Senate
8 September 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 509

PETITIONS

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 10 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603XXIVA (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

that the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

that the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

that honourable senators urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 10 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare:

that the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol docs not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

that the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

that honourable senators urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxiceffects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– As this petition is in the same terms as the petition presented by Senator Webster I shall not move that it be read.

page 509

QUESTION

PINE GAP

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.I refer to a recently published American book in which it was stated that Pine Gap was part of the American chain of communications directing America’s nuclear weapons system. Will the Minister tell us whether this is correct? Does this mean that Pine Gap, perhaps Alice Springs or even Adelaide, will be early targets for nuclear attacks in the event of a major war? Does the Government agree that Australians, whose future may be jeopardised by these installations, deserve to be told frankly the true position?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI can react to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition only by saying that the joint defence research facility at Pine Gap is an agreed facility under the Australian, New Zealand and United States defence pact - ANZUS. Such research activity is secret. Since the original announcement by Sir Allen Fairhall on 11th December 1966 a number of references have been made to this matter in Parliament. I do not wish to react to speculation. The work of the facility is defensive in nature. No launching or firing operations are conducted at the site.

page 510

QUESTION

PERTH AIRPORT

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In the statement by the Minister for Civil Aviation on 31st August concerning extensions to the Perth Airport it was proposed that 1,700 acres of land on the eastern side of the airport should be acquired. Can the Minister name the final dale by which it is expected to acquire all this land? Are there some sections of the land which will need to be acquired significantly earlier than the final date?

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

– I cannot name the final date by which all the land will be acquired. It will not be required in total for quite a long time. There are certain cases where the land will need to be acquired earlier than that date, but these are for reasons of personal hardship. They have been taken separately and investigated quite thoroughly with every intention of trying to help as much as possible.

page 510

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– J have pleasure in drawing the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Senate gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Sabah which, as honourable senators know, is a State of Malaysia. On behalf of honourable senators I welcome the members of the delegation.

Honourable senators - Hear, hear

The PRESIDENT:

– I regret that the le”d;r of the delegation the Hon. Fadzi Wong is indisposed. On behalf of honourable senators I trust that he will make a speedy recovery.

Honourable senators - Hear, hear

page 510

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. I refer to the Minister’s statement, when the Senate was debating the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill on 19th May last, that a decision had been taken to adopt an expenditure of $2,200 per square on the construction of science laboratories. As this standard will, no doubt, be applied to laboratories in metropolitan areas where building costs are lowest, can the Minister inform the Senate what extra expenditure over the amount of $2,200 per square is to be allowed in areas outside metropolitan areas and in the more remote areas to compensate for the extra building costs, so that the same standards of construction will apply to science laboratories built anywhere in Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– When 1 made that reference J was to be understood as saying that the amount of $2,200 per square represented what the Department on experience considered was an average cost to allow for and to make reasonable science laboratories during the 4 years programme. The Department realises that the costs of laboratories vary according to location. Location will always be taken into account. Honourable senators are assured that the Minister in deciding the variables in relation to the prima facie cost will include location.

page 510

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. In view of the large number of university graduates who cannot find suitable employment in their home countries of Canada and the United States of America and in view of the possibility of this trend developing here, will the Minister ensure that the entry of graduates into Australia from North America and other countries will not bc to the detriment of Tasmanian and other Australian graduates who have yet to qualify? If necessary, will the Government control the entry of such people?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– It is a fact that in the United States of America and in most advanced Western countries persons with general professional qualifications or with technical qualifications of some description are finding it difficult to obtain employment. No graduate is encouraged to come to Australia unless there is an unsatisfied demand in Australia which would be filled by the encouragement of graduates to come here. Obviously that is in the interests both of Australia and of the prospective immigrants. However, if a graduate is aware of the competitive situation in Australia and if he desires to come to Australia, it would seem improper to deny him entry to Australia because he is a university graduate. I cannot give the assurance for which the honourable senator asked, certainly not in the terms in which he sought it. The overall position is that, where people make inquiries before coming to Australia as to the likely prospects of employment, the Department of Immigration takes steps to inform them to the best of its ability as to what the situation is in this country.

page 511

QUESTION

THE OUTCASTS OF FOOLGARAH

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the publication recently of a book called ‘The Outcasts of Foolgarah’, written by Frank Hardy, the author of ‘Power Without Glory’? Are some of the characters in the book clearly identifiable as leading members of the Government; for instance, Sir William Bigears, Mr Sneedhearn and many others? Does the book also refer to Sir Jasper Storeman and his sinister influence on the Government - a clear reference to Sir Frank Packer?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is ‘a clear reference’ the honourable senator’s assumption?

Senator POKE:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Then I do not think the honourable senator is entitled to make that assumption.

Senator POKE:

– I have finished that section of my question. Whatever the literary merits of the book, does the AttorneyGeneral regard any of the references to Government leaders as libellous and does he believe that the Government should act?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have seen references to the book, although I have not read it. I gather it is a book which deals in some form of allegory. However, if the assumptions which the honourable senator made are assumptions which he drew from the book, I do not think it redounds to the credit of the honourable senator or of the Senate that he should seek to give publicity to a scandal or a libel, as he suggested, when the author was not prepared to do that and thus expose himself to the ordinary civil remedies in the courts.

page 511

QUESTION

EYRE PENINSULA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for National

Development say whether the Commonwealth Government has received a submission from the South Australian Government for an allocation from the National Water Resources Fund for the purpose of completing the water pipeline from the Polda Basin to Kimba on Eyre Peninsula? Is the Minister aware that people in this comparatively dry area have been forced to cart water during the summer months over a long period? Will the Minister assure me that this vital project is given an urgent priority so that the completion of this important pipeline and branch lines may be advanced?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Commonwealth Government received from the South Australian Government a submission concerning the Polda Basin to Kimba pipeline. I understand that the Prime Minister wrote yesterday to the Premier of South Australia conveying to him the Commonwealth’s decision on this matter.

page 511

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is it a fact that Mr C. W. Jenks, the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation, is at present in Australia as a guest of the Australian Government? If so, will the Minister extend to Mr Jenks greetings from the people of Australia and encourage the extension of the peaceful objectives of the ILO? At the same time, will the Minister discuss with Mr Jenks his interpretation of the policy of equal pay for the sexes, and as a convenient comparison make known to Mr Jenks the workload and responsibilities of female secretaries to members of the Commonwealth Parliament in order to ascertain whether such workers should qualify for equal pay in accordance with the ILO Convention?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I shall convey to the Minister the terms of the question as a suggestion by the honourable senator that the subjects mentioned should be included in any conversations he has with our visitor.

page 511

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Will tha addition of jumbo jets to the Qantas fleet mean a reduction in the number of Boeing 707s used by Qantas, or will jumbo jets be used mainly for charter and package tours, with a subsequent increase in passenger carrying?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– My understanding is that Qantas has no plans of any kind to dispose of any Boeing 707s at present because it has acquired Boeing 747s. I believe that Qantas will use the Boeing 747s in regular airline operations and where appropriate on charter and package tours. I also believe that Qantas is likely to use its Boeing 707s increasingly in charter operations.

page 512

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. Knowing your deep interest in the parliamentary institution and your desire to ensure that the functions of the Parliament are as widely known and understood as possible, I ask whether any measures can be taken to overcome the growing problem caused by inadequate accommodation in the galleries for visitors to the Parliament. I have in mind particularly young people and members of school parties who are often disappointed at having to leave Parliament House without having seen their Parliament in session.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would be grateful to the honourable senator if he would accord me the privilege of pondering on ibis question so that I may give him a fuller answer by the end of question time.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Air seen a report in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 6th September that Russia has recently test flown a swing wing supersonic bomber named ‘Backfire’, which is said to fly at twice the speed of sound, to have special low level capacities and to be a new air weapons system? Does this not fully justify the massive research expenditure by the United States of America on an apparently similar type of project? Does it not underline the urgent importance of the successful development and Service usage of Fill type aircraft? Is there in fact any aircraft in existence today in the

Allied armoury other than the Fill which could measure up to the type of aircraft reportedly produced by Russia?

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

– 1 have seen the report to which the honourable senator refers; but in reading it I noted that it said that the information was not official and it alleged that the information had come via North Atlantic Treaty Organisation intelligence. As far as 1 know, there is no official Russian confirmation that such an aircraft does exist. However, the Air Force authorities in Australia do know that the Russians already have 2 types of swing-wing aircraft in existence. This one would make a third. I might also point out that an aircraft which was referred to in the Senate last session - the multi-role combat aircraft being produced by Panavia in Europe - is also a swing-wing type of aircraft. So we can now see the swing-wing concept developing throughout the world in the supersonic bomber system. Quite obviously, this supports the choice of the Fill made by Australia in years gone by. On my recent visit to France to see the air display there, I saw nothing flying at that display which T believe could compare with the Fill.

Senator Devitt:

– That is not flying either.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The honourable senator can say: ‘That is not right’, if he likes. Is that what he said? In addition I can say that the Air Force authorities know of no aircraft that can meet the R.A.A.F.’s requirement, other than the Fill.

page 512

QUESTION

SHARE TRADING

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the case of 2 school teachers who were committed for trial yesterday by a magistrate at Newcastle. New South Wales, on a charge of conspiring to defraud a stock broking firm by placing orders with that firm to sell 4.000 shares in Tasminex and 4.000 shares in Westralian Nickel which, it is alleged, they did not in fact own at the time but which they hoped to buy, subsequent to the sale, on a falling market in order that they might complete the transaction and thereby make a profit? Does the Minister see any real difference between the alleged conduct of those 2 men and that of respectable broker firms and others in the short selling operations in connection with shares in Antimony Nickel, none of whom has yet been prosecuted? Finally, will the Minister, in considering any legislation arising out of the anticipated report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, recommend to the Government the inclusion of penalties for conduct such as that of the short sellers in shares in Antimony Nickel?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have not seen the report to which the honourable senator refers. Obviously the questions he raises are of considerable import. In order to enable me to give him a considered answer, I ask him to put his question on the notice paper.

page 513

QUESTION

PARACHUTING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Civil Aviation satisfied that sufficient supervision is exhibited by officers of his Department of the adherence to safety procedures by sky-diving clubs and their parachutist members?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I am. I have some information which I obtained after the recent incident in Sydney so that if somebody was interested in asking me a question I could give it to him. In Australia, and indeed throughout the world, civil parachuting is regarded as a sport and, I might say, a sport with a potential for danger if not properly conducted. Those people who engage in it should realise this. For this reason the Department of Civil Aviation developed rules, but it looks to the parachuting organisations to apply those rules in practice. Because it is regarded as a sport, many countries do not exercise any control whatsoever over parachuting. The Department of Civil Aviation in Australia does lay down basic safety requirements on parachuting, and those rules are among the most comprehensive of any in the world. They cover such factors as medical standards, age, experience requirements, training under supervision, the type of equipment that should be used, the packing of parachutes, their repair and other similar items.

These requirements must be observed by all those individuals and clubs engaged in the sport; otherwise they are liable to prosecution. The Department does not go out into the field and exercise detailed supervision of parachute jumping. However, whenever a serious accident occurs it is investigated by the Department. Whenever the Department finds that parachuting is not being carried out within the safety rules it takes corrective action through the appropriate organisations. The Department’s parachuting requirements are designed to avoid death and injury, but the potential hazards of this sport should be understood quite clearly, particularly by those who choose to take it up. This particular parachute drop was approved by the Department subject to compliance with an air navigation order and the Australian Parachute Federation Regulations. The Department’s New South Wales air safety investigation branch is conducting an inquiry. I do not want to take up the time of the Senate and my colleagues on this matter, but I do have a rather detailed accident report which came to me within a little while of the accident. I can show this report to the honourable senator to give him more information which I think might interest him.

page 513

QUESTION

NATIONAL FITNESS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Yesterday I addressed a question to the Minister for Health and today I have a question supplementary to that question. The Commonwealth National Fitness Act 1941 was introduced as a wartime measure. To make it appropriate in today’s vastly different sedentary existence, will the Minister consider appointing to the Commonwealth National Fitness Council specialists in exercise physiology, coronary heart disease and sports medicine?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Yesterday the honourable senator asked me a question in relation to national fitness and I undertook to supply him with some of the background. Although the reply is a little long, perhaps in all the circumstances I will be permitted to give it because it will serve as a background for the type of supplementary question that has been asked, lt is true, as the honourable senator now indicates, that the National Fitness Act was brought in in 1941. Therefore his comment that it was a wartime measure is valid. The Commonwealth Council for National Fitness has been established, it being composed of 9 members appointed by the Governor-General. The Council advises the Minister for Health with respect to the promotion of national fitness and, in particular, in relation to, firstly, measures to be adopted to develop an appreciation of the need for physical fitness; secondly, the provision of facilities for instruction in the principles of physical education; thirdly, the organisation of movements and the provision of. facilities for attaining or maintaining personal physical fitness; and fourthly, the training of teachers and classes and of leaders of movements or groups formed for the purpose of promoting physical fitness.

The amount of money included in the estimates this year for national fitness is $418,000. That allocation will be dealt with in the Budget context. This amount is made up of $350,000 as an operational grant and $68,000 for capital assistance, which is made available on a matching basis with State governments, the contribution being $1 by the Commonwealth for each $2 by the States. The National Fitness Act authorises the Minister to use this money for the purpose of providing assistance, firstly, to encourage the development of national fitness in each State under the direction of a national fitness council appointed by the government of each State; secondly, to promote physical education in schools, universities and other instrumentalities; and thirdly, for such other purposes as are consistent with the Act as the Minister determines. I have also a statement, which I shall hand to the honourable senator, giving figures to show how the money is allocated.

The bulk of Commonwealth assistance has been directed to State national fitness councils which are responsible for conducting the broadly based fitness programmes in each State and to universities and State Departments of Education to assist in the training of teachers engaged in physical fitness. There is no separate body as such responsible for keep fit campaigns in Australia. The Commonwealth Council for National Fitness, in conjunction with the State councils, promotes national fitness activities in accordance with the powers given to it under the Act, with the limited funds that it has at its disposal. The supplementary question asked by the honourable senator suggests that in this day and age certain medical groups should in some way be married into the Council, the point being that whilst in 1941 the terms of reference might have been appropriate, it may well be that now the terms should be much wider. I shall look at that aspect and report on it to the honourable senator in due course.

page 514

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science been directed to a stop press statement appearing in today’s Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ to the effect that in Hobart there will be a closure of 2 Roman Catholic schools and a part closure of a third at the end of this year? Is the Minister aware that this is not an isolated case and that many Catholic schools in all States of Australia are closing and that, because of this, further strain will be imposed on government schools which already are in very serious trouble? Because of the Federal Government’s increasing involvement in the education field, will the Minister implement the findings of the nationwide survey of education needs for non-government schools, which was commissioned by the Government for the purpose of seeing what further funds would be necessary to prevent the independent schools closing, and thereby prevent any further problems in government schools?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is within my knowledge that the matter of the closing of Catholic schools in Tasmania has reached a critical stage and that a decision on this general question is engaging the attention of representatives of the Church and of the Government at the present time. It is well known that this . Government was the pioneer many years ago in the provision of state aid for independent schools. That support has spread throughout the country. I will refer to the Minister the honourable senator’s suggestion as to its sufficiency at the present time on the basis of a nationwide survey and ascertain whether, if a survey has not been done already - I believe that it has been done - it would be appropriate to up-date it to this time.

page 515

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Health advise whether there is a chair of geriatrics at .any university in Australia? If there is not, will he take steps to have discussions with the appropriate authorities with a view to having such a chair established in all major universities?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Primarily, of course, the question of setting up a chair of study at a university is the responsibility of the State concerned. However I will ascertain the facts for the honourable senator and they may prompt a further question.

page 515

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Is the Minister for Health aware of the statement made by a Brisbane pathologist when addressing the annual meeting in Sydney of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia? The statement which appeared in the ‘Austraiian’ of today was to the effect that recent cases of meningitis in Queensland were caused by a minute species of worms which were contained in lettuce. The worms came from rats, which were the primary hosts, and when eaten they attacked the brain and spinal cord. Has the Minister any facts to present to the Senate with regard to research being undertaken in this field?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am prompted to record that last Monday 1 opened the gathering in Sydney of the Royal College of Pathologists and heard part of a very fine address by Professor Nossal relating to the matter which the honourable senator has raised. As indicated in the Press cutting which I saw a few moments ago, rats are regarded as being the carriers. Therefore it would seem to me that the complete responsibility in this matter rests with the State health authorities. It would be a tragic day for all of us, would it not, if we reached the situation in which we could not have our nice iced lettuce? I am sure there must be some reason for the outbreak of the disease’ which has been mentioned. It may be a matter of lack of hygiene somewhere, but I do not know. As I have said, primarily the responsibility rests with the State authorities but I will seek some further information from my Department.

page 515

QUESTION

SMOKING

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is he aware that yesterday the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, publicly endorsed smoking as a dangerous health hazard? Did he not also link tobacco with other dangerous addictive drugs which are causing damage in Western society? As this is the first time a State or Federal Minister has condemned smoking in such unequivocal terms, will the Minister for Health urgently consult his Cabinet colleagues about imposing a ban on the television advertising of a product which is now recognised even by a Liberal Minister as a great health hazard?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONit is not quite accurate to say that this is the first occasion on which a Minister has made a fairly positive statement in relation to the possibility of smoking being a health hazard. In 1965 the then Minister for Health, Mr Swartz, made a statement outlining the medical evidence linking smoking and lung cancer. He said at the time that all responsible public health authorities in Australia were agreed that there was a proven relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and that the problem was how a reduction in the incidence of the disease could be achieved without resorting to autocratic methods. I have quoted almost exactly what the Minister said as far back as 1965. Our colleague in the Senate, Senator Greenwood, who was my predecessor as Minister for Health, issued a Press release in May of this year which stated that the Government regarded smoking as .a major public health problem, that strong evidence supported this view but the Government’s aim was towards educating the public on smoking rather than advocating a complete banning of cigarette advertising. As I read the Press report this morning the Minister for Customs and Excise in the other place, Mr Chipp, was very careful to express a personal view m reply to a question yesterday.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He agreed with the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Yes. The National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended that health education is probably the most effective way of attacking the smoking problem; warning labels should be included on cigarette packs, tar and nicotine content should be indicated and there should be restriction of advertising of cigarettes. The Council has also recommended that health education programmes in schools on the hazards associated with smoking should be extended. I answered a question here the week before last in direct relation to this question of advertising on television. While I do not want to overoccupy the rostrum in replying to questions, it is such an important matter that I would like to go on to say that the Commonwealth has responsibilities for health education programmes in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and these have been intensified in the A.C.T. following the formation of a separate health education section in the A.C.T. health services.

As far as labelling of cigarette packs with a warning is concerned, the Commonwealth has already indicated that when all States have introduced legislation in this regard the Commonwealth will enact complementary legislation in the A.C.T. and the Northern Territory. I think all honourable senators would agree that it would be absurd if we had to cross the border because of some enactment in relation to this matter. It is a complex matter. I repeat a promise that I made last week, that I will use my best endeavours to get a uniform decision on this matter with the States. My Department has negotiated revision of the voluntary code of cigarette advertising on television, and the new code is to come into effect on 1st October this year. Briefly, it will extend the restrictions to radio; it will restrict advertising times so that no advertisements are shown in proximity to programmes for children or when young people are likely to be a large part of the audience; it will limit the style and type of advertisements; and in particular no advertisements will be televised between 4 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. from Monday to Saturday or before 7.30 p.m. on Sunday. Finally, the Commonwealth will continue to keep all aspects, including the voluntary code, under close review.

page 516

QUESTION

BRISBANE AIRPORT

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation.

In view of the fact that Brisbane Airport terminal buildings are to be built on a completely new site, is it proposed to repair the Trans-Australia Airlines building damaged by fire on Sunday or to rebuild it on its present site?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It is a fact that a complete development proposal for Brisbane Airport is being studied in quite some detail with the very helpful co-operation of the Queensland State Government. The best indication one can get is that the total terminal complex will in due course be erected on a different site. The fire which occurred on Sunday at the Trans-Australian Airlines terminal was extensive and damaged that terminal substantially. Part of the terminal has been gutted and for safety reasons this part will have to be demolished quickly. However, the ticketing and baggage handling annexes on each side of the main building are virtually undamaged and will continue to be used. I am to go to Brisbane on Friday and I shall spend some time during that afternoon and on Saturday morning having a look at the damage. This is about as -much as I can usefully say at the moment.

page 516

QUESTION

EXPORT OF BARLEY TO TAIWAN

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, although the question could well be directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I ask: Did the steamship ‘Welly’, chartered by Eddie Steamship Company, arrive at Port Lincoln, South Australia, on 26th August 1971 to load barley for Taiwan? Has loading of the boat been refused by the Barley Board as the master lacks a letter of credit for barley to nationalist China? Has the master of the ship been informed that loading would be permitted in another State of the Commonwealth? Has the presence of the ship at Port Lincoln prevented the waterside labour force being transferred to another port where work is available and resulted in them being unemployed? In view of the urgency of this matter to local waterside workers, Eyre Peninsula barley growers and silo operators, will the Minister see that this matter receives urgent attention?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I certainly will. I shall refer the honourable senators question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport this afternoon. I understand what the honourable senator has put to me. However, 1 find it hard to understand how a lack or a letter of credit said to be for a transaction in South Australia would not prevent the loading of barley in some other State. Such an arrangement would not be consistent with my understanding of what letters of credit do for exporters. Equally, there are quite substantial facilities for credit arrangements for exporters of grain. Therefore, I imagine there may be other reasons besides that mentioned by the honourable senator. However, I will find out the answer to the honourable senator’s question as fast as I can.

page 517

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON DRUG TRAFFICKING AND DRUG ABUSE

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Has the Minister yet read the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse which was tabled by Senator Marriott during the last sessional period? Does the Minister intend to take action to implement any of those recommendations contained in the report which fall within the ambit of his Department?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I have read the report in part; I would not say that I have read the whole of it However, the report is definitely under study and the recommendations will come before me in my new capacity of Minister for Health. A related question was asked earlier and it arose out of what was said by the Minister for Customs and Excise in another place. Perhaps the honourable senator had that statement in his mind.

The suggestion was made that some of the funds allocated by the Commonwealth for the campaign against drug abuse should be applied to anti-smoking propaganda in the context of a health problem. I do not subscribe to that. It would not be consistent with my views and I would not agree with it in that sense. 1 want to make this abundantly clear. I say this because the Government has made $500,000 available in the year 1971-72 to a Commonwealth sub-committee and this amount is subject to annual review. Each

State and Territory has received a proportion of the grant to develop and coordinate its own drug educational programme in line with the views of the subcommittee. During 1971-72 a total of $275,000 has been allocated to the States, leaving $225,000 available for Commonwealth use. The Commonwealth’s share of the grant has made possible the preparation of projects for Australia-wide application in relation to this drug use prevention proposal, seminars and training courses for State and Territory personnel undertaking leadership roles and so on. If we were to encroach on that allocation we may help one aspect but we may take away the impact or impetus of what the Government wants to do and what the Senate Committee wants to do in relation to drug education. I would not support that proposition.

page 517

QUESTION

ASSISTANT MINISTER

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

- Mr President, the question I wished to ask was asked by Senator Wheeldon. It was a question on health. Now I direct a question to you, Mr President, because I intended to ask my question of the Minister assistant to the Minister for Health.

The PRESIDENT:

– He is not on my list.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am asking you now, Mr President, because you must admit that the Minister for Health has had a fair innings this afternoon. My question was to have been directed to the Minister assistant to the Minister for Health.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You cannot direct your question to somebody who does not exist.

Senator GEORGES:

– Am I to take it that you do not intend to recognise the Assistant Minister to the Minister for Health?

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not recognise someone I cannot see.

Senator GEORGES:

– Then could I ask you, Mr President: What is the function of Senator Marriott?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Mar.riott is a senator sitting on my right

page 518

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES, HOBART

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Works inform the Senate of what progress is being made on the construction of Commonwealth Offices in Hobart? Does the contract lay great stress on the use of Tasmanian made materials in the building and is work up to time?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I can inform my colleague from Hobart that I was fortunate enough to receive a report this morning on this subject and I visited the location of the building in Hobart last week. The contract is to be completed early in 1973. The contract was for some $4.2m, now $4.3m. The core of the building is up to the third floor stage. There was a slippage of several weeks in the time programme due to unexpected foundational difficulties and water. However the contractor, in recent conference, rearranged the programme so that that time slippage is expected to be overtaken by the end of the year. The contract is expected to be completed on time. Its progress to date is according to the financial schedule. I am not aware specifically that the conditions lay down the use of Tasmanian materials but I would think that in the circumstances of the contractor and the Commonwealth it would be in the major part economical to employ Tasmanian materials.

page 518

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation: Has a committee been set up by the Government to conduct an independent inquiry into the repatriation system? Will the Minister inform the Parliament of the committee’s terms of reference, who its members are and when it is to commence its inquiry?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– It is true that a committee has been set up, but I do not have details such as the names of members and how many people are on the committee. I shall ask the Minister for Repatriation for that information and let the honourable senator know.

page 518

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator POYSER:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities aware that the Premier of Victoria has imposed a 10 per cent bed tax on motels and hotels in that State? If so, does the Minister consider that such a tax will be detrimental to the attraction of tourists to Australia particularly if, as per.dicted by Sir Henry Bolte, all other States impose a similar tax?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Like the honourable senator I read in the Press the report that the Victorian Government had imposed a 10 per cent bed tax on accommodation in the State. I am asked whether I consider this tax to be detrimental to tourism. My answer is that I do not believe that it will necessarily be so, but, on the other hand, it is not for me to say. It is for the Minister responsible for tourism to say. I shall direct the question to him.

page 518

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I refer to what is generally regarded as the extreme inconvenience caused to the public by the practice of simultaneous departure of aircraft. For example, a week or so ago, I think, 2 aircraft left’ Sydney for Canberra at about 8.30 a.m. and the next aircraft departed at about 11.30 a.m. Can the Minister tell me whether it is in his power to do something about remedying this practice? If it is within, his power, is he prepared to do something about it?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– What the honourable senator is referring to is called in the industry parallel scheduling. It is something which attracts a great deal of attention and a great deal of unfavourable comment from people and, equally, from time to time from myself. On this matter I have talked to the Department and to the 2 airlines both separately and together. When one looks at it one finds that one of the reasons why aircraft depart at the same time is because of the loads which they are called upon to carry from Sydney to Canberra to Melbourne and from Melbourne to Canberra to Sydney. This is because of the concentration of people requiring to depart at given times. In many cases this makes it necessary to operate on a simultaneous departure time.. Nonetheless I am not entirely happy about the position. I have great reservations about the power of myself and the Department to enforce any change, but the honourable senator has my assurance that we are doing our best to find whether we can effectively make any changes.

Senator Devitt:

– Oh, come on, Senator, you can do better than that.

Senator COTTON:

– I am in a better position to judge my capacity than the honourable senator is. There has been a substantial improvement in this simultaneous departure situation in many areas, but we still have trouble at the far ends of the traffic pattern, namely New Guinea, Perth and Tasmania. The Senate has my assurance, as does Senator Murphy despite Senator Devitt’s expertise, that I shall do my very best.

page 519

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. 1 refer to the report of the Papua New Guinea Public Service Board with regard to accelerated localisation and training which outlines many measures that will be instituted to increase training opportunities for local officers of the Public Service. I understand that in this task the officers will have the full support and financial assistance of the Australian Government. I ask the Minister: Have any special courses for particular needs of the Public Service of Papua New Guinea been designed at universities and colleges of advanced education in Australia when comparable courses of study are not yet available in Papua New Guinea?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– This subject has been reviewed recently by the Government and has been a matter of Government decision. It would be appropriate for any “matter in relation to it to be included in a ministerial statement which I expect my colleague, the Minister for External Territories, to make at an early date.

page 519

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the continuing crisis over wool sales and the strong possibility that, the wool subsidy estimated at $60m in the Budget will now rise to $180m, will the Government consider one of the many possible acquisition schemes which could be financed by the wool industry instead of by the taxpayer?

Is the Government aware that last month Sir William Gunn acknowledged the Government’s budgetary difficulties, pointing out that he had received an assurance of funds from overseas financial institutions which could finance a subsidy scheme instead of - and I emphasise these words - soaking the taxpayer to prop up an industry which cannot and should not survive in its present form? When will the Federal Government acknowledge the inequity of the present subsidy scheme and, in view of the current crisis, review the present system of subsidies and stockpiling which has shaken buyer confidence, wrecked the rural reconstruction scheme and wrongly allocated our nation’s resources?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– It is quite obvious that the honourable senator has not given very much thought to his question because the deficiency payment which he called a subsidy came into force only last week. That was the first of the sales at which it operated. He asked when the Government intended to introduce one of the many possible acquisition schemes. I have not heard of the many possible acquisition schemes to which he referred. One federal organisation - namely, the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation - has said that the Government should have an acquisition scheme. I remind honourable senators that the other federal wool body has had no say on the matter to date. Until the wool industry decides that it wants an acquisition scheme, the Government is in no position to do anything about introducing one. I remind honourable senators that if the Commonwealth Government were to introduce an acquisition scheme along the lines of the acquisition scheme operated by the Australian Wheat Board, as some people say it should, there would have to be complementary State legislation. If any honourable senator believes that he can get all his State colleagues to vote for an acquisition scheme which will affect the electorate of each member, I think the time would then be ripe for an acquisition scheme. But 1 do not believe that any honourable senator can get his colleagues to do that at present.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Sir William Gunn is in favour of an acquisition scheme.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-. Sir

William Gunn is not a member of a State Parliament or the federal Parliament. I remind the honourable senator that in the early 1950s the wool industry asked the Government, and the Government arranged, for a referendum on an acquisition scheme.

Senator Brown:

– It was not a referendum on an acquisition scheme. It was a reserve floor price scheme.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It was a reserve floor price scheme. At that time the industry had a considerable amount of money which the Government was holding. That referendum was not carried. At present the industry has no money for financing an acquisition scheme. I believe that the industry would have to get Commonwealth money to assist in such a scheme. The honourable senator’s question was a lot of balderdash.

page 520

QUESTION

EGGS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: In view of the serious financial situation now facing commercial egg producers due to enormous over production of eggs, will the Minister request his colleague to call an immediate emergency meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council so that all State Ministers for Agriculture may have a full and frank discussion on the need for controlled production of eggs on an Australia wide basis?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Australian Agricultural Council has already discussed this matter. My own State of Western Australia has introduced a scheme to ration the production of eggs. I understand that other States, with the exception of Victoria, are very interested in the scheme. I shall certainly draw to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry the question asked by the honourable senator.

page 520

QUESTION

WATER

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Can the Minister inform the Parliament of the cost of the Jardine River water scheme on Cape York Peninsula? Were the waters of the river harnessed primarily for irrigation projects? Is it a fact that the only use being made of the water to date is by connection to a few houses at Bamaga? Can the Minister produce an early report for me advising whether the occupants of the houses to which the water has been connected are black, or whether they are white officials? I would also like to know to how many houses the water has been connected.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to give the information the honourable senator seeks. He expects me to give an answer here and now, but I believe that the matters to which he has referred are within the province of State governments. The role of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts is to co-ordinate and to co-operate with the State governments. I will direct the honourable senator’s question to him and I am sure that in due course an answer will be provided. However, if the whole range of activities of State governments is to be opened up on the justification that in some specious way those activities affect the environment, then obviously in accordance with prudence, the limitations of question time and legitimate areas of interest there will have to be a reconsideration of the matter.

page 520

QUESTION

IMPORTED PETROL

Senator WEBSTER:

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise recall my asking yesterday about the price of imported petrol and the announcement by the Department of Customs and Excise that cash securities are to be required against imports of petrol? Is it a fact that the Government has expressed its interest in and encouragement of competition in business in Australia? Can an assurance be given to the Senate that there will be no lessening of competition in the retailing of petrol due to the Government’s action? Does the Minister intend to give the Senate information along the lines of that sought by me yesterday?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator can be assured that the Minister for Customs and Excise would have received his question last night. An answer will be prepared and made available, and following normal practice it will be tabled or read in the Senate. That part of the honourable senator’s question will certainly be covered. This afternoon I will be making a statement relating to some of these matters of interest which were dealt with yesterday by the Minister for Customs and Excise in the House of Representatives. I am quite confident that this Government, which has done so much for Australia in a market economy and free enterprise system, would have no wish to do any less in the future.

page 521

QUESTION

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for National Development explain the concern expressed in paragraph 176 of the One Hundred and Twenty Fourth Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts? Is the concern expressed due to the giving of incorrect information by the Department of National Development to the Department of the Interior in respect of land purchased in an area referred to as the Bellarine site? What is the nature of the incorrect information, and who is responsible for furnishing it?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question relates to paragraph 176 of a report of the Public Accounts Committee which calls into question the accuracy of information given to the Department of the Interior by officials of the Department of .National Development. I think the honourable senator will agree that his question should be placed on the notice paper and directed to the responsible Minister.

page 521

QUESTION

BOTANY BAY

Senator JESSOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Works. I refer to the extensions to the Sydney international airport runway for the use of jumbo jets. How far does this runway project into Botany Bay? Has the Department of Works studied the hydrological effects of this runway on the natural currents in that area? What does the Department intend to do to prevent possible foreshore excavation due to the interruption of the wave pattern?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– As I told the Senate yesterday, the full length of the runway when completed will be 13,000 feet. From the shoreline it projects into the bay some 8,000 feet. The effect of this structure on the currents has a very intense history. The original dredging for the original pier was done by the Department with the agreement of the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales and on the advice of the world experts, the Wallingford Hydraulic Research Station in England. However, the structure did affect the wave pattern, and subsequent attempts to reshape that pattern were undertaken when we made the last extension. The wave action on the beach was restored. The Commonwealth, in undertaking the present projection to 13,000 feet, took further advice from the Wallingford Hydraulic Research Station and was in close co-operation with the State Government and the research, section of the Maritime Services Board. We agreed to take about two-thirds of the 9 million cubic yards of sand required from the mouth of the bay instead of the area near the pier projection.

The honourable senator will be interested to know that the Maritime Services Board itself has erected a large structure, which is a model of Botany Bay, for the purpose of simulating the wave pattern there and checking the calculations that have been made by physical demonstration so as finally to establish the shape of the dredged areas and their appropriateness to the waves on the beach. The Senate can be assured that the Department of Works is keeping the condition of the foreshore under constant review. I believe that the efforts we have made to restore the storm damage that occurred about 3 years ago have met with general appreciation. At the present time we are laying about 300,000 cubic yards of sand along the beach to restore it to its original condition and, insofar as further work is agreed by the Department of Works to be necessary, it will have our usual prompt attention.

page 521

QUESTION

ARTERIOSCLEROSIS

Senator DRURY:

– Is the Minister for Health aware that since 1964 more than 170 sufferers from arteriosclerosis have been to Kassel in Germany for oxygen therapy treatment, as practised by Dr Moeller, at great expense to themselves? Is the Minister aware that in order to meet this expense these sufferers have had to mortgage their homes and borrow money? As all these sufferers were told by their own doctors that the only treatment left open to them was amputation of the affected limbs and all have returned from Germany with their limbs intact and able to lead normal lives, will the Minister give consideration to inviting Dr Moeller to Australia to demonstrate his oxygen therapy treatment?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I believe that Senator Cavanagh raised this matter last year and spoke about it on several occasions. As I understand Senator Drury’s question, he is saying that all sufferers who went to Germany for treatment have returned and the implication is, although this might not have been the exact words, that all have been cured. This is a medical question which I shall be happy to have examined. I was not aware, until the honourable senator mentioned it, of the number who made the pilgrimage to Germany for treatment. I shall have the matter investigated and certainly I shall have the implications of the question and the efficacy of the treatment considered by my Department, and I shall make a statement about it in due course.

page 522

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFIT FUNDS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I address a question to the Minister for Health. In view of the impression conveyed by him that with the revised Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia and Medical Benefit Fund of Australia Ltd membership premiums, hospital costs coverage is now satisfactory, how does the Minister reconcile this with the recent decision of the New South Wales Hospitals Commission that inmates of psychiatric centres are to . be charged the full $12 per day, a charge which is not covered by the hospital benefit funds? What action does the Minister contemplate to aid the parents of such inmates who will suffer severe financial impositions if the New South Wales Hospitals Commission policy direction is continued in its present form?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I reaffirm what I said before, that the hospital benefits scheme does provide a satisfactory level of insurance against the costs which it is intended to cover, namely, charges made for treatment in approved hospitals. In the past it has been customary for no charges to be made for treatment in State mental health institutions. This reflects the’ fact that the care of the mentally ill is primarily a

State responsibility. Consequently the Commonwealth hospital benefits scheme does not extend to treatment in such institutions. I think the honourable senator recognises that to be a fact of life. I understand from the implication in the question that the New South Wales Government now intends to raise charges for treatment in State psychiatric centres. As the authority responsible for the provision of mental health services the State Government is entitled to make such a decision. If it chooses to make that decision it may do so, and the consequences of that decision rest entirely with the State. I reiterate that it is a decision which must be taken by the State. I think it is proper to add that under the Commonwealth and State financial arrangements New South Wales, along with other States, will receive considerably increased revenues for the purpose of financing State services such as those caring for the mentally ill. Therefore I come back to the point that this is clearly a matter within the responsibility of the States concerned.

page 522

QUESTION

RATIONALISATION OF AIR SERVICES

Senator DEVITT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Am I to take it from the Minister’s earlier reply that he has been persuaded by the argument of the airlines to accept that the scheduling of air services has been on the basis of public demand and not, as I had thought to be the case, to suit the convenience of a particular airline? Would it not be true to say that for that argument to be valid and acceptable, one would expect all people in the various centres around Australia to wish to travel at the one time? For instance, if there should be a demand in Hobart for a service at 8 a.m., a demand in Launceston for a service at 9 a.m. and a demand at Devonport for a service at 12 o’clock, would the airline, companies go to the trouble of scheduling their services to meet the convenience of the public in this respect?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– In his interest in this matter the honourable senator has taken a rather over-simplified view. Firstly, I am not persuaded by anybody, other than in what I call the total public interest. When one investigates this matter one finds in certain places that the concentration of demand - by people who wish to travel - is occurring very much at the same time. The second problem is that aircraft have a long pattern of flying. They do not just fly from Melbourne to Sydney and return; they go on to other places. This is a matter of where an aircraft starts and finishes a flight and a question of balancing the load factor in the general situation. My general view is the one that I tried to express to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, that the Department and I have taken and are taking a continuing interest in this matter to see whether we can improve the situation. However, the total public interest is one matter yet to be clearly established. Is it best served by having aircraft departing at half-hourly intervals or is it best served by the present pattern? The airlines argue that it is best served by the present pattern in many areas. That has yet to be proved to be certain. One can do no more than that except to assure the Senate that the Department tries to measure the total public interest and to serve it

page 523

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier today Senator Devitt asked me about accommodation in the Senate for visiting school children and parties, and I asked him to permit me to postpone my answer until I could provide some accurate information. I now have that information. In the public galleries in the Senate chamber there is accommodation for 78 in the central gallery, which is in front of me, 42 in the upper south gallery and 42 in the upper north gallery. If advance notice is given to the Usher of the Black Rod or to the Principal Attendant on the proposed visit to the Senate chamber on sitting days of school parties, reservations can be made in those public galleries.

There is also some additional information which I think should be provided to new senators, and perhaps to old senators, as to the relief that may be provided for them with large parties of school children. I will have that circulated to all honourable senators.

page 523

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967-70 I present the report of the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education for the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 523

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian National University Act 1946-71 I present the report of the Council of the Australian National University for the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 523

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– For the information of honourable senators, and especially of Senator Guilfoyle, I present a paper dealing with accelerated localisation and training issued under the authority of the Papua New Guinea Public Service Board on 30th August 1971, and a paper dealing with the future security of permanent overseas officers of the Public Service issued under the authority of the Minister on 30th August 1971. These papers were presented to the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly on 30th August 1971.

page 523

COMMONWEALTH BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY

Senator COTTON:
LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 523

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the interim report of the Australian Wool Commission for the period between 4th November 1970 and 30th June 1971. When the final report is available I shall table it in accordance with statutory requirements.

page 523

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– For the information of honourable senators I present an interim statement on the activities of the Australian Egg Board for the year ended 30th June 1971. When the final report is available it will be presented in accordance with statutory requirements.

page 524

AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CONTROL BOARD

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Dried Fruits Export Control Act 1924-1966 I present the forty-seventh annual report of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 524

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the interim annual report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30th June 1971. When the final report is available I shall present it in accordance with statutory requirements.

page 524

QUESTION

BUFFALOES

(Question No. 1220)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Who are the personnel of the Northern Territory Wildlife Advisory Council.

  2. Did the Northern Territory Wildlife Advisory Council merely agree that buffaloes should be removed from the Woolwonga Wildlife Reserve or did it condone slaughtering of these animals.
  3. Did the Minister or his advisers consider a stock drive operation to transfer the buffaloes to other regions of the Northern Territory instead of having them slaughtered.
  4. How many buffaloes were slaughtered.
  5. Under what terms and conditions does the slaughter and mobile abattoir operate and what is the name of the operator.
  6. Were tenders called for this operation and, if so, who were the unsuccessful tenderers.
  7. Did the successful tenderer employ Aboriginal hunters; if so, from what tribe did they originate, and under what wage scale were they paid.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Members of the Northern Territory Wildlife Advisory Council are:

    1. Hart,

Director of Animal Industry and Agriculture and Chief Inspector of Wildlife (Chairman)

  1. L. Bolton,

Wildlife Biologist.

Northern Territory Administration

  1. J. Tullock,

Biologist Specialising in Buffaloes,

Northern Territory Administration

Dr H. Frith,

Chief CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research

Dr A. E. Newsome,

Senior Research Scientist,

CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research

Colonel A. L. Rose,

Chairman,

Northern Territory Reserves Board

  1. A. Schultz,

Pastoralist

  1. Hersey,

Agriculturalist

  1. Darken,

Ranger,

Simpson’s Cap National Park

  1. The Wildlife Advisory Council recommended a drastic reduction in buffalo numbers within the Sancturary. Following earlier recommendations by the Council, a thinning operation was carried out in 1969 when 300 head of buffaloes were shot and in 1970 the 2 licensed buffalo abattoirs to. the North of the Sancturary took 1,500 head for human consumption.
  2. Heavy timber cover and extensive areas of swamps within the Sanctuary would make a stock drive type operation generally impossible. Operators are however catching buffaloes in the limited areas of open plain country within the Sanctuary for herd domestication purposes.
  3. 2,800 head at 19th August.

  4. In addition to conditions required under the Abattoirs and Slaughtering Ordinance 1955-1968 the following terms and conditions apply:

    1. Shooting for certified buffalo meat production and live catching for herd domestication are permitted.
    2. All operations are under the direct supervision of a Wildlife Ranger and his instructions must be strictly obeyed.
    3. All buffaloes must be taken without selection for age or sex. If cows are shot then calves at foot must also be shot in the interests of humane methods of destruction.
    4. Shooting must be carried out by a Wildlife Ranger or a competent marksman employed by the operator who will shoot under the Ranger’s supervision. On no account must other native fauna be destroyed.

    5. Separate areas of operations are defined and endorsed on the permits.

    6. A royalty is payable to the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund at the following rates.

Adult bulls and cows - $5.00 per head

Yearlings - $2.00 per head

Calves at foot- Nil

The operators are: the licensed buffalo abattoirs at Mudginberry and Munmarlary stations; and a mobile abattoir operated by Mr T. W. Harris.

  1. No.
  2. Mr W. T. Harris has engaged Mr Tom Thompson of the Ngandi tribe and Mr Roger Rogers of the Nungubuyu tribe as sub-contractors at an agreed amount per pound of meat. Messrs Thompson and Rogers together employ between 8 and 10 Aborigines and pay the same wages as those paid to Europeans in similar employment. Mudginberry and Munmarlary abattoirs each permanently employ 6 Aboriginal men and 2 Aboriginal women. They are involved in the operations. These are also paid wages equal to those paid to Europeans.

page 525

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1226)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What is the nationality of Mr Janoslav Petrovsky who was prosecuted on 17th June 1971 in Sydney for stowing away on the vessel Britanis.
  2. Was Mr Petrovsky’s fine paid.
  3. Is he still in Australia.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Mr Janoslav Petrovsky is a Czechoslovak who returned to Australia at Fremantle on the vessel ‘Ellinis’ on 10th June 1971. It was reported then that he had stowed away from Sydney on the ‘Britanis’ in March 1971.

Mr Petrovsky was identified as a former settler and was allowed to land at Sydney.

  1. Legal proceedings were not instituted against Mr Petrovsky by the Department of Immigration. I am unable to comment on proceedings which may have been instituted against him by another party.
  2. My Department has no record of a departure from Australia by Mr Petrovsky since he returned to this country in June of this year.

page 525

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

(Question No. 1228)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Did the Vice-President of South Vietnam, Mr Ky, in a speech to the School of Social Welfare in Saigon, depict South Vietnam as a sinking boat with a deceptively good coat of paint and a helmsman who is unfaithful, disloyal and dishonest? If so, would Australia be justified in demanding massive civil reform in South Vietnam as a condition for maintaining civil aid to that country,?’

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

It is not appropriate for the Australian Government to comment on statements made in the highly political context of an electoral campaign in another country.

So far as civil aid is concerned, it is the policy of the Australian Government that official aid programmes, should contribute to the economic development of recipient countries and hence to the improvement of the conditions of life of their inhabitants. Such programmes can only be implemented through close consultation with the recognised government of the recipient country.’

page 525

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1237)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

How many immigrants have entered Australia from Mauritius for the years 1968 to 1971.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer tothe honourable senator’s question:

The number of people from Mauritius admitted to Australia as migrants by calendar years since 1968 is as follows:

page 525

QUESTION

NATIONAL PARKS

(Question No. 1239)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What are the locations and acreages of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in Papua New Guinea?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Lands and Surveys in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea.

The Assistant Ministerial Member for Lands and Surveys has provided the following information:

National Parks-

page 526

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES

(Question No. 1246)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What area of office space is rented by each

Commonwealth Government Department in each capital city of Australia; and what is the rental per square foot per annum paid for such space.

  1. What area of office space is occupied by each Commonwealth Government Department in buildings owned by the Commonwealth Government in each capital city.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2)-

page 529

QUESTION

ADVERTISING

(Question No. 1267)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

Does the Australian Post Office employ the services of private advertising agencies; if so, which agencies has it employed in the last 2 years and what has been the cost of employing each such agency.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The following advertising agencies working under the direction of the Commonwealth Advertising Branch, Australian Government Publishing Service, have been engaged in the creation and placing of advertising for the Australian Post Office during the past 2 years. These agencies are not directly employed by the Australian Post Office.

Melbourne -

Advertising Associates Pty Ltd.

Berry Currie Advertising (Vic.) Pty Ltd.

Best & Company Pty Ltd.

John Clemenger Pty Ltd.

Foote Cone & Belding Pty Ltd.

Max L. Gosewinckel & Associates Pty Ltd.

Grant Advertising Australia Pty Ltd.

Hayes Advertising Agency Pty Ltd.

John Higgins Advertising Associates Pty Ltd.

Lonsdale Hands (Australia) Pty Ltd.

  1. H. Lucas Advertising.

Claude Mooney Advertising Pty Ltd.

Noel Paton Pty Ltd.

USP-Benson (Victoria) Pty Ltd.

Sydney -

Berry Currie Advertising (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd.

Country Press Limited.

Gordon & Gotch (A/sia) Ltd.

Masius Wynne-Williams (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd.

George Patterson Pty Ltd.

Brisbane -

Le Grand Advertising Pty Ltd.

Adelaide -

Clem Taylor O’Brien Pty Ltd.

Perth-

Berry Currie Collett Advertising (W.A.) Pty Ltd.

Hobart-

Jackson, Wain (Tasmania) Pty Ltd.

The agencies’ remuneration comes from two sources. One is a drawing on the media commission pool of the Commonwealth Advertising Council.

The other is in the form of direct payments by the Post Office for the physical production of advertising material for print, radio and television media and for design and finished art required for printed material.

The Post Office expenditure under the latter heading was $127,450 for the 2 financial years 1969-70 and 1970-71.

page 530

QUESTION

DC-3 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1275)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Who are Forrester Stephens Pty Ltd and what was the total amount paid to them for ferrying the 6 DC-3 foreign aid aircraft to the recipient countries.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the followin reply:

Forrester Stephens Pty Ltd is a subsidiary of H. C. Sleigh Ltd and has been in operation several years. The Company is an agent for an overseas aircraft manufacturer and is widely experienced in charter work. During the past 5 years the Company has been awarded 46 contracts arranged by the Department of Supply of a total value of approximately $500,000. Public tenders closing on 20th July 1971 were invited by the Department of Supply in all States for the ferrying of these 6 DC-3 aircraft. Ten tenders were received, the lowest being from Forrester Stephens Pty Ltd for a total of $34,838, with adjustment clauses if there are delays during the period of the ferry flights from causes outside the control of the contractor. Delivery of 2 aircraft to Nepal was completed on 18th August 1971. It was planned to commence delivery of 2 to Laos on 28th August 1971 and 1 to Laos and 1 to the Khmer Republic in mid September. However, reports have been received that because of flooding, Vientiane airport in Laos may be closed until mid September. Arrangements have been made to bring forward the delivery of the one aircraft to the Khmer Republic.

page 530

QUESTION

BOLIVIA

(Question No. 1292)

Senator POKE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does the Australian Government have diplomatic relations with the Government of Bolivia; if so, has the Government protested to the new right-wing regime in Bolivia about its use, last Monday, of the Bolivian air force to bomb and strafe 300 students who barricaded themselves in a university building in La Paz.
  2. Does the Government believe there is justification for military coups against left-wing military regimes, such as we have been fighting to support for so long in Vietnam.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. Australia has no diplomatic representation in Bolivia.
  2. For the discussion, whether philosophical or polemical, of the place of coups d’etat in government, Parliamentary proceedings offer other and better vehicles than an answer to a question on notice.

page 530

QUESTION

MARRIAGE ACT

(Question No. 1295)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General received an application for registration under the Marriage Act 1961-1966 from the Independent Greek Orthodox Church; if so, why has there been a delay in granting such registration.
  2. Will the Government give an assurance that it is not taking sides in this very divisive matter.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. The Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church of America and Australia made representations to my predecessor to be proclaimed by the GovernorGeneral under section 26 of the Marriage Act 1961-1966 as a recognised denomination for the purposes of the Act. By letter dated 30th July 1971 my predecessor informed the Secretary of the Church that he was not disposed at this stage to recommend proclamation of the Church, because he was not satisfied as to the long-term stability of the Church. My predecessor indicated that the then existing situation in this regard would no doubt become clearer before very long.
  2. The honourable senator can be assured that the Government is not taking sides in the matter. I point out that recognition of a church merely serves an administrative purpose of facilitating the appointment of ministers of the church as marriage celebrants, and it in no way follows from non-recognition that ministers of the Autocephalic Church will encounter any difficulty in being appointed as marriage celebrants under other provisions of the Act.

page 530

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 18th May 1971, Senator McClelland asked me the following question:

Has the Minister seen a report that Riverina TV Limited SVM and Albury/Upper Murray Television Limited propose a share exchange which will merge their interests. Is the Minister also aware that on 17th February last I raised in the Senate the question of the merger of RTM8 Lismore and NRN11 Coffs Harbour. Will the Minister request the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to furnish Parliament with the full details of all mergers that have taken place in the television sphere of mass media since TV was first introduced in Australia because it appears that this media more and more is being controlled by fewer people. Will the Minister ask the Board to look at this whole question of mergers with a view to ensuring a diverse and widespread ownership of TV throughout Australia.

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

The honourable senator may be assured that all share transactions relating to television licensee companies which involve the acquisition of, or increases in, prescribed interests in commercial television station licences, are fully examined by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and are subject to my approval having regard to the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Details of any significant changes in the ownership and control of licences for. commercial television stations are contained each year in the Annual Reports of the Board.

page 531

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That Senator Hannan be granted ‘leave oi absence for 3 months because of Parliamentary business overseas.

page 531

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - toy leave - agreed to:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, the Senate elects Senators Bonner and Keeffe to be members of the Council of the Australian . Institute of Aboriginal Studies and to continue as members for 3 years from 1st July 1971.

page 531

INDIGENOUS OIL POLICY

Ministerial Statement

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– by leave - This is a statement on indigenous oil policy made on behalf of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) who presented it in the House of Representatives yesterday. I wish to inform the Senate of certain decisions that have been taken by the Government concerning its . policy regarding the use of . crude oil .found in Australia. The Government’s policy was stated by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), in the House of Representatives on 10th October 1968. In brief, this policy sought to ensure that indigenous crude oil would be refined and used in Australia. For this reason, it was determined that, for a period of 10 years from September 1970, an obligation. was placed on refiners, to use Australian crude, oil to the maximum possible extent to provide the requirements of the Austraiian market for refined petroleum products. The policy also provided a guaranteed price to the producers for the first 5 years of this period - a price equivalent to the weighted average import parity price on 10th October 1968 with an allowance, among other things, for the special quality of this oil.

To assist honourable senators in understanding the terminology in this statement, may I briefly - in general terms - define the parties involved. ‘Producers’ are those companies which own and extract the raw material from the oil fields. ‘Refiners’ are those companies which refine Australian and imported crude oil into petroleum products and market these products. ‘Marketers’ are those companies which do not engage in refining crude oil themselves, but which purchase . petroleum products from refiners in Australia and/or overseas and market the refined products in Australia.

There is no restriction on the importation of refined petroleum products by either refiners or marketers. However, consistent with its policy, the Government determined that marketers of imported petrol should accept the same obligation as refiners and take a proportion of indigenous crude. To that end Australian crude oil is allocated amongst both refiners and marketers according to a formula based on the relative sales of certain refined products. As the import parity price was a weighted average, it necessarily followed that it was a higher price, to some companies, than the price of the crude they had been importing. At the present time, of course, because of significant increases in crude oil prices overseas, the determined price for indigenous crude is less than- if similar oil were purchased overseas.

Since October 1968, the production of indigenous crude has increased to the point where it now supplies approximately 65 per cent of Australia’s crude oil requirements. This represents an immediate saving to Australia in the current year of approximately $230m in foreign exchange payments. However, because of difficulties being encountered by some refiners in using crude oil for which their refineries were not originally designed, the Government, at the request of the industry, agreed that some exports pf crude oil may be permitted to meet short term problems of individual refiners provided: (a) Refiners have in existence capacity to process crude oil up to their normal marketing requirements, or firm plans to install such capacity; (b) refiners ensure a reasonable balance between exports of indigenous crude and imports of crude oil, with no reduction in the company’s refinery activities in Australia; and (c) they are willing to disclose the terms upon which such exports will be made.

The industry has been informed that exports in general would be restricted to 20 per cent of the allocation of crude oil required to be taken up by either refiners or marketers. Provision was also made that in exceptional circumstances, the Government would be prepared to consider an approach by any company to have this limit varied. Consistent with this policy 5 companies have been permitted to export a proportion of their allocation. The exports to date amount to approximately 2 per cent of total indigenous production. In each of these cases, the Government had accepted that the companies concerned were having difficulties because of the different type of oil normally used pending a realignment of their refining facilities. Refiners are investing significant amounts of money to readjust their refieries to cope with Australian oil.

Recently 2 marketers of petrol, who do not have refinery facilities in Australia, sought permission of the Government to export the whole of their allocation of indigenous crude oil. They were again informed of the Government’s policy, as outlined above, and were asked to negotiate with local refiners to have their allocation of indigenous crude oil refined in Australia. However, they were also informed that, if either existing or proposed refining arrangements were not mutually acceptable, the Government would again reconsider the applications. To this end, the Government indicated that it was prepared to call upon an independent arbiter to determine whether the arrangements proposed by the refining companies were equitable. In the event, agreement has not been reached and, at the request of the Government, Sir Leslie Melville, K.B.E., has undertaken to advise the Government as an arbiter. Sir Leslie will be assisted by Mr T. A. Webb, a consulting engineer, who has had long and varied- experience in the oil refining industry. On the receipt of the arbiter’s advice, the Government will reconsider these applications.

I turn now to the subject of dumping. Recently, several oil companies approached the Government alleging that petroleum products from some countries ‘ were being dumped in Australia in contravention of the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. It is a fact that in some countries refiners produce petroleum products in excess of those countries’ requirements. Consequently to dispose of this surplus there is a compulsion to seek export markets and if necessary to supply them at low prices. I point out that the Government’s policy is that no Australian industry should suffer because of unfair trading practices by overseas exporters. In accordance with normal procedures, these allegations have been examined and, on the best information available to .the Department of Customs and Excise, it would appear that dumping has taken’ place to an extent which may be causing not insubstantial injury - and I use here the precise terms of the Act - to the refiners of petroleum products in Australia. Consequently, the industry has now been informed that, if petrol is exported on or after 31st August 1971, from certain countries, at a price lower than the normal values that have been assessed, dumping cash securities will be collected. However, companies have been invited to submit any evidence they may have if they consider the normal values assessed are not accurate with a view to a re-examination of this aspect.

In- accordance with the normal procedure, if petroleum products are imported at lower than the normal value, the question will be examined by the Tariff Board in accordance with the terms of the Dumping and Subsidies Act. The Government is conscious of the complex nature of this industry with its many component parts and conflicting interests. The indigeous oil policy has been of great advantage to Australia. It has resulted in massive quantities of crude oil and natural gas being found in Australia. It has encouraged further research and exploration into finding new fields. It has ensured that Australia will not simply be a ‘quarry* from which the raw material is mined and taken out of Australia for processing. On the contrary it has stimulated significant investment and created much employment for Australians. It has insulated motorists against dramatic increases in oil prices which have taken place overseas. At the same time it has allowed free competition to function, in that persons other than established oil companies can import petroleum products and sell them on the Australian market.

The Government is conscious that its policy in this area not only affects the oil companies per se, but thousands of smaller business men and employees engaged in marketing and distribution. It would be unthinkable if the Government did not act in accordance with the law and its declared policies when alleged unfair practices are brought to its notice. The Government has done this in invoking the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. However, as I have said, every opportunity will be given to importers if they wish the matter to be further reviewed. In the last resort the final decision can only be made after a report by the Tariff Board.

page 533

BUDGET 1971-72

Debate resumed from 7 September (vide page 508), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Senate take note of the following papers:

Civil Works Programme 1971-72

Commonwealth Payments to or for the States, 1971-72.

Estimates of receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30th June 1972.

Expenditure -

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30th June 1972.

Particulars of Proposed Provisions for Certain Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30th June 1972.

Government Securities on Issue at 30th June 1971.

Commonwealth Income Tax Statistics for Income Year 1968-69

National Income and Expenditure, 1970-71

Upon which Senator Murphy had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add: ‘, but the Senate condemns the Budget because -

it breaks the Prime Minister’s pledge to Parliament on taking office to bring Into effect for 1971-72 a fundamental review of social services and of methods for adjusting them,

it contains no proposals to balance the finances and functions of the Commonwealth, the States and local government; and

it produces no programmes for high national objectives of social welfare, economic strength and national security.’ .

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– When the Senate adjourned last evening I was expressing the view that extreme wage rises in Australia were not in the interests of the community and were in actual fact the main basis of the inflationary trend. Honourable senators may recall that at that point I was interrupted by Senator Georges who said that it was the profit factor which was creating the inflationary trend. I believe this not to be the case and indeed I think that in the system which we have in Australia we have found that industry generally has acted in a proper fashion and that profit ratios are not extreme compared with those in other countries.I believe that the unions generally, and particularly the activities of the leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions enforcing his views and the views of some of those who support him in respect of industrial matters, have certainly been of disadvantage to the community.

I refer particularly to the activity which has taken place in the blackmailing of the Dunlop organisation. While this was described as being in support of a proposition that resale price maintenance was something which was harmful, in truth that is far from the case. The reason for this action was that the ACTU store wanted to get line leaders from the Dunlop organisation so that it would be able to rank in respect of stocking quality goods with like stores.

Another factor which is against the interests of the community is the demand by unions that the employees of certain firms shall become members of unions. Here we saw the action that was taken against the Myer organisation. This organisation was given an indication that unless every employee was a member of one of the unions the ACTU would in actual fact stop all goods going in or out of its stores. Of course, no company can stand up to this type of blackmail. We saw the emp- loyees of one company who had experienced this type of control in other countries abhorrring the fact they should be forced against their will to join a particular organisation and, moreover, be forced to pay a due to a political party. I suggest that this is the type of activity about which the public should be very aware. It may be their turn to come under the thumb of the ACTU in the not too distant future.

I want to put one point which was raised yesterday. On the 2 days during which I was not in the Australian capital last week, I made a note of prices of goods which were being offered for sale by the ACTU-Bourke’s store and compared them with prices of similar goods in some other stores nearby. I do not give these figures to express any dissatisfaction regarding the prices which are offered or to say that the store is not a good one. I believe that the general proposition which has been put forward by the unions is that they believe they should get into the retail business and they hope - this was indicated at a recent conference” - to extent into the areas of insurance, finance and house building. I believe that these activities should be encouraged if they are to bring competition into the community. However, one should bear in mind the thought - and this is a point that I expressed last night - that Mr Hawke had originally said that 22* per cent was the maximum mark-up that should be permitted by a store. I - have been waiting for Bourke’s store to give the figures of the level of profit which it made from trading up to 30th June 1971. Indeed, the interests of the public are not served in this respect because this is one store which is not likely to announce its turnover, level of profit or any other related matter. I suggest that the store should note what I have just said and perhaps meet that public interest.

The concern I have in the matter is that the ACTU has announced that it intends to buy this store within 3 years from profits made. Certainly, this would not be in the interests of the public if the profits are to be of such an extent that this can be achieved. I have here a table which, I think, it would be to the advantage of honourable senators if they were to read it. I do not wish to read it at the moment and with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate it in Hansard.

In short, the table indicates that in respect of half a dozen normal household items there is no cheap buying at the ACTU store. I suggest that many simple people have been tricked into feeling that the lowest mark-up will be found at this union controlled store. Let me take some items which I noted on 2nd and 3rd September. My information would probably be verified by a call to the stores that I shall mention. The first item is a Singer sewing machine 427. This machine was noted in Myers, of 275 Lonsdale Street, at $99.90 and in Bourke’s store at SI 19.50. A Kriesler stereogram 3 piece 11/140 was marked at $305 in Bourke’s, $285 in Myers and 5289 in Maxwells Radio. Another item was a Kenwood Chef food mixer. At Bourke’s this item was marked at $63, at Myers $59 at Maxwells $60 and at John Bruce Electrics it was marked at $66.50 but was offered to me for $57.95. At James McEwen Ltd this article was offered at $59. The table I have incorporated will indicate - the point to Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

– Was Bourke’s price the retail price or the discounted price?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Well, senator, I see that you are well aware of the way they trade. I think that a marked price should be shown on the goods. Senator Georges makes well the point that we should not have in our community the situation where a person can go into a store and say: ‘I see the price is $100 but can I haggle with you to get it down to $80?’. I hope that Senator Georges does not suggest that this is what is put out by Bourke’s store.

The facts that I have given the Senate were verified on a session of the Labor radio station 3KZ. In a session which took place between 9 o’clock and 10 o’clock on Tuesday 3 1st August I heard people who phoned in and commented on this situation. They indicated that it was, they were surprised to see, cheaper to shop perhaps in other stores and that the, mark-ups were perhaps too high in the union store.

Senator Gair:

– lt is not the union store; it is the cheap store.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Well, 1 do not believe that. I believe that the store is in business for. marketing purposes. I believe that the public should be. entitled to know the prices at which the store is selling and the profit ratios that it is making on turnover. I suggest that it would be very difficult for the store to show a better public image than that shown by its competitors.

Senator Georges:

– You are only looking at one co-operative store. Did you bother to look at any other co-operative store?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I did not know that this was a co-operative store. However, I do know, as do other senators, that the unions intend to purchase out of profits a partnership in this organisation.

There are several points about the Budget which 1 think are of particular importance. Firstly, I note with great interest what has been said on a matter about which 1 have spoken in this House on a number of occasions - that is, that some type of budgeting in Commonwealth expenditure over the period should be introduced. No-one has mentioned this matter in this place but I note on page 4 of the Budget papers the following statement:

To assist in controlling the growth of expenditures, we have arranged that, in future, all Commonwealth Departments will prepare for the Government’s consideration expenditure estimates for a further 2 years beyond each budget year. This will clarify the longer-term implications of individual proposals in the context of the emerging overall expenditure situation and will enable the Government to act earlier in relation to developing trends.

I compliment the Government on that step. It is the first sensible approach I have noted in relation to future expenditures of the Commonwealth. Departments will be required to set forth not merely an annual table of expenditure but will have to set out what they hope to achieve in tha future. I think we will be well served by this step.

Another matter which caught my attention in the Budget is one which Ministers will know I have been emphasising over a period of years. I refer to the growth of the Commonwealth in relation to its total employment and its total expenditure. This has been completely out of key with what we should expect where inflation is likely to occur. Throughout the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) emphasised that inflation is a Commonwealth responsibility. This Budget indicates that the Commonwealth intends to take some action to control inflation. I noted that the Treasurer, speaking about general growth, said:

After adjustment to remove the estimated effects of the transfer of pay-roll tax to the States, our outlays in Australia are estimated to increase by 11.7 per cent compared with the actual increase of 14.9 per cent last year.

I still think that the growth rate of 11.7 per cent in the total expenditure of the Commonwealth is in excess of what we should have at the present time. If the Commonwealth can achieve the 3.1 per cent increase in employment only that is proposed that certainly will be a sound achievement.

Total expenditure on the part of the Commonwealth is expected to be $8,900m. If we look at page 13 of the Budget papers we find that approximately $99 5m of the net income this year will be lent back to various authorities and an interest rate charged. That is what I believe to be the case. I suggest to the Senate that our budgeting is entirely incorrect when the Budget sets out the net taxable income to the Commonwealth from various sources and then sets out the expenditure of that money as a total outlay of the Common wealth when a large percentage of lt is to be lent to the States for various works such as housing, and loans to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, to the airlines, for war service homes and for other work. The Commonwealth will be collecting interest on that money and it should not be included in the Commonwealth’s total expenditure.

I suggest that the problem arising out of this relates directly to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. If I recall correctly this was mentioned yesterday by Senator Willesee. He indicated that $140m odd would be required by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department purely to serve interest charges. The Commonwealth Government at this stage is saying that it wishes to see business control its growth and that it wishes to see it competitive. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate 2 tables in Hansard. The first relates to charges for selected postal and telephone service and facilities in Australia over a 10-year period. The secand relates to prices charged by one other monopoly, a private enterprise monopoly. It deals with steel prices in Australia from 1960 to 1971.

I will refer to a few items coming within the management of the Postmaster-General’s Department. In local calls there has been a 43 per cent increase in that 10-year period. There has been a 150 per cent increase in the telephone connection fee. As for rental charges, in Sydney and Melbourne there has been a 54 per cent increase for business telephones and an 88 per cent increase for telephones in residences. The Senate will be interested to know of this general level of increase in charges levied by an authority managed by the Commonwealth over that 10-year period. For your information, Mr Deputy President, I mention that in country areas where there are more than 2,000 lines there has been a 116 per cent increase in rentals for telephones in residences.

I turn now to the achievement of private enterprise in this 10-year period. 1 know that the Labor Party greatly criticised the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd for its price rises recently but over a 10-year period, including 1971, there has been a 27.6 per cent -increase in heavy structural steel, a 29.9 per cent increase in merchant bar steel, a 27 per cent increase in heavy steel rails and a 7.8 per cent increase in electrolytic tin plate. Mr Deputy President, the Commonwealth must look to its own efficiency in many areas before it looks to private enterprise and says that there must be greater efficiency by business in the Australian community.

There are many things I would like to refer to in relation to our social services. The Commonwealth at present is meeting enormous expenditure in this field. Of its total expenditure of $8, 833m over $2,095m is related to social services and various repatriation payments. This is extremely good but 1 suggest to the Commonwealth that it will need to give greater attention to areas which affect young people at the present time. We will have to face an enormous problem in the future if we do not give attention to these young people who have been deprived of some of their rights because of the attitude we take in our society. This problem is developing in our cities at present. Greater assistance - more than that which State governments can provide - will have to be given to church institutions and other bodies which are looking after unmarried mothers, homeless men, and children who have been displaced as a result of the break up of marriages in our community. I recommend to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) that these areas should be his constant interest in this coming year.

I want to refer now to primary industry. The greatest problem in our community at the moment is in this field. Honourable senators have spoken at length in this place about rural reconstruction. I reiterate the questions 1 posed when the Bill dealing with that matter was before the House. I said that the Government will have to pay close attention to the interest rate being charged in the community at present, to the term of loans being granted under the rural reconstruction scheme and to the total amount of money being made available by the Commonwealth. Several State governments have indicated to the Commonwealth that they are at variance with the general terms of the Bill so far as those 3 matters are concerned. This criticism is general and there is a great need for some reassessment of the situation. Let me take one particular point. I am rather afraid that the Commonwealth is being encouraged to take the line that long term low interest rate loans should be made available. This is just what a viable farmer wants. If you are a successful farmer and you are going well it is a good thing for you to have access to cheap money at a low interest rate and for a long term. But that is not what is wanted by the farmer who is in difficulty now. What he wants is access to overdraft at a lower rate than is available at the moment. Every farmer in business is anxious to repay his loan just as quickly as possible. He does not want loans for long terms. At the present time the greatest problem which is facing us in various areas is the proposed entry pf Britain into the European Economic Community. I suggest that the long term interests of Australia regarding food production are quite sound.

Senator Byrne:

– I wish the Government would tell us something about that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It has been very disappointing that farmers, some of their associations and, indeed, many people have been crying poor mouth for all primary industries. This is not the case. Many primary producers and primary industries are doing reasonably well at the present time, but the threat to them is quite severe. The future in regard to food production must surely give encouragement to the Australian producer who is efficient. I noticed an article in the Melbourne Herald’ the other day regarding a comment from Vienna which makes my heart bleed when I see the action which we take in this country in relation to food. The article stated:

About 300 million children throughout the world were seriously handicapped physically and mentally by lack of protein and other nutrition deficiencies, the 13th international pediatrics conference was told today.

This is a crime. Indeed, the crime relates back to ourselves because we allowed 20,000 tons of pears to be ploughed into the ground at Shepparton recently. That is a complete crime of our society. This Government needs to provide facilities whereby we can store food for a longer period in this country. Perhaps instead of paying $250,000 for aircraft to be given to some near neighbouring country we should pay more consideration to giving away food because, at the present time, people are starving in Pakistan and India. I advocate that the Government should encourage primary production so that in actual fact we will be looked on as the country of the world where there is a store of food to be called upon at any time to be given to those who are less fortunate.

I wish to speak on a number of other matters, but I find that I shall be unable to do so because of the time available. The Government designed this Budget so that it would be a responsible Budget, lt did not set out to design this Budget to be popular. I believe it is inherently sound and should achieve some of the measures which are indicated as being the aims of all Australians. I believe this Budget emphasises the point which the Treasurer made in his statement in the other place. He said:

Even more than usually the Government has this year found it necessary to shape its Budget to serve an overriding economic purpose.

I support the Budget.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - In calling Senator Primmer it is hardly necessary for me to remind honourable senators to accord him the usual courtesy on this occasion.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– Firstly, I deem it an honour to be a representative of the people of Victoria in this chamber. I am deeply conscious of the debt that I owe both to the Australian Labor Party - the party I represent - to its workers and the thousands of voters who have given me this right to represent them in this chamber. I only trust that over the years that I may be here I shall not betray that trust. I shall now speak on a lighter note. This afternoon questions were asked and answers given relating to the Fill aircraft. My attempts to gain this office parallel the history, in the time factor, of the Fill aircraft in that I made my first attempt to be elected to this place in 1963. Were I not a very modest type of gentleman I would believe that where the Labor Party has been successful the Government has not. Although it may have taken the Labor Party 8 years to get me here, as yet the Government has nor succeeded in obtaining the Fill aircraft.

But in a more serious vein 1 say that because of my lifelong association with primary industry 1 hope in the future to maintain most of my political activity on matters pertaining to primary industry and to people who live in rural areas. However, since entering this chamber I have listened with great attention to many debates. I feel that I cannot let pass without some comment a matter which was raised 2 or 3 weeks ago. In this chamber a spokesman for the Australian Democratic Labor Party used the term natural justice. I do not think that I have ever in my lifetime heard the term natural justice used so extensively. While this debate was going on my mind went back to the previous week when a spokesman for the same party, Senator Kane - I regret that he is not in the chamber - in a debate centering on the trade union movement had this to say:

I now take the opportunity to mention some of the political strikes. I say that they were not designed to improve working conditions or to get higher wages. They were simply and purely political strikes aimed at the very power and authority of government 1 will now cite some recent examples. On 4th September 1970 the Waterside Workers Federation struck over the case of Bunna’ Walsh. It will be recalled that Mr Walsh was prevented from taking his seat in the Victorian ‘ State - Parliament because of. his failure to reveal a conviction for an offence committed some years earlier. It is worth recalling that his exclusion subsequently was upheld in the courts.

At no time while that debate was on doI recall any spokesman for the Democratic Labor Party appealing for natural justice on behalf of Ronald Walsh. It may well be argued that, strictly speaking, the term natural justice does not apply. But I am of the opinion that men of goodwill would have extended the term natural justice to the Ronald Walsh case. In that caseI frankly believe that the law was an ass. If members of the Waterside Workers Federation withdrew their labour in support of a friend, a mate or a co-worker then I believe that that union was only carrying out its traditional role - a role which has ever been the role of the trade union movement wherever injustice has been done. Were this not the case thenI fear we would still be slaves. I am quite sure that Senator Kane in his heart of hearts believes just that. In conclusion on this matter, I say that my colleague Senator Brown and myself, who were at that time closely associated with the Mr Walsh referred to, admired the dignity with which that man conducted himself. At no time did he seek to vilify, castigate or make any rash statement about any person irrespective of whether that person persecuted him from this chamber or other places of privilege or through the news media. In that case Mr Ronald Walsh proved himself to be a man among men.

I shall now return to the subject of the land. I was very pleased to hear Senator Webster in the final part of his speech make the comment that in some areas of primary production there is some hope or some sign of improvement. One could mention the dairy industry, although the improvement may be only momentary. One could mention the fact that wheat quotas are on the up and up and that quite good sales of wheat have been made. However, one must admit that in many other areas, particularly wool, the situation is very bleak. I was rather interested to read a statement, on reconstruction and finance for primary producers, made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) 2 or 3 weeks ago. He said:

Indeed the whole question of credit is of increasing importance to the rural industries and there are clear indications of a need to reexamine the demand for, and supply of, credit in the rural sector. In these circumstances I have asked for the advice of the BAE on the adequacy of existing credit facilities.

Not before time, may I say. Although I have been established in my office in Warrnambool in south western Victoria for a short time only, I have received certain correspondence. I have in my hand a photostat of a letter that was received by a farmer who had traded with the Bank of New South Wales for 16 years. The man’s case history is that after the drought of 1967 he was forced out of the dairy industry, not solely because of the drought but because at that stage the dairy industry was going through the process of changing over the method of collection of milk from cans to bulk and because his dairy required extensive improvements to bring it up to the new requirements. Because that man was in his middle fifties he decided to opt out of the dairy industry and to ease his way into the beef industry. His 130- acre property is entirely free of encumbrances. A letter that he received from the bank reads:

Dear Mr Ayres,

Debt in your account is presently $450.35.

As we are obliged to explain your current position to the Bank we should be pleased if you would kindly call to advise when and by what source of income this debt will be cleared.

This man decided to opt out of one industry and to go into another. He made no call on any government or taxpayers money. This is the type of letter that he received from his bank. He was a miserable $450.35 in arrears. His property was entirely free of debt. That is what the private banks are prepared to do. I take heart from the statement that the Minister for Primary Industry is having discussions on finance for people in rural areas. I agree with what Senator Webster has said already that long term loans at low rates of interest are needed desperately to rehabilitate farmers. Such loans would help not only farmers but also thousands of people who today are being bled white by high interest rates. I believe that a great deal of government money that will be and has been expended on rehabilitation in rural areas will finish up in the hands of the money lenders of this country. In postwar years Australia has become a money lenders paradise. Unfortunately this situation has been aided and abetted by various governments which have hamstrung the Commonwealth Bank until it has become a tame cat version of the free enterprise banks. Little wonder that organisations such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions are looking at the possibility of entering the field of banking and are hoping to provide some much needed competition.

I cannot let my maiden speech go without making some comment relative to the industry in which I have spent a lifetime, that industry being the dairy industry. I believe there has been a great deal of mismanagement by governments in recent years. The way that successive Ministers over the past 2 years have used the threat of decreased subsidy to pull the industry into line or to make it toe the Government line is to be condemned. In May last year the Government panicked because mountains of butter and other milk products were being held in the European Economic Community. The Australian industry was asked to take a voluntary cut of 3.5 per cent. It was told that if Australian production of butter rose above 220,000 tons and if the production of cheese rose above 70,000 tons the Government underwriting would drop from 34c a pound butter fat to 29c a pound. The cut was not a voluntary one. It was blackmail. That was in May. In September, 4 months later, the brakes were taken off. Many thousand of fanners had done what they believed to be the right thing for themselves, their industry and the country and in some cases they had ruined very good cows. The huge surpluses in the EEC, about which we were told, had disappeared. To my knowledge no-one has given a very satisfactory explanation as to how these mountains of butter and other commodities disappeared.

World markets were starting to clamour for more production. Australia’s chances of filling its butter quota in the United Kingdom were becoming doubtful. In the meantime, at the Minister’s insistence, the local industry had been looking at proposals for a long-term plan for the dairy industry. This 8-point plan, as it subsequently turned out to be, was submitted to the industry earlier this year. At a conference, which I attended, in Melbourne in May of this year the delegates present on the first day carried 7 of the 8 points of that plan. The eighth point, which dealt with a 2-price scheme to be implemented if necessary, was not voted on by the delegates. They cast it aside. Strangely enough

Mr Nixon, the honourable member for Gippsland, who was then resident in Canberra, got to hear of that revolt. The following day the conference was told that unless the plan were accepted in toto the subsidy could be jeopardised. That ended the revolt. So 1 say that in the last 2 years the Government has used the threat of decreased subsidy to make that industry toe the line.

Over that period so short of dairy produce had this country become that at that conference a motion was carried calling on the Australian Dairy Produce Board to give serious and urgent consideration to the sending of a delegation to China to explore the possibility of sales of dairy produce to that country. After it was carried a spokesman for the Board said that there was no point in going to China as we had nothing to sell. According to the latest Australian Dairy Produce Board report, butter stocks in Australia a few weeks ago were down to their lowest level for years. A great deal has been said by people in various places about the inefficiency of the dairy industry. In the case I mentioned I believe that it was not the industry which was inefficient but rather the forecasters, the tipsters, the agricultural economists and others who all too often have espoused their theses from ivory towers.

The dairy industry in Australia will, I believe, continue to be the economic backbone of considerable areas. It provides employment in areas that otherwise would die because of lack of facility for any other employment. It could be described as one of Australia’s truly decentralised activities. In the main its activities are carried on in areas remote from our capital cities. The great pity I see - and I was pleased to hear Senator Webster mention this point - is that because production has been curtailed this protein rich food which is so vitally needed by people in other countries is denied to these people. It is a sorry spectacle for me as a humanist, knowing that I have curtailed dairy production, to sit in front of a television set at night and see the emaciated people, particularly children, in this world. Huge losses of lives, huge expenditures on bombs and bullets in countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos have done nothing to win us friends or influence people. An equivalent amount spent on food produced on Australian farms would have been, I feel sure, of greater benefit to future generations all over the world.

I wish now to refer to another matter pertaining to the dairy industry in Victoria. A problem has existed for a long time and perhaps it has not been properly faced up to by the industry. Latterly pressures have been brought to bear on the industry and currently it is studying the problem of overcoming the 2-price structure within the industry. The situation is that one price is paid for milk for manufacture and another price for milk for liquid consumption. The price to manufacturers is 24c or 25c a gallon, while a price of 40c or 42c a gallon is paid for milk fed into the liquid milk market. The tragedy of it all is that this situation is not conducive to unity within the industry and until a positive step is taken I believe that the dairy industry in Victoria will be divided. lt has been my unfortunate experience of people in high places that they much prefer to maintain the status quo. Throughout the rural areas of Australia wool has probably been a more discussed subject than even Vietnam. I have attended public meetings, committee meetings and goodness knows what in the last 7 or 8 years at which wool has been the main topic of discussion. I am fully aware of the frustrations felt by Australian wool growers. In respect to this industry our national birth right has been sold down the drain. In my view the governments of this country have not acted out their role as well as they should have done. I have felt for years that the only long term solution to the problems of the wool industry would be for the government of the day to take the bull by the horns and act positively. It is all very well for Government spokesmen to say that nothing can be done because the industry has not made up its mind. I suggest that if the Government waits for everybody in every situation to be 100 per cent behind a proposal, nothing will ever be done.

When the Australian motor car industry was in dire straits a couple of years ago, the government of the day acted virtually overnight to increase tariffs and face the threat to the industry. I believe that was the correct action to take, but the Government has not been prepared to take definite action for wool growers. Its policy has been to procrastinate. There may be pie in the sky at some time in the far distant future, but no move has been made against the rings, pies, speculators and the like who are the ticks and parasites who have battened on the wool industry since its establishment. It has also been unfortunate for the wool industry that it has been headed by a man who has behaved like a prima donna.

A public meeting was called in the western district of Victoria a few years ago to which Sir William Gunn was invited. The organisers of the meeting asked a spokesman for the Australian Labor Party to appear on the platform. My colleague Senator Poyser was elected to attend the meeting. When Sir William heard that Senator Poyser was to attend, like a true prima donna of the theatre he declined to appear on the same platform. Unfortunately the organisers bowed to his dictates instead of doing what I would have dons; that is, telling him to jump off the deep end. The organisers sent a telegram to Senator Poyser and asked him not to attend the meeting. Because only one side of the case has been put not much has been done for the wool industry. 1 believe that the Australian Wool Board has been far too busy over the years promoting exclusive gowns and champagne, while I have had the experience in the western district of .Victoria - one of the centres of the great wool growing areas - of not being able to buy a pair of woollen socks. I believe that the feelings of a large section of the wool growing community have been expressed in a booklet copies of which, I understand, have been forwarded to all members of this Parliament. The booklet was produced by the Ivanhoe Woolgrowers Survival Committee. At page 3 appears an open letter to the Prims Minister. After the usual formalities it states:

It was also resolved at thai meeting, that the members of that Woolgrowers Survival Committee are not prepared to tolerate any longer, the incredible reluctance of the Federal Government to intervene and protect both the woolgrowers of Australia and the economy of the nation from exploitation by the representatives of the wool textile industries and the speculators trading on the Australian wool industry.

The ‘wool price support’ proposal adopted by the Federal Cabinet last month as published ‘by the mass medias, is as synthetic as the various versions distributed publicly, as being the reason for the complete collapse of the economy of Australia’s most important export industry almost 18 months ago.

That fictitious proposal adopted by the Federal - Cabinet for the rehabilitation of the economy of the Australian wool industry, even though it has the blessing of the so called ‘Parliament’ of the industry, will not restore any semblance of solvency to the industry or one iota of equity in the wool producers properties or capital investment, or any additional overseas exchange earnings for the nation.

The Federal Government’s inertia in dealing responsibly and effectively, with the economic crisis in that major rural industry, or ‘National disaster’, is a shocking political scandal or disgrace to the nation.

The only practical commonsense solution to the problem of the Australian wool industry, is the nationalisation of the marketing of the entire Australian wool clip within a comprehensive reserve price scheme.

The reason for the Federal Government not taking any action, to embargo by Proclamation the export of wool leaving Australia below an overall average market price of 45 cents per lb (the 1968-69 average), given by the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, is that the world wool textile industries might turn to synthetics and the buyers might boycott the market.

In each instance, the words ‘and in so doing abandon the very handsome profits of their commercial enterprises depending on the use of that essential raw material,’ were omitted; and incidentally the fact that the speculators trading on the Australian wool industry - with forward selling on firm contracts - who have been handling up to more than 80 per cent of the Australian wool clip and who have a financial interest in seeing the market price for wool progressively decline, would have been financially ruined by that action, was not mentioned.

Irrespective of whether that proposal is contrary to the biased and prejudiced political philosophies of the metropolitan newspaper magnates, or the ignorant attitudes of the councils of the various growers organisations, each and every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate has a public duty and responsibility to support the immediate implementation of that proposal, before any further action is taken by the Federal Parliament to divert Public Revenue from the just entitlements of the recipients of social welfare benefits to support the uncontrolled market price being paid for wool, in the best interests of the economic welfare of the nation and every person in the community.

At that meeting previously referred to, it was unanimously resolved, that all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall be strenuously urged to give their consideration and support to the immediate implementation of that proposed scheme for the Australian wool industry, as adopted by the Ivanhoe Woolgrowers Survival Committee and set out in the enclosed pamphlet, as a matter of extreme urgency when the Parliament resumes tomorrow.

I am deeply perturbed by what 1 see going on around me in the world today. I am disturbed by the great imbalance between the haves and the have notes. For all man’s ingenuity he has failed in so many ways to make this a better world in which to live. On one side is a world full of material gadgets for which so many of us strive in order to keep up with the Jones’s, while neglecting some of man’s finer qualities in doing so. On the other side is destitution and poverty. The very technical achievements which have enabled some of us to obtain these material goods have also produced such massive weapons of destruction, both military and ecological, that we all must now look out beyond our tribal enclaves and see this universe as belonging to and inhabited by one people, irrespective of colour or creed. Whilst unfortunately this appears to be difficult for and perhaps beyond some of the older generation, the spark of hope that I see for mankind lies in the all too often much maligned youth of all nations.

The PRESIDENT:

– lt is my pleasant duty to inform honourable senators that Senator Carrick, whom I am about to call, will be addressing the Senate for the first time. I call Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– As a newcomer to the Australian Parliament 1 want, firstly, to thank you, Mr President, all honourable senators and in particular the officers and staff of the Senate for the very great courtesies and practical help you all have given to me in recent weeks.

Over my lifetime I have had an abiding faith in the parliamentary institution. I believe that it is the most effective mechanism yet invented by man to express man’s hopes, to ensure his security and to create the free society which, as his servant and not as his master, enables him to fulfil himself both spiritually and materially.

I therefore find myself a particularly willing servant of the Parliament and, through it, of the Parliament’s mainspring, the people of Australia. I have equally a deep consciousness of the great traditions and achievements of the Australian Senate. 1 am interested, indeed fascinated, by the new developments in this chamber, particularly the committee system. 1 believe that, if we approach this new venture with restraint, with wisdom and with a true sense of the purpose of these committees, they can do much to bring the Parliament to the people and also to bring the Parliament into the twentieth century and to make it, as it can be and as it must be, a very flexible institution of man.

This is a Budget debate. It relates to the discussion of the Budget of this financial year, the raising and spending of money and the structuring and mechanics of that, but more importantly of the philosophy of the Budget; For what is it intended, socially and economically? 1 would like to direct some of my remarks to these aspects, but 1 would like also to direct my remarks later to certain attitudes which unhappily are ingrained in this community and which 1 believe, more than any fiscal instruments and more than any Budgets, unhappily shape conditions in this country today. 1 refer particularly to attitudes relating to the industrial scene, attitudes relating to industry and its profitability and attitudes relating to rural industries.

This Budget concerns the raising and spending of about S8,900m. That amount defies the ordinary comprehension. Let me reduce it to this concept: It concerns the raising and spending of, for every one of the 12,800,000 Australian people, a sum of $695; or, for a family of 5 - a man, his wife and 3 children - an impressive sum of $3,500. So it is no mean instrument, both quantitatively and qualitatively. lt has been the practice in the past to regard the Federal Budget as the predominant fiscal and social instrument of our political calendar. Without denigrating it as an instrument, let me suggest that many factors are now coalescing to weaken that predominance. 1 would like very quickly to express them, because I believe that the Budget must not be looked at in a vacuum.

Firstly, 1 refer to the States and the 6 State Parliaments. There is a tendency to look at them as some small and unimportant factor in the economy and as an unimportant instrument, fiscally or economically. I say that the facts deny that. The States today, of their own accord, as taxing authorities - this is rarely thought of - raise and spend 13 or 14 per cent of the total revenue raised by all authorities in Australia. With payroll tax, that per centage will probably be higher. But, if we transpose to them the amount of $2, 930m which is in the Federal - Budge- as payments to or for the States and regard the Commonwealth, quite properly, as merely the agent in raising that money, then we have the interesting situation that the States raise or have raised for them and spend 41 per cent or more of the total revenue raised in Australia. They are therefore almost as significant a fiscal instrument as the Commonwealth, because with that adjustment the Commonwealth raises 49 per cent - less than half - of the total revenue raised in this country. Therefore I pose the States to the Senate not as mendicants and not as insignificant instruments but as real economic and social insruments, as indeed they should be. And I say that as a confirmed federalist.

As the second of 8 main factors 1 refer to local government, which again is regarded, quite wrongly, as insignificant. I refer to the 901 municipal and shire councils in this country and to the semigovernmental authorities. The 901 local government bodies raise the best part of $500m or $600m of the national revenue. They raise and spend about 5.5 per cent of all revenue. . If people regard that as insignificant, I hope they will not tell the farmer, the pensioner or the person on a fixed income that municipal and shire rates are insignificant. The semi-governmental authorities raise and spend $400m or $500m a year. As a third factor there is the Australian Loan Council - the parliament of the States and the Commonwealth on public works and debt servicing. That instrument currently is coping with §2, 086m of expenditure.

There is another very flexible factor, but one which makes an enormous impact upon the state of the Australian economy. I refer to the inflow of private investment capital from overseas. Last year this amounted to $1, 500m. So flexible is it that that amount was S400m to $500m higher than the amount in the year before. So significant is it that, if it did not exist, instead of having a favourable balance of payments and a strong currency Australia would have the reverse. It must therefore take its place as one of the great fiscal instruments that we have to put into the symphony orchestra, as it were, that we are now studying.

I refer, as a fifth factor, to the economic parliament of Australia - the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is a system which I infinitely respect and one which, by its decisions in wage fixing, by its decisions in fixing margins for skill and by the results of flow-ons and over-award payments, has a profound effect both in the redistribution of income in Australia - and I respect that - and upon the price and cost structure of the whole of our economy. I refer next to the central banking system which has such an enormous quantitative and qualitative control of credit within the community. May I refer also to the merchant banking system which is much misunderstood in its significance. Some 20 years ago the trading banks of <this community handled 94 per cent of all commercial credit; today the merchant banking system handles more than 50 per cent. The significance of that in terms of fiscal and social policies in this country should not be lost. T add as an eighth factor the Tariff Board and the very great significance of its policies.

IT they were not enough, we have impacting upon us year by year the changing level of overseas interest rates, a factor which has brought this country out of isolation into a world in which we are subject to the effects of rising world costs. May I add that the present crisis in world currency exchange rates was caused by America’s natural desire to adjust its very adverse balance of trade.

In particular may I add the great crisis in Australia in the rural industries, the great and unpredictable fluctuations in rural prices and rural earnings.

To make the symphony orchestra complete we add the challenge of the European Economic Community and its effect on our trade. I must say that I personally have great hopes for England and its future in Europe. I look forward to a strong EEC as one of the great hopes of stability in this world. Nevertheless I recognise the difficulties for our trade.

With all these factors tending and contending, I think it fair, without platitude, to pay tribute to the Cabinets of the day, to the Treasury officers of the day, to the central banking officials of the day, for the fact that over the last few decades Australia has had a stability, of employment and of prices and costs, which is the envy of the free world. Although inflation is real and must be contended against, nevertheless ours is one of the lowest price or cost rising countries of all industrial countries.

Although there is now a growing rigidity in Federal Budgets, there is in this Budget a particular flexibility. This is one factor that must be noted because there has been talk that, this being a deflationary Budget, it can and will cause massive unemployment. There is no need whatever for Australia to be talked into, scared into or led into massive unemployment. The fact is that there is S630m of domestic surplus in the Budget to be called upon at any point of time to maintain full employment in this country. I believe that we have shown that we can cope and that we will show again our ability to do so.

The techniques in the structuring of a Budget can be regarded, depending upon the colour of your political spectacles, as being those of a modern day Fagin, a sort of legalised pickpocket, or if life is more rosy something of a crusading Robin Hood. Honourable senators may take that as they wish. The technique is to take from the people in one way and to give it back in another. Whether we meddle too much or whether we intervene too little is, of course, the clash of philosophy and, indeed, the very nub and hub of the argument that should be the Budget debate.

Let me examine very quickly the Fagin or Robin Hood technique of taking, because there has been much talk in this chamber in recent days of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. 1 remind the Senate that 60 per cent of the revenue to be raised by this Budget comes from direct taxes; 41.5 per cent is from personal income tax and 18.2 per cent is from company tax, as such. In a moment I shall examine how that is taken. The second and therefore remaining field is indirect taxation - customs, excise, sales tax - which takes something in excess of 27 per cent. It is in those 2 fields, with the addition of probate, gift duty and stamp duties, that the largest amount of revenue is raised.

For those among us who happen to be motorists with a taste for beer or cigarette smoking, it is instructive to note that ou of every SI raised as revenue in this Budget, 4.5c is raised from beer, 3.5c is raised from tobacco and 4.2c from motor spirit. So the poor motorist with a taste, however modest, for beer and smoking pays in addition to his other taxation 12.2c in every $1 raised and spend by the Government.

If we are to examine whether we have a Robin Hood or Fagin technique, or whether we are ogres who are interested only in big business, perhaps we had better look at the tax schedules of direct taxation. 1 have done so for the latest that are available.

In the 1969-70 tax year, which differs little in structure from the present one, 75.91 per cent or three-quarters of all taxpayers, they being those who receive $4,000 a year or less, contributed 37.13 per cent of the taxes, so the three-quarters who were the lower paid contributed onethird or a little more of the taxes. In the centre, 21 per cent of taxpayers who had incomes between $4,000 and $8,000 a year paid 37.03 per cent of the taxation, so the 21 per cent in the middle incomes paid the same as the 75 per cent in the lower incomes. So much for the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

But if we can add to that, it is intructive to note that the remaining taxpayers comprise 3 per cent or 160,000 - not very many - and they receive an income of more than $8,000 a year. I suggest that $8,000 a year is a reasonably modest income and as such is not real wealth, in the usual sense. But Robin Hood is in existence here because this 3 per cent of people paid 25.84 per cent of the direct taxation. For those who worry whether in some concessional allowance or in other ways someone in the higher bracket is receiving a benefit, I suggest that the way to achieve an equality in direct taxation is to look at the scale of direct taxation and to ask: Are we taking from those who have and giving to those who have not? The answer in the Government publication is clearly yes.

On the expenditure side 70.6 per cent of all expenditure by this Government is on 3 items: Firstly, payments to or for the States; secondly, the social welfare items of health, social services and repatriation; and thirdly, defence. If I may express the expenditure in cents in every dollar of revenue spent, the Commonwealth spends 33.2c in every $1 in payments to or for the States. One-third of the Budget - a figure which is rising - goes in payments to or for. the states. In addition, 23.2c in every $1 of expenditure goes to health, social services and repatriation, and 14.2c in every $1 goes to defence. The remainder, which is small, comprises 7.1c in the $1 for departmental running; 9.6c in the $1 for capital works and services; 4.1c in the $1 for payments to industry - a relatively small amount, as such - and 3.1c in the $1 to external aid and the Territories. That comprises the spending side. This is too superficial an approach because it fails to itemise these things, but this is not to suggest that there is not more to do.

Arising out of that somewhat quant*tive survey there are 3 main levels of inquiry that I would recommend. Firstly, I believe that the time has come for the Commonwealth to initiate a comprehensive inquiry into the whole taxation system and its incidence on the incomes of the people. I believe too that the system of concessional deductions could do with a thorough re-examination. We stand for progressive taxation, and we should set up an instrument to translate that theory into practice.

Secondly, I believe it imperative that we should do more than we have done already - we have done a lot - to strengthen the federal system. It is not enough merely to do as we have done in the Loan Council field. It is imperative that we should seek to establish a growth tax or growth taxes of a sufficient amount to eliminate the Commonwealth’s reimbursement formula. There can be no federalism when there is a Commonwealth reimbursement grant. While it remains, what I would call the Oliver Twist syndrome will bedevil federalism. The begging bowl syndrome - asking for more - will continue while the opportunity is there to ask for more. I urge that we in this Parliament direct our wits to giving back to the States the only sovereignty that matters - the sovereignty of raising their own revenue so that they can be accountable for spending it. The dilemma of the people of Australia is that they do not know on whom or on which government to lay the blame for the defects that exist and the responsibility for the jobs that need to be done and are not being done.

Thirdly, I believe it imperative that there should be a convention or conference of the Commonwealth and the States to undertake a major demarcation of functions as between governments. The Concrete Pipes case is a landmark in legal and constitutional history, and I know that the lawyers will be fascinated to see how much more power the Commonwealth has. I should like to see a situation in this Parliament similar to that which exists in the House of Commons where the question is not how much power we have and, therefore, to what level we can use it but rather that we see, within the power that we have, how little power we need to use to do our job. We should not be seeking to see where we can get more power. We should be seeing how we can decentralise functions and power in the best interests of the people of Australia, and that ls not an exercise in the seeking of power. In areas such as education and, in particular, health the lack of demarcation and the lack of our ability to say to the people: ‘This is a State responsibility but that is a Federal responsibility’, is a defect.

Let me refer now to attitudes of mind. I believe that they have been divisive in the community. They are ugly and are inhibiting our national growth and national character. I reject the concept that in industry management and worker must be in conflict with the one wanting sweating and the other wanting idleness. I have seen this, not in any starry-eyed idealistic way but in practice inside industrial law. 1 believe that only in terms of teamwork can we grow richer. I hope that I have demonstrated something of that in the progressive scale, but I have not the time to dilate upon it.

I reject the idea that profit and profitability are ugly things and that we should try to raid profit all the time so that there will be less and less. Unless industry is profitable there can be no industry except in a Socialist state, and no Socialist state has living conditions as good as those in nonSocialist states. We should be mindful of that.

Unless there is profit there can be no company tax at the rate of 47.5c in the SI. Unless there is profit there can be no tax upon dividends.

I wonder whether anyone in this House knows that, contrary to the propaganda being preached today, the true ownership of industry in this country is becoming increasingly that of the Australian people. It is not being centralised in the hands of fewer people and organisations. The last figures released in relation to this aspect cover the situation in 1969. They show that of private investment in Australia in that year not less than 60 per cent came from life offices, superannuation funds and pension funds. It is popular sport in parliaments today to knock Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, but I remind honourable senators that the bulk of BHPs subscribers comprises superannuation funds and pension funds. Every time profit and profitability are reduced the Consolidated Revenue Fund is robbed. If we abolish company tax and tax on dividends what will be put in its place? I believe that profitability is a sign of health and a sign of progress in this community. It is the one way in which this community, as an egalitarian community, can grow richer.

I do not stand for any section of the community. The people I represent are not measured by size of pay packet, by colour of shirt collar or by the nature of their religious devotion. Divisiveness is the evil of politics and I hope to do something to reduce it.

I reject the idea that there is a conflict between rural and city interests. 1 reject the idea that the farmer is rich and we should not care a hang about him. The people of the cities depend for their employment and income upon our rural industries which still return some 50 per cent of our total overseas earnings, the money we need to service our secondary industries. If we reduce that, we create the unemployment that some seek.

Those who deride the farmer and say: Let him sweat; let him be more efficient’ fail to realise the significant fact that between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of all rural costs are not incurred on the farm. They are incurred off the farm. They are incurred in the purchase of machinery and vehicles, in income tax, land and municipal taxes, probate duty and - this is the highest cost of all - in freight. I would like to see a national inquiry into the matter of freight which constitutes some 35 per cent of the cost of all goods.

I reject the concept that we -should be divisive as between city and country. It is the vital co-operative interest of the people of this community to ensure that this country’s productivity is increased so that we all, including the farmer, will be better off.

There is much 1 would have liked to have said. The challenges that are before us in the 1970s and 1980s are vastly different from those that faced us in the past. We talk about ecology and the quality of life. I do not see ecology as being the relationship of man to his environment. I recognise its importance but not its preeminence. The one challenge confronting this Parliament, the people of this country and the world generally is the challenge of the ecology of the relationship of man to man. How can we reduce conflict on an international level? How can we reduce conflict on a national level whether it be in industry, on the streets or in delinquency? The challenge is to be co-operative, not divisive.

I have one great hope. I believe that in the vision of the future to meet the challenges of the future, the great solutions and the great motivations not being created by economic instruments will be created by a new philosophy of education. I believe that in rethinking our education, in rethinking our education research, in studying as our main subject not material science but man, we will come some way towards the solutions. It is high time man was less preoccupied with material science and more preoccupied with the only study that matters - man. I hope before I leave this Parliament to see in Australia an academy of human sciences which draws together the disciplines relating to the human being. I believe that then and then only will we get some help in the great task that lies before us.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - I wish to intimate that as this is to be Senator Gietzelt’s maiden speech the Senate will extend to him the usual courtesy.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Mr Deputy President, 1 thank the electors of New South Wales for the confidence they have reposed in me. I thank my family and members of my Party for the support that they have given me over the years. Also, I thank members of this chamber for the encouragement they have given me in the few weeks in which I have been a senator. However, as previous speakers have indicated, this is Budget time and therefore I want to say a few words about the Budget.

In my view this Budget represents yet another major error of policy by the Government which is moving from mistake to mistake towards its early dissolution. Not only does this forlorn document chart the downward trend of this Government - it marks only too clearly the unfortunate future facing most Australians as a result of incorrect policies. The Australian Labor Party is not alone in condemning this Budget. It has been condemned by most editorial writers in the land - by spokesmen from employer, employee, consumer, rural, pensioner, ex-service and many other community groups. Only the Government parties are the reluctant supporters of this totally inadequate, unplanned, inept and sectional Budget. The Budget is not a routine affair. It should be the blueprint for the social and economic well-being of the nation. It should determine the guidelines for the ensuing year, for national development and set the pace for the sovereign States, for semi and local government agencies.

The Budget will not halt inflation. It will exacerbate the position. Its failure to provide adequate funds for the other arms of government has already forced State governments to increase charges and raise new taxes and costs generally. It worsens living standards for the average person. It fails to provide funds for the myriad of community needs. The Budget perpetuates the regressive policies of the Government. For 22 weary years the Government has deliberately encouraged expansion of the private sector while restricting expenditure in the public sector - the area where the needs ‘of the people have to be satisfied by the States, local and semi-government bodies. The Government continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a so-called defence policy basing such expenditure on outdated policies of fear and a misguided understanding of the evolutionary developments taking place in Asia.

The Budget will not help the one million people who are in and around the poverty belt in Australia. Economists estimate that Australia will gain $3,500m in exports from the new mineral fields within the next 10 years. How will this mineral bonanza help pensioners, low income groups or those on superannuation or fixed incomes? The Budget fails because it does not re-direct this great new wealth of our country to the areas where personal and community needs are greatest. Mr Justice Nimmo and Professor Downing of Melbourne University have estimated that 8 per cent of our people are financially insecure. Justice Nimmo went further and said there were 250,000 low income families in a self-perpetuating poverty belt. The gross inequalities in taxation not only persist, but grow worse. The Government refuses to levy a capital gain tax - a tax which would enable pensions and child endowment rates . to be substantially increased.

The promises made by Mr Gorton in the 1969 federal election for alleviating taxes on low and middle income groups have faded like tired memories. The parsimonious and blatantly partisan attitude of the Commonwealth to the States has already made a mockery of our medical and hospital scheme. Only in one State now - and there at the expense of other public needs - is free hospitalisation with us. lt is one of the casualties of the postwar years, i suggest that Government members and Ministers in particular converse with officials from welfare organisations like the Smith Family and the Red Cross and other charities. They would be amazed to see the unhappiness, the hopelessness, the loneliness and the hardships facing so many of our population - the absolute poverty that exists under all the superficial glitter of our society. They would find little to be proud of.

On the other hand the newspapers’ financial columns tell another story - the massive increase in profits by the credit corporations, BHP and countless other major companies - the takeovers, the speculation on the stock exchange. As it has been for 20 years, it is a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Foreign companies take over our indigenous industries while the government, like

Nelson, turns a blind eye to the multimillion dollar corporations enriching themselves on our vital natural resources. The Budget provides no relief to the serious problems of land prices which rise faster than any young couple can save. Even in the perimeter areas of Sydney - the new developing areas - land prices have doubled in the past 4 years.

The Australian people are weary of the struggle against rampant inflation. They are becoming aware of the tremendous social implication and consequences of the inflationary hurricane which is ripping away the savings of thrifty people, destroying family life and imposing hardships on all those who use their mental or physical skills to create the wealth of this country. It has been said - some reference was made to this by a previous speaker and I understand the words are those of Abraham Lincoln - ‘A government should do only those things as a government which the people cannot do as well for themselves’. It was these sentiments that gave impetus to the establishment of parliamentary democracy. Can we be confident that these objectives are being followed? Governments all over the world are setting themselves up above the people, abrogating the right to interpret what is best for the public interest.

In many cases those in authority govern either by arrogance of power or by default. There are growing numbers of people in this country who believe this twin evil exists here. 1 believe there cannot be genuine democracy as long as parliament and the public are unable to obtain genuine, detailed and reliable information concerning every aspect of our national life. This information is not freely available. While governments rule instead of parliament, while a bureaucracy operates in place of an informed public opinion, there will be even more alienation of the people from the parliamentary processes. I think the case of Dr Daniel Ellsberg in the United States underlines the point that I wish to make. He was an established man; a hawk; an advocate of US involvement in Vietnam. Yet he like many other US government officials after a proper analysis of the Vietnam war, found that his government was not telling the American people the real facts of that war. It was a classic example of the result of a government not telling the real, story, of the people being not properly informed, of the government usurping for itself the right to interpret the public interest. Similarly, in our country, the truth is that neither Parliament nor the Australian people have been told the truth about the problems facing our nation. In many ways the art of politics has become the art of deception. People unfortunately are becoming disillusioned with the Parliamentary processes. More and more informed people, more and more young people are questioning the value of parliament.

Let me say that I am a believer in the democratic processes - action by the parliament - action by the people - but I doubt the efficacy of the sham democracy - the superficial democracy that is claimed to be the foundation stone of our society. Democracy demands that a substantial proportion of the electors shall be informed, educated and actively involved in matters of public importance. They should be imbued with a sense of active and significant participation in the political life of the country. However, it is encouraging to see some growth in citizen involvement. In the field of conservation, preservation, pollution, environment, war and peace, and many other new social issues, growing numbers of people are not only concerned but also involved. Yet when people become concerned and involved on matters of conscience, the conservatives in our community, whether in government or in the media, cry out in the name of law and order. To hear them talk, involvement almost equals anarchy. They ignore the fact that change and conflict are as much an integral feature of human society as are stability and order.

Today we can no longer claim that the predominant factor in our society should be stability and order. The world is changing so rapidly that yesterday’s values do not necessarily apply today. For example, prewar the slogan was ‘populate or perish’. Today it has changed to ‘populate AND perish’. Demographers, social planners, men of learning generally never cease to warn us of the acceleration of change and the social consequences. Our scientists are constantly in the forefront of these warnings. One scientist went so far as to say that civilisation, fearful of effects of the nuclear bomb, would never use that weapon. He was more afraid of the grave deterioration in our environment, pollution and the destruction of resources. The sciences to which most of us looked to help mankind, might well bring destruction in their wake if people, and governments in particular, do not heed the effects of unrestricted, unplanned development and production.

Many people today are overwhelmed by change. This thrust for change is having personal, psychological and sociological consequences. Unless the growth rate of change is controlled, society runs the risk of a nervous breakdown. The avalanche must be stopped or at least curbed. Planning is becoming almost as important as the air we breathe. Firstly we must learn to safeguard our human resources. This leads to the urgent need to plan , to conserve our national resources. Then there is the need to examine our spiritual and social values.

As I see it, we live in times when all progress is measured in terms of the gross national product. Our GNP is our new god. We worship at its shrine. Development and production is more important than people. Everything has to be bigger and better than before. Every country aims at greater production, greater development, greater profitability - and in so many cases human values are forgotten. We have to recognise that the world is in the midst of its second major ecological upheaval. The whole of humanity, in one way or another, is switching from an agrarian to a highly urbanised society. This revolutionary change is taking place right before our eyes. Man no longer relies on the natural landscape to exist as he did for thousands of years. Now he employs technology to meet his needs. We have become an interdependent world community as a result of this evolution. However, our minds and our institutions are not yet adjusted to the new situation. Hence the conflict within our society.

Population densities, in the East and West, are rising rapidly. For instance, in Manhattan 77,000 people occupy one square mile of territory. While we in Australia lag behind this volume, high density living is well on the way in many of our capital cities.

The Budget, while making large sums of money available for subsidies to rural and secondary industries- and the wool subsidy seems certain to reach SI 80m - earmarks not one cent to study, control, appease or improve the urban complex.

Urbanisation is the new phenomenon. It is radical, different, dramatic and fearful in its consequences. Urbanisation is the new ecological process. It determines the environment in which the major proportion of our population lives, changes all our previous human relationships and highlights the problems of individuals, communities and nations. On present trends, using New South Wales as an example, by the year 2000 the number of people living outside the major cities will be approximately 10 per cent of the population. This is in spite of all the talk and decisions about decentralisation. We are faced with the inescapable fact that tremendous city complexes are a permanent feature of our society. It is our obligation to ensure that cities therefore become an ecological success. To achieve this, however, there needs to be a recognition that massive public funds must be directed to build new urban technologies. In addition we must recognise that only a different approach to human relationships can solve the new technology needed to integrate man in the new densities within our cities.

This requires a better educated, a less prejudiced, a less inhibited collective human mind to create the new technologies and institutions adequate to meet our population needs. In Sydney there are some 67 government agencies administering the affairs of State within that city. Every time a new problem develops - pollution, to give one example - a new government agency is set up to deal with it. This highlights the need for us to give greater consideration to what is taking place within our community.

In our country there are scientists, planners and other public figures who are asking the inarticulate, unorganised and uninformed mass to be concerned. Professor Maning Clark said:

If Australia … is to survive, we must And a solution to the problems of how to retain our independence without assistance from the U.K. or the U.S.A.

The eminent poet, Judith Wright, commented in the same weekly Press:

We have very little time left to rescue this planet from the disastrous effects of what we call progress - trying to grab more dollars and material goods regardless of who suffers in the future.

She also said:

The major problem of leadership is to get people to accept that there is a point at which we must stop this mad scramble. Our natural resources are vanishing so fast we will not have any petroleum left in 100 years. We must put a limit on population and the use of resources. The big industries are inventing new wants, publicising them and making people think they need their products.

Sydney’s Professor Charles Birch said some time ago:

It is time that economists thought less about growth and development and much more about the quality of life on earth.

Emeritus Professor Sir Mark Oliphant pessimistically states that he cannot see ‘the leaders necessary to develop the full sane, and ecological potential of Australia .. . at present.’ Aboriginal rights leader, Faith Bandler, put her finger on the problem when she said:

Our Governments are still in the mad rush for economic growth regardless of its destruction of the environment and its effect on human welfare.

Our society is following the world wide pattern of western civilisation. Inflation, profiteering, the growth of monopoly, mergers foreign takeover of many Australian industries, all combine to worsen the living standards of the average Australian. As our rural income falls, people flock to the cities. Land prices skyrocket still further, accommodation is priced beyond the reach of young people and family life is seriously undermined.

What is taking place under our very eyes is the silent demise of the family unit. Despite the great mineral wealth and the tremendous postwar boom in our exports, those that actually produce the wealth are substantially worse off. I say that after having regard to what has been said in previous debates in this chamber. A worker can no longer live on a single income. He must have 2 jobs, or be content to live on the poverty line. Hundreds of thousands solve their immediate economic problem by encouraging their wives to continue working. This in its turn contributes to pressures and tensions not experienced by previous generations. Yet the Liberal Government, impervious to what is taking place, carries on without a thought or a care.

I believe it is our responsibility to study overseas countries’ experience so that we may learn from their tragedies. The postwar years have seen the acceleration of progress. Everywhere man is changing the environment. Until recent times his influence on the environment was not serious. Today, because he is now so numerous and technologically adept he not only endangers the environment but also he imperils civilisation. It is true that it is in the United States that the problem is most serious. There poverty, racism, congestion, war, crime and a rising incidence of dissent are shaking the very foundations of that society. It would be premature to suggest that the same perils now confront us in Australia. However, certain trends that should concern all governments are already evident in this country. I refer to the population decline in the rural areas, the growing congestion in the cities and the failure of governments to recognise the sociological problems accruing at a rapid rate as a result of urbanisation. Crises exist - whether or not this Government is prepared to recognise them - in education generally, housing, hospitals, sewerage, social welfare, accommodation, human relations and the decline in value of money.

In the few minutes left at my disposal 1 shall deal specifically with the responsibilities of local government in respect of the environment. The people of Australia are probably unaware that the national government accepts little responsibility for environment. To an extent this is also true of a State government; it delegates the responsibility to local government. Local government is perfectly able to handle environmental matters providing it is given the financial resources. I am encouraged to hear Senator Lawrie and other honourable senators speak about the problems of local government. I propose to specialise in these matters in this chamber. The Budget fails to provide any sort of meaningful help to local government to carry out its commitments. Right throughout Australia as, indeed, in all modern societies, the role of local government is increasing. Few aspects of our environment, our culture, our welfare, our way of life can be adequately tackled without involving local government. Yet the Federal Government continues to refuse to give local govern ment adequate help either in the form of grants or sufficient loan moneys. Our society cannot properly function until the Federal Government recognises that it has to make grants to local authorities and to semi-government agencies.

For 20 years the Federal Government has followed a deliberate policy of encouraging private sector expansion and restricting the public sector. The States and local and semi-government agencies have been affected by this policy. People have suffered as a result of the policy. In a Press release made on 29th April 1971 Warden L. J. Mooney, who is the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, said:

The people of Australia, whether city or country folk, want a better way of life and a better environment. They are looking to their local councils. But so far, councils have not been financially equipped to grapple with all that is required of them.

Asking the Federal Government for financial recognition and help Warden Mooney went on to state:

A new financial deal will not just be an answer to Councils’ complaints; it should be a national policy to provide Australians everywhere with acceptable community standards.

I know it will be argued that local and semi-government agencies are the responsibility of the States. But even Sir Robert Menzies, way back in 1949, said that the time had arrived for a conference between the 3 arms of government in Australia so that a better financial arrangement could be organised. Twenty-two years later local government is still pressing for substantial Federal assistance to ease the growing rate burden that has little or no regard to the ability of the property owner to pay rates. General hardship exists in many of the lower income areas around our major cities as the rate burden increases and as the local councils grapple with the task of attempting to provide local amenities. Early this year Ministers for Local Government from all States, meeting in Hobart, decided:

This Conference of Ministers of Local Government in all States recognises the serious financial position of local government at present because:

the cost of local government service is increasing rapidly;

the sources of revenue available to local government authorities are limited -

I shall digress for a moment. I know how difficult, how impossible in fact, it is for many of our country councils to carry on their services at this time-

  1. many rural areas are in a critical position and no increases in rates are likely or practicable in the foreseeable future.
  2. that as local government is the responsibility of State Governments, the annual reimbursement grants of income tax from the Commonwealth to the States should include an element of contribution to local government finances.

Once again this Government’s Budget fails to recognise the facts of life. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) as late as a few weeks ago declined to meet a deputation from the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. He repeats the policy of the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party over many years. He ignores the advice of such journals as the Sydney Morning Herald’ which in its editorial on 11th June 1970 - that is over a year ago - wrote:

The Federal Treasurer is making a serious mistake in casting aside the financial problems of local government.

The Government gets on its high horse. It defends its policies. It refuses to recognise its responsibilities. It makes the local councils carry the burden. It makes the low income groups pay for their local amenities and it perpetuates the private affluence and public squalor which has characterised its 22 years of office. I join with my Party in opposing the Budget.

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators, it is my pleasant duty to call upon Senator Bonner. He will be accorded the usual civilities which are attendant upon an honourable senator rising in his place for the first time.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

It is with very deep and mixed emotions that I participate in the debates of this Parliament for the first time. I feel overawed by the obvious education of honourable senators within this august chamber. I assure honourable senators that I have not attended a university or a high school and, for that matter, I do not know that I can say that I have spent very much time at a primary school. But this does not mean that as a Senator from Queensland I am not able to cope. I have graduated through the university of hard knocks. My teacher was experience. However, I shall play the role which my State of Queensland, my race, my background, my political beliefs, my knowledge of men and circumstances dictate. This I shall do, through the grace of God, to the benefit of all Australians. For more than 20,000 years my people have loved this country. They have appreciated its beauty and its capacity to provide for human needs. Throughout that long period my race developed many traditions and one generation has passed on to another a respect for these traditions. Traditions are preserved and honoured in the Australian Parliament also. The awareness of these traditions and the long and illustrious line of people who have upheld them in the interests of freedom and democracy makes me humble because I realise the privilege and the double responsibility which has been bestowed upon me. At the same time I am sure that honourable senators will agree that I could hardly be blamed if I confessed to a feeling of pride at this time.

First and foremost I participate here as an Australian citizen. Through the valour of its fighting men in two world wars and by the vigour and skill of its leaders Australia has earned an honoured place in the world. As an Australian, I am concerned for the future of my country, for the welfare of its people and for the quality of life that they enjoy. However I am conscious of the fact that I am the first member of my race to participate in parliamentary proceedings. I am proud that, however long it has taken, this form of participation has been achieved. To those who took the decisions which resulted in my being here today, I proffer my thanks. I am very conscious of the fact that the opportunities which are now mine to share in the representation of Queensland would not have been mine if it were to for the resignation of Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, D.B.E. Since 1947 she well and worthily upheld Queensland Liberal Party principles in this place, first as a senator and committee member and more recently as Minister for Housing. I am sure that, as Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand, she will further enhance her illustrious career.

I turn now to the business before the Senate, which is, in part, consideration of the Government’s Budget proposals for the 1971-72 financial year. As I understand it, the Budget is the most important business to come before the Parliament each year. It involves huge sums of money and has far reaching effects on every Australian - from the pensioner hoping for an increase in his or her fortnightly cheque to the manufacturer worrying about the impact of the budget on his undertaking. The Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee watch over accounting and expending, but in the final analysis electorates and States must rely on their Commonwealth parliamentary representatives to ensure that the economy runs as smoothly as possible, particularly at times such as these when inflationary pressures within and uncertainty without make long range predictions extremely difficult. I have no doubt that honourable senators have been able to devote much of their attention to this task, particularly since they adopted the practice of referring the annual Estimates to separate committees at which Ministers and their departmental officers can answer questions relating to the items of proposed expenditure. I have no doubt that in the course of this my short term, or an additional term according to the will of the citizens of Queensland, it will be my privilege to serve on these committees and in this way participate fully in the important discussions on proposed expenditure.

There must be many ordinary Australians like myself who have struggled with the problems of feeding, clothing and educating a family and with trying to balance a domestic budget. Their minds must boggle at a national budget which has a total estimated expenditure of $8,833m, a sum which the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) told us is about $728m or 9 per cent greater than the Budget last year. The staggering size of the national Budget indicates the rapid rate of development of Australia. I am sure all honourable senators will agree with me when I say that I regret that there are problems presently facing rural industries, but I find, looking through the Budget, that the Government has recognised these and has provided for them by including payments to rural industries amounting to at least $275m. It is hoped that these problems will be overcome. Past growths suggest an even better and more prosperous future for this country in the days ahead. Having lived and worked in the western sections of Queensland, particularly on cattle and sheep stations, I am not unaware of or unsympathetic to the problems and heartaches faced by men on the land at this time. I assure the Senate that it is my determination that, during my tenure of office, I will be moving constantly through this area to enable me, by personal contact, to give aid wherever it is necessary.

At some other time, either in this chamber or at committee meetings, I shall comment about several items in the Budget. At this stage I comment briefly about 3 items of expenditure set out in Statement No. 4 attached to the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. Item No. 3 refers to the National Welfare Fund, the expenditure from which increased in this Budget by $217m to $ 1,694m. This figure includes increased welfare services in the form of pensions, maternity allowances, child endowment, unemployment and sickness benefits, rehabilitation services, sheltered employment allowances, funeral benefits, deserted wives benefits, personal care subsidy, national health services, nursing home benefits, handicapped children’s benefits, payments to public hospitals for pensioners, homes savings grants and matters such as these. The Commonwealth Government’s commitment for these expenditures is an acknowledgement of the right of every citizen to share in the prosperity of this nation. I relate the commitment to a portion of the most important speech of my career to date. I claimed that my experience of this world showed that 2 qualities are always in need - understanding and compassion. I stress that these attributes must not change because, if they do, the solution to the problems that we as a people face with regard to social services and particularly with regard to aged pensioners, the fruits of whose labours we enjoy today, will be all the more difficult to obtain. I believe that social services are not a charity to a less worthy section of the community. They are the means by which persons who have special handicaps or who are unable to join the work force because of age, domestic responsibilities or handicaps have a claim on the nation’s resources. I believe that no longer is there any stigma or condescension about the receiving or disbursement of payments from the National Welfare Fund.

Item No. 7 refers to the expenditure on Territories, excluding Papua New Guinea, and shows an increase of $40m. Item No. 10 shows an increase of $41m for Other Expenditures. Both items are of special interest to me because they include considerable sums for Aboriginal advancement, mainly for special programmes of housing, health and education. These 3 items are of supreme importance to the welfare and quality of life of all Australians, none more so than Aboriginals. Mr President, I crave your indulgence and the indulgence of honourable senators in that for a very short time all within me that is Aboriginal yearns to be heard as the voice of the indigenous people of Australia. For far too long we have been crying out and far too few have heard us. I stand humbly in the presence of honourable senators to bring to their attention what I believe to be the lot of those of my race in 1971. It would be an understatement to say that the lot of fellow Aboriginals is not a particularly happy one. We bear emotional scars - the young no less than the older. By and large we are unskilled with, here and there, a breakthrough. In early days we were a very simple people. My people had simple needs. We saw no need for agriculture or industry because nature provided our needs for over 20,000 years.

Less than 200 years ago the white man came, I say now in all sincerity that my people were shot, poisoned, hanged and broken in spirit until they became refugees in their own land. But that is history and we take care now of the present while, I should hope, we look to the future. Following the advent of the white man came a transitional period which still exists today. Then began to appear the emotional scars; the psychological wounds became a torment from which by and large we have still not recovered. The Aborigines today find themselves drifting between 2 worlds, accepting some of the white man’s virtues, but alas, also many of his vices, subconsciously retaining to some extent the intricate pattern of relationship, the wonderful gift of sharing one with the other to such an extent that it infringes on the laws of white society, or Australian society as we know it today.

Whilst I commend the Government for its awareness of the need for improved programmes of housing, health and education, I want to take this opportunity to point out that in common with all citizens, Aborigines of Australia are most certainly not looking for handouts. They have suffered enough from the stigma of paternalism, however well intentioned it may have been. I am sure that they will respond to efforts being made to enhance their self-esteem, particularly through the programmes of social development and vocational and general education.

I want to emphasise the urgency of greater Aboriginal participation particularly in the areas of social development and vocational and general education. I believe there is need for a programme wherein Aborigines, and not necessarily academically qualified or young Aborigines, but armed with understanding and compassion plus the ability to communicate, can be fielded to liaise with Aborigines and all relevant government departments and organisations working in the field today.

I wish to make only 2 more points. Firstly I express my appreciation of what the Government is already doing to make pre-school education facilities available for my people. I appeal for even greater efforts to be made in this area, particularly by State governments as well as the Commonwealth Government. In case I appear to be biased on this subject I shall quote from a recent book by Mrs Lorna Lippmann. She wrote:

One normally expects a deprived minority, living in poverty in a degraded physical environment to have a low educational standard. Obligingly, Aborigines live up to that expectation in every part of Australia.

Professor D. W. McElwain, whose research into the cognitive ability or intelligence of Aborigines in Queensland is well known, has concluded as a result of a study of 1,000 subjects:

There are no inborn or genetic limitations on the basic intelligence of Aborigines.

Mrs Lippman also wrote:

Pre-schools are all important to ensure that Aboriginal children do not begin school impoverished as to language and background. Instruction within the school needs to be individualised and ungraded (so that the child will go at his own pace in each subject). Extra curricular activities should be encouraged so that the student can excel in some field of his own choosing and know the joy of learning, of creativity and of success.

I turn now to consider Aboriginal enterprises. As Mrs Lippmann has pointed out, every able bodied person wants to succeed in some field of his own choosing and to know the satisfactions which come from creativity and success. Economically viable Aboriginal enterprises offer just these satisfactions. I congratulate the Government on the policy decision to further these enterprises and I appeal to those who are responsible for developing further policies and implementing them to use every means available to help them along. Australians are noted for their willingness to take a risk. I ask for a greater degree of gambling on Australia’s indigenous population who, since the arrival of the white man, have to a degree gambled just on existing.

It is to be regretted that artifacts which have been identified with Aborigines should now be mass produced overseas and imported into Australia at such prices and in such quantities that the indigenous manufacture of such artifacts as boomerangs is no longer economically feasible. I wonder whether it would be possible for some sort of tariff protection to be applied to boomerangs at least, so that cheap imitations from overseas would not undercut the authentic Aboriginal article in such a way that, as has occurred, it would be difficult to find anything but an imported imitation in retail stores and shops which cater for tourists.

It may also be possible to bring down legislation to restrict the manufacture of boomerangs within Australia to those people who own it as their special heritage - the Aboriginal race. I have made inquiries about the possibilities of a patent over the boomerang and have been advised that as it is by no means a recent scientific invention it would not be possible for anyone to take out a patent for it. Likewise, I understand, the law of copyright would apply only to individual designs on a artifact. I have been told that the word ‘boomerang’ cannot even be registered as a trade mark as the term is probably too deeply entrenched in the English language to be legally registered now as distinguishing the goods of particular manufacturers or traders. If some solution to this problem can be found it may be one small way of fostering an Aboriginal enterprise which I know surely has considerable potential.

Mr President and honourable senators, although my entering the Senate was a unique event in Australian history in that apart from being a senator for Queensland I am also an Australian Aborigine, I was not at all surprised to find that there is absolute equality. I thank you, Sir, and honourable senators for this, not on my own behalf but as a representative of the indigenous people throughout Australia. In conclusion I desire to clarify one point. From this year onwards who are to be termed the indigenous people of Australia? In my experienced opinion, all persons who desire to be so classified, regardless of hue of skin, and who have flowing in their veins any portion, however small, of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island blood, are indigenous people. It does not necessarily follow that the degree of one’s emotional scars matches the darkness of personal pigmentation or that the lightness of one’s skin necessarily indicates a lessening of knowledge of and belief in Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island culture and tradition.

I have listened earnestly to the debate on the Budget. I have heard criticism of the Government and I have heard favourable comment. I say sincerely that I am proud to have an opportunity to stand in the Senate. Perhaps it is a little too early for me to really play a very great part in the debate on the Budget. But I am proud to be here and I am proud of the fact that I have been accepted in the Senate as an equal by all other senators. That is what I want to see achieved in our wonderful country. We live in a wonderful country. Recently I gave an address, the title of which was ‘This is a Grand Country’. It will be a grand country only while those who sit in this chamber and in another place really and truly believe in this aim and work towards achieving it. I believe that we should forget our petty differences and really work for those who have put us here and have entrusted the nation to our hands. I thank you, Mr President, for the courtesy with which you have listened to me. I look forward to my association with my fellow senators. I trust that our deliberations will be, in fact, for the true welfare of all Australians.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– I take this opportunity to congratulate all the new senators who have contributed to this Budget debate, and particularly Senator Bonner who has just resumed his seat. I am sure that most of us realise that we have just witnessed an historic occasion. I am sure, too, that none of us have forgotten those few moments before we made our own maiden speeches. To be quite truthful, I was looking at Senator Bonner when Senator Gietzelt was speaking, and 1 thought then: ‘Here is a man who has a job to do, a unique job in the history of this Parliament’. I think we all will agree that he has done it well; that in his maiden speech he has discharged his obligations to the people who put him here. Let me make this quick observation to him: I say in all humility that he has no need to feel humble in this place because many people who came from humble beginnings have made worthwhile contributions in this Parliament, and if he keeps in mind the 2 very important qualities to which he referred - understanding and compassion for the people in the community who need them - I am sure that he also will make a worthwhile contribution.

The purpose of a Budget debate is to consider what the Government intends to do in the ensuing 12 months and also what in fact it should do in that period. Any government has only so much money to spend on the various aspects of the nation’s economy. Because its resources are limited, it is necessary to determine its priorities in as rational and equitable a manner as possible. Notwithstanding the fact that our country is known as the Commonwealth of Australia, we find inequities in our income levels which bring comfort and plenty to some but hardship and privation to others. We members of the Australian Labor Party are conscious of the need to rectify these anomalies. We have, on repeated occasions, put before the Australian people proposals to remove the injustices that have been built into the Australian economic system during 22 years of Liberal government. We will continue to put those proposals to the Australian people, and we will implement them at the first opportunity in order to bring justice, both social and economic, to the Australian people.

A Budget normally provides for an adjustment of the taxation levels or for taxation deductions. But are the adjustments made in this Budget equitable? Who will be the people who will gain, for example, by the increase in the allowable deduction for education expenses from $300 to $400 a year? I notice that Mr Hudson, the South Australian Minister for Education, made a statement on this very point just recently. He called it a national scandal - and quite rightly. He showed the scales of deductions which would apply on various levels of income. A person with an income of $2,500 a year would receive a deduction worth $92; that is if he could possibly spend $400 a year on educating one of his children. For a person with an income of $5,000 a year, the deduction is worth $145. But for a person with an income of $10,000 a year, the deduction is worth $212.

How could one possibly regard that as an equitable deduction? Despite the fact that education is crying out for more Commonwealth money, allowances of this nature are made to people on high incomes who, in fact, do not deserve them or are not in need of them. There are all sorts of demands by pensioners and low income earners of all descriptions who are far more in need of the sorts of things about which Senator Gietzelt talked and to which Senator Bonner referred in his maiden speech; yet this is the sort of handout that is being made. It reminds me of the Budget of 1967 in which the maximum deduction in respect of life assurance premiums was raised from $800 to $1,200. Having knowledge of that field, I can remember who were the people one could get to increase their life assurance premiums to $1,200 a year - only people on very high incomes.

Senator Poyser:

– That is not for the workers.

Senator WRIEDT:

– As Senator Poyser says, that is not for the workers; in fact, it is not for the people who represent probably 80 per cent of the wage and salary earners in Australia. After all these years of Liberal government these inequities are not being removed.; they are being further built into the taxation system. Of course, it is up to the Australian people to make the decision at the next federal election. I instance that matter because it is a glaring example which shows that the present Government is not concerned with people on the lower incomes or with providing the compassion and understanding which have been referred to here tonight.

The principle of the taxation system is simple enough. A government largely may determine how much it is prepared to spend in the public sector, in such areas as health, education, public works and defence, by the amount of the national income it is prepared to collect in taxation, either direct or indirect. There are 2 matters to consider here: Do we as a community pay enough, and is the money taken from those who can best afford to pay it? lt may seem strange to some people, but Australia is not a heavily taxed country on the basis of comparison with countries of comparable economic development. We pay taxes totalling 23 per cent of our gross national product; New Zealand pays 25 per cent: the United States and Canada pay 30 per cent; the United Kingdom and the Common Market countries pay 33 per cent; and Sweden pays 38 per cent. But, as a result of that, all those countries are able to pay better social services and to provide more of their national income for education, health and hospitals than we are. So the matter again is one of priorities.

We have a crisis in education. Only just recently we were told by an authoritative body that an additional $l,400m will need to be found over the next 3 years for the education system in Australia. That, of course, is over and above what the Commonwealth and the States intend to spend in that period. Unless we are prepared to accept the fact that this money must be directed, at the Federal level, into further financial assistance for education, the education system must continue to decline. By contrast, we spend the enormous amount of $2,500m every year on buying and running our motor cars. In fact, that is not the total bill; that is what it costs us to buy them and to put petrol and oil into them.

Senator Little:

– There is a lot of tax involved in that.

Senator WRIEDT:

– What we are concerned about is not the tax on those things but looking at the priorities for investment of the moneys that are available in the community. The sort of question we have to consider is whether our cars are more important than our children. If Senator Little wants us to invest more money In our motor cars than in our children, that may be acceptable to him but I assure him that it is not acceptable to the Opposition. What we are endeavouring to do is to provide assistance for those sections of our community which, in fact, need it most. Professor Downing, the Ritchie Professor of Research in Economics at Melbourne University, in a paper that he wrote for the ‘Australian Economic Review’ for the first quarter of this year, discussed some of these aspects of income tax. Much of his paper is the result of a great deal of work in this field.

Professor Downing would be one of the authorities on public accounting and taxation in Australia. He makes reference to the fact that certain salary incomes are being raised all the time, that these are not salaries in the low income bracket but in the higher income brackets. He comments that the unions which represent mostly the lower income people in the community are compelled, as a result of this pattern, to seek increased wages through the arbitration system. One of the arguments used is that people in the middle income bracket cannot be taxed any more and it is necessary to give them a greater increase tn salaries all the time to compensate for the taxation level. It is interesting to look at some of the figures referred to by Professor Downing. A table which appeared in the Australian Economic Review’ for the third quarter of last year shows that the average pre-tax middle income was 35 per cent above the national average in 1967-68 and retained the same differential after taxes had been deducted. If we go back to 1962-63 we find that the comparable pretax average income was 31 per cent above the national average, but that after tax it fell to 27 per cent above. In 1955-56 the pre-tax average income was 23 per cent above the national average and after tax it fell to 20 per cent above. These figures suggest that the average middle income is not being unduly squeezed by inflation or by the tax burden. Professor Downing goes on to make this point.

Senator Webster:

– Does the honourable senator think that this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Obviously the trend k in the wrong direction and this is the point that Professor Downing is making. 1 have heard honourable senators opposite during this Budget debate making comments about people in the trade unions. I am not defending trade unionists all the time; they make their mistakes, just as we all do. Sufficient to say that this is the very point made by Professor Downing, that this trend forces the unions to make increased demands for wages. This is the point thai Professor Downing is getting at when he says: . . the tax system . . . relies loo much on indirect taxes which bear particularly heavily on lower income groups who have to spend all or most of their incomes. The personal income tax system provides wide opportunities for avoidance through deductions, income-splitting, incomedeferment, and the transformation of taxable income into tax-free capital gains. Union leaders, and workers generally if they think about it, know very well that these opportunities for avoidance are virtually confined to those with property and who enjoy incomes from sources other than wages and salaries.

I am pleased to see Senator Webster nodding his head in agreement. It is quite true that the lower income earner is compelled to use a greater part of his income on goods which incur sales tax, so in fact he is not able to benefit from the escape clauses which exist through the whole of the taxation system for higher income people and for companies. For people in that category all sorts of lurks are available, as we who are members of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange have seen exposed, one after the other, over the past 12 months. I am not criticising the Government specifically on that point because nobody else knew what was going on. Sufficient to say that these inbuilt means of escaping taxation have been allowed to continue under this Government for ali these years, and this has been at the expense of the lower income earners.

I should like to refer briefly to just one comment that was made by Senator Carrick during his maiden speech. It is not my intention to be critical of that speech, especially as it was a maiden speech. In fact I think the speech was extremely well constructed and extremely well presented. However, I certainly disagreed with the philosophy underlying what he said and I take particular issue with his comment that an income of S 8,000 a year is in fact only a moderate income. I wonder whether the honourable senator realises just what $8,000 a year means to the ordinary Australian. To the average Australian it is by no means a moderate income; to him it is an enormous income. In the last 3 years sections of the Public Service on higher incomes have had increases from $175 a week to $230 a week - an increase of $55 a week. Compare that with the situation of a fitter whose wage in 1968 was $51 a week and whose wage today is $65 a week - an increase of $14. These are the sorts of factors that are the realities of life for the great majority of wage earners.

When we think in terms of $8,000 a year and all the problems of inflation that we have in Australia, we would probably be better off if we imposed a moratorium on all incomes over $8,000 a year. People earning in excess of this amount are simply not in need of increases of this nature. The people on lower incomes are far more deserving of increases, right through the whole spectrum of social services. This is where we come to the crunch. We talk about increases in social service pensions, education payments and child endowment, but if we take note of the sort of thing that Dr Ehrlich was talking about a week or so ago it seems that somewhere someone must say: This far and no farther’. Right through the whole company structure we see these injustices built into our system. For example, the Australian Guarantee Corporation has been paying a dividend of 15 per cent for the past 20 years or so and so many other organisations are earning interest rates which have the effect of pushing up the cost structure all the time.

Senator Webster:

– What are we to do if they try to force a pay rise on members of Parliament?

Senator WRIEDT:

– The honourable senator heard what I said. Mine was a general remark. I am not concerned about singling out members of Parliament or anyone else. I make this comment with reference to the community generally. I am making a frank statement which I will stand by. I go on record as saying that there are many areas in which facilities for members of Parliament should be improved. I would be the first to advance that cause. But my statement about salaries applies to everybody in the category to which I refer.

Senator Little:

– Can we be told what would be left out of the $8,000 after tax?

Senator WRIEDT:

– If I have time I shall come back to that interjection, but at the moment I want to deal with another matter. During the debate there has been reference to Commonwealth and State relations. In my speech last year I dealt with matters concerning departmental spending in the various States, with particularr reference to Tasmania. Again I want to draw to the attention of the Government the fact that the levels of departmental spending in the various States are inequitable. There appears to be no machinery whereby the Commonwealth can look at the whole picture of Commonwealth departmental spending in the various States, the level of private investment in secondary industry, that is, private spending in the various States, and interest repayments of the various States. In the financial year 1969-70 the 2 main States. New South Wales and Victoria, with 64 per cent of. the Australian population, attracted 60 per cent of Commonwealth departmental spending. That expenditure was roughly comparable with the population of those States. By contrast, South Australia with 9.3 per cent of the population, received only 6.5 per cent of Commonwealth departmental spending. Tasmania with 3.13 per cent of the population received only 2.21 per cent of Commonwealth departmental spending. Taken in isolation, these factors may not add up to very much but they have application when compared with the level of building activity in secondary industry.

For the 9 months ended 3 1 st March this year 73 per cent of building approvals for factories - this is the real indicator of secondary industry in Australia - went to New South Wales and Victoria. In other words, 73 per cent of the money being spent on the building of factories in Australia will be spent in New South Wales and Victoria. Despite the fact that South Australia has 9.3 per cent of the population, that State will receive only 5 per cent of that expenditure. Tasmania will be lowest with only 1.5 per cent of that expenditure. I have been unable to ascertain, because no-one seems to know, whether there is any machinery whereby the Commonwealth looks at the situation as a whole and sees that certain moneys are being spent in cer tain directions. Obviously New South Wales and Victoria are doing extremely well at present despite what Mr Askin and Sir Henry Bolte may say. Mr Bethune in Tasmania and Mr Dunstan in South Australia obviously have a very good case for a more equitable distribution of Commonwealth expenditure.

Looking at the annual interest payable per head of population on Government securities on issue as at 30th June 1969 we find the same situation. In New South Wales the amount owed to the Commonwealth per head of population was $32. In Victoria it was $31, in Queensland $32, in South Australia $48, in Western Australia $43 and in Tasmania $77, the average for the 6 States being $36. If, for example, Tasmania was paying the average, the $30m it is paying would be halved to $15m. No effort appears to be made to even out expenditure. I believe that that is a responsibility of the Commonwealth. Individual departments cannot do it nor should they be expected to do it. There should be some machinery by which the Commonwealth would look at this matter. I think it was Senator Carrick who referred to this aspect during the course of his speech. I agree with him. From memory, he advanced some very good reasons why the Commonwealth should act. Suffice to say that there is no overall picture of what the Government and private interests are doing to maintain a reasonably equitable level of development in the various States.

I refer now to child endowment. A Mr Derek Stone of Hobart wrote a letter to the Hobart ‘Mercury’, and I think that the facts contained in his letter should be written into the records of the Parliament in the hope that possibly the Minister at some later time may be able to clarify the situation. Mr Stone claimed that he had checked with the Department of Social Services and had been assured that the situation he raised was correct. He referred to the case of a family with 8 wholly supported children. Under the new child endowment rates, when the eldest school child turns 16 the endowment cheque of that family drops by $7. However, with a family of 2 wholly supported children the endowment cheque rises by $2 when the eldest school child turns 16. That situation seems to be totally inexplicable. It further illustrates the kinds of anomalies which have crept into the social services structure. I believe the situation as outlined by Mr Stone to be true. It is evident that the Government has not given proper consideration to the aspect he has raised, and 1 hope that during the course of this Budget debate one of the Ministers in this chamber will give an explanation of how this kind of situation has arisen.

The Budget that we are discussing is typical of those which have gone before it. It is the last - possibly the second last - Budget that this Government will bring down. Thereafter the Budget will be brought down by a different government. Then the kinds of anomalies and inequities to which we have become accustomed will be removed from the Australian scene.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! I call Senator Jessop and remind honourable senators that this will be his maiden speech, so the usual courtesies will be extended to him.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– Thank you, Mr Deputy President. First of all, I should like you to convey to the President our pleasure at his elevation to the high office of President of the Senate. I am sure that he will uphold the dignity of his predecessors and will enhance the reputation of the Senate. To you, Mr Deputy President, 1 offer my congratulations on your elevation. Knowing you personally, I know that you will provide the President with very valuable assistance. I pay tribute to the officers of the Senate who have given me a considerable amount of help in the short time that 1 have been here. They give us so much help that we sometimes take it for granted. I am pleased to return to Canberra after an absence of 18 months. It is like returning home even though I have changed residence and will have to become accustomed to the furnishings which are of a different colour. However, I feel honoured to represent my State in the Senate and will do all that I can to promote the interests of South Australia during my term in office.

The Senate has undergone a significant change following the introduction of the committee system. It is to the credit of all senators that this change has occurred, and I congratulate all concerned in it. I know that the Government has been encouraged in this move by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair). No doubt the new system will enable the Senate to fulfil more efficiently its role in disseminating information to the people of Australia on departmental functioning and the areas of concern that are referred to the committees by the Senate from time to time. However, knowing the additional burden that this system placed upon the shoulders of my South Australian colleagues during the last recess - I refer to Senators Buttfield, Davidson, Laucke and Young - I believe that we should watch the situation carefully to ensure that a proper balance is preserved between our function as a House of the Parliament, our newly found standing committee role and our responsibility to the electorate because, however important those former activities may be, we must realise that sufficient time has to be allowed us to service the electorate.

I have listened tonight with great interest to 2 maiden speeches. One in particular impressed me greatly. I refer to that of my colleague, Senator Bonner. The sincerity he displayed should give his own people confidence and certainly will enable him to represent not only his own people but also the people of Queensland generally with sincerity and dedication of purpose. I do not think I have ever heard such an incisive and thoughtful treatment of a Budget than I heard from Senator Carrick tonight. 1 pay tribute to him. I f rn now to the Budget that is before the Senate. Budgets have been subjected to adverse criticism from time immemorial. This Budget has suffered a similar fate. It has been said that this Budget adversely affects the average person but, of course, all Budgets affect the average person, either for good or ill, because most people in Australia are average people. I believe that this Budget is a responsible one, bearing in mind the delicate economic situation prevalent in Australia, today. Budgets are never framed lightheartedly and this one has been presented only after a great deal of thought and consideration by the various departments concerned in co-operation with the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) whose difficult task it has been to allocate priorities. This is a task that I find extremely unenviable. However, there are several areas to which

I feel the Government must give more attention, and I will briefly comment on some of these.

In the field of social services I believe that the Government can be proud of what it has tried to do over the last 22 years. There has been a progressive increase in the basic rate pension during that time. The married pension rate was increased by $1 a week per person to give a combined maximum pension of $30.50. The single pension rate was increased by $1.25 to bring this pension to $17.25 a week. These increases, with the supplementary provision made soon after Mr McMahon became Prime Minister, clearly indicate that the Government is paying some regard to the welfare of the older people and the needy in our community. Other provisions under the heading of social welfare also have shown a welcome advance. Despite all this I am of the opinion that the Government should and must recognise the urgent need for a complete reassessment of our attitude to all areas of social welfare in the light of the requirements of the 1970s. I realise that this is a costly aspect of government consideration and I can understand any government approaching the subject with caution.

I was pleased that the Minister for Social Services, Mr Wentworth, submitted a plan for a national superannuation scheme to the Cabinet for consideration. There are obviously good reasons why the Cabinet was unwilling to accede to his proposal at this stage. Although the details of his recommendations are not known to me I wholeheartedly support this idea in principle as I believe that this Government has the expertise to work out some satisfactory scheme in co-operation with private enterprise insurance companies that would present the people of Australia with a basic superannuation scheme that would guarantee them a reasonable retiring allowance. Some weeks ago I was asked to join the Pension Reform Campaign Committee. This is a non-political organisation. I was approached by a Reverend Hollingworth of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, and I agreed to join this Committee because I support the main objective of this organisation. It requests the Federal Government to establish an independent inquiry into the rationale of all our social security systems, covering the methods of payment of pensions and other forms of benefit for the aged, widowed, sick, deserted wives and unemployed, with terms of reference wide enough to permit all interested parties to put forward constructive ideas for new approaches. It would include an examination of the adequacy or otherwise of existing pensions, and of possible alternative methods of both fixing and financing them.

This inquiry should be independent of departmental and government influence. There have been other such committees formed in the past. We have seen evidence of the Government taking notice of the recommendations of such committees and implementing some of the recommendations, particularly with regard to national health. I am sure that the establishment of such a committee would bring forward many worthwhile suggestions that could be implemented by the Government. I respectfully ask the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services to implement this idea as I feel it would provide a sound basis for government planning for future advances in this important field.

I would like to congratulate Senator Negus on his maiden speech. He obviously is a strong advocate of the abolition of the estate and succession duties. But I think it would interest him to know that he is not the only one who has advocated such a move. In South Australia a month ago the Liberal and Country League at its conference passed several motions relating to this subject. These motions were that special rural rebate from succession duties be granted irrespective of the form of ownership of such rural land; that we move for the total abolition of succession duties; that the matrimonial home be excluded from all calculations for succession and estate duties; that we call on the Federal Government to abolish Federal estate duties and request the LCL to find alternative sources of revenue to reduce the burden of State succession duties and report back at a later date. These are some of the motions which indicate that there is a lot of support on this side of the chamber for the measures proposed by Senator Negus.

Senator Davidson has already demonstrated support in this regard. A morion stands in his name on the Senate notice paper in the following terms:

That, as soon as possible after the appointment of the members of the Committee, there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the following matters:

The effects of Estate, Succession, Probate, Death and like duties, imposed by:

the revenues of the respective Governments (having regard to cost factors involved in their collection, and

economic circumstances of individuals and communities.

The social consequences of levying such duties and taxes.

With regard to estate duties, it is not as though we are dealing with a large amount of money. In fact, in a Budget of some $8,000m to $9,000m, we are looking at a figure of about $5m. The figures that I was looking at a while ago relate to the 1968- 69 financial year. I think this will suffice for the purposes of this illustration. In that year there were 4,999,423 taxpayers in Australia and the amount collected by the Government from 1,061 estates was $5,996,000 or an average of $5,651. My worry at the present time is the tremendous burden that this places on the comparatively few rural estates that can quite easily run into 6 figures. In view of the depressed state of the rural industries I believe that the Government could well afford to abolish this duty. It is rather extraordinary, when one works it out, that if this duty were abolished and a measure were introduced in the form of direct taxation it would mean that only something like $1.20 would be paid by each taxpayer per year. I do not think this is a very considerable sum when lt is taken in the general context of the Budget.

I was pleased to note that the Budget allowed for an increase in the operational subsidy paid to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. An additional $135,000 per annum is being made available. This brings the new allocation for the next 3 years to $315,000. This would seem to be a fairly generous increase if it were not for the fact that the capital grant of $170,000 per annum that has applied for the past 3 years is to be continued at the same level for the 1971-74 period. This is clearly inadequate because the immediate requirement for capital projects, including aircraft, is $3.25m for the current triennium. As an example I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to the need of the Northern Territory section of the Royal

Flying Doctor Service for the immediate replacement of 2 twin engine aircraft, which are over 10 years old, to service this vast area. These aircraft would cost in the vicinity of $200,000 each. This seems to dwarf what would at first sight appear to be a generous Commonwealth Government contribution to this most important medical service for the people living in the outback areas of Australia.

I do not think a lot of us realise just how important this service is. Mining operations are carried on in the remote areas. Stations employ many people. There are thousands of tourists who travel through the Northern Territory. There are thousands of people who travel on the transcontinental and the north-south railway line. All of these people are afforded the protection and the mantle of safety that is provided by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. At present the Royal Flying Doctor base at Port Augusta in South Australia is planning to employ an additional medical officer to serve an area of over 300,000 square miles. At present the service is in the unique position that it relies on the local medical practice to guarantee the present doctor’s salary. This situation cannot be allowed to persist and I am convinced that the Commonwealth and State governments must take a more intensive interest in providing sufficient money to ensure that adequate salaries, aircraft and other technical aids be provided so that this organisation can continue to function efficiently.

Another aspect concerns medical centres located throughout the remote areas of Australia which are currently run by organisations such as the Australian Inland Mission, the Bush Church Aid and the District Bush Nursing Society. All of these organisations have dedicated personnel and are constantly meeting the frustration of finding money to provide the services necessary for this important medical facility. The calls on this service in Australia have increased to the extent where it is virtually impossible for community organisations to raise voluntarily this sort of money. Certainly they are in a position to raise funds to provide for additional amentities for the outback hospitals run by this service. I would not suggest for one moment that this aspect of their operations should not continue. I know that my wife and friends work in a dedicated fashion to support the fund raising projects of this organisation. The South Australian section at present is in the financial position of having liquid assets of $49,000 and liabilities of $38,000 leaving $11,000 as working capital. This would enable that section of the organisation to meet expenditure necessary to keep the service running for just over 1 month. The service relies on the efforts of the Royal Flying Doctor Auxiliary which raised $16,000 in South Australia during last year. The South Australian section is hopeful of benefiting from legacies to this dedicated cause. It seems to me that as the Flying Doctor Service extends throughout South Australia, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, the Commonwealth Government should assume the major responsibility for providing additional finance.

Senator Davidson:

– Do not forget Tasmania.

Senator JESSOP:

– I am sorry. As I said, I believe the Commonwealth should accept the major responsibility for providing the additional finance and if possible assist in the medical staffing of the various bases throughout Australia. For this reason I ask the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) to give this matter his serious consideration.

I would like to touch now on a matter that is of very great significance to South Australia, that is, the excise payable on wine. I am sure that the Government did not fully realise the penalty that would be placed upon the grape growers in South Australia when it introduced this measure last year. 1 believe that the Department’s advice on this matter was not fully considered and that the Department did not realise the full implications of this impost that has caused considerable damage to one of the few viable rural industries in South Australia. It must be remembered that South Australia produces about 70 per cent of the wine produced in Australia and 90 per cent of the brandy. Consequently this industry is relatively unimportant to other States but is of vital significance to South Australia. Although I was not in the Parliament at the time when this measure was introduced I wrote to the Minister for Customs and Excise and objected to this measure stating that I believed that the grape growers would suffer as a result and requested that he consider the introduction of an ad valorem sales tax on wine which would impose a greater penalty on the more expensive bottled still wines and sparkling wines and would relieve the pressure being placed on the bulk wines which form the greater volume of sales. The grape growers are the ones who will suffer most of all as a result of the imposition of this measure. I have some facts which demonstrate how serious this measure has proved to be, or will prove to be, to almost 3,000 growers in the River Murray area.

The following is an actual example of a grower delivering 110 tons of grapes annually to a co-operative winery. In 1970, from June to December, he received $2,690. Since the impost, for the period June to December 1971 he will receive $1,579 which is a reduction of $1,100 in this grower’s receipts for the 6 months period and this could conceivably grow to well over $2,000, probably nearer $3,000, if the present decline in sales should continue. The problem is more serious still in this case, which is similar to many others, because the co-operative takes an average of 6 years to complete payment for each vintage. Payments are made to the growers as the wine is sold. From figures available to me the total sales for 1970-71 will be down by about 2 million gallons compared with 1969-70 and it would appear that this will grow to a 4 million gallon deficit on projected sales for this year. It is obvious that a large surplus of wine will be created if the Government does not do something to arrest this trend. The position could best be relieved by removing or drastically reducing the tax on wines, particularly in the bulk area.

A similar situation developed during 1964-65 in South Australia. At that time the State Government under Sir Thomas Playford lent the industry $750,000 to set up a separate pool at McLaren Vale to process surplus grapes. The present State Government maintains - and I believe that it is quite reasonable for it to adopt this attitude - that the present situation has been direcly created by the action of the Commonwealth in introducing this excise. It is understandable that the South Australian Government should not accept the responsibility for this situation. Another area that must receive some urgent consideration by the Commonwealth is the matter of imported wines and brandies. 1 was surprised to learn that 22.6 per cent of the brandy sold in Australia is imported. Therefore, I am sure that we should afford some protection against overseas interests which are jeopardising the sale of our local product. I understand that this matter may be referred to the Special Advisory Authority and 1 urge the Minister to take positive steps to see that the intrusion of imported wines and brandies does not continue to add to the problems of the grape growers of Australia.

I would like to pay a tribute to the efforts being made by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) in regard to this matter as he has worked strenuously to protect the interests of grape growers in his electorate and is continuing to make vigorous representations to the Government in an attempt to correct the position. Also, I would like to compliment Senator Laucke for the support he has given the honourable member for Angas on this matter. 1 assure him of my full support in his endeavours to bring relief to the industry. I am of the opinion that unless the Government takes some action this tax will bring about the economic downfall of a formerly viable industry and subject the grape growers to a fate similar to that suffered by other sections of primary industry, necessitating future costly government subsidy. I notice that the Treasurer in his Budget Speech made reference to the report of the inter-departmental committee which was established to inquire into the facts of this impost, as a result of which he has decided not to alter the existing duty on wine. Although 1 have not seen this report 1 find it incredible that the inter-departmental committee did not advise some reduction in the excise. The Treasurer also has undertaken to keep this matter under review as he has admitted that some growers in the industry are experiencing serious problems.

The Prime Minister received a deputation of South Australian Government senators in Adelaide last month. I was pleased that he gave an undertaking that he was prepared to review this matter if the grape growers continued to suffer as a result of the decline in sales, lt is comforting to know that he is prepared to have another look at this question. This indicates that the Government will not disregard tha plight of the industry.

I have tried to be constructively critical about these matters which I consider are of extreme importance. I congratulate the Treasurer on the general responsibility of his Budget, which I am sure will stabilise the economy. I hope that when he presents his next Budget it will be possible to introduce many additional forward-looking measures for the benefit of the people of Australia.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– At the outset I want to congratulate those honourable senators who have gone through the ordeal of making their maiden speeches in this chamber. I want particularly to congratulate Senator Bonner because 1 thought he did not have the airy-fairy ideas of most white people about the needs and wants of Aboriginals. He is part of them, has grown up with them and knows what they want. Whether he can persuade this Government to do that which the Aboriginals desire to have done for their benefit is another matter. The honourable senator is a member of a conservative party which has been in government for 22 years but has not made any advances towards the enlightenment of the Aboriginal people. I want to say to him that I have some very good friends among the Aboriginal people and that I know and understand them a little.

I congratulate Senator Carrick on his speech tonight which I thought was somewhat of a masterpiece in presentation. My only regret about it was that it was not made in 1900 because it contained all the conservative shibboleths that one could possibly collect. Every conservative thought that was present in the Australian community at the turn of the century was presented to the Senate again tonight. I hope that Senator Carrick will listen with enlightenment to the debates in this place and that he will educate himself to the standard of the necessities of 1971.

Senator Carrick said that he regretted that there had to be confrontation between employers and employees over industrial conditions. He belongs to a party that seeks to uphold arbitration and the very basis of arbitration is confrontation. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Aci provides that there must be disputation between the parties before the court can move. In the context of Australia today we find that the trade union movement moves out of the system of arbitration and into the system of direct negotiation simply because it does not have its reasonable demands satisfied by the arbitration system. Arbitration never was welcomed by employers until the post-war period when they learnt to use- it for their own benefit. Honourable senators will realise this if they trace through the history of industrial relations in Australia. They will find that the employers in industry never waited at any time for the evolution of conditions in order to satisfy themselves but went to legislation to suppress the workers. The whole history of arbitration proves that it has been an instrument to be used by the employers. I am not discounting the fact that when the first Conciliation and Arbitration Act was introduced it took away some of the oppression of the working classes, as it was designed to do, but very quickly it was used to oppress the workers - so much so that the employers sought to abolish in 1929 and so much so that the workers of today have abolished it by direct negotiation.

Yet today we find that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) places practically the whole blame for the inflationary spiral that exists in Australia today upon the demands by working people. I think it is safe to say that if honourable senators read the history of the Industrial Revolution they will find that the worker never has been accepted as a member of the community of the world. I have books available in my room, if honourable senators want to read them, about the coal mines in England 200 years ago and the evolution of the suppression of the working classes in the factories. Indeed, if honourable senators like to travel through the back blocks of Queensland and New South Wales they will find headstones marked on gum trees where workers were shot down by the police while fighting for ordinary decent conditions. Arbitration has not done a great deal for working class people other than to guarantee a minimum wage.

It is quite useless for the Treasurer, who comes from a working class family, to stand in his place and say that the bulk of the fault for the inflationary spiral in Australia today lies with the activities of work ing class people. When an Australian Government has to blame the working class people for its economic ills, to denigrate their leaders as being un-Australian and say that it is they who seek to destroy this country, then it is time that the people of Australia had a look at the Government.

This Government does nothing more than it is compelled to do to satisfy the legitimate demands of working people in this country. Does this Government attempt in any way to control the other excesses that exist in our community? How can a government get a balanced economy when it will tie only one end of it, and that is the wages end? Has there been any attempt to curb monopolies? Has there been any attempt to curb price inflation? Has there been any attempt to curb profit inflation? No; because these are the instruments of so called free enterprise. These are the instruments that this Government is dedicated to protect - the interests of capitalism and the interests of monopolism. Only last week the High Court of Australia threw out the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and told this Government what it could do if it had the will to do it Whether the Government will have the will to do it will be a matter for this Senate to examine at a later date. I deplore the fact that all that the Treasurer can think of to solve his troubles is to criticise the working class. The working class has given so much to this community. It has given much more than the people who sit on the front benches in this Government. Very few of those Government members have contributed anything to the advancement of Australia. Working class people have contributed greatly to Australia’s economic life. I shall now deal with some parochial matters.

Senator Webster:

– We thought you had just dealt with them, senator.

Senator CANT:

– I can deal a little more with the honourable senator. He comes into this chamber and produces a heap of figures to show that the Commonwealth Government has had to increase its charges for the post office by as much as 110 per cent. At the same time he warms to Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd because in 10 years it has increased its prices by only about 27 per cent. But the honourable senator gave a half completed picture to the people of

Australia when he seized the opportunity to make these statements on the air. He has failed to make the comparison between the 27 per cent increase in prices by BHP and the inflationary spiral which has taken place at the same time.

Senator Webster:

– Over that period it would be at least 30 per cent.

Senator CANT:

– 1 would think that it is more than 30 per cent. I shall take the honourable senator’s figure of 30 per cent. But I ask him this question: If BHP makes a profit of about $70m this year, what was the ratio of its profit at the beginning of the 10-year period when compared with the fact that there has been a 30 per cent spiral in inflation and a 27 per cent increase in prices? When people start to handle figures they should analyse them right through. 1 did not hear the table of prices which the honourable senator presented in relation to Bourke’s Melbourne Pty Ltd. I do not know what it was but I gather from the way he spoke last night that he was setting out to prove that Bourke’s store was no cheaper than any other store. He selected a given number of items to prove his case. That does not prove anything, because one can select anything and make a case out of that. Unless one takes the whole range of goods one cannot complete one’s case. I know people in Western Australia who shop at Tom the Cheap Grocer. They say: ‘Well, Tom the Cheap Grocer is no cheaper than any of the other grocers such as Charlie Carter Pty Ltd. Their goods are the same price’. But. people fail to realise that the existence of Tom the Cheap Grocer forces the other commodity sellers to reduce their price to his price. He has not gone up to their price. This is probably the case in Victoria as far as Bourke’s are concerned. I ask the honourable senator to remember these things when he starts to compare prices.

At the present time there is an application before the Commonwealth Government for the entry of Trans-Australian Airlines into some of the intrastate routes in Western Australia and into the PerthDarwin route, which is an interstate route or » route between a State and a Territory. Legitimately it is the right of the Commonwealth Government to control this arrangement. I have here a booklet which has been supposedly prepared by

MacRobertson Miller Airline Service to put its case as to why TAA should not be allowed Ansett to . operate the AdelaideAustralia. The foreword is rather interesting. Before I read it I point out that it is written by R. M. Ansett. Incidentally, MMA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ansett Transport Industries Limited. Sir Reginald Ansett states:

This submission by Ansett Transport Industries Limited-

When honourable senators read the rest of the foreword they will notice that Ansett Transport Industries Limited is not thereafter mentioned; it is MacRobertson Miller Airlines - deals with the application by Trans-Australia Airlines for a licence to operate over the MacRobertson Miller Airlines network between Perth and Darwin. It claims to present a conclusive case for rejection of the application, based primarily on the public interest and the financial stability of the airline industry. The case deals exhaustively with the consequences of the intrusion by TAA, and its effect on the existing service, li demonstates that intrusion would be financially unjustifiable, damaging to the public interest, and industrially disruptive, lt discusses various implications and alternatives, and argues for complete rejection of the TAA application.

MacRobertson Miller is no longer a pioneering airline. It is part of the Australiawide network of Ansett Transport Industries. The Government constantly tells the people of Australia that it believes in a 2- airline policy, lt believed in a 2-airline policy when it gave Ansett Transport Industries the right to operate in competition with TAA between Brisbane and Darwin. This action immediately took from TAA £200,000 of profit which it was making on that run. The Government believed in 2- airline competition on some of the internal routes in Queensland which were profitable to TAA. It allowed Ansett Transport Industries into those areas. The Government believed in a 2-airline policy when it allowed entry into the routes in Western Alice Springs and Alice Springs-Darwin routes.

What reason did Ansett give for wanting to enter these routes? When TAA pleaded that competition would only reduce the amount of income to the operator at that time Ansett’s answer was: ‘Competition will generate its own traffic’. Now that TAA makes an application to enter the Perth-Darwin route, in this document Ansett Transport Industries - 1 refuse to say MMA - tells us what this proposed action will do to the services in Western Australia. The booklet has a name. It is called: ‘Airline Policy and the Public Interest in Western Australia’. There are some interesting figures in this booklet. I do not want to go into them. But I shall give an illustration of how this document is prepared in order to convince people that it would be bad for TAA to be allowed into this area. I shall read from page 14 of the document. I know that the Minister tor Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) has a copy. 1 find that on the Perth-Darwin run over an 18-month period ending 29th May 1971 Ansett Transport Industries carried a total of 4,606 passengers, a weekly average of 57 and an average of 9.5 a flight. On the Perth-Derby run the total number of passengers over the 18-month period was 5,346, an average of 68 a week or an average of 3.5 a flight. 1 do not know whether the legislation covering airlines requires them to present statistics to the Department of Civil Aviation, but I have a photostat copy of a page out of the statistics of Australian regular air transport services for the year ended 30th June 1970, which would include a considerable portion of this 18-month period with which the submission of Ansett Transport Industries dealt. I find that on the Perth-Darwin run the passenger load factor is 66.5 per cent or an average of 9.5 a flight.

Senator Webster:

– What type of aircraft is used?

Senator CANT:

– Part of ATI’s argument is that it spent $20m equipping the airline with jet aircraft. It is using either Friendships or Fellowships. They are the only aircraft that it uses on that run.

Senator Webster:

– Does either aircraft hold 60 passengers?

Senator CANT:

– Yes, the Fellowship would.

Senator Webster:

– The Friendship would not.

Senator CANT:

– I do not know what the Friendship holds, but the honourable senator would have some idea of what it holds. The weight load factor for the Perth-Darwin run is 72.7 per cent. I have not selected these figures because they are the worst. If we look at the figure that I quoted for the Perth-Derby run, which ATI says has an average of 3.5 a flight and which has a passenger load factor of 53.1 per cent-

Senator Negus:

– The Perth-Port Hedland run would be a good one.

Senator CANT:

– I am talking about the Perth-Derby run. It has a weight load factor of 69 per cent. Before anyone can take any notice of the presentation of the socalled facts and figures in this booklet, there should be a proper examination of them. I say only that because I do not want to take too much of the time of the Senate. It is interesting to note that, in summing up, the submission of Ansett Transport Industries states: taa’s current application should also be rejected on the grounds that:

  1. Present and potential airline traffic in Western Australia is entirely inadequate to support two airline operators.
  2. An inevitable result of splitting the market would be an impoverished and depleted service of much lower standard’ than is now available.
  3. Losses by both competitors would be unavoidable, thus leading to a return to Government subsidies and higher charges for passengers and freight.

One of the strong arguments used in this document is that the operations of Ansett Transport Industries in Western Australia no longer attract a subsidy from the Commonwealth Government, except on the station run in the Kimberley area, which is regarded as a developmental run. This is true. The simple facts are that Ansett Transport Industries moved out of the subsidised runs and continued with the runs that were not subsidised, leaving the subsidised or low profit runs to the commuter services. It diced them to someone else. The Commonwealth Government still pays subsidies to the commuter services. There was a transfer of subsidies from one operator to another, not any managerial expertise on the part of Ansett Transport Industries. ATI’s submission continues:

  1. The total loss of the air transport industry resulting from competition could be in excess of $3m a year.
  2. The current Airlines Agreement between the Commonwealth, ATI and TAA, does not contemplate each airline providing a mirror of the other’s service . . .

I should think that honourable senators would be among the most frequent users of Australian airline services. If there is not a mirror service operating throughout Australia, I do not know what a mirror service is. The airlines are chasing one another through the Australian skies. To protect Ansett Transport Industries, TAA must not be allowed to enter the PerthDarwin run, ‘the essential matter being that there shall be competition only when this is demonstrably efficient and economical’. Who decides this? The profits from MM A will be wrapped up in the commercial aspects of ATI. Ansett Transport Industries is not bound to disclose its profits to the Commonwealth Government unless it is using a Commonwealth guaranteed overseas loan for the purchase of equipment. Even then the Government will not demand from it an examination of its books. Under the relevant legislation, if ATI has a Commonwealth guaranteed loan, it must make its books available. I have yet to know when the Commonwealth has asked ATI to make its books available.

Senator Webster:

– It is a public company.

Senator CANT:

– It makes use of the guarantees of this nation to borrow money overseas to buy equipment. Part of the agreement is that, if it makes use of the Commonwealth Government guarantee, it must make its books available to the Commonwealth Government auditors. The submission continues:

  1. It is clearly not economic to set up a duplicate organisation to handle half the traffic when one operator already handles it efficiently and effectively, with capacity to spare, and without recourse to public money for subsidies.

I have spoken already about subsidies. The same position applied on the AdelaideDarwin run and on the Brisbane-Darwin run. TAA had the capacity and was working with excess capacity. Nevertheless Ansett was allowed to enter these runs. Yet ATI has tried to hoodwink the people of Australia. A couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister for Civil Aviation whether he would allow TAA to present a similar document to the people of Western Australia so that they could have an informed opinion on whether TAA should be allowed to enter the run. He did not tell me that he would. He said that it was a good suggestion. As far as I know, TAA has not had an opportunity to present its case to the Australian people.

Senator Cotton:

– It has every opportunity. That is a matter for its judgment.

Senator CANT:

– I know that Sir Frederick Scherger has made a couple of public statements, but Ansett claims that this comprehensive document took thousands of hours to present. Why is not TAA given the opportunity to do likewise? The agreement expires on 30th September this year. Then the Government will have to make up its mind whether it will allow TAA to operate in Western Australia. It would certainly not be economic for the Commonwealth to incur significant unnecessary expenditure to expand many of the facilities provided by the Department of Civil Aviation. I agree that the provision of such facilities is very expensive for the Government, but I remind honourable senators that Ansett Transport Industries is still operating at some airfields in Western Australia where the facilities installed are not correct for the type of aircraft being used by the Ansett organisation.

Exemptions have been issued. If exemptions can be issued for Ansett Transport Industries they can also be issued for Trans-Australia Airlines. It is claimed that intrusion by TAA would have serious industrial consequences including the displacement of 35 Western Australian pilots by pilots who have been recruited largely in the eastern States. What a lot of hogwash that is. Both Ansett Transport Industries and TAA will take their pilots and other staff from wherever they can get them providing they are competent to do the job required of them. It is not a matter of where they are employed in Australia. Where did they originate? How long have they been in Western Australia? Is it not time that someone examined these matters? They were probably imported into Western Australia to work for MacRobertson Miller Airlines before the takeover by Ansett Transport Industries. The same process could easily be repeated with TAA. How is this a reason for TAA not to be allowed to operate within the State?

I urge the Minister to look very closely at the application by TAA so that that airline is given a fair go. There should not be a repetition of the situation in 1957. At that time TAA had completed an agreement with the Hawke Government of Western Australia. TAA was waiting only for the signatures to be put on the agreement when it was instructed by the late Senator Paltridge, who was then Minister for Civil Aviation, to break off negotiations. I do not want a repetition of that. If TAA has a good case to enter the Western Australian routes it should be judged fairly and impartially.

Senator Cotton:

– And it will be.

Senator CANT:

– I hope so.

Senator Cotton:

– You can be assured of lt

Senator CANT:

– To date I have not had reason to question the Minister’s word. I will wait and hope that I will be able to rely upon it. I sincerely hope that TAA will be given an opportunity to expand its routes into Western Australia. In that way there will be a real 2-airline policy operating throughout Australia, and part will not be reserved for a private monopoly operator.

Over the past few months there has been a lot of controversy in this fair city of Canberra about the tariffs charged at Commonwealth hostels. Honourable senators who have been reading the Canberra Press will know that civil servants have threatened not to pay tariffs that include what they call exorbitant increases imposed by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd. The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, the organisation that looks after clerical officers’ industrial conditions in the Public Service. commented in the Canberra News’ of 24th June. The report states:

That something, in our opinion, is major deficits on the Hotel Kurrajong and Brassey House with their parliamentary clientele.’

The spokesman said the losses incurred in those hostels were charged against Commonwealth Hostels’ other Canberra establishments - which meant public servants paid more than necessary.

I will deal with that matter a little later. In the Canberra ‘News’ another report referred to statements by Mr Boyd, chairman of the Young Country Party in Canberra. The report stated:

Using the Macquarie Hostel as an example, Mr Body claimed staff could easily be reduced. In a letter to the Canberra ‘News’ Mr Boyd claimed:

Six of the 10 dining room maids do nothing at lunchtime.

Kitchen staff could be reduced.

There was no need for a catering manager.

Over-staffing of cleaners. who were inefficiently rostered.

Mr Boyd also questioned the thinking behind allowing hostel staff board at half rates.

Of course, that is typical Country Party thinking. Its members believe that everything is over-staffed and workers do not work hard enough. They fail to realise that any reduction in board at the place of employment is taken into account in fixing the wages. Mr Boyd completely forgot that. The Canberra ‘News’ published an editorial on the matter, which stated in part:

Commonwealth Hostels, which imposed the new tariffs, are now confronted wilh serious charges by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association to the effect that heavy losses on Brassey House and the Hotel Kurrajong are responsible for the jump in the tariff there. Politicians stay there -

Nice people these- and politicians are remarkably, sensitive when it comes to revealing what they cost the community 1 am not afraid to tell the people what I cost the community. The editorial went on: which might explain why the hostel balance sheets are not readily available for public consumption.

The Hotel Kurrajong over the years has provided some political tidbits about members’ demands and extravagances. The installation of a special bath for a senior Minister comes readily to mind along with the query if this cost was met from the general hostel account.

I do not know how far back into history people will go to denigrate members of Parliament. I have been a senator for 12 years and the special bath referred to was installed long before I came to this Parliament. It was installed for the leader of Mr Boyd’s Party, now Sir John McEwen. It was put in many years ago.

Senator Wright:

– Because of matters of ill-health.

Senator CANT:

– 1 would think so. When I first read the editorial I thought the bath had been put in for Sir Walter Cooper because of his disability, but I found out that it was not. I am not so concerned about that. These people will dig back into history as far as they can go in order to denigrate members of this Parliament. I have just about run out of time but I wish to illustrate the increases that have taken place at the Hotel Kurrajong. Members of Parliament requiring bed and breakfast there pay an increase of 30.7 per cent, while their daily and weekly rates have been increased by 24.4 per cent. Shared accommodation, for bed and breakfast, has been increased by 38 per cent: on a daily and weekly basis the increase is

Budget 1971-72 28.4 per cent. The weekly rate for shared accommodation for members of Parliament is $48.50, while single accommodation is $54.75. The charge for single accommodation for a public servant has been increased by 15 per cent to $29.40, while shared accommodation has been increased by 12 per cent to $26.90. 1 know that there are public servants who stay at the Hotel Kurrajong and who receive very much more in salary than I do. But these rats will continue to attack members of Parliament. I say quite confidently that they are rats.

I want to go a little further because members of Parliament have not had an increase in salary since 1968 but these poor people who have had these charges imposed upon them have received increases since 1970 - the time of the previous increase in tariffs at the Hotel Kurrajong. Officers in the Third Division have received an increase in salary, on the average, of 16 per cent. The figures are as follows: For class 1, 16 per cent; for class 2, 16.3 per cent; for class 4, 16 per cent; and for class 10, 19.1 per cent. Yet these people talk about the inflationary spiral. 1 will be asking more questions about this matter during the consideration of the Estimates. My time has expired now. I would have liked to have had much more to say about it. 1 want to tell the people that members of Parliament who stay at the Hotel Kurrajong and those who stay at Brassey House do not receive any privileges. I have been staying at the Hotel Kurrajong for 12 years and I have never received one privilege. I am not complaining about the accommodation that 1 have there. But I object when people say that the losses incurred by Commonwealth hostels are caused by members of Parliament staying in these hostels when they are not so caused and when the rates for public servants are very much lower than those for members of Parliament. It will not be long before there are not any members of Parliament staying at the Hotel Kurrajong. Then let us see how profitable it is at $29.40 a week.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Poke) - Before calling Senator Durack I wish to point out that this will be his first speech in this chamber. 1 sincerely trust that all honourable senators will accord him the courtesy that has been

Budget 1971-72 571 extended to the other honourable senators we have heard making their maiden speeches tonight. I call Senator Durack.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– lt is with a great sense of privilege and responsibility that I rise in this chamber this evening to deliver my first speech in the national Parliament, i am very pleased that I do so following my fellow Western Australian and old friend Senator Harry Cant. I must say that 1 have a greater affection and respect for the nineteenth century and many of its attitudes than he expressed tonight. Perhaps that is one reason why I enjoyed many aspects of his speech. I also am very pleased to have been present in this chamber this evening to hear the maiden speech of my colleague Senator Neville Bonner. I agree entirely with Senator Wriedt, who followed him and who said that it was a most historic occasion, lt is one of great significance not only for this Parliament but also for the national life of Australia. I am very pleased that I have come into the Senate at the same time as Senator Bonner and that I am sharing a room with him.

For most of my adult life I have been preoccupied with the study and practice of law and politics. It is for that reason that I feel a great sense of opportunity and responsibility in being a member of the national Parliament. If one has not an overpowering desire to be loved or even respected by one’s fellow men, an interest or life in the law and politics is one of great satisfaction. But I am sure that the satisfaction I will receive by pursuing that profession in the national Parliament will outstrip any satisfaction I have received previously.

It has been my opportunity to serve for a short time in a State Parliament. It was in that experience that I developed some views on the role of Parliament and some reforms of Parliament on which I would like to speak briefly in commencing my speech this evening. I must say that already I have noted very great contrasts for the better between the short experience I have had of this Parliament, and particularly the Senate, and my experience as a backbencher in the State Parliament of Western Australia. That Parliament, in the time I served in it, had not come to terms in any way with the reforms that obviously 8 September 1971 are required in a parliament in this day and age in order to make it a meaningful institution and to enable it to perform the constitutional and historic role it has evolved. The Western Australian Parliament, in the time I served in it, had no standing committees whatsoever and had no liking even for select committees. lt is obvious - I do not wish to dwell on this - that the move of the Senate into the work of its committees, and particularly of the standing committees it is now setting up, is a momentous development for the institution of Parliament. I am looking forward with great interest to playing a part in this development. I am looking forward particularly to the experience of seeing the Estimates Committees in operation shortly. However, I believe that the reform of the role of Parliament extends much further than simply committee work, f believe that far too many people enter Parliament without having a proper conception of the duty and role of the parliamentarian himself or herself. They come into Parliament, perhaps, with too strong a desire to become Ministers. I believe that when one comes into Parliament that is one’s essential responsibility and that even those members of Parliament who from time to time are serving as Ministers must still bear the essential role of a member of Parliament, even in that capacity.

Another vital role which we must evolve and to which I propose to give great attention is the close scrutiny of Bills, as they are presented, to ensure that they meet the prime requisites of legislation in that they do not provide for wide discretions in the Executive and as far as possible they create specific obligations or confer specific benefits. In this way I believe that the Parliament can, even with the pressures of this age in which we live, go a long way towards performing its historic and fundamental role as the instrument to control the Executive Government. But apart from the role of Parliament, I believe that we need to evolve at least another institution to protect the rights of the individual in the community.

I believe that it will be necessary in the future, much more than in the past, for Parliament to create administrative tribunals of a semi-judicial character - whatever one likes to call them - which will be available to provide rights of appeal for the citizen against decisions of the Executive Government, insofar as those decisions are concerned with private rights or obligations conferred by legislation. I refer particularly, so far as this Parliament is concerned, to rights under our social services legislation. This, I believe, is a classic case where Parliament is conferring individual rights, but under a very wide discretion. In cases of this kind I think the proper instrument to control the administration of the legislation, insofar as it affects the individual citizen, is some form of administrative appeal tribunal, rather than try to control it through the traditional forms of Parliament itself.

I turn now to the subject of Western Australia which I have the honour to represent in this Senate. I believe that it is a tradition in a maiden speech to make some reference to one’s electorate. This is an outstanding opportunity that is given to me in these circumstances because of the enormous impact, not only on Western Australia but also on the national life of Australia, which development in Western Australia has made in recent years. Until quite recently an old story about the industries of Western Australia told of the industries being 4 in number - wheat, wool, gold ?nd gold stealing. When one thinks of the incredible change which has taken place in the economy of Western Australia one realises that that story now has very little application. The development which has taken place in Western Australia is probably now accepted as a truism in this Parliament, or perhaps I should say even in this Parliament, because West Australians sometimes think that the development that has taken place in their State is not appreciated or understood throughout the rest of Australia. Nevertheless I make no apology for referring to it in this chamber, even though it must be well known to honourable senators. I do so because I believe that there are a number of important lessons that we should learn from it, lessons that we in this Senate may well apply to the growing need for development of this character throughout Australia.

Unlike many other sentiments that have been expressed recently in this Parliament, and indeed in this chamber this evening, my belief is that we are only at the threshold of development in Western Australia and are only just embarking on a very great era of economic reconstruction. We hear a great deal about rural reconstruction today, but I think the matter goes further than that. We are undergoing a fundamental reconstruction of the whole economy of this nation. The West Australian experience in recent years has been really a microcosm of the development which we will see to a much greater degree in the years ahead and in which we in this Parliament will have to take much greater interest, providing a great deal more leadership as a national parliament and a national government than has been done hitherto.

One of the outstanding features of this development is that it has been carried out essentially through private investment and by private enterprise. That is something which I believe, and I am sure everyone on this side of the House believes, is of great importance. However, the development has been carried out by these great private developers and investors under very strict government guidelines as to the public purpose of the development, its direction and the national goals and public interest to be achieved from it. I would commend to honourable senators a number of the West Australian Acts of Parliament which have given legislative force to the agreements entered into by that Government with these companies which are carrying out the development because they have been and are a great model for the type of guideline which should be laid down for this class of development.

Another feature of the development is the fact that the agreements insist upon the development resulting ultimately in the creation of great regional centres of population and a steady increase in the processing of the minerals that are being extracted. A third notable feature of this development has been the contribution that it has made to decentralisation. We hear much these days about the need for decentralisation and I fully support the principle of decentralisation. However, I believe that decentralisation cannot be imposed artificially or by simple legislative fiat; it must be related to industrial opportunities for development as they have occurred in these great regional areas of Western Australia, firstly, in recent years in the Pilbara, which is the iron ore province; secondly, in an area where we are now just on the threshold of development, thats in the nickel belt which was the old eastern goldfields area centred on Kalgoorlie; and also in the other great regions of development. A notable one with which this Parliament will be very familiar because of the national contribution is the Ord River valley. I have mentioned already what is probably the most outstanding feature of all this development. It can be summed up as the enormous and fundamental impact that it is having and will have on the whole economy of this nation. I think it is timely that I should be saying this in the Parliament this year when our overseas earnings from the export of iron ore will almost certainly, in view of wool prices, exceed our overseas earnings from wool. In my view that too is a most historic occasion in the life of this nation.

This development has brought wilh it, and will continue to bring with it, many social and political problems. It is to this area that we in this Parliament will have to address ourselves to an increasing degree. As I have said, following the decentralisation of people into the new towns that have arisen in these regions we already are faced with growing problems in the fields of health, education, town planning and so on. Attention should be directed immediately to the problems of health and education. Last week when I was in Kalgoorlie I learned that in the nickel belt in the eastern goldfields region there is now a population of more than 30,000 yet in that area of something like 40,000 or 50,000 square miles there are only 5 doctors, including those engaged by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. There is also a deficiency in the field of education. There is no high school north of Geraldton although the State Government is proposing to build one in that area. But one high school will be of very little use in that vast area of Australia which in fact represents more than twothirds of the State of Western Australia. Scattered over that region are towns with populations of 4,000 or 5,000, and the communities are hundreds of miles apart. Those are some of the problems which it is impossible for the State Government to tackle alone. The Commonwealth Government which receives such enormous benefits from the development which has occurred, and which is in accordance with our basic national policy of decentralisation, will have to take a greater interest and make a higher contribution.

I turn now to some of the aspects of national development to which 1 believe the Commonwealth Government should direct its attention. Like other honourable senators, I have heard it said constantly - in fact, it was said in this chamber this evening - that the issue of development is dead; it is old hat; it is 19th century stuff, as Senator Cant might call it. The problems facing us today are different from those which confronted us in the past. For example, we have the problems of overpopulation, pollution and so on. Although those problems might exist in the great urban conglomerations on the coastline of this nation, they seem to be rather strange and hollow when one moves around a State such as Western Australia. Surely those who are concerned with the problems of pollution and overcrowding in the cities, with all the undesirable features associated with them, should see in this great opportunity for national development in the regional areas of Australia the answer to those problems. The decentralisation of industry and industrial development as part and parcel of our mineral development indicate clearly a way of overcoming the problem of pollution, at least, although many other problems are dragged in which we have to tackle.

What purpose is served by allowing the natural resources that exist in Australia - I am thinking now particularly of my own State of Western Australia - to remain in the ground unused? It may be that the rate of use of our resources has to be considered in the long term but that is an international problem and one that certainly does not seem to have application to us. It is no solution to the problem of world over-population to allow these resources to remain in the ground unused.

In the future the Commonwealth Government must play a much more prominent role in the field of national development. In the past the Commonwealth seems to have confined itself largely to the provision of grants or loans for certain specific projects. I pay great tribute to the Commonwealth for what it has done in that regard. We in Western Australia have been the main beneficiaries of this policy. In saying that,

I have In mind particularly the standardisation of the rail gauge from Kalgoorlie to Kwinana, and the Ord River project. But the Commonwealth’s actions in those fields have been the result largely of pressure from State governments. The Commonwealth has acted on an ad hoc basis. No national plan of development seems to have been followed and no national goals seem to have been set.

It is time now that we took the lead in this field. The Commonwealth might well consider setting up a national development advisory council to draw upon the great wealth of talent and experience that exists in the men who have played a very prominent part in the development which already has taken place. Their views should be obtained regularly by a body such as an advisory council which then would look at long term goals in this field. The Commonwealth might well consider, too, setting up a national development fund into which an allocation of money could be made each year by the Budget. That money then would be available to finance not the great and glamorous schemes such as the standardisation of rail gauges and the Ord River project but the smaller schemes that arise from time to time. The money would be available also to overcome a shortage of funds on one scheme or another. I do not have in mind a project involving $40m or $50m; 1 have in mind a project requiring only a few hundred thousand dollars or perhaps Sim. A small outlay might mean the development of a tremendously profitable investment if made at the right time and in the right place. A fund of that kind would be of great advantage to people concerned with development projects.

The time allotted to me is drawing to a close, and I must apologise for not having mentioned specifically any of the features of the Budget. However the great objectives of the Budget are undoubtedly to contain inflation, to provide better distribution of resources and to improve social services. I believe that in the long term there is only one way of meeting these great social demands that we have - the proper demands of this community for things such as improved social services, the abolition of poverty as far as we possibly can as a Parliament, the provision of better housing and better education, and so on. These things can better be provided by policies directed to increasing the total wealth of this community. The only way in which that can be done is for the Government and this Parliament to give the lead in the development of economic industries in the future - ones which will provide the best economic return as far as the growth and wealth of this nation, is concerned.

As you were not here when I commenced my speech, Mr President, I would like in conclusion to congratulate you on your election as President of this Senate. As I have said, I have been most impressed already by the dignity with which you conduct that office. 1 look forward indeed to some years of service in this chamber under your guidance.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 575

ADJOURNMENT

Citizenship

Motion (by Senator Wright) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise to refer to a matter that was raised originally on 19th August when Senator Murphy asked a question of the newly appointed Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in relation to whether the law could be altered to provide that naturalised Australians shall be treated for all purposes as Australians and not be liable to deportation or cancellation of citizenship except, say, in cases of substantial fraud in the application for citizenship. In his reply Senator Greenwood, after pointing out that he would look at the matter, said that his inquiries would be facilitated if some concrete examples could be given to him. I think it is significant that in addition to being the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood happens to represent in this chamber the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes).

During the course of the very excellent maiden speeches delivered by the new senators tonight I heard the word egalitarian and others used in connection with our society. I think that the question to which I am referring comes under this civil liberties syndrome. In discussing this matter I will use as examples one or 2 leading trade union officials who were born out of Australia, relate that to past history and then refer to one or 2 utterances that were made by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin when the 1969 Citizenship Bill was before the Senate. I wish to point out to Senator Greenwood, as a student of industrial history, that at the height of the serious maritime strike in the 1920s it so happened that the 2 maritime union leaders were of Scandinavian and Irish ancestry. The government of the day amended the Crimes Act to provide for deportation. 1 do not know of any cases of trade union officials being deported. However, I start off on that point.

Most honourable senators have been to numerous naturalisation ceremonies where emphasis is placed on privileges and responsibilities. None of us disputes that point, but I am developing the argument that it was good enough in the 1950s for people to be guaranteed full employment and reasonable housing when they acquired citizenship. But when we take it a little further, whatever our degree of priorities in this society today, some people find civil liberties irksome and some people argue that when parliamentarians advocate a reform they are agitating and rocking the boat. I know that Senator Davidson has been to many citizenship conventions with me and he is fully aware that what new citizens want in society today is different to what they wanted in the 1950s. This is the age of the gall up poll, the spot check.

Like everybody else, in the last 12 months I have made inquiries in relation to present day requirements for many people who were born out of Australia. I have consulted people in the trade union sector of the community such as Bill Nowak, Secretary of the Victorian Branch of the - Pastrycooks Union and Henry Pietracci, a senior official of the New South Wales Health and Research Union, the former being of Polish origin and the latter of Italian origin. They, like any other trade union official, were adamant that while nobody has any latent fears about standing up for what he believes in, there is a sort of second class standard as far as Australian citizenship is concerned. Maybe some fiery editor will, in the middle of a dispute, suddenly say: ‘Of course, he could be deported.’ It may be that I am developing a synthetic approach. This is something that has not happened. A one-time very illustrious President of

Mexico said that it was preferable for people to die on their feet than to live on their knees. That is the point that I make in this regard.

As far as Senator Greenwood, as AttorneyGeneral, is concerned, this problem may involve only a small sector of the community. I am referring to trade union officials born out of Australia. The same situation could apply to somebody in the heart of a rural group, lt could apply to vegetable growers or poultry farmers who were not born in Australia. If they have Australian citizenship conferred on them there should not be that latent fear because of their backgrounds. I think Senator Greenwood would agree with me that the solution to this problem would require only a minor modification of the Crimes Act. This would be a practical gesture to the requirements or the attitudes of people in ethnic groups in Australia who have taken on Austraiian citizenship. If 1 took my argument a little further Senator Greenwood may appreciate it better.

Mr John Ducker, a senior trade union official who has figured prominently in the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress was born in Hull in Yorkshire. As 1 interpret the Crimes Act at the moment, if he was involved, as he is, in many industrial disputes and if the Attorney-General had a vicious streak - I do not refer to any particular Attorney-General - because be was born outside Australia he could be shipped back to Britain. To my way of thinking, if a person becomes an Australian citizen he does not expect privileges within the law but he wants to be treated like everybody else. I have heard interjections from prominent legal senators, such as Senator Wright, about equality within the law. I have heard Senator Wright espouse that cause. We could test the sincerity of the Government by seeing whether it adopts a suitable approach to this matter.

In speaking about civil liberties 1 have referred to 2 trade unionists. I might also mention a colleague of my leader, Senator Murphy. I refer to Bill Jegerow, a prominent Sydney solicitor of Ukrainian origin. All of these people feel that a change is opportune. I feel that the significance of the question that was levelled at Senator Greenwood by Senator Murphy stemmed from a very important Federal Labor

Party conference held earlier this year in Launceston. At that conference item 24 of our law report was adopted unanimously. The proposal was that naturalised Australians should be treated for all purposes as Australians and not be liable for deportation or cancellation of citizenship except for substantial fraud in application for citizenship. 1 hearken back to the point that we all tell various people from Europe to participate in the mainstream of activity, whether it be a Parents and Citizens Association or one of these other groups that 1 speak about. 1 have instanced paid union officials. If we go beyond these people, it is amazing that when there is an industrial dispute we suddenly realise the responsibility of shop stewards. In relation to this reaction of people I could refer to people like Joe Bizjak, an Australian Workers Union rank and file activist, and Vince Martinak, an Australian Railways Union State councillor. These people are married and have children going to Australian schools. They feel, rightly, that what is requested is a simple reform. If they become involved in any fracas with the law, let the law give them a fair trial and impose whatever sentence is applicable.

To go back into history, in 1969 this Senate adopted the 1969 Citizenship Bill. In speaking for the Opposition I said that by and large it was a step forward, but in doing so I quoted the criteria that was applied by the late President Kennedy when, as a senator who specialised in immigration matters in the United States Senate, he pointed out that any immigration policy should be one that is generous, fair and flexible. I would like to take this theme further and refer to the latter part of the debate on the Citizenship Bill which took place on 28th Mav 1969. During this debate I drew attention to people who had been refused naturalisation and 1 included a lengthy table of rejections. In reply the then Minister for Housing. Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, who represented the Minister for Immigration, said that of course citizenship is a matter of privilege. She went on to say that the Government believed it is properly a matter for ministerial discretion. The point I am making - and it meshes in with our policy - is that if citizenship has been conferred on a person we should be quite clear that there are not double standards. As far as the Crimes Act is concerned I believe that certain deletions should be made. 1 do not say that any trade unionist has been actually victimised as such but 1 think the Minister knows the feeling of people today. We do not want people to feel that there is a sword of Damocles hanging over their head because the Government says: ‘Yes, you have citizenship, but . . .’ The point I put very clearly to the Attorney-General is this: If it was good enough when the 1969 Citizenship Bill was adopted and if it has been good enough at every citizenship convention to argue along the lines that everyone will be put on an egalitarian basis before the law, this should in fact be the case. This is what 1 am advocating tonight. I do not know Senator Greenwood's attitude, outside of the Attorney-General’s Department, in relation to monitoring of ethnic newspapers. But if he is looking at this matter from the immigration attitude as distinct from that of Attorney-General, he will agree that on numerous occasions we go to various functions and talk about Australia’s virtues and vices. I do not think we adopt an ultra-nationalistic attitude when we do this. The plain fact of the matter is that this is a recurring theme. To me it is not a matter of abstract attitudes at all. I believe that with a minimum of legislative dislocation we could remove his stigma. 1 repeat that I have no doubt that when the Attorney-General confers, as he no doubt will, with the Minister for Immigration, the Minister for Immigration will tell him that this is something which has been raised persistently. On one occasion Senator Sir Magnus Cormack drew attention to the evidence of threats. I do not want to issue any threats. But I put this to Senator Greenwood: Sometimes I have the opportunity of attending naturalisation ceremonies in the Prime Minister’s electorate of Lowe. I have never believed in indulging in platitudes in the speeches I have made on these occasions. I might use the motto of the Amalgamated Engineering Union - and Senator Cavanagh will appreciate this - ‘Which is: ‘Educate, organise, agitate’. I will not argue about the priority that agitate’ takes. But I always believe in saying: ‘Look, you have got citizenship. Everything in the garden isn’t lovely. From here you go on and you agitate for some- thing that you believe is a grievance.’ If 1 was at such a ceremony together with the Prime Minister and someone asked me what was happening about the Crimes Act I would turn round to the Prime Minister and say: ‘You answer it. I have endeavoured to convince Senator Greenwood.’ I shall leave the matter at that point.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I have listened with interest to what Senator Mulvihill has said and I understand his remarks as being in the nature of a plea to have removed entirely from the statute book any laws which would discriminate against citizens who are not Australian born citizens. I think the points he made are well sustained. I think, however, before one examines what is involved in the proposition, that it is important to recognise that there is a period of time, between when a migrant comes into this country and when he is naturalised and therefore becomes an Australian citizen, when he is liable to deportation. That is a provision which is contained in the Migration Act. I think that section 13 of the Act indicates that a person who is in Australia, not yet naturalised and therefore not an Australian citizen, who commits certain specific offences which are set out in the legislation, is liable to deportation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And he can be deported after naturalisation, can he not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am dealing with the position between when he comes into the country and when he becomes naturalised. I think I understand Senator Mulvihill aright when I say that he makes no challenge to that proposition. As I understand Senator Mulvihill he is seeking to establish a proposition that there ought to be equality amongst Australian citizens.

The only provisions that I am aware of are certain provisions which are in the Crimes Act and which were put into that Act in 1926. The question which was asked of me by Senator Murphy on 19th August last was a question which in general terms asked me to look into whether the law can be altered to provide that naturalised Australians shall be treated for all purposes as Australians and not liable for deportation or cancellation of citizenship except, say, in cases of substantial fraud in the application for citizenship. I replied to Senator Murphy that I would look into the matter. 1 also indicated that I would be helped in any inquiry I undertook if he could give some concrete examples of the matters about which he was complaining. I should say in passing that there are provisions contained in the Citizenship Act at present whereby citizenship can be taken away from a person who has been naturalised if there is fraud in the application which was made for the citizenship. There again, I do not understand Senator Mulvihill to be challenging the propriety of that provision.

The only laws, asI said, which my investigations have elicited since Senator Murphy asked his question, are certain provisions in the Crimes Act. Section 30c of the Act states that:

Any person who by speech or writing advocates or encourages -

the overthrow of the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage;

the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of a State or of any other civilised country, or of organised government; or

the destruction or injury of property of the Commonwealth or of property used in trade or commerce with other countries . . . shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for imprisonment to any period not exceeding 2 years, and in addition (if he was not born in Australia) to deportation by order of the Attorney-General as provided in this Act.

Section 30j, section 30l and section 30q refer in similar terms, in respect of the offences which are there referred to, to the ability of the Attorney-General by order to have an offender, duly convicted, deported from Australia. It is quite clear that whatever might have been the merit of those provisions in the 1920s, whatever might have been the thinking in those days which regarded provisions of that character as having merit and whatever might have been the facilities of those days whereby the countries to which these persons might be deported would be prepared to receive them, I think in each of those areas our thinking these days has changed. I would believe that we are in a position where, if a person is an Australian citizen, whether he be an Australian citizen by the fact that he has been born in Australia or whether he is an Australian citizen by virtue of the fact that he has been naturalised, there ought to be an equality of treatment and these provisions do offend against that concept.

I want also to say - and again I do not understand Senator Mulvihill to be disputing this - that there has not been to my knowledge any occasion on which any of these provisions has been used to have a person deported from this country. As I understand it there has never been any suggestion that these provisions are likely to be. used.

Senator Wright:

– There was the Walsh and Johannsen case.

Senator GREENWOOD:

- Senator Wright has made reference to Walsh and Johannsen. My recollection is that they were the persons in respect of whom, together with their associates no doubt, these provisions were originally inserted. I also have a thought that they were successful in resisting the application to have them deported. Since the 1920s there has been no suggestion, and I understand there is no suggestion now and there is not likely to be any suggestion, that these provisions will be used. I have noted that Senator Mulvihill has said and I have indicated to him clearly my own thinking. On the other hand I do not feel that it is appropriate at this stage to introduce legislation to repeal these provisions. However, I do assure the honourable senator that they will be taken into account in a consideration of the Crimes Act when that takes place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 September 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710908_senate_27_s49/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant