Senate
16 October 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10.30 a.m.. and read prayers.

page 1197

QUESTION

NOTICES OF MOTION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– In the absence of. and at the request of Senator Wood, I give notice that on Tuesday, 27th October 1970 he will move:

That regulation5of the amendments of the National Service Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1970, No.116. and made under the National Service Act 1951-1968, be disallowed.

I ask for leave to make a statement concerning the notice I have just given.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DEVITT:

– The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has asked me to acquaint the Senate with the grounds of the Committee’s objection to regulation 5 of these regulations. The National Service Act empowers the Minister for Labour and National Service to require from time to time, all male persons who have attained the age of 19 years, and who have attained or will attain the age of 20 years during a specified period, to register under the Act. The Act then imposes obligations upon persons who are registered or required to register under the Act. Section 25 (1.) of the Act provides:

A person who -

is registered, or is required to register, under this Act;

has attained the age of twenty years, or, in the case of a person registered under section sixteen of this Act, ninteen years;

is not exempt from liability to render service under this Act; and

has not attained the age of twenty-six years or, in the case of a person included in a prescribed class of persons, thirty years, is liable to render service as required by or under this Act.

Section 29a (1.) provides:

A person whose conscientious beliefs do not allow him to engage in any form of military service is, so long as he holds those beliefs, exempt from liability to render service under this Act.

Section 29a (2.) provides:

A person whose conscientious beliefs do not allow him to engage in military duties of a combatant nature but allow him to engage in military duties of a non-combatant nature, shall not, so long as he holds those beliefs, be required to engage in duties of a combatant nature.

The Act further provides that wherea question arises whether a person is exempt from liability under section 29a (1.) or is a person to whom section 29a (2.) applies the question shall be heard and decided by a Court of summary jurisdiction. It is apparent that the scheme of the Act is to exempt from liability to render service any person whom a Court has decided is a person whose conscientious beliefs do not allow him to engage in any form of military service. The amendments to the National Service Regulations contained in Statutory Rules No. 116 of 1970 provide, among other things, for the Minister to refer to the courts cases of conscientious objection to military service where a person liable to render service has not availed himself of the provisions of the regulations to make claim for exemption. Regulation 31 of the National Service Regulations enables a person who claims to be exempt under section 29a (1.) or a person to whom section 29a (2.) applies to make application for the question whether he is so exempt or is such a person to be heard and determined by a court. Prior to Statutory Rules No. 116, if a person chose not to make application, there was no provision whereby the question of whether that person was in fact exempt from liability to render service could be decided. Regulation 5 of the Regulations makes such provision. It provides:

After regulation 32 of the National Service Regulations the following regulation is inserted: 32a. Where a question has arisen, whether as a result of an oral or written statement by a person or otherwise, whether - (at a person is exempt, by virtue of sub-section (1.) of section 29a of the Act, from liability to render service under the Act; or

a person is a person to whom sub-section (2.) of that section applies, and the person has not made an application under regulation31 of these Regulations in relation to that question, the Minister may direct the Registrar at a National Service Registration Office to refer the question to a competent court of summary jurisdiction for hearing and decision.’.

The Committee recognises that certain persons may not wish to make application. The Committee is not concerned with the propriety or impropriety of such conduct. However, if a question arises as to whether such a person is exempt from liability - and this would apparently be for the Minister to decide - the Minister has a discretion as to whether he will direct the

Registrar to initiate the processes for the question to be decided. The Minister’s discretion is unlimited and he may direct the Registrar to refer some questions and not direct the Registrar in respect of others. As the status of conscientious objection, as decided by a court, is a status of exemption which may be acquired by the processes other than by application by the person claiming the status or by reference by the Registrar, on direction of the Minister, the Committee considers that there should be equality of treatment or opportunity in respect of the process of reference.

The Committee considers that it is rendering the rights and liberties of citizens to be unduly dependent upon administrative rather than judicial decisions if the Minister may decide, after the question has arisen, which questions of status may be referred to a court. If a question arises whether a person is exempt, section 29B provides that that question is to be decided. It is considered that clause 5 of the regulations does not require the Minister to ensure that all questions which arise are referred. Accordingly the rights of citizens are liable to be affected unduly by a ministerial decision. The Committee acknowledges that all persons may claim exemption and that clause 5 only operates in respect of those who do not make application. However, it considers that within that class of non-applying persons the procedure of reference should apply equitably if the question of that exemption arises.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - 1 do not doubt the propriety of the actions of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances in moving for the disallowance of a regulation. However, the making of a statement following the giving of notice of a motion which an honourable senator proposes to move is something which has concerned me for some time because in such statements reference is often made to the merits or demerits of the motion. This has happened not only in the case of notices of motion which have been given on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee but also on other occasions. It may be necessary for the Senate - perhaps the Standing Orders Committee - to examine whether, when notice of a motion is given, the honourable senator who gives the notice should remain strictly within the framework of the terms of the motion in doing so.

I appreciate that the intention of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee on this occasion was to give honourable senators advance knowledge of what it intended to seek in order that their minds could be put to consideration of the matter. However, J. believe that it is a departure from the concept of giving notice of a motion if: it is followed by a statement, lt is true that the honourable senator sought leave to make a statement. However, it is often not known at the time leave is sought what is going to be said. Leave is usually granted as a matter of courtesy. I believe that the notice of motion should stand on ils own right. If an honourable senator so desires he can circulate outside of the Senate or table in the Senate the facts of his case for giving notice of a motion. The substance of the proposed motion would then be a matter for debate. Here we have a situation in which a case has been stated and there can be no response at the time the case is stated.

Senator DEVITT (Tasmania)- by leaveThe Committee had not any guidance from the Standing Orders as to what it ought to do and it thought, in the absence of any specific procedure, that the proper action to take would be to present the submission that I have made at the time of giving the notice of motion so that all honourable senators would have an opportunity of knowing the grounds of recommendation for disallowance. The Committee does not take lightly the disallowance of a regulation, lt realises that this is something which has to be considered very carefully.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am talking about the procedure. I am not discussing the merits of the motion for disallowance.

Senator DEVITT:

– The Committee sees nothing wrong with the procedure it has adopted.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would like to ask whether it is the wish of the Senate that this matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. Over the last few years I have been a little concerned about the length of statements that accompany motions such as this and also the length of statements made by spokesmen for the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee. There being no objection, the matter will be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I want to give what I might call a holding notice of motion in relation to a regulation because if notice of motion is not given today the regulation will take effect. I will move the motion merely for the purpose of holding the matter for further consideration. I give notice that on the next day of sitting 1 shall move:

That regulation 2 of the amendments to the National Service Regulations as contained in statutory rules 1970, No. 116. and made under the National Service Act 1 95 1 - 1 968 be disallowed.

I emphasise that this is the last day on which notice of motion may be given if the regulation is not to take effect automatically. We want to give the matter further consideration and then advise the Senate what our intention will be.

page 1199

QUESTION

SHEEP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Is the Minister aware that considerable disquiet exists among Australian Capital Territory citizens at the fact that sheep are grazed in suburbs near Red Hill when it is known that a hydatids problem exists? Does the Minister think that, having in mind the number of tourists who visit this area, the grazing of sheep should be confined to the outer perimeter of the ACT al least until the disease is curbed? Does he agree that this would prevent the disease being carried to other areas?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This is (he sort of problem that can arise very c:sily when there is an outbreak of hydatids. My understanding of hydatids is very limited, although I know a little about it because of my activities before coming to this place. The principal problem with hydatids, as it can affect human beings, arises from dogs running with sheep in areas where the available water is used for drinking by human beings also. I doubt very much that this situation exists in the suburbs of the Australian Capital Terri tory. Nevertheless I will take the matter up with the relevant authorities. As 1 said earlier to Senator Georges, who has obviously studied this matter a little more than other people, I do not know anything more about the disease than I have just stated. That was my understanding when there was an outbreak in my own district. I will refer the matter to the Minister for the Interior. I think it probably comes within the province of the Department of Health as well, but the Minister for the Interior can himself communicate with the Department of Health.

page 1199

QUESTION

KIDNAPPINGS

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask a question of the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to the most recent kidnapping incidents in various parts of the world involving members of parliament and people in important diplomatic positions. Does the Government regard these incidents as a form of intimidation and threat to effective constitutional government? If so, will the Government, in co-operation with the States, take immediate action to increase the penalties and take what other action is thought necessary to discourage this most dangerous and inhuman threat to people in responsible positions?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– 1 think every honourable senator would agree with the honourable senator’s interpretation of the situation that these crimes are a serious and violent threat to constituted authority. All I wish to say, in the absence on ministerial business of the Attorney-General, is that the matter is being carefully watched by the Government. A preliminary consideration of penalties applicable to this offence in State legislation seems to indicate that they range from 7 years to 20 years or life, according to the State concerned.

page 1199

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Expressions of considerable concern have been made by people in the wheat industry and wheat growing areas throughout Australia about the likely loss to Canada of a considerable market for wheat in China as a consequence of Canadia’s diplomatic recognition of the Republic of China, coupled with problems created by the drought, the quota delivery scheme, the cost spiral and inflation. Will the Minister immediately consult his colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, and attempt to negotiate a longterm wheat contract with the Republic of China which would assist in getting the wheat growing industry off the hook? At the same time will he give the marketing authority an assurance that the Australian Government will support the application of China for admission to the United Nations Organisation?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– Any effects of the diplomatic recognition of China by Canada on our sales of wheat to mainland China at this stage can be only pure conjecture. There is no evidence to suggest that China will cut down its wheat imports from Australia or turn away from Australia as a source of supply. In fact, from my experience, the Chinese always have been recognised as being pretty hard headed business men. 1 believe they will go where they get the best bargain. Canada has been selling wheal to mainland China in pretty large quantities only since 1961 and Australia has had wheat markets in China since before that time. I believe that the Australian Wheat Board is very conscious of the situation. As always, representatives of the Board will be in close contact with the Chinese in an endeavour to sell them even more wheat than they have bought in the past.

page 1200

QUESTION

WOOD CHIPS INDUSTRY

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development been drawn to today’s announcement of a new 10-year wood chips contract between Japan and Russia? Will this new source of supply to the Japanese paper industry in any way limit the prospects of development of the wood chips industry in Australia? Will the Minister ascertain the price agreed upon between Russia and Japan and give that information to the Senate?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It was to be expected that at some point of time an arrangement would be entered into between Japan and Russia for wood chips. In my view - speaking only for myself - it is to be expected that this sort of arrangement is likely to occur in relation to other materials, particularly those produced in the eastern province areas of the Asian continent which are controlled by Russia. Japan is a constant searcher for raw materials for processing and one of the great sources of raw materials accessible to Japan, without doubt at all, lies in the eastern part of Russia. Therefore this arrangement is not surprising, nor should it be surprising. I cannot say to what extent this will limit the Australian capacity to export to Japan. However I can say that throughout the world there is a growing shortage of wood and a growing need for pulp. We are reaching the situation where wood resources are likely to become increasingly valuable. Therefore, I consider it quite unlikely that this arrangement will limit in any way the Australian capacity to export wood chips from its low grade forest areas or industry and sawmill waste heaps. I will ask my colleague whether he can ascertain what the price between Japan and Russia is; but. knowing the vagaries of international trade, I shall be extremely surprised if the Japanese will volunteer this information.

page 1200

QUESTION

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Supply. In view of the fact that at meetings of the various Senate estimates committees documents explaining the expenditure of departments are circulated but are not included in Hansard - I refer particularly to 4 documents from the Department of Supply which were circulated last Tuesday - I ask whether these documents are the exclusive privilege of senators who are present at the committee meetings, or whether they can be made available to other senators.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I am relying a little on memory now. I think there was an understanding at the committee meeting - perhaps the chairman of the committee concerned could confirm this - that I would not table the documents so that they would be available to any person who wanted to make reference to them. But my judgment is that they should be made available immediately to any senators who are not members of the committee but who want them.

Senator Murphy:

– Can they be circulated?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 see no reason why the documents could not be circulated. I think we had a discussion and found that it was not possible to incorporate them in Hansard because there were some problems associated with that. But everybody, whether a nominated member of the committee or another senator, has the same rights when it comes to any consideration of the documents.

page 1201

QUESTION

INFECTED MEAT

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to a number of questions that have been asked in the Senate regarding the level of inspection of meat at abattoirs and the fact that in certain instances infected carcass meat finds its end use in human consumption. I acknowledge a letter from the Minister for Health which suggests that the Public Health Advisory Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council is considering a revision of standards, at least in relation to pet food. But I put it to the Minister that in this regard there is a much more important matter and that apparently moderate questions in this place do not alert health authorities to action. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that there are many instances in which infected pieces of carcass meat find their end use in human consumption and that inspecting authorities, both State and Federal, have taken no action to ensure that the public is protected from this undesirable practice?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator makes a statement in which he says, in effect, that certain things are happening. 1 have no knowledge of them happening. But this is an important question, and 1 shall take it up with the Minister for Health and obtain whatever information I can.

page 1201

QUESTION

ANTI-HIJACKING DEVICES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, follows other questions on the subject of anti-hijacking devices and any other methods considered necessary to provide the maximum safeguards in Australia. Is the Minister now able to supply any information on devices which are under consideration or are now operating in Australian airports?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Senator Bishop directed questions on this subject to me some litle while ago. At that point of lime he was good enough, at my request, to exercise some forbearance. I am grateful to him for that. The magnetometer devices that we were then testing were in such asituation that we did not want to say anything about them because we thought that in many ways that might be harmful. What happened was that the minute these troubles appeared the Department of Civil Aviation arranged for special equipment to be flown from America - the only place where it was available. We installed these pieces of equipment in a series of private trial rooms and tested them thoroughly. I went through several of them. It is now a fact that we have installed magnetometer sensors at Sydney Airport. We are proceeding to install them at Tullamarine and at other places. Their purpose is to detect persons who might be carrying metal objects when they embark on aircraft in this country.

We are also using what is called the profile method to establish the kind of pattern of people who may perhaps be a little suspect. Earlier 1 said that I believed that the Department was up to date with anything available in the world that could help in the detection of metal objects. I think that is still true. 1 do not want to say anything more than that, lt has been a useful device so far. To date we have detected nobody carrying anything that would bc in any way offensive. A few cigarette lighters and things of that kind have shown up, but nothing offensive.

page 1201

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and it touches on the same topic as that raised by Senator Webster. I should like to know - and I have no doubt that many others would like to know - whether all recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council in respect of primary products, including meat, have been carried out in their entirety. If not, which are outstanding and to what extent? I inform the Minister, if she is not aware already, that I gave notice of that question on 11th June last. It has been outstanding now for more than 4 months. It is the fourth oldest question on the notice paper. In view of the great public concern in relation to these matters, could something be done to get an answer to a simple question, the answer to which ought to be fairly readily available?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am aware that the honourable senator has had this question on the notice paper. I have taken up this matter with the Minister concerned. I shall do so again to get for the honourable senator the information he requires as soon as possible. I think that some information which I have is also important to give to the honourable senator. It relates to the question previously asked by Senator Webster, which has been answered by letter to him from the Minister for Health. As this is of interest to the Senate, I should like to give this information. The Minister wrote to Senator Webster:

As you will be aware that legislation in this field is a matter for individual State governments, the Commonwealth being responsible only in the Territories it administers.

All meat and meat products prepared for human consumption in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory are subject to strict standards of inspection by qualified meat inspectors. These meat inspectors are trained by the Department of Primary Industry to the same standard as the Department’s inspectors who supervise the preparation of meat for export in the States at meatworks which are engaged in the preparation of meat for human consumption both for the export and the home market the meat is inspected by Commonwealth inspectors. At meat works slaughtering for the home market only, inspection is the responsibility of the relevant State department

Meat used for canned pet food is not subjected to the same standards of inspection as is meat used for human consumption.

The Minister also said:

I would like to reiterate that the Public Health Advisory Committee . . .

This was the committee to which Senator Murphy referred - of the National Health and Medical Research Council has considered the desirability or otherwise of introducing a uniform standard for canned pet foods, but these discussions have not reached any finality.

I shall try to clear up the other points which Senator Murphy raised.

page 1202

QUESTION

OIL AND GAS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. What amount of royally has Victoria received from the production of Bass Strait oil and natural gas? What is the estimated amount of royalty that Victoria will receive annually from Bass Strait oil and natural gas? Would not the revenue received by that State from the highly productive oil fields further advantage that affluent State to the disadvantage of the less wealthy States?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– There is no doubt at all that the discovery of oil and natural gas in Bass Strait and Victoria’s share of the royalties have been of considerable benefit to that State. Good luck to it. At present I do not know what it has received by way of royalties as its share of the oil and natural gas or what is likely to be its share in future years. This would need to be ascertained. T shall have to ask the responsible Commonwealth Minister, as the Commonwealth is of course joined with the State of Victoria in sharing the royalties.

page 1202

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which .1 direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, is prompted by a report of a statement attributed to Sir James Vernon, Chief General Manager of the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Limited. He is reported to have said that a condition of total disaster .faces the Queensland sugar industry if the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is not taken into account by Britain upon her entry into the European Economic Community, and which in turn would have very grave repercussions on the stability and continuance of the International Sugar Agreement. He said that therefore a total disturbance of the world sugar position, would result. Is the Minister in a position to inform the Parliament on the progress of negotiations regarding retention of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement by Britain in the light of her discussions on entry into the Common Market? What would be the repercussions to the Australian industry if the agreement were not retained? What alternatives are being contemplated for the Australian sugar industry by the Government in the event that this position inevitably does develop?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I think it would be readily accepted that

Australia’s best interests are essentially served by the International Sugar Agreement and with particular reference - almost overwhelming reference - to the industry in Queensland. I do not think any of us would doubt that. As to the implications of Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community in relation to its responsibility to the International Sugar Agreement, I am not in a position to answer. I am sure the honourable senator recognises that at short notice at question time I could not answer that question. In a sense it is a hypothetical question. It is hypothetical in that the suggestion by Sir James Vernon is based on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, but that does not appear to be imminent because negotiations are still proceeding. The honourable senator has asked about the carry over effect on the International Sugar Agreement. I do not know. It is a matter for high consideration, very properly, by the Minister for Trade and Industry. I will have the matter referred immediately to him to see whether 1 can attract a reply for the honourable senator.

page 1203

QUESTION

HONEY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. 1 ask: What is the present situation in respect of the expressed desire of certain commercial apiarists for a poll of beekeepers to ascertain their views concerning the continued operation or reorganisation of the presently constituted Australian Honey Board?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– For some time now the Federal Council of the Apiarists’ Association of Australia has been examining a scheme formulated for a minimum price within the industry. Recently a conference was held of all State apiarists’ associations. Following that conference the Western Australian and Tasmanian bodies held a conference and decided against participating in the scheme. The other 4 States strongly supported the scheme. I understand that some people within the industry feel that because of the present strong price for export honey, the time is not ripe for such a scheme to be implemented within the industry.

However, recently the Commercial Association of Apiarists of South Australia requested that a poll be held to determine whether the Australian Honey Board should be abolished. This was taken up with the Minister for Primary Industry, who examined submissions alleging incompetence by the Board. These allegations were made by the South Australian organisation. The Minister considered that there was no substance whatever in the allegations. I am informed that the association which made the request represents a small minority of growers in the industry and that it does not receive any support in its submissions from the remainder of the industry. For this reason the Minister has said no to its request.

page 1203

QUESTION

TELEPHONE BOOKS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 address a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. As the current contract for printing the Queensland section of telephone books expires in 1972, have lenders been invited for the printing of books for subsequent years? If so, have applications closed and which firm was the successful tenderer?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I did not quite hear the honourable senator’s question, but I believe that he inquired about tenders for printing telephone books after 1972. Is that correct? Senator Milliner - Yes.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– He asked also whether tenders had closed and who was the successful tenderer. 1 do not have this information, but I shall see what information I can get for the honourable senator from the PostmasterGeneral.

page 1203

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. In view of the great problem being experienced in the islands of the South Pacific in finding suitable work opportunities for educated indigenes, is any special consideration being given to this situation in Papua and New Guinea? Is there any board or council in the Territory whose task is to assess how many experts in different fields are required now or in the near future - for example, how many engineers, technicians, architects, surveyors, lawyers, doctors, teachers and so on? Is there any current plan to give scholarships designed to fill these requirements? If this type of planning for future work opportunities is not under way at present, will the Minister take up with his colleague the urgent need and desirability of initiating such plans immediately?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am unable to say offhand the position with regard to the existence of a board or scholarships. 1 can assure the honourable senator that in the statement that I shall present to the Estimates Committee there will be ample information as to the survey which is constantly made to ascertain the experience of trained indigenes for thevarious public duties that will be required of magistrates, surveyors, engineers, lawyers and other people who would be regarded as having special responsibility in the community. I shall be very glad to bring the honourable senator’s question to the special notice of the Minister so that I may obtain accurate information for her.

page 1204

QUESTION

INFORMAL VOTING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. When can senators expect to see a preview of a film aimed at educating voters to avoid informal votes in the forthcoming Senate election, the commentary for which is to be given by Bill Peach who spearheaded the successful ‘This Day Tonight’ programme?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think that anybody who is trying to produce a situation in which there is a lower informal vote in a Senate election is doing something very useful for the Australian people, the Senate and the Parliament. The proposition that we should see the film and that it should be widely viewed will have my full support. I shall communicate the honourable senator’s suggestion to the Minister and see that we get the film as soon as possible so that honourable senators may see it.

page 1204

QUESTION

CUSTOMS INSPECTIONS

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise been drawn to certain allegations by the Speaker of the House of

Assembly of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea concerning his treatment by certain customs officers in Brisbane? Is no provison made for goods in transit through Australia - to Fiji in this case - to be held in some form of bond? Could not provision be made for goods in the nature of gifts to a new country to be exempt from scrutiny, provided that no quarantine matters are in question? Will the Minister arrange for a full report to the Senate on this incident?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I had the rare luxury this morning of being able to read the morning newspapers. I noted in the ‘Australian’ a comment about this matter so I immediately sought an answer. This is the answer provided to me by the Minister for Customs and Excise: Dr John Guise, the Speaker of the Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly, arrived in Brisbane on the afternoon of 8th October 1970. Dr Guise advised the customs officer that he was carrying gifts in a hessian bag for other persons but that he did not know the nature of these gifts. Because of the strong presumption that quarantine problems might be involved, the bag was inspected by a customs examining officer. One article was found to be a club with bird skins and feathers attached, and was referred to the quarantine officer on duty, who informed Dr Guise that it was subject to appropriate treatment before it could be admitted into Australia. At this point - and for the first time - Dr Guise informed the officer that he was, in fact, in transit to Fiji. For this reason, the quarantine officer advised him that no further action was required. The goods were re-wrapped and given back to Dr Guise. No other baggage of Dr Guise or his wife was inspected.

I would add my own comment that Senator Laucke would, I am sure, be amongst the people who would be extremely conscious of the importance of maintaining particularly tight quarantine in this country. I am sure he would sympathise with, and respect the wishes of, the Customs Department in the need for quarantine to be rigid here. Having read the remarks 1 have just quoted, it seems to me that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved. I am sure that no offence to Dr Guise was intended, and I hope he will take it that way.

page 1205

QUESTION

SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES

(Question No. 498)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister:

  1. What is the exact salary of the head of each statutory corporation which comes under Commonwealth jurisdiction.
  2. What are the details of any allowances and other benefits received by such persons.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

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

  1. The Public Service Board has provided the information shown in the following schedule. The schedule covers statutory bodies incorporated under Commonwealth enactment, or under ordinances made by Executive Council action (e.g.. A.C.T. ordinances) but does not include bodies incorporated under Territory of Papua and New Guinea or Northern Territory ordinances, which are made by the legislatures of those Territories.
  2. Honourable senators will be aware that various arrangements apply in relation to the statutory corporations which come under Commonwealth jurisdiction. Forexample, in some cases the ‘head’ is a part-time official and in others a full-time official. There may also be a separate chief executive officer’, e.g., General Manager. The situation for the various ‘heads’ of the statutory corporations is indicated in the schedule.
* Part-time officials. t Approved rates; a C.P.S. officer is currently acting as Chairman with no additional remuneration payable. *I* See Australian Services Canteens Organization Regulations for provisions concerning these offices. § C.P.S. officer; no additional remuneration payable. II See Commonwealth Banks Act 1959-1968 for provisions concerning these officers. U Chairman is Director, Commonwealth Office of Education (a C.P.S. officer). ** Also a C.P.S. office. tt To be prescribed. *tt* Serving officers of the Armed Services, but trustees not entitled to receive remuneration from the funds - section 12 (1.) of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953-1965 and section 11 (1.) of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947-1950. {: .page-start } page 1208 {:#debate-17} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-17-0} #### POSTAL DEPARTMENT (Question No. 663) {: #subdebate-17-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How much was expended last year by the Postmaster-General's Department on the use of tax cabs and hire vehicles for the delivery of telegrams? 1. At which post offices throughout Australia was it found necessary, during last financial year, to use taxis and hire vehicles for this purpose. 2. What is the rate of pay awarded to telegram delivery boys? 3. What is the estimated shortage of staff in the Department for telegram delivery purposes? {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. CO Approximately $45,000. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Including the General Post Office in each capital city, there were about 200 post offices throughout the Commonwealth where it was necessary to use taxis on those occasions 'when normal delivery staff was not available, or for the after hours delivery of telegrams on which senders had paid special delivery fees. The Post Office delivers telegrams free of charge within a three-mile radius of the General Post Office after hours, as well as to addresses beyond that radius if special delivery fees have been paid. Considerable use is made of motor vehicles, including taxis, for after hours deliveries from General Post Offices and a substantial proportion of the total amount in (1) above was incurred for this purpose. The traditional method of delivering the majority of telegrams in Australia has been by telegraph messengers riding bicycles, or walking. In recent years, however, widespread trials have been undertaken in the use of motor transport for telegram delivery. At some centres, motor cycles are used for telegram delivery in outlying districts where distances are great. However, the use of motor cycles in the southern States is often unsuitable due to weather conditions and a number of officers in these States have now been provided with motor cars for telegram delivery purposes. Although transport costs are greater, the Department plans to introduce motorised delivery of telegrams on a widespread scale in selected areas because the extra cost is more than offset by reduced labour costs as a result of faster deliveries. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. From $1,363 to $2,503 per annum depending on age and educational qualifications. 1. As at 30th June, 1970, there were 111 unstaffed positions out of a total of 2,159 approved positions, due mainly to recruitment difficulties. Temporary staff shortages also- occur because of illnesses and other reasons. {: .page-start } page 1209 {:#debate-18} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-18-0} #### TELEVISION (Question No. 664) {: #subdebate-18-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: >Is it a fact that direct communication satellites, with a capacity to telecast programmes from foreign countries directly to viewers in Australia, without the aid of a local repeater station, are being prepared for launching; if so, what consideration has been given to the possible impact that such multiple unlicensed overseas transmissions will have upon the programme standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, Australian television stations, including those operated by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and the cultural welfare of the people of Australia. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. Direct transmission of television signals to home receivers has not yet reached the stage of practicability and is not foreseen for many years. Such direct reception would require the use of satellites of very much higher transmitting power than has yet been developed and the use of augmented receivers. The social implications which such direct broadcasting from satellites would have because of reception of such transmissions internationally has been given a great deal of consideration by a Working Group of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and other organs of international cooperation. Australia has been represented at the 3 meetings which the Working Group has had. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board is keeping under consideration the aspects of direct satellite broadcasting to which the honourable senator has referred. I refer the honourable senator to a detailed account of developments on all matters relating to satellite broadcasting in the 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd Annual Reports of the Board. {: .page-start } page 1209 {:#debate-19} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-19-0} #### TELEVISION (Question No. 666) - {: #subdebate-19-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which national television station provides a regional news service for the Tamworth District, the Northern Tablelands, slopes and plains of New South Wales, from the Queensland border to Quirindi and west to Walgett. 1. What is the estimated populationin this area. 2. What length of time in news bulletins is taken up in news stories specifically relating to this area, and how many news stories are there. 3. Will consideration be given to expanding the regional news services for country areas on national television. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Television Transmitter ABUN Channel 7 Upper Namoi (Tamworth). 1. The A.B.C. understands it to be in the vicinity of 181,000. 2. A recent survey showed that the ABUN regional news bulletin which serves also the Newcastle and Hunter River district included an average of 2.4 stories specifically related to the area in question. The average duration of each was 35 seconds. 3. The expansion of the A.B.C. 's Regional Television News Services would require the employment of additional technical staff and facilities, and at present funds are not available for this purpose. {: .page-start } page 1209 {:#debate-20} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-20-0} #### TELEVISION (Question No. 669) {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Min ister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: >Are all commercial television stations which have completed three years of operation complying with the Control Board's requirements relating to the presentation of Australian dramatic programmes; if not, which stations are not complying. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The latest statistics available are for the four weeks period ending 31st May 1970, when all stations which had completed three years operation were complying with the requirement. {: .page-start } page 1209 {:#debate-21} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-21-0} #### AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF SALARIED AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICERS (Question No. 678) {: #subdebate-21-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a statement by the President of the Australian Writers' Guild, at theAnnual Conference of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Officers' Associations, that whilst there are over 200 members of the Guild and another 200 associate members, only 40 of its members are able to find work opportunities in the Australian television industry. 1. Will the Prime Minister ask the Council for the Arts to investigate this matter to see if measures can be taken by the Council to provide greater employment opportunities forAustralian writers on television and radio. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON: The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Australian Council for the Arts has been and is interested in the employment opportunities for Australian writers in television and radio. It has sponsored awards, workshops and other activities designed to improve the quality of work of Australian writers and enhance their prospects of a professional career in this field. The Council's recommendations to the Government for the establishment of a national film and television training school, a national film development corporation and an experimental film fund are all designed to provide professional opportunities for Australian writers. The Council, as part of its continuing film and television programme, will look at further ways of assisting writers in this field and would be happy to receive any suggestions. It is in regular contact with the Australian Writers' Guild and other organisations representing the interests of Australian writers as well as with individual writers. {: .page-start } page 1210 {:#debate-22} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-22-0} #### MORATORIUM DEMONSTRATION (Question No. 721) . {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: >If certain Commonwealth Departments issued instructions to their employees not to take part in moratorium demonstrations in Canberra, which Ministers or departmental heads were responsible for the issue of such instructions. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON: -- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No such instruction was issued to members of my Department nor am I aware of such an instruction being issued elsewhere. The Public Service Board has advised me that it is also not aware of any such instruction. {: .page-start } page 1210 {:#debate-23} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-23-0} #### TELEVISION (Question No. 724) {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When the Australian 'Broadcasting Commission was negotiating with overseas television interests for the coverage of the World Cup Soccer championships, did the Commission only seek a suitable fee for an exclusive service to Australia. 1. Is it a fact, as claimed by high officials of the Australian Soccer Federation, that the Australian Broadcasting Commission could have saved SO per cent on television rights if Australia had worked in partnership with Japan and other Asian nations in the procurement of these television rights. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. No. {: .page-start } page 1210 {:#debate-24} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-24-0} #### TELEVISION >Would the Minister bring to the attention of the Broadcasting Control 'Board the latest gimmick used in wrestling matches shown on GTV Channel 9, Victoria, in which a wrestler appears to use a cigarette lighter for the purpose of burning the eyes of his opponent? While most adults would be aware that these matches and the gimmicks used are faked, does the Minister agree that such exhibitionism should not be shown at 12.30 p.m. on Sundays when large numbers of children would no doubt be viewing this programme. The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply. I have consulted the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which confirms the incident referred to by the Honourable **Senator. TheBoard** agrees that the item was unsuitable for televising at the time at which the programme was transmitted. The Board has already taken the matter up with the management of station GTV Melbourne; the matter is still under attention in that regard. {: .page-start } page 1210 {:#debate-25} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-25-0} #### NATIONAL SERVICE (Question No. 581) {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: asked the Minis ter representing the. Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the statement of **Mr Brian** Ross to a special Court, set up to ascertain whetheror not he held conscientious objection to war, state: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 'I believe I can better serve mankind than by killing'; 1. 'I believe I can serve mankind by resisting laws of governments which force me to kill'; and (c)I believe I could better serve mankind by resisting our wrong and cruel invasion of Viet-Nam and our equally wrong reason for it'. 1. Whatever the decision of **Mr Justice** Smithers may be, will the Minister inform this imprisoned peace advocate that in the Government's view he is mis-informed and his best service to mankind would be to kill, to accept laws which force him to kill and to support our wrong and cruel invasion of Viet-Nam and our equally wrong reasons for it {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
LP -- The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The complete statement made by **Mr Brian** Ross is set out in the report of **Mr Justice** Smithers which was released on 21st September 1970 and a copy of which the honourable senator will have. 1. The honourable senator should be aware that the approach to genuine conscientious objection in Australia is as favourable as that in any other country and a good deal more liberal than in most. By contrast with some other countries conscientious beliefs do not have to be of a religious character or part of the doctrine of a religion. Men granted total exemption are moreover not required to perform any service, military or civilian. Over the years a wide rangeof beliefs have been accorded exemption. The honourable senator will find confirmation of this in the Annual Review of the National Service Scheme which was released on 25th August last and a copy of which he will have. {: .page-start } page 1211 {:#debate-26} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-26-0} #### NATIONAL SERVICE (QuestionNo. 582) {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did **Mr Brian** Ross refuse to give evidence before a special Court, established to ascertain whether or not he had a conscientious objection to military service; if so, were his stated reasons for not assisting the Court that he would not co-operate with the Court to get the Government out of an embarrassing position. 1. Is the 'Federal Government in an embarrassing position over the imprisonment of **Mr Brian** Ross while others who refuse to comply with the National Service Act are not charged. {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
LP -- The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Brian Ross' co-operation with the inquiry of **Mr Justice** Smithers is detailed in the Judge's report. 1. The honourable senator's question is based on an incorrect premise. The Annual Review of the National Service Scheme, which I released on 25th August and a copy of which he will have, states that during 1969-70 297 prosecutions were intiated for breaches of the National Service Act. A number of prosecutions for failure to undertake service were stayed pending the Government's examination of whether it was possible to evolve an acceptable and viable civilian alternative. Following its conclusion that it was unable to find such an alternative which was equitable to the overwhelming majority of men who do undertake and satisfactorily complete their obligations, the Government announced that the law must be enforced and that prosecution action would proceed. Action has already commenced in a number of cases. {: .page-start } page 1211 {:#debate-27} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-27-0} #### NATIONAL SERVICE (Question No. 583) {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: asked the Minister representing the Minisier for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Howlong has **Mr Brian** Ross been in gaol for breach of the National Service Act. 1. If without an application from the imprisoned person, the Minister considered an inquiry into the imprisoned person's conscientious belief was necessary, why was such an inquiry not held many months previously, in order to save this peace advocate from the possibly unjustifiable imprisonment he has suffered for so long. {: #subdebate-27-0-s1 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
LP -- The Minister for Labour and National Servicehas provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Brian Ross was imprisoned on 29th October 1969. 1. The background to the inquiry of **Mr Justice** Smithers is fully dealt with in the joint statement of the Attorney-General and myself of the 21st September 1970. {: .page-start } page 1211 {:#debate-28} ### DRIED FRUITS >Under a Military Working Arrangement, Australian troops in Vietnam are integrated into the United States Army logistic system and are provided, amongst other things, with the same range of foodstuffs as is provided to the United States Army. In addition, the United States Army provides transport to and within Vietnam, storage and refrigeration (where necessary) down to the point where the slocks are handed over to the Australian Army. All losses and hazards to this point are borne by the United States authorities. A capitation charge of $US1.42 per day is made for this service. > >Dried fruits which are presently supplied to the Australian troops in Vietnam are provided by the United States Army as part of their standard ration issue. It would be impracticable to isolate dried fruits from the United States rations and provide, at no savings, additional supplies from Australia over and above that already provided by the United States Army. {: .page-start } page 1212 {:#debate-29} ### PERSONAL EXPLANATION {: #debate-29-s0 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
LP -- (New South Wales- Minister for Civil Aviation) - **Mr President,** I wish to make a personal explanation. Late last night **Senator Willesee** made a short speech in which he sought information from me about the liability of Qantas to pay sales tax. I answered him fairly shortly and perhaps it might have been thought that I was a little too blunt. If I gave any offence to him when I answered,I regret it very much. It was not intended. I must say thatI was put out becauseI. had been trying to get information for him from the company but had been unsuccessful.I was not very pleased when I was told that he had the information. He must understand this, as I am sure all honourable senators will. In no sense did 1 wish to offend him. {: .page-start } page 1212 {:#debate-30} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-30-0} #### SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:
Vic, toria -- by leave - I wish to make a statement in relation to a matter raised earlier today by **Senator Cavanagh** in connection with the conduct of Estimates Committee A. I wish to make the following information available to the Senate as part of my role as Chairman of Estimates Committee A. It relates to the examination of the estimates of the Department of Supply. On 1 7th September questions were asked by **Senator Young** and **Senator Murphy** of the Minister of Supply **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** who was present for the examination of the estimates of that Department, for which he holds ministerial responsibility. The Minister was not able to give a specific answer to 4 questions asked by Senators Murphy and Young. On my suggestion he acceded to the request that he provide information in answer to the questions asked by those 2 honourable senators. Estimates Committee A resumed its hearing on 13th October. At the conclusion of the examination of the estimates of the Department of SupplyI called for the papers containing the information which the Minister for Supply, who also is the Leader of the Government in the Senate, had promised to provide to the Committee. In reply to **Senator Murphy,I** ruled upon the incorporation of these matters in Hansard. I said: >There is nodifficultly about getting the explanations I have referred to attached as an annexure to Hansard but interleaving them withthe questions is the problem. **Senator Murphy** then asked: >Is it possible at thestage thatthose items occur or to include a notation to see further references later on? I replied as follows: >I can only give the undertaking that I will do the best I can. The explanation I give is that within the mechanics of the Hansard procedure I will attempt to get these incorporated in the best possible way in which reference can be made to them by the reader of Hansard. **Senator Murphy** raised the question earlier about the green folder issued by the Department of Supply. I do not know whether this can be incorporated in Hansard. Perhaps it could be made available bythe Ministerto the Senate. Following this undertaking that I gave to the Committee and to **Senator Murphy** as it appears on page 142 of the Senate Estimates Committees A, B and C Hansard published for Thursday, 13th October, there is incorporated, beginning at the second' column on that page, the information provided by the Minister of Supply in answer to the questions asked by Senators Young and Murphy. This information is available to the readers of Hansard as undertaken Referring now to the supplementary matter which I find was not able to be annexed or included in Hansard, the' Minister gave the following undertaking: >I would not want it incorporated in Hansard but 1 think we should make it available so that when we go back into the Senate it will be available.I will undertaketo table that. {: type="A" start="I"} 0. conclude therefore, **Mr President,** by saying that the fullest of information was divulged. It has been made availableto the Senate in Hansard and it is available to the general public who wish to read it. {: .page-start } page 1212 {:#debate-31} ### ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported: >Urea Bounty Bill 1970 > >Sulphate of Ammonia Bounty Bill 1970 > >Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill 1970 > >Pyrites Bounty Bill 1970 > >Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Bill 1970 {: .page-start } page 1212 {:#debate-32} ### GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1970 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP (11.32)- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the operation of the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act without amendment for a further 3 years from 1st July 1970. The Treasurer **(Mr Bury)** announced in his Press statement on 23rd June that it was the Government's intention to introduce legislation with this object. The Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act was introduced in 1954 against a background of a fixed official price for gold, which still applies, and of rising costs of production. Its purpose was mainly to assist the Kalgoorlie community which has been heavily dependent on gold mining. Approximately $2Sm has been paid to gold producers by way of subsidy since the inception of the Act. This assistance has been' supplemented by a complete exemption from income tax on profits from gold mining. Although employment by gold producers in Kalgoorlie has fallen in recent years, there has been no lack of alternative employment opportunities and the total population of the town has increased, mainly because of nickel discoveries and the exploration activity they have generated. Representatives of the gold mining industry requested continuation of assistance at increased rates of subsidy. After careful consideration of these proposals, and of recent developments in employment and business activity in Kalgoorlie, the Government has decided that continued assistance is justified in order to allow the present gold mining activity in Kalgoorlie to continue to phase out gradually without disruption to the population and the economy of the area. The Government considers that these objectives would be met by continuation of assistance for a further 3 years without alteration of the maximum rates of subsidy - $8 an ounce for large producers. Payments of subsidy in 1970-71 are expected to total $3.4m. The increase of $1.5m over total payments in 1969-70 is largely because of a decline in premiums on free market sales. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Cant)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1213 {:#debate-33} ### SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BELL 1970 {:#subdebate-33-0} #### In Committee {:#subdebate-33-1} #### The Bill {: #subdebate-33-1-s0 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania -- I refer to clause 3, which reads: >The First Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting items 74M and 74N. That refers to the proposal mentioned in the second reading speech in which the Minister for Supply **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson),** who represents the Treasurer **(Mr Bury),** said: >It is proposed that the specific exemption of goods for use by British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Ltd - an airline no longer operating - and Qantas Airways Ltd be removed with effect from 20th August 1970. Other provisions of the sales tax law exempt such items of equipment as aircraft and aircraft parts, servicing equipment and tractors for towing aircraft. But in respect of goods not so exempted, it is considered that Qantas Airways Ltd should be in the same position as other airlines. Qantas already is liable to Commonwealth taxes other than sales tax. I believe that the Government is imposing an extra and an obnoxious burden on Qantas. This is an example of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. I believe that Qantas has been doing a splendid job for Australia. It has had to be able to compete in the very keen business of overseas airlines. BCPA has gone out of business. Qantas is engaged in a most competitive field of industry. The Government is purposely imposing greater burdens on Qantas. It appears that the Government is draining every skerrick that it can out of such instrumentalities. As a consequence, these organisations and instrumentalities find it difficult to plan and balance their budgets. We are completely opposed to the treatment to be meted to Oantas by this clause. We oppose it vigorously. Although we will not call for a vote in the Committee stage, we will call for a vote on the motion for the third reading of the Bill and divide on it. This is an expression of the very great concern that we have for the way in which Qantas is being treated by the imposition of these extra charges, thereby reducing its capacity to maintain the very high standards that it has in its competition with other keen international airlines. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON: -- (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) (11.37) - Last night, during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, I think **Senator Willesee** raised this issue. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** was present and intervened in the debate to point out the reasons why Qantas Airways Ltd is included in this provision. The points that the Minister made are now documented in Hansard. I notice that the Minister is present again. If he wants to supplement that information,, no doubt he will respond. The intentions of the legislation are quite clear. I think the points he made about Qantas were quite appropriate. Qantas Ls a most successful operator. The Minister pointed out that the Qantas budget comes clown regularly and that there has - been no request for revision or for help. That would suggest that Qantas is not in any need of special assistance. In fact, he made the point, as I. heard him, that there was every justification for the proposal that Qantas be included in the provisions of the Bill. I erin see that he wants to supplement what he said. There is nothing as perfect as getting a comment from the Minister concerned. I will give way to him. to give him an opportunity to respond. {: #subdebate-33-1-s1 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia -- Before the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** responds, I accept what the Minister for Supply **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** said this morning. I have been here long enough not to worry about trifling matters, lt seems to me that wc have got off on the wrong foot somewhere. The Minister might remember that when debating the Post and Telegraph Bill, which is analagous to this Bill, I raised the point that the Department of Works was making a charge on the Postmaster-General's Department. 1 gave a figure. **Senator Wright,** the Minister for Works, interjected and said that he did not think that the figure was correct. I asked him to give me the correct figure at some future time. The interesting point was that it seemed to me that the Government was taking certain departments, which were in the form of trading departments, and applying a normal charge as it would to other businesses. That is what I was trying to establish in respect of Qantas. I am not quarrelling with the position. I am just seeking information about Qantas. The Minister may remember that last night I asked 2 questions. I now wish to ask a question I did not ask last night. Was this a decision of the Department made in circumstances similar to those in respect of which I was trying to elicit information from the Department of Works about the Post Office, that is to say, was a special charge made, or did it come about by way of agreement with other airlines? I think the Minister will appreciate the point of that immediately. Later today we will be debating a measure on air navigation charges. The Government promised or entered into an agreement with the airlines that it would not increase air navigation charges by more than 10 per cent a year. I am wondering whether there is some tie up in the field of aviation. For that reason I asked whether any pressure was applied by the overseas airlines. If an agreement was entered 'into, that pressure could be quite properly applied. If there was no agreement, I think that should be staled. On the other hand, is this something that has come up from Treasury? I will be interested to learn why this year it has suddenly been raised. Is Treasury saying to Qantas: 'You are a trading department. We do not think that you should have sales tax exemptions and we take them away from you.'? If that is the position, f agree wilh **Senator O'Byrne.** T regret that it is being done. Qantas is a completely government controlled airline operating in a very competitive field, ls this move in respect of completely controlled government departments like the Postal Department and Qantas? Was any agreement in existence with overseas airlines? Did those airlines operate under that agreement? I think that sums up the purpose of my inquiries. {: #subdebate-33-1-s2 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP -- This is an interesting matter with which I will deal as briefly as I can. There arc some substantial limitations on my knowledge on the subject, as J indicated last night. To deal more fully with the subject I would have to have greater knowledge, particularly as to the sums of money which, I understand, are not as large as has been stated in other places. Fundamentally this is a Treasury matter and not a Qantas matter, lt is a decision imposed by Treasury as part of a total Budget consideration and framework. That is the general area. To that extent it is a decision which Qantas accepts because Treasury recommends it. lt is accepted by the Government in total and Qantas, like everybody else, lives in the circumstances of a total Government decision. It is not part of an international agreement, but in my readings on this matter quite a while ago 1 found some references, I think, in reports of international discussions at some stage amongst airline operators. The International Air Transport Association and the International Civil Aviation Organisation may have been involved, or the discussions may have been only amongst themselves. This was part of the background reading I did to familiarise myself with the work of the Department of Civil Aviation. A comment was made that Qantas and British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Ltd were in a favoured position as against other operators entering and leaving Australia, because those 2 airlines enjoyed sales tax concessions. But it could be put no higher than that, even if given that much importance. it is substantially a Treasury matter in which it was decided that this would be a fair thing to do. It can be argued on a Treasury level, but not really as against Qantas. I think I should say also that Qantas is conducting a very satisfactory and viable *business* at present. It has just completed its best year of earnings and profitability. I doubt very much indeed that this move wilt have any effect of consequence on the ability of Qantas to earn profits and to succeed in its business. The real consequence to Qantas will flow out of the situation in which there is tremendous excess capacity for international air traffic building up around the world. The market looks to be well below that capacity. In the latest annual report of the Department of Civil Aviation, to which I will later direct the attention of honourable senators, I refer to the fact that many overseas countries insist upon the maintenance of about 50 per cent level of traffic in and out of their countries for the national air carrier. The traffic level of Qantas has fallen below that figure. Although one reads about the harm done to Australia, I can assure honourable senators that I am very watchful to maintain the earnings, profitability and market share of Qantas; but that flows out of international agreements, far more than out of any other single factor. {: #subdebate-33-1-s3 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- I wish to speak briefly on the matters referred to by the Minister in his reply. I think there is a real danger for Australia in allowing matters which affect the whole of Australia in many respects to be determined according to the effect upon a small section, irrespective of how important that section may be. In the matter of communications, whether of telephone or radio communications overseas or travel to and from Australia, there are most important considerations affecting the whole of Australia, more so than other countries, because we are still in the same position in some ways as we were when Captain Phillip came here. Communications have become quicker, but still we suffer from a high cost of communication which maintains for us a relative isolation from the rest of the world. We are the most isolated continent. I should think that if ever we were going to subsidise any activity it would be in the national interest to subsidise those services which could enable the reduction of the cost of communication, not only between Australia and the rest of the world but also inside Australia because of the great distances between the various parts. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson: -- Should not this be dealt with in the debate on some other Bill where it can be gone into more fully? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Perhaps, but the Minister has raised the matter and it is important. I am quite concerned with the high fares to and from Australia, as well as the costs in other fields of communications. We must not reach the position where the legitimate interests of Qantas Airways Ltd should be preferred to other great national considerations. It may well be, for instance, that we may want to encourage other airlines to come here, even if by doing so it would have an adverse effect on Qantas. It may be that because of great national considerations we should not be adopting the procedures that have been adopted in relation to landing charges, even though they might be justifiable on some internal economic grounds. I suggest that Qantas is acting quite properly in carrying out its charter, which is to operate an airline profitably, but it is for us when considering these matters to take into account the national considerations. I suggest that the Government should be paying some attention to these. Perhaps these matters should be the subject of discussion in the Senate so that these questions may be decided on the general background of their importance rather than on their particular effect upon the national instrumentality which is engaged in that field. {: #subdebate-33-1-s4 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP (1.1.48) - There has been some speculation as to the amount of. revenue which may be involved as a result of this legislation. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Colton)** has said that he is seeking information in relation to this matter. Lest there should be any misconception about the implications of sales tax, it should be. borne in mind that aircraft, aircraft parts, servicing equipment and tractors for towing aircraft are exempt from sales tax and that aircraft fuels and lubricants also are exempt. So it is not as though a sales tax is to be applied completely across the board; it is to be applied in a very restrictive field. We heard reference last night to the amount that would be involved as a result of this' legislation, but the Minister has said that in his view the amount will be much less than the figure suggested. We are not yet aware of how much will be involved. But that is a matter which must be looked at in the context that Qantas Airways Ltd is a successful and profitable company, albeit a government owned company. There has been no suggestion that this proposal will have any real effect upon Qantas, its competitive capacity, its skill or its ability to operate successfully in the aircraft industry. {: #subdebate-33-1-s5 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -- I enter the debate merely to say that the Democratic Labor Party will find itself unable to support the proposition which has been advanced by **Senator O'Byrne** to oppose the third reading of this measure as it relates to sales tax which will affect Qantas Airways Ltd. We support the Bill. Although I was not here when the honourable senator made his suggestion I am aware that it raises a very important consideration. It may be that with the development of public and statutory corpora tions there will have to be a complete look at the role that they are' to fill in the national economy. Qantas is an independent government corporation which makes a contribution to the general economy of Australia, to our national image and status, our international position and things of that character. To what extent that could be computed in that organisation's account's as a credit, and therefore to what extent Qantas should be relieved of charges otherwise to be imposed on the company, is a matter that should be considered in the context of the whole position of the developing concept of statutory corporations. This arises, of course, in respect of the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill which involves Trans-Australia Airlines, which is a statutory corporation, and it will arise in relation to many other things. Over the years there has been a development in the attitude to the operation of the railway systems which have been relieved of many charges because they are performing a national duty and making a national contribution. They cannot be required to operate on a completely commercial basis of cash in and cash out of a commercial balance sheet. I feel that if this attitude is to be adopted it should not be adopted piecemeal. There would have to be a national attitude to public corporations. -lt may well be that the whole concept should come under parliamentary consideration or national consideration. Tt is only in those circumstances that I think we should start to relieve the corporations of this charge or that charge or credit to them their general contribution to the national interest. Merely to attack one of these charges piecemeal would in my view be very unwise until the whole problem had been reviewed and principles had been formulated and laid down. Therefore, on behalf of the Democratic Labor Party, I support the Bill Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-33-2} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson) proposed: >That the Bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-33-2-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- We oppose the Bill for the reasons that were advanced earlier. In order to facilitate the expedition of this measure we have not opposed it at every stage. Although we opposed the Bill in Committee and on its being reported, we did not call for a division of the Committee or the Senate. I indicate now that our attitude is to oppose this third reading and to seek a division on it. Question put: >That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin) AYES: 24 NOES: 23 Majority . . 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1217 {:#debate-34} ### AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1970 In Committee Consideration resumed from 15 October (vide page 1161). The Bill. **Senator MURPHY** (New South Wales- Leader of the Opposition) (12.0) - This matter was deferred yesterday, for which I thank the Committee, in order to enable my colleagues and myself to give further consideration to it through the appropriate bodies in our Party. I amnow able to tell the Committee that we do not support the amendment which has been moved by **Senator Byrne.** J will now give some reasons for taking this stand. They are not formulated reasons, but, in my view, they are considerations which tell against the proposed amendment. They are these: First of all. the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** has informed us that the rates charged international airlines for use of airport facilities are already at the maximum permitted under the agreement or arrangement which has been reached with other countries or their instrumentalities. We have already reached the maximum charges permitted, and to increase these charges further would be to break the international agreement or understanding. That would be a very serious matter.I do not think any justification has been shown for this country breaking such an arrangement. It appears, from what some of my colleagues now tell me. that there may be an international agreement incorporated in an Act of this Parliament. {: #debate-34-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Then I am correct in believing that there is an international understanding and our Act covers the Australian operations. Whatever the technicalities of it may be, the acceptance of the proposal in this Bill would involve us in a breach of an international understanding or arrangement. Of course, so far as any procedure we have entered into within this country is concerned, if there were an Act covering it we could override our own Act. In the *unfortunate* state of theworld at the present time it is possible for us to break international agreements, but it is highly undesirable unless there be some overwhelming consideration that impels us to do so. That is the first ground The next ground is that a proponent of the proposition was saying that it was unfair that the two rates should differ, that the international charges should be at one level and domestic charges at a higher level. If we have reached the highest level permissible under the international understanding, it is put that we should not have a difference between the two. I think there is some cogency in that. In my view, it is not to be achieved, with respect to the proponent of the proposition, by increasing international charges. If something were to be done one would think it would be better to reduce the domestic charges, taking the view that surely domestic charges ought not to exceed international charges if some limit were reached. Whatever may be the outcome, honourable senators have heard my own view in regard to communications when 1 spoke io the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill. Already communications between Australia and other countries are extremely good. Whatever a reduction in the domestic charge may mean from an internal treasury point of view it is, 1 think, undesirable to do anything to increase the cost of our communications with other countries. Because of Australia's geographical isolation 1 should think that one of the Government's roles would be to do whatever is in ils power to reduce the difficulties involved in Australia communicating with other countries. As I indicated earlier, since Captain Phillip's day we have drastically reduced the time it takes to communicate with other countries, but we have not done as much as we would like to do. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- Why Captain Phillip instead of Captain Cook? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Captain Cook did nol really settle in Australia. We have to contend with the fact that we live on an isolated continent. Australia is remote from many of the most important areas of the world. We ought to be able to communicate quickly wilh these areas. I would like it. to be just as easy and just as cheap for a person to ring, say. the United States of America, Britain or the Continent on matters of commerce as it is to ring, say, Sydney or Melbourne. The cost needs to be broken down. I think consideration should be given to the fact that the cost of travel places most severe limitations on everyone in Australia in communicating with the rest of the world. Having reached the limit which is permissible under the international arrangements it does not seem right to me. leaving aside the question of whether we are breaking an understanding, that we should do anything to worsen the position. Although the increased charges may be relatively small when considered in the whole context of the expenditure of airlines they have a multiplying effect. It is said that an increase in sales tax does not matter very much and an increase in airport charges does not matter very much. But. one also has to take into consideration the increased cost of the fuel which the airlines use as well as other things. These increases all add up. The result is an adverse effect upon the cost of communications. In my view we should not be doing anything which will worsen the position. Therefore, on those general grounds, I think we should oppose the increase in these charges. A further consideration is the fact that a special inter-departmental committee is engaged in a study of this matter. 1 understand that it is expected to report in a few months. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- I am unable to say whether it will report in a few months. However, the Leader of the Opposition has my assurance that the Government is persuing the matter. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Surely we should not interfere with the scale of international charges until we have analysed the report of the inter-departmental committee. We can always do something to adjust our own prices in the light of ils report as this is an internal matter, but it is very difficult to increase the scale of international charges. I imagine that there would be a great outcry against Australia and we would suffer financially as well as morally because we are breaching our understanding. lt would be much more difficult to make an external adjustment than an internal one. I believe that the amendment ought to be opposed, lt is hard to justify an equalising of charges inside and outside by increasing the lower one rather than decreasing the higher one. 1 would say that it might not be conclusive anyway if it were done in that manner. Because a special inter-departmental committee is examining the matter we cannot, unfortunately, come to a conclusive view until we have received its report. The Minister for Civil Aviation has assured honourable senators that the committee has been proceeding in its work with great expedition. I hope that we will bc able to examine this matter in the light of the committee's report before the next Budget is presented. I also hope that it will be considered in the light of the national considerations to which I referred earlier in my speech on the sales tax legislation and to which **Senator Byrne** referred in this debate. I believe that the charges imposed should be looked at in the context of how much revenue statutory corporations should derive from the services which they provide. Perhaps consideration should be given to how much of the expenditure which is incurred by them should be regarded as a service which is subsidised by the Commonwealth in the national interests. For these reasons, therefore, the Opposition will oppose the amendment. *As* 1 said earlier, some of the views which J have expressed have emerged from my own consideration of the matter. 1 am not necessarily suggesting that the Australian Labor Party will adopt all of them. I make it clear that *some* of the views which I have expressed are purely my own. However, the Opposition is unable to accept the amendment which has been moved by **Senator Byrne.** {: #debate-34-s1 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -- I regret that the Opposition is unable to support the amendment which I moved on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Murphy)** has acknowledged that some of the reasons which he has given are, in view of the brief amount of time available to him to obtain the views of the Australia Labor Party, personal to him. The amendment embodies 2 principles. The first is the principle of parity between the charges levied on international and domestic airlines. This principle was also embodied in the amendment which the Democratic Labor Party moved to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, lt was spelt out then with the same particularity as it is spelt out in this amendment. Unfortunately, the previous amendment did not receive the support of the Opposition when a vote was taken. The other principle which is embodied in this amendment is the achieving of parity at this stage by increasing the international level lo the domestic level. Of course, this may not bc the best, method of doing it. Nevertheless, in the light of *the further* erosion of the already attenuated national budget and the consequences upon the benefits which are contained in the Budget, it would be a very serious development. The appropriate amendment may have been to scale down the domestic charges to the international level. All I hope to achieve from my amendment is an expression of concern by the Senate at the high level of charges imposed on domestic and international airlines and of hope that the charges will be scaled down. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** has indicated that this is one of the considerations which are being taken into account by the interdepartmental committee. Therefore, all the Senate can do is impress as firmly as it can upon the Minister the desirability of regarding this matter as sympathetically as possible in the light of the contribution which both the international and domestic airlines ate making to the development of Australia and the presentation of Australia's image abroad. The Democratic Labor Party does *not* propose to divide the committee on this matter, lt regrets that the amendment which I moved on behalf of it has not received the support of the Government or of the Opposition, but it has made its point. The Democratic Labor Party hopes that there will not be a repetitious introduction of this type of legislation in the coming years but that as a consequence of the deliberations of the inter-departmental committee the necessity for annual increases in landing and service charges will be eliminated and the contribution of the airlines will be put on a proper and permanent basis. In this way the assurance of safe and economical carriage to those who are the patrons of both the domestic and international airlines will be finally achieved. {: #debate-34-s2 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP -- I have to report that in honour of this occasion I have worn my Qantas tie. I do not have a lot to say. I think I explained yesterday why the Government is unable to accept the amendment. There is no point, in reiterating my argument. A reading of Hansard in due course will establish some of the factual reasons why the amendment cannot be accepted. One could make the comment this morning to reinforce these remarks that if this amendment were accepted it would ignore the fact that the international airlines had a 21 per cent increase in charges in 1969 compared with a 10 per cent increase for the domestic operators. Following the 10 per cent increase in . the domestic airlines' charges last year, which did not involve international operators, the two sections of the industry are now on a par. There is, therefore, equity in the charges already and to change them, as proposed, would be inequitable. When commenting on our general sanction I said that we endeavoured not to put the international people at any disadvantage as compared with the domestic operators. Under the Airlines Agreements Act our domestic charge increase rate has been 10 per cent. We have conformed to this for international carriers. We would not want to put the charge above this rate. Increases in these rates generate very hostile reaction against international carriers who belong to the International Air Transport Association when they come into Australia as honourable senators would have witnessed when the recent increases became effective. I am not unmindful of all these matters. In the debate a lot of matters have been raised which are of tremendous interest and great value. I appreciate them. We have agreed to refer a consideration of the constitutional and legal position to the Attorney-General. I am grateful to **Senator Byrne** and **Senator Murphy** for opening up the general view of what the national policy should be in the total communication field, although that cannot be dealt with today. It is an area where the Senate could very properly devote some useful time, but how it would do this [ do not know. I am not in any way unsympathetic to the expressions of views here. I do not say 1 support them, but I am not unsympathetic. I believe that as far as possible one has to look at the total national objective in all these things. Statutory corporations as such are really devices lo try to put financial responsibility and accountability into what are trading concerns so that they do not run riot and lose great sums of public money. The measure in these things is that they should be successful in commercial terms. The majority of them are most successful. How one adjusts their accounts if they show substantial losses for calculated public benefit in a strict accounting term - speaking as an accountant - is an extremely difficult exercise to engage in. But the general problem is worth some work being done on it. It is an area of total public benefit. These resources are totally Australian. They are owned by the Australian community and exist to serve as a public utility. How do they serve properly and in the fullest sense of the word? How does one measure their full public benefit for anything which might be said to be to their credit but for which they actually earn no money? With those few words I resume my seat. {: #debate-34-s3 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- 1 would like some clarification on one small matter. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** said that the international charges and the domestic charges were on a par. As I understood it the whole intention of the amendment was to bring them to par. There is clearly a difference between the charges. In some respects the domestic charges are higher than the international charges. If my understanding is correct I would like it to be confirmed, otherwise someone reading the Minister's remarks may think the charges are the same. {: #debate-34-s4 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP -- To explain fully it would be necessary to read the comments made yesterday and again this morning. Briefly, the rate for large international jets is the same as for heavy domestic jets. Without reiterating, a reading of yesterday's Senate Hansard in the latter part of the debate will give the figures of the various set rates for the weights of aircraft. This morning 1 referred to the fact that the 21 per cent increase in 1969 put all operators in a position of equity in relation to charges. But this is a complex matter. {: #debate-34-s5 .speaker-K3W} ##### Senator CANT:
Western Australia -- The debate on this Bill has been extremely valuable both to the Government and to the Opposition. I endorse the remarks made by **Senator Murphy** and a great many of the remarks passed by **Senator Byrne.** I believe that before there is any further increase in these charges the Government should take notice of what has been said and also other matters which the Department of Civil Aviation would be more aware of than perhaps the Parliament is. Yesterday during the debate the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** was good enough to inform the Senate of the effect of the increases in charges in the amendment moved by **Senator Byrne** on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party were to be passed by the Parliament. It was very revealing. I wonder whether the Minister may provide us with figures showing the effect on domestic airlines if the charges were brought down as proposed in. the amendment? {: #debate-34-s6 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP -- I understand the effect is the same. 1 undertake to make sure that the figures are calculated and a careful computation made. I will let the honourable senator have them. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Cotton)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1221 {:#debate-35} ### EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1970 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 October (vide page 1 087). on motion by **Senator Cotton:** >That the Bill be now read a second lime. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- The Excise Tariff Bill 1970 which the Senate is now debating brings before the Parliament a part of the Budget proposals which apply an impost on the people. A number of additional costs will affect not only the ordinary citizen, the pensioner and the worker but also will substantially effect the economic operations of industry, Items on which the rates will be increased will include manufactured tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, petrol, mineral turpentine, aviation turbine kerosene, diesel fuel and grape wine. **Mr Acting Deputy President,** as you will notice from the list of items the increases are not an impost just upon the community, the users of the airlines, of road transport and the operators but will also impose heavy duties on the wine industry, particularly in South Australia. The increase is of great concern to that industry and certainly to South Australian senators, although other Opposition senators will also be talking about this question. What we have complained about and what the general public has complained about is that the Government has. in order to get out of a threatened inflationary situation, applied, as usual. heavy additional taxation on the people. By its own efforts it has increased the inflationary trends which are important and which concern everybody. There is no guarantee., looking al the position from purely economic theory, that any of the so-called attempts at raising collections will be the associated effect which the Treasurer **(Mr Bury)** always puts up: that is that charges have to be increased to depress the market. But the Government has done these things. In relation to excise it seems to have perfected a 5-year cycle because in 1951 it increased excise on beer, spirits and tobacco. In 1956 the horror Budget imposed heavy charges not only in excise but also in industry generally. Honourable senators will remember the great concern of those in the South Australian motor vehicle industry when the Government imposed heavy sales tax on cars. There were other increases in 1965. Now, in 1970, there is another attempt to increase these charges, but something new has been added. The Government is imposing an excise on the wine industry. The Treasurer said in his Budget Speech: >Along with tobacco, alcoholic beverages have been a traditional source of revenue both in Australia and in many other countries. In Australia,' however, there has been one type oE alcoholic beverage which, with a minor exception, has not been subject to excise duty at all. I refer here to wine. Consumption of wine has been rising strongly from year to year and, in the light of this trend, the evident profitability of wine production, and the heavy taxation levied on other forms of alcoholic beverage, we have decided that a moderate excise duty of 50c per gallon should be placed on locally produced wine . . . The approach of the Government seems to be that if it is able to collect revenue on one item of consumption it should put out the dragnet and also impose a charge on wine. The Treasurer estimated that the increased duties on cigarettes, cigars and manufactured tobacco will yeild $3 lm in a full year. It is estimated that the excise on wine will yield $15m a year. The Government also will extract $80m in the form of increased duties on motor and aviation fuel etc. This will come from the operators. However the imposition of these increased duties has no relationship with any scheme to return to the transport industry and the aviation industry part of these revenues. We have been, discussing the aviation industry in this Parliament for some days now. The Government has shown no concern for the future of the aviation industry in these matters which, in the words of the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton),** who is present in the chamber, is now being challenged by heavy competition. The Government has decided to impose a further burden of $5m on that industry by way of increased charges on fuel. So far as users of motor cars and the automobile industry are concerned the increased charge on petrol follows smartly upon the price increase on 1st June. We of the Opposition have commented upon the other great imposts by the Government. We are very concerned about the Government's policy as it affects users of vehicles, particularly those required necessarily to travel to and from their places of employment. lt also has a very severe effect on the economy of Australia in genera) and transportation in particular. It seems to us that this Government's budgets are based on erratic formulas. They are designed to recover huge sums from the people without relationship to the avenues from which the money comes. Let us consider the tax on diesel and other fuels. This certainly should be related to an expansion of the facilities that go to make up the industries using those fuels. Industry generally has argued for many years that this should be so but the Government has not done anything about it. The basic policy of the Government seems to be that because of threatening inflation it has to impose extra charges in order to depress consumer spending and to reduce the appetite of the people and of certain industries. The ultimate result is that it applies extra charges which in fact accelerate inflation and seriously impede many industries in the States. I am sure that honourable senators from South Australia will be referring to the wine industry. The impost on the wine industry will result in serious restrictions on its efficiency. It has only just reached a state of profitablity and its profitability is related to the general living standard of the community. If the Government's financial policy barms the living standards of the community, obviously it also affects industries such as the wine industry for a start. The Government's policy has two effects: Firstly, ils charges restrict the profitability, productivity and efficiency of the wine industry; secondly, it puts consumers in the position of not being able to buy as much as they could before. If we look more closely at what the fuel charges will do to the whole countryside we realise that the claims made for many years past by the transport operators, the Australian Automobile Association and the many people associated with transportation are true. They say that these vast sums of money, totalling millions of dollars, ought to be appointed, according to some formula, to the industry in the form of better development of road transportation and the reduction of traffic congestion and delays caused by railway crossings, bad intersections and poorly designed roads. Revenue raised from road and air transport services should be returned to those industries according to a general formula. Roads should be planned. Works should be dovetailed. We all know that accidents cost money and. that many of them come about as a result of poorly designed roads. National road planning is not kept up to date, and the money collected from the road transport industry is not returned to it. The vast sums collected go into consolidated revenue. The Government, adopts the stand that it returns to the States a reasonable amount of this money by means of such devices as the Commonwealth Aid Roads Grants. At the same time it imposes restrictions upon its own organisation, the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads. It asks the Department of Shipping and Transport to make necessary studies of transportation costs, urban transportation and decentralisation, but these studies are not dovetailed into a general national plan as they ought to be. No amount of argument by the Opposition or the statement that we would do something along these lines, by returning to the operators and the States a substantial share of this money, has resulted in this Government producing a formula aimed at returning to industry and the Australian people a reasonable share of this money. It has been estimated that these imposts Will result in $80m going into consolidated revenue in a full year. However, nothing has been announced by the Government about a programme of road safety and road construction. What are the Government's objectives in the field of decentralisation? I noticed in the last day or so that the Prime Minister **(Mr Gorton)** spoke about specific works started in the various States. He referred to the Woomera and Salisbury projects in South Australia as being decentralised works. These were not decentralisation projects as such but certainly they fulfil a national purpose. The Government does not accept as a general principle the need to divert a proper proportion of the funds it collects from industry towards decentralisation and the rural industry. The Australian Automobile Association and other bodies have estimated that' in 5 recent years an excess of $500m has gone into the Treasury which as yet. the Government has not earmarked for any specific purpose. In my own State, as in the other States, we are always faced with important road needs that ought to be met. They are certainly national 'road needs. The first one that comes to mind ' is the Eyre Highway. For many years the State governments have been asking the Federal Government for resources to bituminise that road, lt is not a purely South Australian road now; it is a national road' used by a large number of national transportation operators and it is also closely related to the tourist industry. But, although the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Mr Sinclair)** said on 12th *March,* on one of his frequent visits to South Australia, that he hoped that it would not be too long before there was a sealed road right around Australia, he was not prepared to say other than that it was the responsibility of the State Government to provide the money needed for this work out of the resources of the aid roads grants that are meted out to Stales by arrangement every year. We have another important road in South Australia. I refer to the road to Woomera, which is the site of a fairly important and useful national utility. We are all satisfied that that utility is doing a good job. lt is important to the country, lt is- important to South Australia, too, because we have many people working there. For many years the State Government has asked the Commonwealth Government to provide money to bituminise that road because at many times of the year it cannot be used by road users. The users of the road to Woomera are largely Commonwealth employees, either in Commonwealth vehicles or in private vehicles. In fact, the bulk of the transportation to Woomera is Commonwealth transportation, lt is cutting up the road. But the Federal Government says to the State Government: We cannot afford to give you money to bituminise that short road'. There are many similar examples in other parts of Australia. One that comes to mind is the almost annual isolation of Alice Springs by road due to rain. One could certainly expect the Government to consider a programme for' national roads which would provide roads of good consolidation and with an all-weather surface, where necessary. At the present time we are no nearer that objective than we were when the heavy charges on fuels were first applied. These charges have become progressively heavier. They are increasing to such an extent that the collections make it imperative, it seems to me, that the Government face up to the demands of the community. I have referred in particular to some aspects that concern me as a Stale representative. There is not only the wine industry but also manufacturing industries in South Australia. An impost such as this has a very serious effect on a State that relies largely upon an industry to make it go. Fortunately, South Australia, by great industry and ability, has been able to provide the various mechanical efficiencies (hat have made it the largest producer of *motor* vehicles and parts and accessories in Australia. But. of course, the State is greatly dependent on that industry. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- That is due to the foresight of the Government over many years. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- As the honourable senator knows, Honest Tom Playford, who has now become somewhat unpopular with the Liberal Party because of his support of the Chowila Dam, was often said to bc a good Labor man. He ruled largely as a result of a gerrymander, but he also ruled with the assistance of a well known but now deceased friend of the State, Mick O'Halloran. I am surprised at **Senator Young** bringing up this question because I have noticed in recent years that, whenever **Sir Thomas** Playford has said anything about national development or the dam in South Australia, members of the Liberal Party have been very keen to undermine him, whereas over many years the Labor Party recognised- The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sir 'Magnus Cormack)** - Order! I suggest that the honourable senator get back to the Bill. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- We were talking about State matters. They, of course, are important to the whole economy. Whilst the dam is an' aside, it is certainly a very important national question, as are the motor industry and the effect of the proposed increases about which we are talking. Already this year there have been great new imposts on the motor car industry, which have had some pressing effects. I refer, for example, to the credit squeeze. Whilst production in South Australia was able to cope with any demand, both internally and for export, the demand for cars within Australia settled down because of the increases in interest charges which the Government allowed and promoted. In addition, in June there was a further increase in the price of petro], I have no doubt that the price of petrol would have been increased much more than it was at that time - namely, by lc - had it not been for the existence of about the only remaining price control organisation in Australia. That is the organisation in South Australia which is still maintained by the Labor Government, although it has somewhat restricted control over prices. As a matter of fact, its operations provide a basis on which the Federal Government might make it an obligation to talk with the States on extending price control. In addition, in recent months the prices of oil and petrol have gone up and the prices of tyres have gone up. Of course, the biggest slug of all on the motoring public is insurance. Al! these extra charges strike at a very important industry. In the field of manufacturing industry, whether it is in South Australia or anywhere else, in recent years we in Australia have been able to demonstrate that we are becoming highly competent. Unfortunately, our secondary industry is largely influenced and owned by overseas interests, but at the present time it has some chance of getting out of the grip. That also applies to the aircraft industry. My comments on the efficiency and productivity of secondary industry apply to the consumer goods industry. If an impost is applied to them, it has a multiplier effect. Not only has it the effect of depressing a particular consumer market, but it adversely affects production, which we should not be doing at the present time. Everybody knows that Australia is now faced with a great challenge in relation to rural products, with demands by the Government to refashion rural production and with requests which over the years have been related largely to improving our manufacturing capacity. This has had the effect of making a competence which we should protect. What we should be doing on every occasion is making sure that when we impose duties we impose them in a way that will not affect our basic and potential capacity to enrich ourselves. The way to create wealth in Australia is the oldfashioned way of increasing production and making sure that the product is reasonable having regard to the market. This can be done. But it cannot be done if the Government places extra charges on every process of transportation or imposes extra charges that make each process of movement within the community dearer. *In* the field of manufacturing industry to which 1 have referred, every operation, every piece of raw material and completed product that is moved from the factory or carted from shop to shop or from place to place is affected by the charges imposed by the Government. Then there are the related matters that arise from the efficiencies of modern communities or modern industrialisation. 1 refer to the wide and far flung urban developments. The workers in manufacturing industries and the white collar workers in administration have to go into the outer areas of the cities and use privately owned motor vehicles, to a large extent, because public utilities also are faced with this problem of increasing costs. The people who produce all the wealth in industry are suffering additional charges. This means that their standards are reduced not only because they will pay more for tobacco and cigarettes and a bottle of wine but also because they will pay more to run their motor cars to work or to purchase motor cars. So, the whole system is compounded. What we are saying is that now is' the time - perhaps 4 or 5 years ago was the time - -for the Government to accept the formula that has been proposed frequently by the industry, namely,, that the moneys collected in these ways, which represent vast amounts, ought to be returned to the States and the operators under a proper programme. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- Prior to the suspension of the sitting I referred to the 4 Bills which impose heavy increases on the community and on industry. I referred to the disparity between the collections from automobile petrol and diesel fuels and what has been paid out under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Grants. ] have studied the figures for the past 6 years. If figures prior to that are taken, the relative position is still the same From 1965-66 to the current Estimates, the collections have increased from $2 17m to $373m. In 1965-66 the amount dispersed through Commonwealth Aid Roads Grants was $l40m. In the current year it will be $2 1 8m. Industry representatives, transport organisations and the Labor Party have argued for an equitable system of distribution of these huge collections which are part of the Government's annual budgetary considerations. I referred also to the parallel matter of traffic congestion due to the lack of proper road works. All of us know about the lack of national works. There has been a substantial development in industry. This has caused congestion because of bad roads and bad design. As a result a great deal of time is wasted and more, fuel is used. In a recent report the President of the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria pointed out some of the changes He mentioned that a particular metropolitan journey of 3 miles which 2 years ago took 10.1 minutes to travel in 1970 takes 17.5 minuts. Everybody is affected. We do not have to look at the figures to realise that. Often figures on these matters are not available. The other question which I wish to pose is whether the Government, in taking measures to stop what the Treasurer called threatened inflation', should take upon itself, as the Opposition has often claimed that it should, the task of introducing some kind of price control. The Government sits behind the constitutional aspect of that matter. Secondly, it has said that no good purpose would be served by meeting the States to arrange price control. Only yesterday the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** in answering a question asked by **Senator O'Byrne,** stated that he considered that the New South Wales Labor Government had dropped price control because it was ineffective At the time that price control in New South Wales was dropped only 2 States were applying it. They could not get agreement with or promotion from the Commonwealth Government to apply any of the mechanics necessary to implement price control. Consequently the New South Wales Premier dropped it. I am pleased to say that in South Australia, although price control is fairly minimal, the State Labor Government has announced that it will continue to apply the organisation and methods necessary to keep prices down to a minimum and to investigate matters outside the control of the Prices Commissioner. In recent months in Australia there has been a great escalation of prices in a whole range of items necessary for sustenance. The prices of hundreds of grocery items have increased. Unfortunately, the consumer price index is not available for the period terminating in September. The results will not be out until next week. I am confident that the heavy increases imposed by the Government until now will be shown in very heavy increases in the consumer price index. There is absolutely no reason why the Commonwealth Government should not undertake to talk lo the States to make arrangements to control prices and to come to a uniform agreement about price rises. It seems to me that Australia is faced with another problem because the Government stands aside from controlling prices or controlling unfair increases. I refer to the recent statement made by the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr McEwen)** who. when admitting that the Trade Practices Act was defective because it could not enforce any action against the shipping conferences when they intended to increase the freight rates by 10 per cent, came back with the statement that it now appeared to be a matter for. the shippers to decide whether they would accept the increases. Something more than that is necessary at present in Australia. Que other matter which ought to be associated with discussions on these huge collections largely from industries which are advancing the economy of the country - I refer to transportation and aviation - Ls whether some part of the revenues collected ought to be devoted to purposes which the Senate, in its special committees, has said should be considered. 1 refer to the 2 Senate select committees on air pollution and water pollution. Some members of those committees are present. They could enter into the debate. The committees recommended that some assistance should be given to those industries which apply anti-pollution devices. *I* understand that there is a current application from the Australian Metal Trades Industries Association which is putting to the Government that it needs to be granted some kind of assistance or taxation benefits if the pollution aims recommended by the 2 committees are supported. The Opposition considers that the present legislation is unsatisfactory, lt is unfair to the people generally and particularly to people on low incomes including pensioners. It is also unfair to those unite of the economy which are doing a very good job in increasing production and in attempting to cope with a world of constantly changing and competitive conditions. All that legislation of this kind does is to place extra burdens on the community generally. The imposts which will apply will affect the satisfactory operations s>f transport industries, particularly our airline operations. It has a multiplier effect throughout the whole community which should be resisted. Consequently, we intend to oppose the 4 Bills. I presume that the Minister is accepting that the 4 Bills are being dealt with in one debate. We intend to oppose the motions for the second readings of those 4 Bills. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA -- Are we discussing the 4 Bills together? The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)** - As far ls I know, we are only discussing one. **Senator Bishop** forecasted the attitude of the Opposition. He said that it would oppose the 4 Bills. As far as I am concerned, we are discussing Government Business No. 3, on the notice paper, the Excise Tariff Bill. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
LP -- I ask leave to make a statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. **Senator COTTON** (New South Wales - Minister for Civil Aviation)- by leave - I would imagine that we could discuss the' general principles involved in the 4 Bills. The first Bill carries the main burden of the whole philosophical and economic argument. The Diesel Fuel Tax Bills Nos I and 2 have reference to that particular area. The last Bill, the Excise Tariff Bill, in effect puts the legislative mechanical excise collecting processes into operation. While we are dealing with the 4 Bills separately. 1 believe the arguments are being addressed to the 4 Bills although largely carried by one. The 4 Bills will put into effect the excise. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -There has to. be agreement between the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition if these Bills are to be taken as co-ordinate Bills and in conjunction. 1 shall hear the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- by leave - Now that we have started in this way. I think the sensible course is to continue in the same way. I have no doubt that the argument on the other Bills will be greatly reduced, but if we were to change our course now it could cause complication!; for people who have spoken in this debate or wish to speak on the other Bills. They could be disadvantaged by suddenly finding that the 4 Bills were being dealt with together. They may have legitimate cause for complaint if they were not here and did not have notification now, let alone notification earlier, when some senators may have spoken in the debate. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)** - My ruling is that this debate is confined to the second reading of the Excise Tariff Bill, Item No. 3 on the notice paper under Government Business. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia -- The Bill before us provides for increased duties on manufactured tobacco products and certain refined petroleum products, and the imposition for the first time of duties on grape wine. The Bill also includes an amendment to the Act to remove excise duties previously applied to spirits used to fortify wines. The amendments included in this Bill have been operative since 19th August. They give effect to recent Budget provisions in respect of excise duties. 1 will address my remarks to the imposition of duty of 50c on each gallon of wine sold in Australia since 1 9th August. The history of the grape growing and wine making industries is most interesting and has been marked with great vicissitudes through the years. Only recently have the grape growing and processing industries achieved a buoyant condition. I recall vividly 5 years ago when the grape growers could not dispose of their product because of a heavy supply of processed wine and the inability of the processors to take the vintage of that year. In 1965 in South Australia special pools were set up to take in grapes and process them into brandy. When the brandy spirit was finally disposed of the growers received their payments for the grapes supplied. That is why I am deeply perturbed at the present prospect of adverse effects on the grape growing and wine making industries arising from the introduction of an excise duty on Australian wine. The sensitivity of wine sales is well established. Originally the greater consumption of wines, particularly Australian table wines, came about when the cost of a bottle of table wine compared most favourably with the price of a couple of bottles of other beverages, such as beer. It is necessary to maintain a price level for our table wines which will attract a ready market for them. In the process the consumption of wine is encouraged in a way which is beneficial for the whole com munity. I refer to the taking of table wines with meals. The difficulties to which I have referred in the disposal of the vintage in 1965, and also in 1963, could well recur; that is if there should be a reduction in home consumption of wine, combined with the increased plantings of recent years. There is inherent in that situation a dangerous condition wherein the traditional growers of grapes - the men who have their own vineyards - could be in difficulties. In 1965, in the difficulties then experienced, an authority comprising representatives of the winemaking and grape growing industries was operating in South Australia, lt was chaired by the Prices Commissioner of South Australia. Its purpose was to work out prices for grapes which would be fair to the processor and to the grower. All aspects of the industry were taken into account and the prices for grapes were varied. I recall vividly that at that time . it was most difficult to obtain better prices for grapes. An increase of only a few dollars a ton could be agreed upon as between grower and winemaker because of the economic position of the industry at that time. Duty of 50c- a gallon based on a wine crush of 140 gallons a lon of grapes equals $70 per ton on the raw material. This is more than the average price received by growers for their product at present. The present price is between $60 and $65 a ton, as an average of all varieties. The sensitivity of demand based on price becomes very important, bearing in mind the difficulties experienced by the industry a few years ago and the inability of the industry at that time to gain any substantial increases in returns to the grower. Now, at one fell swoop the cost of the raw material of the winemaker is to be doubled. The grape grower in his own right - that is, a man who is not a vigneron - is most concerned about the effects of the new duty on his ability to place his product in the next year or two. The sales of wine in Australia are predominantly of the bread and butter types, that is, the lower priced wines which sell in flagons. They are the wines most heavily hit by the new duty. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- They are taxed at double the rate applicable to. a bottle. {: .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE: -- That is the trouble. At the present flat rate of 50c a gallon no regard is had to the varying price levels or the varying qualities of wine. A flagon of riesling or light red type wine, which formerly could be purchased for $1, now costs $1.45. That is a very steep increase in the price. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- As much as 31 per cent. {: .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE: -- Yes. In the case of the higher priced wine an increase of 8c a bottle is not very great in relation to the price. But 1 emphasise the incidence of cost on the best selling types of wine which, because of the increased price, may diminish in demand, in which case the fears to which I have referred will materialise. I am very happy to note that the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Mr Chipp)** said when winding up the debate on this measure in another place a few days ago: 1 have given an assurance on behalf of the Government that it will look at the effects of this new tax as a responsible government should look at all new taxes. I take great solace in those words and the realisation that should the imposition of a tax of 50c per gallon lead to the situation to which 1 have referred the Minister is prepared to consider this tax with a view to its removal. I feel that from now on we must watch very carefully the trend in sales of wine on the home market. If it should be found that there is a serious decline in demand, bearing in mind the heavily increased plantings that have gone on, it would be disastrous if great consideration were not given to the removal of this tax if it were found necessary because of it to curtail planting. The wine industry generally has shown a great degree of responsibility in directing its own affairs in a ruggedly individualistic self-supporting way. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Is there any other industry in the primary field that has not approached the Government for assistance over a period of years? {: .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE: -- I believe that the grape-growing and winemaking industry is one of the very few which have not sought or received from the Government assistance of some kind or another. In the fruit growing industry generally many producers have a variety of interests. In addition to their vineyards they have citrus trees also. In recent years the citrus trees, which have formed a great part of their interest, has kept these properties alive. I would regard it as a great pity if an industry which has gone ahead well during the last 4 or 5 years and which seemingly has very bright prospects for the future should find itself faced with some impediment to the continued buoyancy of the industry. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- I have been told that 43.6 per cent of the farms in the dry region of South Australia about Adelaide and the southern vales have incomes below $2,000 and that this tax is likely to hit them very seriously. {: .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE: -- lt will. But provided that there is an opening for their grapes at the prices which now exist there will be every prospect of their being able to carry on with their properties, even though, as the honourable senator has suggested, the incomes now being received from those properties are not very high. I fully appreciate the need of a government to raise revenue wherever there is an opportunity to do so to enable it to do those things which are continually being demanded or expected of it. But in the process of taxing to raise revenue I hope that consideration will always be given to the continued viability of an industry or the interests of persons involved in industry. Again I refer to the statement by **Mr Chipp** that consideration will be given to this particular industry in the event of the incidence of this new tax having a proven adverse effect upon it. I support the Bill as a budgetary measure. {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-JXX} ##### Senator DRURY:
South Australia -- The four Bills that we are discussing in this debate are the Excise Tariff Bill, the Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 1), the Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 2) and the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2). By these Bills it is proposed to increase the excise on many items which affect all persons in the community. The greatest effect will be on those persons who are in receipt of fixed incomes and on those persons receiving social service benefits. If one makes an examination of the variety of goods which will be affected by these imposts one will see that the proposed increases are in accord with the Government's policy of imposing taxes on people, irrespective of their ability to pay. One has only to look at some of the items on which the tax will be applied to see the truth of this remark. In opening the debate on behalf of the Australian Labor Party **Senator Bishop** spoke about the effect that these imposts could have on South Australia, particularly within the motor vehicle industry. As was pointed out, every honourable senator from South Australia knows how important the motor vehicle industry is to South Australia and the influence that it has in that State. The impost of 3c a gallon on fuel, whether it is petrol, dieseline or kerosene, must have some effect on the vehicle industry in South Australia, especially when it comes at the same time as an increase of *2i* per cent in the rate of sales tax. That in itself does not seem to be a great increase, but it will add about $60 or $70 to the price of a motor car. Perhaps it will be suggested that an increase by that amount is not of much importance when compared with the price of $2,500 to $3,000 which is paid for a motor car, but 1 remind honourable senators of what happened when the 'rate of sales tax was increased some years ago. In I960 sales tax on motor vehicles was increased to 40 per cent and this had an adverse effect on South Australia, both economically and industrially. We know also that this rate operated for about 3 months only and that it was quickly removed on the eve of the Prime Minister's leaving to go overseas to attend to some parliamentary business. Before leaving on that occasion he announced that the tax would be reduced from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. I should like to cite some figures to show what effect the motor vehicle has on the economy of South Australia. At present 19,293 people are employed in the motor vehicle industry in that State. This figure does not take into account those people who are working in head offices outside of the South Australian industry or those engaged in selling or distribution. If these people were to he taken into account it would be found that the number employed would be *far* in excess of the 19,293. The same position applies in regard to the figure for salaries. An amount of $61,379,000 is paid to employees in the motor industry in South Australia in salaries and wages. This again does not take into account the people I mentioned previously, those working in the separate head offices or those engaged in selling or distribution. The value of the output of the industry in South Australia is 5275,908,000. This represents the selling value of vehicles at the factory door and it excludes all delivery costs and charges. lt may be thought that this increase of 3c a gallon on fuel by way of excise will have no effect on the industry, but it must have some effect because this increase will be passed on to the consumer. The consumer will have to pay it, and this will lead to the wage earner making application to the arbitration court for a higher wage. Of course, whenever this is done the cry goes up immediately that increases should not bc granted. In many instances the application is opposed strongly not only by the employers' federations but also by the Government itself on the grounds that it is not economic and will have an inflationary effect on the economy. Yet these excise imposts can be placed upon the economy and no regard is had to the fact that they are handed on to the consumer and that the consumer then has to have redress by applying for increased salaries to cover the extra costs imposed. These higher charges will affect not only the motor industry but also those industries producing consumer goods and electrical goods. South Australia is one of the main electrical goods producing States and relies almost entirely on its interstate sales to keep the industry going. We know what has happened on other occasions when increases have been imposed; the industries have suffered and an upsurge of unemployment has resulted in South Australia. Then something has to be done to overcome the situation. How will this increase affect people on fixed incomes? In the first place, I think a pensioner is entitled to have a motor car. Pensioners have been granted an increase of 50c a week, but they are asked, if they are able to run a motor car, to pay an extra 3c a gallon on the fuel that they use in it. If they use them very much it will not take long before the 50c increase in the pension is wiped out, and they will be further down the drain. This is also true in relation to people on fixed incomes. It affects them in the same manner. It affects the young people who are building homes today. To take my argument a little further, if one looks at the increase in the price of mineral turpentine which is one of the principal ingredients in -paint, one will find that it must increase the cost of housing. It could be said that it will not cost very much because the increase is only 3c a gallon. But when other charges are added to the cost of a gallon of paint, home buyers will have to pay substantially more. Many young people today are installing oil fuel burners for heating purposes. If a young couple cannot afford a drying cupboard, they will use their oil fuel burner as a method of drying their clothes quickly, particularly where there are young babies in the family and their clothing has to be dried quickly. This would mean that their oil fuel burner would be going practically all day and night. Of course, in these circumstances the consumption of fuel by these people will be much greater than for those who do not have an oil burner. This increased excise must have an effect on the people who are using fuels, and the extra costs will be extra money that must come out of their pockets. Where are they going to get it from? It means that they have to go to the arbitration court or to their employers to seek an increase in salaries to try to overcome these imposts. If any other honourable senator has had the opportunity, as T have, of going into many of the pensioners' homes, they will know that in the main these people, use kerosene burners. We know them in South Australia as fireside heaters. During the winter time these people keep their heaters going practically all day and all night. With an increase of 3c a gallon on kerosene that they use, it means that they will find it very difficult to cope on the increase of 50c in the pension rate that has been granted by the Government. I believe also that pensioners are entitled to a cigarette if they want it. The proposed increase in excise on tobacco will not affect me because I am a non-smoker, but it will affect those people who enjoy a cigarette. It will also affect those people who enjoy a glass of wine if they are able to afford it. Although pensioners have been given an increase of 50c a week, this is whittled away. This 50c increase in the pension will in no way measure up to the increased excise charges that they will have to pay. **Senator Bishop** has spoken about the impost on wine. **Senator Laucke** mentioned this also. I will not delve into this matter at any length except to say that the wine growers in South Australia are very upset and very concerned about this impost of 50c on a gallon of wine. When putting a question to the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr Anthony)** some time ago I asked what would bc the difference between excise on wine produced in Australia and the duty on imported wine. When asking the question I also mentioned that the increased excise on imported wine would not be as great as it would be on local gallonage. So these sorts of things have to be looked at. I am sure that my colleague from South Australia, **Senator Cameron,** will speak further on the wine situation. I say again that these imposts will be handed down to the consumer. There is no posible way of getting out of it. When this is done, the consumer will then seek redress by applying for an increase in salary. Heaven knows that the salaries that many people receive today are very low indeed, anil something should be done to increase them. If they are allowed to be increased, it will affect industry. We know this. When imposts were placed on motor vehicles years ago it affected the industry in South Australia. We are very concerned about this. We are very concerned about the impost of 50c a gallon on wine. Although I believe the Minister did say that some relief would be given to the producers of wine in that the amount of the excise imposed would not have to be paid at the door, and that the Government would determine at what stage this amount would be taken from the producer, up to this point of time nothing concrete has been done on this. I believe that the industry has still to face up to the situation as it was proposed in the Budget. I do not wish to say anything further except that we in South Australia are very concerned about these increases. I feel that the Government, instead of giving people mere pittances on the one hand and taking them away in larger proportions on the other, should have another look at this proposal. When 1 spoke on the Budget I mentioned reductions of income tax. I feel that some wage earners will receive a. greater rebate than those on the lower rung of the ladder. I feel that those people on the lower rung of the ladder, because of these indirect imposts that have been placed on them by this Government, will be far worse off than if they had received no taxation reduction at all. {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator POYSER:
Victoria -- As has been indicated by **Senator Bishop** and other Opposition speakers, the Opposition opposes this legislation. 1 think the Opposition has every reason to oppose it because it will provide for yet another increase in indirect taxation, lt may be argued that the world trend is towards indirect taxation. The simple truth is that the more indirect taxes are imposed on the community the more the ordinary people are being hurt. The Government claims that it has provided assistance to these people by decreasing the level of personal income taxation, but in reality the increased indirect taxation will more than account for the so called rebates which are provided under the new income tax scale. The Government's actions wilt almost certainly cause inflation. In fact the people who need *most* assistance will receive the least. Those people who need the least assistance have received greater rebates than those who can ill afford to be taxed. The people who can ill afford to be taxed are paying the piper through this indirect, system of taxation which is being favoured by the Government. in my view one of the most important features of the indirect tax schedules is the increase in the excise on petroleum products. The *Government is in* effect destroying any chance of real decentralisation in Australia because of the increase in excise on petroleum products and the increase in the post and telegraph charges. The Government is, by its actions, making it increasingly difficult for any industry to operate in the provincial areas of Australia. The Commonwealth and State governments have on many occasions indicated their great support for the decentralisation of industries. In actual fact the people who suffer most from any increases in post and telegraph charges, sales tax or excise are the people who live in the remote areas and the provincial cities of Austrafia. 1 have spoken to many of the small manufacturers in the country towns of Victoria, f have found that their two most serious problems are the post and telegraph charges - the telegraph charges in particular - and the increasing cost of freight to and from their localities, ls it any wonder that quite a number of industries in country areas have decided that their future lies in or close to the metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne. The provisions of this legislation will in fact increase the problems of the people who live in rural areas, ft is quite obvious that this system of indirect taxation increases administrative costs at every level. If a direct form of taxation were to be applied in accordance with the ability of the people to pay, the rich would be paying the most taxation and the less affluent would be paying the least. (Under the present system of imposing excise charges and sales tax it is the family man with children who pays the most tax. The situation is, as everybody knows, that these increases are borne by the people who have the least money in their pockets. To illustrate my point *1* refer to the increase in the sales tax on electrical *goods.* Everybody in the community knows that if one has enough cash in one's pocket one can walk into the shop of any electrical retailer and get -at least one-third - 33$ per cent - off the price of most electrical goods. The only people who have to pay the full amount are those on the lower income level who are paying off a refrigerator or something similar under a hire purchase contract. They are the people who are in fact financing the 33$ per cent rebate to the people who can afford to pay cash, lt is quite clear that the present system of indirect taxation works against the ordinary people and in favour of the people who have the most money in their pockets. Many items are covered in the schedules. Cigarettes and tobacco are two such items. I must admit that I am not greatly concerned about the increase in the excise on these 2 items. I am a smoker. I smoke far too heavily. However,. I firmly believe - as the medical profession has indicated - that smoking is a health hazard. Therefore, the increase of excise on cigarettes and tobacco does not concern me greatly. But I am concerned about the imposition of extra charges on other items which place a burden on these people in the community in the lower income bracket. I. am also concerned about the increasing difficulties of those industries which have tried to establish themselves in country areas and have struggled on for years only to find that all the help they get from the Commonwealth Government is increased charges. This makes it extremely difficult for them to be able to continue in business. Let us examine the excise which has been imposed on the wine industry, lt seems to me that in seeking a method whereby it could obtain additional revenue the Government looked at one of the few primary industries which is paying its own way at present and said: 'We must get some money out of this industry, lt is doing quite all right, lt is not broke, lt is not like the wheat . industry or the wool industry, which are going broke. We are experiencing great problems in the dairying industry. Therefore, we will impose additional burdens on the wine industry.' The result could be that it will be the next primary industry to go cap in hand to the Government for some kind of handout. The wine industry is standing on its own feet at this point of time. However, the excise which the Government is imposing on wine could well result in the wine industry, which is one of the few viable primary industries in Australia, being in a situation where it will have to seek direct assistance from the Commonwealth Government to keep in business. This is another example of the burden which the present system of indirect taxation is placing upon a section of the community. One of the worst features of the excise which has been imposed on wine is that although it has been put on at a level of 50c a gallon the mark-up has in fact been $1.50 a gallon. The retailers have increased the excise by 200 per cent. Our table wine is equal to any in the world. In fact, it is beginning to be claimed that we have the best table wines in the world. The Government could have imposed a duty on wine in a far more simple manner. It could have imposed sales tax at the bottle level. In this way the impost would have been equal throughout the whole of the industry. However, the Government has not chosen to do this, lt has by its actions permitted the situation to occur whereby the Australian product is at a disadvantage to the wines which are being imported. Imported wines enjoy an absolute advantage because the impost on them is less than that which is levied on our own Australian products. People who have built up an industry from nothing, who have had to fight to gain recognition not only in this country but throughout the world, are being hampered by the actions of a government which made a promise in the election campaign to decrease income tax and which has had to find a way out. In doing so it has decided to take more from the people than it was giving to them by any income tax reductions. Today we find that this Parliament is about to give approval to a series of increases to indirect taxes which will not assist anybody. The only assistance given will be to the revenue of this country. In fact it could well be that in the long term the Government will find itself in very serious trouble. On every occasion that it wants some money it looks at the petrol tax. This is one of the most inflationary taxes that one could imagine. Petrol is not only inflammable but also inflationary. Every time a cent is added to the price of a gallon of petrol people find, themselves paying 4c for some other commodity. This is because goods have to be transported long distances before reaching the point of sale. When freight rates rise the costs of goods rise proportionately. Anybody who lives in Canberra will tell you of the great disadvantage of living in this very lovely city. Every item which is brought into this community for retail sale is increased in price because of freight costs. I have heard, for instance, that it costs J 9c to bring to Canberra a case of sauces, although the cost of a single item in that case might be only 11c. It is well recognised that because of the freight costs and increases in the price of petrol Canberra is the dearest etty in Australia in which to live. If one goes to Townsville, Cairns or other outlying places one finds the same problem. The freight costs which people have to bear in those areas place them at a very serious disadvantage. These increases in indirect taxation are not helping anybody at all. As 1 said earlier, they are imposed on the people who can least afford to pay them. 1 am strongly critical of the Government for imposing this kind of indirect tax. People say that this seems to be a world-wide trend, but any responsible government which thinks about these things should be thinking in terms of decreasing indirect taxes and increasing direct taxes. It may be that the Government would get into trouble with people earning $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year because they might find themselves paying 90c in the Si in income tax. But many of them are paying that now through indirect taxes. lt must be obvious to anybody who thinks about this matter, that the system of indirect tax also increases the cost of collection of the taxes, lt becomes necessary to set up new departments and increase the numbers of employees in order to collect the increased taxes. On the other hand I am quite certain that if taxes are increased at the income tax level the computer will find it no more difficult to tax the rich at 90c in the $1 than it does to impose taxes on others at 30c in the $1. However, this system of building *up the cost of* administration will go on. What we are seeing is a demonstration of Parkinson's law. We are building up a big and powerful bureaucracy and executive to govern this country without any real reference to those elected *to* this Parliament to make decisions for the country. I and my colleagues strongly oppose this Bill. [ believe that if the South Australian senators on the other side are mindful of the welfare of the wine industry they will join us on this side of the chamber when the vote is taken later today. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-K3T} ##### Senator DONALD CAMERON:
South Australia -- T intend to be very brief, f support my colleagues in opposition to this Bill. They have adequately covered most of the items that will be affected by the Bill. I intend to confine myself to the effects of the excise duty on the sale of wine. First I would like to express my surprise that there have been so few Government speakers on this bill. It would appear that only one Government supporter. **Senator Laucke** from South Australia, is at all interested in the wine industry in Australia. Honourable senators opposite have tended to ignore the impost of excise on this industry, although no doubt it will have a disastrous effect on the industry. Sales of wine will suffer and this of course will have a detrimental effect on the industry, particularly in South Australia whch produces about 70 per cent of the total quantity of wine consumed in Australia or exported. Production and consumption of wine in Australia have been rising astronomically over the last 5 years and it now seems that the Government either is concerned that the Australian people are enjoying wine too much or wants to retard the industry and put it in the same position as many other rural industries are in at the present time. There is no need to remind honourable senators of the plight of other rural industries. For many years grape growers and wine makers in South Australia had to carry a very depressed industry. It was so depressed that in 1965 the South Australian Labor Government had to find $500,000 from the State Bank to finance a growers' co-operative to crush the grapes of growers who were not being paid even the cost of production for their grapes. You, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** would be well aware that in our State we have growers of wine grapes in the River Murray irrigation areas, the Barossa Valley, the south east and the south coast. For many years the industry was depressed particularly in the River Murray irrigation areas where returned soldiers were settled after World War 1. There was no sale for their grapes which at that time were mainly used in the dried fruits industry. But some dual purpose grapes were introduced, such as sultanas which are now being used as a blending grape to produce a table wine, and it is only in recent years that growers in South Australia have been in such a position that the industry has shown a worthwhile return. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator Toohey: -- it was depressed for years. {: .speaker-K3T} ##### Senator DONALD CAMERON: -- As my colleague **Senator Toohey** reminds me, the industry was depressed for years and many growers had to walk off. their properties. There was no sale whatsoever for a good deal of the wine grapes, particularly those that were used in the making of fortified wines. The industry only recovered from this situation in the last 3 or 4 years. Because of the depression in the wine industry in the years prior to 1965, a royal commission was set up to investigate the prices being paid to grape growers and the prices of wines to consumers. Following that inquiry the prices of wine grapes were fixed under the Prices Act and they have been controlled since that time. I believe that this system of price fixation has worked satisfactorily, not only from the point of view of growers but also from that of the consumers and wine manufacturers. Now, just, when this industry is in a satisfactory position and when growers are receiving adequate returns for .their labour, the Government has decided to apply an impost which no doubt will retard and impede the progress of the industry. lt is very hard to understand why the Government has done this. It estimates that it will receive Si 5.2m in a full year by this means and this seems a very insignificant amount when we consider the fact that the 1970-71 Budget is in the vicinity of $7.922m. It is apparent. **Mr President,** that the Government wants to reduce the wine industry to the same critical level as other rural industries in Australia. The damaging effect on wine sales of this proposed duty will lead to a crisis next year so far as the disposal of our grape crop is concerned. I remind the Senate that the wine grape crop and the amount of wine produced will increase quite a lot in the next few years because of recent plantings. Unless we can find more export markets or can increase local consumption obviously we will have a surplus, particularly in South Australia which produces so much of our wine grapes. Hundreds of vines have been planted throughout that State and it is expected that most of them will come into production within 2 years. They probably will be in full production within 5 years. This will mean that hundreds of thousands of gallons of wine will have to be disposed of. Surely the imposition of this excise of 50c a gallon will have an effect on the consumption of wine. According to figures I have obtained, our biggest seller is the cheaper wine which can be bought for as low as $1.50 a gallon. The imposition of 50c means that the price of that commodity has been increased by one-third. Since the announcement of this excise, of course, manufacturers and wine sellers have increased the prices of their wines by from 1 5c to 30c a bottle. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Malcolm Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP -- How much is the tax on each bottle? {: .speaker-K3T} ##### Senator DONALD CAMERON: -- Only 8c. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Malcolm Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP -- Then why has the price of a bottle gone up by 30c? {: .speaker-K3T} ##### Senator DONALD CAMERON: -- The fact is that the price of certain wine has increased since the announcement of this excise duty. This wine is now selling at between 1 5c and 30c more a bottle. The Government, for some inexplicable reasons, has decided to penalise the only rural industry in Australia which has proved to be self-sufficient. Figures recently released by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics show that wholesale sales of white table wines in South Australia fell sharply during the quarter ended in June. They indicate that sales in that period were 42.000 gallons lower than those for the quarter ended last December. There was a decline in sales of a particular type of table wine even before the effects of this proposed excise were felt in this industry. One would have thought that the Government would have been aware of the decline in sales and that it would have deferred its intention of imposing this excise on the wine industry. The Government should defer this Bill. This is the first time in Australian history that a tax has been imposed on commercial wine. It should be deferred until we know the effect of the increased grape plantings, which no doubt will increase wine production. If this Bill is not deferred I believe that many Australians who have switched from drinking beer, tea and other beverages to drinking table wine will go back to those other beverages. They will lose the taste that they have acquired for wines which have become so popular over the last 5 years. All credit for the increased popularity of table wines must be given to the expertise of the industrial chemists in our wine-making firms. They produced wines acceptable to the Australian people. Many Australians now enjoy them. For some reasons not spelt out in the second reading speech on this Bill, exemption from this excise duty is to be granted in respect of wine produced *by* people for their own consumption. This exemption applies to up to 400 gallons a year. That seems to me to be an excessive amount for home consumption. It represents about 7 bottles a day. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator Toohey: -- It is an invitation to them to become bootleggers. {: .speaker-K3T} ##### Senator DONALD CAMERON: -- Yes. lt seems to me that if these people who are exempt from this excise to the extent of 400 gallons a year consume about 7 bottles a day they would be in a perpetual state of intoxication. I would like the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton),** who represents the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Mr Chipp)** in this chamber, to explain to me why the exemption on wine produced by a person for his own use covers up to 400 gallons. 1 have nothing against people making wine for their own use. A lot of people from European countries are accustomed to doing this. As a matter of fact, a lot of metropolitan city dwellers who grow grapes make small quantities of wine. However it seems to me that 400 gallons is excessive and I would like this matter explained by the Minister. **Mr President,** I hope that the Government will defer implementation of this Bill before its effect hits the industry. Once an industry is retarded it takes a long time to recover. {: #subdebate-35-0-s8 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania -- I rise to take part in this debate in order to discuss a specific aspect of this legislation. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber have dealt quite adequately with the various points in the broad sense. T want to look very quickly at the impact that these increases will have on the public transport authorities in Australia which use diesel buses for the purpose of carrying passengers. We are all aware of the tremendous problem that exists in the capital cities of this country as a result of traffic congestion. We know that it has become almost beyond the capacity of the States to deal with the problem. Especially in Melbourne and Sydney, vast sums of money which amount to probably hundreds of millions of dollars over the years are being spent for the purpose of keeping up with the motor car. lt is nol my intention to suggest or to imply that the motorist should be the per son who is hit every time there is an increase in taxation. But it is quite apparent that there should be a national plan to co-ordinate the passenger services and urban transport in our capital cities. The Commonwealth can play a very important role in this field by assisting public transport authorities in the capital cities. This legislation only puts a further imposition on them. As I mentioned, the States are not able to deal with this problem. The political complexion of the governments concerned does not matter much because the problem has reached such a magnitude and the amount of money required to overcome the urban traffic problem is so immense that it is beyond the capabilities of the Slates. 1 am sure that the day is not far away when the Commonwealth Government will have to accept some responsibility in this field. I remember that the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, in its report to the Parliament last year, emphasised the need for greater research into the development of public transport systems in Australia. I do not think any action whatsoever has been taken by the Commonwealth Government in this respect, lt is something that should be looked at. In New South Wales the additional tax imposed on the metropolitan transport authority in Sydney and Newcastle will mean payment of another $186,000 a year, bringing the total amount that that authority will have to pay to $960,000 a year. In Brisbane it will mean $65,000 a year over and above the $260,000 a year already being paid, thus increasing the full payment of diesel fuel tax to $325,000 a year. In Adelaide the Metropolitan Transport Trust will be required to pay an additional $38,000 a year, bringing its total annual payment to $190,000. In Perth the additional tax will mean an additional payment of $75,000 a year, bringing the total tax payment to $387,000 a year. All those figures are of the tax those authorities will be required to pay on diesel fuel, lt is quite apparent that at some stage someone in authority will have to grapple with the question of the traffic in Australia's capital cities. > lt is not simply a matter of there being too many cars. We know that the rate of increase in the number of private vehicles on the road is about 7 per cent a year. That means that at the present rate of expansion we will have something like double the present number of cars in Australia by 1978 or 1979. We have to ask ourselves whether we believe that the environment of our cities should be spoilt not so much by the use of motor cars as by the abuse of motor cars. Governments are required to invest tremendous sums of money to keep up with this increase. We have to determine our priorities. Does it mean that the motor car will take over our cities? That is what it is doing. Do we intend to divert moneys away from more important things? Will our priorities get all mixed up simply because of the tremendous demand of the motor car? The biggest problem with the motor car occurs during the peak periods, as we all are aware. One of the most significant ways of combatting this problem is by the development of adequate public transport facilities. That is why I believe that the imposition that will be put on the public transport authorities by this legislation is a matter about which the Government has not thought It is one about which the Government ought to have thought. It is one about which in the years to come the Government will, have to think in a much bigger way than is covered by this Bill. At least that would be a gesture. It would be a recognition by this Government that it sees the problem that exists, lt could be a step forward. Unless the Commonwealth is prepared to take direct action on this whole question of urban transportation, in the cities we will find ourselves literally choked to death by the end of this decade. In closing, I suggest very strongly to the Government that it ought to give consideration to some alleviation of the tax that this Bill will impose on public transport authorities. **Senator Sir MAGNUS** CORMACK (Victoria) (3.32)- I had hoped that I would not be drawn into this debate on taxes that are being imposed on commodities of one sort or another because, as it has ensued, I have realised that every argument that has been advanced was advanced 20 years ago. I have heard all the arguments advanced by **Senator Keeffe,** for example, on women's face powder, imitation jewellery and so on. But while this debate has been proceeding in the last couple of hours I have been interested in the contributions that have been made by **Senator Bishop** on the one hand and **Senator Wriedt** on the other. Prior to the luncheon suspension, **Senator Bishop,** in relating his remarks to the Schedules to this Bill and the excise on commodities such as gasoline and other petroleum products, itched a piteous tale of the problems that would follow to the State of South Australia if all his dire forebodings came into being In other words, he said that the whole economic structure of South Australia would collapse because the excise on petroleum products, tyres and so on proposed in this Bill would cast South Australia's secondary industry, which to a large degree is based on the motor car industry, into a state of ruin and disrepair. The Australian motor car industry, which to a substantial degree - in the field of body works and panel works - is centred on South Australia, has managed to fortify itself against excise of one sort or another over the last 40 or 50 years. I have not any doubt that it will be able to survive this impost. . But what interested me were the observations that were made by **Senator Wriedt,** who has just resumed his seat. **Senator Bishop** and **Senator Wriedt,** who sit beside one another on the other side of the chamber from me, apparently have achieved no comity. **Senator Bishop** considers that the motor car industry is paramount and that the taxes that are being imposed will militate against the motor car industry in South Australia; whereas **Senator Wriedt** takes the extreme opposite view in that he argues for the reduction of the motor car industry because he regards it as a polluter. This is what he has been arguing. He argued, notably, for 15 minutes that the great curse now occurring in Australia is the motor car industry which **Senator Bishop** values so highly. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- I think the honourable senator was sitting in the chair, ruling, when that, happened. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- 1 am referring to the remarks made by **Senator Wriedt.** I can understand **Senator Bishop's** concern because it is motivated by the fact that he knows and understands the industry pretty thoroughly. He has been President of the South Australian Trades and Labour Council. In that State a large number of unionists depend upon the prosperity of the motor car industry. It is proper that **Senator Bishop** should espouse that case. I thought he did it perfectly, however wrongly I thought he espoused it in terms of facts and arguments. I was interested in the reverse pattern taken by **Senator Wriedt.** He said that that industry is a cursed thing which is polluting the atmosphere and that the only way to control the pollution of the atmosphere by General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and the other car manufacturers is by forcing off the road people who drive cars and by putting them into public transport. This would be an onerous penalty on public transport which uses diesoleum fuels and other kinds of fuels. What **Senator Wriedt** did not say when he advocated more planning by which more people could bc forced into public transport systems was - here I support **Senator Bishop** - that after 50 years experience of the Australian transport system there is a trauma existing in the minds of the Australian public and they will do everything they possibly can to avoid travelling on public transport systems. It seems to me that the reason why no one wishes to travel on public, transport, systems is that basically they are dirty and inefficient and that mostly the passengers are treated with great rudeness. Apart from that, in the metropolitan area in which I spend some of my time, one can never by sure that one will get from A to B on the public transport system because as often as not they are out on strike. It will be the guards on strike this week, the signalmen next week and the locomotive drivers the week after. Paralysis overtakes the great city of Melbourne quite regularly. The solution does not lie in planning and in forcing people off the roads and into public transport. I think **Senator Wriedt's** problem is that he has been reading Ralph Nader's latest book on air pollution. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- I am sorry, who was that? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- Ralph Nader, the American proselyte for pollution. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- He is against pollution, not for it. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- He is .against pollution. He is against motor cars, as is **Senator Wriedt.** {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- That is not fair. He said nothing of the kind. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- I thought he did. I must have totally misunderstood his argument. I formed the strong opinion that he was advocating getting rid of motor cars and getting everyone to travel by public transport. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- The honourable senator must have been asleep, which would not be anything unusual. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- I was not asleep. 1 turn my attention now to a second matter. Today the attention of the Senate has been substantially engaged in the problems of the wine growing industry in South Australia. I know that South Australia produces a lot of wine. I know that it produces some notable wine. But it is not the only State that produces wine. I *think the wine industry* can stand some form of taxation and that the people who buy the wine and who finally pay the taxation are capable of standing some luxury tax, because this is what it amounts to. Wine is not a necessity. The Government has not made any attempt to impose an excise on tea or coffee, for example. It has said quite frankly that those people who wish to drink wine with their meals, in the interests of the revenue of the country, should pay a luxury tax and it is proper that this area of production should bear a *luxury* tax. That is what it *amounts to.* 1 hope no honourable senator will argue that wine is of such a nature that the small impost that the Bill will impose will hurt the people who buy the wine. I do not think anyone will be able to persuade me that the people who habitually drink table wines will stop drinking them because this tax has been imposed. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- lt might hurt the primary producers. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- I doubt that very much. I have Jived in a wine producing area for most of my life.. In fact there is a large vineyard only li miles from where I live. I am perfectly sure that the grower on that vineyard is not suffering any loss nor forecasts that he will suffer any loss. All my life I have heard about the problems that exist in the wine industry. The fact is that the volume of table wine consumed in Australia each year has been increasing, and not only in proportion to population. People are drinking more wine. So they should, because 1 believe it has some beneficial medicinal effects. So I am not responsive to the argument that this excise duty will disturb the grower of the wine, the processor of the wine or the people who ultimately pay for and drink the wine. Having said that, 1 return to the fundamental issue which has been argued that a consumer tax, in the final analysis, increases costs as a multiplier over the whole economy. The basic facts are as stated I think, by **Senator Greenwood** the other night and by the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson)** who argued that if the electorate demands more services and more things that is is considered the duty and the responsibility of government to provide, as the charges on the revenue rise, inevitably taxation has to be found to support it. The fundamental fact is that purchasing power under the governments that have existed in the last 20 years in Australia has passed from a small area of taxpayers into- an area in which the mass of Australian citizens are now the owners of purchasing power. This is the great social revolution that the last 20 years has seen developed in Australia. Purchasing power is now in the hands of the mass of people. That means that the income for purchasing !s in the hands of the mass of people. The people who were formerly a specialised class in the community, who dictated the terms of purchase and who in the final analysis dictated the level of production and consumption in the society have been almost extinguished. lt is inevitable that further sources of revenue have to be found. The revenue has to be found in the area in which the largest amount of income resides. That is among the consumers. Therefore, in every modern society - in West Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States of America or Australia - governments are forced to seek the bulk of their revenue from consumer taxation. Unfortunately, this is the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. As demand for governmental expenditure rises, it naturally and inevitably follows that there has to be a rise in the level of taxation. The level of taxation an be found only in the area in which the maximum amount of income resides. That is among the consumers. in this place from time to time I have heard enormous complaints about the United States of America for not spending its vast revenues to elevate the standards of people in other parts of the world. If any honourable senator went to the United States of America and wished to buy at a little shop some sandwiches for his lunch and sit in the park to eat them or take them back to the office to eat them, he would discover that there is a tax placed on sandwiches. Even food in the United States of America is taxed. The enormous volume of revenue raised in the United States of America comes substantially from the consumer tax. Although people loathe it like poison - producers, processors and consumers alike - the facts of life are that no modern society can exist except on the basis of its consumer taxation. I do nol believe that this excise will ruin the country. I believe that there has to be a charge on the area in which taxation is derived, such as on motor fuels for example. I think the motorist is entitled to be charged in accordance with the amount of fuel he uses in order that the road structures and all the other structures that are required can be maintained. It is not merely a question of roads, as **Senator Bishop** is arguing. Many other things related to roads are concerned. I refer to bridges, highways, police forces and so on. Therefore the motor industry has to bear its proportion. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- That has nothing to do with this Bill. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- It has, in accordance with the schedule and the imposition of excise. It is in the schedule to this Bill. Everyone seems to imagine that this Bill deals only with tobacco and cigars. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- How does it affect the motor car? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -- I am not here to be cross-examined by you, **Senator Webster.** I am here to make an authoritative statement in the Senate on the subject matter of this Bill, and that is what I am doing. I do not wish to engage the Senate any longer, except to say that I accept the policy of the Government as reflected in this Bill. I support the Bill and {: type="A" start="I"} 0. strongly advocate that no honourable senators should try to destroy the Government's budgetary situation by rejecting it. {: #subdebate-35-0-s9 .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG:
South Australia -- I am always amused by honourable senators opposite who openly criticise the Government whenever we discuss any measures concerning sales tax. excise, or any form of taxation whatsoever. Those same people often expound that the Government should do more. A very old and realistic philosophy that we should never overlook is that if something is to be done, somebody has to pay for it. The Opposition comes to light with all sorts of expensive ideas. 1 have said before that it is very easy for members of the Opposition to sit back and criticise and to say that this should be done and that should not be done. That is easy when you do not have the responsibility of managing the economy through the post-war years to the point of expansion second to that in no other country. This has come about because of a sound economic and stable government in Australia. Demands are still made by people that more should be done for them. All honourable senators would agree with this aim. We are here to represent people and to work in their interests. The Government accepts its responsibility and legislates and budgets accordingly. All the criticism that has been levelled at the imposition of sales tax and excise in this Budget has been prompted because the Budget includes far greater provision for social services, the area in which the people of this country are helped. How does the Government pay for this help? The philosophy of many honourable senators opposite is to get out the printing machine and to start pumping out money Other countries have tried that method, with the result that their economic set-up soon collapsed. Investment is discouraged and money Hows out of the country because people become scared. We will not have this happen here because of the responsible Government we have. This Government is prepared to do things for people, lt is also conscious that payment must bc made for the services that are provided. How are they to be paid for? There are many areas of revenue earning, including taxation in its various forms, including those in the measure we are dealing with today. I remind the Opposition of what **Senator Greenwood** said when he spoke in the previous debate. He said that when sales tax was introduced into Australia it was done by a Labor government. Since then a Labor government has been in office. It had an opportunity then, if it believed that this is such an iniquitous tax, to abolish it It had an opportunity to abolish all forms of excise, but it did not. The old Labor Party that was then in office, not the one we know now, endeavoured to accept its responsibility. It realised that these areas came within the ambit: of its responsibility. When **Senator Donald** Cameron was speaking in this debate, 1 was listening in my office to what he said. I remind him that on many occasions honourable senators opposite listen to the debates in their offices. I do not accept or appreciate the remarks that he made. 1 hope he is observing that at present another senator from South *Australia on this side of* (he chamber has entered the debate. {: .speaker-K3T} ##### Senator Donald Cameron: -- But you did not intend to enter it. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG: -- You 'cannot read my mind. You did not even know that I was listening. During the debate on the Budget I dealt ' with the effects of this excise on the wine industry. T mentioned then that I would have much preferred that the Government could have raised more revenue from areas other than the wine industry. The wine industry still has stability and is expanding, in contrast to so many other areas of primary production. I said then that if it could be shown conclusively that this excise has an adverse effect and reduces the demand for wine,, the Government could seriously reconsider the situation, ft has been said that this excise is equal to 17c a bottle. My understanding is that the increase in price is 17c a bottle in South Australia and 15c a bottle in New South Wales. I raised this point with **Senator Cavanagh** in the debate on the Budget. Excise of 50c a gallon is equal to about 8c a bottle. Why did the price go up to 17c a bottle? We appreciate that the middle men must get their margins. However, taking a margin of 40 per cent for the middle man, no honourable senator could arrive at an answer of an increase of 17c a bottle, unless the product is handled by a great number of people. But that is not the case. I suggest that the wine manufacturers be asked by how much they have increased the price, and how an escalation of 40 per cent in the mark-up has been incurred. It will then be found that the wine manufacturers have increased their price by 3c a bottle. I am not referring to the growers, but to the wine manufacturers. If they choose to' be critical of the Government and say that the excise is wrong by 100 *per* cent, all 1 can say to them is that they must be 50 per cent wrong. 1 say that because they have introduced an increase of about 50 per cent themselves in order to arrive at an increase of 17c a bottle. I emphasise that I am not talking about the growers. The growers are the ones who will feel any adverse effects. It will be the poor old producers, right at the grass roots of the industry. That is the area that must be watched very closely. A lot has been said about the excise on wine. I have expressed my views on it. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- You support it. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG: -- Yes, and when it is proved to be wrong I will reconsider the situation; when and if it is proved to be wrong. For years barley growers in this country have been making a big contribution to the revenue gained by excise. The excise on a gallon of beer is in excess of $1. Many gallons of beer are made from 1 bushel of barley, so the barley industry makes a contribution to the Commonwealth of approximately St. 2m a day for every day of the year. This has gone on for years and this is the extent to which the barley industry has been contributing. But let us consider the question of excise in different light. We are talking of excise and the principle of excise and other taxation in order to raise revenue to do certain things in the field of social services. For how many years has the beer drinker been paying a great amount of excise? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Too long. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG: -- Right. The beer drinker turned round on this occasion, well before the Budget came out, and said: 'I have been paying the excise for years on my glass of beer. It is about time the champagne drinkers and others who are not paying any kind of excise made their contribution.' Can anyone blame the poor old working man who likes his glass of beer for suggesting that the champagne drinkers should pay their share? The Opposition is supposed to represent the workers of this country. On this occasion the Government has' given recognition to the workers and has turned the excise attack to its own people, the so-called Liberals about whom we hear so much talk in this place. Their champagne is to be taxed and it is these people who will be paying. Yet today we have heard the Opposition condemning the Government for bringing in any excise, the great bulk of which will be paid by the so-called bad Liberals on their champagne and table wines. The poor old working man who likes his glass of beer has been protected by the Government in that he has to meet no increase this time. Yet the Opposition, their socalled protector, is now criticising the Government. We have agreed already that it is necessary to impose taxation. There are not many ways in which we can raise revenue by taxation, but this is one way. So I am surprised to hear the Opposition talking as it has today. Let us come back to the area of excise. There has been criticism of the petrol tax and criticism in so many areas about what happens to all this revenue. We have heard **Senator Bishop** talking about the need for improved transport in this country. We have heard **Senator Wriedt** dealing with transport. Transport is one of the most essential areas of communication in modern society. Australia is a country of great magnitude with vast distances to be covered. We have areas of dense population with great areas of low population in between. As we all know, it costs much money to maintain sealed roads and to improve our road system throughout Australia. The Government has accepted its responsibility. We all know what happened last year when an economic assessment was made of the road transport system of Australia. In carrying out this assessment the Government acted responsibly. The Commonwealth has made big contributions to the States for roads. But how do we pay for the roads? By imposing an excise on fuel. That is one way of making a great contribution. Also it means that the man who uses the roads most and therefore uses the most fuel is the man who makes the greatest contribution towards the cost of the roads. Do honourable senators opposite suggest that we should increase taxation? Do they suggest that we should increase excise in other areas so that the poor old working man, who perhaps does not own a motor car, will make his contribution towards roads that are used by other people? Let us be realistic about this. I do not think there is one honourable senator opposite who would not say that improved transport is a necessity in this country. But asI have said before, this has to be paid for and this is what the Commonwealth and State governments collectively are doing. We know that the road systems are being gradually improved. We know that we have much more to do in the rural areas where main roads have to be maintained and in the urban areas where, as **Senator Wriedt** said, we have a great problem because the roads are being choked by traffic. AsI understand that it is proposed to adjourn at 4 p.m., I ask for leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senate adjourned at 4 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 October 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19701016_senate_27_s46/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant