27th Parliament · 2nd Session
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) look the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 461
– Mr Acting President, honourable senators will be aware that His Royal Highness Prince William of Gloucester, the eldest son of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, died yesterday when his plane crashed on takeoff at the start of an air race at Wolverhampton. This is the second time in recent months that the Senate has been asked to express ils condolence to Her Majesty the Queen following the death of a member of the Royal Family. 1 know I speak for all honourable senators when I express our sincere sympathy to Her Majesty on this occasion. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has sent a message to Her Majesty conveying the Government’s condolences in her bereavement. He has also sen! a message to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.
Many Australians will remember the Prince’s father, His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, who occupied with distinction the post of Governor-General from 1945 to 1947. We recall also that His Royal Highness visited us again in 1965 to represent Her Majesty at the jubilee of ANZAC. So. Sir, the association of the late Prince’s family with Australia has been a close one.
Prince William was born in 1941 and spent his early childhood in Australia while his father was Governor-General. After completing his education in the United States of America, he served as a displomat from 1965 to 1970. During this period he held appointments in Nigeria and Tokyo. In June 1970, he represented Her Majesty the Queen in Tonga when it celebrated its return to the comity of nations. Since his return to Britain in 1970, Prince William had followed his extensive farming interests. Mr Acting President, I move:
– I second the motion on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and wholeheartedly endorse the message that the Government has sent to Her Majesty the Queen. It is interesting to note that this young man has followed in the footsteps of his father in fulfilling a diplomatic post in Nigeria, later as commercial secretary for his country in Tokyo, and then, on what might be termed the social level as Senator Drake-Brockman pointed out, as representative of Her Majesty at Fiji. We, of course, wish to be associated with the message of condolence to Her Majesty.
– The members of the Democratic Labor Party certainly desire to be associated with this sad motion of condolence to Her Majesty the Queen, the parents of the late Prince and other members of the Royal Family on the untimely and tragic death of Prince William. The Queen, as our monarch, must be a very worried and troubled lady in the usual discharge of her duties, particularly because of the great troubles throughout the world and especially in the British speaking countries. This additional sorrow can only add to the great burden that she is carrying already. We sympathise very keenly and deeply with her in this tragic death of her cousin.
It is always sad to read of the death of a young person, whether a prince or a commoner. Too many young men and women are dying today as a result of the road toll or in unexpected aeroplane crashes for us to be complacent or undisturbed about these events, lt strikes fear into one to read of the death of these young people, some of whom are of very tender years and others of whom are in their young manhood or womanhood. It must cause great sorrow to their loved ones, their parents, brothers and sisters when these things happen. We read frequently of almost entire families being wiped out by accidents on the road or in the air, or some other misadventure.
Prince William showed promise of being a very important and valuable member of the Royal family. He showed inclination and promise in the discharge of duties that are required to be performed by members of the Royal family. We sympathise very deeply with the Queen and members of her family circle. I and my colleagues wish to be associated with the resolution of condolence.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - I invite honourable senators to signify their approval of the resolution by standing in silence. (Honourable senators having stood in their places)
I declare the motion agreed to.
page 462
– I present the following petition from 35 citizens of the Commonwealth.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for Slate school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
page 462
– I give notice that 6 days after today I shall move:
That regulation 3 of the amendments of the Military Financial Regulations contained in Statutory Rules 1972 No. 127 and made under the Defence Act 1903-1970 be disallowed.
– Mr Acting President, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
Estimates Committee A:
Department of Health The Parliament
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Department of the Treasury
Department of Defence
Estimates Committee B:
Attorney-General’s Department
Postmaster-General’s Department
Department of Immigration
Department of Social Services
Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts
Estimates Committee C:
Department of Works
Department of Foreign Affairs
Department of Labour and National Service
Department of Education and Science
Department of External Territories
Department of Housing
Estimates Committee D:
Department of Civil Aviation
Department of Trade and Industry
Department of National Development
Department of Shipping and Transport
Department of Customs and Excise
Department of the Interior
Tourist Activities
Estimates Committee E:
Department of Air
Department of Primary Industry
Department of the Army
Repatriation Department
Department ofthe Navy
Department of Supply
page 462
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories: Has any approach been made by Japan to set up a consulate in Papua New Guinea? If so, has any reply been made to this approach? If so, what was the nature of any such reply? Further, has the approach been referred to the Administrator’s Executive Council?
– I shall be pleased to refer that question to the Minister for External Territories and obtain information for the Acting Leader of the Opposition.
page 463
– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. 1 ask: What managerial and administrative changes have taken place in the running of the Australian National Line that would prevent a repetition of the situation where, in the months of November, December and January last, 11,500 passenger berths were not filled on ships trading to Tasmanian ports? Have any changes been made to booking procedures and agent reservation practices to prevent duplication of bookings which, I believe, was the main problem in the instance referred to? Finally, are any plans afoot to give to the ANL the degree of autonomy which would permit it to run its own affairs to a far greater extent than is now the case?
– I would need to refer that question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport because it contains a number of queries on which information would not be available to me. I can remember that, in a recent debate on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Industry on shipping services to and from Tasmania, Senator O’Byrne referred to the need for improved booking arrangements and I undertook to do what I could to assist in that regard. I have put that matter in process. Beyond that I cannot help at the moment.
page 463
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Air. I draw the Minister’s attention to an entry in the VIP aircraft manifests tabled last week relating to a flight from Canberra to Perth and return that was made on 18th May 1971. Can the Minister say whether the purpose of that flight was so that the VIP in question could visit his dentist in Perth? If the answer is in the affirmative, does the Minister consider this an appropriate reason to authorise the use of a BACIII VIP aircraft, which is the most expensive aircraft in the VIP fleet? If the answer is in the negative, will the Minister explain the reason for the use of a BACIII for the purpose of a visit to Perth and return to Canberra on the same day? In addition, is the Minister in a position to assure the Senate that no commercial flights were available to the Ministers and their fellow passengers who travelled from Canberra to Sydney and return on the same day?
– I point out to the honourable senator that I am not the Minister representing the Minister for Air; I am the Minister for Air. In reply to a question which the honourable senator asked me at the commencement of this sessional period, in which he asked me to table a list of VIP flights made over a period of some 2 years, I put down a list of the nights that I had checked covering a period of some 18 months to 30th May this year. I indicated to the honourable senator and to the Senate that I hoped that in the very near future I could put down a further list of VIP flights made between 30th May and 17th August 1972. Apparently some commentators have overlooked this last portion of my answer.
The honourable senator now asks me to go back over that period and pick out a particular flight. I cannot do this because, as I have indicated previously, there are 3 approving authorities for VIP flights. I can recall only some of those flights for which I gave approval. I shall have a look at the honourable senator’s question and if there is any further information I can add I shall give it to him.
page 463
– Can the AttorneyGeneral say whether any citizens of South Australia have ever been appointed as judges of the High Court of Australia? If they have not, will the Attorney-General give serious consideration to the appoint.mentment of a South Australian to such a position in the knowledge that there are many in the legal profession who have distinguished themselves and who would servo on the High Court with distinction?
– There is not at present any vacancy on the High Court bench but I would assure the honourable senator that when vacancies do arise the Government gives very serious consideration to those members of the legal profession who are eligible for appointment. The view of this Government - and I think it is a view which has been reflected in the character of the appointments which have been made - is that when a vacancy occurs on Australia’s highest court the person most fitted and qualified for the position should be appointed, providing, of course, he is willing to accept the appointment. I think that standard is the standard which the people of Australia would expect in making appointments to the body in which reposes the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
I think it is a fact that no citizen of South Australia has been appointed as a member of the High Court bench, and I think that applies also in the case of 2 other States. But that is not to say that if there are living in those States in the future persons of the standard and with the qualities which are needed for appointment to the High Court, they may not expect in due course to be appointed.
page 464
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether I can have an assurance that just as the Department of Primary Industry supported the States against moves to destroy the dolphin last year, on this occasion the Commonwealth will support the States which reject the sadistic desires of Mr Sealey of the Geelong Fishermen’s League to decimate our seal population.
– It is my understanding that Mr Sealey wants to kill the seals because they are interfering with the catches of Victorian fishermen. I believe that this is nothing new on the part of Victorian fishermen; over the years they have made many representations along these lines to the Victorian Government. The Victorian Government has always refused the request, and I have received no information that the Victorian Government is likely to change its present policy.
– Outside the 3-mile limit does the Commonwealth not have jurisdiction?
– I do not think so, but I will check it for the honourable senator.
page 464
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, refers to the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry about the probable establishment of a national rural bank. Does the Minister agree that the establishment of such a bank would be of considerable assistance in the provision of long term loans to rural industries? If the trading banks are unable to provide these long term loans, will the Government give consideration to the establishment of an agency which would include banks, pastoral firms and similar organisations? Can the Minister give any information on any development in relation to a proposed rural bank?
– I think the honourable senator is aware that about $2, 100m is owed to lending authorities by primary producers in Australia. There is a very urgent need in the primary producing field for long term loans at low interest rates. The Government has been aware of this need for some time. Honourable senators will recall that in the last Senate election campaign the Government mentioned its endeavours to set up a rural insurance corporation. The Minister for Primary Industry set up a committee within the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to study the whole requirement of and need for rural loans and also to look at the possibilities of introducing some of the policies that had been adopted overseas. The committee has made its report. One of the features of that report is the need for an extended period of borrowing by rural producers - long term loans up to 20 years - and refinancing of present loans which are for a much shorter period. It is with this thought in mind that the Government has indicated that it is prepared to set aside S20m in the Budget to overcome this problem.
page 465
– My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, lt refers to fatal accidents involving school cadets. Is the Minister in a position to give any information about the sad news that a Royal Australian Air Force Caribou has crashed in Papua New Guinea killing 25 school cadets? ls the Minister aware that this accident follows closely upon 2 fatal accidents to school cadets training with the Army in South Australia, the most recent death being one on 20th August of a cadet aged 15 years? Will the Minister make urgent investigations into the existing training exercises to ensure that maximum safety and medical procedures are rigidly applied during training periods?
– 1 think the honourable senator will agree that all of us are very much saddened by the accident in Papua New Guinea and by the other accident to which he referred at the Army training centre. The accident in Papua New Guinea involves 30 people, a large number of whom are cadets, on a Caribou aircraft which is missing on a flight between Lae and Port Moresby. Nothing is known other than that information. All authorities concerned, including the Royal Australian Air Force, are conducting an extensive search in which 15 aircraft are taking part. The honourable senator knows the terrain where we believe the aircraft is missing. It is very dense, hilly country. The weather there at present is very bad and this is hampering operations. He can be sure that everything possible is being done. The Air Force ensures maximum safety in operation each time an aircraft is scheduled to take off and during the time it is in the air. As soon as I get any further information I will let the honourable senator know.
page 465
– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Recently the proposals for the Commonwealth’s participation in providing funds for Australian universities and colleges of advanced education for the next triennium were announced. Can the Minister inform the Senate as to the extent to which these proposals have met, firstly, the recommendations of the Australian
Universities Commission and the Australian Commission on Advanced Education and, secondly, the requests of the universities and colleges themselves?
– The honourable senator will be reminded that the 2 commissions referred to were set up to recommend to the Government the appropriations required for universities in the one case and colleges of advanced education in the other case, lt is my belief, without being able to verify the matter in answer to a question without notice today, that the appropriations which the Government has made comply in full with the recommendations of each commission. The appropriation that has been made to State universities - 1 exclude the Australian National University - has risen from about $90m to $95m this year. In the case of colleges of advanced education, the amount has risen from about $34m to about $45m this year. With regard to the second part of the question as to the extent to which the reports complied in full with all submissions made by the colleges and the universities, 1 would nol attempt to give an indication of that for this reason: The whole function of each commission which extends over the interval between triennial reports is to resolve the competing requirements of each university and college and accord the priorities which the commissions think should be given. I am not sure whether the commissions have ever made known the extent to which submissions of individual universities and colleges have been qualified or reduced. But if on examination of the reports and the publications of the commissions it appears that there is any further information that should be given. I should be pleased to give that information to the honourable senator.
page 465
– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that a senior New South Wales police officer, Assistant Commissioner Baldwin, stated at a meeting of the New South Wales Aboriginal Advisory Council in Sydney on 14th August that he had been requested by the Commonwealth police to crack down on Aborigines to prevent them organising following the removal of the Aboriginal ‘embassy’ in Canberra? Would he verify or deny a report that in the past 2 weeks or so police in Sydney have arrested over 40 Aborigines for a wide variety of alleged offences under the New South Wales Summary Offences Act? Will he, as Minister in charge of the Commonwealth police, make urgent inquiries to ascertain whether this is true? If such a request was made by the Commonwealth police to State police, what is the reason for it? Will he explain why police are exercising surveillance over the homes of certain Aborigines in the inner Sydney suburbs?
– I am unaware of the statement to which Senator O’Byrne referred as having been made by a New South Wales police officer on 14th August. I am equally unaware of all the matters to which he referred in his question. I would doubt very much that the Commonwealth police have any part in the matters to which he has referred because it is not the function of the Commonwealth police in any sense to take action in New South Wales with respect to offences against the Summary Offences Act in that State; nor have the Commonwealth police any function to deal specifically with Aborigines or their activities. The Commonwealth police are concerned simply with the enforcement of Commonwealth laws and they carry out their investigations into these matters without regard to the character, nature or colour of the skin of the person who happens to be investigated. The senator having raised the matter, however, I shall look into it, and if anything I have said is incorrect, I shall let him know.
page 466
– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I ask the Attorney-General, firstly, whether he is aware of a statement made by Senator Murphy recently on behalf of the Labor Party that he and his Party favour recognising Scientology as a church and permitting that organisation to perform marriage ceremonies? Secondly, can Scientology be classified in any circumstances as a church? Thirdly, is the Attorney-General giving any consideration to amending the Marriage Act or other relevant Commonwealth legislation for the purpose of recognising Scientology?
– I can answer the last part of the honourable senator’s question without any difficulty. The Com monwealth has no current intention of altering the Marriage Act and certainly there has been no contemplation of altering it insofar as it may facilitate the recognition of Scientology as a religion. As to whether or not Scientology is a religion, Mr Justice Anderson, as he now is, who conducted the inquiry into Scientology in 1965, said quite explicitly that it was not a religion. Lord Justice Denning in a case concerning Scientology in Great Britain within the last 2 years said that as far as he was concerned Scientology was more a philosophy than a religion. In Australia we have a varying situation. I appreciate that some scientologists have said that a decision by a magistrate in Western Australia indicates that Scientology is a religion. All 1 will say is that I would have the gravest doubts whether on any argument one could hold that Scientology was a religion. On whether it is a religion or is not a religion the position of the Commonwealth Government is quite clear. Under the Marriage Act the AttorneyGeneral may authorise any religious body to be a body which can authorise celebrants of marriages. Many applications have been made to my predecessors and to me for persons who practice Scientology to be so authorised and on each occasion those applications have been refused. The view which I take is that while the practice of Scientology is specifically prohibited in the States of Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria the Commonwealth Government should not lend itself to making legal what in those States is unlawful.
page 466
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Are companies with no shipyard facility but capable of fabricating specialised drilling rigs eligible for Commonwealth subsidy for shipbuilding? If so, will the Minister see what he can do to correct the situation which places yards with heavy shipyard investment at a disadvantage when tendering against companies without this facility? Finally, will the Minister define the term ‘shipbuilder’ used in the Act relating to subsidy for shipbuilding so as to clear up misunderstanding in the industry?
– My recollection is that financial aid for the shipbuilding industry was increased by about $20m in the Budget brought down recently. I should like to have the balance of the question examined and specific answers obtained from the responsible Minister.
page 467
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask, firstly, whether the Minister’s attention has been drawn to reports that a particular brand of talcum powder manufactured in France is suspected of having caused the deaths of 20 babies in that country? Secondly, is this powder, or any powder of similar ingredients, imported into Australia? If so, will the Minister take immediate action to ban its import and to publicise its dangers? Thirdly., is it likely that the powder could have been purchased by Australian tourists visiting France or wherever else the powder has been sold?
– 1 have seen a Press report which suggested that there may be a connection between the deaths of certain infants in France and the use of a certain talcum powder. I understand that that report or other reports have also been seen by officers of the Department of Health and that they are currently being investigated. The difficulty is that at present precise details of the cause of death in the case of the 20 infants and the ingredients of the suspect talcum powder are not known. Nevertheless, the Department of Health has initiated urgent inquiries and appropriate action will be considered when the essential details are available.
page 467
– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Has the number of resignations from the Commonwealth Police Force shown an alarming and sharp increase since he became Attorney-General due to his consistent employment of Commonwealth police officers to locate and arrest draft resisters? If this is so. does it not give expression to a reluctance to follow an occupation which necessitates punishment of victims of conscience?
– I take some comfort from the fact that the long time efforts which Senator Cavanagh has been making apparently now have come to the stage when he must draw upon assumptions in order to build up some case. I do not think it is a fact that the increase in the rate of resignations from the Commonwealth Police Force has changed in the period that 1 have been Attorney-General. I do know that the rate of increase in res ignations for the year 1971-72, which covers the relevant period, is lower than it was before. But I do not draw the conclusion from that fact that members of the Commonwealth Police Force find more encouragement and job satisfaction in being able to investigate the cases of people who, as I have said before, are welshing on their fellows by not undertaking the obligations which the National Service Act imposes. I am quite sure that the Commonwealth Police Force is a police force of dedicated men who do their job to the best of their ability. There is a tedium in the work of some of the uniformed men because it involves guard duties. I said to one of the Press people who questioned me that I thought that was one of the contributing factors to the resignation rate which has been evident not over just the last year but over the last few years.
page 467
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the attention of the Min<ster been drawn to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition in another place th:»t it is his view that the Australian dollar should be revalued. Can it be reasonably assumed that such action would be Labor policy were Labor to gain office? Could the Australian public rely on 2 certain events to flow out of such a revaluation - firstly, that all primary producer incomes would be immediately lowered as the result of an upward valuation of the Australian dollar and, secondly, as stated in the past few days by the President of the Australian Industries Development Association, that unemployment would rise significantly in a comparatively short period?
– I rise to take a point of order. I ask you, Mr Acting President., to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact - I would have thought that Senator Webster would know this - that questions must not ask for expressions of opinion and that they shall not refer to debates in the current session. I ignore such Standing Orders requirements as the exclusion of inferences, imputations, epithets and all the rest. I appeal on those 2 points and ignore the other 5 or 6 matters which this question infringes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT - Order! I draw those points to the attention of the Minister for Civil Aviation.
– There was some reference to this matter in the Senate last week. It is accepted by most people that any revaluation of the Australian currency would lead to a reduction in the prices received by exporters, particularly primary producers and the mining industry. It is also expected that this would have a marked effect on those manufacturers who export, lt would have the same result. Manufacturers exporting are now quite an important factor in Australia’s total export pattern. Revaluation would be expected to lead to unemployment in some areas of industry. I think that this is a logical, sensible and realistic conclusion.
For my part, I do not care for speculation on currency movement, potential or otherwise. I think it leads to trouble. I do not think it is in the public interest. Trying to keep this matter on the noble plane for which Senator Willesee asked - I put it at the level that we should consider public interest - 1 noted with some concern that observations had been made by various people on currency revaluation. It was stated by the Leader of the Opposition in another place on a television programme which I saw that his view was that this should happen. Some members of the same Party have said that they think the idea is a good idea but other members of that Party have said that they think it is a bad idea. So the problem the Australian people have is a difficult one. Can they determine the policy of an alternative government led by the Leader of the Opposition in another place? They would find this hard. But it is really not a great problem for them because this Government will be returned to office by the Australian people. Our policy is quite clear.
page 468
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Australian Wool Board has joined the Reserve Bank of Australia in advocating a revaluation of the Australian dollar? Is it also a fact that the Board’s conclusion that the value of the Australian dollar is in fundamental disequilibrium coincides with the view stated in the annual report of the Reserve Bank? Did the Reserve Bank strongly advocate a revaluation of the dollar as the best measure to convert Australia’s unusually high reserves of foreign currency into imports which could benefit the nation? Is the Minister aware that the Wool Board follows the Bank’s analysis in stating that a revaluation would be anti-inflationary? Is it not a fact that many rural commodities have substantial local markets which would not be affected by a revaluation of the dollar?
– I have not seen any reference to that matter by the Australian Wool Board, any member of it or its Chairman. I shall look for this article after question time. The report of the Reserve Bank of Australia does not come down firmly for this proposal. It says that this is one of the ways which could be looked at. I was interested in the observation made by the honourable senator that a revaluation would overcome the problem of huge capital build-up in Australia because this could be overcome by tremendous imports which would help the situation. Surely this would lead to tremendous unemployment for Australian manufacturers. Is that not something to be thought about? For my part, I just say that 1 do not believe that revaluation is necessarily a wise and sensible solution. I referred to some figures last week. They are to be found in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ financial page of last Tuesday. They point out that the capital inflow into this country is substantially for solid re-investment in manufacturing and for the growth of this country. A lot of this represents borrowing abroad on an expanded scale by Australian industry. Above all other things it reflects the opinion of overseas people of the economic strength, security and growth potential of this country, of which we should all be proud.
page 469
– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to reports at the weekend that 18 Soviet Russian merchant seamen had just defected in Greece and sought political asylum? Is it not a fact that the Greek Government is a military dictatorship which has been under constant attack by honourable senators opposite and by the Australian Labor Party generally? Does this defection seem to indicate that bad and all as the Greek colonels may be, these seamen regard that regime as being less oppressive than that of Soviet Russia?
-I rise to order, Mr Acting President. I ask you to draw the attention of Senator Hannan to the fact that in this place it is always held that one does not cast aspersions on any government with which we exchange diplomatic recognition? I put to you that this has been the practice since the first ruling was given on this matter 60 odd years ago. I do not think I am inhibiting the honourable senator in any way in asking his question, and it is an interesting one, but 1 think he might do so without casting aspersions on various governments, whatever we might think of them.
– What has been said about the South Vietnamese Government?
– If any honourable senator has offended in that way he should have been stopped at that time. I suggest to you, Mr Acting President, that if you allow this place to be a forum in which people can attack governments and their representatives without their being given a chance to reply, it will not do anything for the Senate or for this or any other questioner.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Senator Hannan, I ask you to keep in mind the general principles of the point made by Senator Willesee.
– If the honourable senator would direct my attention to which of the 2 governments was being insulted I might be able to adjust my question accordingly.
– I do not suggest that you should insult any government. That is my suggestion and the clear practice of this House.
– I will rephrase part of my question in order to conform. Is it not a fact that the Greek Government is under the control of a military adm ins t ration? Is it not a fact that that administration has been under constant attack by honourable senators opposite and the Australian Labor Party generally? Would this defection seem to indicate that the Soviet seamen prefer to live in Greece rather than in Russia?
– I think the Senate is indebted to the honourable senator for placing on record facts which seem to command almost unanimous acceptance in all quarters of the chamber, significantly from Senator Georges who would seem to have some very jovial relish of the fact that he is not there to be administered by the Greek Government. Turning to the question of these fugitive merchant seamen, I would think that the inference is fairly obvious. I myself would like a holiday in Greece.
page 469
-I remind the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service that last Thursday I asked whether any survey was being made of the likely job opportunities available to school leavers coming onto the labour market at the end of November. The Minister replied that the Minister for Labour and National Service and his Department were watching the probable growth in employment recruits coming onto the labour market at the end of the year. I now ask: Will the Minister make available to the Parliament details of the number of people likely to be leaving school and joining the labour market in November, and the estimated number and types of job opportunities likely to be available to them?
– Yes.
page 469
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Now that the Australian people are able to receive direct coverage of the Olympic Games, will the Minister inform the Senate whether in fact it was Mr Hawke’s good offices which were responsible, as he has endeavoured to portray through the news media, or was it that the union, realising that it had abused its power by holding the nation to ransom, was concerned about the widespread public condemnation it would have received for its action? Has the union agreed to submit its case to arbitration?
– I think we were all very pleased that the persons who last week had been threatening that they would prevent Australians seeing direct telecasts of the Olympic Games changed their minds at the last minute and permitted the Australian people to see them. My information is that it was the decision of the union to go back to work which enabled the telecasts to be shown last Saturday night. I understand that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission had taken the view initially that, as the union had not lodged any claim for arbitration but had sought to exercise its power in a direct way in order to achieve by this threat of a ban the results which it wanted, it would not concede anything to that union. I believe that the OTC has not conceded anything to the union. All it did was say to the union that if its members went back to work it would not oppose the union’s application to have lifted the order which was made by the Public Service Arbitrator. I think this is a salutary demonstration that if an employing organisation will stand firm against intimidatory tactics of the kind which this union engaged in the community will undoubtedly be better off in the long run. That is what occurred in this case.
page 470
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service noticed the report of a statement made by the Assistant Secretary of the South Australian Trades and Labour Council, Mr T. Calnan, who has recently returned from a visit to Britain and Europe? Is he aware that Mr Calnan was a member of the 4-man Australian Council of Trade Unions team which attended the International Labor Organisation in Geneva and also the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in London?
Did the Minister notice that Mr Calnan said that he believed that Australia’s arbitration system, although he was not entirely happy with it, was better than the individual collective bargaining system working in West Germany and England and that he was convinced that working conditions in Australia were amongst the best in the world? Is this judgment by this member of the ACTU a fair assessment of the arbitration system in Australia?
– My attention was drawn to the statement to which the honourable senator has referred. I regarded it as a very significant statement coming from an experienced officer of the trade union movement. To say that the Australian arbitration system represents an advance upon the system of collective bargaining is, I think, a gross understatement. The Australian arbitration system, providing as it does conciliators and arbitrators in the form of umpires to decide disputes that dislocate the working man’s employment, gives a unique opportunity to the Australian working man to prosper rather than grovel under the primitive system of collective bargaining where one group exerts its economic force against the other, stops work and creates chaos. I hope that Mr Calnan will rise to places of great influence in the Australian trade union movement. One of the pleasures I would have would be to penetrate the prejudice of Senator Cavanagh. If he would allow enlightened leadership to be given to the workmen of Australia he would find that they would no longer suffer because of the preferment that he always gives to the outworn and primitive - is in this instance, obviously, strikes and collective bargaining.
page 470
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Development Division of the Australian Wool Board produced an unpublished report which argues in favour of revaluation? If so. does the report have the blessing of the Chairman of the Wool Board, Sir William Gunn? Why has the Wool Board declined to make this report public? Did Sir William Gunn, as a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia, sign the Reserve Bank’s report which advocated revaluation? Have all the economists employed by the Wool Board resigned? If so for what reasons?
– I know nothing of the information the honourable senator has conveyed to the Senate. If he wants an answer to his question, I would suggest that he put it on the notice paper.
page 471
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Quite apart from the serious consequences of revaluation to the primary, mining and secondary industries and unemployment, is it not an act of surpreme irresponsibility and reckless ill judgment for a party leader, a few months prior to an election, to foreshadow the possibility of a currency revaluation? Is that not an invitation to overseas speculators to manipulate the Australian currency? Would not such an action in a country such as Britain be regarded as of sufficient gravity to demand and secure the resignation of that person?
– I shall answer the honourable senator’s question quite briefly by saying that I agree with what he has said as a general proposition.
page 471
– I ask the Minister for Works the following question: Has the Government appointed an interdepartmental committee to advise on decentralisation? Is the Department of Works represented on the committee? If so, in what capacity; if not, why not?
– I understood the honourable senator to ask whether the Commonwealth Government had created an interdepartmental committee to advise on the subject of decentralisation. It is not the practice to give information as to the operations of interdepartmental committees.
page 471
(Senator McLaren proceeding to address a question to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate) -
The ACTING PRESIDENT- I could not hear the question very clearly. I travelled to Canberra by air and I have a cold.
The ACTING PRESIDENT- Senator McLaren, I would ask you to proceed with your question and to put it in the form of a question.
Tha ACTING PRESIDENT - Order! I do not think that any Minister should be asked whether he has read a particular newspaper. I think that is stretching it a bit far. I disallow the question.
The ACTING PRESIDENT - I have disallowed it.
page 471
– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Following Senator Murphy’s support for Scientology, can the AttorneyGeneral say whether any State Labor government has applied to him for registration of Scientology as a religious body which should be registered to perform marriages?
– As I understand the report of what Senator Murphy said, I think it would be unfair to say that he supports Scientology but he certainly believes that the Church of Scientology - whether it be called the Church of the New Faith as it is, I think, in South Australia, or the Church of Scientology in California in Victoria as it is known in Victoria - ought to be approved as a religious body. If it is approved as a religious body, of course, members of that faith who are regarded as ministers would be able to conduct marriages 1 think it is not so rauch a matter of whether a State government seeks approval or otherwise - and I am not aware of any State government seeking approval of Scientology as a religion. But I do know that if it were to happen, at least in the State of Victoria having regard to the provision of the Psychological Practices Act, it would make the practice of Scientology lawful in the State of Victoria. The view that 1 have taken is that it is not proper to approve a body - whether or not it be a religious body, as to which 1 have said I have doubts - if in fact that approval would be to nullify the operation of a law of a Stale which, particularly in the case of Victoria, was made after there had been an intensive inquiry into the practice of Scientology.
page 472
– Can the AttorneyGeneral tell the Senate exactly what steps the Government has taken to ensure that foreign shareholdings in the Nabarlek uranium deposits do not exceed 15 per cent? Can he tell the Senate whether in fact the Government intends to make use of its powers under the Nabarlek legislation of 16th March to compel the resale of the excess foreign holdings in Nabarlek to Australian buyers, up to and including the Commonwealth Government?
– If Senator Gietzelt had read the ordinance he would appreciate what the ordinance provides and therefore the question would have been unnecessary. The Government laid down, when the original Nabarlek ordinance was introduced, that no more than 15 per cent of the shareholdings of both Queensland Mines Ltd and Kathleen Investments (Aust.) Limited could bc held by overseas owners, and that no individual overseas owner could hold more than 5 per cent. As a result of the examination of the share register which followed in the course of the 12 months after the ordinance was brought down, it was found that at the time when the ordinance was brought down something like 20 per cent of the shares were held by overseas owners. The ordinance which was introduced earlier this year froze that percentage and stated that no further foreign purchases would be registered until the overseas percentage of ownership had dropped to the original 15 per cent. The statement which 1 made over the weekend was that during the past six or seven months there had been a drop in the overseas ownership from about 21 per cent to about 17 per cent. That drop represents, as a result of the Government’s policy taken earlier this year, a natural selling by overseas owners to Australian residents which has had the effect of reducing the overseas ownership. I do not know why that policy should be criticised by the Opposition.
page 472
– I ask the Minister for Air: Is the Government considering buying the 23 Phantom aircraft remaining out of the original 24 on lease from the United States of America? What sale price has been offered to Australia for the purchase of these aircraft?
– As the honourable senator knows, Australia has these aircraft on lease. A term of the lease agreement is that Australia may, if it so desires, purchase these aircraft at any time during the period of the lease. The lease has certain other conditions. The amount paid under the lease would be taken into consideration in the final price. An offer has been made to the Australian Government. My Department has studied it. The head of my Department and Air ViceMarshal Hey, sought further information when they were in America. All the information has been supplied to the Department of Defence which, with my Department, is now considering the offer. Recently when a similuar question was asked I said that if a decision to buy the Phantoms was taken the price that we woud pay for them would still be subject to negotiation by Australia and American authorities.
page 472
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It refers to an answer that was given to me by the Treasurer about a taxation matter concerning the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in New South Wales and Patrick Partners.
– Does the honourable senator intend to apologise?
– In due course. Was an assessment made against Patrick Partners by the Deputy Commissioner in New South Wales? Was that assessment objected to by Patrick Partners? Was that objection overruled? Was there a subsequent appeal by Patrick Partners? Was that appeal rejected? Was the matter referred to the Commissioner of Taxation? Was the matter then under consideration by the Commissioner of Taxation? Subsequent to an appointment being made by Mr Dowling of Patrick Partners with the Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, was the assessment withdrawn? Since the tax assessment is reputed to be in the vicinity of $2. 5m, will the Treasurer state clearly why the matter was not referred to a court for determination so that full disclosure of the principles and policies involved could take place for the benefit of all taxpayers, especially those who may have been similarly assessed?
– I think that in matters of taxation one should be extremely careful because people’s reputations are involved. The reputation of the Commissioner of Taxation is involved. The sanctity and security of his work are involved. Accordingly, I would require the question to be placed on notice so that the Treasurer can obtain the appropriate answers.
page 473
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. It is supplementary to the question asked by Senator Mulvihill concerning the competitive rights of seals and fishermen to catch and eat fish off the Victorian coast. Is the Minister aware that the United States Government has taken action recently to prevent the killing of all marine mammals in its territorial waters? Will the Government investigate the possibility of applying similar protective measures in Australia?
– I am not aware of the particular fact to which the honourable senator referred as to the action of the United States Government nor am I sure whether the Minister for Health is aware of it. Nevertheless, I shall bring the matter to his attention. 1 he question, of course, is related to uV. earlier question asked by Senator Mulvihill. Pre-eminently it is a matter for Victoria. The present controls for the protection of marine animals in Australia generally are considered adequate. But the position will be kept under review and I imagine that the request that has been made in Victoria is one of those matters which prompt a review.
page 473
page 473
– I address a question to either the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior or the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It overlaps both their areas of responsibility. By way of preface, I refer to the skirmish last year in Senate Estimates Committee B when there was some reluctance to divulge information on the financial details of the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I now refer to the cloak of secrecy that envelopes the 3-year long negotiations between the New South Wales Premier and the Prime Minister on the release of the Sydney Harbour foreshores for recreational parkland purposes. If the information is not forthcoming in reply to a question without notice, can I, in the light of the Senate Estimates Committee precedent involving matters concerning the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, expect to receive that information when the Estimates are discussed?
– 1 did not have the good fortune to be involved with Senator Mulvihill when he insisted and had information produced for him about the Post.masterGeneral’s Department. But he would know well enough that all Government Ministers, myself included, are here to try to give serious answers to serious questions. A number of authorities are involved in the matter to which he refers, the release of parkland on the Sydney Harbour foreshores. The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Interior are all involved. So I imagine that it is a question for me to direct to those 3 Departments and to try to combine the answers so that the honourable senator can obtain the information which he is seeking.
page 474
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. In view of the closure of the migrant hostels at Springfield and Glenelg in South Australia, the reduction in the number of residences for migrants at Finsbury Hostel, South Australia, and the progress on the building of selfcontained migrant flats at Morphetville in that State, what is the possibility of continued employment for the catering staff at present employed at Finsbury?
– I am unable to answer the question. I suggest that the easiest way of obtaining complete and accurate information is for the question to be placed on the notice paper so that the Minister for Immigration may give it his attention.
page 474
–
Has the Attorney-General yet received a report on the meeting of the committee of Government experts that discussed the problems arising from broadcasting via space satellites at a conference held at Lucerne in May of this year at which Australia was represented by an officer of his Department? Was any convention drawn up by the committee? Does the Minister intend to report to the Parliament on the results of the conference or is this another matter to be kept away from the general public?
– I do not think that this is a matter in which the general public has a great deal of interest although I appreciate that persons vitally concerned do have that interest. I know that they have been kept well informed of the general preparations for this conference. I am unable to recall the details. T ask the honourable senator to put the question on the notice paper.
page 474
– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. How often has a visiting Justice attended the Darwin gaol in the past 12 months? Is there a regular timetable set down for a Justice to visit the gaol? If there is no regular timetable, what is the reason for this?
– I do not know how the honourable senator expects me to know the timetable for visits by justices to the Darwin gaol, but I am sure I can get this information for him. I suggest that he put this question on the notice paper.
page 474
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Can the Minister inform the Senate what steps, if any, have been taken to establish a world trade centre in Australia - in Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne?
– There have been discussions with the Government of New South Wales, I believe, about establishing a world trade centre in Sydney. 1 cannot tell the honourable senator what the position of those discussions is, whether any proposals have been agreed to or whether the discussions have been suspended. The problem has always been one of choosing which of the Australian cities is the most logical location for a trade centre. All I can do about the question is to ask the Minister responsible to advise me of any plan that has been made or of the present state of knowledge of the matter.
page 474
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Firstly, has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the reference by the Government of Victoria to the National Health and Medical Research Council of the question of the standards set for mercury in fish? Secondly, in view of the fact that the situation in Victoria and South Australia is affecting the whole of the fishing industry will the Minister do what he can to facilitate the inquiry and have a proper determination made immediately?
– I am aware only of Press reports that the Governments of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania have questioned the allowable levels of mercury in sea foods and that they want a meeting of the National Health and Research Council to reconsider the levels which were fixed by the Council not very long ago. My understanding is that the maximum mercury level permitted was 0.5 parts per million in various types of fish and fish products and that the Council made that determination knowing that levels higher than that were to be found in fish around Australia. Whether or not the National Health and Medical Research Council will, in the light of new representations, vary the decision which it recently made I am unable to say. As to when the Council will meet to consider these requests, I can only say that I will endeavour to obtain that information and pass it to the honourable senator as soon as possible.
page 475
– Pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Act 1968-1971, I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the year ended 30th June 1972 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.
page 475
– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-72, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works:
Central Zone Sewerage Scheme at Darwin., Northern Territory.
Kormilda College for Aboriginal Students at Darwin, Northern Territory.
Post Office and Telephone Exchange, at Shepparton, Victoria.
page 475
Motions (by Senator Drake-Brockman) - by leave - agreed to:
That Senator Prowse be granted leave of absence for one month on account of ill health; and
That Senator Lillico be granted leave of absence for one month on account of ill health.
Motions (by Senator Willesee) - by leave - agreed to:
That Senator Cant be granted leave of absence for one month on account of ill health;
That Senator Brown be granted leave of absence for one month on account of ill health; and
That Senator Poyser be granted leave of absence for 2 months on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.
Motion (by Senator Gair) - by leave - agreed to:
That Senator Kane be granted leave of absence for 2 months on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.
page 475
– by leave - Mr Acting President, the Government has, in the past few weeks, reached decisions on several major matters of civil aviation policy, and it is appropriate that I should report the details of those decisions to Parliament. The Government and the Australian people have every reason to be proud of the civil aviation achievements of this country, both in the domestic and the international fields. Civil aviation is one of Australia’s major industries. The Commonwealth itself has approximately $425m invested in a wide network of airports and airway facilities, while the value of aircraft and other assets of the airlines and general aviation operators exceeds $680m. Total employment in the industry is more than 50,000 people. Last financial year our airlines carried 8 million passengers. Our aviation policies, therefore, are of utmost concern to the nation.
As honourable senators know, for some time now the Government has been conducting an extensive review of Australia’s competitive 2 airline system. The 2 airline system, established in 1952 and renewed in 1961, is the cornerstone of our domestic aviation policy and provides for 2, and not more than 2, domestic airlines operating on the trunk routes of the Australian mainland. That review was, in part, deferred for some months earlier this year because of a takeover bid for Ansett Transport Industries Ltd which is the private enterprise party to the 2 airline system, and because of subsequent actions taken both by the Senate, through its standing committee system, and by the Victorian State Parliament. The Government has now decided that the 2 airline competitive system should be extended for at least a further 5 years beyond 1977. We have based that decision on the widely recognised fact that the competitive 2 airline system has produced for Australia a safe, stable, modern, well-equipped, efficient and economic airline system of great value not only to Australian air travellers but also to the nation.
The system is really a duopoly operated by a Government owned arm. the Australian National Airlines Commission operating Trans-Australia Airlines., and a private enterprise arm, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. They are free to compete with each other, the purpose being to give equality of access and opportunity for both themselves and the Australian people. In saying this, we are pleased that, after many years of criticism, the Opposition agreed recently, through its spokesman on civil aviation matters in another place, that the competitive 2 airline system had sufficient merit to warrant its continuation. Australia is a large country both in a geographical and civil aviation sense. In terms of work performed, our domestic services are fifth in the world in size and our international flag carrier Qantas is eleventh. Overall we rank sixth in world standing. This would not have been achieved without the system that we have adopted.
The present agreements on which the competitive 2 airline system is based are due to expire on 1.8th November 1977. We have decided that it would be appropriate to extend those agreements, subject to 5 years notice of cancellation by the Government or ATI at any time after 18th November 1977. The practical effect of this is to extend the competitive 2 airline system for at least 5 years until 1982. Legislation to approve a new agreement will be prepared for introduction in the Senate as soon as possible during this session. This decision to extend the agreements at this lime is based on the Government’s belief that the competitive 2 airline system not only is the best policy for Australian domestic air services but also is supported by the very large majority of Australians. Ansett Transport Industries sought a 7 year extension. The crux of the company’s case was that continuation of the stable economic environment created by the competitive 2 airline system was absolutely vital before the ATI board could involve its 50,000 investors in the substantial loan commitments needed for additional aircraft, the repayment of which would extend well past the present agreement expiry date of 1977. To underscore the importance of this point, I should mention that in the mid 1960s, the funds invested by Ansett Transport Industries in aircraft totalled S44m. By the mid 1970s they will reach an estimated $130m. Equipment costs are bound to continue to rise, making the problem even more acute.
The Australian civil aviation industry has been characterised by high growth rates. These have been on the average well above the growth rates of the economy as a whole. Although there has been a temporary slackening in the last year, the industry must continue to plan for a substantial growth. The re-equipment plans to cater for this have to be thought out many years ahead. New types of equipment like the wide-bodied jets must come up for consideration, lt is only fair and sensible in the interests of the Australian community and the operators that security should exist for proper plans to be made well enough ahead. In the circumstances, therefore, the Government believes that its proposed 5 year period of notice is fair and reasonable and adequately safeguards the public interest and the interests of future parliaments. I anticipate, of course, that there will be some who will criticise the Government for extending the competitive 2 airline system late in the life of the present Parliament. The simple answer to this is that no government can allow the legitimate business of the country to stagnate simply because an election is approaching. If this philosophy were to be followed no government would take any major decisions in an election year. Another factor to be considered, of course, is the point that I mentioned before: The Government had hoped to complete its review early this year, but had to suspend this consideration until other matters outside its immediate control were resolved.
Let me outline the other major decisions the Government has made in connection with this extension of the competitive 2 airline system. The legislation we plan to introduce into Parliament will include a provision making the new agreement determinable by the Commonwealth if a certain proportion of the voting power in the private enterprise airline, which is party to the agreement, is in the hands of any one foreign owner, or if total overseas ownership and control exceeds certain limits. The precise limits have yet to be determined, but the matter is under close study by the Government advisers.
Before leaving this particular aspect, honourable senators will recall that the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, in its excellent and thorough report on the Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd-Ansett Transport Industries Ltd affair, considered in detail the matter of foreign ownership and control of air transport enterprises operating in Australia. The Committee expressed the view that Air Navigation Regulation No. 322, which covers this question, was imprecise and it did not offer adequate guidelines to the Director-General of Civil Aviation or to the Minister for Civil Aviation in their consideration of licence applications by enterprises having some foreign participation. The Government agrees with the general views of the Committee and proposes to have the regulation examined and amended. In doing so, the comments by the Committee, and any subsequent views put forward by the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, will be taken into account. I believe that all members of this Parliament, and indeed the vast majority of Australians, will support these proposals to maintain ownership of air transport enterprises in the hands of the Australian people. I am sure there will also be universal support for the requirement that Ansett Transport Industries Ltd should produce separate accounts of its airline operations. These will be presented to Parliament and thus permit more informed debate and assessments of the competitive 2 airline system.
Another major decision arising from the Government s review is to give additional routes and opportunities to the Government’s own airline, Trans-Australia Airlines, which will be authorised to operate air services between Perth and Darwin in competition with the Ansett subsidiary, Mac Robertson Miller Airline Services. These TAA services will be phased in over a 2-year period starting next June and having regard to the slate of the traffic on the route from time to time. This arrangement is designed specifically to minimise any disruptive effect on the staffing of MacRobertson Miller’s present operations. Although traffic growth on routes throughout Western Australia has fallen considerably in recent months, due mainly to reduced mining activities in the north west, the Government nevertheless decided that the Perth-Darwin route could no longer be denied the benefits that competitive services have brought on other major trunk routes throughout Australia. It is interesting to recall that, in pursuance of this policy of granting equal access when economically justified, Ansett Airlines of Australia received rights from Adelaide to Darwin and Brisbane to Darwin in 1961. The total revenue on the network of services linking Perth-Darwin is now sufficiently large to justify competition by all the yardsticks adopted in previous instances where monopoly routes have become competitive, as 1 referred to earlier.
I should add that the approval for TAA to enter the Perth-Darwin route does not involve the Commonwealth Government in any express commitment to upgrade airport facilities at any proposed intermediate airport to cater for a particular aircraft type. Trans-Australia Airlines also will be given immediate rights to operate air services in competition with the Ansett airlines between Darwin-Gove and between Cairns-Weipa-Thursday Island. In the case of this latter route, the Department of Civil Aviation will take all practical steps to minimise the effects of the operation on Bush Pilots Airways Ltd which operates a service calling at intermediate points. The Government has decided further to give TAA greater opportunity to undertake outside engineering works, including Government contracts, and to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements with surface transport carriers and hotel/motel operators. This is designed to improve TransAustralia Airlines’ abilities to continue to compete effectively, especially now that it faces additional competition.
Mr Acting Deputy President, let me add that the Government does not pretend that the competitive 2 airline system is faultless, even with the proposed changes that I have outlined. Therefore, in negotiating a new agreement, we propose to require, as a prerequisite, several additional special undertakings from TAA and Ansett designed to: Further reduce some of the more objectionable areas of parallel scheduling; maintain and encourage the operation of country air services; encourage the airlines to pursue actively the introduction of further promotional fares to stimulate the domestic tourist industry; stimulate air freight growth; and keep operations during
Jet curfew hours at Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, to an absolute minimum. Nor have we neglected the important role played by operators outside the competitive 2 airline system.
Regional operators like East-West Airlines Ltd, Connair Pty Ltd, Brain and Brown Airfreighters Pty Ltd, Air Express International and Business Jets Pty Ltd will be encouraged to continue to show initiative and enterprise and, according to their specialist abilities, develop such traffic as low-cost inclusive tours, tourist traffic to country centres and specialist freight and passenger services. This encouragement and expansion will be permitted within the framework of an economic 2 airline policy. As concrete evidence of this, the Government has decided to authorise Business Jets to acquire a Fokker Friendship to develop tourist traffic particularly to country centres like Swan Hill. Brain and Brown Airfreighters, which has a long record of successful air freight operations to the Bass Strait Islands, has been given approval to import a Carvair freighter aircraft, and East-West Airlines has been given a clear indication that it can introduce a medium jet on to its regional routes when it considers this economically justifiable.
The role of Connair Pty Ltd in maintaining air services to more than 120 centres throughout the Northern Territory over a period of 34 years is well known. Faced with steeply rising costs of operation, Connair has had to receive much higher subsidy payments from the Commonwealth in recent years, and the Government, in consultation with the company, is seeking ways and means of arresting this trend and reducing Connair’s dependence on Commonwealth support, while ensuring the continuation of essential services in the Northern Territory. Here again, the Government has been able to facilitate some expansion of Connair’s activities with the prospects of beneficial financial results, and other avenues of this nature will be explored. Each of these moves separately and collectively will be of benefit to rural air services and tourism.
The Government has closely examined applications by TAA and Ansett Airlines for airline licences to operate over the route Alice Springs-Mount Isa-Cairns. At present, Bush Pilots Airways Ltd provides a commuter service between Cairns and Mount Isa and Connair operates an airline service between Alice Springs and Mount Isa. Both the major airlines operate many charter flights over the route between Cairns and Alice Springs, catering specifically for parties of overseas tourists, but normal sector traffic is not carried on these flights. It has been decided to defer a decision on the airlines’ applications for Alice Springs-Mount Isa-Cairns licences so that further studies can be made to determine precisely what impact the operation of such regular services would have on Connair and Bush Pilots. In the meantime, the major airlines will continue to enjoy unrestricted rights to operate charter flights to cater for the important tourist trade.
Although not part of the competitive 2 airline system, it is appropriate that I refer to the proposed new arrangements on TAA staff superannuation schemes. As mentioned by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget Speech, the Government is requiring Trans-Australia Airlines to change its accounting arrangements relevant to the operation of these superannuation schemes. The changes proposed will mean that Trans-Australia Airlines’ superannuation arrangements will be similar to those adopted by over 30 other Commonwealth instrumentalities, including the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. At present, TAA uses a large part of its accrued employer’s contributions to staff superannuation in financing capital works and day-today operations. The use of superannuation funds in the business in this way is contrary to the normal practice for the commercial enterprise of the Commonwealth. In the circumstances, the Government believes that TAA should terminate this unique arrangement.
In effect, TAA has 2 superannuation schemes. The first is for its non-flying staff, who are contributors to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. It is proposed that, in this case, TAA will pay to the Commonwealth its employer’s contributions to the scheme under pay-as-you-go arrangements similar to those applying to Commonwealth authorities generally. The
Commonwealth will then assume responsibility for pensions when they fall due. The second scheme is that of TAA’s flying staff. The proposal here is that the employer’s contributions will be paid into a trust fund, as are the employees’ contributions at present, and the trustees will be responsible for investing the funds and meeting pension commitments.
The proposed new arrangements involve a payment by TAA to the Commonwealth of an estimated $21m to discharge its accrued liability in respect of non-flying staff as at 30th June 1972, and the liability accruing this year. Provision has been made in the Budget for an advance of $25m to enable TAA to do this, and to withdraw from the business and pay to trustees its accrued contributions to the flying staff superannuation fund amounting to an estimated $4m. This advance will be made by way of loan moneys at commercial rates of interest, and will not form part of the capital of TAA. It will be necessary to amend the Australian National Airlines Act to enable TAA to borrow this amount, and an appropriate Bill will be introduced for this purpose. I stress that the entitlements of TAA employees under the various superannuation schemes are in no way affected by the new arrangements. Nor is any change proposed in respect of employee superannuation contributions; these have always been invested outside the business. The changes relate only to employer superannuation contributions.
The general aviation operators experienced difficulties in 1971-72 similar to those of the previous year. However, this important segment of the industry again flew over one million hours last year and reports suggest that, in the closing months of the year, there was some improvement in activity and that this was tied to the recovery in general economic activity.
The Government welcomed the move in March 1972 by the Australian Aerial Agricultural Association and the Association of Commercial Flying Organisations to merge and form the General Aviation Association (Australia). The Government approved a special establishment grant of $8,000 to enable this new Association to develop as an effective force in the industry.
Recognising the depressed economic state of the general aviation industry, the Government has decided that the 5 per cent increase in air navigation charges announced in the Budget to become effective on 1st December 1972, will not be applied to the great majority of general aviation operators. The Department of Civil Aviation will join with the General Aviation Association to conduct an economic survey of the industry in the next few months, and this will be valuable background material for both the Government and the Association in formulating policies which affect general aviation.
Turning now to our international operator, the Government has decided to increase Qantas’ capital by $25m, and appropriate provision has been made in the Budget. This will raise Qantas’ capital to $64.4m. It is the first time for 10 years that the Government has had to advance additional capital to the airline. Qantas Airways Ltd has been a most remarkable Australian company. Prior to the injection of these additional funds, capital has been stationary for quite a long time and, in the last 10 years, in dividends and taxation, the company has returned to the Australian taxpayer more than its capital. It has been a substantial earner of foreign exchange for Australia as well as carrying the flag of a great trading nation around the world. Due to over capacity on the world’s air routes and increasing costs, it is going through a difficult time, but we are quite confident as a Government that it will emerge from this to show greater growth and success in the future. The money will help to meet essential commitments such as Qantas’ fifth Boeing 747 jumbo jet and the repayment of loans raised earlier to finance aircraft and building projects.
I believe this capital increase, together with the Government approval which I announced a few days ago for Qantas to proceed with the $44m first stage of its new Australian headquarters, indicates very clearly the Australian Government’s intention to support Qantas and provide it with the facilities, capital and backing necessary to maintain its pre-eminent position in international aviation. 1 wish to comment briefly on one other important subject. This is the special position of aviation in Papua New Guinea. More than half a million passengers and almost 20,000 tons of freight and mail were carried by airline operators in Papua New Guinea in 1971-72. Charter operators also continue to play their traditional and significant part in providing air services to more isolated communities. Air transport and the aeroplane obviously have a vital role in almost every phase of Papua New Guinea’s development.
This extensive, safe and efficient aviation industry which now exists in Papua New Guinea is soundly based on the network of aviation facilities and supporting services developed and maintained by the Department of Civil Aviation over many years. This has cost a great deal in money and effort. It is pleasing to note, therefore, that a Select Transport Committee of the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly has acknowledged that, when Papua New Guinea becomes independent, it will inherit a more advanced and efficient aviation system than probably any emerging country in the same position.
The Government has encouraged the move of Papua New Guinea to self government and eventual independence. In civil aviation, we have in mind the eventual handing over to the new nation of responsibility for the operation of air services and the maintenance of the complementary network of aviation facilities. To further this aim, I propose to visit New Guinea shortly for personal discussions with the Chief Minister (Mr Somare). These detailed discussions follow talks recently between the Minister for External Territories (Mr Peacock) and the Chief Minister. I am confident that we can work out with the Chief Minister and his colleagues a programme for the acceptance by the local authorities of responsibility for civil aviation in Papua New Guinea.
At the outset I referred to the size of the civil aviation industry and the important place it occupies in Australia. In particular, the industry is a major one in terms of governmental control and policy, and I have made this statement to the Senate to indicate some of the things this Government has done and proposes to do in this vital area of its responsibilities. I hope that honourable senators will have found my remarks both informative and helpful. I move:
Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.
page 480
Debate resumed from 24 August (vide page 436), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:
That the Senate take note of the following papers:
Civil Works Programme 1972-73.
Commonwealth Payments to or for the States, 1972-73.
Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1973.
Expenditure:
Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1973.
Particulars of Proposed Provision for Certain Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1973.
Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1972.
Commonwealth Income Tax Statistics for Income Year 1969-70.
National Income and Expenditure, 1971-72.
Upon which Senator Wriedt had moved by way of amendment:
At end of motion add - but the Senate condemns the Budget because it fails to define adequate economic and social goals for Australia; and in particular because it provides no programme for restoring full employment, no means of checking the costs and prices of goods and land, no framework for improving the standards of education, health, welfare and public transport and no national plan for our capital cities and regional centres’.
– This afternoon I want to make special reference to the assistance to industry which is being given in this Budget. I regard this assistance as a major feature of the Budget. It is to operate throughout the rural, secondary and mining sectors of our economy. I have found from studying the Budget papers closely that one can define Commonwealth assistance to industry into 3 main channels. They are, firstly, direct payments by way of bounties, subsidies and other grants; secondly, contributions to promotion and research; and thirdly, special taxation concessions. These 3 headings in themselves are very interesting when one seeks to divide that which is forthcoming from this Budget as assistance to industry. Bounties and subsidies, whilst in some instances assisting directly in maintaining price levels, in others are applied for the purpose of making production more efficient because they reduce production costs. Contributions to promotion in overseas markets as well as the home market in the sale of our products, and the research being applied in order to increase the efficiency of our production, represent very healthy attitudes to adopt towards our economy. The special taxation concessions are bigger than they appear at first sight. I notice that total payments to rural industry are estimated in this Budget to amount to $233m.
– Some newspapers give the impression that it is S2.000.
– The situation often is misconstrued when figures are given but these figures have been taken out of the Budget papers, and the estimate this financial year is $233m. Last year payments to rural industry totalled $297m and in 1970- 71 they totalled $210m. This year the allocation to rural industry has been decreased by $64m but this is largely due to the fall of S58m in the requirement for wool deficiency payments which follows the very pleasing recover^’ in wool prices.
Estimated payments to manufacturing and mining industries have increased by $29m. This financial year Commonwealth contributions to promotion and research other than through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation are to rise by $122,000 but expenditure by the CSIRO on activities undertaken for the benefit of Australian industry is to rise by not less than S5m this financial year. I regard these figures as extremely satisfactory. 1 should like to pay tribute this afternoon to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for its achievements for the nation’s benefit over many years. We have gained enormously from the activities of this organisation, lt has enabled Australia in many categories of production, in both the rural and secondary sectors, to be equal to the best in the world in methods of production. This achievement has resulted from findings and recommendations of the CSIRO.
I refer next to taxation concessions from which the loss in revenue in 1972-73 is estimated to be no less than $300m. That is a lot of money to be left in the hands of individuals and business organisations. This loss of revenue, which I have said is estimated to be $300m for the ensuing financial year, could well increase as the mining, mining exploration and other indus tries expand their activities in the near future. It appears that this sort of expansion will take place. Assistance is to be given to rural industry. The investment allowance will cost the revenue $7m this year and the special depreciation allowances will cost the revenue an estimated SI 2m. lt is significant that the special averaging provision for income tax which will apply to incomes of primary producers and which was estimated to have cost $22m in the past year could cost produce an even greater saving this year for rural producers. These are real figures and they will mean something in the pockets of rural producers.
Among other assistance to rural industry we find in the Budget a drought bond scheme, an export market development rebate, special deductions for certain capital expenditure and also a decreased cost of telephone installation in rural areas. An additional SI 6m will be provided for rural reconstruction in the coming year in accordance with the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and rehabilitation. Again this is real money being applied in areas of real need, and it is an outlay which is constructive in character. Under the supplementary fruit growing reconstruction scheme $4.6m is provided for a tree pull compensation scheme Of that amount $2m is to be spent in the coming year. As a short term measure the maximum payment under the stabilisation scheme is to apply to another 500.000 bushels of apples and pears for the 1972 export season. This will be of great assistance to producers of these fruits. An additional provision of S1.5m has been made for the dried vine fruit stabilisation scheme in the coming year to support the expected reduction in average returns following the much larger sultana pack from the 1972 fruit season. The additional money to be made available will benefit production in no small way and will enable more fruit to be dried instead of being put to other uses, such as wine making, in which field some difficulties of distribution are being experienced in certain areas of production.
The subsidy scheme to reduce the wholesale price of certain petroleum products in rural areas will cost an additional $1.6m because of the increased consumption in those areas. This assistance will offset some of the unavoidable cost increases borne by those who are engaged in rural industries and who live in isolated areas. I welcome, as much as I do other assistance to be given, the once-and-for-all grant, so described in the Budget Papers, for the egg industry to provide assistance to the industry while the present very large stocks of egg pulp are on hand. Those stocks will need to be cleared before a reasonably sound condition can be returned to this industry which is quite important over large areas of Australia. I hope that before long we will have a situation in which the poultry industry will again in its own right, through an orderly approach to production and distribution, be on a better footing than has been the case in recent years. This assistance of $750,000 comes at a critical time for this industry and will enable it to carry through a very difficult period.
The new 5-year stabilisation plan for the dairying industry which began on 1st July this year, together with bounty payments on butter and cheese, is estimated to cost $28. 5m. The nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy which has been extended until the end of December 1974 had been due to expire in October of this year. This also will be of major assistance to rural producers, particularly in the citrus and other fruit growing areas, and will enable them to produce more efficiently than would have been possible without access to this fertiliser at a low price. The further allocation in the Budget of $700,000 for rural promotion and research will implement and develop the pre-sale objective measurement of wool. In addition, $27m is provided towards the cost of financing the joint industry - government wool research and promotion programmes. Money is available in the Budget for other rural research in respect of wheat, meat, dairying, fishing, tobacco, the estimated cost of this assistance being $4.5m.
This Budget appears to me to be all-embracing. In every aspect of rural interest consideration appears to have been given in a worthwhile way to problems facing the rural producer. When we turn to what is provided to ensure an expanding manufacturing industry in a healthier condition than we have experienced in the last year or so, we find that there is an estimated increase of more that $28m in direct payments to manufacturing industry. Of this amount $20m relates to the shipbuilding subsidy. This will provide for higher rates of subsidy, an extension of the scheme and an expected increase in the number and value of new ships to be ordered in the coming year. This also will promote local industry in a very desirable way. It will ensure full employment and will retain in Australian industry the skills which we need in times of peace and which would be vital to us in times of national stress. The Budget provides for an increase of $9. 3m in the assistance provided under the export incentive scheme, which is a real boon to progressive industrial and manufacturing organisations in Australia. Here again we have a very constructive direction of money to encourage growth and expansion in industry. The more we can promote our products, both here and in overseas markets, the more we can ensure that we have a growing background of industry and an ability to provide for a greater population whilst maintaining the highest possible living standards. Industrial research and development grants will involve an additional expenditure of $lm this year.
I turn now to the investment allowance, which I note resulted in a loss to revenue of $45m last year. The investment allowance will be of real assistance to industry in keeping machinery modern and efficient. I welcome the re-introduction of the allowance. I have no doubt that it is one of the most important factors in achieving the lowest possible unit production cost.
– I acknowledge that the honourable senator played a part in having the investment allowance reintroduced.
– -My colleague is most generous. I have certainly always had a keen understanding and appreciation of the need for industry to be able, over a period of years, to depreciate the value of machinery so that plant can be replaced without drawing unduly on working capital. The investment allowance leaves liquidity within an organisation without depriving it of an opportunity to have the most modern plant available. It is an instrument of particular importance to the smaller units of production - the small manufacturers in Australia. Without it these undertakings would not have the efficiency that ls so necessary to enable them to compete against the very large organisations. So, throughout the Budget, there is this thread of consideration for all sectors and ail people, as it were, engaged in industry, be it in rural or secondary industry.
I pass on now to the mining industry. I notice that it has been estimated that payments to the mining industry will rise by $900,000, following a decline in payments to that industry of $2.4m in 1971-72. I hope 1 will be pardoned for quoting a lot of figures this afternoon, but I want to put them on record in order to impress honourable senators of the high importance that one can read into them. The petroleum search subsidy is to be increased by $2.4m, bringing total expenditure on this item in 1972-73 to $10m. The sum of $I.3m is to be allocated to the gold mining industry. Coal research is estimated to cost $260,000, which is the same amount as the allocation last year. The sizeable taxation concessions provided to the mining industry include special depreciation allowances for plant used in mining and exploration, the exemption of certain mining profits from taxation, special provisions for moneys paid on shares for the purpose of exploration, prospecting and mining, and concessional treatment of some capital expenditure and transportation costs incurred in certain mineral production. In my opinion all of those concessions bear the mark of people who understand what makes the clock tick in industry.
I think 1 have reasonably covered everything to which I wish to make reference this afternoon. Before resuming my seat, however, I wish to point out that in addition to the various forms of assistance to which I have made reference a number of services and facilities are provided by Commonwealth departments and through payments to the States, which are also of major assistance to industries throughout Australia. A few examples of those are the services provided by the departments of Primary Industry, Trade and Industry and National Development as well as the assistance given to the States for natural disaster relief, beef cattle roads, water resource projects and the like. In this one area of governmental assistance in the Budget - that is, Commonwealth assistance to industry - one can read into the figures and the reasons which are given from time to time for them the fact that we have here a foundation on which the economy of our country may be said to be well founded with prospects of growth in the future. I commend the Treasurer for having introduced these measures in the very comprehensive and understanding way in which he has done so. I have great pleasure indeed in supporting the adoption of the Budget Papers.
– I do not share the optimism of supporters of the Government. Whilst I appreciate the sincerity of Senator Laucke, who was the previous speaker in the debate, I feel that the examination spokesmen for the Government have made of the important financial document that is the 1972-73 Budget has been both superficial and inadequate to meet the needs of the Australian economy. I wish to refer to just one paragraph of the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). He said:
Overall, the Budget will be stimulatory. Our economy, over the years, has demonstrated a capacity for robust growth. The Budget will give the economy the real and psychological boost which is what it now needs to resume a strong growth path.
I support the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition, which seeks the condemnation of the Budget by the Senate because it fails to define adequate economic and social goals for Australia and in particular because it provides no programme for restoring full employment, no means of checking the costs and prices of goods and land, no framework for improving the standards of education, health, welfare and public transport and no national plan for our capital cities and regional centres. The Opposition has not moved that amendment lightly or as a matter of form. It has done so because it believes that the debate on the Budget accords the Parliament and the people of Australia an opportunity to review the past year in the light of preparing for the future. 1 believe that, contrary to what Government spokesmen have said, the 1972-73 Budget will in retrospect prove to be an abysmal failure. It is an illegitimate document that is cunning and deceitful in its preparation and discriminatory in its application. In the time that is available to me 1 will seek to show that the Budget does not concern itself with the economy, with the problems facing the country or with the problems facing the people. It is a class Budget; it is a Budget which perpetuates the taxing of the man in the street. Despite the crumbs which have fallen from the table - that clearly was the philosophy behind the Treasurer’s presentation of the 1972 Budget - I am sure that before this year is out the Budget will be shown to have failed in its strategy to arrest the decline in the economy that characterised the work of the McMahon Government. Extravagant language, yes, because the mask has to be torn away from the misconception that it is an extravagant Budget.
The Budget will solve nothing, despite the attempts of its framers to ease somewhat the taxation problems facing the average man, despite attempts to increase pensions, despite endeavours to provide subsidies to those in need, despite attempts to improve the lot of students in secondary and tertiary establishments and despite many of the other gimmicks which are characteristics of this election Budget. The Budget, according to the Treasurer’s statement, seeks to recognise Government action at the national level on unemployment. We in the Opposition say that unemployment will continue to rise and we support that view by referring to the documents which have been presented and which are the subject of the debate before the Senate. For instance, page 28 of the Estimates refers to the Government’s plan to spend an additional SI 3m this financial year on unemployment.
What are the unemployment figures? In May 1971, 64,802 people were registered as being unemployed. That figure was to grow in 12 months to 97,635. It rose in June to 99,201 and in July to 112,000. I submit to the Senate that when the Budget documents were being prepared in July of this year the Government was aware that the unemployment figure had passed 100,000, and it has increased the estimates for that section of the National Welfare Fund from $44m to $57m, recognising that unemployment will continue and that the number unemployed will increase.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Treasurer always speak in optimistic terms, saying that things are improving. Public transport will continue to deteriorate because in the Budget the Commonwealth has made no attempt to grapple with the problems of public transport. No steps have been taken by those who framed the Budget to provide any relief to the States to assist in overcoming the problems associated with public transport. One has only to refer to the current debate taking place in the New South Wales Parliament to appreciate the tremendous problem that exists in this area. The Commonwealth Government shakes its head and stays apart from the problem.
Inflation will remain and get progressively worse, despite what has been said by optimistic speakers on the Government side. Even the Treasurer finally had this to say: ‘I think it right to inject this cautionary note’, but he did not dwell upon it further in his Budget presentation. The Liberal and Country Party Government, employer bodies and other groups have attempted to lay the blame for inflation at the feet of the Australian trade unions. This has been their basic approach in order to divert attention from the real factor, which is their own economic mismanagement. The causes of inflation cannot be oversimplified, as the Government has sought to oversimplify them. Inflation is a highly complicated process which requires more than a layman’s knowledge of economics for its proper understanding.
There is nothing in the documents - and some .10 or 11 documents have been presented to the Senate and to the House of Representatives - that in any way gives any of the answers to the problems of inflation in this country. Any basic economic text will discuss 2 types of inflation: cost-push inflation, which is the type to which the Government constantly refers, and demand-pull inflation, which is the type about which the Government prefers to remain quiet. The reason for the Government’s silence about demand-pull inflation is that the blame cannot be laid at the door of the trade union movement, as the Government attempts to do with cost-push inflation. In fact, this type of inflation is clearly at the feet of the Government. Only the Federal Government by means of its monetary and fiscal policies can significantly control the level of demand.
There is considerable evidence to show that the present inflationary situation was reached by the forces of excessive demand. In fact, the last 4 Treasurers have all provided this evidence in their Budget Speeches in the last 4 years. In 1966-67 Mr McMahon, then the Treasurer, said:
Because of the prospective increase in the supply of labour and the growth of industrial capacity we should welcome some increase in demand in this area. But we do not want the economy to be stimulated to a degree that will later cause heavy competition for labour and materials.
I suggest that this is just what has happened. In the 1967-68 Budget Speech - a year later - the same person, Mr McMahon, said:
Total expenditure also could increase about as fast as production without upsetting the balance of demand and supply. But. if expenditure increases faster than that, it must outrun the resources available with adverse effects on costs.
We could quickly find ourselves over-spending with resources over stretched and prices rising fast.
How prophetic were those words of the Treasurer in the 1967-68 Budget Speech. In his 1968-69 Budget Speech Mr McMahon said:
If the rise in demand is over-strong so that there is a relative short-fall in domestic supplies, there could be a still greater diversion of purchases to imports. More than likely also there would be some forcing up of local costs and prices.
I am sure the Australian people - every one of them - would agree with the summation of the Treasurer. In presenting the Budget in 1969-70 the then Treasurer said:
The effects of the strong rise in demand began to show up in the labour market half-way through the year. There can be no doubt that the free availability of money has been contributing greatly to the growing strength of demand.
It is clearly the responsibility of the Government to control and manipulate the availability of money. Towards the end of the Speech the then Treasurer had this to say:
There is a clear possibility that excess demand helped by excess liquidity, could upset the balance of the economy.
That statement was a clear prediction - a forecast of what could happen. How correct the Treasurer was. Unfortunately neither he nor his Government did anything to stop what was happening, nor did his successors who likewise stated that they were aware of the problem. In the Budget Speech of 1970-71 Mr Bury, who succeeded Mr McMahon in one of the chess games that go on constantly in the Government ranks, as recorded at page 10 of Hansard, said:
In brief, notably though output was increasing, demand was increasing faster. These are typically the conditions in which inflation breeds.
He also said:
It is the demand side which bears watching.
Quite clearly it was not watched closely enough. Mr Snedden, in his masterpiece of last year, also warned of the dangers of overstrong demand. When speaking about price increases he said:
The factors which have caused these increases cannot be disentangled, still less quantified.
Surely extracting wage demands as the major cause of price increases and inflation is just such a disentanglement. He continued.
There has also been and still is an overstrong pressure of demand in some sectors, the effects of which spill over into other areas.
Mr Snedden’s Budget that year was a budget with a difference. He took action, he said, to curb the growing level of demand. This action was the first serious attempt by the Government in 6 years to do so. It was 6 years too late. Spiralling inflation had already caused tremendous damage to the Australian economy and the Australian dollar. I do not wish to leave any misconceptions in the minds of honourable senators about Mr Snedden’s belated actions. He curbed demand. In the typical Liberal hit and miss style of economic mismanagement, he missed. He curbed demand so much that the country fell into a recession which was accompanied by the highest level of unemployment for over a decade - an unemployment level which continues to rise and one for which the Government has provided in its Budget for 1972-73. It is possible, however, that this factor does represent at least one achievement of last year’s Budget. There is considerable evidence that the Government deliberately set about to create a pool of unemployment. It decided that rather than move against price increases it would attempt to ease the inflationary spiral by creating a pool of unemployment so that employers were able to get the labour that they required. That was what Mr Snedden said. Mr McMahon, the Prime Minister, is on record as having said:
The employment situation is proving a little stubborn.
I am sure that it would not prove to be so stubborn if he and members of his Government were living on the social service payments provided in this Budget.
I wish to move on to the areas of State finances and taxation. 1 support the amendment because I feel that ohe Budget has sought to act as a stop-gap - as a patchwork guilt - making no fundamental changes to the policies necessary to get unity in action and a co-operative framework and structure for the 3 arms of government. I hope to show that in Australia there is a situation of Federal affluence and State squalor. The Liberal-Country Party rule has been a bonanza for the private sector. Public expenditure at the State or local government levels has been in a straitjacket during the whole period of Liberal-Country Party government since 1949. A deterioration in CommonwealthState relations has been a feature of the 23 years of misrule by the Liberal-Country Party Federal Government. There have been numerous debates, editorials, articles and statements about the tremendous problems of State finances and about the inability of the Commonwealth to recognise any fundamental need for change in the relationship between these arms of government. 1 refer now to a document which has been presented in each State House of Parliament. lt was signed by Premiers Askin, Bjelke-Petersen, Brand, Bolte, Steele Hall and Bethune, premiers of New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, respectively - all Liberal or Country Party Premiers. I do not think that in quoting words that these spokesman used at the Premiers Conference in 1970 I could say that they were propagandising or attempting to exaggerate the plight of State finances. What did they say? It is worth while digressing for a moment to point out that in the brief 2 years since this document has been in circulation only 2 of those Premiers still hold office. History has moved; the wheel has turned. This is what they had to say when they were Premiers of their respective States:
The outstanding feature of the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and the States in recent years has been the progressive deterioration in the financial position of the States under the Commonwealth controlled system of uniform income taxation, originally introduced as a temporary wartime measure.
. the grants have failed to keep pace either with the growth in State obligations to maintain and develop essential community services or with the growth in Commonwealth income tax receipts.
I stress that the previous speaker in the debate, Senator Laucke, felt that he had to comment favourably on the disbursement of Commonwealth funds to the States. Stressing their inability to cope with their needs, the Premiers went on to say: . . in an endeavour to make adequate provisions, the States have imposed heavy and recurring increases and extensions in their taxes and charges and have committed themselves to a tremendous build-up in the extent of the public debt.
Pointing out that natural growth and inflation have kept Federal tax increases to a minimum, they said:
Contrary to the experience of the States, the Commonwealth has been able to provide the whole of its capital and development works out of current fund’s and actually to reduce its net public debt so greatly that it is now effectively a net creditor government.
Let us leave the conservative Premiers for a moment and see whether their charges have any merit. When the Liberal-Country Party came to power in 1949 the Commonwealth debt was $3, 685m. Now it is down to $2,715m - a reduction of $970m. I am sorry that I have to quote so many figures in my speech, but we are dealing with financial matters and 1 think it is important to refer specifically to the figures included in the documents. All the figures which 1 have quoted and will quote in my speech are taken from documents that are before the Senate. In 1955 the Commonwealth established the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Fund by amending section 62a of the Audit Act. In the intervening 17 years it has paid excess Commonwealth revenue into this Fund. Currently that Fund stands at $2,744,433,071. which is more than the Federal debt. As the report of the Auditor-General shows, the Commonwealth has purchased or redeemed government securities to the value of $2,024,288,001 since 1955. The Budget papers and the Auditor-General’s report confirm the view of the 6 conservative Premiers that the Commonwealth is now a net creditor government.
– Are you congratulating the Commonwealth Government?
– I am asked whether 1 am congratulating the Commonwealth Government. There is a trinity of Government in Australia and it is the responsibility of all arms of Government to work in co-operation with one another, not to pass the burden of indebtedness from the Commonwealth to the States and to the local government and semigovernment authorities so that it .s crippling to finances of other governments. I remind Senator Webster that we are supposed to represent the views of the States. We are here to protect the interests of the States. I do not see much protection coming from Government speakers. Let us now examine the States public debts. According to Government documents, Government securities on issue show State indebtedness at 30th June 1972 as $9,861,000,000 on which the annual interest liability is $546,161,000. 1 think that we are entitled to examine State revenue in order to see whether this sort of indebtedness has had any marked effect on the finances of State authorities. The States are to receive from the Commonwealth this year $2,454m, an increase of $29Sm. The last figures that I can obtain in respect of State revenue show that in 1969-70 the States collected $926,242m from their taxation rights. At this point I think it is worth referring to the munificent manner in which the Treasurer refers to estate and probate duties and the concessions which have been given federally. In no way do these concessions give the States any incentive to reduce taxes in regard to probate and succession duties because this tax takes account for nearly 15 per cent of State revenue. Land tax accounts for 7 per cent. Those who deplore gambling and all that it stands for are nevertheless quite happy that it accounts for 16 per cent of State taxation. Motor vehicle registrations, drivers licences and fees, including car stamp duty, accounts for 23 per cent of State revenue and that also includes road transport taxation and road maintenance contributions. Stamp duties account for 28 per cent of State revenue. Other income accounts for one per cent. Honourable senators should note that a great deal of this State taxation is regressive insofar as it adds to the cost structure.
In New South Wales - I do not think that the position varies greatly from other States - we have a great crisis in public housing. The financial policies of the Federal Liberal and Country Party Government make State governments raise money wherever they can. Hence, in the 6 years in which a Liberal government has been administering affairs in New South Wales we have seen it selling suburban Crown land. Thousands of building lots have been sold since this government came to power in 1965 solely for the purpose of augmenting State finances. Yet another government agency, the New South Wales Housing Commission with more than 40,000 people on its waiting list - the highest number of people requiring public housing in the history of New South Wales - cannot afford to buy land. So here we have the result of Commonwealth financial policies forcing one government agency to sell land at auction to the highest bidder while another government agency charged with the responsibilitity of providing public housing to the low income groups is unable to buy sufficient land to carry out these requirements over the last 2 years because of inflation and the high cost of land in Sydney and the major cities in New South Wales.
The 6 Tory State Premiers say:
Notwithstanding that the Commonwealth grants to the States have been increasing year by year, … the experience of the States has been that the basic volume of grants is still inadequate, . . .
The Premiers are critical of the Commonwealth giving special purpose grants and point out that the most serious is in relation to social service pensions. Honourable senators should be aware that a certain amount of the grants which the Commonwealth makes available to the States is conditional upon the States raising certain funds within their own rights. I will quote again what the Premiers have to say in their own words from their own document. Referring to social service pensions the easing of the means test, they said:
The unrecouped impact upon State funds of the provisions for free hospitalisation, of Commonwealth pensioners has grown to an extraordinary volume of over $120-millions a year; and in addition the States are obliged to bear other costs for pensioner travel concessions, housing subsidies, etc., making the aggregate in excess of$150millions a year.
It is a case of the Commonwealth making a big man of itself and leaving other arms of government to carry the financial burden. If it is true that this Budget makes some modest contribution to this problem it is a case of too little too late.
– Would not the fact be taken into account when making grants to the States that the States have to bear these consequential burdens?
– If you let me continue, Senator Byrne, I will answer many of your questions in the contribution I have to make. It is worth quoting from Premiers’ 1970 submission:
The indications are a clear trend over nearly 20 years of a continuing and substantial effort by the States to meet their expenditure obligations by recourse to their own sources of taxation.
This next quote will answer the question of the honourable senator:
In the year 1949-50 general purpose grants exceeded State taxes by 80 per cent.
Because of inflation the percentage grew to 100 per cent by 1952-53. In other words, whatever the States were able to collect in their own right the Commonwealth matched dollar for dollar. The Premiers say:
Thereafter until the year 1959-60 the States were forced to increase their tax yields much more rapidly than grants were increased until in that year grants exceeded taxes by only 50 per cent.
In other words, the Commonwealth cut off the supply. The Premiers continue:
To have secured the same total volume of funds for the States in 1959-60 upon the 1952-53 ratios would have involved $55-millions more in general purpose grants (that is 11 per cent more) and $55-millions less in taxes (that is 17 per cent less). … by 1968-69 the excess of grants over State taxation fell still further to only 34 per cent. If the 1952-53 ratio of general purpose grants to taxes had been maintained to produce the same total revenue for the States of about $1,830- millions in 1968-69, an additional $170-millions (or16 per cent) of grants would have been required affording about 22 per cent relief in taxation.
It is worth noting that it was in this latter period that the Loan and Consolidation Reserve Fund was established and was plucking out of huge reserves of Commonwealth revenue annually, using this money to reduce the national debt and to lend huge sums to the States at high interest rates. It is worth noting in the Commonwealth Auditor-General’s report 1971 that the last 4 Federal loans have been filled from this fund - not by public subscription - and that in all in excess of$626m out of general revenue has been put into the Loan and Consolidation Reserve Fund and lent to the States at varying rates of interest. The premiers say:
So on the one hand the Commonwealth is so rich and has so much money in its hands that it has to set up a fund into which to pay the money. On the other hand, the States are so short of money that they have to extend their fields of taxation.
Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.
– Mr Acting President, when the sitting was suspended I was referring to the documents tabled in the various State Parliaments in 1970 by the 6 Premiers. I was specifically speaking of the regressive nature of State taxation. In a clear warning to the Commonwealth in this document about the inflationary effects of State taxation, the Premiers said this:
The taxes available constitutionally to the States are most indirect taxes and generally regressive . . The income tax . . . is possibly the only tax capable of being operated in accordance with . . concepts of equity and capacity to pay.
Now comes the gem of all gems from the Premiers. They went on to say:
It is worthy of remark that over the past quarter century Commonwealth income tax, because it has not been specifically revised with changes in money values and in income levels, has itself lost some of its former progressive intention and equity as between groups.
Of course, we are in good company here, because those are precisely the words in the Budget speech of the Treasurer. In his Budget speech in the other place, the Treasurer said:
The Government views with concern the considerable increase in the relative burden of personal income taxation in recent years and the effects which that is having’ upon our economy
End, indeed, our society. In particular, the single income family, the typical suburban family man is being hard hit.
This brings me to nailing the falsity of this Budget. 1 refer to personal taxation. I come back again to the Budget speech made by Mr Snedden and to the schedules which he has been gracious enough to provide us with in the papers. In the schedule for 1962-63 he shows that income tax in that year in respect to Federal revenue was $1, 083m. In 1972, the current year, it has risen to S4,208m, 4 times as much. Company tax in the same year 11 years ago, in 1962-63, was $537m. This has risen to SI, 564m, 3 times as much. I am sure the House will be pleased to permit me to give these sums in round figures rather than to be precise. Debt charges in 1962-63 were $!38m, now they are $102m. This is one of the charges that has dropped. It is worth drawing the attention of the Senate to the fact that in respect of national expenditure this year the estimate of receipts and summary of estimated expenditure, one of the documents before the Senate, indicates that debt charges represent only 1 per cent of national expenditure - a very remarkable feat. When we consider that the loan indebtedness of the States represents almost 60 per cent of the States’ taxation income, and the interest charge on semi-government and local government bodies is 27 per cent of rate income, we see that the Commonealth is in a very favourable financial position. It has succeeded in reaching that objective - that is why I think the strategy of the Budget is so much at fault - by passing the debt burden down the line. If we look at the National Welfare Fund in 1962-63, which Mr Snedden referred to, we see that the expenditure in that fund, which is after all supposed to represent the goodies of life, was $758m. This financial year, according to the Budget estimates, it has risen to S2,077m, which is less than 3 times as much. Repatriation expenditure in 1962-63 totalled S203m, it is now S388m, considerably less than twice as much. This is the Budget which is supposed to be handing out, like Father Christmas, the goodies which the community has been waiting for for so long. Payments to the States in 1962-63 - these are the figures given to us by the Treasurer in the reports before the House- totalled $1,381,720,000; 11 years later, in respect to the current year, they have risen to $3,449,450,000, which is considerably less than 3 times as much. Total tax revenue 11 years ago was $2,867m; now it is $9,289m. considerablymore than 3i times as much.
So we see the picture unfolding. The Commonwealth is in fact handing back nothing, having taken money from the people and accumulated it over the years it has been in office. Let us look at page 33 of the booklet ‘Public Authority Finance’. It shows that personal tax has doubled in the last 5 years from $2, 175m to $4,207m. In the same period of 5 years Customs income has risen by 70 per cent, excise income by 50 per cent, sales tax by 75 per cent and other taxation has risen from $90m approximately in 1967-68 to 8889m in 1972-73, an increase of almost 900 per cent. Therein, of course, lies the full story of the deterioration of service in the post office.
Revenue in the same period has risen by 90 per cent. The analysis therefore shows that personal taxation and other income taxes, that is, for those who cannot understand, those shown in the lower end of the estimates of receipts and summary of estimated expenditure are the main contributors to the increase in Federal revenue - out of proportion to all other portions of national income. If anyone has doubts that I am showing the falsity of this Budget let me refer him to the Treasurer’s own documents. I refer to page 35 of the document Estimates and Receipts, Summary of Expenditure’, showing the revenue from taxation collected by the Commonwealth. It shows that the taxpayers, every man jack of them - every man, woman and child in this country - will pay to the Commonwealth this financial year, the .me starting as from 1st July 1972, and the one we are discussing with respect to the current Budget, an additional $38 per head in tax to the Commonwealth. This is the Budget which is supposed to be sending money back to the community; this is the Budget which is supposed to be producing the good things of life to every person in the community. The Treasurer seeks to tell us in his document that we are entitled to judge matters based on a family of husband, wife and 2 children. This means that the average family, according to this Budget, will pay 4 times $38, which is $152 more in national revenue during 1972-73. This is the Budget which is supposed to be putting money back into the pockets of these people. Yet according to the figures of the Budget and the papers associated with it, the Commonwealth is in fact reaping an extra $601 m or 7 per cent more income during the current financial year. It is worth putting on record that each person in Australia is now paying $709 08 in taxes. So much for the tax concessions!
The Treasurer talked at great length about the increase in allowances for dependants. The increase is an additional $52 for each dependant. When I married in 1949 I was able to claim for my wife a concessional deduction of $260 or £130 as it was in those days. Since then the deduction has increased by $52. In this Budget the Treasurer has been gracious enough to increase the allowance by another $52. We all know how private enterprise is able to use the lurks and perks in the taxation field but this is not the case with the payasyouearn taxpayer. 1 come back to the point that I made earlier: In the final analysis, this Budget affects the man in the street, the ordinary taxpayer. 1 wish now to return to the statements by the 6 Premiers in their joint submissions to show the inequity of public authority finance in Australia. In 1949, revenue from Commonwealth taxation amounted to $l,038m. In 1968-69 this had risen to $5, 489m. In the same period, Commonwealth grants to the States rose from $1 86.3m to $l,158m. That is a rise of approximately 600 per cent. Revenue from State taxes in that period rose from $90.5m to $781m or an increase of 850 per cent. The difficulties of the States arising from loan indebtedness and interest charges may be seen from a study of the document entitled ‘Government Securities on Issue at 30th June 1972’. This shows that the States’ loan repayments total $546,163,000 representing $42 per head for every man woman and child in Australia.
One of the interesting phenomena in recent times has been the diversion of Federal funds to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve. This has had the affect of leaving the maximum of private funds available for private investment. Federal funds have been invested in public loans for the States and the States are paying to the Commonwealth sums in excess of $100tn annually in interest charges on these loans. It is interesting that since 1955, whilst these large sums have been taken, from Federal Revenue and placed into this fund for loan to the States, the Commonwealth has redeemed $2,024,288,000,000 from the Reserve. Whilst on the one hand the Commonwealth has been crying poor mouth to the States and to local government and semigovernment authorities, whilst the backlog in sewerage works has continued to increase, whilst insufficient funds have been available for public housing, whilst increases have occurred in stamp duties, car insurance and car registration in the States and whilst death duties have risen astronomically in State budgets, the Commonwealth Government has been salting away thousands of millions of dollars into this fund.
Again, from the Treasurer’s own records, Commonwealth taxation has risen by 76.4 per cent per head of population in the decade under review. State taxation has increased by 137.5 per cent. The increase in local government taxes has kept pretty parallel with that of the Commonwealth at 76.76 per cent. It is hard to see how the fatuous reply of the Prime Minister can do anything to help local government. I wish to deal to some extent with the problems facing local government. I refer to a statement which the Prime Minister made in reply to a submission which the Australian Council of Local Government Associations presented a year or so ago following a meeting held in Hobart of Ministers responsible for local government in the various States. That meeting made some important decisions. The Ministers said:
This conference of Ministers for Local Government in all States recognises the serious financial position of local government at present because -
the cost of local government services is increasing rapidly;
The sources of revenue available to local government are limited;
Many rural areas are in a critical position and no increases in rates are likely or practicable in the foreseeable future.
The Prime Minister in a long reply - I will quote only that portion which is relevant to the debate - makes this point:
Against this background, I make it clear that the Commonwealth Government could only agree to the provision of assistance specifically for local government if State governments requested such assistance and were prepared to agree to an offsetting reduction in their general revenue grants. Further, as State governments are constitutionally responsible for local government authorities, I believe it would not be proper for representatives of the Commonwealth Government to discuss with your Council matters which are the concern of the State Governments.
The ‘Council’ referred to is the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. Here is the Prime Minister, a Treasurer of some standing for some years and conscious of the situation of local government, making the point that he is prepared to consider relief to local government only if the States are prepared to offset such assistance by part of their general revenue grant. Surely I have made the point strongly enough that the position of the States is parlous and critical, because they have had to direct approximately 60 per cent of their taxation income to pay ofl their loan indebtedness. In his reply the Prime Minister is just begging the question. Who can deny that rates are at saturation point? Interest charges are now claiming more than one-quarter of all rates collected and already are too high. Local government cannot collect large sums of unpaid rates. State governments cannot help local government any more. The Budget again fails to provide any resources to stabilise local government finances, to move them out of the horse and buggy era and to supply them with funds to provide a proper and decent environment and adequate community facilities.
I wish to refer, finally, to a most revealing document, ‘National Income and Expenditure 1971-72’, which shows the extent of movement in expenditure on personal consumption. It demonstrates that in the last 5 years expenditure by the community on food - I think that we will agree that in the egalitarian society in which we live the majority of people buy food - has risen by 28 per cent only. Rents have increased by 60 per cent. Fares have risen by 41 per cent. Goods and services are up 53 per cent. Taxation has doubled. The costs of motor vehicles, clothing, footwear and drapery have risen by between 35 per cent and 37 per cent. These figures are proof again that it is in the area of taxation, services, rent, fares, etc., that the average person is paying too high a price to live.
I wish to quote what the ‘Australian’ on Thursday, 3rd August said. One could quote every national and State newspaper which has been concerned with this Budget. The editorial in the ‘Australian’ of 3rd August is headed: ‘Taxation burden is intolerable’ and it states:
At a time when the Federal Government has been leaning heavily on the argument that wage increases cause inflation, it was appropriate for a Melbourne firm of management consultants to issue the reminder that one of the primary inflationary pressures is the Government’s own taxation system. Of course exaggerated wage claims put up the cost of production and eventually prices, but one of the reasons the claims are pushed in the first place is the inequitable effect of the progressive scale of direct taxation. The class which has lost most since 1954 from progressive income tax has not been the rich, but precisely the people the tax system was supposed to favour: workers on average wages.
Of course, at long last the Treasurer has given some recognition to this. In his documents he has stressed that the Government recognises that the family man is heavily taxed; he is carrying too big a burden; the family man needs to obtain relief. After 23 long years the Commonwealth has agreed to review the taxation system. Such a review of taxation should consider not only the inequity of the current personal taxation system but also the inequity which applies in relation to Commonwealth, State and semi and local government relationships. Many words have been written on these subjects but the Budget ignores all the words which have been written and spoken. It seeks to allow a little here and a little there. It seeks to satisfy the pecuniary interests of numbers of people. It puts about $2 a week in the pocket of the low income group and S3, $4 or SIO in the pockets of higher income earners. It does nothing to solve the stagnation which exists in the economy. It does nothing to solve the problems of public transport, urbanisation, the rural crisis, land development and State and local finance. To that extent the Budget has miserably failed the people of Australia. This debate may stimulate further fundamental thinking by some members of the Government Parties and it is to be hoped that the Senate will see fit to adopt the amendment.
– 1 rise to support this Budget. Before going on with the main part of my speech 1 shall mention just a few matters. Senator Gietzelt made a plea in relation to 2 important issues, namely, unemployment and Commonwealth support for the States. In support of this he quoted from numerous papers and carried on for nearly an hour. I point out that we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We have a well known English television interviewer out here, David Frost. When he was asked what he thought of the 2 per cent unemployment rate he said that in Great Britain it would be considered a luxury. Let us face it: At the present time we have unemployment. Honourable senators opposite always talk about unemployment but they will not do anything to stop the reasons for unemployment. One of the main reasons is the extravagant wage demands which have been made. Let us face the fact that many industries cannot pass on their costs. If there is a 25 per cent wage increase overnight what are those industries which cannot pass on their costs going to do about it? They have to do something about the employment part of their cost structure. What they have done in many cases is to put men off. This is something the Opposition has never been able to accept as a fact. If wages are too high one cannot expect employers to employ people and still maintain a price structure which is acceptable to the public.
The honourable senator also went on about local government and payments to the States. As a member of a Party which believes in federalism and the States I find it quite extraordinary to have an ally on the opposite side of the chamber. Over the years the Australian Labor Party has been in favour of centralised collecting of money by the Commonwealth and even dispensing with the States. Here today we have an honourable senator advocating that all the funds in the world should be given to the States to spend. What is the situation? Today 52 per cent of all revenue collected is spent by either the States or local government. I presume that our friend on the Opposition side would like to see that amount increased to 60 per cent or 70 per cent. I do not know what figure he would like. If it is to be 60 per cent, that will do me. As a federalist and one who is against centralism I say: By all means give the States 60 per cent of all taxes collected to be spent in the State sphere. What is wrong now is that the Federal Government is responsible for collecting the money and the States which do not have the responsibility spend as it suits them, lt is up to the States to distribute in a wise fashion the funds which they collect and receive, lt is of no use to come along and blame the Commonwealth because an avenue such as public transport is in a parlous state.
But it is not to discuss what Senator Gietzelt had to say that I am here. I am very pleased with the Budget. I describe it as a people’s Budget. Everybody has gained something from it. Other honourable senators have particular matters on which they would like to speak. The medical care centres which have been set up in this Budget will help the pensioners. I believe that this has been a great advance. In education we have seen important advances in nearly every direction. There is an important omission as far as education is concerned and that is in relation to children in isolated areas.
– Hear, hear!
– I accept the hear, hear’ from all around the chamber. The children in remote areas of Australia are due for better treatment than they are receiving now. It is only in recent times that people have pushed this aspect. I know that the States, too, have a responsibility in this sphere because they control the education system. I know that the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is sympathetic to the cause, lt is only a matter of the State Departments of Education and the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science getting together. I am sure that when they do we will see this anomaly in our education system rectified. I am pleased that expenditure on defence has not been cut back in this Budget. Even though we do not have the commitment in Vietnam which we previously had we are still prepared to spend money in this direction. This means that the Government is prepared to maintain a well trained and efficient defence force. I think this is most important. Also, a committee consisting of members from both sides of the House of Representatives recently brought in recommendations relating to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund and I understand that the Government intends to do something about them. That is another thing which will attract competent servicemen to our forces and help to hold them. I am pleased that the Government is facing up to its defence responsibilities. 1 think that the main point in this Budget is the recognition given to the private sector. This is an important departure from the principle adopted in other budgets since the war, or perhaps from the accepted pattern of budgets. 1 certainly hope it continues because I believe that the private sector has a very important part to play in the development of this nation. We hear a lot of talk these days about foreign ownership of our resources. We know that it is very difficult to achieve Australian investment in our resources. Australians are fairly limited in the amount of funds that they have to invest in our resources but I believe that this Budget will set the pattern for the future development of Australian resources by Australians.
The Government has decided to reduce income tas. The 10 per cent reduction will mean that more money will be available to everyone in the community. They will be able to spend it on goods or services that they require or they will be able to invest it. The Government’s decision to abolish the means test over a period of 3 years will provide another incentive to the public. People now will be able to invest their surplus money in shares of companies which are destined to develop this nation rather than to adopt the attitude taken in the past: 1 do not have sufficient money to tide me over in my old age but the money I have will preclude my getting the pension, so I will divest myself of my money or shares and retain only sufficient to make me eligible for the pension. The abolition of the means test will mean that these people, particularly those in middle age who do not have the responsibility of building a home or educating children, will now have money available and will want to know what to do with it. What, will they do with it? Abolition of the means test will mean they will be able to invest their money in long term return industries.
– Such as Tasminex
– Never mind the particular industries that Senator O’Byrne supports. I am talking about the development of Australia’s resources. Probably the honourable senator would not know anything about that subject. These people now will feel that they can invest their money in companies or enterprises which will be to the advantage of this nation without jeopardising their chances of getting the pension later. The return from investments in such enterprises will help subsidise their pensions. I understand that the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) has a statement to make to the Senate and I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 493
– by leave - The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is making a statement in the other place and I wish to make the same statement in the Senate. When I use the personal pronoun T it will be understood that it relates to the Prime Minister. The statement is as follows: 1 am pleased to announce that Professor R. F. Henderson, Director of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research in the University of Melbourne, has undertaken to conduct the inquiry into poverty on behalf of the Government.
The terms of reference of the inquiry are as follows:
To investigate -
The Government will ensure that Professor Henderson has the necessary supporting staff and that relevant Commonwealth departments provide him with assistance where practicable.
Professor Henderson will himself determine the method of inquiry to be adopted, and the time necessary for the work to be finalised.
Professor Henderson is well known for his work on poverty. Honourable members will be aware that he and the Institute of which he is Director were responsible for ‘People in Poverty: A Melbourne Survey’ which has been of great use to all those interested in the dimensions and quality of the problem of poverty in our land. The Government is, I think, fortunate to have obtained his services for this inquiry.
It will be seen that the terms of reference for the inquiry are very wide, having been drawn so as to enable the inquiry to be as far-reaching as possible in its field, whilst concentrating on the solution of the immediate problem of reducing poverty in Australia.
I feel confident that the decisions which I have just announced will commend themselves to both sides of the House.
page 494
Debate resumed.
– I was referring to the second leg of the assistance being given in the Budget to the private sector, namely, the abolition of the means test. I had said that this would mean that people who no longer had the responsibility of building a home and educating their children would be able to invest their money in the national resources of this country rather than dispense with it, or part of it, so as to be able to qualify for the pension. This is a very good move. I believed in the past that perhaps we could not afford to abolish the means test for the pension. However, now that we are developing our national resources and are in need of funds from Australians, this is the best way of achieving that aim. A lot of people will be getting a pension who could afford to do without it, but at least it will be taxable. There are still many pensioners, however, who do not have a home of their own and are in need. The way to handle this situation is to give them indirect support in the form of concessions relating to health services and transport and a roof over their head. Help could be given indirectly to these people.
The third arm is what happens to the people after they have invested in our resources their surplus money, the return from which will help to supplement their pension. What happens to it after they have gone? The reduction in estate duties and particularly in gift duty will help people to make up their minds in this regard because the moderate estates will be exempt from duty. Only a considerable estate will attract estate duty.
– From the Commonwealth, but the States will still take most of it.
– I am speaking only of the Commonwealth. We have no control over the States. I am hoping that the assistance to the private sector which has been given by the Commonwealth in this Budget will not be eroded by the States, as has happened in other fields. When we have retired from certain taxing areas the States have often doubled their taxes in those areas. It is up to the people in the States to see that this does not happen. We are in a new era. We must face the fact that we have passed the stage when a few people own most of our resources. The nation has developed and today we have many thousands of people who have resonable means and who are subject to estate duty. By this Budget we are helping many thousands of people of reasonably moderate means. Things have changed from the old era when a few people owned the whole nation. That situation does not apply now. We must look at the present situation. Estate duty is an iniquitous tax which has done tremendous harm to our productive capacity. Properties and businesses that should have been thriving and productive have been thwarted by the heavy estate duties that have been placed upon them.
Let us consider our future. I can see that we have 3 valuable means of developing our resources - a reduction of income tax, the abolition of the means test and a reduction of estate duties. I propose now to mention some of the most important things that will face Australia in future. One matter that has been mentioned lately is revaluation. 1 suggest that we must look at this issue very critically because our nation has been built up through exports. Let us face it: Every great nation has been a great exporting nation. A nation is like an individual home in that the prosperity of the nation or the home depends on the money that comes into it. We can all be self-supporting. If we chose to do so we could build our own homes, grow our own vegetables and do all these other things, but we would not be able to do them so efficiently as the people who have not only the qualifications but also the right situation
– And the experience.
– Yes, and the experience to do them. The most prosperous homes in the community are those where the owners go out and earn through their own special abilities and employ experts to do the other work at home. This applies to nations also. One has only to look back through history to know that the great nations have been great trading nations. Those who support an upward revaluation of the Australian dollar forget this vital fact. They say that revaluation could bring prices down and it could mean that we will be able to buy imported goods more cheaply, but they forget that at the same time they could be doing untold damage to those who are bringing wealth to this nation. 1 refer to the export industries. I know that our primary industries are quite resilient and that perhaps in good time they could put away much of the fat and build up their equipment. Then when the bad times come they can live on that fat. In this situation they do not undertake improvements or engage labour other than to harvest their crops or to shear their sheep. But in the mining industry the situation is entirely different. If a mining industry is to be operative it must be fully operative all the time. It operates on a big turnover and a low percentage profit.
Let us consider particularly the iron ore mining industry. I had the privilege of visiting an iron ore mining establishment in Western Australia. I was amazed to see a mountain full of iron ore miles away from anywhere, 180 miles from a seaport. The mining operation consisted first of blasting the iron ore and then putting it through crushers. It was necessary to build a railway line 187 miles long to transport the ore to the sea. Then it was necessary to build a port that would enable ships of up to 160,000 tons to load the ore for export. But all that the mining enterprise received for the ore that went into the ship was $7 a ton. Any member of the Senate who is conversant with transport costs within his own State, particularly railway freights, port charges and shipping costs, will appreciate the difficulty of transporting material 180 miles and loading it on a 160,000- ton ship for $7 a ton. As I said earlier, this industry operates on a very small percentage profit.
All iron ore contracts are expressed in United States dollars. Admittedly most of our iron ore goes to Japan. It might be suggested that these contracts are open to review and that the Japanese should agree to an increased price, but unfortunately our competitors in iron ore are mainly South Africa and the South American States. On the last occasion when there was a revaluation these countries devalued their currency relative to the American dollar and this placed our industries in great difficulty. I invite honourable senators to consider what would happen to mining companies which operate on a 3 per cent profit margin if we revalued our dollar upwards by 6 per cent. The result would be that their profits would be gone. What does a mining company do in this situation? It must close down. It can leave its product in the ground, put its machinery into mothballs and remain stagnant, waiting until the world market price for its product makes it profitable to continue operations.
Primary industries have been unable to do this. We cannot put sheep into mothballs; we cannot put cattle into mothballs; we cannot put wheat into mothballs; and we cannot put grass into mothballs. We must go on producing, even if we are producing at a loss. Although the wool industry operated unprofitably last year, we still had to go on producing. We had certain costs to meet, but still we had to go on producing because we could not do anything else with our sheep or wool. However, the mining industry can close down. I wonder what would happen to this nation if it were decided that it was unprofitable to continue mining operations and to close down this industry whose exports are worth about $700m. The Commonwealth Government would have two alternatives. It would have either to take drastic measures to overcome the loss of income or subsidise the mining industries in order to make them profitable.
– How have Chile and the other Latin American countries got on?
– They have devalued; that is how they have got on. There is a lot of talk about overseas ownership. There are 2 large mining companies in Western Australia. How did one of those companies get over the last devaluation? It injected another $200m into its operations in order to double its production. It doubled its production so that its overhead costs would drop. What did the other company do? It was a company in which the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd had an interest. It could not follow suit. So it had to live with the situation. There is no doubt that if the Australian dollar were revalued another 5 per cent tomorrow that company would be out of business. I hope that the people of Australia will be able to support the ownership of their resources.
It should be remembered that the Leader of the Australian Labor Party came out and said publicly that he was in favour of revaluation of the Australian dollar.
– Where was that?
– He said that on television. The honourable senator saw the programme and so did I. Of course the members of the Australian Labor Party all say that their leader was only expressing a personal opinion. Can anyone imagine that any leader of a party - an aspiring Prime Minister - would come out on the eve of an election with a proposition on a controversial subject on which he did not have the support of his party? He must have had the support of the majority of the members of his party, otherwise he would have been in trouble for putting forward a proposition that was unacceptable to them. Either he has done the wrong thing by his party and should be kicked in the pants or he has expressed party policy. I am not flying kites in this respect. It is inconceivable that a leader of a party and an aspiring Prime Minister would act in that way if he did not have the support of his party. So it is no good saying that it is a matter of personal opinion. Only a couple of members of his party who represent rural areas have come out and opposed his stand.
I do not care whether revaluation is the policy of the Australian Labor Party. That is up to the members of the Australian Labor Party to decide. What I am saying is that I am against revaluation. I think it is important to be sure just who is going to be affected by a revaluation of the Australian dollar. It is a joke that members of the Opposition use revaluation as an argument to contain inflation. Let us face it, the major factors causing inflation today are the extravagant wage demands of the unions and the request for a 35-hour week, which members of the Labor Party support. Those factors alone will undo everything that revaluation will achieve. It is wrong to think that inflation can be curbed just by an act of revaluation while at the same time plans go ahead for a 35-hour week and there is support for the extravagant wage claims that are made.
The bread and butter industries of this nation are not only the manufacturing, primary and mining industries but also the tourist industry. The tourist industry could be Australia’s largest industry in the future. Our friend from the Gold Coast would know that. But what would happen to the tourist industry if the Australian dollar were revalued? Our friend from the Gold Coast would know also, if he has travelled overseas, that one usually travels on a set budget and therefore one wants to know in advance what one’s fares and accommodation will be. A potential visitor to Australia who knows that he is going to get fewer Australian dollars as a result of revaluation than he originally expected will either spend less in Australia or be deterred from coming here. So, the tourist industry throughout this country could be vitally affected by any revaluation of the Australian dollar. Let us face it: the cream of the tourist industry in Australia in the future will be the overseas visitors. Therefore we should not do anything which would deter them from coming here.
– Is the honourable senator supporting devaluation?
– Yes, I will support that if necessary.
– Is that the policy of your Parly?
– The honourable senator knows that the policy of my Party is to place everyone in a reasonable situation but to make sure that those people who produce the wealth of the nation are not disadvantaged. The Australian Country Party has always stood for all sections of the community and let us not forget that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator should be heard in silence.
– I think it all ought to be in silence.
– That is all very well. The honourable senator knows his views on these matters. There are all sorts of ways in which the present difficulties can be overcome. We know that our overseas reserves are very high. We also know that a lot of money is coming into this country. A lot of the money that is coming into Australia is being brought in by Australian industries as loans to expand. Senator Gietzelt gave us a great example today of the expansion of the Australian economy when he pointed out that tax revenues would rise despite the fact that the Gov ernment has reduced the personal income tax rates. There are certain ways in which one can control the amount of money coming in. One is to reduce interest rates and another is to reduce tariffs. There could be an easing of the restrictions imposed on Australians investing overseas. The Government has already implemented a proposal in this respect. We have heard a lot about overseas companies taking over Australian companies. We have the situation where the Australians who have received money as the result of these takeovers cannot invest in the parent company because of restrictions. These are things that can be attended to. Some of the money that is coming into this country could be reinvested overseas. It is not hard to get the money in but one cannot gel it out under the present circumstances. Within the last week or two the Government eased certain restriction on money going out. That is one other way in which the situation of having an embarrassing amount of overseas funds could be handled.
It should be remembered that other than Dr Patterson and Mr Grassby no Opposition member has been prepared to say that Mr Whitlam did not represent his views when he commented on revaluation of the Australian dollar. 1 know what the attitude of members of the Labor Party is to revaluation. They think that prices will be reduced as a result of revaluation because overseas goods coming into Australia will be cheaper. Of course that would be to the detriment of the manufacturing industries which we have been building up since the war. This is something which has to be brought home to them. If overseas goods were to flood into Australia to the detriment of our own manufacturing industries what would happen to the employment situation? Everything the Opposition does and everything it advocates - whether it be a 35-hours week, increased wages or revaluation - is aimed at reducing employment opportunities and increasing unemployment. All it does is bark about unemployment while advocating steps that will aggravate the situation.
There are a few other matters I would like to discuss about the Budget. I knowthat there is no mention of a continuation of the beef roads scheme in the Budget.
This scheme is due for review in a short time. Naturally now is the time for the different organisations-
– It’s time, Senator Maunsell.
– We have heard about it being time; that things should have been done years ago and that they will be done after the next election. All organisations are concerned about the beef roads scheme because planning for the scheme has to be done now. I certainly hope that the Federal Government will continue to support the scheme because it has helped not only the great beef industry in the underdeveloped areas of northern Australia but also the great mineral resources that have been discovered and are being developed. Also, we must not forget the importance of these roads to the defence of this nation. Let us face it: We people who live in the northern half of Australia are well aware how close we are to neighbours not far away. People in the south may not appreciate this fact, but we certainly appreciate it. Certain areas in north Queensland are closer to Djakarta than they are to Canberra. We appreciate the fact that we are close to Asia. The defence issue is important and beef roads play an important part in the defence of this country.
I am pleased that in this Budget assistance to certain aspects of primary industry has been maintained and increased. The overall amount has been reduced but it is quite obvious what has happened here. Last year the wool subsidy scheme was in operation but now we are in a position where prices of wool and demand for wool are such that we will not have to subsidise the wool industry again. So there is a saving of $50m in that direction.
– That is always the case during the year of a federal election.
– I did not know that overseas buyers ever considered the fact that a federal election was to be held in Australia when they paid for wool. The honourable senator can accept the fact that the Australian Wool Commission took on the overseas buyers and overseas interests. It was prepared to stockpile wool here, but people overseas were not prepared to stockpile it because of the monetary position. Had it not been for the efforts of the Wool Commission - which incidentally members of the Opposition opposed - during last year this great industry would have been in real trouble. But because of the operation of the Wool Commission and the fact that the Government was prepared to guarantee a price to allow-
– And revaluation helped.
– There were no revaluation troubles. Wool did not suffer the same revaluation troubles as the mining industry did because, as I have pointed out previously, the mining industry was concerned with United States dollars, and we revalued against the United States dollar; we did not revalue against other currencies. Nearly all our wool is bought by countries other than the United States, so revaluation did not affect the wool industry as much as honourable senators opposite would like to believe. In fact, our biggest buyer of wool, Japan, appreciated the yen against our currency by 16 per cent. So it helped the wool industry.
– This was a movement of currency that helped.
– No. lt was not our revaluation but revaluation of the Japanese yen that helped the wool industry. We came out of it reasonably well. Everyone was screaming about what the wool industry was going to cost the taxpayers of this nation but this great industry, which since the last war has brought $26,000m into this country, received only S50m in support over the whole of that period in order to help it over difficulties. The profits from the sale of the wool that the Wool Commission had in store probably will, in effect, reduce that considerably.
When we talk about price support no one ever mentions secondary industries. That is a different matter. People say that tariff is not the same thing as a subsidy or a bounty. But these things are the same. What amazes me about members of the Labor Party is that they will attack subsidies or bounties but will say nothing about tariff protection.
Let us suppose that the world market price for a certain product - be it a bale of wool or 2 cwt of butter - is SI 00 and the world market price for another manufactured commodity, such as a wireless set or a tape recorder, is $100. There are 2 ways in which we can protect the Australian manufacturers if, because of our high cost structure, he needs to sell his product for $150. We can do it by giving that industry $50 in the way of a subsidy, so that the Australian market price is still $100. The Government or the taxpayer gives the industry $50 to bring the return to the manufacturer to $150. Alternatively, we can impose a tariff of $50 on the imported product, in which case everyone pays $150 for the article. What amazes me is that our friends opposite who are supposed to represent the working class will not accept the fact that under a subsidy scheme everyone pays $100. The man on a low wage with a big family does not pay very much tax and will pay very little subsidy but the rich man will pay a lot more because he pays more tax and the money for the subsidy comes out of the tax poo).
– What about sales tax?
– I will make my own speech; Senator Mulvihill can make his speech later. 1 am explaining to honourable senators opposite the difference between a subsidy and tariff protection. What happens under tariff protection is that everybody in the community - whether he be a millionaire or a worker on the lowest margin - still pays $150 for a product, whether it be a wireless set or something else. Why do honourable members opposite always rubbish subsidies and bounties and say nothing about tariff protection? It is very interesting that the wool industry has brought $26,000m into this country since the last war and ‘t has received only $50m in subsidy. We have heard that when colour television ‘s introduced into Australia we will have to pay $1,000 for an Australian set, yet we could buy an equivalent Japanese set for $130. Primary industry, and the wool industry in particular, have never asked for protect-.on of that kind. Who is to pay for this protection? Do not forget that when colour te.evision is introduced into Australia everybody - whether he be a millionaire or the lowest paid worker in the community - will have to pay up to $1,000 for a colour television set.
The point I am making is that this is a great Budget for the Australian community and for the private sector of the community. The producers of this nation - and this includes the workers in every industry which is producing the wealth of this nation - will receive tax deductions. Everyone will get a go. People will be able to play their part. I am concerned mainly about the millions of people in the middle and lower income groups who comprise the majority of the workers of this nation. They will have the bulk of the money to invest in the sorts of things about which I have been speaking. So I am quite happy that the Budget has been framed in this way. I am not one of the knockers, the prophets of doom. After listening to the speech which was made a short time ago by Senator Gietzelt one wonders whether, if he were a migrant coming to this country, he would ever settle here- considering the great woe that he wailed around the chamber about this great Australian economy. I am very pleased that certain aspects of primary industry are to be given assistance. The Australian Democratic Labor Party will support me when I say that long term loans should be made available to primary producers through a rural bank. We have been advocating this for years, although we have not yet been successful. I know that the DLP, too. has been advocating it. We believe that we must provide some long term finance for rural industry which will continue to produce export income for this nation under difficult circumstances. Because of droughts and ups and downs in prices which face rural industry, it needs this sort of overall insurance. In the past primary producers have had to obtain finance from fly-by-night operators - people who were not really concerned with banking. They even had to go to hire purchase companies to tide them over periods of difficulties. That situation is not good for a nation dependent on its great primary industries for its export income. People need something to tide them over periods of difficulty. There is no doubt that the drought bond scheme introduced about 3 years ago has greatly helped primary producers.
– Haven’t honourable senators opposite been quiet about the operations of the Australian Wool Commission in the past few weeks?
– They have their own ideas about this sort of thing. If they were let loose there would be employment everywhere because everything they advocate would lead to unemployment. I commend the Treasurer and the Budget. I trust that at the forthcoming election the people of Australia will recognise the benefits of the Budget.
– I was pleased when the Acting Leader of the Government interrupted Senator Maunsell’s speech to introduce a statement which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) had made in another place. The Government has at last decided to hold an inquiry into poverty in Australia. I was particularly pleased to hear that it has been able to prevail upon Professor Henderson, Director of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research in Melbourne, to conduct the inquiry. He is one of the greatest Australian authorities on poverty. One of the things that perhaps is missing from the announcement about the inquiry into poverty is that the Government has not endeavoured to define the poverty line. Whether Professor Henderson and those people who will give evidence at the inquiry will be able to define the poverty line remains to be seen. I think most honourable senators on this side of the chamber could supply an immediate answer to term of reference (c) - factors which cause poverty in Australia - by saying that it has been caused by the succession of LiberalCountry Party governments.
This evening Senator Maunsell referred to the 2 per cent level of unemployment in Australia and compared that figure with world figures. He even made mention of Mr Frost and that Mr Frost said that a 2 per cent level of unemployment in the Australian work force was not of much consequence. To a man such as Mr Frost perhaps a 2 per cent level of unemployment may not mean very much. Mr Frost would be one of those people who has never known what it is to fight for a job. He certainly would be in that age group. To him a job has always been easy to obtain. I would think that he was one of those people who had never seen the day when he did not have sufficient money to buy himself or members of his family a meal. So I do not place much reliance on what Mr Frost said about our unemployment. I, a number of people in this chamber and a number of people in Australia went through a period when we were unable, as much as we were willing, to find employment and sufficient money to buy proper food. Quite often we had to go to a farm and bandicoot the farmer’s potato crop to get enough potatoes for a meal. Senator Maunsell holds up to us Mr Frost’s statement that a 2 per cent level of unemployment means nothing so far as world standards are concerned. Good God, let the honourable senator be unemployed and find that he has not sufficient money to buy a meal. Of the hundreds of thousands unemployed, for each 1,000 persons unemployed, probably between 2,000 and 3,000 others are affected. The unemployment affects young children. That concerns me. I do not see why Senator Maunsell or any other Government speaker had occasion to commend the Government for the Budget.
Senator Maunsell made an attack on what he called extravagant wage claims and the fight for a shorter working week. I can well recall when the 52-hour week was the normal working week. It was reduced to a 48-hour week, to a 44-hour week and to a 40-hour week. On each occasion that hours were reduced the employers fought the case before the arbitration court. They said that industry, both primary and secondary, could not afford a shorter working week. As we advance into the machine age and the technological age we must realise that hours of work must be shortened to keep people employed. I have heard talk of extravagant wage claims since 1924 or 1925. So I do not place much reliance on the cryings and moanings of some honourable senators opposite.
It is significant that the Budget is rather similar to the mini-Budget that was introduced on 11th April 1972. I was going through some old papers in my office and I found the ‘Daily Mirror’ of 12th April 1972. Under the heading The Two Billies do an About Face’, there was talk about the de-Gorton rising of the Budget of the previous August and the re-Gortonising of the April Budget. The editorial said that the Government had pressed the panic button. It appears that the Government has pressed the panic button again in August 1972. The editorial stated:
Canberra is full of good news today. Taxes are going down. Pensions are going up. And the tax on company share profits will be changed to favour the investor.
The news is as welcome as it is warranted. There is every chance that it will induce a spark of liveliness from the most wretched prongs of the economy - public spending and unemployment.
Let us look at the unemployment figures for April 1972 and August 1972. During that period the unemployment pool has been increased by thousands. The prediction of the ‘Daily Mirror’ along with the prediction made at that time by the Government has not borne fruit. The article continues:
What the Treasurer’s surprise package does not do, unfortunately, is to remove the inequalities of the taxation system.
Again, we find that this is quite evident in the present Budget. The article continues:
Once again, the wage earner who most needs relief gets the short end of the stick.
I do not know how that ties in with what Senator Maunsell was saying a few moments ago. I wish that he were in the chamber to hear these words which were written by the editor of the ‘Daily Mirror’ for the issue of 12th April. The article further reads:
No one should be surprised. The Government has taught us well to accept promises in lieu of decisive action. So what is one more promise between friends? One more committee? One more inquiry?
Unhappily for Canberra, we have not yet learned to accept without question a style of government that rules by political expediency.
I would say that since 1949 right up to the time at which this Budget was presented - as it will do until the next general election which, I anticipate will be in November - this Government has ruled by political expediency. I quote again from the editorial which says this:
Even the most uncynical supporter must detect the sweat of panic behind last night’s gift to the economy.
Why else should the Government blandly assure the nation for 7 months that the economy is sound and then, without warning, suddenly rewrite the whole Budget strategy?
Does Mr McMahon seriously expect us to believe that his actions spring from a benevolent goodwill toward the people?
And that they have nothing to do with the ANOP surveys which showed that no Prime Minister - Liberal or Labor - was ever more unpopular?
That is equally true today. I think that the gallup polls have shown that Mr McMahon is more unpopular with the taxpayers today than he was when he brought down his mini-budget. One could say that the Budget which Mr McMahon has brought down on this occasion will do nothing to enhance his popularity or to relieve his unpopularity over the last few months. Following the presentation of the Budget I made it my business to conduct a survey concerning the proposals and concessions contained in the Budget in an effort to obtain the reactions of the electors. I have to confess that some of the reaction was favourable. There were a number of people who said that the abolition of the means test was a good thing because it would assist some people in their savings. They could have a greater amount of money and still obtain the pension. But there is a catch in this one. I would like to read that portion of the Budget where the Government says that it was to introduce a free of means test pension:
The Government’s commitment to introduce free of means test pensions for people aged 65 or over is an historic decision and represents a major social advance. It is one that has, of course, considerable financial and social implications. Because of this, the Government proposes -
This is the point that I want to bring out - to appoint a Committee of Enquiry to examine and report on these matters and on how this proposal may be responsibly financed with particular reference to national superannuation.
A reference was made in the ‘Daily Mirror’ of 12th August to committees and how governments make further promises. What is to prevent the Government from setting up the committee as it has promised to do? I have no doubt that it will set up that committee. But the committee may, in its wisdom, bring back to the Government a recommendation that it is impossible or undesirable at this time to implement the policy of the Government. What will the Government do? It has made one more promise which perhaps it will break when it comes to give consideration to the committee’s report. I am rather pleased and I guess that a lot of other people are pleased to see that at least some attempt is to be made to ease the means test. But then I also have a second thought on this issue. My sympathy goes out to the poor old persons who have only the pension on which to sustain themselves. The lifting of the means test will not help this type of person. Very often, this type of person who has no means of income other than the pension has lead a very difficult life. This is brought about by a number of circumstances. It is brought about by circumstances of which wc are all aware. 1 do not think that it is necessary for me to touch on those circumstances. It is very interesting to take note of the fact that in 1969 the present Government, when the Australian Labor Party included the abolition of the means test in its election speeches said that it could not finance the abolition of the means test. We, as a Party, said that we would abolish the means test within the life of 2 parliaments. That wold have meant that the means test would have been abolished by 1975.
– What made you change your mind?
– We did not become a government. While we endeavoured to pevail upon the people to accept that as part of our policy and elect us as a government, wc were not elected. The Government said that it could not be done in a period of 6 years. In 1972 - an election year, mark you - the Government has said that it could do it in 3 years. In other words, it. can abolish the means test by 1975 which is exactly the year by which the ALP said that it could do it. I do not know how much better the Government is in relation to financial matters than we of the Australian Labor Party are. I would not have a clue on that because over the last decade we have had no way in which to make a comparison. At least it is rather significant that in election years some very good promises are always made by the existing government. I would suggest that many of the pensioners say: Thank God for election years’. When one goes back and examines the election promises that are made and what is done in relation to budgets in non-election years one can see quite well that the only time the people in the lower income bracket receive anything from the Government is in an election year.
– The Government kicks them in the teeth for 2 years.
– That is very true. The Government kicks them in the teeth for 2 years and gives them a hand out at election time. It expects the people to accept this, and unfortunately, the people have accepted it.
– I do not think they have accepted it on this occasion.
– I agree with Senator Cavanagh, I do not think they have accepted it on this occasion and that is one reason why I said a few moments ago that I believe the election will not be held until November. I am confident that Mr McMahon wants to hang on to the Government as long as he possibly can. There are many reasons for this. Mr McMahon is a very egotistical man.
– Coming events cast their shadows.
– Coming events are just what T am coming to. There is an event that may take place early in October in the McMahon family.
– He is a very virile leader.
– My word he is; that has been proved. We can see at The Lodge evidence of his virility.
– Leave his family out of it.
– If Senator Webster wants it back, he can have it, as much as he wants. If he wants to bring that sort of thing in-
– You could not get lower.
– Would you like to say that to me outside?
– Yes.
– Then I will see you outside. Do not talk about getting low, because nobody can get lower than you.
The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order!
– Mr Acting President, I object to being referred to as low and I want that remark withdrawn.
– I object to any man speaking about the Prime Minister in the way that the honourable senator has spoken and I ask for his withdrawal also.
– I ask for his withdrawal.
The ACTING PRESIDENT- What were the words used which you claim should be withdrawn?
– He referred to me as being low.
The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order! I am asking Senator Webster the question.
– Mr Acting President, when Senator Poke introduced the subject of the Prime Minister’s family into this matter, I suggested to him that he could not get lower in making his comments - and that 1 truly believe.
The ACTING PRESIDENT- If that is the case, I would ask Senator Poke to confine his remarks to the political side and not to any family matter.
– I am insisting that the words that I could not get lower be withdrawn.
– Mr Acting President, I would like to assist you by withdrawing those remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT- Thank you.
– Thank you.
– Get on another tack.
- Mr Acting President, I have taken advice from quite a number of people in my political life and also in my industrial life but I do not think Senator Webster could give me any advice whatsoever that would assist me, because I do not think he has either the experience or the initiative to give me advice -
– Or the ability.
– Or the ability- thank you for the help - to give me advice that would assist me. I say merely that the Prime Minister has no intention, in my opinion, of holding an election before November because there is an event coming off on which he wants to make history.
– Is that not terrible?
– Mr Acting President. 1 think this has been a very tense scene and that tempers have become very frayed. I think that Senator Webster was pretty fair in withdrawing his remarks and I do not think we are being helped by the references Senator Poke has made. I do not ask him to withdraw them but I will do so if he keeps on this sort of tack.
The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order!
– I had no intention of pursuing that matter further. I have made my point.
The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order! 1 would ask you to withdraw that reference. I do not think it is right to be talking about anything relating to a person’s family in that way. I do not think that a reference such as that is worthy of the Senate. I ask Senator Poke to withdraw it.
– Mr Acting President, although what I said is, I know, factual - 1 think we are all aware of this - in deference to you I withdraw the remark. I cannot see that it makes any difference.
– Start on another tack.
– I will at this point of time accept some advice from Senator Webster. I did not think he could give me any advice that would assist me, but I will on this occasion go to a different part of my speech. I will refer to tax deductions. This perhaps will be more in Senator Webster’s corner for I know he is very interested in this issue. Senator Willesee and quite a number of other honourable senators have throughout this debate referred to reductions of income tax for individuals. The Government set out a number of examples of reductions and while it is not my intention to go through each and every example, I want to touch on one or two. I should like first to quote from the front page of document titled ‘Income Tax on Individuals’. It gives examples of income tax reductions as set out by the Government. The text is:
Examples illustrating the effect of proposed income tax measures on tax payable by taxpayers having selected levels of income ranging from well below the level of average weekly earnings to well above it, and having various entitlements to deductions. Tax reductions are shown both in dollars per annum and as percentage of the present tax. For example, a taxpayer earning $67 per week and having a dependent wife and 2 dependent children, but no other deductions, would have his tax reduced by $82.15 per annum or 22.3 per cent o£ his present tax.
That sounds all right when one talks about 22.3 per cent of his present tax. But let us be quite clear on this issue. We should be quite clear that what is involved is only reduction of the existing tax. This makes quite a difference when one looks closely at the figures which the Government has given as applying for a taxpayer earning $67 per week. The reductions which are to be made are only reductions on taxes which have been progressively increased by the present Treasurer and his predecessors. I think we all realise that over a period of years taxes have been jacked up and jacked up on all groups. We are, I suppose, among the most highly taxed people in the world. 1 might say that this point was made by the ‘Daily Mirror’ the day after the Budget was brought down. A taxpayer with no dependants who is earning $67 a week or $3,484 per annum has had his net wage increased to $58 a week. That means that his tax deduction on that wage is $9 a week; that is his tax deduction. That gives him a take home pay of $58. We find a different situation for a taxpayer with a dependent wife and 2 dependent children. His tax is reduced by S5.50 a week and his weekly take home pay becomes $61.50. The take home pay of the taxpayer who has a wife and 4 dependent children is $63 a week out of a weekly gross of $67. His tax is $1.50 a week less than that of the man earning S67 a week with a wife and 2 dependent children. So, I do not think that these taxation concessions do very much for the taxpayer in the low income group.
These facts bring us back. I suggest, to what the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ had to say of this Government’s mini budget which it introduced in April of this year. It is pretty difficult for the Government to reconcile these figures with its statement in the Budget. So that there will be no error, I will quote that section, lt reads:
This slackness in consumer spending has been basic to the economy’s lack of punch. Our first objective in this Budget, therefore, is to create conditions conducive to stronger consumer spending.
I wonder how the few dollars that the Government is giving to people in the lower income group will lead to a greater spending power. This is not revealed in the figures which I have quoted. One can say that these proposals will not increase consumer spending. This is again a case of the Government doing exactly what the ‘Daily Mirror’ said it was doing in April 1972. lt is pressing the panic button. One could say that the Government is doing nothing more or less than kicking in the teeth the taxpayer in the low income group. In my opinion, these proposals are an injury and an insult to those people in the low income group.
Further, 1 rather resent - I use the word resent’ because J do not think that I could rind a word more appropriate to express my feelings - the continuous attack by the Government on the trade union movement for what the Government alleges is the sabotage of the Australian economy by the trade union movement. It is all right for honourable senators to talk about those who produce the wealth of this country. Senator Maunsell made some reference to the people who produce our wealth. I wonder: Who does produce the wealth of this country? Is it the mine manager? Is it the big station owner? Is it the person occupying an executive position? Or is it the man who is working on the job? The worker in primary or secondary industry is the person who produces the wealth of this country even though he may not use his brains to obtain better employment in the labour field. I do not know why the Government continues to attack the worker. Let us face the fact that the Government would be out. of office forever were it not for the number of workers who support it. Why the Government virtually kicks in the teeth the persons who support it is beyond comprehension. One sits here and listens to attacks made on workers, on the trade union movement, on the President and the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, by Senator Wright and Senator Greenwood who are 2 of the most vicious men in this chamber for attacks on the workers. Senator Wright and Senator Greenwood give me the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they would happily see the worker burnt at the stake. It appears that they would enjoy seeing a return to the conditions that operated in the days of the Tolpuddle martyrs.
– Rubbish.
– You would not even know who the Tolpuddle martyrs were. This is the kind of approach that some members of this Government have towards the Australian worker. There has been a continual attack-
– What is your definition of a ‘worker’?
– We would exclude you.
– Oh, yes. I would exclude Senator Withers because we never see him do any work. There has been a continuous barrage of attack on Mr Hawke. I would say that Mr Hawke is one of the best trade union leaders this country has had. If it had not been for Mr Hawke we would have had a great deal more industrial trouble than has existed in recent times. I give Mr Hawke credit for having settled the oil dispute. I give him credit for having settled the postal dispute.
– Can you give him credit for conducting Bourke’s store?
– I do. Any action that will provide the workers with a commodity at a cheaper price deserves credit. I give him credit for that. I certainly hope that he is successful with Thomas Nationwide Transport too. I give Mr Hawke credit for settling the shipping dispute which has affected my own State probably more than any other State in the Commonwealth. I give Mr Hawke credit also for having forecast what would happen with respect to the broadcasting and telecasting of the Olympic Games. Let us face the fact that 48 hours before the Olympic Games were due to commence Mr Hawke predicted that Australia would see the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games live on television. A great number of people doubted very much whether that would happen. There were many doubting Thomases in the community. But what happened? The opening ceremony of the Olympic Games was televised live throughout Australia. I give Mr Hawke credit as the one person who was successful in prevailing on those involved to allow the technicians to provide that broadcast and telecast throughout Australia.
– I think that I read in the Press that the secretary of the union involved told Mr Hawke to keep his nose out of its affairs.
– That might be right. I will answer Senator Gair’s interjection but I will let some of the other senators who are trying to interject wither on the vine. Senator Gair says that the Press reported that the union involved told Mr Hawke to keep his nose out of this matter. It may have done. I do not know. I would suggest that, even if this was in the Press, we could not take any notice of it. In the period that 1 have been associated with the industrial and political fields I have learnt one thing with respect to the Press - that is, to read between the lines in the Press and not-
– Those blank spaces.
– That is what the honourable senator fills his mind with. Do not let me stop you. Keep going.
– The honourable senator would not stop me. We have considered income tax in relation to the lower bracket wage earners. What has happened in relation to sales tax? Nowhere in this Budget has there been reduction of any significance in sales tax. Over a long time many items in the sales tax field have brought unfavourable comment. Perhaps we should have some regard for those things which go to make our beautiful women a little more beautiful. Eyebrow pencil costs 85c; the Government receives 23c in tax. Mascara costs $2.20; the Government receives 60.5c in tax.
– I did not think you needed those sorts of things.
– That is the height of the honourable senator’s intelligence. I prefaced my remarks by saying that these are the things which make our beautiful women a little more beautiful. If ever there was an old woman in this chamber it is the honourable senator. I think that he instead of some of the women should be using this stuff. Even without these aids the women put him well and truly to shame with their looks. I suggest that Senator Young just keep quiet. He might learn something about making his own wife a little more beautiful than she is; I will admit that she is beautiful. The average price of rouge to the consumer is $1.50; the Government receives 41c from that item. These are the ‘terns which could be given some favourable consideration when it comes to sales tax. I suppose I am not the only member of Parliament who has received a particular line of approach from the Cosmetic and Toiletry Manufacturers Association of Australia.
– The pill attracts an amusement tax of 271 per cent.
– One gets into a dangerous field when one looks at amusement tax because whether it is amusement takes some defining. Quite a lot has been said about how the pensioners would react to this Budget. I shall read part of a letter - some of it is personal and I do not want to read that portion - which was written to me on 24th August 1972. It reads:
J am writing to see if you would kindly prepare a claim for me to be presented to the Federal Treasurer to ask if the Federal Government will grant a subsidy to all local councils and shires to enable them to give a 50 per cent remission on rates to all eligible pensioners owing to the rising costs in all commodities especially, water and sewerage rates. It is impossible for the average pensioner to meet the said payments.
This is from a man who has done quite a lot for pensioners. For a long period he has been active on behalf of pensioner organisations. Unfortunately he has had to receive an invalid pension over a long period. Probably he knows more than anybody else I could nominate about having to struggle through on a small pension with a large family. He has asked whether something could be done to assist pensioners in the payment of rates to shire councils. This is an indication of what some pensioners feel about the Budget.
The Government should give some special consideration to the apple and pear industry in Tasmania. There has been an attempt by the Government to assist that industry but one of the endeavours made by the Government will not give any assistance whatsoever to the industry. Over the years the fruit industry, which is very important to Tasmania, has run down. First of all small fruits disappeared. The apple and pear industry is now facing a situation which perhaps will put it completely off the map. At one time of a weekend one could go down through the fruit growing areas and pick up any type of fruit one desired at a reasonable price to the consumer. Today if one goes through that area one has to hunt around somebody’s backyard to see whether there are a few raspberries, strawberries or even a few apples available. A number of orchardists have had to grub out their trees and change over to an entirely different type of farming. Producing apples is an industry which is not easily changed. It takes about five to seven years to produce a crop which is in any way profitable. Perhaps it depends on the orchardist himself and the care which he gives the trees. To get an industry of this nature back on its feet could take five, six or seven years. I am afraid that that is not possible for many orchardists. It is beyond their financial resources. A number of orchardists now are grubbing out their trees.
Submissions have been made to this Government to assist orchardists in Tasmania. Let us face the situation - more apples are grown in Tasmania than in the rest of Australia. That fact alone makes this an important industry so far as we Tasmanians are concerned. There does not appear to be any provision for reconstruction in the industry although it costs in the vicinity of $3,000 an acre to replant an orchard. If an orchardist has to lay out about $3,000 an acre and then has to wait for from 5 to 7 years before getting a return on his money, it indicates that the fruit industry is in a pretty parlous situation. I do not think it is possible under any circumstances to get an orchard to a point of economic production in less than 5 years. The present situation in which orchardists have to grub out their trees means that in many cases they must vacate that ground because the acreage they have is not sufficient to enable them to produce an economic crop which will support them and their families over a period of 12 months. lt has been suggested that some compensation will be paid by the Government to orchardists who have to change from apple and pear production to other types of farming, but according to the information I have this will not put the orchardists in the position of being able to get another cash crop coming in at the time they would have had the cash coming forward from their apple crop. 1 make a plea to this Government to be a little more helpful to the orchardists in Tasmania because they have been in a very bad financial situation for a number of years.
– The honourable senator has paused. The silence is better than the sound of his voice.
– The silence may appear to Senator Webster to be better. I always have thought the same thing about him when he in on his feet. A number of things affecting the industry in Tasmania could be mentioned in a speech on the Budget. One of the greatest problems that we have in Tasmania is the shipping service. Tasmania has been badly affected on a number of occasions by its shipping service. Certain submissions have been made to the Government over a period of years to assist by providing an alternative. The trade union moment in Tasmania has done more than has this Government to keep ships moving between Tasmania and the mainland. The late Mr O’Neill was secretary of the trade union movement in Tasmania. He did more for the shipping industry and the producers, primary and secondary, in getting produce to the mainland than anybody else that I know of in the time that I have been associated with shipping in Tasmania, and that has been practically the whole of my working life. I appeal to the Government to assist Tasmania as much as possible in the matter of shipping freights. The Australian National Line has done a pretty good job in shifting our products to mainland and overseas markets, but by the same token I make a special appeal to the Government to do more to help solve the various crises that we face in the shipping service to and from Tasmania.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the Opposition to the motion that the Senate take note of the Budget papers. The amendment brings home to the Government and to the people of Australia issues which are important to the workers of Australia, far more important than the issues which the Government has given consideration in this Budget. I think that this was the 16th Budget that I have seen presented in this chamber. I do not think it has done one more thing for Tasmania than has any other budget which this Government has introduced. So far as Tas mania is concerned, possibly this is the worst Budget that the Government has brought down.
– It is the worst for Australia.
– I agree with Senator Cavanagh. One comes to this place with the hope of getting the most assistance for one’s own State, in the first place, and then, secondly, for Australia generally. On this occasion I think that the Government has done less to help Tasmania and to help Australia as a whole than it has in any previous budget.
– 1 was intrigued with 2 statements made by Senator Poke. The first was an admission, which I had never before heard from a member of the Australian Labor Party, that many workers - he did not define them and I will deal with that point in a moment - voted for the Government. We have been saying that for years but it certainly was news to hear the admission from a member of the Australian Labor Party. I wonder what those workers think when the Government is accused of continually attacking the working man. One can only assume that by continuing to vote for us they are indicating that they agree with what we are saying. It is true that many people who are generally and loosely termed workers do not approve of the actions of many of their union leaders. Too often they are frightened to say so publicly, but when it comes to the secrecy of the ballot box they indicate clearly their disagreement with their union leaders.
I noted with some interest that Senator Poke and many of his colleagues used the term ‘worker’. When my colleague Senator Withers suggested to Senator Poke that he define ‘worker’, and then challenged him to do so, the challenge was not accepted. This is the dilemma which faces the Australian Labor Party. Members of that Party do not know who the workers are. They use this loose expression, but when they are challenged to define it they are unable to do so. Senator Cavanagh, who is now interjecting, tried to help Senator Poke, but even the pair of them could not find a definition for the word ‘worker’. I was intrigued by Senator Poke’s statement and then his inability to say what he meant.
I come now to the Budget. Although I have not been in this place to see 16 Budgets, as has Senator Poke, I have seen a number of them. I cannot recall a Budget which has received greater support throughout the community than has this one.
– The gallup polls did not show that the other weekend.
– The honourable senator must have seen a gallup poll that 1 have not seen. Despite what my friend Senator McLaren says, the Budget has received greater support throughout the community than has any other Budget that I can recall. This was because the Budget was completely in line with Liberal Party philosophy, dealing also with the main problems in the community. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) at the second page of the Budget Speech referred to a major problem when he said:
This slackness in consumer spending has been basic to the economy’s lack of punch. Our first objective in this Budget, therefore, is to create conditions conducive to stronger consumer spending.
I shall come to thai in a moment. The Treasurer went on to deal with a matter which has been of great concern to everyone in the community. I refer to the question of inflation, in respect of which he said:
I nm glad to say that the heightening tendency has been stopped and there are even some signs that a reversal may be in train. The price indices themselves have slowed somewhat in their upward rush.
Senator Gietzelt referred to the need to generate greater spending in the public sector. No doubt that is Labor Party philosophy, but certainly it is not ours. Under the heading ‘Philosophy and Objectives’ the Treasurer said something which many of us on this side of the chamber have been urging for some time, that is that the private sector of the economy should be assisted because no wealth is produced by the public sector; it is produced by the private sector. The public sector simply cannot continue to expand unless wealth is produced by the private sector. For too long we have witnessed the private sector bearing a burden which has been far too heavy. The Treasurer acknowledged this when he said:
Secondly, for some time now public sector spending has run ahead very fast, with private sector spending lagging. There are important needs served by our public expenditures but there are also costs - whether from the viewpoint of the individual taxpayer, who finds taxation more and more a burden, or of the private sector as a whole, which finds its room for growth constrained.
It is central to our objectives that the needed stimulus to the economy should not be by way of an excessive growth of Commonwealth expenditure. We have sought as much scope as possible for reducing the burden of taxation. That has been our primary aim and I believe we have achieved it.
I think these statements are the very basis of the Budget. Its aim is to expand consumer spending, to overcome the sluggishness in the economy and to give further assistance to the private sector, from which all wealth grows. I suggest that not many people would dispute that.
The reaction to the Budget by the Labor Party has been interesting. The Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr Whitlam) made a rather pathetic attempt to attack the Budget. For one of the few times in recent history he was taken to task almost unanimously by the Press. I am not a great reader of the Press, nor do I quote from newspapers very often, but in view of the fact that Senator Poke used many quotations from one of the Sydney evening newspapers to bolster his case 1 think I should mention that it was significant that the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, with other newspapers, was very critical in its editorial of Mr Whitlam’s effort, or lack of it.
– What paper was that?
– The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’. I commend a reading of it to the honourable senator, if he has not read it. lt will do his heart good. It may not do his morale much good, but he will benefit from reading it. The editorial which appeared in that newspaper on Thursday. 24th August, had some harsh things to say. The editorial began:
It would be unrealistic to expect Mr Whitlam in his Budget speech not to look towards the election. What is dismaying in the speech is not this but its low opinion of the intelligence and sophistication of the electorate. It offered little analysis. It offered not the foggiest notion of what Labors fiscal alternatives might be. It was brazen in its insincerity.
They are rather strong words, but they were justifiable words when one considers the hotch-potch which went for a speech by Mr Whitlam. A little later the editorial stated:
Far too much of this ill-considered speech consisted of mere abuse and denigration unsupported by rational and detailed argument.
From that start, which was not very promising for an attack by the Labor Party, either here or in another place, one can say that the Opposition has never got off the ground. Senator Poke hardly dealt with the Budget at all during his remarks. One of Mr Whitlam’s complaints was that it was a rich man’s Budget. No doubt this was an appeal to the socialist mind to which this type of denigration has some appeal.
– Some members of the Opposition are pretty wealthy people. Perhaps it appeals to them, too.
– Perhaps that is why they are so quiet. Perhaps it does appeal to the rich men among them.
– One has only to look at Senator Primmer’s car.
– Perhaps they have some explanation for this. 1 ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 509
Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I rise to seek further information about the procedure that the Government is following in regard to negotiations with certain countries as to the portability of pensions.
– Our parliamentary pensions are not portable, are they?
– I am referring to the portability of pensions in the social services field. I draw the attention of honourable senators to an answer I received from Senator Greenwood on 24th August 1972 in which he pointed out that negotiations were still in progress with some 28 countries. That takes me back to the last day of the previous session - 1st June 1972 - when, speaking for the Opposition on the Social Services Bill (No. 3), I advocated that Australia would be better served if it were to use the avenue available to it under section 137 of the Social Services Act and go it alone, as the United States of America did.
During the recess I received correspondence from the United Council of Immigrants on this subject. In a letter dated 1 2th July 1972 the Council stated:
We have the feeling that if we were to dissociate ourselves from the 10-year residence requirement but demand only the portability of old-aged pensions irrespective of any agreement between Australia and the proposed place of residence, some Government members would support our view.
The letter was signed by Dr Untaru, who is the President of the United Council of Immigrants. Naturally I could not say whether I would get any response from supporters of the Government if I were to attempt to pilot any proposition. 1 appreciated that certain legislation has been passed and it is not possible nowto unscramble the omelette. But I did take the matter a little further. I was curious when Senator Greenwood, who represents in this Chamber the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), said the other day that we were negotiating the portability of pensions with 28 countries. I have noticed that on the last day of the last sessional period a number of countries were listed but Poland was not among them. I have selected Poland in particular not because I think that every Polish immigrant necessarily desires to go back to that country and take with him an Australian pension right but because I lean heavily on an article in ‘Time’ magazine of 21st August 1972 headed ‘Polonia. Come Home’. It is significant that numerous Polish born persons in receipt of United States social service benefits have returned to Poland. In case the point is made that they are a special brand of Polish citizen who are mindful of some of the post war upheavals that have occurred, I instance the attitude of people like Aloysius Mazewski. who is President of the Chicagobased Polish National Alliance and in turn a Conservative Republican. I suggest that it is not impossible that there are some Polish migrants who, although not being supporters of the Australian Labor Party and its policies, do want to go back to the land where they were born. That does not negate at all the services they may have rendered in this country. What I am seeking to know from Senator Greenwood is: If the Soviet Union is one of the 28 nations with which we are negotiating, would agreement with that country encompass Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, which are now part of the Soviet Union? In addition, will Poland be one of the 28 nations? The important thing in the article to which I have referred is that Poland does not ask its people who come back from the United States to give up their American citizenship. As Senator Greenwood will appreciate, these are all things that the Government can latch on to in its negotiations.
I know from visits I have made to various elements that make up the Polish community that the Poles are somewhat divergent in their attitude to this matter. Some would support what Mr Whitlam puts forward while others would support what the Government puts forward. As a representative of New South Wales, I feel I have an obligation to get the best terms possible for any migrant irrespective of his political affinities. The same situation applies in the trade union movement. If every person is a member one tries for the greatest good for the greatest number. It has never been my policy in speaking to the motion for the adjournment of the Senate to talk unduly on any subject. I summarise my remarks in this way: Senator Greenwood said negotiations were proceeding with 28 nations. What are those nations? Can he be a little more specific as to what will be the status of, on the one hand, people from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and, on the other, people from Poland. In view of the apparent concession by the Polish Government that Polish migrants who have acquired United States citizenship need not worry about their citizenship being in jeopardy, I think it is fair to put to the Government that it should, if it has not already done so, seek to obtain the attitude of the Polish Government to this matter. I leave it at that.
– Unfortunately I am not in a position to give Senator
Mulvihill the names of the 28 countries which the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) had informed me he was in the course of negotiating with in order to give effect to the arrangements contained in the Social Services Bill (No. 3) which was passed earlier this year. I shall ensure that the Minister receives Senator Mulvihill^ comments so that he can supply me or Senator Mulvihill, as he determines, with the information which has been sought.
As to the other aspects of Senator Mulvihills remarks, I think it must be recognised that the details of what arrangements can be made with particular countries depend upon the outcome of these negotiations. He will recall that the intention of the Government when it introduced the legislation earlier this year was to give effect to 3 principles. The first was to ensure that the widest possible benefits would be available to persons who had been resident in Australia and to ensure that persons who had lived their lives here, worked here and therefore might be supposed to have some call upon the Australian community would be able to receive pension benefits if, after a certain time, they went back to the country in which they wanted to spend their retiring years. The second principle was to ensure that the greatest reciprocity possible was available in the negotiations which were engaged in. I think it is in this area in particular that Senator Mulvihill^ real query lies. I think it must depend upon the arrangements which the Minister can make with all countries which are prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements to ensure that the people from those countries who are living in Australia and who may intend to go back home will be able to receive pensions and that, likewise, the people from those countries who may have an entitlement to pensions will be able to receive those pensions when they come to Australia.
Of course, the third consideration which the Government had in mind was, as far as possible, to protect the Australian taxpayer against the possible abuses of the system that could occur if people came to Australia for a short length of time to get the utmost benefit and, having got that benefit, left this country. It is important that there be a reciprocity and this is the whole approach of the Government. I have set out those things simply because they very shortly state, I think, the Government’s intentions in legislation with which I know everyone agrees in principle, even though there might be variations which honourable senators would like to give effect to. Senator Mulvihill’s concern in this area is well known. The Minister is aware of it and I am quite sure he will supply Senator Mulvihill with as much information as he can and as soon as he can.
-I rise purely and simply to set the Hansard record straight. On the motion for the adjournment of the Senate last Wednesday night Senator Webster said:
Information has been provided to me to show that the person who made the original complaint about the Ford Cortina and the Ford Motor Co. - I know the name of the individual - is at present in the process of buying a Ford Falcon. This shows the hollowness of the argument of a man who complains about a manufacturer. The individual by whom this matter was raised really has no argument with the company and is anxious to have another vehicle manufactured by the same company.
I do not think anything I said showed that this gentleman had any particular argument with the Ford Motor Co. of Aus tralia Ltd, other than about a certain vehicle which had been produced by that company. In order to set the record straight, the facts of the matter are that an agreement to lease an XA Falcon, to be used by the company for which this man works, is currently being drawn up.
– Which company is that?
-I cannot pull the name off the top of my head. This agreement is to be signed within the next day or two by a person representing the company which is doing the leasing. The gentleman to whom 1 referred in the adjournment debate last Tuesday night as having raised this matter is not a director of the company doing the leasing.
– Is his name Mr Plane?
- His name is Mr Plane. He has sold the car, about which he has complained so bitterly, back to the company from which he bought it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.32 p.m.
page 512
The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:
page 512
asked the Minister representing the Minis ter for Immigration, upon notice:
As a result of a 3 year review of the Department’s advertising policy in the United Kingdom, has the Department switched its immigration advertising account to another advertising agency; if so (a) which advertising agency handled the account previously, and (b) which advertising agency now handles the work, (c) are either of these advertising agencies Australian owned, (d) bow many Australians are employed by the new advertiser, (e) what is the total amount to be expended on Immigration advertising in the United Kingdom this financial year, and for bow long are the present advertising arrangements to continue, (f) how many advertising agencies indicated their interest in the account, and how many of these (received consideration, (g) was the agency appointed on the basis of lowest tender received, or on what basis, (h) did any Australianowned agencies indicate their interest in the account; if so, which agencies, and (i) who was responsible for making the decision.
Senator GREENWOOD- The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
A new advertising agency was appointed to handle the Department of Immigration advertising account in Britain from 1st January 1972.
Everetts Ltd, a London-based advertising agency with Australian-owned associates (O’Brien Advertising (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd, Sydney, until 1970 and currently, Mullins, Clarke and Ralph Pty Ltd, Sydney).
Davidson, Pearcb, Berry and Spottiswoode Ltd, a London-based agency represented in Australia by Ogilvy and Mather (Aust.) Pty Ltd.
No.
Davidson, Pearce, Berry and Spottiswoode Ltd, employ 5 Australians on their staff.
Estimated expenditure in 1972-73 is $407,870. The present advertising contract is for 3 years to December 1974.
Thirty advertising agencies indicated interest in the Immigration advertising account when tenders were called in January 1971. Detailed talks were held with 17. A short list of 7 agencies was invited to submit full creative presentations. All had Australian associates, 4 of them wholly Australianowned.
Advertising agency practice offers little scope for competitive tenders. Apart from payment by the advertiser for some production services, most recognised advertising agencies receive their remuneration in the form of standard commission from the newspapers and other media used. Advertising contracts cannot, therefore, normally be let on the basis of competitive costs, but rather on assessment of the proposals submitted and of which company is likely to be the most efficient.
The selection procedure in London began with an examination of the companies and their facilities. Matters considered included the size of each agency and its capacity to handle accounts of similar size to that of the Department of Immigration, its existing clients, possibilities of conflict of interest, terms of business, Australian associations (including Australian staff) and associated companies in Australia; but the over-riding concern was the quality of the agencies’ work and their approach to advertising Australia’s immigration programme.
Just as overseas interests advertising in Australia find it wise to commission an agency employing Australians thoroughly familiar with the Australian scene, it was also considered prudent to engage a firm in Britain with local skilled staff, experienced in dealing with the British media, consumer attitudes, marketing and seasonal variations.
Expert and up-to-date knowledge of Australia is, of course, considered important. This is provided to the agency by senior officers of the Department of Immigration in London.
Two Australian-owned agencies indicated interest. One is a London-based agency, Anderson-Jeffress Ltd. It tendered jointly with a British-owned agency, C. R. Casson Ltd. These agencies were among the 17 with whom detailed talks were held. They were not short-listed. The other Australianowned agency, Fortune (Australia) Pty Ltd, tendered jointly with an old-established Britishowned firm, W. S. Crawford Ltd. Crawfords went out of business as a separate agency soon afterwards and withdrew its lender. Fortune (Australia) Pty Ltd, then sought reinstatement of the tender jointly with another British agency, Dorland. Dorland’s joint tender with Fortune was included on the short list. Careful consideration was given to the agency’s presentation which was prepared by Dorland personnel in Britain.
The presentations from the 7 agencies were considered by officers of the Department in London and in Australia. Independent outside expert opinion on presentations was also obtained in Australia.
After an exhaustive study of the presentations and submissions from the 7 agencies the Department appointed Davidson, Pearce, Berry and Spottiswoode Ltd.
page 513
asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:
Clerk $7020-7559 (Class 6), Third Division. Duties - Carry out special projects and research as directed by the Industrial Registrar. Qualifications - Tertiary education, preferably in Economics or Sociology and that the position was open to permanent
Commonwealth Public Servants only.
Senator GREENWOOD- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
page 514
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
Senator GREENWOOD- The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
page 514
asked the Minis ter for Health, upon notice:
As a result of the ‘Woofa’ episode, when a Sydney dog was inadvertently dispatched by air to Britain, has the Department of Health introduced a new form of documentation that will require the dog owner’s signature prior to the dog’s shipment overseas.
Senator GREENWOOD- The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The matters raised in this question and in the honourable senator’s questions without notice on 9th and 23rd May 1972 have been the subject of examination by the Department of Health. It is understood that this incident arose out of human error, namely, a mistake as to the identities of 2 dogs. Both dogs were in the charge of one person, who was acting as agent for the 2 owners concerned. The system of documentation in relation to animals leaving Australia is, in itself, satisfactory. Each year many hundreds of animals are exported without incidents of this nature occurring. In these circumstances, it is not proposed to make any changes in the system of documentation at this stage, but the honourable senator may be assured that the system will be kept under review.
page 514
asked the Minister representing the Minis ter for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:
Senator GREENWOOD- The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
– On 24th August Senator Jessop asked me a question concerning Aboriginal education which was considerably distorted by proceedings in the Senate, and in the interest of accuracy, I wish to give the following answer. I am able to inform the honourable senator that the allocation specifically for Aboriginal education last financial year was $8. 6m. In the present Budget it is $15. lm an increase of more than 70 per cent. That only takes its place as an item in the very impressive increase in the Commonwealth’s direct expenditure on education which rises from $354m in the last financial year to a budgeted $426m this year. But the fact is, excluding special expenditure in the field of Aboriginal education, in the last financial year the Commonwealth spent nearly $27 per head of total population on education, and this year expenditures is budgeted at more than $31 per head. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal persons share in this expenditure. In addition in the last financial year a further $60 per head of Aboriginal population was spent by the Commonwealth specifically for Aboriginal education. This year the budgeted expenditure exceeds $100 per head.
page 515
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 August 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720829_senate_27_s53/>.