the event of the death of the student, the withdrawal through serious illness of the student, the withdrawal through serious illness or death of a parent, spouse or child, or the grant of resident status to the student. If for any reason an overseas student does not pay the charge for which he is liable a debt due to the Commonwealth will arise. At this stage it is not proposed that there would be any additional penalty for the non-payment of the charge. It will be appreciated that in these circumstances the entry permit for the person concerned could also be cancelled or at least not renewed. The Bill represents an important part of the development of a more effective and viable program under which people from overseas may come here to obtain qualifications of use to their careers and of value to their home countries. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1740

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-This Bill incorporates a number of amendments to the Social Services Act which were brought forward by the Government in its Budget. These amendments underline the Government’s continued concern for those most in need in our community. Despite the remarks of members of the Opposition, I believe that the community acknowledges the Government’s concern. I will deal firstly with the amendment relating to the provision for twice-yearly indexation of pensions and benefits. When the Government decided over 12 months ago to have only once-yearly indexation of pensions, it was expected that the inflation rate would be running at about 5 per cent a year. However, owing to overseas pressures, particularly in the area of oil- over which we have no say- and meat prices which certainly are not begrudged by us but are out of our control, inflation has not come down as much as we had hoped.

At June 1978-79 inflation was running at 8.8 per cent. As a result of that the Government decided to reintroduce twice-yearly indexation of pensions. Taking into account the September 1979 quarterly indexation figure of 2.3 per cent, inflation in this country from September 1978 to September 1979 was 9.2 per cent. The average inflation figure for the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is 12.7 per cent, so Australia is still doing particularly well in this area. Increases to pensions will occur in May and November each year. The first increase will be on 8 November 1979. Of course it will include both increases that have been payable during the year. The increase for a single pensioner will be from $53.20 to $57.90 a week. The married rate goes from $88.70 to $96.50 a week.

Senator Grimes commented on the fact that pensioners were particularly badly off under this Government. As far back as November 1978 the pension was a higher per cent of average weekly earnings than it had been under the Labor Government. It was running at 24 per cent of the average weekly earnings. This represents an increase of just on one per cent when compared with that of the previous government. In 1975 when the Opposition was in government, the pension was running at 23.1 per cent of average weekly earnings. I am sure that the one per cent increase is appreciated by the people receiving the benefit. Of course this does not take into account the fringe benefits which, as the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has pointed out many times, in most States is estimated to amount to an extra $ 10 a week.

Another amendment relating to pensioner benefits is the increase in the income limits before there is a loss of entitlements to fringe benefits. I suppose I have received more representations from pensioners regarding fringe benefits than I have on any other matter. The amount for a single pensioner has increased from $33 a week to $40 a week and for a married pensioner from $57.50 a week to $68 a week. (Quorum formed). It is extraordinary how, when anything hits home, the Opposition seems to call for a quorum. As I have mentioned, the proposed fringe benefits will be worth about $10 a week. For some of these benefits the Commonwealth Government is responsible but the States also provide certain assistance to those who hold a pensioner health benefit card. The Commonwealth provides benefits, including pharmaceutical items, to holders of that card. It also allows a one-third reduction in telephone rentals, and provides free hearing aids and free consultations for those who need spectacles. The States give fare allowances on public transport, assistance with rent or rates and aid in respect of heating and many other small benefits. The raising of the income limit means that there will be an additional 25,000 pensioners and 5,000 dependants. This is applauded by most of the people who have come to me and indicated that a small increase in their superannuation had put them outside of the previous limit. They will now be able to take advantage of the fringe benefits available to pensioners.

Another amendment concerns the supporting parent’s benefit. When this Government came to office the single father was not entitled to any benefit.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Could we supply a seat for Senator Archer so that he will not have to sit on the floor.

Senator WALTERS:

-Senator Cavanagh seems to be having a great deal of fun interrupting. I wish that he would approach this Bill in a more serious fashion. I am sure that it is serious to those who are listening.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I am sure that it is, but you are making it otherwise.

Senator WALTERS:

– I am sure that they do not appreciate the honourable senator’s frivolous approach to this Bill. When this Government came to office single fathers were not entitled to benefits. Under this Government they are being provided with exactly the same assistance as that given supporting mothers. Both supporting mothers and fathers are now entitled to the fringe benefits that are associated with possession of the health benefit card. These will be of great assistance to some 56,000 supporting parents, 2,500 of whom are men, and their dependants.

An amendment will also be made in respect of the payment of family allowance, the double orphan ‘s pension and the handicapped children’s allowance. In past years there has been an anomaly in that payments have been made from the fifteenth day of each month to cover the period to the fourteenth day of the next month. The whole of the allowance has been paid to the person or institution in whose care the child has been on the first day of that period. A child might well be in an institution for a short time only. In such cases the family allowance and the double orphan’s pension has gone to that institution, even though the child might have been in the institution for only two days. That meant that the mother was not entitled to any of the payment. That situation has been remedied and entitlement will now be assessed on the number of days that the child spends in either place. The handicapped children’s allowance does not go to an institution, but absence of a child from home for a short period has debarred a parent from receiving that handicapped children’s allowance. Such short absences will now be disregarded.

Unemployment benefit provisions also are to be amended. This is a matter concerning which Senator Grimes has brought down certain amendments. He believes that if someone voluntarily leaves his employment a postponement of payment of benefits should not be allowed. On the contrary, this Government believes that if someone is holding a job, has no other employment to go to, and voluntarily relinquishes it, he should not be entitled to receive unemployment benefits for a minimum period of six weeks and a maximum period of 12 weeks. Other amendments relate to people who become unemployed through strike action, bans, or go slow action. The Government believes that if someone deliberately goes on strike he should not be supported by the taxpayer.

Senator Primmer:

– Or his wife or kids.

Senator WALTERS:

– It is a pity that Senator Primmer has not studied the Bill. That assertion is completely wrong. Someone who is out of work as a result of his own strike action will not be paid unemployment benefits, but if his wife is willing to go to work but is unable to find a job, she will be paid unemployment benefits.

Senator McLaren:

– That is a great criterion, isn’t it? Send the wife out to work. That is your attitude.

Senator WALTERS:

-His wife is entitled to unemployment benefits and to extra assistance for the children. It is a pity that Senator Primmer had not studied the Bill a little more carefully before interjecting.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What if she is seven months pregnant?

Senator WALTERS:

– May I just point out, because this seems to be causing the Opposition some concern, that the Government has merely returned to the position that was taken by the Chifley Government in 1947.

Senator Primmer:

– Big deal. That is a generation ago.

Senator WALTERS:

- Senator Primmer says Big deal’, but Mr Chifley was one of the most respected of Labor leaders- one who was respected by Australians generally.

Senator Primmer:

– He is long since dead, though.

Senator WALTERS:

-Obviously, Senator Primmer does not consider that Mr Chifley was a well respected leader of the Australian Labor Party. Under his Government, in 1947, a person who was a direct participant in a strike was not paid unemployment benefit. If he was not a direct participant but was a member of a participating union, and employed at the place of industrial action, he was not entitled to receive unemployment benefit. If he was a member of the participating union he was not paid unemployment benefit even though he was not directly participating and not employed at the place of industrial action. As a matter of fact, if he was a member of a non-participating union which did not disown the strike he was not paid unemployment benefit. This Government’s legislation does not go that far. It merely makes the members of such a union responsible for the actions of their fellows. I believe that if the members of one union have no say in whether their fellow members go on strike and they are stood down as a result of no work being available, the taxpayer should not pay their strike pay, which is what the Opposition’s proposal amounts to. I am afraid that I cannot agree with Senator Grimes’ proposal in relation to the provision in this area because he believes that all people striking should be paid the unemployment benefit. (Quorum formed). It is absolutely incredible.

Senator Primmer:

– What? That you are turning the clock back 32 years?

Senator WALTERS:

- Senator Primmer says that I am turning the clock back 32 years to the Chifley reign. Senator Primmer says that this is quite irrelevant. As I said earlier, I believe that Mr Chifley was one of the respected Labor Prime Ministers. I believe that the Opposition is not terribly happy about learning that Mr Chifley ‘s industrial relations measures were even more severe than those of this Government. He demanded that any unionist who was stood down due to lack of work must disown the strike before he was permitted to be paid unemployment benefit. This Government is not seeking that sort of provision. The Government is saying that the responsible members of the union must have some say about whether the union members go on strike. If they are not prepared to have some say in the matter and they are stood down due to lack of work, then I do not believe that the taxpayer should be asked to pay their strike pay.

Senator Grimes was on the same old bandwagon when he spoke of the redistribution of wealth. We have heard that argument many times. It is always claimed by people who do not think the matter through- I do not believe for one moment that Senator Grimes honestly believes it- that there can be a great redistribution of wealth in this country. Profit is not a dirty word. It cannot be a dirty word. If it is considered as such, then we will not have employment; we will have much greater unemployment than we have at the moment. I believe that there would not be a thinking person in Australia who would not realise that unless the boss makes a profit he cannot possibly employ men. It is a pity that Senator Grimes likes to get so emotional on this particular issue. Earlier Senator Coleman stated that all the food manufacturers were making profits which are far too great and that they are not employing enough people. There are few manufacturing industries in which labour intensive work is greater. Perhaps the jobs that these food manufacturers provide are not very satisfactory jobs, but they are jobs. The manufacturers have to make a profit to be able to make those jobs available.

Let us deal with the second part of the amendment which was put forward by Senator Grimes. He suggests an increase in the unemployment benefit for those under 18 years of age. I believe that by far the majority of those under 1 8 years of age are still supported partially by their families. Their families still provide a roof over their heads. They receive $36 a week with which they can assist with their board, clothing and fares. I believe that the majority of families are still anxious to support their children, both emotionally and in a material sense, at least until they are 18 years of age. Senator Grimes’ amendment then seeks to remove the provisions relating to the mandatory postponement period for the voluntary unemployed. In other words, he says that anyone who is holding a good job, for whatever reason, should be able to give up that job and go on the unemployment benefit. I have dealt with the most important parts of the Opposition’s amendment. I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill before the House.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– The Senate is debating the Social Services Amendment Bill 1979. My colleague, Senator Grimes, has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. In order that those who are listening to the debate understand the amendment, I will read it as Senator Grimes moved it. He moved:

At the end of the motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that it should provide for-

1 ) twice yearly indexation of benefits for the unemployed without dependents;

) an increase in unemployment benefits for those under 18 years;

removal of the provisions relating to the mandatory postponement period for the “voluntary” unemployed and those who fail the work test;

removal of the provision of refusing unemployment and special benefit to those unemployed through the industrial action of others;

the updating of supplementary allowances and allowances for pensioners’ children to compensate for inflation, and

an increase in family allowances to compensate for their erosion by inflation’.

The previous speaker, Senator Walters, who has already left the chamber, did not really have her heart in her speech until she referred to the period when she was in her mid-20s and recalled the time when the Chifley Government was in power. She suddenly had a burst of enthusiasm in referring to something which occurred over 30 years ago. There is probably no more to say about Senator Walters ‘ speech than that.

I can recall that not long after this Government was elected in 1975, it moved savagely against some social services beneficiaries. Although I was elected to the Senate in 1975, I had not taken my place in this chamber before the assault started. At that time the Parliament was not consulted on some of the issues which were moved against those who were social services beneficiaries. Arbitrary decisions were made about how measures could be taken to cut down the number of people receiving unemployment benefit. Back in 1976, after I had entered this chamber, the Government’s insensitivity culminated in its defeat in this chamber over the abolition of funeral benefits, a matter which had to come before the Parliament. Some aspects of this Bill show similar assaults being made upon social security beneficiaries.

Another part of the Bill attempts to patch up a grave error which was made by the Government last year. This error hurt many pensioners. It also hurt the Government’s electoral standing. If it had not been for the harm that had been done to the electoral standing of the Government, I have no doubt that the wrong would not have been redressed in the legislation that we have before us tonight.

This evening I intend to limit my comments on the Bill to three areas. The first one is the provision of twice-yearly indexation of pensions and benefits. The second is the entitlement to the unemployment benefit in cases where there is industrial action. The third is the postponement of unemployment benefit. My colleague, Senator Grimes, mentioned these points when he spoke to the Bill. I will elaborate on some of the points that he raised.

I will first look at twice-yearly indexation. In 1978, pan of the Budget strategy was to abolish six monthly indexation of pensions. In doing that, this Government callously broke promises that it had made in the 1 975 and 1 977 election campaigns. Senator Guilfoyle, the Minister present tonight, had boasted particularly in the 1 977 election campaign, that the Fraser Government had taken politics out of pensions. When this matter was debated last year and when it has been debated on a few occasions since, we know how it has been shown that that boast was made both in speeches made and advertisements in the daily Press. To save funds in the Budget strategy of last year, money was taken out of pensioners’ pockets. The promises made in 1975 and 1977 were broken. Politics were reintroduced into pensions with a vengeance.

The decision made in 1978 to abolish sixmonthly indexation of pensions led to massive protests by pensioners throughout Australia. People who had never before protested about a measure which had been undertaken by government, did so with determination last year. In Brisbane, the capital of the State which I represent, pensioners gathered in their thousands to go to the Brisbane City Hall to protest against the abolition of six-monthly indexation. Throughout Queensland pensioners gathered to rally and to protest at what had happened. I recall especially two of those rallies which I was invited to attend. One was in Bundaberg and the other was on the Gold Coast.

On the Gold Coast, hundreds upon hundreds of pensioners gathered to outline what they thought of the abolition of six-monthly indexation. It was especially poignant that these pensioners who live on what is regarded as the playground of Queensland, a place one usually associates with people on high levels of income, came out in their hundreds to protest. In Bundaberg even more people gathered. They came from Bundaberg and places all around the district. They not only gathered and protested in a hall against the abolition of six-monthly indexation but also took to the streets of Bundaberg to voice their protest. One knows the risks one takes when one goes on to the streets in Queensland. They took that risk and went in to the streets of Bundaberg to voice their protest. Those people did not want to see their hard won right taken away from them.

The pensioners of Australia showed in no uncertain terms that they would fight to the bitter end. It was not difficult to predict that sixmonthly indexation of pensions would be reintroduced in the August Budget. I recall speaking to some of my supporters before the Parliament resumed for the Budget session. I predicted then quite clearly that indexation of pensions would be reintroduced. Why did I say that it would be reintroduced? First, the Government had realised its folly. It realised the electoral damage that it had done to its own stocks. It realised the further damage that would occur if it persisted with yearly indexation of pensions. When it realised those things it understood that it had to bring back six-monthly indexation.

Secondly, it realised that the cost of reintroducing six-monthly indexation this year would be only minimal. The new indexation provision will not operate until next May. In May and June 1 980 only will extra funds be required for six-monthly indexation. We would have had indexation next month regardless whether sixmonthly indexation had been reintroduced. The impact of the six-monthly indexation in the current legislation is that it will not be required until May and June of next year. When we look at the indexation provisions in this Bill, we must not forget one point. The introduction of this Bill is a clear victory for pensioners in Australia, the people who went out and voiced their disapproval of what had happened. They took up the fight against a promise-breaking Government. They won that fight. Tonight I congratulate those pensioners on the stand that they took and on the victory that they won.

It is not very often that we in this chamber have the opportunity of listening to members of the House of Representatives when they are debating Bills. But last week I was outside this Parliament when the House of Representatives debate was being broadcast. I listened on a car radio to the broadcast of the debate on this very legislation in the House of Representatives. I did not listen for very long, but I did hear the honourable member for Darling Downs, Mr McVeigh, make a speech on this Bill. His speech was punctuated with nonsense. He denigrated the Labor Party’s achievements with respect to pensions. He wrongly implied that the Fraser Government’s achievements were superior to those of the Whitlam Government. That claim is false. I wish to outline the percentage increases in pensions made since 1972 until the introduction of the current rate. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which is entitled: ‘Age Pension and Supplementary Assistance 1973 to 1979’. The source of this table is data supplied by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service. I have previously shown this table to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). She had no objection to its incorporation.

Leave granted. 77ie table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate, Mr President. If we study this table, we see that it shows the increases in pensions since 1972 using constant 1972 to 1973 prices. By doing that we can see the percentage increase of pensions in constant prices throughout. For instance, in 1972, the single rate pension was $20 a week. In 1 973, using constant prices, it was $20.40 a week. For those who are able to study the table, I draw attention to the 2 per cent single rate pension increase in real terms from 1972 to 1973. In 1973 to 1974 when the Whitlam Government was in power it was 15.2 per cent. During the next year when the Whitlam Government was still in power the percentage increase in real terms was 10.6 per cent. If we look at the percentage increases which followed that, we see that they are: Minus 1.2 per cent- the first year that the present Government was in power- 3. 1 per cent, 0.0 per cent, and minus 1.1 per cent. I invite attention to the rest of this table which shows the percentage increases in the pension for a pensioner who has supplementary assistance, and also for married persons with and without supplementary assistance.

I will just mention a couple of points of this table. Between 1972 and 1975 the single rate pension increase in real terms was 30 per cent. From 1975 to 1979 the pension rate increased by 0.8 of a per cent. That is quite a difference. I mention this because of what Mr McVeigh outlined last week when he was speaking in the House of Representatives and denigrated the actions of the Whitlam Government. If we look at the married rate pension, if we take supplementary assistance into account, the increase from 1 972 to 1975 was 21.3 per cent, but there was a decrease from 1972 to 1975 of 1.71 percent. These figures show how false the argument that Mr McVeigh outlined in the House of Representatives last week was.

I move now to the postponement of unemployment benefit. I find it incredible that the Government is legislating to make a minimum postponement of benefit of six weeks, and will make this up to 12 weeks for what is called voluntary unemployment. The discretion given to the Director-General, I believe, is too wide in three of these cases where this postponement can occur. Let us look at what the Act actually states. Section 1 20 of the Act states:

The Director-General may postpone for such period as he thinks fit the date from which an unemployment benefit shall be payable to a person, or may cancel the payment of an unemployment benefit to a person, as the case requires:

if that person’s unemployment is due, either directly or indirectly, to his voluntary act which, in the opinion of the Director-General, was without good and sufficient reason.

That is the first instance in which the unemployed benefit can be postponed. It says ‘in the opinion of the Director-General’. Of course it is not the Director-General who in practice makes the decision but any one of probably hundreds of his delegates. Are they able to make infallible judgments about circumstances in this area? I believe it is not likely that they can. What happens if they do not make an infallible judgment? The person is denied benefit at the time that it is needed. A person may be unemployed, probably genuinely unemployed; a mistake may be made because in the opinion of someone he left his job without good and sufficient reason. Then while he is unemployed, while he really needs some assistance, he does not receive it.

It seems to me that the new motto of the Government must be ‘let them starve’ because that is what could happen in these circumstances. Of course the person may take the case to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, but appeals take time. The appeal could be upheld a long time after this person is back at work. I have seen this occur too often. A person has been denied his benefit. I have had cases in which a person has brought his problem to me or one of my staff. We have gone through all of the possible ways that we could to make sure that he receives his benefit. The matter goes to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, but too often the appeal is upheld after that person is back at work when he does not really need the money. He needed the money at the time when he was unemployed.

This Bill will impose a mandatory six-week suspension. That provision, which I am sure we will discuss when we reach the Committee state, is set out in clause 41 of the Bill. In part it states:

A period of postponement fixed in relation to a person under sub-section (1) . . . shall not be less than 6 weeks or more than 12 weeks.

So it must be six weeks if in the opinion of someone he has left his job without good reason.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It could be longer. It could be up to 12 weeks.

Senator COLSTON:

-Certainly. As Senator Cavanagh mentions, it could be up to 12 weeks. But the point is that it must be at least six, and in that six weeks he or she does not receive any benefit. I was quoting from section 120 of the Act which states that the unemployment benefit shall be postponed:

  1. if that person’s unemployment is due to his misconduct as a worker.

Who says that the person has not lost his job because of misconduct? Does the story of the employee get full consideration? Does the employee have the opportunity to refute any of what may have been an exaggerated story from his former employer?

Senator Chipp:

– Chasing him around the table- without success.

Senator COLSTON:

-I have had the experience of appearing with an appellant before a Social Security Appeals Tribunal. On these occasions the employer’s story is given, but the notes of his comments only are available. He is not there for the employee or the person who is representing the employee to cross-examine him. My experience is that the employer’s word is gospel. The employee is disbelieved. As Senator Chipp said just a moment ago, the employer might have been chasing this person around the table, with or without success. Under these circumstances the employee would have good reason to leave the job. Would the employer say that this was the reason why the person left? Not likely! So we will have this conflict of interest. The employer tells one story which may or may not be correct and the employee tells another story. In the meantime while all this is being sorted out, the person does not get employment benefit for at least six weeks, at a time when that person needs the unemployment benefit. A miscarriage of justice occurs too often. It will occur more often under this new provision. This mandatory provison that no benefit will be paid for six weeks will make it more and more difficult for the unemployed.

I turn now to unemployment benefit and industrial action. I find it impossible to believe that the Government was seriously thinking of social security concepts when it framed this part of the legislation. If I might just quote from the proposed new section of the legislation to which Senator Grimes referred earlier and about which Senator Grimes pointed out quite well that there may be neighbours who are out of work for the same reason, but because one neighbour belongs to a certain union and the other one does not, one receives unemployment benefit and the other does not. The proposed new section of the legislation is contained in clause 35 of the Bill, the relevant parts of which state:

A person is not qualified to receive an unemployment benefit in respect of a period unless:

the person satisfies the Director-General that the person’s unemployment during that period was not due to the person being, or having been, engaged in industrial action;

That provision, I presume, takes into account people who are actually on strike. But it goes on with an ‘and’. So the person is not qualified to receive the benefit unless:

  1. the Director-General is satisfied-
  2. that the person’s unemployment during that period was not due to another person or other persons being, or having been, engaged in industrial action; or-

The provision is rather long, but it is worth while pointing out what it states:

  1. if the Director-General is satisfied that the person’s unemployment during that period was due to another person or other persons being, or having been, engaged in industrial action- that the first-mentioned person was not, during that period, a member of a trade union of which the other person was a member, or of which any one or more of the other persons was or were a member or members, during that period.

What does all that legalistic jargon mean? It means that if a person in Queensland, the State 1 represent, happens to become unemployed as a result of a strike in Victoria, where one of his fellow union members has gone on strike, my constituent in Queensland, who had no ability at all to say whether the strike in Victoria should proceed or who in fact may oppose it, as Senator Grimes said earlier, does not receive unemployment benefit. He may have opposed it, but he does not receive unemployment benefit because one of his colleagues in another State has gone on strike. I use that as an example. Senator Chipp from Victoria, who will follow me, might switch it the other way and say that one of his constituents will not receive unemployment benefit because of something that happened in Queensland. Whether it is one State or another, whether it is one neighbourhood or another, it means that people who have taken no action to provoke a strike or to ensure that a strike takes place or, indeed, who may not even agree with the action that is being taken, will not receive unemployment benefits because one of their union colleagues has gone on strike and caused unemployment in another area.

Senator Walters, who spoke previously, defended this measure by going back to the 1940s. Goodness me, there are some people in this Parliament who were not even born at the time Senator Walters was talking about. We are talking about the late 1970s and we are making legislation for the 1 980s. This legislation is a provision to attack the Australian union movement. I cannot see it as anything else. I see it as a weapon in what Mr Fraser has referred to as his armoury to fight the unions. In case listeners think I am just using that term and ascribing it to Mr Fraser without just cause, let me quote what he said last Friday on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM. Mr Fraser said this:

I think that you ‘11 find and I think there ‘s an appreciation of it that the Commonwealth’s own employees through the CEEP Act and for the legislation that went through the Senate at 3 o’clock last night-

He actually meant 3 o’clock that morning-

  1. . that the Commonwealth is really taking to itself the kind of armoury that we believe is needed.

He was talking about an armoury to use against the union movement in Australia. I think Mr Fraser actually sees this as another weapon in his armoury. It is a petty, mean, and thoroughly repugnant piece of legislation which makes sure that a worker does not receive unemployment benefit because one of his union colleagues somewhere else has provoked a strike which has eventually caused unemployment in his area. When this provision is first used, and used it will be because it will be part of the legislation, it will bring wrath upon the Government. The public servants who administer the legislation will have to apply the provisions of this Act; this provision will be used. I do not think the full implications of this amendment have really been seen and I do not think they will be seen until this piece of legislation has to be used. When workers find out that they cannot receive unemployment benefits, that their wives and children will not have anything to sustain them because of the action of someone somewhere else, then wrath will fall upon this Government.

When I began speaking this evening I outlined the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Grimes. I support the amendment, but in doing so I give notice to the Government that its insensitivity to the unemployed, to those people in the union movement whom I have just described, and to the dependants of those people, will loom large at the time of the next election.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Australian Democrats welcome certain points of the Social Services Amendment Bill 1979 and would agree with the amendments put by the Labor Party. However, we find ourselves in a dilemma because of the way in which voting occurs in this place. The Labor Party, through Senator Grimes, has moved a six-part amendment to the motion for the second reading. We agree with five of these. The one with which we disagree is the twice-yearly indexation of benefits for the unemployed without dependants. Our policy is for quarterly indexation of benefits for the unemployed without dependants. We can see no justification, particularly in light of the figures on inflation released today, for people who cannot help themselves having to wait six months before their pensions are indexed while everybody else in the community receives an immediate benefit. Having made that qualification, we will be voting with the Opposition, with the Labor Party, on the amendment to the Bill.

We welcome certain reforms in the Bill. We welcome the restoration of half-yearly indexation of pensions. We welcome the raising of the income test limits for fringe benefits, but we believe that this should be made automatic as a form of indexation. We welcome the extending of the pensioner medical benefits to lone parents, and we welcome certain other adjustments. At this stage I wish to pay tribute, without being too personal, to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle. At a time when we have the Fraser Government- dominated by bureaucrats in the Treasury, dominated by one or two people in the Cabinet- cutting expenditure at any cost, while we might be critical of cuts in social welfare expenditure and I agree with almost everything Senator Grimes said tonight, to be fair, we ought to pay tribute to the Minister, who has held firm and preserved certain things in the Cabinet room. Having been in Cabinet, I can understand the battle she must have had and the strength of will she must have exerted in the Cabinet room to hold the line at certain things.

Senator Cavanagh:

– If she told us that we might acknowledge it.

Senator CHIPP:

– I do not think it needs much imagination to understand the rapacity of Mr Fraser to cut welfare benefits to the unemployed, to aged pensioners, to young people. Looking at the record of the Minister in holding the linewith respect, Senator Cavanagh has been a Cabinet Minister- we ought to sympathise with the kind of battle Senator Guilfoyle has had. I simply pay credit to her. Secondly, I think it is fair to compliment Senator Grimes on his speech tonight. I agree with every point he made, with the exception of the one I have mentioned.

On the question of half-yearly indexation, I find it rather strange and sad to hear members of the Liberal Party supporting the Bill, supporting the restoration of half-yearly indexation of pensions. It was only a few short weeks ago that I introduced a private member’s Bill into this Parliament, with the support of the Labor Party, and asked for the suspension of Standing Orders. Every single member of the Liberal Party voted against debating that Bill because they said it was not a matter of urgency.

Senator McLaren:

– And the Country Party.

Senator CHIPP:

– I very rarely refer to them. I do not dignify them by reference. I think this is a condemnation of the party system. Just a few weeks ago, members of the Liberal Party voted against something in this parliamentary institution, but tonight, a few weeks later, they are supporting it totally and eulogising it. I ask sadly: Have they changed their minds about this? In the past few weeks have all members of the Liberal Party and National Country Party said: ‘We were wrong. We should have obeyed our promise at the 1977 election to maintain the indexation of pensions. We were wrong in voting against that several weeks ago. We have now been persuaded by logic and compassion that it is a good thing to have half-yearly indexation of pensions’? Of course not. The party leaders, the hierarchy, have told the ciphers here in the party system: ‘You must now change your minds. You must now vote differently in the Parliament from the way you voted some weeks ago ‘.

Debate interrupted.

page 1748

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 1749

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Treasurer: Meetings With Lobbyists (Question No. 1187)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Treasurer or members of his personal staff met representatives from: (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd; (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd; (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd; (f) Denis M. Gilmour and Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations; (h) Macintosh, Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd; and (j) Eric White Associates.
  2. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  3. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  4. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. to (4) There are no special arrangements made to record approaches to the Treasurer or his personal staff by particular companies, professional agencies or lobbyists.

As such organisations are not accorded any special treatment, there is no reason why there should be such special arrangements.

Sales Tax Exemption (Question No. 1766)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are the limits of exemption concerning Sales Tax paid by craftsmen under Items 100 (1) and (2), First Schedule, Division XIV of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1 935 still set at $ 1 ,400 and $ 1 ,000 respectively.
  2. Were these levels set at £700 and £500 respectively in 1 94 1 ; if so, does this mean that the exemption limits have not changed since 1941.
  3. Will the Treasurer consider raising the limits to a level reflecting changes in prices and wages since 1 94 1 ; if not, why not.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The application of exemption under items 100 ( 1 ) and 100 (2) is still limited to cases where the respective average annual turnover of the manufacturer does not exceed $ 1 ,400 or $1,000.
  2. ) These turnover limits have not changed since 1 94 1 .
  3. As the Prime Minister announced recently, the Government proposes to raise the turnover limits to a common amount of $ 12,000.

Unemployment Benefit: Means Test (Question No. 1829)

Senator Watson:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:

Has an estimate been made of the cost to the Government in the year 1978-79, had recipients of unemployment benefits been able to earn $20 per week before earnings were deducted from their unemployment benefits; if so, what is the estimate.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

There is no reliable information upon which an accurate estimate of the cost of increasing the ‘free area’ for unemployment benefits to $20 a week can be made.

However, on the basis of the continuing income declared by current unemployment beneficiaries it has been estimated that the additional gross cost would be of the order of $4.5 million in 1 978-79. This estimate takes no account of: persons who might become eligible for a part rate benefit solely as a result of the change; possible changes in declared income of current beneficiaries; the possible impact of the increase on the incentives of current beneficiaries to obtain part time work; or the additional revenue arising from income tax on increases in benefits.

Foreign Investments in Australia (Question No. 1975)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

  1. Did the Prime Minister indicate on 6 September 1979 that the Australian Government welcomes foreign investments, especially in partnership with Australian concerns.
  2. What was the total amount of actual and prospective expenditure approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board for the year 1978-79, and how much of that expenditure is to be in conjunction with Australian-owned companies or Australian individuals.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Total expected investment (comprising proposed payments for shares and assets plus expected new investment) associated with foreign investment proposals approved by the Government in 1978-79 was $3,521 million. Of this amount, $2,305 million related to foreign investment proposals in which, after their implementation, there would be Australian participation, directly or indirectly, in the equity of the businesses or projects concerned. In addition, a number of other foreign investment proposals, which otherwise would have involved no Australian participation after their implementation, were approved by the Government on the condition that Australian equity participation be introduced at a later stage. The expected investment associated with these proposals was $335 million.

Fishing: Polish Trawlers (Question No. 1985)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister permitted two Polish trawlers to fish within 200 miles of the Australian coast, on the condition that they travel to mid-water; if so, what measures have been taken to ensure they restrict their travelling to mid-water.
  2. Are the two vessels approximately 88 metres in length.
  3. Will no State register Australian vessels longer than 45 metres; and has registration of vessels longer than 32 metres been heavily restricted.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Stage 1 of a two year feasibility fishing project involving two Polish trawlers operating in south eastern waters and within 200 miles of the Australian sub-Antarctic islands of Macquarie, Heard and McDonald, was approved earlier this year. The project will be undertaken by Mauri Bros and Thomson in conjunction with the Polish fishing company Dalmor. The primary purpose of the project is to assess the extent and distribution of pelagic, mid-water and demersal species in areas and for resources not currently exploited by Australian vessels, as well as the commercial viability of exploiting these resources.

As part of this approval, mid-water trawling operations for specific pelagic species not exploited by the Australian fishing industry may be permitted in limited areas off the Tasmanian west coast and between 130 degrees East and 138 degrees East off South Australia. These operations will be subject to the specific approval of the appropriate State and Commonwealth fisheries authorities.

As well as strict controls relating to areas, methods of operation and species to be caught, conditions will apply to landing of catch, access to Australian ports and regular reporting of catch information. Operations will be subject also to the direct oversight of authorised Government observers on board the vessels. Stage 2 of the project which is currently under consideration by the Commonwealth and State fisheries authorities would involve operations in areas covered by Fisheries Notice No. 77 and No. 77a (see (3) below). Operations in this area would be subject to strict controls providing for the taking of species not exploited by the Australian fishing industry using mid-water trawling methods which would be strictly controlled.

  1. Yes.
  2. Fisheries Notice No. 77 currently prohibits Australian trawlers in excess of 45.7 metres in length from operating in specific Commonwealth waters off New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. This Notice also makes provision for trawlers of overall length 32 metres to 45.7 metres to be exempted from the general prohibition. To date, the number of exempt vessels in this category has been restricted to a total of four, by agreement between the Commonwealth and four States listed above.

Australian Capital Territory: Rate Notices (Question No. 2005)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 27 September 1 979:

  1. Which properties in the Kingston-Griffith area of the Australian Capital Territory appear to be eligible for notional unimproved values, as the Minister indicated in answer to Senate Question No. 1708 (see Hansard, 25 September 1979, page 942).
  2. What is: (a) the total amount of revenue that will be outstanding in rates on those properties as at I October 1979; and (b) the total sum of moneys already paid by ‘some ratepayers’ referred to in the second paragraph of the Minister’s answer.
  3. What are the legal and administrative problems holding up the issue of rate notices, and in what respects is the present legislation defective or inadequate.
  4. Has the assistance of the Auditor-General’s efficiency audit unit been sought to rectify any of the administrative problems referred to; if not, why not.
  5. Does the Minister’s response to Question No. 1708 mean that some ratepayers in the Kingston-Griffith area already have not paid rates since 1976-77.
  6. Will the non-payment of rates be allowed to continue for some time, or can it be expected that early action will be taken to send out rate notices for three years of back rates.
  7. What special consideration, if any, when the rate notices are sent out, will be given to the terms of payment by numerous pensioners and other cases of genuine hardship, who will be faced with rate bills in excess of $1000; and if no special consideration is to be given, why not.
  8. What action is proposed to: (a) bill the present owner of the land for all outstanding rates and to give rebates on a similar basis; or (b) seek out the persons who occupied the property for the time being and require payment of them, or forward them the rebates that are their due, as the case may be.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) A property is eligible for a notional value if it is within the prescribed redevelopment area, there is erected on the block a single private dwelling which is occupied solely as such and the owner has applied for a notional value to apply to his property. The Kingston-Griffith redevelopment area comprises Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 Kingston, and Sections 2, 1 4, 1 6, 1 7, 20, 2 1 and 23 Griffith. In total 130 properties could be covered by these provisions.
  2. (a) The total amount of rates outstanding, including the 1979-80 assessment in respect of those properties to which these provisions could apply, is approximately $137,600. This amount is based on notional unimproved values.

    1. The total amount paid by eligible lessees in respect of periods for which assessment notices have been withheld is approximately $ 1 7,400.
  3. The legal and administrative problems relate to a deficiency in the Land Rent and Rates (Deferment and Remission) Ordinance which does not allow notional unimproved values to be determined retrospectively. It is intended that the problem will be overcome in the future by amendments to that Ordinance as well as the Rates Ordinance. The administrative problems flow directly from the time that elapsed while legislative difficulties were being resolved. The remission provisions of the Rates Ordinance are being used to allow rates for eligible properties to be based on notional unimproved values. The assessment notices for the properties concerned will be issued over the next six months.
  4. The use of the Auditor-General’s efficiency audit unit is not considered appropriate as the matters are operational in nature and not issues involving audit at this stage.
  5. Yes.
  6. See answer to Question (3).
  7. The assessment notices will be accompanied by a letter which will invite the lessees in the area to discuss the terms of repayment with the Department. Each case will be treated on its merits and repayment arrangements will be negotiated having regard to each ratepayer’s capacity to pay. Normal remissions will be allowed for pensioners and other ratepayers suffering financial hardship in accordance with the provisions of the Land Rent and Rates (Deferment and Remission) Ordinance. Ratepayers concerned are generally aware of the outstanding rate situation and have had the use ‘ of unpaid moneys meanwhile.
  8. (a) and (b) Where, after adjustment, a rates account is in debit or credit arising from this delayed action, it is intended to treat each case on its merits. The particulars of each individual rates account will be examined closely and special financial arrangements made wherever necessary.

Plague Locust Commission (Question No. 2032)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What insecticide does the Plague Locust Commission use for ground and aerial spraying and
  2. Has Lindane ever been used.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Commission carries out only aerial spraying. For this purpose it uses principally fenitrothion but it has also used small quantities of diazinon.
  2. For technical reasons the Commission has never used Lindane.

Ranger Uranium Project

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 19 September 1979 Senator Wriedt asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, whether I was aware of an article in the Japan Economic Journal of 21 August 1979 on possible Japanese participation in the Ranger uranium project and whether I could confirm the correctness of that report. In my reply I said I would refer it to the Minister for Trade and Resources to see whether he had any further comment to make on it.

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

I note that Senator Wriedt has indulged in selective quoting. The senator made the following quote:

Officials of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry have promised . . . president of Kansai Electric Power Co. . . participation in a joint JapaneseAustralian uranium development project’.

The article in fact said that:

Officials of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry have promised Shoichiro Kobayashi, president of Kansai Electric Power Co., government support for Kansai and other partners’ participation in a joint Japanese-Australian uranium development project’.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to the words left out: . . . Shoichiro Kobayashi, president of Kansai Electric Power Co., government (i.e. Japanese Government) support for Kansai and other partners ‘.

Proposals for acquisition of the Government’s interests in the Ranger project were opened on 3 October. They have been received from organisations in Australia, the United States, Britain, Canada, Japan, Korea, Italy, France and Germany. A total of seventeen proposals have been received and are being evaluated by officials.

The article in the Japan Economic Journal referred to Japanese Government support for any proposal by a Japanese consortium to take up an interest in the Ranger uranium project. The fact that proposals have come from organisations in Japan would indicate that Japan is fully committed to the further development of the nuclear power industry.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 October 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19791024_senate_31_s83/>.