Senate
6 December 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 10.15 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2537

QUESTION

LAND TENURE IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Australian Capital Territory. Does the Government intend to act on the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures and reintroduce restricted and unrestricted land auctions in the Australian Capital territory?

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In view of the importance of that question I ask the Leader of the Opposition to place it on the notice paper.

page 2537

QUESTION

SHORTAGES OF GOODS

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of the continuing reports and the growing evidence of the shortage of many commodities in the stores of Australia- shortages of groceries, electrical goods and even textiles? Is the Minister aware also that in the last days of the last Labor Government, up to 1949, shortages of commodities and black markets were the order of the day? Are not shortages and black markets a concomitant everywhere throughout the world of price control?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is rather difficult to follow the logic of the honourable senator’s question. He says that shortages are developing in a system where there is no price control, yet claims that shortages are a concomitant of price control. I cannot follow that logic. The facts are that some shortages are developing in the community and productivity is increasing. Production is increasing but a shortage is developing of certain goods, such as furniture, furnishings and so on. That is because we are in a period of unparalleled prosperity. Unemployment is at its lowest, more is being produced, and people are getting the money to spend. Now, under the Labor Government, they are able to purchase the goods. They want to buy things that they were not able to buy before. Therefore there is a vastly increased demand for consumer goods.

I think everyone ought to be happy that people have the wherewithal, the money, to buy the goods. We hope that, with full employment and with the rationalisation which is occurring throughout industry, the demand will be supplied. The state of affairs is a very healthy one when people are confident and are wanting to purchase consumer goods, so much so that the shops are running out of them. The situation is a lot better than that which occurred under the previous Administration, when the shops were full of goods, unemployment was increasing and people could not afford to buy the goods.

page 2537

QUESTION

FARM PRODUCTIVITY

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Did the Minister for Primary Industry suggest, at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation conference in Rome last month, an intensive study into whether world farm productivity is levelling out while demand is increasing? Did he forecast greater food storage activity to offset fluctuations in seasons? If he did, why did the Government reduce budgetary aid to Australian rural industries at a time when the Minister felt that world food productivity might be falling further behind demand?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

-Quite obviously the honourable senator is confused about what I said in Rome. I was not talking about whether or not governments should provide taxation benefits to primary producers. If he had read my speech more closely he might have understood that I was referring to the actual productivity of world agriculture generally. This matter was raised not only by myself but by other Ministers who addressed the meeting. The substance of the problem is that the remarkable decline in the number of people employed in rural industry in the developed countries has meant, in recent years, sufficient increased productivity by the people engaged in agriculture to take up the difference. There are some very strong arguments to suggest that the productivity rate is levelling out. It was that matter which I and other Ministers raised. The general question of food storage and the other matters raised in the honourable senator’s question will be the subject of a further conference next October, possibly in North America, at which all the food producing and food importing countries will contribute their views as to what should be done about world food shortages.

page 2537

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: FEDERAL CONTROL

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer the Minister to the report in this morning’s edition of the Melbourne ‘Sun’ that the Federal Government will take over responsibility for Victorian

Aboriginal affairs from 1 January 1974. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether this report is correct? If it is, will he give details of the current arrangements with the Victorian Government on the administration of Aboriginal affairs in that State?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I am very much concerned at the article which appears on page 27 of this morning’s ‘Sun’ under the big headline Native control to go federal’, and which is spread over 3 columns. The article is accompanied by a photo of Mr Dickie, the Victorian Minister of Community Welfare. The article bears a Canberra dateline and attributes to Senator Cavanagh a statement that there will be a takeover next January. The report is completely untrue. No such statement emanated from my office. I made no statement to any member of the Press yesterday on any question other than the question of turtles. There is no agreement to take over as from 1 January.

A meeting was held between my predecessor and Mr Dickie on 4 September. There was general agreement that the Australian Government should have a greater say in planning and policy on( Aboriginal affairs. It was decided that the Victorian and Australian Government departments should confer. As recently as this week they have been conferring. We have an amicable relationship. There is no agreement to take over any policy in Victoria. This article has done untold damage to the smooth relationship that exists. I understand that Mr Dickie will be making a statement today. I have written to you, Mr President, to see whether the privilege afforded to the Press Gallery should be extended to those who make such false and damaging statements. I will confer with the Attorney-General today to see whether there is any means of legal redress against this false, malicious report.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Cavanagh, you have made reference to me. I will take the matter under consideration. You have done me the kindness of sending me a letter informing me of this matter. I shall advise you and the Senate at a later hour of this day.

page 2538

QUESTION

NATIONAL ANTHEM

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he can say what system will be used or has been used in conducting a gallup poll in relation to the 3 songs which it is proposed to place before the people who will be asked to express their choice of a national anthem. How are the people whose opinion is to be sought to be chosen, or how have they been chosen? In the choosing, what criterion will be or has been used? Is the Minister aware that the Sydney ‘Sun’ conducted its own gallup poll, which included the present national anthem as a choice, with very decisive results?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I understand that the decision on the new national anthem is to be made by a selected group of persons who will comprise a fairly substantial sample of the Australian community. In that way a determination will be made fairly inexpensively but in such a way as to be representative of the opinion of the Australian people. I am not sure how the questioning will be done and so on, but I will endeavour to find that out for the honourable senator. I am not aware of what was done by the newspaper referred to by the honourable senator.

page 2538

QUESTION

APPLIED ECOLOGY PTY LTD

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. We had a statement that Senator Georges was no longer the head of the turtle farming company, Applied Ecology Pty Ltd; we have now had a statement from him that he is head of the company. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether Senator Georges is in, whether he is out, or whether he is suspended like Mohammed’s coffin between heaven and earth?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-I do not know from what source Senator McManus got the information that there had been a statement that Senator Georges was no longer a director of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd. There has been no statement to that effect. There was a statement that in the reorganisation of Applied Ecology he and other directors will be replaced with directors whose qualifications are suitable for the new organisation. I am not retracting my first statement that at some time there will be a replacement.

page 2538

QUESTION

CROSS-BOWS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Customs and Excise seen recent television publicity concerning lethal cross-bows which are now on sale in Sydney? Has the Minister any indication that these cross-bows have been imported into Australia and, if so, will he take steps to ban such importations? Finally, will he discuss this matter with the relevant State Ministers with a view to including cross-bows in the proposed uniform firearms legislation and to confining the use of such cross-bows to archery ranges?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Yes, I am aware of the television publicity concerning cross-bows. The matter has been looked into by the Department of Customs and Excise. It appears that some of the cross-bows are imported in an unassembled form and then assembled here. Some cross-bows are manufactured in Australia. There would not be much point in prohibiting the importation of cross-bows, assuming that they are lethal, if similar articles are in fact manufactured in Australia. It may be that some uniformity can be arrived at between the Australian Government and the State governments with a view to putting restrictions on the cross-bows so as to preserve safety. I am prepared to initiate some discussions with the States to see whether this can be done. The inquiry is not altogether completed. That is the whole of the information that I can give to the honourable senator.

page 2539

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIANS TO THE HIGH COURT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that no South Australian has ever been appointed to the High Court? Does the Attorney-General agree that South Australia has people of outstanding ability in the legal profession? As there is currently a vacancy on the High Court bench, will he give serious consideration to the appointment of a South Australian to the High Court? I appreciate that this comment has been passed previously in another area.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The Government and I have the greatest respect for the quality of the judiciary and those engaged in the legal profession in South Australia. No doubt, when any appointments are being considered, the capacity and the talents of those in South Australia whether they be on the bench or otherwise engaged in the legal profession will not be overlooked.

page 2539

QUESTION

PENSION RATES

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that average male weekly earnings for the quarter ending December 1972 were $104.10 a week and that average male weekly earnings for the quarter ending June 1973 increased to $107.70 a week? Does the Minister agree that the standard rate of pension was $20 a week in December last year, representing 19.2 per cent of the average male weekly earnings for that period, whereas the current standard rate of pension, at $23 a week, is 21.3 per cent of the average male weekly earnings for the June quarter of this year? Is the Minister confident that the Government will fulfil an election promise to increase the standard rate of pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings during the term of this Government?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Does the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security carry all these statistics in his head?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, in answer to the question of the honourable senator and your question, I admit that I do not carry these statistics in my head. But I know that Senator Cameron has shown a tremendous amount of interest in this field. I have no doubt that he has conducted a lot of research into the matter and I have no doubt that the figures that he has cited are correct. I have said over and over again, as Mr Hayden, the Minister for Social Security, has said that this Government’s policy is to phase out the means test in the lifetime of the Parliament, assuming that the Parliament runs for 3 years, of course, and to increase pension rates until they are equal to at least 25 per cent of the average weekly male earnings. Bearing in mind the 2 increases of $1.50 a week that the Government has already made to pensions- incidentally, the first one was backdated to February from the first pension payment date after the holding of the election in December of last year- I would think that the figures cited by Senator Cameron are correct.

page 2539

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Science. I refer to the warning issued by the Minister for Science, Mr Morrison, that purchase of colour television sets should be delayed until necessary safety standards concerning radiation and flammability have been set. As the Government has indicated that the standards will be announced in June of next year, will action be taken to expedite a determination of the safety standards so that the manufacturing industry will not be unduly prejudiced and delayed in setting up its production program?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Yes, I understand that some radiation warnings were given by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the Department of Health some time ago. Of course, it is important that the safety standards and the legal effect of them be made known. I would envisage that when the Trade Practices Bill, which is now before the Senate, becomes law, the section that deals with consumer product standards will be utilised so that regulations can be made pursuant to that section to deal with such a topic. I ask Senator Laucke to do his utmost to assist in having that Bill brought speedily into law so that we may have such standards. The honourable senator will appreciate the importance of our having a national standard for television sets as well as for many other commodities so that there are not differing State standards, with all the confusion and disruption that this causes to industry. There is a very strong case for the evolution of these national standards in respect of such matters. Leaving other questions aside, I should hope that all honourable senators would agree that a speedy passage ought to be given to those consumer protection provisions of the law.

page 2540

QUESTION

DEFENCE SALARIES

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is he able to confirm that, now that the Army, Navy and Air Force have been combined under one Minister for Defence- and we would have expected as a result some efficiencies- in fact the number of officers in the Department of Defence who are receiving more than $17,000 a year and who are becoming well known as ‘fat cats’ has increased at a time when defence expenditure has decreased? If the Minister is able to confirm this increase in the number of’fat cats’, can he say just what efficiencies have resulted from gathering all the defence departments under one head?

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– One of the objectives of the reorganisation, details of which were announced in the Parliament this year, is to save manpower. Some of the figures that have been put forward have been reasonable. It is expected that in the short-term about 300 civilian officers will be placed outside the defence Services. Although their positions will become redundant, they will not lose their jobs, but there will be a saving immediately of about 300 positions. In the long-term by the time the reorganisation is completed, about 1,000 civilian officers could be located in other departments. Regarding the relative number of positions of so-called ‘fat cats’, I do not have the details before me. However, the honourable senator has probably noticed that Cabinet has decided that a tribunal should determine the salaries for some of the higher level classifications. This matter is currently being considered within the Public Service because some heads of departments have not gained what they argued to be the increase that they should have had resulting from the decisions of the Cabinet sub-committee. However, Cabinet and the Government have decided that there will be a tribunal set up to look into this situation, correct any anomalies, and perhaps see that the higher classifications, about which the honourable senator is concerned, can be more reasonably positioned in the economic sphere.

page 2540

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. Did he have the opportunity last night of seeing the 7 p.m. television news service of the Australian Broadcasting Commission? If he did, did he notice that Senator Rae appeared on the service to comment on the education Bills that were at that time before the Senate and that no Government spokesman was given an opportunity to appear? Also, did he note that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives appeared on the program to comment on Government policy, without the Government’s being given the opportunity to comment? Will the Minister advise the Commission of its obligation to present a balanced and unbiased viewpoint with regard to political matters, and in future endeavour to present to the viewing public both sides of the political spectrum?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did see the news telecast in which there was quite a lengthy interview with Senator Rae who represented the Opposition and who put the Opposition ‘s point of view on the education Bills that were discussed in the Senate yesterday. There was no Government spokesman or Government point of view offered on the same newscast. The interview was followed practically immediately by an interview with Mr Snedden, the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is fair to say- and I do so as a member of the Australian Journalists Association- that generally speaking journalists in the employ of the Australian Broadcasting Commission do a good job, and I hope that in the overall picture there is a balance of presentation of all points of view. Having drawn Senator Greenwood’s constant complaints about partiality to the attention of the Commission I certainly will draw Senator Cant’s comments to the attention of the Acting General Manager of the Commission. I will ask him to ensure that in all future newscasts there is an overall balance of all points of view.

page 2540

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate consider that there is any advantage in our international airline, Qantas Airways Ltd, being a member of the International Air Transport Association? Is it not a fact that Qantas is the headquarters of IATA in Australia? Is he aware that this dictatorial and autocratic organisation shows no control over its own members? Further, is he aware that while a set price fare arrangement for the round trip between Australia and Europe has been made the air travel industry is in a shambles because of snide operators who are members of IATA and who give different fares to different people? Does he know that it is common knowledge in the tourist industry that these fares may range from as low as $500 or $550? As this indicates what a great mess the tourist industry is in, does he think that IATA is a worthwhile organisation to which Australia ‘s national airline should belong?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I am aware that there has been a great deal of criticism of the International Air Transport Association. I recall that some criticism was voiced at a meeting of one of the Estimates Committees at which a former Minister for Civil Aviation was present. Criticism has been expressed on both sides of this chamber about the operations of IATA and the adverse effects of operations carried out by members of that organisation on the fare structures. I suppose it would be fair to say that at this stage the travel industry seems to be in much the same state as the electrical appliance industry was in some years ago. I think that it would be proper to ask the Minister for Transport to give a reply to the honourable senator on the question of whether there would be any advantage from membership of IATA to match the disadvantages referred to by the honourable senator.

Senator Wood:

– What about the Minister for Tourism and Recreation?

Senator MURPHY:

-And the Minister for Tourism and Recreation. I will pass the honourable senator’s question on to them to see whether they can answer the very substantial criticisms which have been raised by him and by other people.

page 2541

QUESTION

LACK OF CONFIDENCE OF AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen a statement by the Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange that the confidence of industry has been destroyed by this Government? As an increasing demand for goods must be matched by an increase in production, does the Minister agree that the present shortages of goods in many fields are the direct result of this lack of confidence in industry and the consequent reluctance to expand production?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-It is true that I do not get much chance to read the newspapers, but every time I get through to the financial columns of the newspapers it is obvious from what I read that industry is booming and enormous profits are being made. What is happening in Australia is that industry is flat out to meet the consumer demands of this community which is going through an unparalleled period of prosperity. Not only is the community pressing with its demands for goods of Australian industry but also there has been an enormous increase in imports. The Government, by the 25 per cent tariff cut, has endeavoured to make it easier for the community to spend money in this period of prosperity to buy more goods from outside as well. One of the troubles, though, is that because of the lack of power of the Government over the management of the economy it is not possible to see to it that the goods are available to the community at the prices at which they ought to be available. Various practices are operating which produce inefficiency in industry. The honourable senator would be aware of that. It is accepted by all political parties that unfair and restrictive practices are producing inefficiency in industry and forcing up prices. When we can get the Senate to face up to them and deal with them, I think we will probably find that some of the bottlenecks in the production and smooth distribution of goods will be removed.

page 2541

QUESTION

OIL AND PETROL

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement made yesterday and reported in today’s ‘Australian’ by Mr P. Sleigh, Managing Director of H. C. Sleigh Ltd? Is the Minister aware that Mr Sleigh has said that his company and the Broken Hill Pty Co. will drop their plans for the construction of a joint $50m oil refinery project in Newcastle? Is the Minister aware that the obstructionism of the Minister for Minerals and Energy throughout the petroleum mining and associated industries is seriously aggravating the difficulties Australia will face with the increasing world oil shortage? Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to give serious thought to transferring the Minister for Minerals and Energy to a less sensitive portfolio?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I certainly would not convey the latter suggestion. May I say that the wisdom and foresight of the Minister for Minerals and Energy has been realised by the whole community. There has been a lot of criticism of the Minister, who, very soon after he came into his portfolio, took steps to ensure that Australia was put in the best position possible to beat the energy crisis. He has been away ahead of the rest of the world in his thinking. The steps he has taken have put Australia in the situation where it is able to face the future in a much better position than are most other countries. Such resources as we have- in some fields they are meagre and in other fields they are vast-are clearly going to be used to the advantage of the Australian people. Had it not been for the vigorous efforts of Mr Connor it is quite clear that those energy resources would have come under the domination of others who, for their own interests- and no one could blame them- would see that they were used to the advantage of other countries or other interests.

page 2542

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: Is it true that some States have threatened to withdraw from the dairy equalisation scheme? What effect would this action have on the scheme and on the dairy industry generally?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that for some years there has been considerable dissatisfaction in some of the States with the dairy equalisation arrangements. A recent decision by the Government to phase out the dairy bounty did in fact cause the Australian Dairy Industry Council to appoint a sub-committee to investigate the equalisation arrangements because the partial withdrawal of the bounty has had about a 1.5c per lb effect on the equalisation arrangements. I understand that the sub-committee has reported back to the ADIC with the proposal that there should be an 80 per cent retention in each State of proceeds from butter sales. This has been the kernel of the problem in the past, particularly with Queensland and New South Wales. The present position is that the industry will need to endorse these proposals, which I believe will be done, providing the industry agrees, early next year.

For all the faults of equalisation, I think it should be said that a breakdown in these arrangements, especially by the 2 northern States, would mean the development of a very serious position in the Australian dairy industry and, almost certainly, a complete breakdown of orderly marketing in Australia. I hope that during the industry’s discussions on these newer proposals next year good sense will prevail and we will not see the breakdown that many people seem to think will take place.

page 2542

QUESTION

THE MIDDLE EAST

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the commendable- if possibly a little weak-statement yesterday by the Prime Minister on Israeli prisoners of war, is the Minister aware that when the Israeli forces retook the Golan Heights from Syria they found the bodies of 28 of their fellow soldier prisoners of war who had been bound, tortured and shot and the bodies hidden under brush and rocks? Is the Minister aware that Syria has a horrible record in respect of Israeli prisoners? Will the Government take its courage in its hands and, standing up against its new Third World friends at the United Nations, demand in the General Assembly that Syria be called upon to comply with the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not aware of the facts which the honourable senator states. It is important that some humanity be preserved in war and it is that at which the Geneva Conventions are aimed. Australia would certainly want every country to observe the Geneva Conventions. The honourable senator may be interested to know that certain activity is going on to update these conventions. I will refer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the honourable senator’s suggestion.

page 2542

QUESTION

ELECTORAL PUBLICITY

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Is it not a fact that the Broadcasting and Television Act does not prevent the broadcasting of referendum propaganda even on the day of taking the vote? Does the Minister feel that if this is a wise and correct procedure action should be taken to lift the prohibition now placed on the broadcasting of election propaganda after 48 hours prior to polling day thus bringing the broadcasting and television media into line with newspapers?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Legal advice given to me is that referendum broadcasting material does not come within the definition of election matter presently appearing in the Broadcasting and Television Act. The second portion of the question concerns future Government policy but I can assure the honourable senator that it is being considered.

page 2542

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the publication ‘Australian Health Insurance Program- The Plain Facts’ issued by the Community Hospitals Association? Is the Minister aware that the Association has used the format of an official Government publication, yet the purpose of the pamphlet is to attack the Government’s health scheme? Does he agree that this is a breach of ethics and contravenes normal business practice and, if continued, could cause confusion in the community? Has the Government given any consideration to having copyright placed on all Government publications with the right of republication subject to Government approval?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– There is, in general, a copyright on Government publications. I have not seen the publication referred to, but if the honourable senator hands it to me and if it is, as he suggests, an attempt to deceive the public as part of the gimmick of getting them to read it, this is not something that ought to be encouraged. It ought to be discouraged not only in commercial affairs but in political affairs. Deceptive and misleading propaganda such as this ought to be deplored by everyone. I suppose it is an indication of the weakness of the arguments if false and misleading approaches have to be made in that way.

page 2543

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. It relates to an item on the notice paper which is a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. It is an item referring to the effects of estate duties on individuals and communities and the social consequences of such duties. As I presented the appropriate resolution for this reference in 1971 and as there has been no progress or interim report I ask you to inquire whether a report is ready. Can we obtain an assurance that the report, if ready, will be tabled before the Senate rises?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Davidson, under the rules of the Senate you can ask the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations whether he has a report available. But as you are directing the question to me I shall ask the Chairman myself during the course of the day and see what the situation is.

page 2543

QUESTION

NORTH VIETNAM

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government concerned at reports of the continual buildup of North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam and at the blatant violation of the ceasefire agreement by North Vietnamese forces? Is the Government aware that an estimated 600 heavy tanks, 600 pieces of artillery and 100,000 troops have infiltrated South Vietnam since the ceasefire agreement? Will the Government instruct the Minister for Overseas Trade, Dr J. F. Cairns, to protest to North Vietnam over these violations during his forthcoming visit? What action is the Government taking to ensure that Australian aid to North Vietnam is not being used to support the North Vietnamese war machine? If the Government is taking no action will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will take urgent action to ensure that Australian aid will not assist North Vietnam to continue its offensive against South Vietnam and to continue murdering the people of South Vietnam?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I shall have to ask that the question be placed on notice.

page 2543

QUESTION

OIL

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and it relates to the growing shortage of bunker oil for both Australian and foreign-owned merchant ships carrying freight to and from this country. In view of the grave consequences to our living standards if our export and import trade is significantly restricted, and since the Minister has been specific that the Minister for Minerals and Energy has policies which he has just commended, what specific steps is the Commonwealth Government taking to overcome this shortage? What potential sources of supply of heavy crudes exist other than in the Middle East? Is the Government seeking alternative sources? What steps is the Government taking on the international scene, either at the United Nations or in conjunction with other oil importing nations, to resolve this very serious matter?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I know that this is a very serious matter. I know that the Minister for Minerals and Energy is concerned with it and that he has it under consideration. No doubt he will make a statement when he thinks it is proper to do so.

page 2543

QUESTION

PROPOSED HEALTH SCHEME

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister representing the Treasurer confirm the information obtained yesterday by radio commentator Norman Banks of Melbourne that the charge of 1.35 per cent on assessed taxable income designed to finance the Government’s health proposal will not be a deductible item for income taxation purposes? If the Minister can answer the question will he inform the Minister for Social Security, Mr Hayden, and the Minister for the Media,

Senator Douglas McClelland, as they seem to have no knowledge of this matter?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– In this state of affairs, I think it would be better if the question were to be placed on the notice paper.

page 2544

QUESTION

REPATRIATION CLAIMS: REASONS FOR REJECTIONS

Senator DEVITT:

– My question to the Minister for Repatriation relates to a subject which. I have raised with him previously by way of question in this chamber. Is the Minister now able to inform me and the Senate of the present position in regard to the preparation of legislation requiring determining authorities under the Repatriation Act to give reasons for rejections of claims or appeals?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The recently enacted Repatriation Act (No. 3) contained the legislative authority for the making of such regulations. As I mentioned in the second reading speech, in order to obviate inconvenience and delays in the determining process it was proposed that the system be introduced gradually. Some of the determining authorities are currently engaged on a trial basis in preparing reasons for decisions. It is expected that the trial will be completed early in 1974. Certain legal questions have to be determined. While the trial is in progress my Department is in close contact with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department in connection with these matters and possible regulations. I expect that the necessary regulations will be made within the next three or four months. When made they will ensure that unsuccessful appellants or their advocates will be notified of the reasons for decisions.

page 2544

QUESTION

RECOVERY’: COMMONWEALTH GRANT

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Health to the organisation called ‘Recovery ‘ which is performing a very important service in the community by rehabilitating people suffering from nervous disorders. I believe that the Minister is well aware of the work that this organisation is doing. Can he say whether the Federal Government has approved a grant for the establishment of a national secretariat for ‘Recovery’? If the Government has approved such a grant, can he say when the money will be made available to the organisation which is anxious to proceed with this urgent project?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am very much aware of the very valuable work carried out by ‘Recovery’. I know that 2 members of the organisation, Dr Lacey and Father Keogh, recently were invited to the United States of America to advise people there on how to go about setting up a similar organisation. I can advise the honourable senator that I am aware of these facts because my wife is an active member of the organisation. I cannot say with particularity whether what the honourable senator suggests is correct. I will make immediate inquiries of my colleague the Minister for Health and supply the honourable senator with an answer.

page 2544

QUESTION

GRAPE PRODUCTION

Senator LAUCKE:

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the concern of grape growers about the prospect of disposing of their production at the coming vintage as a result of the adverse budgetary measures? Has the Government plans to meet a situation of surplus at the next vintage. If so, what are these plans?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I do not think it is quite accurate to claim that the problems confronting the wine grape growing industry at present result from budgetary provisions. As I understand the position it is essentially a matter of overproduction and the industry is not able to market the production at the present time. This matter is currently under consideration by the Government. I am not in a position to give any specific details of what is intended to be done other than to say that from discussions I had overseas recently it would seem that there are much better prospects for the sale of Australian wines overseas than perhaps has been appreciated in the past. This is one area to which I hope to give more attention during the coming year.

page 2544

QUESTION

ESCALATION IN COSTS: HOMES FOR AGED

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the extreme escalation in the cost of living, particularly the cost of building materials, and the problems this presents in regard to the building of homes for the aged? Is the Minister aware of the financial burden placed on Australian citizens, particularly those who live in less densely populated areas, who attempt to provide funds for homes for the aged, a policy which is encouraged by all policital parties? Will the Minister consider increasing the Australian Government’s proportion of the contribution to the construction of such buildings?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I am aware of the increase in the cost of living, which is evident, and in the price of various goods. I trust that next Saturday the honourable senator will do all that he can to ensure the passage of the referendum proposal which will enable this Parliament to pass laws to control prices and to take such measures as it can, by legislation and by administration, to deal with the problem. I trust that he will also facilitate the passage of the Trade Practices Bill which, according to various members of his Party, will have a material effect, if put into operation, in curbing restrictive practices which force up the price of goods in the building industry and in other areas. The Government is doing whatever it can to take the heat out of the increasing cost of living and to see that everyone is able to enjoy the pleasure of home ownership.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Very well.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I did not ask that question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. I asked a question about the Government’s contribution towards the building of homes for the aged. The Minister answered on some other matter and tried to gain some benefit by referring to prices control.

Senator MURPHY:

– I will refer to the Treasurer the specific element about homes for the aged in the honourable senator’s very long question. As the honourable senator knows, these decisions are made in the context of budgets and other matters and as part of the general economic and social program of the Government. Consideration will be given to the matter.

page 2545

QUESTION

REORGANISATION OF DEFENCE GROUP OF DEPARTMENTS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence, relates to the reorganisation of the Defence group of departments. Does not the proposed reorganisation of these departments underline the urgent need for a uniform disciplinary code for the Services? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the cause of the delay in this long overdue uniformity? What stage has been reached in Government consideration? When can it be expected that the code will be introduced?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The matter to which the honourable senator referred is a complicated one. The report which relates to the new Bill, which will be called the Defence (Discipline and Justices) Bill, is in its final stages prior to submission to the Minister for Defence and the Government. As the honourable senator will know from his experience, with the merging of responsibility there will be a number of important changes in regulations and laws. I am told that the report is in its final stages, and it is expected that the legislation will be introduced in the autumn session.

page 2545

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: PRESS REPORT

The PRESIDENT:

– During question time I have given some thought to the matter raised by Senator Cavanagh. I have re-examined the letter which he sent to me. I assume that he sent it to me under standing order 427. 1 do not want to make a complete reply at this juncture, but I think that the honourable senator is entitled to some acknowledgment by me. It is quite clear that newspaper practice these days is that if a story is written by a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery generally his name is at the top of the column of the report. I notice that on this occasion the name of the journalist is not given; the article is simply given a Canberra dateline. I am aware also, of course, that it is part of the modern technique to originate a story somewhere other than in Canberra and get someone to plant a Canberra dateline on the top of it. So it cannot be necessarily assumed that this report emanated from Canberra. I will send for the head of the ‘Sun’ bureau, who is a member of the parliamentary Press Gallery, some time during the day to discover what is the situation as far as he and his editor are concerned.

I think that honourable senators will agree that there is some laxity as regards the movement around the corridors of this Parliament House by people who sometimes claim that they are Press journalists but who sometimes are not. I am looking at this matter very carefully because Press accreditation cards are due for renewal on 1 January. Until 1 January of this current year these Press accreditation cards were issued by Mr Speaker. As from 1 January this year I insisted that they also bear the authority of the President of the Senate. In the coming year I may insist that a special accreditation card be issued to those who wish to attend in the Senate Press Gallery. I will leave the matter at that.

page 2545

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS: REPORT

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Davidson referred to me a matter in relation to the presentation of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with

Senator Gietzelt, who is Chairman of the Committee, when he came up to me to raise another matter with me. He reports to me that, although the report of the Committee is complete, the members of the Committee have not finished reading it. I asked him whether there is an intention of placing this report before the Senate this session and he said that he hopes to do so. I think that means in normal parliamentary language that it will be. That deals with the questions asked of me.

page 2546

SEAS AND SUBMERGED LANDS BILL 1973

Assent reported.

page 2546

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Overseas Trade, Dr J. F. Cairns, is leaving Australia today for general discussions on trade matters in Hong Kong, Laos, North Vietnam and Thailand. He is expected to return to Australia on 16 December. During his absence the Postmaster-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, will be Acting Minister for Overseas Trade.

page 2546

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL ACT

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962-1966, I present the annual report of the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 2546

PROJECT SCORE SURVEY

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the final summary report of the Project Score Survey of research and development expenditures by Australia in 1 968-69.

page 2546

IMMIGRATION: AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, on behalf of the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby), I table a statement on the Government’s citizenship and settlement policy.

page 2546

AUSTRALIAN STEVEDORING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

– Pursuant to section 58(1) (c) of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1956-1971, I resent the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 2546

STATES GRANTS (DWELLINGS FOR AGED PENSIONERS) ACT

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 1 1 of the States Grants (Dwellings For Aged Pensioners) Act 1969, 1 present the annual statement on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1973. An interim statement was presented to the Senate on 27 September 1 973.

page 2546

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY ACT

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-1969, I present the fourteenth annual statement of the operation of the Act and the payment of subsidy during the year ended 30 June 1 973.

page 2546

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Report

Senator GIETZELT:

– ( New South Wales)-I present the report of the Joint Committee on Prices on the price of meatmeal.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask for leave to make a statement relating to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GIETZELT:

– The report on the price of meatmeal which has just been tabled is the fourth report presented to the Parliament by the Joint Committee on Prices. The inquiry into the price of meatmeal is the second inquiry by the Committee into complaints received from the public. Meatmeal, together with other protein meals such as fishmeal and oilseed meal, is an important input in the production of pig meat, poultry meat and eggs. In the period September 1972 to August 1973 the price of meatmeal increased by nearly 200 per cent. Such increases contributed greatly to the increases in the price of eggs, poultry meat and pig meat.

The main cause of the increases in the domestic prices of meatmeal was the rapid increases in export prices because of world shortages- yet another example of the fact that we are, to such a large extent, importing inflation. The Committee also found that the extent of the increases in domestic meatmeal prices was influenced by the practice of some meatmeal manufacturers consulting on the establishment of list prices for the industry. This practice has resulted in prices being higher than those established under more competitive conditions. The Committee has therefore recommended that this matter be brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Trade Practices by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy).

The Department of Primary Industry has power to control exports of protein meals under the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. The Department intensified its supervision of exports of all protein meals in 1973. Domestic users told the Committee that despite this surveillance by the Department, it was difficult at times, and in certain locations, to obtain supplies. Exports of protein meal increased by 60 per cent between 1971-72 and 1972-73 while total supplies of protein meal available to the local market fell by almost 10 percent. Apparent local sales of meatmeal fell by 4 per cent.

The Committee- I must say that this was a unanimous recommendation- has therefore recommended that the power of the Australian Government to regulate the export of meatmeal be applied more stringently, not only to ensure that the domestic market has priority in the use of available supplies, but also as a means of reducing and stabilising the price of meatmeal. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks on a subsequent sitting day.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is so granted.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-Could I have it clarified whether the report of the Joint Committee on Prices is properly before the Senate and on the notice paper?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Gietzelt, would you move that the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting?

Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to:

That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2547

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT: INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL BUILDING

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

International Terminal Building and Aircraft Aprons at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.

page 2547

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, I ask for leave to make a statement on the activities of the Standing Committee on Social Environment.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Environment, I wish to inform the Senate that the Committee is preparing a second progress report on its examination of the environmental condition of Aborigines and Torres Strait islanders and the preservation of their sacred sites. Originally, we had intended, if possible, to present this report before the Senate rose for the Christmas recess. However, some unavoidable delay in the program of essential field visits in the latter part of the year and the sheer magnitude of the Committee’s task, together with developments that have occurred over the whole area being examined, have produced a need for a more comprehensive report than would be possible within the time available if we were to adhere to that intention. We now hope that the second progress report will be presented early in the first sessional period in 1974.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

-Senator Keeffe has given notice of a motion relating to a reference to a standing committee. Senator Maunsell and I also have given notice of motions relating to references to a standing committee, and pertaining to the same matter. As the committee may well be soon investigating these matters very early, I think it would be prudent, if this is an extended term of reference of the same type as is proposed by Senator Keeffe, for the reference to be made as promptly as possible.

page 2547

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, may I formally move the motion standing in my name?

The PRESIDENT:

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

Motion (by Senator Keeffe) agreed to:

That there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report the following matters:

The operation, control and conduct of the Applied Ecology Unit; and

The degree of Ministerial or Departmental control over funds expended on housing projects for Aborigines, with particular reference to the Northern Territory.

page 2548

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Leader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

-I move:

That intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of Government business orders of the day Nos. 3, 4 and S, 7 to 16, and 19 to 29 respectively, and that Government business take predecence over general business after 4.30 p.m. this day.

The Leader of the Opposition has spoken to me and suggested that we put down orders of the day Nos. 1 and 2 and 6,17 and 1 8. Then I intend, when the Law Reform Commission Bill is called on, to move that it be adjourned to a later hour of the day, the intention being that, if there can be a discussion over an hour, it may be possible largely to reduce the time that that Bill would take in debate if such a discussion were not held. This would mean that we move on immediately to orders of the day Nos. 4 and 5, and then Nos. 7 to 1 5, 1 9 and 20, and so on. Then some Bills are to be introduced; in fact it may be convenient to introduce them now. If the optimistic estimates are correct, it may even be possible to deal with some of them at a later stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2548

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As the second reading speech has been circulated, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment in 1973-74 of special grants of $ 10m to Queensland, $ 19.9m to South Australia and $8.65 m to Tasmania. These payments are in accordance with the recommendations of the – Grants Commission contained in its fortieth report, which has been tabled. The Bill also seeks the usual authority for payment of advances to the three States in the early months of 1974-75, pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and enactment of legislation to provide for the grants to be paid in that year.

In the last session, Parliament passed the Grants Commission Bill 1973 which widened the powers of the Commission to enable it to investigate and recommend upon applications for financial assistance by regional groupings of local authorities. Under this new legislation, which is now operating, the Grants Commission retains its previous responsibilities with respect to applications for special grants by some States. The Australian Government makes special grants to financially weaker States to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue from their own resources and higher costs in providing Government services of a standard similar to those in the financially stronger States. When special grants were first paid they constituted the only regular form of general revenue assistance paid to the financially weaker States for this purpose. For many years now, however, the main way in which special compensatory assistance has been provided has been through the higher per capita financial assistance grants paid to trie 4 less populous States. The financial assistance grants are, of course, the main general revenue grants to the States. The special grants may, therefore, be regarded as supplementing the financial assistance grants, and as having the special characteristic of being independently as well as expertly assessed by the Grants Commission.

The method used by the Grants Commission, briefly put, is to calculate grants which will bring the claimant States’ budgetary positions up to the average of the two most populous States taken as ‘standard ‘, after allowing for differences between the States concerned in their financial practices and their efforts to raise revenue and control expenditure. This involves a detailed comparison of the standard and claimant States’ budgetary revenues and expenditures. The recommendations of the Grants Commission for payment of special grants consist of two parts. One part is based on a preliminary estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year, and is treated as an advance payment subject to adjustment 2 years later when the Commission has compared in detail the budget results, and standards of effort and of services provided, in that year for both the claimant State and the States which it takes as standard. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance payment made two years earlier and is known as the completion payment. It may result in the final grant in respect of that year being higher or lower than the original advance payment.

The Commission has recommended that an advance payment of $10m be made to Queensland in 1973-74- the same amount as paid in 1972-73- and that no adjustment be made to the advance grant of $9m paid to the State in 1971-72. For South Australia, the Commission has recommended the payment of special grants totalling $ 19.9m, made up of an advance payment of $ 15m for 1973-74 and a completion payment of $4.9m in respect of 1971-72. This completion grant brings the total special grant in respect of 1971-72 to $ 11.9m. The relatively high completion grant reflects the fact that it was only in 1970-71 that South Australia applied for a special grant again after some years absence from claimancy, and the advance grant recommended for 1971-72 was fairly tentative.

The Commission has recommended the payment of special grants totalling $8. 65m to Tasmania in 1973-74, made up of an advance payment of $ 10m for 1973-74- the same amount as paid in 1972-73- and a negative completion grant of $ 1.35m in respect of 197 1-72. This completion grant brings the total special grant in respect of 1971-72 to $9.6 5 m. The negative adjustment in respect of Tasmania’s 1971-72 grant means that the Commission considers, after detailed examination, that the advance payment of $ 1 1 m made in that year was an overestimate of the State’s needs for that year. The 1973-74 advance grants to each of the three States will, of course, be subject to adjustment, if necessary, in 1975-76. The bases of the Commission’s recommendations are set out fully in its report. The Commission’s recommendations have been adopted by Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2549

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

The purpose of the Bill, which provides for a number of amendments to the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1966, is to enable the Australian Government’s land and property requirements to be handled in a more businesslike and expeditious way appropriate to modern practices and to efficient administration- to ensure that a more reasonable rate of interest is paid on money owed by the Commonwealth and to bring statutory authorities under the provisions of the Act. The chief provisions of the Bill are:

  1. Section 4 authorises the Minister to approve all acquisitions of land and interests in land for a public purpose where those purchases are made or interests in land are acquired by agreement between the vendor and the Commonwealth. The section also allows for acquisitions by agreement, which are being processed under provisions of the principal Act at date of assent of this Act to be completed under the provisions of the principal Act as though these amendments had not been made.
  2. Section 7 provides for the short term interest rate to be paid where compensation outstanding on land compulsorily acquired is less than 3 years. (Section 36 (2) (a) of the principal Act currently limits this to 3 per cent.) In other cases the long term interest rate is payable in lieu of 4.5 per cent as stipulated in the principal Act. Short term and long term interest rates are prescribed. The section also provides that where acquisition has been compulsory before the date of commencement of this Act, and compensation has not been settled, interest would be payable under the principal Act up to the date of assent of this Act and thereafter at the appropriate new rates.
  3. Section 8 authorises the Minister under section 53 of the principal Act to dispose of land no longer required by the Australian Government and to grant leases or licences over such land. The section also allows for disposals which are being processed under the provisions of the principal Act at date of assent of this Act to be completed under those provisions.
  4. Section 9 amends section 64 of the principal Act to allow the Minister, by notice published in the Gazette, to delegate his power to enter into an agreement with a land owner before or after compulsory acquisition on the amount of compensation to be paid for his land. A delegation under this section is revocable by will and conditions may be attached to it.
  5. Section 10 of the Bill authorises the Minister in his discretion to require all statutory corporations incorporated by a law of Australia or of a Territory to effect transactions relating to land and interest in land under the provisions of the Lands Acquisitions Act. The Minister may exempt certain corporations by notice in the Gazette and the Minister proposes, immediately assent is given to the Bill, to gazette a number of statutory corporations which have special responsibilities or which are engaged in highly competitive commercial enterprises. I shall be happy to provide a list of these corporations to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) if he so desires but I want to emphasise that the list is flexible and that those exempted will be required to conform to Government policy and to avoid competitive bidding with the Department of Services and Property, otherwise the exemption will be withdrawn.
  6. Other amending sections are of a machinery nature, for example, section 6 refers to metric distance in lieu of imperial; section 10 amendments arise mainly because of changes in drafting style.

Apart from minor technical amendments, the Lands Acquisition Act remains unchanged since it was enacted in 1955.

Over 90 per cent of acquisitions of land and interests in land by the Australian Government are completed by agreement between vendors and purchasers and lessors- and 90 per cent of compulsory acquisitions are completed by agreement. However, the Minister’s authority to conclude these transactions in a businesslike way under the principal Act is limited to cases where the price with the vendor does not exceed $1,000, or in the cases of leases, where the term does not exceed 3 years, or the annual rental does not exceed $1,000. A similar limitation applies to the disposal of Australian Government land interests. The approval of the GovernorGeneral is required for all other acquisitions and disposals of interests in land. This limitation is quite unreasonable today and causes considerable loss to the Government arising out of delays inherent in the system and hardship to the vendor. The effect of these limitations is to impose an unreasonable burden on the Minister and the Department and virtually to nullify the process of acquisition on any interest in land by delegation to departmental officers. They impose an inordinately large burden of paper work on the Minister and the Department and in this context I must emphasise that these limitations occur in cases of voluntary acquisition of land and property where mutual agreement has been reached between the purchaser and the vendor and hence where the transactions should be completed without delay.

Honourable senators will perhaps have a greater appreciation of this problem when I emphasise that very frequently, Executive Council action is required in terms of the Act when the amount involved is as low as $ 1 and where leases or licences exceed 3 years. Leases or licences over land for power lines, telephone poles, etc., could be up to 30 years or more. Therefore, the Act in its present form leads to absurdities which involve not only the Minister but also the GovernorGeneral in Council. The arbitrarily fixed figure of $1,000 had no particular significance when it was fixed in 1955. Today it is even less significant and is quite out of step with practical administrative considerations and modern business practices. The Government regards it as important that approvals for land dealings on its behalf should be effected having regard to present day land values and efficient administrative practices including adequate delegations of authority.

Australian Government land transactions have increased with the expansion of Government activities and are rapidly expanding. The number of minutes referred to the GovernorGeneral in Council for approval is now running at a rate of approximately 1,000 per annum. The proposed amendments in the Bill will limit references to the Governor-General in Council to approximately 100 per annum. This is because the Government has decided that there should not be any change to the requirement that the acquisition of land by compulsory process should be authorised by the Governor-General in Council. The decision to acquire land compulsorily will still remain with the Governor-General in

Council. In this connection, honourable senators will be interested to know that although the procedure for compulsory acquisition applies to approximately 100 cases per annum, the major proportion of these are with the consent of both parties in order to expedite settlement and accelerate transfer of title at the earliest possible time. The Bill proposes that the Minister should be authorised to acquire by agreement any interests in land, including leases and licences, and also that he be authorised to dispose of and grant leases and other interests in land owned by the Australian Government.

The Minister’s powers of delegation under the principal Act relating to the determination of compensation for land acquired or to be acquired by compulsory process is limited to $1,000. As mentioned earlier, the figure of $1,000 is quite unrelated to present day land prices and the Bill proposes amendments to the Act to remove the present limit of $1,000. The Minister will have power to revoke delegations and to attach conditions to them and will be informed from time to time of the way in which the delegations are exercised. In the exercise of delegations officers will be subject to all the usual constraints of Parliamentary scrutiny, for example Treasury control of funds, scrutiny by the Auditor-General and control of legal aspects by the Attorney-General.

The principal Act provides for payment of interest on compensation for compulsory acquisitions at 3 per cent per annum for periods up to 2 years and thereafter at 4.5 per cent per annum. These rates have remained unchanged since 1955 and are quite unrealistic and must be changed. The rates should be more in keeping with the market in order to do justice to dispossessed owners. The Bill proposes that they be changed so as to relate the interest rate payable on compensation to changes in the short term and long term interest rates. Most transactions will be completed expeditiously and this section is likely to apply only in a limited number of compulsory acquisitions where bargaining over prices is extensive or where the vendor exercises his rights to litigate the matter.

There have been a number of cases where competition between Australian Government departments and statutory authorities or where agreements negotiated by statutory authorities have led to excessive rentals being paid by the Australian Government for accommodation or, if negotiations had been handled by the Department of Services and Property, there would have been a substantial saving of public moneys. The

Government had directed that competitive bidding between departments and statutory authorities in the land and property market should be eliminated and that the Department of Services and Property should in future conduct all negotiations except where the Minister exempts a statutory authority. Honourable senators will appreciate that approximately 70 statutory corporations may now acquire land under their own Acts, subject to availability of funds. Approval of the Governor-General is not required. If clauses 4 and 9 are not accepted as proposed it would impose an intolerable burden on the Minister and Department of Services and Property and therefore the 2 clauses are inseparably linked. The Minister could not accept the burdens inherent in this section without the machinery proposed in clauses 4 and 9.

The Government directed that those Acts which currently give statutory authorities power to make their own acquisitions or to arrange their own rentals should be amended so that a single government authority- the Department of Services and Property- would be the negotiating authority. This decision is a further measure to stablise the land market and eliminate practices which lead to excessive rentals and land prices.

The effect of the Bill will be to strengthen substantially the Lands Acquisition Act. The Minister responsible will be given authority not only to acquire by agreement land and interests in land on behalf of Australian Government departments, but also on behalf of Australian Government statutory authorities, and this can only be to the advantage of the Government and the people. The Bill deserves the support of all honourable senators and I commend it to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2551

LEGISLATION RELATING TO EGGS AND HONEY

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills.

page 2552

EGG EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1973

page 2552

HONEY LEVY BILL (No. 1) 1973

page 2552

HONEY LEVY BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bills (on motion by Senator Murphy) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales-

Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise) ( 1 1.27)-I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

I am pleased to introduce these 3 Bills that represent further steps towards the progressive introduction of the metric system. Honourable senators will recall that the decision to bring about progressively the use of the metric system as the sole system for the measurement of physical quantities in Australia was incoporated in the Metric Conversion Act which was passed in June 1970. The second annual report of the Metric Conversion Board was tabled in the Senate during October last year. It reported that steady progress had been made towards conversion. The broad plan adopted by the Board was that 1971 should be a year of planning and coordination; 1972 a year of increasing” public awareness; and 1973-75 should be years of major implementation. By 1976, 70 per cent of the nation’s activities should have been converted. Many consumer goods, such as eggs, sugar, bread have been converted. Many more are planned for the remainder of this year.

An interdepartmental co-ordinating committee for metric conversion has established that about 110 Acts contain references to physical units. These need to be converted in step with the programs for conversion. Several Acts relating to the Customs Tariff were amended last year. The present Bills amend 3 Acts. The Honey Levy Acts Nos. 1 and 2 provide for a levy to be imposed on all honey produced in Australia and sold, or used in the production of other goods respectively. Convenient rounded metric equivalents have been substituted for existing imperial quantities in the Acts. The maximum levy that can be applied has been converted from lc per lb to 2.2c per kilogram. This is a decrease of 0.2 per cent. At present a person is exempt from the levy if his monthly production is less than 120 lb. The nearest rational metric quantity, 50 kilograms, has been substituted. The amendments give effect to the recommendations of the honey industry and reflect its progress toward conversion. Already, bulk export honey is invoiced in tonnes. Retail packs will be converted during the next 12 months as new jars and tins become available.

The main purpose of the Egg Export Charges Bill is to convert to equivalent metric measurement the rates of charge imposed on egg exports under the Egg Export Charges Act 1947-1965. Money collected under that Act is appropriated to the Australian Egg Board under the provisions of the Egg Export Control Act 1947-1966. The Bill provides for the rates of charge which are expressed in Imperial units to be converted to equivalent metric units. This conversion results in a decrease of about 0.2 per cent in the actual rates of levy. The opportunity has also been taken to make two machinery changes. The first substitutes the word ‘Australia’ for the word Commonwealth’ as being more appropriate in clauses 2 and 3. The second deletes the words after a date to be fixed by Proclamation’. The date had been proclaimed and the words are no longer necessary. I commend these 3 Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Laucke) adjourned.

page 2552

COMPANIES (FOREIGN TAKE-OVERS) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the operation of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972 until 31 December 1974. The Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972 came into force on 9 November 1972. The Act was introduced following an announcement by the former Prime Minister of the introduction of a scheme for the control of foreign takeovers effected by means of acquisitions of shares or assets, including mineral rights. The Act was an interim measure which related to share acquisitions only and which included a provision under which it would cease to have effect on 3 1 December 1973.

The fact that the existing Act was introduced as an interim measure is itself an illustration of the magnitude of the problem of developing a comprehensive and effective law for the control of foreign takeovers. Some of the policy and legal drafting problems involved have been greatly clarified by experience in the operation of the existing legislation. At the same time, new problems and difficulties have surfaced. We are now in a position to identify essential requirements of reasonably effective legislation and work is in progress with a view to the introduction of new legislation into the Senate. This new legislation will be brought before the Senate in due course. In the meantime, it is desirable that the existing legislation be kept in operation and for this purpose I have introduced the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Bill 1973 to extend the operation of the legislation to 31 December 1974. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2553

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted. There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1974 of” the duties collected in pursuance of customs tariff proposals introduced into the Parliament since the commencement of the present Parliament and not enacted to date. The tariff changes validated by this Bill relate to Tariff Board reports on acetone derivatives; ethyl methyl ketone; agricultural tractors; cathode ray tubes; cherries; consumer electronic equipment and components; engines, motors, pumps and valves; fire hose; lightning arresters; machine tools for working stone, etc. and wood, etc.; pneumatic hand tools, etc.; New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement- machine tools for working wood, etc.; chain saws (dumping and subsidies); metal plates, etc. for printing purposes; prepared additives for mineral oils, etc.; resins of the propylene type; and synthetic rubber latex; and Special Advisory Authority reports on capacitors; industrial type plastic coated knitted gloves; and phthalic anhydride.

The 25 per cent tariff cut is also validated by this Bill. Subject to the Government’s legislation timetable for the autumn session a Customs Tariff Bill could be introduced next May. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2553

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The Bill before the Senate is the second National Health Bill for 1973. It contains provisions already announced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget Speech of 21 August, a number of amendments which are of an administrative nature and other amendments relating to eligibility of pensioner medical service entitlements. Honourable senators will recall that on 2 1 August the Treasurer announced this Government’s proposal to abolish the $10 charge presently applied to eligible pensioners and their dependents who are supplied with hearing aids from the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories. Also, that these persons should be supplied with hearing aid batteries free of charge. The Bill provides for the implementation of both of these decisions.

At that time, the Treasurer also announced that the handicapped children’s benefit would be doubled. This benefit is payable to the proprietor of an approved handicapped persons home for each day on which the handicapped child receives handicapped person care in that home. The Bill provides for the rate of this benefit to be increased from $1.50 a day to $3 a day, with effect from 1 January 1974. This measure is expected to cost the Australian Government $0.2m for the remainder of this financial year and $0.5m in a full year. The Bill includes a number of amendments which are of an administrative nature. The first of these is to provide for the transfer of administration of certain parts of the Act from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Security. This Government has always held the view that the administration of social welfare schemes has been too fragmented and that their operation should be controlled by the one department. Provisions in the Bill give effect to the transfer of Parts III to VI of the Act, and other parts relating to matters arising in connection with these Parts, to the Department of Social Security. These Parts relate to the operation of the medical and hospital benefits schemes and the operation of the pensioner medical service. The amendments are in accordance with the administrative arrangements ordered by His Excellency the GovernorGeneral on 19 December 1972.

The second administrative amendment to the Bill is to widen the regulation making power contained in section 13A. This section enables alterations to be made to the tables of medical benefits contained in the Schedules to the Act. However, the existing provisions permit amendments only of the items and benefits in the tables of the Schedules. Honourable senators will be aware that at present a Medical Fees Tribunal is examining a list of fees submitted by the Australian Medical Association. Decisions have already been handed down on parts of that list. It is apparent that these and future decisions will significantly alter the structure of the medical benefits schedules and the benefits for services. The amendments proposed in the Bill will allow more substantial changes of the schedules by permitting the replacement of tables in the Schedules to the Act by regulations, the amendment of the rules of interpretation of the table in the First Schedule, and schedules, by regulations and, finally, the amendment of those regulations by other regulations. The existing provision in the Act- that amendments to the tables in the Schedules made by regulation must be incorporated into the Act within one year plus 15 sitting days of the House- still remains. In accordance with this provision, the opportunity has been taken in this Bill to incorporate into the Act amendments to the tables of benefits which have been made since March 1973.

A further amendment of an administrative nature relates to proposals made by the Australian Society of Anaesthetists and the AMA to the Medical Fees Tribunal. If these proposals are accepted in total or in part an amendment of the Act is needed to cover anaesthetics administered when there is a number of services performed at the same time. The provisions in the Bill are similar to section 16A of the Act, which provides for a reduction of the benefits to half for the second operation on the one occasion and to one quarter for any further operations on the same occasion. More substantial reductions of the anaesthetic benefits have been proposed by the Australian Society of Anaesthetists, and it is expected that the Tribunal will indicate the reductions appropriate in its view. Until then the reductions cannot be specified in the body of the Act and this provision in the Bill allows these to be made by regulations.

As honourable senators will know, the pensioner medical service is one of a number of fringe benefits available to pensioners who satisfy the 1967 social services means test. Its principal objective is to provide a basic range of medical services to persons whom it could reasonably be expected are unable to afford health insurance coverage. Increases in the rates of pension have caused more persons to become eligible for the benefits of the pensioner medical service. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) announced in another place on 1 1 September during the introduction of the Social Services Bill (No. 4) 1973, the 1967 means test will continue for fringe benefit eligibility purposes but future increases in the rates of pension will not extend eligibility for fringe benefits, including pensioner medical service entitlement, to persons whose means are outside the new limits proposed. These limits will be those applying after the recent increases granted in the Budget. For a single pensioner the disqualifying limits of means as assessed’, by application of the relevant provisions of the Social Services Act, will be $33 a week, and for a married pensioner couple $57.50 a week, before fringe benefit eligibility ceases. ‘Means as assessed’ refers to the provisions in the Social Services Act relating to means testing including the formula for deeming certain property to have a notional ‘income’ equivalent. This means that the weekly income of a single pensioner, including pension, could be $49.50 before eligibility for pensioner medical service entitlement ceases. The corresponding combined income figure for a married pensioner couple is $86.50.

The provisions in the Bill fix the eligibility for pensioner medical service entitlement at the levels I have just outlined. Clearly, any extension of these limits arising from further increases in the rates of pensioner benefits would create situations of inequity between such pensioners and the many non-pensioner families in the community who have weekly incomes less than these amounts but who are required to take out health insurance coverage. Honourable senators will be aware that these provisions will apply only until the introduction of the Government’s universal health insurance plan. This plan will not limit pensioners’ entitlements to the restricted range of services available under the present pensioner medical service, and will, therefore, represent a tremendous improvement in the entitlements of pensioners as it will, indeed, in the entitlements of everyone in the community.

Perhaps I ought to state at this point that under the Australian Government’s health insurance program, legislation for which was introduced in another place on 29 November, medical services obtained by pensioners from a private medical practitioner will be fully covered. This will refer not only to consultation at home or in a doctor’s private surgery but also to procedural items which currently are excluded from medical benefit cover under the private health insurance arrangements. But the program will go further than that. Pensions, as will be the case with everyone in the community- that is, there will be no distinction, no second rate citizenry- will be able to obtain the services of a specialist of their choosing, no doubt with the assistance of a general practitioner, and medical services in the private surgery of that specialist and have those services fully covered by the Australian Government’s new health insurance program. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 2555

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill, foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in presenting the 1973-74 Budget, proposes amendments to the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967-1972. The amendments are designed to impose a limit on the amount of financial grant payable under the selective grant provisions of the Act, and to allow consideration of applications for grants from companies carrying out worthwhile industrial research and development, but whose research and development supervisors do not possess the existing professional qualifications required by the Act. The amendments may be regarded as interim measures aimed at correcting what are two significant shortcomings of the current Act, pending a more fundamental and comprehensive review of the scheme.

The industrial research and development scheme, as it exists currently, aims generally at promoting an awareness within Australian industry of the importance of technological innovation and the central role played by research and development activities in the continuing process of development and introduction of such innovation in the form of new and improved products and processes. In broad terms, the scheme operates as an incentive to Australian manufacturing and mining companies to increase their own spending on industrial research and development activities, basically by means of financial grants related to their increased spending on research and development activities in a particular year- the grant year- over their average annual spending on such activities during a 3-year moving base period. Additionally, industrial research and development plant expenditure is subject to separate special provisions for the purpose of grant calculations. General grants are provided for eligible research and development expenditure of up to $50,000 during a particular grant year. The rate of general grant currently being applied is 50 per cent of eligible expenditure. Selective grant provisions apply to the eligible outlays of a company in excess of $50,000 in the grant year.

The position in Australia, as in most industrialised countries, is that a significant proportion of research and development is carried out by the larger enterprises. It is, however, a fact that a large part of industry in Australia is small to medium sized. Published statistics show that over 93 per cent of all manufacturing establishments operating at the end of June 1969 employed fewer than 100 persons, and less than one per cent employed 500 or more persons. Given the pattern of industrial research and development performance in Australian industry, there are strong reasons for supporting the contention that the largest corporations are in most cases already well aware of the commercial benefits of research and development and are in far less need of a government incentive for this purpose than firms in the small and medium-sized bracket. A large percentage of grant payments under the industrial research and development grants scheme however have gone to the larger companies. Out of the total $14m allocated in grant payments by the Board during 1972-73 about 2 per cent of grant recipient companies received almost a third of the total grant payments made.

The Government proposes, therefore, to amend the Act to allow a limit to be imposed on the amount of selective grant payable to any one company or its wholly-owned subsidiaries for any one grant year. The Bill proposes an initial limit of $200,000 on selective grants for 1972-73 industrial research and development, the bulk of which will be paid out of the 1973-74 Budget allocation. This would mean that the maximum total grant payable to a company for its 1972-73 industrial research and development spending would be $225,000, made up of a general grant component of $25,000 and a selective grant component of $200,000. The Bill contains provision to vary, by regulation, the selective grant limit in succeeding years should circumstances so warrant.

The Government, in proposing this amendment, recognises, however, that there may be cases where there would be significant national interest reasons for providing levels of support exceeding this limit. The Bill therefore contains provision for waiver of the limitation, where a particular company can provide compelling reasons, in terms of benefits in the national interest. As the particular circumstances in which a case for such waiver may arise will vary significantly from company to company, each case arising will be judged in terms of its particular individual merits.

The Bill also proposes an amendment to the professional qualification requirement of the scheme. To be eligible for grants, the existing legislation requires that research and development must be carried out by a professionally qualified person, or someone in a position of direct technical assistance to him. The basic objective of this provision was to provide some assurance that the industrial research and development undertaken by companies could be expected to be of a satisfactory technical standard. Additionally, the requirement was aimed at facilitating the adoption of modern technological developments from academic and other fundamental research institutions and to encourage the provision of employment opportunities within Australian industry for professionally trained research and developmental personnel and laboratory assistants.

Although these are desirable objectives, the provision has meant that a number of Australian companies- principally smaller concerns- performing worthwhile research and development have been unable to receive consideration for grant purposes solely due to an inability to meet the professional qualification requirement. In a number of cases companies have their research and development performed or directed by people with a high degree of skill and experience but lacking formal qualifications. It is the Government’s intention therefore to extend the current provisions of the Act to all companies which have skilled research directors and the necessary capability to carry out systematic experimentation and analysis. The Bill provides for applications for grants to be considered when either the person supervising the research possesses a formal professional qualification, or when, by virtue of proven practical experience, the research supervisor can reasonably be regarded as being able to competently supervise industrial research and development.

The proposed amendment is designed to allow recognition of grant applications from companies with persons whose skills, ability and experience fit them to carry out work by way of industrial research and development for the company without lessening the quality of supervision and direction of industrial research and development in companies. It is envisaged that companies seeking to avail themselves of the new provisions would initially make a request in writing to the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board detailing the particular skills and experience possessed by the person or persons directing or performing their research and development. The Board would then refer such cases on to an advisory committee for examination. The Committee will make recommendations to the Minister for Secondary Industry, who will, in turn, advise the Board of his decision as to whether the company’s non-professionally qualified industrial research and development director has been approved and that therefore the company’s industrial research and development expenditures may be admitted for consideration for grant purposes. The company will, of course, have to satisfy all the other criteria for grants, as is the case for companies whose research is conducted under the supervision of professionally qualified persons.

The Government is aware that the existing scheme, first introduced in 1967, has had some measure of success as a fairly broad incentive aimed at making Australian industries recognise the importance of industrial research and development. Having achieved such a level of recognition, however, the Government is concerned that increasing attention should be given in future to channelling assistance not only into areas of greatest need but also into areas showing the greatest technical and commercial promise. To this extent, then, the current proposals may be regarded as interim only, pending the fuller and more detailed consideration of the whole question of Government assistance for industrial research and development which was announced in the Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2557

APPLE AND PEAR LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I seek leave to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Bill, the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Bill, the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill and the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Export Duty Collection Bill to be dealt with together.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short tides only on every order for the reading of the Bills.

page 2557

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION BILL 1973

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bills (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

The purpose of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Bill is to implement the Australian Government’s decision to amend the statutory marketing arrangements for the apple and pear industry by establishing an Australian Apple and Pear Corporation which will replace the present Australian Apple and Pear Board. As many honourable senators are aware, the apple and pear industry has for some seasons now been facing problems of increasing seriousness and complexity, mainly in the export field. These problems derive principally from the large volume of exports which the industry has traditionally sent to markets in the United Kingdom and Europe. Because of developments in these markets the export operation is characterised by increasing uncertainty. These developments include the effects of British entry into the European Economic Community, the increasing competition in this region from European fruit, and the increasing competition from other exporting countries supplying the British and European Markets.

The general uncertainty created by these developments is aggravated by difficulties in the field of shipping, chiefly the high and increasing level of freight rates to the United Kingdom and Europe and the difficulty of finding adequate shipping for the purpose. The latter is most acute in regard to conventional refrigerated shipping. Although all States have some interest in export, the position is most serious for Tasmania, because of its heavy dependence on the export trade and on the United Kingdom and Europe to take the bulk of its apple exports, and because of its dependence on conventional shipping. The position also presents significant problems for Western Australia, the second largest apple exporting State, and for Victoria because of its large pear exports. These export problems have had their impact at the grower level in a feeling of general insecurity and low farm incomes in important producing regions particularly in Tasmania.

It is against this general background of critical industry problems that this Bill is introduced. It must be recognised that proper solutions to these problems will only be achieved with the acceptance by the industry at large of the need to restructure on a broad front. Such restructuring of the industry must be directed towards tailoring production, both in respect of quantity and quality, to the needs of remunerative outlets; to adaptability in introducing the most economic techniques and practices designed to reduce costs; and most importantly, to the consolidation of viable farm units. Allied with the need for the restructuring of the industry on a broad front is also the need for the industry to have a highly skilled, effective and nationally organised body that can come to grips with the marketing problems that beset the industry. I believe that the Corporation will supply this latter need and its operations, hand in hand with the industry’s own restructuring efforts, will place the industry once more on a sound economic foundation.

I now turn to the details of the Bill. The Corporation will consist of 9 part time members, namely, an independent Chairman, 4 members to represent growers, one member to represent the Australian Government, and 3 other members. All the members of the Corporation will be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry. The members representing growers will be selected from nominations submitted by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association and the ‘three other members’ referred to in the Bill, which I might term ‘members with special qualifications’, will be appointed after consultation with that Association, the Australian Apple and Pear Shippers Association, and any other appropriate bodies.

It will be important for the most effective functioning of the Corporation that its members generally be soundly qualified and, in particular, that the 3 members with special qualifications bring to the Corporation the widest possible backgrounds consistent with the range of functions that the Corporation has to perform. For this reason these members will be people specially qualified for appointment by reason of their experience and expertise in marketing generally, or in the marketing of apples and pears, the processing and marketing of apple and pear products or by reason of other experience in commerce, finance, economics, science and industrial matters.

I should mention that I have used the term marketing in the context of these qualifications as covering all aspects involved from the time the fruit leaves the property until it reaches the final consumer. The position of Chairman will also be of major importance. The qualities demanded will be a capacity for leadership and broad commercial experience, not necessarily confined to the apple and pear industry. All members will be appointed for a period of 3 years, and will be eligible for re-appointment.

The functions of the Corporation are set out in clause 6 of the Bill. These functions include the control of the export from Australia of fresh apples and pears and the Corporation has been given, in clauses 7 to 9, powers appropriate to the performance of these functions. These include the power to recommend to the Minister the terms and conditions of export; the persons who may engage in export; packaging and labelling for export; and quality standards and grading for export. It also has power to determine quantities for export by State and country of destination, and to negotiate shipping arrangements.

For the performance of its other stated functions, the Corporation has been empowered to promote or engage in research; to promote by financial assistance and otherwise new apple or pear products; to act as agent for producers or exporters; to appoint agents or arrange for the performance of work on its behalf; with the approval of the Minister to enter into agreements with a State; and to trade in fresh apples and pears and in apple and pear products.

For its trading operations, the Corporation is empowered to charter ships and, under clause 30 of the Bill, to borrow moneys subject to the approval of the Minister and the Treasurer. The Corporation’s borrowing may be guaranteed by the Australian Government. The power to trade will be a significant power available to the Corporation in a major task confronting it, namely, the development of new markets. The element of risk connected with the development of new markets is often too great to present attractions to private exporters. The Corporation’s trading power is qualified by a requirement that it must seek the approval of the Minister to engage in trade, in competition with Australian concerns and must conduct any such trade in a manner that accords with commercial practice.

There is also expressed in clause 7 (3) of the Bill a general requirement that the Corporation must comply with any directions given it by the Minister with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers. This power of direction over the Corporation is a power which would only be drawn on in unusual circumstances. It might need to be used, for example, to restrain activity by the Corporation if such activity is having serious and undesirable repercussions in important areas outside the cognizance of the Corporation.

There are certain fields of activity, apart from trading and the regulation of fresh fruit exports, in which the Corporation is expected to play a prominent role. A major role is seen for it in the field of research and an expanded role in the field of sales promotion of apples and pears or products derived from these fruits, not only overseas but also in Australia. The Corporation’s research role will be to encourage and if necessary to initiate research into all aspects of the industry including quality improvement; cost saving .practices and techniques at all stages of the i production-marketing chain; packaging; handling; storage; transport; the control and eradication of pests and diseases; the development and marketing of new processed products for apples and pears; and the provision of technical advice in the processing field. The research role envisaged for the Corporation in the development of new processed products is of particular significance. The Corporation is specifically empowered to assist financially and in other ways in this important activity. I believe that there is considerable potential in this field.

The promotion role contemplated for the Corporation is of equal importance. To encourage the increased consumption of apples and pears and apple and pear products throughout Australia requires an imaginative and well coordinated promotion program. The Corporation will be ideally placed to achieve this. At the same time the Corporation will be giving constant attention to overseas promotion. This is particularly significant in the light of the pressing need to which I have referred earlier to find alternative export outlets to the traditional markets.

It is also envisaged that the Corporation, for the effective carrying out of its functions, will maintain an efficient marketing research and intelligence unit. The Bill proposes that there should be available for the immediate financing of the Corporation the moneys collected under the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938-1973, which is presently the source of the income of the Australian Apple and Pear Board. This is intended as an interim measure only to meet the immediate establishment needs of the Corporation.

A levy on all apples and pears produced and sold is considered to be the appropriate permanent form of Corporation financing, since the Corporation can be expected to produce benefits for all sectors of the industry. The Government currently has under study, in consultation with the industry, the most practicable method of imposing and collecting such a levy and will be submitting measures to the Parliament for adoption in the near future. The Government fully appreciates the need to establish the Corporation on a firm financial footing as quickly as possible.

The Corporation proposals have been developed in discussions with the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association and are supported by the Association. As I stated earlier, I believe the proposals constitute an important step towards alleviating many of the difficulties that currently beset the industry, particularly its export sector. The Corporation will provide the industry with a marketing instrument directed by persons with the necessary skills and expertise in the broad field of marketing; it will be armed with appropriate and adequate powers; and, accordingly, should be capable of tackling effectively the industry’s problems on a co-ordinated national basis. I commend the Bill.

The purpose of the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Bill is to introduce amendments to the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Act 1971-1972. The amendments are necessary as a consequence of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Bill 1973, which I have just introduced. The Act contains references to the Australian Apple and Pear Board and the Apple and Pear Organisation Act 1938-1971. The Bill substitutes the Corporation and the Act establishing the Corporation for these references. I commend the Bill.

The purpose of the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill is to introduce amendments to the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938-1968.

The amendments are necessary as a consequence of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Bill 1973, which I have just introduced. The Bill substitutes the Corporation for the Australian Apple and Pear Board where referred to throughout the Act, and continues in force regulations made under the Act which were operative immediately before this proposed amendment. I commend the Bill.

The purpose of the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Export Duty Collection Bill is to introduce amendments to the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Export Duty Collection Act 1971. The amendments are necessary as a consequence of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Bill 1973, which I have just introduced. The Bill substitutes the Corporation for the Australian Apple and Pear Board where referred to throughout the Act. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Laucke) adjourned.

page 2560

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION BILL 1973

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

-The statement I wish to make relates to the message you have just transmitted to the Senate, Mr President. If you refer to page 4326 of the House of Representatives Hansard you will find that this Bill has been incorrectly entitled, Mr President. In the House of Representatives Hansard it is entitled the ‘Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1973’. That is not the correct title of the Bill. I suggest that all we can do is leave it to you, Mr President, to draw to the attention of the House of Representatives the correct title of the Bill under discussion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I presume that the message I read is correct but the Hansard report of the title of the Bill is incorrect?

Senator COTTON:

-Yes, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will draw the attention of Hansard to the error.

page 2560

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment:

Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1973.

Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill 1973.

page 2560

SCHOOLS COMMISSION BILL 1973

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had disagreed to the amendment to this Bill insisted upon by the Senate.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That consideration of the message in the Committee of the Whole be an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

page 2560

LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 October (vide page 1348), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2560

EXPORT INCENTIVE GRANTS BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 August (vide page 350), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I suggest to the Senate that the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 1973 also be called on and that there be a cognate debate on both Bills.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, the bills will be debated together and a separate vote taken.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that we do not oppose these Bills which we shall discuss in a cognate debate. The Export Incentive Grants Bill 1973 seeks to continue these grants until June 1974 and we indicate our acceptance of that provision. However, I would like to make some comments about incentives for exports in general. It is obvious that the share of manufactured goods in the total composition of the Australian economy must be increased. It has been increasing over a period of a few years but to achieve a constant improvement it is necessary to give incentives to and encourage long term planning by manufacturers in the Australian context. The fact that this Bill is simply continuing a measure for a further 12 months is of some concern to us. Exports, in particular manufactured exports, are a vital sector of the Australian economy and, fortunately, are increasingly becoming important to us. However, they require longer term planning and a sustained effort and Government incentive programs in the long term will be beneficial to the whole of the manufacturing sector.

Let us consider the improvement in the export of manufactured goods from Australia over a period of some years, starting perhaps at 1948-49. At that time we were exporting goods to the total value of $ 1,000m of which 5 per cent was in the form of manufactured goods. In 1971-72 the total of exported goods from Australia was valued at $4,7 19m and 20 per cent of this total was in the form of manufactured goods, valued at $945m. In 1972-73 our export total had reached $6,002m with manufactured goods valued at $ 1 , 1 24m. It is interesting to note that in that last year manufactured goods represented only a 19 per cent proportion of total exports compared with a 20 per cent proportion in the year before. However, the figures themselves have improved considerably. Exports of rural goods are increasing tremendously and represent 57 per cent of aggregate exports in recent years. Of course, the new progress of mineral exports shows that some 22 per cent of our exports are now in this form against approximately 20 per cent for manufactured goods.

The long term planning about which I spoke is the important factor. It is fair to say that it is not easy to develop export markets. By consistent effort our manufacturers have been breaking into new markets. They are gradually emerging as exporters to the United States, Japan and Singapore, and these markets were not easy to capture. I would think that the long term incentive that could be provided by some form of Government assistance would be beneficial to the whole of this sector. The fact that new markets need to be developed interests me. We have, as I said, gradually established ourselves as exporters to an increasing range of markets around the world. But the effort that we need to introduce ourselves into new markets requires some sort of Government forward planning and long term assistance, which would be most beneficial.

Australia has been playing an increasing role in world trade and I think as a result of that in international understanding. These things ought to be part of the Government’s programs and should have co-operation from all of us. We should tell the Government that this is one area where there is no conflict of interest in the national sense; it is an objective which would be beneficial to all of us. We are at present exporting and we are perhaps in a climate of world demand boom. But let us look to the time when that will change though Australia is geared to adopt export markets as part of our manufacturing capacity. With that change, I think that we would see very different circumstances for our employment opportunities, unless we were able to compete on an export market with other manufacturing countries which have many opportunities for economies of scale which are not always available to us because of our more limited domestic market. Australian manufacturers face not only intensive competition from foreign manufacturers but the separation by a wide distance from foreign markets which increase the costs of freight and shipping and those other things which add up to the difficulty of our perpetuating our export market potential. Compare, for instance, the distance facing an Australian manufacturer with that of a Japanese manufacturer who are both attempting to trade with Singapore. And one can contrast the distance between America and a European market with that between Australia and that market. One must understand that there are invisible costs in our marketing which are not shared by some of the other great manufacturing nations.

The other factor important to Australia is that the export market for manufactured goods could be a more stable form of earning export income than that of the rural sector which faces many fluctuations in world prices, world demand and world supply. For this reason I see the necessity for the Government to continue incentives to the exporters of manufactured goods. It is also important to say about this Bill which has been introduced to continue a measure for one year that an export market cannot be turned on and off abruptly. It takes time to develop the confidence of export markets, the potential for manufacture and to decide that some proportion of a manufacturing program is to go to an export market. A 5-year plan ought to be the minimum in any program that a government introduces. I do not mean that a 5-year plan would be an achievement, but rather that that would be the minimum time scale in which a manufacturer could consider an export market as part of his manufacturing plan. For these reasons I indicate the support of the Opposition for both measures. But I would like to think that Government consideration would be given to a greater time scale for export incentives to enable our great manufacturing sector to realise its full potential and to take a stronger hold on the great export markets of the world.

Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria

– I wish to speak very briefly, merely to indicate that we support the general character of the Bill.

However, I speak also to draw attention to something that has happened concerning communication between industry and the Government over this Bill. It is pointed out in a communication I have received from the Australian Manufacturers ‘ Export Council, which states:

The Minister for Overseas Trade, Dr J. F. Cairns, announced on 13 March 1973 that the Government had decided to extend the export incentive schemes in the form of export incentive grants and export market development allowance until June 1974.

I think that that would have been done at the request of the businesses concerned and that the decision of the Minister was a wise one. The submission continues:

During the intervening period, the Minister would arrange for a thorough review of the operation of the schemes and the outcome of that review would be considered the Cabinet.

As a result of this co-operation with Dr Cairns the Australian Manufacturers’ Export Council undertook a nationwide survey. It obtained extensive information and made it available. As a result of deliberations the Council has now sent a submission with recommendations on a revised overall export development scheme to the Minister for Overseas Trade. I would like to see that kind of co-operation in other measures which the Government undertakes and which may affect the business world. The general body of Australian manufacturers in a recent report called for that type of co-operation. The manufacturers said that they felt that there had been a major breakdown in communication between the Government and industry on a Bill such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill. They said that they wanted the opportunity to consult the Government prior to the introduction of legislation into Parliament which would have repercussions on the business sector. The Associated Chambers of Manufacturers of Australia in its report states:

Even when industry is consulted, frequently it is only after the experts in the Government have reached fixed positions and perhaps even the Minister has become committed to the policy. Under these circumstances input from industry is too late, with the result that industry is put in the position of being against something or of appearing to be negative.

The newly appointed Minister for Secondary Industry and Supply, Mr Kep Enderby, has publicly acknowledged the lack of consultative machinery to enable effective communications.

That is between the Government and industry. The report points out that the Minister has taken an initiative which the ACMA welcomes, and which I welcome, to establish an Australian industries council which will consist of Ministers from the Federal and State governments, industry leaders and trade unionists. I do not wish to delay the passage of the Bill except to say that I think that a lot of the problems which the

Government has met in the past 12 months in regard to legislation of an economic character could have been obviated if the Government, having prepared its plans, had said to industrial organisations: ‘Let us take time out. Let us have this legislation he here for a while. We will look at it. You put your submissions and we will see whether we cannot reach a point of cooperation’. This would be better than the Government being in the position of wanting something and the Opposition opposing it. That is the reason which lies behind the decision which the Australian Democratic Labor Party has made to defer certain Bills.

We feel that when a Bill comes in and when the Government has reached a fixed position there ought to be time for consultation, discussion and possible co-operation with industry. Therefore, at times when people criticise the DLP and say that we are obstructing Government legislation, it is not the case that we want to obstruct government legislation. We say that before these measures which may have a wide economic effect come into operation, surely there ought to be time for industries which will be affected to have a good look at these measures and to make their submissions to the Government as to how the measures can be improved. Therefore I am pleased to see the indication here that both Dr Cairns and Mr Enderby bear in mind the need for co-operation and consultation. I hope that that kind of thing will continue.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-Two Bills are before the Senate, the Export Incentive Grants Bill 1 973 and the Payroll Tax Assessment Bill 1973. Both these Bills are initiatives taken by a new Government in its review of the type of encouragement which should be given in certain areas. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Senator Willesee), during his second reading speech on the original Bill and the most important one, which is the Export Incentive Grants Bill, stated:

  1. . the Bill does no more than continue the present export incentive scheme for another year.

There is some query as to the future of the scheme. Probably those who are interested in the benefit which this incentive has been in encouraging and bringing about increased exports in Australia will have some doubts because the Minister continued:

What will happen after 30 June 1974 has yet to be decided, so it cannot yet be said whether the present scheme or some other scheme will operate or even no scheme. That will be decided later, in the light of a number of relevant factors. In the event that there were no schemes, consideration might be given to the need for hardship relief, but if that proved to be the situation such relief would not, of course, provide, under a different name, concessions as generous as the present incentives:

I think that those who have developed export markets might well be concerned at the Minister’s words that the concessions have been generous. It is my view that the development of exports over the period, as far as Australia is concerned, is one of the main reasons for our economic strength at the present time. It is certainly one of the main reasons why this Government has finance available to it and why it believes it can spend it in the manner in which it is doing. Action which the Government has taken might be criticised. In its knowledge of commercial interests it has taken a number of actions which it reckons will retract benefits which have been given to manufacturers, to primary producers and to exporters. Indeed, it can be seen in the Labor Government’s philosophy that benefits which had been provided by a former antisocialist government should be reduced.

I refer to the various taxation attractions which had been made available for primary producers. The Government has pulled away the deduction for the installation of new equipment for manufacturing purposes. It has been lost to manufacturers. We now see that the export incentive grant which had been made available and which I believe had been of such great encouragement in attracting manufacturers and producers to look for export markets are under threat. That is the view of the new Government. The attitude of the Opposition in discussing this Bill was that in this instance the Government should have its way. It must take the consequences of its own administration. However, since the introduction of the Export Incentive Grants Bill in the Senate we have been notified that there are, I think, 5 amendments. Some of those amendments are of particular concern to us. I will mention them at this stage so that honourable senators will at least be aware of the view of the Australian Country Party. One amendment has the intention of going against the proposition which I read from the Bill. The Minister stated: the Bill does no more than continue the present export incentive scheme for another year.

Of course, the amendments which are to be brought in mean that certain items are to be excluded. My Party is particularly concerned about the exclusion that is to apply to the export of meat. I imagine that the Government has been prompted by the thought of high meat prices in Australia. If I may say so, I think that basically it is a fallacious argument to suggest that there has been a great increase in meat prices. Whilst there has been some escalation in the cost of meat in shops generally, I do not think that there was a ready acceptance on the part of the public of what happened when meat of various types appeared on the markets in Australia at a cost which was totally disastrous for Australian producers. I am aware that a number of butchering businesses realised that they would have to go out of business because of the low prices. Many of them did in past years.

The Australian meat industry is more concerned about the fact that this Government had promised that the export incentive grants scheme would continue until 30 June 1974. The Minister in charge of this Bill, the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), probably will be concerned that I have been prompted to cite another instance of the Government breaking a promise. This has become an unhappy experience for honourable senators and various members and supporters of the Government who have taken an interest in primary production, education, taxation or defence. The Labor Party had promised that if it gained office it would do certain things. We have found that for some reason or other it has decided that in relation to many items it should break its promises to the people of Australia. However, I do not want to go through all those areas.

So far as incentive grants for primary production are concerned, we note that the Government announced that it would review export incentives and finally, on 13 March this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made a statement in which he said that the Federal Government had decided to extend export incentives for one year to June 1974. That was an undertaking given by the Prime Minister. At the same time the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) stated that a thorough review of the incentive schemes would be carried out during the period to the date that I mentioned and that Cabinet would then consider a possible new scheme. The Minister for Overseas Trade also made the point that during the period of this extension he hoped that business confidence would be stimulated with beneficial effects on investment decisions and employment prospects. I took much pleasure from that statement and thought that the meat exporters of this country, having been given that promise by the Prime Minister in March and having had it endorsed by the Minister for Overseas Trade, obviously would go ahead and plan to take advantage of what the Minister for Overseas Trade said would follow the Government’s decision. I hoped that it would stimulate increased business confidence with beneficial effects on investment decisions and employment prospects.

Australia has a great record in the field of export development. Earlier in this debate Senator Guilfoyle pointed out what had been achieved by the people of Australia in the field of exports. It is of interest to note that in 1970 the annual value to Australia of meat exports was $292,130,000. In the 12 months to 30 June last our exports were worth $841,549,000. When one considers the great benefit to Australia of those exports worth $800m-odd, that performance seems almost out of order with the inappropriate step whereby the Government decided to prohibit rebates of from $5m to $7m for the meat industry. It is wrong to describe this scheme as a subsidy as the Minister did in his speech. It was not a subsidy, it was an encouragement which brought results of great benefit to the Australian community.

It is interesting to note from the wording of the Bill that only a particular type of meat is to be excluded. The Minister said that the provisions of the Bill were designed to exclude fresh, chilled or frozen meat from the scope of the export incentive grants scheme as from 1 October 1973. I ask the Minister why carcass meat has been excluded and why live meat has been left in the Bill? It seems inconsistent. I make a plea on behalf of that industry for the Minister to reconsider the promises and assurances he gave to this industry. I ask him to remember that this is a minor amount to be gained for the industry. This trade represents only about 8 per cent of the total world meat production and it is not great but it would mean an enormous amount to the industry if it knew that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Overseas Trade can hold to thenwords. I hope that the Government will see fit to keep to the wording of the original Bill which was designed to continue the export incentive scheme until 30 June 1974.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– I suggest that the question be now put to a vote.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– I move: “2a. Section 3 of the Principal Act is repealed ‘ ‘.

  1. In clause 3, after paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph:- “(ba) by inserting in sub-section ( 1 ), after the definition of marketing authority’, the following definition:- “meat” means fresh, chilled or frozen flesh or edible offal of bovine animals, sheep, goats or pigs, other than flesh or offal that has been canned, cooked or cured; ‘
  2. After clause 3, insert the following new clauses:- “3a. After section 4 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part I:- 4a. ( 1 ) Where meat was or is exported from Australia on or after 1 October 1973, the amounts of consideration receivable by any person in respect of the disposal of that meat shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Act.

    1. The amount that would, but for this sub-section, be the value of export sales of any person for the base period in relation to the last grant year or, where applicable, that amount as varied in accordance with section 1 1, 2 1 or 22, shall be reduced by an amount equal to three-quarters of the amount or amounts, if any, included in that value by reason of the disposal of any meat.’. “3B. Section 1 1 of the Principal Act is amended-
    1. by omitting from sub-sections (2) and (3) the word Where’ and substituting the words ‘Subject to subsections ( 3 a) and ( 3b), where ‘;
    2. by inserting after sub-section (3) the following subsections: (3a) Where, during the period that commenced on 1 July 1973 and ended on 30 September 1973, a person acquired a business from another person, whether by purchase or otherwise, then, in relation to so much of the amount of the value of export sales for a year of the base period in relation to either of those persons in relation to the last grant year as is attributable to the disposal of meat in the course of that business, subsection (2) and paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) have effect as if the last grant year comprised only that period. (3b) Where, on or after 1 October 1973, a person acquired or acquires a business from another person, whether by purchase or otherwise, sub-sections (2) and (3) do not apply in relation to so much of the amount of the value of export sales for the base period in relation to either of those persons in relation to the last grant year as is attributable to the disposal of meat. ‘; and
    3. by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) the words ‘under section 21’ and substituting the words under section 4a or 2 1 ‘. “.
  3. After clause 6, insert the following new clauses:- “6a. Section 2 1 of the Principal Act is amended-

    1. by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) the words ‘and section 1 1 ‘ and substituting the words ‘and sections 4a and 1 1 ‘; and
    2. by omitting from sub-section (7) the words ‘of section 1 1 ‘ and substituting the words ‘of sections 4a and 1 1 ‘. “6b. Section 22 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) the words ‘ from section 1 1 ‘ and substituting the words ‘ from sections 4a and 1 1’. “.
  4. Clause 1 1, leave out the clause, substitute the following clause:- “11. (1) The amendments made by paragraph 3 (ba) and section 3a, 3b, 6a and 6b apply in relation to grants, and the issue of export certificates, in respect of the grant year that commenced on 1 July 1973. “(2) The amendments made by the remaining provisions of this Act, other than section 2a, apply in relation to grants, and the issue of export certificates, in respect of the grant year that commenced on 1 July 1971 and each succeeding grant year.”.

The purpose of the amendments is to give effect to the Government’s decision, announced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) on 10 September, to exclude from the scope of the export incentive grants .:heme exports of fresh, chilled or frozen meat after 30 September 1973. Honourable senators will recall that the Bill at present before the Committee extends for one year the operation of the incentive grants scheme which was due to expire on 30 June last. Under the amendments now proposed consideration receivable in respect of exports of meat after 30 September 1973 will not be included in the value of a person’s export sales for the purpose of determining his entitlement to an export incentive grant in respect of the 1973-74 financial year. An appropriate adjustment is to be made to the value of a person’s export sales in the base period against which exports for 1973-74 will be measured for grant entitlement purposes. Apart from the first amendment, which is of a formal drafting nature, the other amendments are consequential on the insertion in the Bill of the provisions proposed to be inserted by the third amendment. Each of the amendments is explained in notes that I have circulated to honourable senators and I do not think it is necessary for me to speak to them at length at this stage. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) wishes to get this Bill through quickly. He could assist by answering a question which I attempted to ask by way of interjection. He may not have heard it. Why did the Government decide to exclude live meat and include carcass meat? I would ask the Minister to comment on the fact, which I raised, that this industry had been given a promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and by the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns), that the incentive scheme would be continued until 30 June 1974. Does the Attorney-General consider that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Overseas Trade were forced, for some reason or other, to break that promise? They have broken their assurances to the industry on this matter. Does the Attorney-General consider that there was wisdom in the Government acting in such a way? Should not the industry be able to rely on the words of the Prime Minister and of Dr J. F. Cairns?

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– Live meat is not included because very little live meat is exported. That is the practical reason. I do not propose to go into the matters of contention which the honourable senator raised. I do not know their full history. I know that the honourable senator spends half his time complaining about various matters, conversations and assurances. As far as I can gather, when any of these matters are followed up, it is found that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Ministers have carried out their undertakings and their assurances. I think that no government has the record of performance of undertakings and of programs that this Government has. That is my answer to the honourable senator.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) was raising a contentious matter when he said that I spend half my time acting in a certain manner.

Senator Murphy:

– I will withdraw that statement.

Senator WEBSTER:

-He should withdraw that statement. There are a number of matters on which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Government gave assurances and had to be prompted on them. I am making a plea not for myself but for those who are involved in this industry. It is in writing that the Prime Minister said that the export incentive scheme would continue until 30 June 1974. That industry is concerned that, with a wave of the hand, the assurances of the Prime Minister are set aside. Dr J. F. Cairns did the same thing. I do not think it is a matter of the Attorney-General saying to me that I seem to follow up these things. Honourable senators receive written submissions from those whom they attempt to represent. This matter is of great concern. I think that the industry wants to know whether it can rely on the statements made by the Prime Minister and, in this case, Dr J. F. Cairns. It is not a case of waving the industry off. The matter is an important one. The industry was given an assurance. The assurance is broken by this Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– I have said that I will withdraw my estimation of the time that the honourable senator spends on these matters. I think that it would probably be impossible to quantify.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2566

PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 November (vide page 2091), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2566

FISHERIES BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November (vide page 1659), on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– Is it the desire of the Senate that the Fisheries Bill and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill be debated cognately?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Is leave granted for the Bills to be debated cognately? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator LAUCKE:

– The Liberal Party Opposition is not opposed to the general concept underlying the provisions of these Bills. The Fisheries Bill 1973 amends the Fisheries Act 1952-1970. I wish at this moment to refer particularly to this Act. At the time of introduction of the original Bill the then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture said that the purpose of the Bill was to legislate in respect to swimming fish in Australian waters beyond territorial limits in order that fishing in those waters could be so regulated that existing fisheries resources would be conserved for regular commercial development, and excessive exploitation of our fish resources would be prevented. The need for proper management was evident then. It is of greater importance now. The fishing industry in 1971-72 had a production value of $9 1.8m, but 10 years ago it was only $3 1.7m. The increase in export income has been spectacular. In the 10-year period to last year the increase has been about 400 per cent, from $ 15.2m to $75.7m. A visit to the Port Lincoln processing works in South Australia, where shellfish, tuna, salmon and other varieties are processed, reveals the buoyancy of the growth of the industry. This appears to be the pattern of development in all major fishing areas around the Australian coast. It would be a retrograde stance that did not seek to regulate reasonably and to expand the potential of the fishing industry.

Consequent upon the passage of the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill, one assumes that the Commonwealth will be issuing fishing licences in its own name. One hopes that this will be done in full consultation with the States. The State fisheries departments are experienced and knowledgeable. The Commonwealth is not at this point of time, as I see it, equipped with the people or the experience to issue licences because it does not have the same degree of background knowledge that the State officers have. I stress that there must be very close co-operation with the States. If the sovereignty provision of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act is successfully challenged, the States would issue fishing licences in their immediate jurisdiction, to the 3-mile limit, and would issue composite licences beyond that limit. But I wish to stress particularly the need for consultation to arrive at a workable arrangement which has direct bearing on an industry highly important to Australia these days.

I wish to foreshadow amendments to clauses 1 1 and 12 of the Fisheries Bill, which will have the effect of removing the arbitrary condition of forfeiture and provide that the ordering of forfeiture be made a matter for the courts. On the world scene as regards the forfeiture of vessels which are in breach of fishing laws, in Japan the penalty imposed is a fine of 200,000 yen, or $A494, or 3 years imprisonment or both. The court may also order the forfeiture of any or all vessels or all their catch and fishing equipment. The court also may order monetary payment in lieu of such forfeiture. In the United States of America the penalty imposed is a fine of US$100,000, which is $A67,340, or 1 year’s imprisonment or both. The courts may order forfeiture of the vessel and fishing equipment, but forfeiture of the catch is mandatory. In the United Kingdom the penalty imposed for breach of the requirements in respect of proper conservation of fishery resources is a fine of 500 pounds, or $A820, as well as the court’s having a discretion to order forfeiture of the catch and fishing equipment. In the Bahamas the penalty is a fine of up to $ 10,000 or 1 year’s imprisonment, plus forfeiture of vessel, catch and fishing equipment at the discretion of the court. In addition, I understand that some South American countries -for example, Peru, Chile and Ecuador- do not allow foreign vessels to come within 200 miles of their coast. We can see that in these countries there is actually not the rigidity of the requirement in relation to the forefeiture of foreign vessels that we find in clause 12 of the Bill in relation to vessels which come within the jurisdiction of Australia. Clause 12 provides for the insertion of, amongst other new sections, the following proposed new section 1 3d ( 1 ):

A foreign boat used or otherwise involved in the commission of an offence under this Act is forfeited to Australia.

We suggest that this proposed new section be amended to read:

A foreign boat used or otherwise involved in the commission of an offence under this Act, if the court so orders, is forfeited to Australia.

I shall be moving that amendment at the appropriate time. I would like to have information from the Minister as to the proposed working of these mandatory provisions so that some light may be thrown on that which at this moment is not very clear in the second reading speech. I would also like to have explained the retroactive provision in clause 20 of the Fisheries Bill, which states:

  1. 1 ) Section 13d of the principal Act as amended by this Act applies in relation to an offence committed before the date of commencement of that section where the boat concerned was, immediately before that date, in the possession, or under the control, of Australia, a court, an officer or a person complying with the requirement of an officer under paragraph (e) of section 10 of the principal Act and so applies as if the offence has been committed on that date.
  2. For the purposes of section 13d, a boat forfeited under that section by virtue of this section shall be deemed to have been seized under that section on the date of commencement of that section.

That is quite definitely a retrospective provision, and I would appreciate the Minister’s explanation on this aspect of the legislation. The Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill is on very similar lines to the Fisheries Bill. The purpose of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill is to amend certain of the machinery provisions of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act. In this second reading speech the Minister says that this is to ensure more effective administration of the legislation and, in conjunction with amendments proposed to the Fisheries Bill, to bring the principles embodied in the 2 Acts into uniformity. That is very desirable. The Minister states further that the purpose of this measure is to enable the fullest possible protection to be given to the living resources of the continental shelf of Australia and the external territories, including the Great Barrier Reef. The Minister also says in his second reading speech that such control is in accordance with international law as expressed in the 1958

Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill contains a provision concerning the forfeiture of foreign boats similar to that which appears in the Fisheries Bill. I shall look at this matter more closely at the Committee stage with a view to bringing into line both the provision in the Fisheries Act and that contained in the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill in relation to the rigidity and the mandatory nature of the terms of forfeiture. I feel that I have nothing further to say on this point as it is related to those Bills, and I shall leave the detailed discussion to the Committee stage.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-The Australian Country Party does not oppose either the Fisheries Bill or the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill, but we will support the amendments proposed to be moved at the Committee stage. These 2 Bills fit in with and partly attach to the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill which the Country Party opposed last week. But since that Bill has become law and probably will be the subject of a High Court challenge as to who has authority over which particular parts of the off-shore seabed, we have to look at these Bills in connection with the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill. One of these Bills is apparently concerned with sedentary life in the sea and the other is concerned with swimming fish. Because we are dealing with two forms of sea life 2 separate Bills have been introduced. As regards the sedentary type of life in the sea, one of the most important species which affects us and affects the foreign fishing boats operating in our waters is the giant clam which is found around many of the islands to the north and east of Queensland. In his second reading speech on the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) made one statement which is not clear and to which I would like to draw his attention. He said: the main purpose of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act is to enable the fullest possible protection to be given to the living resources of the continental shelf of Australia and the external territories, including the Great Barrier Reef.

How does the Minister fit in the Great Barrier Reef with the external territories as mentioned in his second reading speech? I think that probably the position might have been expressed differently in the speech. It is not clear and I think that the Minister should clear it up when he replies.

Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the licensing of the boats. I believe that it provides for a joint licensing by the Commonwealth and the States. This will overcome any future difficulties, depending upon a possible High Court ruling on the actual areas of jurisdiction which may be given when the position is challenged, as I understand is sure to be the case. The Minister stated in his second reading speech:

Clause 8 empowers the Minister to close an area to the taking of a specified sedentary organism except by persons or by the use of boats with licences endorsed to permit the taking of that sedentary organism in that area.

He qualifies that by saying:

These provisions will enable effective effort-control programs to be undertaken where necessary, especially in the case of removal of live coral from the Great Barrier Reef, and of the talcing of abalone.

I point out that for a long time the taking of live coral, or any coral, from the Great Barrier Reef or any of the islands is absolutely illegal in Queensland. No doubt, if the court rules that the Commonwealth has control over parts of the Great Barrier Reef, that will be only a complementary power to that which already exists in Queensland. I might mention that the law in regard to the taking of live coral is very rigidly enforced.

Senator Laucke mentioned foreign ships and the mandatory provision that ships will be subject to forfeiture. I think that that matter will be raised during the Committee stage. Clause 20 of the Bill contains a retroactive provision which I believe involves a bad principle. I would like the Minister to explain why it is necessary to provide that ships seized at any time prior to the royal assent being given to this Bill are, in effect, to be held to have been seized at the date that it comes into force. Retrospective legislation involves a bad principle in British justice anywhere that it is applied. It seems that we are introducing it here where it should not be necessary.

The other Bill under discussion is the Fisheries Bill 1973. The remarks of the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) in his second reading speech about the value of production from fisheries are very interesting. No doubt, the industry will grow if properly looked after and fostered. We could arrive at the position where the harvest of the sea becomes a very substantial part of our national income. This income is derived mainly from the swimming fish. Also, mention is made of a 200 mile preferential fisheries zone. I understand that some of the South American countries are claiming such a zone now unilaterally. It is not agreed to under the law of the sea conferences. We have heard and seen a lot of publicity in recent months about fishing around Iceland which is claiming, I think, a 50 mile zone for its fishing boats. It is very difficult for any one nation to settle that unilaterally. Really, it can be settled only by conference between the nations on the law of the sea. I hope that some action will be taken to make quite clear what power we have over the area of the continental shelf which is claimed in respect of minerals under the seabed and what power we have over the swimming fish. I understand that the law today states that our control over foreign fishing boats extends only 10 miles from the shore and around each and every island. With those few brief remarks, I repeat that the Country Party is not opposed to these Bills but will support the amendments to be moved in Committee.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I wish to indicate that the Australian Democratic Labor Party will support the 2 Bills before the Senate. I do not wish to cover again the ground that has been covered by previous speakers. In order to clear the minds of honourable senators in regard to the Committee stage of the consideration of the Bills, I indicate that we, too, will support the amendments. In saying that, I point out that while the amended clause 11 appears to strengthen the Continental Shelf (Living National Resources) Bill by making mandatory the forfeiture of vessels in cases in which foreign ships come within the forbidden area to fish, there could be circumstances in which this could react both ways. A court feeling that forfeiture of the ship was excessive in the circumstances put before it might not register a conviction because it would feel that it would be an injustice to forfeit the vessel. Therefore, to leave the question within the jurisdiction of the court so that the court may be able to order forfeiture of a vessel seems to us to provide for all the circumstances that may eventuate.

There could be circumstances in which a fishing vessel might infringe very narrowly on the area from which it is prohibited. That should be an offence and most certainly the catch of the vessel should be appropriated. But to forfeit the vessel and all the equipment thereon without a court considering the circumstances involved seems to us to be not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We believe that the jurisdiction should be left with the court. For that reason I indicate that at the Committee stage, without speaking to the amendments, we will support them.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I will not delay the second reading debate because it is quite obvious that the Opposition supports the 2 Bills with the exception, of course, of the amendments which will be moved in the Committee stage. I wish to make one or two brief comments. I think that the points raised by Senator Laucke could best be dealt with during the Committee stage. Senator Lawrie made some remarks concerning the actual wording of the second reading speech. Technically, I think that he is possibly right. The points he raised involve the manner in which the second reading speech is worded. I think that if he considers it he will find that the reference to the Great Barrier Reef is concerned with the reference above that to the continental shelf and not to the external territories. Possibly, it could have been worded a little more clearly but obviously that is the intent of the passage.

Concerning the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, it is true, as he says, that it is already law that these various species cannot be taken. But there are also such matters as spillage and pollution which also should be taken into account. In fact, the Bill is providing for that. Reference was made to the 200 mile limit from the coastline. This is a matter which will have to be determined when the law of the sea conference takes place. It is probably premature for us to be considering that aspect of the matter at this stage. I think that the real matters we have to debate will be raised in the Committee stage. So I suggest that we take a vote on the question that the Bill be read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 10- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12- by leave- taken together.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– In relation to clause 11,1 move:

Clause 11, in proposed new section 13c, leave out ‘shall’, insert ‘may’.

Proposed new section 13c, refers to forfeiture in relation to foreign boats and states:

Where a court convicts a person of an offence against section 13 in the Commission of which a boat that was a foreign boat was used or otherwise involved or of an offence against section 13b, the court shall order the forfeiture to Australia of . . .

Then certain matters are referred to. I propose that the word ‘may’ instead of the word ‘shall’ be inserted in that provision. In relation to clause 12, 1 move:

Clause 12, in proposed new section 13d. (1), after ‘Act’, insert ‘ , if the court so orders, ‘.

This second amendment has a relationship to the first. With the amendment, proposed new section 1 3D. ( 1 ) would then provide:

A foreign boat used or otherwise involved in the commission of an offence under this Act, if the court so orders, is forfeited to Australia.

I move these amendments because the rigidity and mandatory character of the proposed new sections are regarded as being excessive. Forfeiture should be under court order and not forthwith. I presume that, in determining these matters, the court would take into account criteria such as the degree of responsibility of the owner of the vessel, as distinct from the master. In addition, repeated offences, and so on, would be considered.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the 2 amendments be taken together? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– The Government will oppose the 2 amendments. Senator Laucke has referred to the position obtaining in other countries. I think his information about the position in those countries is correct, as it is much along the same lines as mine. He has said that the laws of other countries are not rigid, but I point out that they are certainly more severe than is proposed in this Bill. I suggest that is really the difference. The Government does not wish to write into this legislation punishments against individuals on the vessels. In the recent case in Western Australia, it was necessary to hold in custody the masters of those vessels. Under the present legislation, by inserting this mandatory provision, in effect the crews of vessels held can be repatriated and returned to their homeland. Then the matter can be resolved between the court, the Australian Government, and the owners of the vessel, who would be required to apply through the court for the release of the vessel. Therefore, we are not taking away from the court the right to make a determination.

If we persist with the present law, we will be so weakened in relation to exercising our authority in Australian waters that we will find ourselves back in the position in which we were in the Western Australia case. It is all very well for us to debate this matter in the Senate, but people in the fishing industry are concerned about it and are entitled to protection. I dare say that the laws of the country are framed to ensure that Australian waters, within the declared zones, are preserved for Australian fishermen. If these amendments were carried, much authority would be taken away from the Australian authorities. The whole purpose of the mandatory provision is to ensure that the vessels can be held and that the crews can be repatriated, with the owners of vessels being able to apply for the release of the vessels, the court deciding whether they should be released. If the amendment is carried, that procedure will be denied. I think that is unfortunate, because I do not really think that the significance of what the Bill is trying to do has been understood.

The arguments advanced in favour of these amendments are unconvincing. By these amendments, the present situation will be allowed to continue, and it is obvious that we do not want it to continue. We do not want to hold the masters of fishing vessels; we do not want them imprisoned, as they are in countries such as Japan and the U.S.A. for 6 months, 1 year, or 3 years. We are trying to avoid that situation and, if the owners want to apply for the return of the vessel, they can apply to the court. As I have said, if the amendments are carried this procedure will not be possible. The Government feels compelled to oppose the amendments because they would defeat one of the important aims of the Bill.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I have listened closely to the Minister. Perhaps we can achieve in another way what we seek to achieve by changing the word ‘shall’ to may’ in proposed new section 13c, and by inserting the words ‘if the court so orders’ in proposed new section 13d (1). I have a suggestion that may be acceptable to the Minister. We could provide that where an offence is alleged to have been committed the ship may be seized until such time as the court has determined whether an offence has been committed. I believe that such a provision would have the same effect as the amendments I have moved. I should like that suggestion considered.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I think I should raise the point that the provisions as drafted- which are sought to be amended by Senator Laucke’s amendments- are mandatory in a way that can work a tremendous injustice. Under proposed new section 13c, the court has no discretion, as the provision states that the court shall order the forfeiture to Australia of the equipment or the fish that may be on the seized boat. Clause 12, which inserts proposed new section 13d, states that a foreign boat is forfeited, and again there is no discretion. The attitude of the Opposition is that a discretion should be vested in the court. A harsh penalty is provided in this legislation; we understand it has one or two parallels in other parts of the world, but generally similar provisions are not to be found in the legislation of other countries. Having heard what the Minister has said, I am not sure that he really appreciates that what we seek to establish is that it shall be in the court’s discretion whether the boat or other equipment should be forfeited. This provision should not be mandatory, without any exception whatever being provided for.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I have listened to the explanation of the Minister. As I understand him, he has said that boats will be seized and that the owners can apply to the court, which will make the ultimate decision whether the boats should be confiscated or returned. The onus is on the owners to put up a case.

Senator Wriedt:

– Yes.

Senator SIM:

– I want to ask what will happen in the event of seizure of a boat from a country with which Australia has no diplomatic relations, such as Taiwan. Would there be any problems in regard to a Taiwanese shipping owner being able to make application to an Australian court?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– In answer to the last question asked by Senator Sim, my understanding from what I have been told by my advisers is that this would not jeopardise an application by an owner. May I say to Senator Greenwood that I fully understand the purpose of the Opposition’s amendment. Even though the amendment may have been put forward in good faith there is no confusion in my mind about the Government’s intentions. We have to exercise a certain discipline in these matters. If we have to insert a mandatory clause of this nature in this legislation we should do so. In fact, I think the original legislation which was introduced by the previous Government also had the word ‘shall’ in clause 13c. However, that is history. The important point is that we should exercise our authority in Australian waters in the most humane way we can without penalising individuals whose normal day to day work is on these vessels. The Government’s position remains the same in regard to the clauses now under discussion. We will oppose the 2 amendments and if need be we will call for a division on them.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) still has not answered the question which related to the effect that this legislation would have on the fishermen of countries with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. It is conceivable that vessels from Taiwan and perhaps other countries with whom Australia does not have diplomatic relations could be caught poaching in Australian waters. How do we get on in such a case?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I thought I had answered that question when I replied to Senator Sim. My understanding is that the legislation would not affect the case. In fact, I think that the Taiwan owners involved in both the Darwin and Perth cases were present at the court. I cannot see, on the basis of the advice available to me, that this legislation will affect materially any claims that are made by the owners of vessels from foreign countries with which we do not have diplomatic relations.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I point out to the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) what could be described as perhaps the harshness of the clause under consideration and the possibility of reciprocal harshness from other countries. Before the provisions of the legislation can be enforced it will be necessary to ascertain whether a vessel has actually been fishing within 10 miles of the Australian coastline. One can well envisage an international incident arising from a foreign vessel being seized under circumstances which another country might regard as unjust. It is not beyond the realms of possibility, international policies being as they are today, that a charge could be cooked up by some other country that some Australian vessel, which may not even be a fishing vessel, had been fishing inside its territorial waters and the Australian vessel seized. Such a situation could lead to all manner of unfortunate incidents. I think that if the matter is brought before a court and the court decides to confiscate a vessel then to some extent there would be some protection from that type of reciprocal action. It is true that there have been incidents of this character in some of the countries in the Indian Ocean area. In some cases vessels have been seized for purely propaganda purposes. I draw this matter to the attention of the Minister to illustrate perhaps one of the unpleasant aspects of too harsh a law that he may not have yet considered.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I do not want to go through this matter again because the reasons for the Government’s decision have been related to the Senate. I suggest that Senator Little read today’s Hansard which contains a list of some of the punitive provisions in the laws of other countries. They are much more severe than what is proposed in this legislation. We are not writing in any punitive clauses against individuals. If Senator Little reads the list of laws of other countries which were read out by Senator Laucke he will see terms of imprisonment and fines which can be imposed on individuals who are caught fishing in the waters of other countries. This legislation does not intend to take such punitive action against individuals, certainly not in a mandatory way quite apart from what the court may decide to do.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I should like to raise one specific point. Two or three years ago we had the spectacle of foreign fishing boats fishing for prawns in the Gulf of Carpentaria which, incidentally, we have not been able to establish as historical waters or Australian controlled waters. These trawlers stayed just outside of the 12-mile limit, or whatever the limit was at the time, and were protected by one of their nation’s warships. In the context of this legislation, if such vessels strayed a bit close to the Australian coast and the Australian Government seized them could not this cause diplomatic trouble with a nation to our north? A great deal of trouble was caused by foreign vessels fishing for prawns in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to point out to Senator Lawrie that the penalties that this Government is suggesting in this legislation are not comparable with the penalties that have been imposed successfully by Iceland and a number of coastline Latin American republics. If there is one thing that stands out in the international field today it is the fact that although the United States of America huffed and puffed about its objection to some of the decisions taken by Latin American countries in regard to their territorial sea limits, that country has learned to live with them. I say to Senator Lawrie and, to a lesser degree, to Senator Little that it is obvious that we must have some punitive powers in relation to vessels which fish inside our territorial sea limits. But as I have said, what is suggested by the Australian Government is not comparable with the punitive measures embodied in the successful expeditions that have been embarked upon by Iceland and Latin American countries against what may be deemed the super powers. But whether they be super powers or middle powers, if other countries see a bit of firmness they will capitulate and do what is wanted. An article in the ‘Canberra Times’ pointed out that a recent resolution carried in the United Nations concerning Iceland’s claim to territorial waters- a resolution supported by Australia- was a moral victory for that country.

Question put*

That the amendments (Senator Laucke’:) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Cant)

AYES: 29

NOES: 23

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 1 1 and 12- as amended- agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Sitting suspended from 1.4 to 2 p.m.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-Both Senator Laucke and I raised the question of retrospective legislation in respect of clause 20 which, in effect, says that if the Government has seized any vessel or should seize any vessel between now and the date of royal assent it will be held to be seized under the provisions of this measure. This is wrong. It has never been accepted in British law though it is done often in United States law. It is wrong in principle. If an alleged offence is not an offence by law at the date on which it is committed, it cannot be made an offence at some subsequent date. That is a cardinal principle of our law. For this reason I oppose clause 20. 1 asked the Minister when we first spoke on the Bill to give us an explanation for the clause and I do not think he mentioned that aspect.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– In the original drafting of the Bill clause 20 would have been applicable, but the amendment which was moved and carried before the luncheon suspension calls into question the need for clause 20. 1 think the best way to handle this would be for me to give Senator Lawrie a guarantee that I will draw this to the attention of the draftsman to ensure that this clause now becomes redundant. Until we receive that advice the clause may remain in the Bill. At some time the Bill would quite possibly need to be amended again. But for the current purposes of the admitted dilemma which we may now be in I suggest, if the Committee is agreeable, that I take the action that I have just suggested and draw this to the attention of the draftsman responsible. If it is a redundant clause, presumably it can be withdrawn from the Bill.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I suggest to the Minister that he seek to adjourn this debate to a later hour today in order to get that information. I think it would be silly to go on with a clause which is possibly redundant and which seems to me anyhow to be bad in law. If the draftsman agrees, we could fix it straight away. I ask the Minister to report progress and to seek leave to adjourn the debate to a later hour today.

Progress reported.

page 2572

CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November (vide page 1660), on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second dme.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 16- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 1 7:

  1. After section 1 8 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 1 8a. ( 1 ) Where a ship, other than-

an Australian ship; or

a ship that, in relation to an external Territory, is a Territory ship, is used or otherwise involved in the commission of an offence under this Act that ship shall be forfeited to Australia.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

-Clause 17 provides for the forfeiture of foreign ships. The wording and the intent of this clause is similar to the clause in the Fisheries Bill which we have amended. For reasons similar to those which actuated that amendment, we will be moving an amendment to this clause. Clause 17 provides in the proposed new section 18A(l)(b):

A ship that, in relation to an external Territory, is a Territory ship, is used or otherwise involved in the commission of an offence under this Act that ship shall be forfeited to Australia.

I move:

Clause 17, line 12, after ‘shall ‘insert’, if the court so orders,’.

This is in line with the amendment moved to the Fisheries Bill 1973. Since time immemorial punishment- and very drastic punishment- has been imposed only after due inquiry and judicial determination. In this clause we seek that the order of a court should be necessary before the forfeiture is made. This is a most mandatory and undesirable provision and therefore I have moved this amendment. The amended clause will then read: 1 8a. ( 1 ) Where a ship, other than-

  1. an Australian ship; or
  2. a ship that, in relation to an external Territory, is a Territory ship, is used or otherwise involved in the commission of an offence under this Act that ship shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to Australia.
Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– The Government will oppose the amendment. I do not propose that we divide on the matter because the way the majority of the Senate feels about it is quite obvious. I restate that I believe that it is not in the interests of Australia that such amendments be carried. It is certainly not in the interests of the Australian fishing industry.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 20 (Application).

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– Clause 20 applies to the provisions relating to the forfeiture of foreign boats retrospectively. Senator Lawrie has referred to this retrospectivity clause in relation to the previous Bill. The same situation applies here. I would like the comments of the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) in relation to what he proposes to do about this clause.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I suggest it is necessary that we adopt the same procedure as we did with the other Bill so that I may seek clarification of the position.

Progress reported.

page 2573

LEGISLATION RELATING TO EDUCATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the remaining stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 2) 1973, States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) 1973, States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 4) 1973, States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 3) 1973 and Commission on Advanced Education Bill 1973 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills.

page 2573

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 27 November (vide pages 2126-2130), on motions by Senator D ouglas McClelland:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-These Bills are being taken together. The Opposition does not oppose any of them and in its usual cooperative way in relation to matters involving education wishes to see the greatest expedition possible in the achievement of educational objectives. However, we remind the Senate that many of these things were put in train by us while in Government. They have been a little slow coming to fruition, perhaps, because of the Government’s over-concentration on some other aspects of education. But they are largely machinery matters. For instance, it is proposed to change the name, for some unknown reason, of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. But the Opposition says that if that is what the Government wants then by all means let it change the name by deleting the word ‘Australian’ from the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. Other provisions include the appointment of a deputy chairman. The work of the Commission on Advanced Education has increased. If the Government believes it is necessary that a deputy chairman should be appointed for a term not exceeding 7 years and that he should be able to undertake a full time role, the Opposition sees no reason why we should not support that provision. As far as the States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 3) is concerned, we were told in the second reading speech that it follows the assumption by the Government of full financial responsibility for tertiary education from January 1974, and tuition fees at universities, colleges of advanced education, teachers colleges and technical colleges will become the full responsibility of the Commonwealth Government.

Here we have another example of this quite incredible attitude on the part of the Government. It can be explained only on the basis that it is a result of what is known in common parlance as a hangup. We have, as Senator McManus referred to last night, a situation where the Government is prepared to abolish fees at tertiary institutions so that anyone, irrespective of income, may attend them without the payment of fees. But at the same time this Government for the sake of about $5m per annum or, if we take the figure of $8m over 2 years which was mentioned last night by Senator Douglas McClelland, about $4m per annum, could apply the principle of an entitlement of a basic grant to all school children. But apparently school children come into some special category which is to be singled out for a different principle to be applied to them by this Government from that which is applied by the same Government to tertiary education. The logic of that would defy even the most expert logician. We find that the Government is prepared to assume responsibility for the full payment of fees in relation to universities, colleges of advanced education, teachers colleges and technical colleges. One can only ask: Why does the Government wish to exclude 40 per cent of the children attending non-systemic schools in Australia from receiving the money promised in respect of their education? I might comment that it is interesting when considering this extraordinary attitude on the part of the Government to note that as late as 8 February of this year the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), who introduced these Bills, said this in a letter to the Secretary of the Parents and Friends Federation of Victoria:

I am confident that no non-government school will suffer as a result of the Government’s initiatives and that many will benefit.

Senator Gair:

– Who said that?

Senator RAE:

– That was said by Mr Kim E. Beazley, Minister for Education, in a letter dated 8 February 1973- long after the election and long after the promises that were made last year.

He was still reasserting the view which he had asserted so often last year; that in effect per capita grants would be continued. I repeat that he said:

I am confident that no non-government school will suffer as a result of the Government’s initiatives and that many will benefit.

Senator Devitt:

– Surely that last part qualifies the situation. He said that many will benefit.

Senator RAE:

– Many will benefit and none will suffer.

Senator Devitt:

– They are not suffering. If they do not have so many swimming pools they will not suffer.

Senator RAE:

- Senator Devitt has raised an interesting point and I think I should spend a moment m clarifying it. It seems that Senator Devitt is very keen on giving consideration to the number of swimming pools a school has but funnily enough the Karmel Committe, which worked out the categories, paid no regard whatever to that matter. It paid regard only to the pupil-teacher ratio and the other recurrent expenses. It disregarded entirely whether a school does not have a swimming pool or whether it has 53 swimming pools. The fact is that many of the poor schools were penalised thereby. If they had used their resources to increase the number of teachers rather than building swimming pools they would likely be in a very high category, category A or category B. This is where the Labor Party, the Government, becomes so completely irrational on this subject. Although it keeps referring to things like the value of school land, the value of school buildings and the value of equipment, which may include swimming pools, the Karmel Committee paid no attention to that aspect. In fact the schools that the Government is penalising often are the ones that do not have any of those advantages.

These Bills provide for the introduction of a number of programs that were put in motion by the former Government. They relate to such things as the extension of management education courses at the University of New South Wales. I understand that that was started by the previous Government, the Liberal-Country Party Government. We are glad to see this being introduced. We believe that there is a need for that type of course to be more readily available. We believe that the building of a National School of Management Education in Australia will help develop a greater degree of sophistication and finesse in management in Australia. Perhaps the Government may send some of its members to it and the country may gain an advantage from that as well. There are to be other programs. I refer to the increased amount of money for social worker training which we agree is desirable. We supported the prior legislation in regard to this matter and we support this legislation.

The other Bills provide for some variations in the amount of money and the destinations of money being made available under programs basically developed and approved by us in government and we support them. Although there has been this great hoo-ha by the Government in relation to education and its Budget, it is important to remember that of the $404m to be spent on education, which they claim is an increase of 92 per cent, $ 144.6m was a straight transfer of what had been States’ expenditure. That sum is to become Commonwealth expenditure and does not represent a single cent of extra expenditure on education. Of the remainder of the money, the largest percentage is in respect of programs recommended by the Australian Universities Commission and the Advanced Education Commission, both of which were approved by the previous Government before this Government came to power. It is a political hoax of massive proportions to claim that this Government, as a result of its initiatives, has increased expenditure on education in its Budget by $404m or by 92 per cent. That claim can be refuted by the facts. It is a claim that is untrue. It is a claim that has been made to mislead the public of Australia in the same way as the Government has attempted to mislead the public in relation to a number of other aspects of education development. However, this is not the occasion on which . to further elaborate on those aspects.

We support these Bills but we simply deplore the duplicity and deceit engaged in in relation to the education debate in this country. We applaud! the provision of extra funds. We applaud the fact! that the Government has undertaken to continue a number of the programs which we started, ‘ although unfortunately it has seldom given credit for that fact. This Government has taken a number of initiatives which we also applaud but those initiatives are far less significant than all the hoo-ha and the attempted snowing, to use a phrase, of the community would have people believe. If there is to be a double dissolution on this issue and an election fought on it the people of Australia will have the opportunity of hearing the truth. We are prepared and anxious to face the people on this issue. Our record will stand; the Government’s will not. The Government’s record is one of broken promises, misrepresentation, misleading and deceit.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Order! Before I call Senator Drake-Brockman I want to say that, the Senate having agreed to have a joint discussion on these 5 education measures, it took me some time to decide what was relevant in debate and what was not. I believe that Senator Rae got away from the purposes of the Bills before the Senate. I think honourable senators would agree that we do not want another debate on education. If I am occupying the Chair at the time I certainly will have to permit the Minister to reply to his remarks but I ask honourable senators to keep to the Bills that are before the Senate and not to indulge in a repeat of the education debate.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– You will not have any trouble from me, Mr Acting Deputy President. Education in Australia certainly will be enhanced by the allocation of the funds provided in these 5 Bills that we are discussing. The Australian Country Party welcomes these Bills and desires to facilitate their passage. Senator Rae has said that the Liberal Party is not opposing these Bills. As has already been stated also, most of the financial provisions and projects dealt with in this legislation were initiated by the former Government. My only concern about these Bills is that once again- I think that I have to express this view in this chamber because it is a States House- we see the desire of the Government to take power from the States. I deplore this sort of thing. The Country Party supports these Bills.

Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria

– Like Senator Drake-Brockman I am going to be all sweetness and light so far as these Bills are concerned. I congratulate the Government for introducing them. I congratulate the Minister for Education, Mr Kim Beazley, who, even though we have caused him some trouble over the past couple of weeks, we all acknowledge is a man who has a very fine outlook in regard to education. He is a very broad minded man and one who is determined to do all he can to improve the status of education in this country. I want to make only a couple of points. About 10 days ago, in a cognate type of debate on certain Bills, I referred to the large number of students who enter universities and who do not complete even the first or second term in some cases and who, in an extraordinarily large number of cases, do not complete the first year. I suggested to the Government that there must be scope for some system by which the suitability of a student for a university course or some other type of course or training could be determined. No system which determines whether a student should go to a university would be perfect, but I put that suggestion because education is taking an increasing amount of Commonwealth finance. In those circumstances we should adopt the attitude that we will make available all the money which is required but we should get value for it. I raise that matter only because I believe that it would be to the advantage of everybody- the Government, the Opposition and the whole country- to ensure that the people who go to university at least have some real claim to go there. If we could ensure that a reasonable proportion of them would be weeded out rather than go to a university and fail, as such large numbers do in the first year, we would be doing good to them, because defeat saps their confidence, and we would certainly be helping the finances of the Government.

I will not labour the point about no means test for universities, other than to say that I remember when the Government announced that it intended to take responsibility for all the fees of the students. I was talking to the rector of my university college and he remarked to me: ‘I hope the Government knows how much this will cost it’. He considered that the expenditure involved would be extraordinarily high. I presume that the Government looked at the matter, but he is an authority in regard to university education and the attitude which he adopted- he wants to see universities advanced- was that he thought that an extraordinarily large sum would be involved, and he questioned whether that money could not have been put to a better use in some other educational direction. I am glad that the Government has paid tribute to the work that was done by a committee of which I was a member which inquired into all aspects of teacher training. I am pleased that the Government has looked at quite a number of suggestions which we made and that there are indications of action in regard to them. I am also pleased at the final words of the second reading speech of the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) on one Bill. He said:

As teachers colleges are now becoming autonomous the desirability of a diversity of basic approach to education makes it opportune to consider the value of private teachers colleges. Pre-school teachers colleges are private institutions in many cases. The Australian Government ‘s policy of full financial support for tertiary education makes the support of private teachers colleges a logical step.

I am pleased to see that statement. I congratulate the Government on that statement of policy. I congratulate it for introducing these Bills, and I congratulate the Minister for Education who has fathered them.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-in reply-Mr Acting Deputy President, I shall take into account your remarks made after Senator Rae had spoken. I do not intend to be goaded or baited into taking part in another debate of the type that was engaged in with some ferocity last night. I merely thank the Opposition for the speedy passage which it is giving to the Bills. I say to Senator Drake-Brockman that the Australian Government is paying the money under section 96 of the Constitution in order to help the States to implement their own plans, and there is no centralised control from Canberra, which is the phrase used by him. I merely say to Senator McManus that the Department of Education has already taken note of the remarks which he made a fortnight or so ago when another Bill relating to scholarships was debated. I well remember his remarks. I appreciate the tenor in which they were offered. I think that while there is a case to be made for having a close look at this matter the question of equality of opportunity to students has to be taken into account. This type of thing has to be looked at and viewed overall to see that no person who has the qualifications is deprived of an opportunity. I thank the Senate for the speedy passage of the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2576

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 4) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November (vide page 2 1 19), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bill be now read a second dme.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I understood that Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4) and Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) would be dealt with cognately. Is it in order for me to proceed on that basis?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Is it the wish of the Senate that there be a cognate debate on the 2 Bills? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I address some very brief remarks to the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4) which is designed to make provisions with regard to the territories of Australia. In general terms, it was introduced to avoid the use of the territories as tax havens, as they have been used in the past. We do not oppose the Bill, but I make the general comment that I believe that in implementing this Bill, some difficulties are being avoided. I would not like to see developed the situation in which genuine trading companies which are earning income in the territories but which are Australian owned are disadvantaged in comparison with companies which are essentially local companies. I make that general comment because it seems to me that we should not be relating the provision which prevents the use of the territories as tax havens to income genuinely earned in a permanent way in the territory concerned.

I turn now to Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5), which was introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to make many alterations to the Income Tax Assessment Act. It contains provisions with regard to profit on the sale of a dwelling within 1 year of purchase. Part of this provision relates to the sale of a taxpayer’s home and the other part relates to the sale of general property. I would like to make some further comments on that subject later.

There are other provisions in the Bill which relate to the withdrawal of exemption of income from mining and prospecting, and the Bill also contains provisions with regard to taxation of certain pensions and a change in the method of valuation of the trading stock of a wine maker. The Bill also contains provisions with regard to dividends and other matters. There is a provision which terminates the investment allowance. The Opposition is concerned about many of these provisions, but because we have adopted the general approach that what is contained in this Bill is the way in which the Treasurer seeks to raise the income to carry out this year’s budgetary proposals, we are not opposing it. However, we have disquiet with regard to the implications of some of the clauses of the Bill. For instance, the provision which terminates the investment allowance is one that concerns me, if it is considered in relation to its long term effect on the investment which is made by a manufacturing company in plant and equipment and which in general gives the company the opportunity to make long term plans for improvements in productivity and efficiency. I feel that the termination of this allowance shows the short term attitude adopted on the part of the Government. It could have long term consequences, if seen in the light of efficiency and even in the light of the capacity to effect improvements in the cost structure.

However, I want to relate my remarks more specifically to clause 6 of the Bill which deals with the assessability of profits made from a property purchased and sold within 12 months. Clause 6 seeks to insert in the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5 ) a new section 26aaa. my remarks with regard to this proposed new section are designed to draw attention to some difficulties which could arise in interpretation and in the application of the new provisions which are introduced at this stage. In general terms I want to express my feeling that there could be some inequity in the application of this section, particularly as it provides that where a property is sold within 12 months of acquisition the transfer is deemed to constitute a sale and any profit made thereon is assessable for taxation purposes. I feel the inequity arises in the fact that, even if the property were not acquired for profit making purposes, upon its sale any profit made would attract assessability, in spite of the fact that no losses are allowable as tax deductions under this 12 months rule, if that be the experience of the person who held the property. It seems to me inequitable that profits should be regarded as assessable income when losses are not regarded as allowable deductions. At some later stage I would like an expression from the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) with regard to my contention of inequity in the provisions which have been introduced.

Some parts of this proposed new section are a Utile unclear. I want to address some remarks to them to see whether I can draw from the Minister an expression of the intent of the Government with regard to their application. Proposed new section 26aaa. ( 1) (f) as presently drafted could have some significant consequences on the securities market, which might not be intended by the Government. Certainly they are not desirable in the interests of a stable securities market. For this reason I want to put the point of view that some sales of property under this section could have some difficulties. I refer in particular to the sale of rights of bonus issue shares. I wonder whether it would be possible to have an expression of intent on the part of the Government with regard to the sale of this particular type of property. Referring to sub-section (7) of proposed new section 26aaa, it seems to me that there could be an opportunity for expression to be given as to whether the sale of rights of bonus issue shares would attract taxability under this provision. There is an expression with regard to bonus issue shares, but there is no clear expression as to what would be the situation if the sale of rights of bonus issue shares took place within the 12-months period. I would ask the Minister to give an expression of intent with regard to that.

The shareholders of a public company which becomes the object of a takeover who have purchased their shares entirely for investment purposes within 12 months of any takeover becoming effective will be faced with a tax liability when the situation in which they are placed is not entirely of their own choosing. I am speaking of the normal commercial operations of restructuring companies and effecting takeovers and amalgamations. Such a situation is not necessarily the intention of the shareholder who is a genuine investor but becomes involved in something because of a restructuring of the companies in which he holds shares. Some of the people involved could be within the 10 per cent minority of shareholders whose shares would be compulsorily acquired in a takeover, without the intention on their part to sell their property and without any attitude in the holding of the property that would lead them into the situation in which their profit on that sale is assessed as taxable income.

The danger with regard to this proposition is that there could be frustration in the restructuring of companies in future, because if more than 10 per cent of the shareholders withstand an offer by a takeover company in order to avoid attracting the tax which would be payable on this assessable income, this could be frustrating in the restructuring of companies when such restructuring may be in the interests of all of the shareholders. For this reason I think that we should have some expression as to whether this was the intention of the provision, particularly as it seems quite clear from figures which I have seen that most industrial companies experience a 10 per cent or 15 per cent turnover in the shareholders in their companies in any one year. This would lead me to say that almost any company which is involved in restructuring, amalgamation or takeover could find that its shareholders attracted tax under this provision, and it would seem to me that those same shareholders could frustrate the intention of the company in its restructuring in order to avoid paying tax under this section.

The other area in which I feel some difficulty will be experienced is related to those shareholders who are genuine investors, who attract taxation under this section but do not have the same opportunity to avoid it as those people who do state their intent as investors in the first place and thereby have the opportunity to take advantage of profits and losses. I feel that this section ought to have some relativity to that other section whereby it is possible to elect whether to deduct the losses which are sustained in the sale of properties in these instances.

The market consequences of this provision, to which I referred earlier, are undesirable. There could be the creation of a false market in a company’s shares because investor shareholders may be led to seek a higher price for any shares that they do exchange than is strictly warranted, simply to cover an anticipated tax liability. In other words, when they are negotiating they will be talking about the after tax price for the shares instead of, as they do now, a price which is more related to the real value of the shares. This seems to me not to be in the interests of commercial enterprise. I wonder whether that was recognised also at the time that this new clause was drawn up by the Treasurer.

There is another difficulty with regard to the situation of private company shareholders. This concerns those shareholders who become so by reason of the incorporation of a partnership or a sole trader business or by acceptance of another private company’s shares in the event of amalgamation, re-organisation or sale. We could argue that any transactions of this nature could be delayed until the end of a 12 month period so that they would not be caught within this provision. But I think that it would be agreed that business seldom waits for a particular date. It is the case of business negotiation taking a certain course of events and a delaying procedure to eliminate this 12 month period would not seem to me to be the normal way in which business transactions ought to be conducted. A shareholder who accepts private company shares cannot sell them readily and in general circumstances he probably could not sell them at all under the contemplation of this issue. Unless he has separate resources which most of the medium and smaller private company shareholders do not, any appreciable tax liability could cause financial hardship and, in an extreme case, the abandonment of a business or enterprise. These seem to me to be difficulties which the introduction of this provision will create. I would like the Minister to make some comment on them in his reply.

Given that the Government does wish to maintain this principle of taxability of profits arising from property purchased and sold within a 12 month period, it is recommended that this proposed new section 26aaa be amended to the extent that there is deemed to be no profit arising by reason of an exchange or issue of shares or other securities where such an exchange is related to a takeover by one company of another whether this is to be done by amalgamation, reorganisation or reconstruction. This is recommended so that the transactions which I have mentioned which fall within a 12 month period would not come within the provision of this section. I am not seeking to have this matter discussed in the formal Committee stage because as I mentioned earlier the Opposition is not opposing this Bill in total or in detail. But I want to draw attention to the application of proposed new section 26aaa in the hope that we may avoid some problems which would be affecting the smaller, genuine investor in the futuresomething that may not have been the Government’s intent when this Bill was drafted.

In particular I would hope that I will receive some response from the Minister with regard to the sale of rights on bonus shares and the application of this section to such a transaction. In stressing that the Opposition does not oppose these Bills, I state that I am aware that many of my colleagues in the other place have pointed out the difficulties that will be occasioned to primary and secondary industries of Australia by the introduction of some provisions in these Bills. We have not in the other place moved formal amendments to the Bill. We simply draw the attention of the Government to the difficulties which will be created by this method of attracting the nation’s income in this year in the hope that at some future stage the Treasurer may understand that long term planning in primary and secondary industries needs some of the measures which have been removed by these Bills.

Debate interrupted.

page 2579

PRIVILEGE

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Honourable senators will be aware that under Standing Orders the President of the Senate may intervene at any stage during the course of the Senate’s deliberations and I do so now for the second time today. I do so to make it perfectly clear to honourable senators that in the context of the proprieties of parliamentary life Senator Cavanagh drew my attention this morning to a matter involving standing order 427 under which Senator Cavanagh claimed that he had been misreported in an Australian national newspaper. Honourable senators will recollect that I said I would investigate the matter during the course of the day and provide an answer to honourable senators. In pursuance of that undertaking, I requested the Canberra head of ‘Sun-News Pictorial’ of Melbourne to come to see me just prior to the suspension of the sitting of the Senate for lunch. I had a general discussion with him on the matters raised by Senator Cavanagh. I now read the following letter that I have received from the head of ‘Sun-News Pictorial’ in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. It is addressed to the President of the Senate and reads as follows:

During our conversation in your office earlier this afternoon I undertook to write to you explaining how the error occurred in the report headed ‘Native control to go federal’ on page 27 of this morning’s Sun.

As you are aware, when both Houses of Parliament are sitting, journalists in the Press Gallery have to work at speed and under considerable pressure. Yesterday a member of the Sun’s Canberra staff misread an answer to a question on notice tabled in the House of Representatives by Mr Bryant on Senator Cavanagh ‘s behalf.

The Sun, of course, regrets the error, which will be corrected.

Yours sincerely,

E. Oakes (Head of Service)

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not think that it was only a question of a misinterpretation. It was a question of a completely untruthful quote. The article involved a reply that I had supplied to a question asked by Mr Hunt which referred to the housing of Aborigines in Victoria. From that we have this completely untruthful quote which has done untold damage in Victoria to a relationship that was going fairly well. I would not say that the damage is irreparable because in conversation with Mr Dickie today, after an explanation had been given, he took quite a reasonable attitude and I believe that he is releasing a Press statement today. But if one is to be misquoted or if a false story is to be written with the excuse that someone in the Press Gallery is tired during the sitting of the Parliament, I think it is time we looked into the industrial side of the position to see whether pressmen could be working for hours that are too long. It is not an excuse for misquoting a politician to say that a newspaper finds it necessary to work its staff excessive time. I think that if such an incident happens again a better explanation could be required. Subject to what I hope the newspaper will do, that is, publish a rectification of the complaint in a sufficiently prominent position in its pages so that it will be read, I do not seek at this stage to take the matter any further. But I feel that it is difficult to accept the excuse that has been presented.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not say that it was an excuse. I said that it was an explanation.

page 2580

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 4) 1973

Debate resumed (vide page 2579)

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I want to state the position of the Australian Country Party in the debate on these 2 taxation Bills. Senator Guilfoyle has traversed the main areas concerned with taxation generally. There is no doubt that if we were really to take apart the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973 we would be involved in the task here for hours. But I do not propose to take up a great deal of the time of the Senate. However, I do not think that I or my Party should allow this Bill to pass through the Senate without comment on what we believe has been an attack on primary industry in this country. The withdrawal of the special taxation concessions has come about under the pretext of an attack on Pitt Street farmers. Of course, everyone engaged in primary industry has had to suffer as a result. It is inconceivable to me that at this time these concessions should be withdrawn. We all know that, for some years now, the primary industries of this country, particularly those in the arid areas, have suffered from severe drought, and depressed prices during the rural recession. In these years, they have not been able to avail themselves of taxation concessions. Now, because of good seasons and higher world prices, having become taxpayers again these primary producers have the opportunity to take advantage of taxation concessions but, because of this legislation, that opportunity will be denied them and they will be unable to make much needed improvements and to increase production in the grazing and agricultural sectors.

It is interesting to note that the rural debt, which is over $2,000m, has to be paid. This is one of the main reasons why primary producers have been unable to make improvements necessary to increase production. They have not had the income or the funds and, in many cases, they have not been able to obtain money from banks, agents or other sources from which they obtain loan funds. Of course, a great many anomalies arise in the present situation. The richer farmers and graziers in the community who have had access to funds have been able to maintain the standard of their machinery, equipment, fencing and so forth, but the poorer members of the farming community, through lack of access to funds, have not been able to do so. Now that they have the opportunity to look after their equipment and property they are being denied the taxation concessions that have applied for so many years. Therefore, these measures disadvantage the poorer farmers and graziers in the community.

In addition, we saw develop the unfortunate situation in which, because of the rural depression, many of our machinery manufacturing firms had to shut down or reduce production because of lack of sales. Farmers could not afford to buy equipment, such as headers, tractors, and so forth. It will take time to build up this business again. The position is that farmers and graziers want to buy equipment but it is not available. I know that there is a waiting list of about 3 years for certain headers, tractors and other farm machinery. Some primary producers are in an unfortunate position because, although they may have been able to afford to buy this equipment before the Budget was introduced, because of the waiting list they were unable to do so, and they are now being deprived of the taxation concession that has been obtained by their more fortunate fellows. Of course, I find it inconceivable that any government should introduce measures that will restrict production at a time when overseas prices are booming and there is a demand for agricultural products. The world is crying out for more wheat and sugar. Wool is at a premium, and we all know that we cannot supply the demand of the beef markets.

Surely this is a time when any responsible government would want primary industries to increase production, take advantage of the world situation and bring more export income into the country. Such a government would say to producers: ‘Go ahead, we will give you the opportunity to develop your properties and increase production. ‘ However, instead of saying that, the Government has tried to restrict these producers. Let us face it: We cannot produce more land and there is no more land to use. We must try to increase the productivity of land already developed. In this respect, primary industry is different from factories and industrial concerns. A factory can be enlarged and its output increased 10 or 12 times without much additional area being required. From a national point of view surely this is the time when we should be encouraging the production of primary industries. The Government’s action in relation to some of these taxation deductions is completely wrong.

Let us consider the case of the arid areas. Although this is the driest continent in the world, much of our export income derives from the production of properties in arid areas. In such areas are to be found a large proportion of our sheep flocks and beef cattle herds. As this country has little natural water available, there is a necessity to provide water so that the land will produce. At considerable expense, earth tanks and earth dams are constructed so that water can be conserved. Many of these tanks and dams do not last 10 years; in some areas they may last only 2 or 3 years before they must be renewed or cleaned out. Therefore, under the Government’s proposals, the owners of properties where these tanks and dams are used are at an immediate disadvantage. In the more productive farming areas where irrigation schemes are available farmers can buy water from such schemes and claim the cost in full as a taxation deduction. Moreover, the cost of that water is considerably less than what graziers in remote areas must pay to ensure a water supply for their properties.

Under the taxation schedules as they applied previously a farmer who built water storages could claim a full deduction in the first year, but if he sold his property the value of that storage improvement was included in his income. How it would assist Pitt Street farmers to provide water storages in some of these arid areas, I do not know. I can understand that anyone who pulls out scrub, developing scrub lands into rich agricultural lands, gains a taxation advantage, but I cannot see the advantages to be gained from making water storage improvements in arid areas.

I now turn to the changes made in the schedules relating to depreciation allowances. With regard to internal subdivisional fences, previously one could claim as a depreciation allowance 100 per cent of the cost. Now, that allowance has been reduced to 3 per cent a year of the total cost. There may be some areas in which fences last for 33 years, but in many other areas, because of the type of soil and other conditions that apply, they do not last 10 years. I believe primary producers should have an opportunity to select one of a variety of applications for depreciation to suit particular areas and conditions. They should not be in the unfortunate position that applies now in which the depreciation allowance is only 3 per cent per annum. As I have said already, primary industries have a debt of over $2,000m. Primary producers are struggling to get back on their feet; they are trying to produce more to enhance their financial liquidity. In the process, in many years they operate in adverse conditions. The main point involved is the export income earned as a result of the sale of primary products overseas. Not only in these measures but in many other areas of

Government budgeting- particularly since December 2, while this Government has been in office- primary industry has been singled out for attack. Country people have had their postal charges increased. The subsidies which were given to airlines to permit them to operate in country areas have been taken away. The Government has also increased telephone charges. These are very costly items for people in remote areas. When those people have to conduct business in the capital cities they either have to use the telephone or fly there to conduct the business personally. But the Government has now increased the primary producers costs in this regard. If the Government continues this sort of attack on country people not many people will want to live in the remote areas of Australia.

The cost of living in remote areas is high because of transport costs. These costs rise in proportion to the rate of inflation. People in the wool industry, 95 per cent of whose produce is sold overseas, will be particularly affected by the increased transport costs and they will be put in a position where they cannot pass on their increased costs. I believe that this Government should reconsider the clauses in this Bill that concern taxation deductions for primary producers.

Before I sit down I would like to say that the Australian Country Party will support the Taxation Bill (No. 4) 1973. In fact, this legislation was considered by the previous Government. We realise that the law as it stands allows certain people to take advantage of tax havens. We agree that this practice should be stopped.

Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party will not oppose the legislation. As in the case of the other 2 Parties whose representatives have spoken in this debate, the DLP had representations made to it in regard to certain elements in the taxation field. We could suggest changes which undoubtedly in the eyes of a considerable section of the community would be seen as improvements. The position is that the Government has to have its revenue and in the circumstances we will not oppose the legislation. But I seek the opportunity to make one or two suggestions on the basis of representations that have been made to me. The first was made by the Manufacturers’ Mutual Insurance Ltd which realises that it has to accept its obligations. This company makes a plea in regard to the date of operation of the legislation because of what it may have to do in reorganising its activities as a result of the amendments. The company in a letter stated:

You are, of course, aware of the obligations which will devolve on affected insurers from this amendment.

This is in regard to clause 36 of the Bill. It continued:

However, you may not be cognisant of the tremendous volume of work which will be involved. Precise overall figures of the number of cases of the type concerned are not available at this stage but they would exceed half a million annually Australiawide. Last financial year, our Company alone handled some 26,000 such cases in New South Wales. You will readily appreciate, sir, that, for such a volume, the performance of the responsibilities of a group employer (including the issue of a group certificate to each injured worker at the end of his period of incapacity) will be a major task, which could only be carried out efficiently and effectively with the aid of a computer. To prepare and test an appropriate computer program for the work would require at least 2 to 3 months.

This is a request which I hope that the Taxation Office will examine. Possibly it has already been approached on this matter. The request is that the implementation of this amendment be deferred till 1 July 1974 or, failing that, to at least 1 April 1974. Earlier implementation could force the company into a manual operating system with chaotic results.

I would like to have one question answered. This company is concerned with the advice that it says it received from the Taxation Office and that is that it must declare itself to be the employer of every claimant to whom it issues a group certificate. The company wonders what liabilities, if any, would be created for it in other areas such as payroll tax, holiday pay, sick pay and long service leave, if it were declared to be the employer. I hope that the Taxation Office will be able to answer that question.

The other matter which I wish to raise concerns a company that is interested in afforestation. The company points out that clause 1 7 of the legislation removes the outright deduction available to primary producers, including those engaged in afforestation, land clearing and other expenditure but- and here is the point- allows a deduction for expenditure over 10 years. The company claims that this penalises the bona fide afforestation companies and it outlined its reasons. It said that the normal agricultural activity involves clearing the land on a once and for all basis, that is the land is permanently improved as long as it is reasonably maintained and various cropping and grazing activities continue. Land used for afforestation is cleared but trees are replanted on the area. There is no permanent capital improvement from the initial operation. In fact as the trees grow the value of the land decreases as the land is not able to be used for other activities until it is cleared again.

The company also made the point in regard to the 10-year deduction period that, as the returns from the initial investment in land clearing and planting of trees do not accrue to the afforestation company for 20 years or more, the company is faced with substantial financial servicing costs until the trees mature which is of course very different from the ordinary primary producer who normally gets his returns every year. The company also pointed out that the existing taxation provisions have been fundamental to the viability of this rather peculiar type of agricultural activity and it has been used to offsetting the hazards of deferred returns such as the possibility of a bushfire wiping out its investment and so on. Therefore the company believes that the substitution of an outright deduction for land clearing introduces an added cost burden to afforestation. As I said earlier, the DLP will not oppose the Bill. I would like to see the Taxation Office give consideration to this matter when it is determining future policies. As I have said, this matter may already have come under its notice but I hope that the matter will be given this consideration.

I agree with Senator Maunsell that some of the new provisions introduced by the Government are a blow to the farmer. There are some people who suggest that the farmer is now on velvet. But a few years ago the farmer was far from being on velvet. Some farmers, particularly those who are in debt or who are paying off land, still have a long way to go before they can be regarded as being in a good position. I would have hoped that we could have let them run on a little longer before taking from them what some people would say is increased or renewed prosperity because, as I said before, I do not think that some of them have made up the ground that they lost a few years ago. Representations have been made to me in regard to insurance and one or two other matters. But it is the feeling of the DLP and the members of the other Opposition Parties to which I have spoken that the Government must have its revenue. For that reason we do not oppose the Bills.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– Many provisions in the Bills which are before us are anathema to me as one who believes in promoting and encouraging productivity and as one who believes in encouraging the little man to work hard and to aspire to a better place in the sun. I would like to oppose all the measures before us now. I would do so purely on the basic business principle of the need to encourage production and to give the small man a fair go. It has been said by Senator McManus and Senator Maunsell that the rural industries have been hit to leg by the provisions of this legislation. The abolition of the investment allowances, the very heavy intrusion into previous depreciation allowances, the decision that the cost of conserving water on farms in dams and so on is to be depreciated over 30 years and that sort of thing indeed paint a pretty dismal picture overall. The measures which have been taken by the Government in respect to the raising of moneys are in themselves not conducive to the creation of wealth as such in the first instance.

I want to make particular reference to my concern about what is being done to the grape growing and wine making industries. In the decisions it has taken to raise revenue from the operations of those industries the Government has failed to take into account the background to those industries or to think through just what effects the measures which have been taken are going to have on them. For many years the grape growing industry has enjoyed a system of stock evaluation which has enabled it to go ahead quietly. I know how it has gone ahead quietly over the years, having been brought up amongst the vineyards of the old wine making families of the Barossa Valley. This industry is said to be one of great affluence and great wealth. I know how generations of families have ploughed their profits back into it over the years. They have not been dividend payers; they have been builders and pioneers. Before those families could really achieve the strength aimed at the Government has imposed upon them a variation of the system of determining what taxes should be paid.

I refer to section 31a of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which requires the declaration of stocks at selling values and not at the figures which have been allowed since 1953 or 1954. The previous system enabled the industry to meet its requirements in respect to the slow turnover of its product. It also enabled it to make quality wines and brandies, which has enabled a better industry to be built up on the home market and the overseas market. It is an industry which embraces many growers and many employees. It is a labour intensive industry insofar as growing is concerned. It has been a disappointment to the industry to be told of the abolition or phasing out of the taxation allowance. It has been a disappointment to it to be told that there would be a phasing out over 3 years of a provision which gave brandy a little edge over other spirits. That provision was introduced initially to meet a very serious situation in the grape growing industry, to enable clearance of great stocks. The slight advantage which has been given to locally produced spirits over the years has been of enormous assistance to the industry. It is to be phased out. Then there is an increase in the actual duty.

I have said before that the very wrong impression has been gained that the grape growing and wine making industry is in the hands of millionaires. A small section of the industry certainly is now controlled by interests which are not the original pioneers of the industry. But in the main it is still in the hands of the proprietary companies of the families who have ploughed back all the money they have made over the years and who have built up something which is an asset not only to themselves- in my opinion they have been very selfless people- but also the districts in which they are situated. They have been providers of employment over the years. I deplore the lack of thought that has gone into the decisions which have been taken in respect to the various forms of taxation imposed upon the rural producer. I am citing in particular the grape growing area of rural production.

I have to say again, as I have said before, that the Government has not been honest in meeting the election undertakings it has given. In the debate yesterday on the States Grants (Schools) Bill reference was made to the per capita grants which were promised prior to the election and after the election and which have not been forthcoming. In respect to the imposts upon the grape growing and wine making industries, I must refer again to an undertaking given by the Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, who has been horrified by the let down occasioned to him by the Australian Government in respect to promises that he made in full expectation that they would be fulfilled, because he was told that they would be fulfilled. It will be recalled that an excise duty of 50c a gallon was imposed upon wine by the previous Government and subsequently reduced to 25c a gallon. Before the last election Mr Dunstan, as Chairman of the Australian Labor Party’s Federal Election Finance Committee, was authorised to make certain promises to wine makers. He contacted them by way of letter, a copy of which I have before me. In it he said:

You have suffered from the impost placed upon the industry of the excise duty to which I have referred. If you return us to power we shall abolish the excise and not replace it with a sales tax or any other imposition.

Senator Jessop:

– Who said that?

Senator LAUCKE:

– That was said by Mr Dunstan, who had written to the winemakers. I shall read more of the letter to define more clearly to honourable senators the whole meaning of the promise given and the repudiation since then of a promise which was given in good faith by a man who I believe to be genuinely interested in the wellbeing of the industry. The Premier of South Australia has been hurt deeply by what has happened. He has said that he feels ashamed that he has been let down by his own Party in this respect. There has certainly been a breach of the undertaking given. In his letter the Premier of South Australia said:

The future of the vine industry has become an issue at the forthcoming federal elections. The Australian Labor Party believes, and its Federal Executive has stated, that the only solution that will guarantee continued prosperity for the wine industry and the many thousands of growers who supply it is complete abolition of the excise and its non-replacement by a sales tax or any other imposition.

I seek your financial support for the ALP Campaign for the federal elections. You have already spent many tens of thousands of dollars on the wine tax and on collecting the information required by the Customs and Excise Department. The election of a Federal Labor Government will save you these costs in the future.

You may be sceptical about the intentions of an Australian Labor Party Government regarding the excise. Accordingly, the attached form provides the opportunity for you to:

forward a donation forthwith of

pledge a donation to be paid only after the Federal Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Gough Whitlam has given an unequivocal assurance during the campaign that a Government led by him will abolish the excise and not replace it with a sales tax or any other imposition.

That unequivocal undertaking has not been honoured.

Senator Jessop:

– Did not Mr Grassby make some statement at a public meeting in Berri on the same question?

Senator LAUCKE:

– I was present at a meeting in Berri when the member for Angas, Mr Giles, said in the public forum: ‘I will support any move for abolition of the excise if you will give me now an unequivocal undertaking that no alternative impost will be charged on it’- and that was not forthcoming in the way it should have been at the time. It was devious. But thereafter an undertaking was given- and publicly- that the excise should be abolished. I have raised these matters because I feel it is my duty so to do in the interests of good and decent fulfilment of undertakings given, the lack of which is leading now to very great hurt and harm to this industry. In the same way there is a lack of appreciation of the needs of other sectors of rural industry before they emerge from the situations of adversity which they have gone through for years because of overseas prices and so on. I condemn these measures. They are part of the Government’s overall planning and policies and one has to accept them for the time being. But I point out these things in disgust and dismay.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I support previous speakers on this side in what they said about the Income Tax Bills and particularly the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973 as it applies to the rural sector of this nation. It has created great uncertainty among primary producing sections about planning. Despite what many people believe to the contrary, primary producers do plan ahead; they try to plan 12 months ahead for all their expenditure and the goods or produce they hope to sell. We are well into December and we have not yet passed a Bill which fixes the tax rates for the last financial year. It is only now being considered by the Senate. A great deal of confusion has been caused to tax experts and accountants. They have only recently been able to issue circulars to their clients on what they think will be the final result. Even now, despite the spelling out in these Bills, much of the final decision will be left to the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation. The Bills do not spell out everything and some things must be left to the discretion of the Commissioner.

Some sort of special attack appears to have made on the primary producing section. The investment allowances and other concessions have been either cut out or greatly reduced. We have to develop as a nation. We have to produce food and other things and it would be a very sorry state for this nation if as a result of government interference with conditions under which the rural sector operates we became an importer of food. Since European settlement of this country we have depended on our exports which through the years have mainly been foodstuffs; and the whole pattern of our settlement and development has been built on that. Tax concessions for the people producing the export income have been severely cut back and this has affected the expenditure of these people in many ways.

Senator Primmer:

– There is no barbed wire for them to buy. You told us that last week.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– There is no barbed wire. That is right.

Senator Primmer:

– They cannot spend their money, can they?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

- Mr Acting Deputy President, when they have finished over there in the corner I will be able to proceed. If the Government only realised it, by allowing the investment allowances and other forms of taxation allowances to the rural sector, it would get the money back several times over as extra taxation from the machinery people, from people who sell seed, motor vehicles and that son of thing. The taking away of those concessions from the rural sector has affected the demand for many of the things produced in the cities, and it must have some effect on the economy in the long run. Even today it was said here that there is such a shortage of goods that people just cannot get parts for their vehicles and machinery. For some reason the price of petrol has gone up as a result of the removal of some of the concessions in the equalisation scheme and now we are told that concessions on diesel fuel, which is used extensively in the rural sector for tractors and stationary engines, will be removed and that the price of diesel fuel will go up to about 60c a gallon.

Senator Wilkinson:

– You had better start using methane.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– We will have to do something if we are going to live. The Coombs task force made about 150 recommendations. Many of them apply to the rural sector. Somebody in the Department must have gone through everything very carefully to pick out all the alleged concessions which applied to that sector. This had repercussions pretty soon in the New South Wales elections for the rural sector in that State showed quite clearly that it was not very happy with the actions of the Whitlam Government in Canberra in these respects. I repeat that some stability must be afforded in taxation matters. Many people in the country areas are frightened that next year there will be a staggering increase in taxation, particularly income tax, and that the concessions that have been taken away will aggravate the position and make it much more difficult for them to carry on. If the Government wants to go to the people on this matter or on any of the other matters I have no doubt that it will get the message from the people who are suffering so much from the income tax laws. We as a Party realise that this is a Budget measure. For that reason we are not opposing it, but we are not accepting it very happily. We believe that if these measures go on any further we will have to reconsider our attitude. I have said these few words on behalf of the people I represent.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– We are now debating 4 Bills, namely, Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4), Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5), Income Tax Bill and Income Tax (Non Resident Dividends and Interest) Bill. During the debate many honourable senators mentioned that the House of Representatives is the House responsible for money raising activities to cover the expenditure of Government. It is true that it is also the Budget House. Therefore the Senate does not normally take it upon itself to defeat or to adjust in any consequential fashion the revenue raising arrangements of the Government which, fundamentally, is situated in the House of Representatives. It is no pan of the Opposition’s purpose at this point to defeat the Government’s revenue raising measures or its Budget proposals. This is not to say that we regard the Government’s general revenue raising measures with equanimity or its Budget as being anything less than an economic disaster. But we have said this on many occasions and I do not think we help the general purpose of discussion by covering these areas again rather late in the session. However we have an amendment which we propose to move. It is similar to the amendment moved in the House of Representatives. It will be circulated.

Senator Murphy:

– It has been circulated.

Senator COTTON:

– Would the Minister like me to read it?

Senator Murphy:

– No.

Senator COTTON:

-You would rather I did not? It will make the Government unhappy. It has been circulated so I shall not read it. I mention in passing some of the references it contains. As I normally am I shall be reasonably brief. Much has been made by the Government of what it has done for pensioners. It has failed to recognise 2 matters of interest to pensioners: Firstly, the way in which inflation, brought on by this Government, has eroded the pension and, secondly, taxation on pensions has further eroded the pension. One would like to know, as a general percentage of real money in the pocket, whether pensioners are better off or worse off. Fundamentally, representing money in the pocket as distinct from the general run of the community, it is my view that they are now worse off.

Incentives have been eliminated for manufacturing industry. I believe that that has been unwise. This morning the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) made some comments about the immense demand for goods and the requirement people now have to buy things. Anybody who has any knowledge of these matters will realise that we are moving into a world of increasing consumer durable shortage. This is the product of manufacturers being reluctant to invest in increased capacity. The Government’s decision to eliminate incentives for increased manufacture is, 1 think, a fundamental error with which the Government must live because it was its decision. Equally there are very important gains to be made in a community by encouraging manufacturing industries to be technically as up to date as possible and, as far as possible, to replace equipment with new equipment and to induce them to do so. I think that this is of net benefit to a community and lower cost to a manufacturer. Unwisely, the Government has moved away from that base. As mentioned by my colleagues there have been dramatic changes in rural productivity incentives. I believe that that is extremely unwise. The case of forests mentioned by Senator McManus is apposite.

I believe the Government felt that these concessions were not needed but I think it has made a great mistake in removing them. I think that dme will prove us to be right. It is not as easy as honourable senators think to develop land in this country, particularly to a productive stage. A great part of Australia’s improvement in living standards has been based on increased productivity of the Australian land. To a very great extent this has been stimulated by important taxation measures to help individuals and groups of people improve their productivity and their land resources. I think that in the great net situation the Austraiian community has been better off because of that and not worse off. Only the measure of years will determine whether we are correct. We believe that the removal of these incentives will prove to be a mistaken decision in the sense of overall productivity from the Austraiian land and in improving productivity in the manufacturing industry.

One could spend all afternoon and tonight reciting some of the important and dramatic changes in the Australian pastoral scene because of these incentives. If this country means anything at all to honourable senators they will realise that within Australia there is an immense amount of land yet to be developed. It is to the net benefit of the community that it is developed and that incentives are given to so develop it.

There is an important consequence of the legislation in the life assurance area. The expenses of the life offices have been increased, their taxation has been increased and the possibility of the security and the real net worth of their policies has been reduced. A lot of arguments have been put by the life offices on the Government proposals. As I said earlier it is not the purpose of the Opposition in the Senate to defeat the revenue proposals of the Government but to draw attention to aspects of them. Australian life offices have been, traditionally, the repository of great parts of the savings of the Australian people. When the Government diminishes the value of those savings, as I believe it is doing in these taxation measures, it is putting at hazard through time the saving habits of the Austraiian people. I think that is also a mistake. Substantial alterations have been made with respect to property sales and transfers which I think will result in some cases of individual hardship. One hopes that when they occur they will be sympathetically considered by officers of the Taxation Office. There could be cases of family illness and family responsibility which may well have to be taken into account in determining some cases as against other cases.

The consideration of private company taxation is an important matter. Private companies always have immense problems in maintaining the growth of their business because of liquidity problems. They do not have access in the normal way to big funds of capital on the stock exchange and the general corporate structure. Most of them grow by retaining earnings and by what might be called the self sacrifice of the proprietors who do without today’s dividends and today’s cash to make provision for building up the business tomorrow. I think it has been a mistake in the general growth of Australia to discourage those small businesses by changing their tax base and making it less attractive and less sensible for them to invest in the growth of their own business. I believe that in time we will see a diminution of individual corporate enterprise in the proprietary company style and a swallowing up of lots of small businesses by big corporations. If that is what the Government wants that is what it is likely to achieve. I think it is a mistake. The big business of today was the small business of yesterday. It is equally fair to remember that some of the big businesses of today will be the small businesses of tomorrow. Success depends upon initiative, enterprise, forebearance and willingness to do something. Often this originates in people’s ambitions and in the ambitions of small companies which are prepared to make sacrifices.

Senator Laucke has adverted to the problem of the Australian wine and brandy producers. I do not need to say anything about the general tradition of broken promises and misplaced confidence. But if honourable senators look at the situation generally they will see that we are back where we began. The Government, with a massive increase of the order of 20 per cent in its expenditure programs was faced with the simple task of doing one of three things. It could raise revenue by taxation to cover expenditure or it could in areas which might be regarded as consequential to revenue diminish some people’s ability to make taxation adjustments in the interests of the country as a whole and not of the individual in particular. The third alternative was to inflate its way out of the problem. Without doubt the Government opted for 2 courses of action: To inflate its way to balance the books and not to increase taxation. That is its decision. It is the Government’s responsibility to balance its substantial increase in expenditure. All these things have been said before. They are still true. However to the voice of the Opposition in these matters since we last discussed the Budget in July has been added the voices of Dr Coombs and Mr Hawke who have said rather the same thing as the Opposition has been saying. But these are Government responsibilities. If the Government wants to spend money- this is what it chose to do -it must have some way of raising revenue, or, alternatively, of inflating itself forward. It has chosen to inflate itself forward. It has chosen to adjust the revenue situation by a great number of devices, many of them originating in the Coombs report. The Coombs report is an examination of Government expenditure and various forms of assistance to industry. It was a fairly thorough job. Notably, it suggested a number of substantial reductions in various areas. One notable exception so far as reductions were concerned was those areas with which Dr Coombs himself was concerned.

I do not think I would aid the process of debate at this very late hour by going through the particular Bills clause by clause. There is, as is customary with the Commonwealth Taxation Office- once again I pay it this compliment- an explanatory memorandum setting out in detail for those interested all the various sections of the Acts concerned, the reasons why action is being taken and the general purpose behind that action. The Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4) deals with a proposal to overcome what are called tax havens or the tax escape provision. I take no exception to this; nor does the Opposition. I think it is a good arrangement. We were embarked on this process when we were in Government. All I say in passing is that the Bill does cover the situation of Norfolk Island and will also cover Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island. However, consideration may well have to be given to other enclaves in areas adjacent to Australia, of which there are many. I have mentioned them before. I think that this will continue to be a problem for the revenue raising authorities of Australia. People will seek to escape their obligations by creating tax havens in islands adjacent to Australia, some of which may be very small and some of which may be quite large. I imagine that the Taxation Office will be directing its attention to this problem as time passes but I will be looking for an expansion of the legislation in due course as Bills come before the Senate.

The memorandum is fairly straight forward in regard to the Income Tax Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) and the Income Tax (Non-resident Dividends and Interest) Bill. I have referred separately to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) a general concern expressed to me about the Income Tax Bill amending section 221a of the Principal Act to include periodical workers’ compensation payments in the definition of salaries and wages and making them liable to a deduction for income tax. It has been suggested to the Opposition in the Senate that we should oppose this proposition because legislation in certain States quite properly prohibits any deduction from periodical payments in workers’ compensation situations. It is said to us that this will disadvantage many workers. It will put people at some degree of economic uncertainty and hazard. We again take the view that having raised this matter with the Leader of the Government in the Senate he will bring it to the attention of the necessary authorities and his colleagues in the Government. Anything which makes the workers a great deal worse off because of this legislation and because of changes in their compensation position, as has been referred to by us and raised by us separately with the Ministersin fact anything that acts adversely against the workers of Australia- is the responsibility of the Government.

There are a great number of clauses in these Bills and I could deal with many of them at great length but I do not think I would aid the process of the debate by doing so. I stand by the general observations I have made. It is not the purpose of an Opposition in the Senate to defeat the revenue raising proposals. It is not the purpose of an Opposition to set the Budget to one side. It is the job of the Government to make expenditure proposals and to raise the revenue to cover those proposals. Having done so it must live with the consequences of its economic acts and its economic folly. I believe that the proposals for expenditure were at this stage essentially too large. I believe that the revenue raising devices which were used for that purpose were not sensible or wise. I believe that the proposal to overcome the arithmetic by accepting an inflation rate of at least 10 per cent- this is implicit in the calculationswas to say the least a piece of economic folly for which in due course the Government will have to pay.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I wish to express my regret that the Government has introduced measures such as Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5). The Parliament must recognise the action that the Labor Party is taking in regard to these matters. There have been taxation provisions which have been of benefit to and an encouragement for primary production and manufacturing in this country. However, initially on the decision of the Coombs committee and undoubtedly with the. encouragement of members of the Government who hold to the idea that profitability in industry in this country is something which is not to be complimented, the Labor Party Government has commenced, in this particular Bill, to take great strides in depreciating our rural industries. I refer in regard to this Bill to matters such as the loss of the deductibility for tax purposes of investment by primary industry in plant and the investment of manufacturing industries in plant and equipment. We find that the greatest detriment that will be caused to primary industry is contained in clause 17 of the Bill. This relates to the deduction for expenditure on land used for primary production. Such expenditure is to be lost so far as being deductible in the year of income tax is concerned.

I do not know what it is within the Labor Party that makes it decide that in its first year of office primary industry will be its initial goal. Even whilst one or two honourable senators were speaking we heard interjections from honourable senators on the Government side who one would think would have some interest in primary industry. I heard one of them comment that people in primary industry are making lots of money now so what does it matter. That expresses the general view. I think that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would recognise that this is the first year in which primary industry has had some reason to be pleased about current sale prices.

Senator Murphy:

– That is because there is a Labor Government

Senator WEBSTER:

-The brilliant AttorneyGeneral bumps in to say that this is because there is a Labor Government and then he breaks into idiotic laughter. I think that demonstrates the attitude of a true socialist. Labor in power has been able to produce high prices for rural industries. Senator Murphy’s comment will be recorded in Hansard and people who read it will recall the brilliant comment we heard some years ago from Senator 0 ‘Byrne who said that Labor was responsible for the good rains that occurred in Tasmania, or some such statement. The fact is that high prices are being obtained overseas for primary production but the Senate has just passed a Bill by which Labor will try to dampen them down. That Bill will pull the carpet from under primary industry and stop it from getting the benefit of the prices that are available. Labor, in its wisdom, considers that competition and high prices from overseas are hurting the local market. That is the view that Labor has taken. I wonder why the Labor Government has been so harsh and economically stupid. Clause 17 proposes to amend section 75 of the Principal Act which relates to the expenditure on the following items:

  1. the eradication or extermination of animal or vegetable pests from the land;
  2. the destruction and removal of timber, scrub or undergrowth indigenous to the land;
  3. the destruction of weed or plant growth detrimental to the land;
  4. d ) the preparation of die land for agriculture;
  5. ploughing and grassing the land for grazing purposes;
  6. the draining of swamp or low-lying lands where that operation improves the agricultural or grazing value of the land;
  7. preventing or combating soil erosion or flooding on the land; or
  8. conserving or conveying water for use in carrying on primary production on the land.

Expenditure on all these items is lost so far as deductibility in the year of income is concerned. Any government must recognise the great value of primary production to this country. I do not think any senator would not acknowledge that when there is economic health in the rural industries there is economic health throughout the country. I point out that over the past 50 years there have not always been the good times and heights of rural production that there happen to be at the moment. The prices of wool, meatincluding lamb- and other commodities are high at the moment. All those products are in demand in a unique world situation, and they are bringing satisfactory prices in Australia. But they are unlikely to continue.

Under this Bill, a farmer who ploughs his paddock knows that he will not be able to claim that as a deduction for part of the production of his taxable income during the year. Rural production will gradually decline. I think that it is a particularly poor action by this Government, in its first year of office, to take harshly to the rural industries and to take away from them taxation benefits associated with the cost of producing their assessable income. The rural sector of the Labor Party must have been inadequate in arguing these matters in Caucus, if its attention was directed to these matters. I think that when these matters are generally known throughout the country the Australian Labor Party will lose enormous support. The things which Labor promised that it would do for rural industries are not supported in this Bill.

There is one other matter in this Bill to which I refer, and that is that the rate of private company tax will be lifted, over one or two years, to the rate of public company tax. I have always thought that a lesser rate was imposed on private companies because they were generally conceded to be those smaller family organisations in the community. They paid a lesser rate of tax because they had an ability to retain certain of thendividends in the companies for expansion. The rate of tax on private company income will be lifted eventually to the rate of tax on public company income, which is 47.5 per cent. While I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Crean) on realising that there was a demand on private companies to disgorge the profits which they had made during the year, I remind honourable senators that he had to be prompted. He has seen fit to declare that all private companies, after the payment of tax, should be able to retain 50 per cent of their profits for the development of their own business. This is something of a benefit because there is not now the necessity for private companies to calculate that the payment of $ 1 in the $ 1 in dividend was often a more acceptable practice than the payment of tax at the rate of 50c in the $ 1 on undistributed profits.

I regret that the rate of private company tax will be increased. I imagine that one of the things which Labor must have had in mind in this regard was to prevent Australian private companies from developing as rapidly as they have done in the past. Listening to the arguments of honourable senators opposite in support of Australian enterprises, I would have thought that the Government would have taken the opposite action and held the level at that set by the former Government. However, in all these matters, there has been a harsh application of tax incidence by Labor in its first year of office. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) appeared on Mike Willesee ‘s show, ‘A Current Affair’, I think last Monday night. Mike Willesee put to him: ‘Mr Prime Minister, did you not promise that you would not raise indirect taxation?’ The Prime Minister, in very bold fashion, said: ‘No, no, no. I never promised that. I promised that personal tax and company tax would not rise. ‘ He put on a firm face to the audience. Let me prompt Senator Murphy, who suggested that I spend half my time trying to find out where the Prime Minister has misled the Australian public, that if one watches current affairs programs on television one finds instances. Other instances are in this Bill. The Prime Minister promised that company tax would not be raised. It is raised in this Bill. This is another instance of Labor not keeping its promises.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– A number of matters have been raised by various senators, and I will endeavour to give some kind of short answer to them. The information has been provided by the departmental advisers. The answers can be supplemented if they are not sufficient. If I do not have them straight at this stage I think they will be corrected when the Hansard is studied by the departmental advisers.

Senator Guilfoyle raised a number of points. I am advised that the absence of a provision for losses has little practical significance. A taxpayer who resells property within a year of purchase is usually able to show that the transactions were speculative so that any loss could be allowable under the general provisions of the law. To provide for losses in the new provisions would add considerably to their complexity yet would not be likely to have any practical effect in allowing losses that could not be claimed in any case. I am advised that company reconstructions are not likely to be affected, nor is it thought that any locking-in effect of the provision will be noticeable in the operation of the share market. These possibilities will be kept in mind in reviewing the provision. The provision does not tax the proceeds of sales of rights by a shareholder to whom they have been issued. Bonus share sales will attract tax only if the sale is made within 12 months after the purchase of the original shares on which the bonus shares were issued.

Senator McManus:

asked a number of questions. The answers which I have for him are these: The insurance companies have some practical problems in deducting tax instalments from workers compensation. However, they have been discussed by a number of companies with the Australian Taxation Office and are capable of being solved administratively. The requirement that tax be deducted from workers compensation payments will not have effects outside the income tax law. The amendment will not make the insurance company an employer for other purposes. Timber companies do not lose much under the Bill, simply because their ordinary operating costs remain allowable in full, as before. They include ploughing and fertilising of land and the planting of trees. These companies do not have to wait 25 years for a return. Usually they start to crop and thin out much earlier than that. However, the effects of the Bill will be kept under review.

I have some answers to Senator Maunsell ‘s questions. The primary producer concessions were not withdrawn primarily for the purpose of dealing with Pitt Street farmers. They distorted investment decisions, led to a waste of resources and to tax inequity whether used by bona fide farmers or by Pitt Street farmers. This was the basic objection to the concessions. It was not the small farmers who got much out of the concessions; it was the higher income farmers who reaped most of the benefit. There has been some misunderstanding about how this Bill affects primary producers. There will generally be little change in the present tax position of an established producer. His ordinary operating costs, including the renewal or desilting of earth tanks, will continue to be allowable as outright deductions.

The information I have for Senator Laucke is as follows: Much of the concern of the wine industry has been based on a misunderstanding that has now been corrected to a large degree. The industry will not be asked to bear crippling burdens or to meet harsh taxation standards. Any individuals or companies which are placed in a difficult financial position will be treated by the taxation administration with sympathy and understanding, as are other taxpayers. Senator Laucke also asked whether the withdrawal of the concessional basis of valuation of end of year wine stocks directly contradicts undertakings given by the Government before the election last year not to replace the wine excise by sales tax or any other impost. The information I have is as follows: The removal of a concession which had been distorting the income position of a section of industry is a very different matter from the levying of a new tax. The proposed change in wine and brandy stocks valuation really does nothing more than bring the wine and brandy industry into line with other industries which already value their stocks on a proper basis. The relevant provisions of the amending Bill will mean, firstly, that in 5 years time wine makers will be paying tax on the same basis as everybody else and, secondly, that over the next 5 years the former tax which was deferred by reason of the special concession calculated at the end of 1973-74 will be recouped. The honourable senator’s interpretation of the election undertaking implies that he considers that the unjustifiably privileged taxation status of the wine makers is inviolate and should be preserved at all costs and for all time. The Government does not accept that view.

Senator Cotton:

asked whether aged people will have more money in the pocket. The answer is that the Bill is part of an integrated taxation and pensions package. Some pensioners may pay a little more tax than they did last year but this will be more than compensated for by extra pension. More than 80 per cent of pensioners will not have to pay tax or lodge tax returns. They must be better off. For the vast majority of the rest, there will be an overall improvement. Senator Cotton said that private companies will not be able to grow and that they will be swallowed up by larger companies. The answer to that comment is that companies are only attractive takeover propositions if there is a large asset backing per dollar of the purchase price. Nothing done m the Budget will lead to that result.

In response to the amendment which has been moved, the Prime Minister promised not to increase personal-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie)- Order! Senator Murphy, the amendment to which you refer is to be moved to the Income Tax Assessement Bill (No. 5), I understand, which is the next Bill to be considered.

Senator MURPHY:

– It does not matter. We are dealing with all of the income tax legislation together.

Senator Cotton:

– The main thing is for you to be happy.

Senator MURPHY:

-I would think that everyone is happy under the present Administration. Even the Opposition finds happiness in the prosperity enjoyed by the community. The Prime Minister’s promise not to increase personal tax rates is being honoured. The measures in the Bill are designed to achieve a rational tax system and to remove sectional concessions that are no longer warranted. In response to paragraph (a) of the foreshadowed amendment of the Opposition, might I say that the arrangements in these Bills are part of the abolition of the means test on age pensions. An anomolous and outmoded age allowance is being replaced by a tax rebate of $160 for aged people. Pensions have been increased, and pensions payable to married couples are not aggregated for taxation purposes. The Government’s integrated package of pension and tax measures will, with very few exeptions, make aged people better off in 1973-74 than they were in 1972-73. Overall, aged people will pay less tax than a young couple which is bringing up children and which is earning the same amount of family income. The Government’s proposal are fair and generous.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment deals with incentives for manufacturing industry. The investment allowance encouraged investment even where the value which customers placed on the output would not warrant it. The people who did not buy the product had to contribute part of the cost through their taxes. It is an optical illusion to suggest that costs are cut when productivity is increased. In those circumstances waste of resources was encouraged and there was no easing of pressure on resources. The objectives outlined in this pan of the amendment are better served by the Budget measure.

My response to paragraph (c) of the amendment which deals with rural productivity incentives is as follows: It is very questionable, as the Coombs task force pointed out, whether the concessions referred to aided productivity. They distorted investment decisions and encouraged uneconomic investment. Their withdrawal will aid productivity by cutting out misallocation of resources. Paragraph (d) is concerned with life assurance policies. The proposals announced in the Budget do no more than bring life insurance offices more into line with the rest of the tax system. The lower levels of taxation applying to life offices have no basis in taxation principle, whether they are concessional rates or other provisions. Moreover, the concessions represented an unjustified indirect subsidy for life insurance companies and their policy holders at the ex- pense of taxpayers generally who had to bear higher taxes than otherwise would have been the case simply because the tax basis has been so heavily eroded by this and similar concessions for sectional purposes. Policy holders continue to enjoy substantial direct benefits from the concessions relating to the deductibility of premiums on policies. The view that policy holders will be unjustly penalised if the effect of the taxation changes leads to reduced bonuses- this is by no means certain- is without foundation.

I have already answered the matter with which paragraph (e) of the amendment is concerned in my response to the points raised by Senator Guilfoyle. Paragraph (f) deals with small businesses. There is much loose thinking about the relationship of small businesses and companies to the tax system. As far as possible the aim is to keep similar burdens on business income, whether derived from companies or unincorporated businesses, as apply at present. Private company owners can have large incomes. The Budget measure is quite consistent with keeping in line tax on all forms of business. The matter raised in paragraph (g) was answered in my response to the matters raised by Senator Laucke.

Some of the answers I have supplied to the points raised have been short. I have done my best to answer the technical as well as the nontechnical points in accordance with the material supplied to me. But if any of the answers I have given need correction, these will be studied. If any honourable senator wishes amplification of my explanation of any point raised, I will see that that is done. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2591

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Wales -Attorney-General 5) 1973

page 2591

INCOME TAX BILL 1973

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 27 November (vide page 2 125 ), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– In relation to Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973I formally move:

At end of motion add: but the Senate is of of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill are a contravention of the Government’s electoral undertakings not to increase taxes and that the Bill specifically-

a ) Imposes unwarranted taxes on pensioners.

Eliminates incentives for manufacturing industry inconsistent with the economic requirement to increase productivity and ease the pressure on domestic resources.

Removes or drastically reduces important rural productivity incentives.

Jeopardises the savings and future security of Australians holding life assurance policies.

Places inflexible rules on the sale of property which take no account of reasons unconnected with profit motives such as illness and additional family responsibilities.

Impedes the development of small businesses by increasing the rates of private company tax.

Places added cost burdens on Australia’s wine and brandy producers especially the smaller producers of wine grapes’.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– We oppose the amendment. I gave the reasons during the cognate debate a little earlier.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie)- The question is that words proposed to be added be added. All those in favour say ‘aye’. Those against say ‘no’. I think the ayes have it. Senator Murphy, is a division required?

Senator MURPHY:

-Senator McManus, what is your Party going to do?

Senator McManus:

– We will support the Opposition’s amendment.

Senator MURPHY:

– We are running short of time. To save the time of the Senate, it will be indicated on the record that the Government opposed the amendment. This will save the necessity for a division.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973, as amended, agreed to.

Question in relation to the Income Tax Bill 1973 and the Income Tax (Non-resident Dividends and Interest) Bill 1973 resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment, requests or debate.

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1973 (No. 2) Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November 1973 (vide page 1879), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I wish to move an amendment to that motion. I move:

Leave out all words after ‘day’ first occurring and insert the words ‘on the first day of sitting in 1 974. ‘

Honourable senators will recall that when this matter was before the Senate- I think it was in October- a very long debate took place during most of the afternoon and, as I recall it, most of the evening as to the pros and cons of whether another Bill, the Trade Practices Bill 1973 (No. 1) should be stood over until the first day of sitting after 1 February 1974. Honourable senators will recall that that amendment, moved by me, was eventually carried. Now, that Bill, the Trade Practices Bill (No. 1) stands on today’s notice paper at page 2332 as an order of the day for the first day of sitting after 1 February 1974.

Honourable senators will recall that on the same day as this first Bill was deferred, another Bill, the Trade Practices Bill 1973 (No. 2) was introduced into the House of Representatives and came before the Senate about a week later. When Senator Murphy made his second reading speech I indicated that we would not oppose the adjourned debate being made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator Murphy had indicated in his second reading speech that the Bill was somewhat dissimilar to the first one he introduced. I indicated at that stage that the Opposition would look at the Bill and see whether or not the reasons which we had advanced at great length earlier in relation to the other Bill on 24 October- at times with great heat from honourable senators on both sides of the Senate- were still valid. We have looked at the Bill as far as we have been able to do so during this very heavy legislative program. As the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said, it is the most historic legislative program in the 70 years history of the Parliament with almost 200 Bills being introduced. It has been a colossal task even to look at them.

Senator Greenwood:

– There are over 200 Bills.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am informed that there are over 200 Bills. As far as we can ascertain, the reasons which we gave on 24 October are still valid. I might indicate- I want to be as quick as I can- as did the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr Snedden) that the Liberal Party is not opposed to restrictive trade practices legislation. In fact, it was the former Liberal-Country Party Government which initiated such legislation in a different form in 1968. We are still of the opinion that there ought to be restrictive trade practices legislation and we are also of the opinion there should be consumer protection legislation.

Senator Devitt:

– Trying to control it.

Senator WITHERS:

-This is so. It has been quite on the cards. What we are saying is that we want sufficient time to consider it. I do not know when the Parliament will resume. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) knows. But we are saying, in effect, let us stand over the Bill for another 8 or 9 weeks. When the Parliament re-assembles we will be ready to debate. We will not try to resist its being called on. I realise that it may not be called on the first day of sitting when we return. There may be other procedures to be undertaken. But we will be ready the moment the Parliament assembles next year to debate this matter in full and to indicate whether or not we would be opposed to the legislation and whether we would be prepared to give the Bill a second reading. We may move amendments during the Committee stage. But it is far too early for us to indicate this. It is for these reasons that I have moved the amendment to Senator Murphy’s motion. It is not that we are against restrictive trade practices legislation or that we are against consumer protection legislation. If the Prime Minister had not embarked upon this enormous legislative program this year and we had had the normal flow of Bills, as Opposition parties in previous days have had we may have been able to cope. But it has been too much even for me and my colleagues. For those reasons I have moved the amendment.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

-The Australian Democratic Labor Party on the occasion that the original Trade Practices Bill was before the Senate thought fit and proper that it should receive adequate consideration. For that matter, it agreed to adjourn consideration of the Bill until early in the parliamentary sittings next year. The Government immediately proceeded to introduce a second Bill, the Trade Practices Bill 1973 (No. 2). The original Bill is somewhat changed but this Bill is substantially the same measure as the first. We see no reason why we should vary the attitude that we took on that occasion. What prompted us to take that attitude was that that Bill and now this Bill- substantially the same Bill- can effect major transformations in relation to the ebb and flow of Australian commercial life and the traditional practices within the community. They are of vast consequence and have very vast implications.

There are people affected and we think in these circumstances that those who might find justifiable cause for complaint or unjustifiable cause for complaint and who wish to put their propositions for consideration before parliamentarians or before political parties should have the opportunity of doing so in a matter of such far reaching consequence. It was for that purpose that the previous Bill was laid aside. It would be for the same purpose that, in our opinion, this Bill should be laid aside. For that reason, we sup- port the proposal that this Bill be similarly de- f erred.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

-There is no doubt about the importance of this Bill. There is no doubt that it will affect a great many practices that operate throughout industry and commerce. I suppose it is quite reasonable that those who engage in practices that would be prevented by this Bill if it were to become law are entitled to put their point of view. However, it must be remembered that the Government’s case- and it is a case that has been agreed to by all Parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives and by people throughout the nation- is that for the last decade at least restrictive practices have been operating in industry and commerce to the detriment of the community. Every day that effective legislation is delayed is a day in which people are being injured. Industry and commerce are being injured by practices which are detrimental and injurious to the public interest, which bring about inefficiency in industry and which contribute to inflation. We have a strong case for saying that these practices ought to be stopped at the earliest opportunity.

If the Bill needs to be considered, there are experts available to all the Parties who are able to look at it. Within a few days of the Bill ‘s being presented to the Senate, experts in this field were able to make a detailed speech on its provisions and what they meant. My own Department has met and listened to many people who are engaged in industry, explaining the provisions of the Bill to them. In some cases, the Department has indicated that some modification will be agreed to in order to enable any possible unintended effect to be removed from the Bill. I should have thought that this Bill should be brought to a debate, with any kinds of representation that might be made being dealt with when the Bill was being considered in Committee. I should have thought that no possible proper objection could be taken to large parts of the Bill, especially the provisions relating to consumer protection and dealing with a large range of restrictive practices. I should have thought that no one could take any possible objection to those provisions.

Although I am not saying that honourable senators who have spoken in this debate are in any way engaged in any conspiracy, it is a tragedy that in this field, in which we need effective laws against unfair trade practices carried on against consumers, we have not been able to get such legislation for some 10 years, there having been delay after delay. I am very concerned that these delays are continuing. I have heard it said in this debate that, if this amendment is carried, the matter will be dealt with expeditiously at the beginning of the next session, and I hope that is so. However, I must say that some of the most outstanding figures in the Liberal Party opposite- some men who have been in this chamber and who are well aware of what goes on- have said to me: ‘Do you think you will get that law through? I will believe it when I see it’. I have had these people tell me that the pressures against this kind of legislation are enormous.

This is good legislation, and attempts have been made sometimes on the other side of the House to introduce legislation of this type. The desire to pass restrictive trade practices legislation is not peculiar to the Labor Party. It is well recognised that there should be laws to stamp out restrictive and unfair practices. After a great deal of attention has been given to this Bill, this legislation having been introduced again, I regret that once more, if the indications are correct, the Bill will not even be considered in Committee so that its detailed provisions can be dealt with. Although I have heard the indications that the Bill will be dealt with expeditiously early next session, all I can say is that at this stage the Government will regard the failure by the Opposition to deal with the Bill now as a failure to pass it within the meaning of the Constitution.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 29

NOES: 23

Majority 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 29

NOES: 23

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2594

LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2560).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– This Bill gives effect to what must be accepted as a desirable objective. It seeks to promote law reform in the Commonwealth. There is a need for reform of the law and court procedures, for the simplification of legal methods and for greater efficiency in administration of the law. All States have law reform commissions or law reform bodies of one sort or another. Indeed, the Australian Capital Territory has a Law Reform Commission which was established in 1971.

This Bill establishes a Law Reform Commission and its functions may shortly be described as the Bill sets them out, namely, to review the laws of the Commonwealth or of the Territories with a view to systematic development and reform of the law. This objective is expressed to include modernisation of the law to bring it into accord with modern conditions, the elimination of defects in the law, the simplification of the law and the adoption of new or more effective methods for the administration of the law and the dispensation of justice. The Commission has a function of considering proposals for the making of new laws. It has a function of considering proposals relating to the consolidation or repeal of laws and I think that most acceptably it has the obligation to consider proposals for uniformity between territory and State laws.

I do not set out in detail the way in which the Commission is to function because I have some comments to make on that at a later stage. I want to look at this measure with 2 objectives: Firstly, the way in which a Law Reform Commission for the Commonwealth will fit into the pattern of law reform bodies throughout the country; and secondly, our belief that this Bill in its present form has objectionable features which ought to be cured. What I will comment by way of criticism of the measure is not to indicate that the Opposition will oppose it, but certainly at the Committee stage the Opposition will seek amendments to the Bill. Discussions have taken place informally between the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) and representatives of the Opposition parties and I am happy to acknowledge that the Attorney-General has agreed to the amendments which have been put forward.

In terms of the context of law reform in Australia at any time existing legislation requires review. Expressions in legislation passed m an earlier day often reflect the quaintness of terminology of an earlier day and also the inappropriateness and lack of applicability of earlier concepts. There is always m the law at any stage the effect of piecemeal amendments and sometimes the philosophy and concepts of earlier legislation do not accord with modern conditions. In the Australian context, and I speak of the Australian context as distinct from the context of the States, there is not the same need for law reform activity because essentially the law of the Commonwealth of Australia is statute law passed by this Parliament. Law reform, as it has developed in Australia, has developed in the States because the handing down to the law of Australia of the laws of England has meant that there is still embodied in our law, not only as part of the statutes but also as part of the old concepts of common law and equity, many notions which are out of date. It is in that area that law reform commissions and law reform committees, on either a full time or a voluntary basis, have done much of their work.

A great deal of work still needs to be done in that area. But that is not the area in which law reform work in the Commonwealth of Australia would be done. That law reform work would be essentially in terms of the examination of statutes. I think it could fairly be argued that the reform of that type of statute law is essentially the work of departments, the work of the draftsmen and, above all, the work of the various governments which seek to give expression to political philosophies or to embody in new laws their concept of the public interest. That is the way in which changes have been made in the law in the past. I suspect that there will be changes of that character in the future. I mention one area of law in the Commonwealth which I think is greatly in need of re-examination and comprehensive change to make it accord with newer concepts. I refer to the Income Tax Assessment Acts. They are Acts which, over the years, have grown from a basic concept. They are now compendious, tremendously difficult to understand and, for all except those expert in dealing with taxation and financial matters, a labyrinthine mystery

But is that the area in which law reform commissions can do the most effective job? One might question whether it is. Is it the area in which any government can give the time, notwithstanding the instructions which may be given to departments or parliamentary draftsmen, to effect the changes which are really desired? One must have doubts as to whether it is the most appropriate method. I know that the previous Government established and the present Government is continuing the committee of inquiry which is examining the whole tax structure of this country. I trust that there will emerge from the recommendations of that committee completely new. tax legislation which takes account not only of income tax but also of other forms of taxation and that thereby we shall have some of the changes to which we are looking forward. But whether that is one of the matters in relation to which a law reform commission is the appropriate body must be a question of doubt. I notice that the Attorney-General is to have the power- I think it is a proper power for the AttorneyGeneral to have in this area- to indicate the matters which the Law Reform Commission is to examine. We will be suggesting in the course of the Committee stage of the debate that it should be broadened to enable the Commission itself to suggest to the Attorney-General matters which it should investigate. We will look with interest at the developing work of the Australian Law Reform Commission.

I think it is necessary also to recognise that in the Australian context, the Commonwealth context, there has been an adoption of many of the concepts which are derived from our essentially English heritage. With the movement of England into the European Economic Community undoubtedly there will be some changes and departures which will lead to the development of an even more distinctive body of Australian law than there has been in the past. Likewise with the development of an Australian national sentiment there is a need for Australian laws to reflect Australian conditions and aspirations as expressed by the political parties in the Parliament. Thirdly there is, of course, always a need- this was an area on which I think the Attorney-General concentrated in his second reading speech- for the laws to be responsive to the needs of society. I repeat that this can be expressed through the work of law reform commissions or in the legislation which a government enacts through the Parliament. Law reform reports, of course, have the advantage that they can be informative because they reflect the state of the work which has been put into the examinations by persons who are equipped for the task. They can, by their research background, provide material for public debate and consideration. Particularly where the work has been done in non:political and noncontroversial areas they can win an acceptance which might not otherwise be won if proposals have emanated from a government which may be alleged to have a partisan objective in the presentation of such proposals. Those are areas in which we hope that the Law Reform Commission will perform constructive work.

I have noted that the law reform work of the, I think, 7 law reform commissions or law reform bodies which exist throughout Australia has been performed essentially in the area of private law- the rights of citizens as between themselves. The area of public law, of course, has a greater political content. Yet it is essentially the area of public law in which the Commonwealth has legislated. May I say that what I hope will emerge in due course is not a proliferation of law reform commissions- because this Law Reform Commission will be, I think, the eighth law reform commission to be established in Australiabut one national law reform commission which will co-ordinate the work of the existing law reform commissions and which will possibly, by the quality of its work and the manner in which it operates, tend to reduce the number of existing law reform bodies and to ensure that the work which is done is of such a character that it can be used by both the Commonwealth and the

States in appropriate areas of interest. That is, of course, the objective to which many persons who have written in the learned journals on this subject in recent years have looked forward.

I do not know whether the Attorney-General took this matter to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General with a view to ascertaining whether co-operation could result in some national body being established with the concurrence of the States which would have coordinated the work which is being done by different individuals in different States and which necessarily involves a great deal of duplication. I am sure that there would be initial pressures which would resist such a proposal. But I do feel that it is an area in which, if the desire can be manifested and the determination expressed, and if a willingness to give and take is evident, some national body of the character I have in mind could emerge. It is something which I commend to the Attorney-General as a fruitful field of endeavour.

Having said those things in the context of the law reform position in Austrafia- it does not of necessity in any way acknowledge the vast volume of writing which has occurred in recent times- I turn to the provisions of this Bill. It is a Bill which, as I have said, on the face of it gives expression to a desirable objective. But it is a Bill which has in its present terms, as I have said- I am happy to acknowledge that the AttorneyGeneral is prepared to see them removed in the course of the Committee stage of the debatesome provisions which we regard as frightening. The Bill enables the appointment of a Law Reform Commission. That Commission, in the discharge of its functions, will have certain powers. It is the width of those powers, the scope of those powers and the purposes to which they are to be put which is positively frightening. The Attorney-General will recall that some 60 years ago both the High Court and the Privy Council entertained much argument in a case in which the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth was the active participant and in which it was sought to justify the act of a royal commission in this country which had wide powers that could have enabled it to move into virtually any and every area throughout Australia. As the Privy Council said in its judgment, the Commonwealth has no general power over the liberty of the subject. What I found frightening in this Bill was the enormous power and scope which its provisions gave to the Commission to intrude into the ordinary activities of citizens of this country.

May I illustrate what I have in mind. The Commission has a power to investigate any

Commonwealth law and any proposals of the Attorney-General of the day for the making of new laws. In the course of this investigation the Commission is to have very wide powers, not merely facilitatory powers but compulsory powers to an extraordinary degree. It is to have an inquisitorial function of virtually unlimited extent. Moreover, the Commission was not left to the determination by itself alone of how it would perform its functions. It is expressly required in the terms of the Bill to comply with- and I use the words of sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 8:

  1. . any directions of the Attorney-General in connection with the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers under this Act.

I may say that as a result of discussions with the Attorney-General outside the chamber that he seeks to promote a ministerial control. But a ministerial control of that character is a control which tells the Commission with all these powers how to act.

Senator Murphy:

– But not in regard to the formulation of its reports or recommendations.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I agree. I expressly acknowledge that the provision excludes the recommendations and report-making functions of the Commission. But in the ordinary way in which the Commission gets its information and exercises its powers it is under the obligation to submit to what the Attorney-General directs. I offer to the Attorney-General the suggestion that if that type of ministerial control is desired to be exercised it is appropriate that it be exercised in the departmental area where the AttorneyGeneral has the requisite authority. But the very nature of a commission is to give to some statutory body an independence of ministerial control. If we are to have established commissions which are subject to ministerial control, one might ask: What is the purpose in establishing commissions; why not use the functions of the department? I regret that this provision is to be found in any legislation because to me it is the antithesis of what ought to be the obligation of a commission when it is established by Parliament to use its own judgment in the way it carries out its function.

One looks further at what the Commission may do. The Commission may inform itself in such manner as it thinks fit. It may conduct public or private hearings. It is not bound by the rules of evidence. It may administer an oath or affirmation. It may summon any person in this country to appear and to give evidence and to produce documents. It may retain in its possession any documents placed before it. A person summoned to appear is liable to be fined if he does not appear. A person summoned to appear is liable to be fined if he does not answer questions put to him or produce the documents required by the Commission. Moreover, members of the Commission are protected against defamation actions. Transcripts of proceedings may be published and no action may be taken’ by any person who may be named or defamed in the course of proceedings. Absolute privilege is, in effect, conferred upon the Commission’s proceedings. The proceedings of the Commission are not judicial proceedings but witnesses are declared to be subject to the same liabilities as witnesses in proceedings in the High Court. The question therefore arises whether a member of the Commission can deal with a witness for alleged contempt. I am happy, as I have said, that these provisions will be removed for their scope is positively alarming in terms of what are the traditional functions of a law reform body.

Senator Byrne:

– They are going out, Senator.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I acknowledge that.

Senator Byrne:

– It is only an academic exercise.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I will say something on that aspect in a moment. There is no provision entitling persons summoned to appear before the Commission to be represented by counsel or by a solicitor. Some of the problems which inquisitorial activities of Senate Select Committees have encountered do not appear to have been resolved or attempted to be resolved. There is potential in this field for drastic interference with the rights of citizens with insufficient justification. What is proposed in the terms of the Bill as they are at the moment is a mammoth inquisition able to be directed by the AttorneyGeneral if he so chooses and able to roam at large in any area of prospective Commonwealth law making- and, having regard to the scope of Commonwealth power as envisaged by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his AttorneyGeneral, that is virtually the whole range of law making in Australia.

I illustrate what can occur. An AttorneyGeneral may desire to have a law enacted relating, say, to control of the media. He is empowered to refer to the Commission such a proposal and to require the Commission to consider the making of such a law. The Commission, of course, may call before it any person from whom it can become informed. It may call proprietors, sub-editors, journalists- anyone it feels can help it- or as it may be directed by the AttorneyGeneral of the day to call them. The Commission may ask questions and require the production of documents which, without reasonable excuse, the person called before the Commission shall not fail to answer or produce. There is no limit, except relevance, to the Commission’s powers if it considers, or if the Attorney-General has directed, that the documents be produced or the questions answered. The defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ which is expressly available to a person objecting to answer or to produce is uncertain, meaningless and in practical terms of little protection.

I give another example. If the AttorneyGeneral considers that there should be an amendment, say, to the electoral laws to limit or control donations to political parties- there have been suggestions about this from time to time this year- there is no bar to the Commission being directed or itself deciding to seek details of the donations to political parties and to require the evidence to be placed before it. The Commission may call for documents, books, writings and keep them for such time as it considers reasonable. The Commission may call directors, union secretaries and anybody else to whom it seeks to direct questions. What ‘reasonable excuse’, having regard to the tremendous width of the Commission’s powers, can such people offer to refuse to produce books and papers or to answer questions? Their only course, if they wish to refuse, is to hope that subsequently a court will uphold their refusal. Who knows how the words reasonable excuse ‘ will be interpreted?

It would appear from an examination of clause 36 of the Bill that the only time a refusal is reasonable excuse is when the question or request for production is irrelevant to the type of inquiry. When these powers are read with the ministerial powers which are contained in clause 8 they are positively frightening. If one examines the Law Reform Commission Bill of the Australian Capital Territory, the projected law reform Bill in Victoria and other law reform Bills throughout the Commonwealth one finds that none has the scope or width of powers contained in this legislation. I repeat that I am glad that the Attorney-General is to remove them, after we had discussions as to what are the Opposition’s objections to a measure which otherwise has our support.

I advert to what Senator Byrne said by way of interjection a short time ago. He was associated with the discussions that we had. The honourable senator suggested that this was a mere academic statement on matters which are now to be taken out of the Bill. I do not regard it as an academic statement at all. I believe that if we are not alert to measures of this character then by default we allow them to be accepted and to become part of the law of this country. I say to the Attorney-General that when we find similar provisions to these in his Racial Discrimination Bill and in his Human Rights Bill- provisions which give this tremendous inquisitorial power to commissions to interfere with the rights of ordinary citizens- this is the forum and this is the Parliament in which a voice must be raised to object to that sort of thing being done. It is interesting to be expressing strongly held views on the liberty of the subject to a Senate of 60 members when only 7 senators are present. On other occasions I have expressed the view that in 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government the cause of liberty in this country was not in any way sullied. We are a free country and the rights and freedoms of citizens here are as well preserved and as well protected as they are in any country. But one of the problems of the absence of assaults on or challenges to essential liberties is that people become careless about their existence. They fail to appreciate the challenges that are made to freedoms when they occur.

I say to the Attorney-General that a power given to a commission of individuals- notwithstanding the desirable objective of the appointment of that commission- to enable it to call any person in the country to appear before it, to require persons to answer questions about virtually any subject at all and to produce whatever documents, books, writings and papers they have, is comparable to the powers which were used by the Secretaries of State in the 18th century and which John Wilkes was able to challenge so forcefully through the courts. Battles which were won a long time ago have to be fought again if we are to preserve essential individual rights. I regret the right of the Commission to inquire and to exercise the compulsory powers which are contained in” this Bdi- and shortly to be removed from the Bill- should be finding their way into other legislation. They have no place in the law of this country.

Having said those things, I acknowledge the desirable objectives which this legislation is designed to achieve. When the Commission is established I hope it has a role which is constructive and productive. I do not believe that it needs those powers which were sought to be given to it to enable it to perform its role in a worthwhile and useful way. The Opposition will not oppose the second reading of the Bill but we acknowledge that amendments will be moved in the course of the Committee debate.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

-Very often in this place matters of little consequence are projected for debate in a highly dramatic atmosphere. But so often matters of great consequence are discussed here in an atmosphere of complete relaxation and apparent inattention. Yet they are matters of very deep and abiding consequence. I regard this Law Reform Commission Bill as a matter falling into that category. There is nothing more important than a proper, acceptable and workable system of law. Very often in modern communities we see the total collapse of the community because of a breakdown in the legal system. I often wonder whether a great number of the troubles in the United States of America which are currently before the people of the world are not in some sense attributable to the complexities and the delays in the legal administration and judical system generally in that country. We face a difficult problem here because of the concept of federalism. Sovereign states exist and of course all of them have brought their own law from Great Britain. They still administer it within the concept of common law and of statute law. In some States imperial statutes are relied upon and are still operative law within the State sovereignty. It is obvious that if this position develops we will have a completely diversified system of law. We may ultimately find a diversified system of jurisprudence which I think would be highly undesirable if we concede that the system of jurisprudence stemming from the English common law and the English concept of law has a tremendous harmony and value and has been historically established. We are likely to lose this harmony if various systems develop in individual States unless there is some way in which uniformity can be preserved and the common principles can be projected throughout the legal systems. At the moment all States are trying to modernise and consolidate their law and are trying to make it relevant to modern conditions. At the same time they are making it much easier of access and much simpler of interpretation. It is inevitable that with a series of law reform bodies operating in the same field- that is, in the 6 States and in the Commonwealth- we will have a diversity in the final conclusions. Ultimately we will have a static position in which the laws of the various States will be consolidated and become frozen, as it were. Any attempt thereafter to try to establish a uniform system of law in the Commonwealth will become increasingly difficult. In other words, this is the most opportune time for movement to take place so that we can get commonly accepted legal principles and a common system of jurisprudence and law throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. It is for that reason that the Australian Democratic Labor Party welcomes the creation of this Law Reform Commission at the hands of the Commonwealth Government. We know that its task will be immense. We know that many of the laws are no longer relevant in the modern context. Much of the drafting is appropriate to an earlier age. But the important thing is that the position is even more extreme in the States which, of course, are much older. Many of the States go back to old statutes which, as I have said, are still current within the States and under State sovereignty. Therefore to try first of all to find a comprehensive system of law for the Commonwealth territories is important. The Territories are developing, expanding and populating. The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, as adverted to by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) in his second reading speech, will be vast areas of people, industry and commerce. While the law in those places today may operate in relation to a comparatively small number of people and a comparatively undeveloped industrial and commercial area, in an increasing degree it will apply in very vast areas and in very dense population situations. Therefore the Commonwealth system of law will assume a very important role; much more important than it is now.

If alongside this Commonwealth system there develops and continues to exist 6 different systems of law with different statutes and principles, perhaps extending even to the common law, we will have a complexity which will be adverse to the interests of the Australian citizen. More particularly will that be so with the rapidity and ease of interstate and Commonwealth communication and with the passage of people and commerce from State to State. We will have many more instances where the law of one State will apply in another State to particular transactions. As the Attorney-General said we virtually have to apply private international law between the States. This is a highly undesirable situation and one which would need the attention of a statute law revision committee. It should try to obviate and overcome this situation by making the laws uniform throughout the Commonwealth. I do not know whether the Commission in the form set out in the Bill is the best. I would say that in its composition it contemplates expert support for its investigations. The Bill contemplates those skilled in the law will comprise the Commission.

I think the important thing is that the States will, in the fullest degree, co-operate in the functioning of the Commission. That is of prime importance because what is projected in this Commission is something which will embrace ultimately State laws in an attempt to get uniformity. Therefore there must be the complete and total co-operation of the States.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood) said, there was a discussion between Senator Murphy and representatives of Opposition Parties as to the terms of the amendments proposed by Senator Greenwood. I interjected when Senator Greenwood was discussing the principles which might be taken as stemming from the Bill to which he found objection. I indicated that in the light of that concordance the discussion was somewhat academic. Perhaps use of that word ‘academic’ was unfortunate. Perhaps I should have said that the discussion was theoretical at this stage. Whilst the principles may still be quite well discussed by Senator Greenwood, as he did discuss them in relation to the passage of this Bill and the fact that those provisions were deleted, it was somewhat theoretical. But undoubtedly what Senator Greenwood said and the implications he drew were of consequence and I think completely valid. Perhaps use of the word ‘academic’ was not appropriate.

I think that this is a most important Bill, the real significance of which may quite easily escape the attention of members of the Parliament but it will have vast and far reaching consequences. More particularly, in view of the Constitutional Convention which has been convened, which has sat already and is continuing its deliberations, it would be inappropriate if the constitutional relations of the Commonwealth were allowed to be redetermined and redefined, as no doubt they will be in some areas if the recommendations of that Convention are adopted, and it would be inappropriate if at the same time the diversity of law were allowed to continue without interruption and the systems were allowed to continue to develop in their own way. It seems most appropriate that there should be a parallel attempt to look at the legal system while we are looking at the Constitution.

I think there is a great deal to be said for a diversity in life. I do not like to see complete homogeneity because it is soul destroying and stultifying. However, so far as the law is concerned, in a community which is racially, culturally and socially substantially homogeneous, I think it is important that the system of the law and the operative law should be substantially uniform.

Therefore even though in other areas of life I might welcome and support diversity, in the legal field I think that the certainty of the law and the general availability of the same law to all citizens of the Australian Commonwealth are matters of prime importance.

Senator Greenwood:

– That generally applies where there are restraints on conduct or codes of conduct.

Senator BYRNE:

-That is quite true. There is nothing more inappropriate than that a citizen should find that in one area of Australia he is subject to certain restraints and constraints while in another area there may be more or less emphasis on those things, or there may be a complete denial or an actual prohibition. I agree that in that area uniformity of law would be of prime importance. After all, if we consider the criminal law, there are still States operating under individual criminal statutes, some of which stem from the English criminal law. In Queensland, as in Western Australia, we have a codification of the criminal law. For example, in Queensland the law of defamation comes from the Defamation Act and from the definitions of defamation within the criminal code. I think that from memory the defamation law in Queensland makes it possible to defame a person by defaming a member of his family who may be dead. I have the impression that that law was not available in New South Wales and perhaps still is not available.

Senator Murphy:

– It is available but very rarely.

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes. There are situations like that where there is a very marked diversity of law which is most unfortunate because rights are conferred on an Australian citizen in one State and denied in the other, or vice versa. Therefore I commend this Bill to honourable senators. As I said, by a concordance with the Attorney-General and the Opposition Parties the amendments to be proposed by Senator Greenwood substantially have been accepted by the Government and the consequences will be apparent when the Attorney-General addresses the Senate. Subject to that, I support the Bill and the proposals put forward by Senator Greenwood which I understand will be accepted by the Attorney-General.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– The Australian Country Party will support, the Bill and the suggested amendments. We realise that it is necessary from time to time to reform our laws and to update them in accordance with modern concepts. I emphasise that it is necessary at all times that any reform undertaken be carried out in accordance with the paramount interests of the people. The law should not be made the preserve of the legal fraternity.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– in reply- I thank honourable senators who have indicated that they will support this Bill and I thank them for the attitudes of their Parties today. I do not need to repeat the purpose of the Bill. I agree that it is of major importance and that it may be one of the most significant measures passed in this Parliament. Senator Greenwood referred to the fact that I had agreed to accept certain changes in the Bill. Those changes deal broadly with the hearings to be held by the Law Reform Commission. It is true that under the provisions contained in the Bill persons could be summoned to give evidence and be required to take an oath. It is true that it contains provisions for the protection of members of the Commission. One could say that this is a vast power and that it is an intrusion into the lives of those who might be called. However this point can be over-dramatised when one remembers that the same kind of powers are held by each of the courts in the country. They are held not only by the High Court and the supreme courts, the Federal courts, the district courts and the courts of quarter sessions but by magistrates and a whole host of bodies throughout the country. I think the Public Service Board has the same kind of power. It is the usual thing.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Taxation Commissioner certainly has it.

Senator MURPHY:

-Yes. It is the usual provision in relation to bodies that gather evidence. I take the point that was made but to suggest that this is frightening is to take matters a bit far when these powers relate to hearings. These provisions relate to persons who may be summoned to give evidence and they provide for protection for members of the body concerned. All powers that are given to such a body are conditioned by the same conditions as apply generally. Any such powers, whether they are to summon witnesses or to have a hearing, are to be exercised in a bona fide way and for the purposes for which they were given and with due regard to the rights of persons affected. The argument put forward by Senator Greenwood would be a good reason for depriving all sorts of courts and other bodies of the power to summon witnesses and so on. It may somewhat impede the Commission but I do not think it would do so greatly. I suppose it represents more a reserve for cases when it is necessary to have hearings in that way.

Reference was made to the Commission having to comply with the directions of the AttorneyGeneral and the requirements of Parliament. There is a provision whereby otherwise than in relation to the formulation of its reports and recommendations the Commission shall comply with the directions of the Attorney-General in connection with the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers. That means that there is to be ministerial control in relation to the functions of the Commission other than its report and recommendation functions. If such a body is spending money and doing all sorts of things there should be some form of control over it. The Minister is to act on behalf of the Government and will be responsible to the Parliament. There is a further provision which states:

If either House of the Parliament or a Committee of either House, or of both Houses, of the Parliament requires the Commission to furnish to that House or Committee any information (including information in respect of expenditure or proposed expenditure of the Commission) concerning the performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Commission under this Act, the Commission shall comply with the requirement.

As Senator Greenwood said, this is to be a body with a considerable amount of power and except in relation to its reports and recommendations it is to be subject to ministerial control and parliamentary supervison. The Parliament, either House of the Parliament, or a committee could ask the Commission what was happening. I suppose that it would have the power to ask what directions were being given. I thought that this provision represented a pretty reasonable attempt to introduce what everyone is clamouring forsome sort of ministerial and parliamentary supervision over a whole host of bodies.

Rather than have the Bill delayed because I insist that the clause remain as it is, I have agreed to the foreshadowed amendment. I think the Senate will have to evolve some system of supervision of these statutory bodies. There are hundreds of them. My understanding is that it is the wish of the Senate that there be some exercise of ministerial or parliamentary supervision. I thought that clause 8 was a pretty fair attempt to arrive at such a system, especially as reports and recommendations were excepted. All the other functions of the Commission would have been subject to directions by a Minister responsible to Parliament. There is the further provision that either House or a committee of either House or of both could require information from the Commission, and it would be supplied. That was our attempt to provide for supervision. If it is contentious I would rather drop it, both in regard to the hearings and the other matters. I am by no means conceding that the proposal is not right, but we have reached a state of affairs when I would rather have the Bill through the Parliament than have it stood over to the first sitting day in 1974. Without prejudice to my right to insert other provisions if they are thought necessary or to evolve some system of proper ministerial or parliamentary supervision, I am content to meet the suggestion and let the Bill have an easy passage. The great bulk of it is not contentious and obviously is in the national interest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Clause 3.

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears- “ Australian Public Service “ means the Public Service constituted under the Public Service Act 1 922- 1 973; “ Chairman “means the Chairman of the Commission; “ Commission “means the Law Reform Commission; “ Deputy Chairman “ means the Deputy Chairman of the Commission; “ hearing “ means a hearing conducted under section 28; “ judicial office “ means an office of judge of a Federal Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; “ laws “ includes rules of the Common Law or of Equity; “ laws to which this Act applies “means-

  1. laws made by, or by the authority of, the Parliament, including laws of the Territories so made; and
  2. any other laws, including laws of the Territories, that the Parliament has power to amend or repeal; “ member “ means the Chairman or another member of the Commission; “proceedings “, in relation to a hearing, includes the evidence taken at the hearing; “ reference “ means a reference by the Attorney-General to the Commission under this Act; “ Territory “does not include Papua New Guinea.

Clause 6.

  1. The functions of the Commission are, in pursuance of references to the Commission made by the Attorney-General-

    1. to review laws to which this Act applies with a view to the systematic development and reform of the law, including,.in particular-
    2. the modernization of the law by bringing it into accord with current conditions;
    1. the elimination of defects in the law;
    2. the simplification of the law; and
    3. the adoption of new or more effective methods for the administration of the law and the dispensation of justice;

Clause 8.

  1. Except in relation to the formulation of its reports and recommendations, the Commission shall comply with any directions of the Attorney-General in connexion with the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers under this Act.

Clause 11.

  1. Members other than the Chairman shall be appointed either as full-time members or as part-time members.

Clause 46.

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters which by this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act, and in particular-

  1. for prescribing the practice and procedure in conducting a hearing; and
  2. for prescribing penalties, not exceeding a fine of $200, for.offences against the regulations.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– by leave- I move:

In clause 3-

Omit ‘ “hearing” means a hearing conducted under section 28’.

Omit ‘ “proceedings”, in relation to a hearing, includes the evidence taken at the hearing’.

The omissions are necessary because certain clauses will be deleted. Therefore, the definitions are unnecessary. I also move:

In clause 6, sub-section (1), after the word ‘AttorneyGeneral’, add ‘whether at the suggestion of the Commission or otherwise’.

The amendment gives a power of initiation to the Law Reform Commission. It reserves to the Attorney-General the power to decide what the Commission shall do. I move:

In clause 8, omit sub-clause ( 1 ).

The power of the Attorney-General to require the Commission to comply with any directions will be removed by this amendment. I referred to this matter during the second reading of the debate. I move:

In clause 11, after sub-clause (4), insert the following subclause: (4a) The holder of a judicial office shall not be appointed as a full- time member (other than the Chairman) unless the Chairman is the holder of a judicial office’.

The amendment will protect, it is thought, the position of any judge who is a member of the Commission. I move:

Omit clauses 28 to 36 inclusive.

Those clauses relate to a hearing which had the features to which I drew attention and about which I expressed objection during the second reading debate. They will be deleted entirely. I move:

In clause 46, omit all words after ‘Act’, third appearing.

Those words have no relevance in the light of earlier amendments. The only amendments still remaining are those relation to proposed new clause 6a and the definition of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– There was sufficient discussion of this matter during the second reading debate, and I will not oppose the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

That the proposed new clause 6a be added: 6a In the performance of its functions the Commission shall review laws to which this Act applies and consider proposals with a view to ensuring;

that such laws and proposals do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties and do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative rather than judicial decisions,

that, as far as practicable such laws and proposals are consistent with the Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’

I did not advert to the purpose of this proposed new clause during the second reading debate. One thing which a law reform commission can do, when it is reviewing all Commonwealth laws, is to examine them to see that they accord with traditional and accepted concepts of individual rights and the way in which individual rights ought to be protected and determined. Therefore, it is desirable to write into the Bill, so that it becomes part of the statute law, that this is one of the basic considerations which the Law Reform Commission shall have in mind. It gives a slant- a bias, if one likes- to the way in which the Commission shall approach its task. I think that all honourable senators are appreciative of the work over many years of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I think that those honourable senators who have been members of that Committee will see in some of the words used in the amendment language which has always guided that Committee in its deliberations. That Committee is required to look at regulations and ordinances to see that they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties and that they do not make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative rather than judicial decisions. There has always been some question whether the Regulations and Ordinances Committee could not take its examination into the field of Bills which were before the Parliament. That question has never been resolved. The accepted view seems to be that that would be an excessive function by the Committee.

The Opposition thinks that the Commission could be charged with that function. I know that the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) agrees. I think that there is some novelty in the provision relating to the articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Its use as a standpoint from which all legislation which is being reviewed could be testedin order to ascertain whether it accords with those principles is also a desirable function for the Commission to have in mind. I think that the projected Human Rights Bill which has yet to come up for debate in this Senate seeks to incorporate those articles as part of the substantive law of the Commonwealth. I am sure that the Attorney-General is already aware of the many comments which are being made as to the problems this Bill will create. That is a matter for subsequent debate and subsequent decision. But at least in the work which this Commission undertakes it can certainly perform a useful function by having regard to the general standards and principles that are contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and I think that this is of benefit. I cannot see disadvantage in it being part of the obligation of the Commission to act in that way. The other amendment which I couple with this one is an amendment to clause 3 as to the definition-

Senator Murphy:

– Could you leave that amendment?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The AttorneyGeneral, I see, is indicating to me that he would like to leave that, and because of the responsive way in which we are working at the moment, I defer to him.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– This new clause 6a is welcomed by the Government. Mr Temporary Chairman, as Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee for so many years, you would be well aware of the important way in which a test such as that can help to see to it that the standards of our law are very greatly improved. The same words have been included in the platform of the Australian Labor Party so that our test of delegated legislation is one which requires conformity with those standards in relation to trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties and so on. The suggestion in relation to the articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a very welcome one. It would be good to have those articles in the Bill and constantly before the minds of the commissioners in their review of the law. I thank Senator Greenwood for the suggestion.

May I suggest, with respect, that Senator Greenwood does not proceed with his amendment to clause 3 which contains the additional definition. The problem is that we have not yet ratified the Covenant, and the definition refers to the Covenant ratified by Australia. We think that that is unnecessary. It would be simple enough to leave clause 6a as it is. The definition is not really necessary even if we had ratified the Covenant. I hope we do, but it may be some little time before it is done, and until then there may be some problems. We think that from the drafting point of view it would be much better if we did not proceed with that amendment. But we positively welcome the addition of clause 6a.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Senator Greenwood:

– I have received some suggestions from the draftsmen as to purely formal alterations to the amendments that have been moved. If the Committee agrees I would like to suggest that those alterations be adopted. They are concerned with small things such as the figures and letters (i) and (a) and they suggest that certain commas and other things be put in various places. I would have thought that these matters would be dealt with in the drafting procedure, but if leave is required to make these alterations then I would seek it.

Senator Murphy:

– I think this matter comes within the province of the President or the Clerk, does it not? That is my understanding of the situation under the Standing Orders.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– They are only formal matters?

Senator Murphy:

-They are only formal. If it is proposed simply to put in commas and full stops, it does not involve any change in substance. It is my understanding that the office of the President or the Clerk will deal with that.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2604

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 November (vide page 23S4), on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

-The States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill (No. 2) 1973 provides for the sum of $32.25m to be paid to the States in the manner set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The figure of $32.25m is some $ 10m more than was allocated for this purpose in the previous year. The largest share of this amount is to go to housing, and the amount allocated for this purpose is $14,422,000. In his second reading speech the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) said that this would provide some 1,100 homes. The second biggest amount is to be provided for health services and community amenities, especially water and sewerage supplies. The amount provided for these purposes is $ 10.3m. An amount of $5.4m is to go to local government authorities for certain employment providing works such as roadmaking, kerbing and guttering, conservation of areas such as the foreshores, maintenance, dust abatement, reafforestation and so on. Overall the outlays are directed to the areas in which they are required.

I would indicate right away that we have no opposition whatsoever to the moneys being provided. We all welcome the best endeavours that are possible in assisting in what is undoubtedly a very complex and a very difficult situation. I am under no illusions at all as to the vexed and difficult problems which are associated with the direction of Aboriginal affairs. I believe that the Minister is doing all he can to meet situations of great challenge. As we see more moneys being devoted to Aboriginal advancement, I have no doubt that it is the concern of all of us to ensure that those moneys are being applied in the right areas of need and that they are the most effective allocations in any given area.

There is no common policy which can be applied to meet the requirements of Aborigines in their various settings. I think that policies in relation to Aboriginal advancement should be resilient enough to accommodate the very real differences between the needs of Aborigines in their semi-tribal state, those in the part urban situaion who go back to the tribal situation, and those in urban areas. The problems of each of these groups have to be viewed with sympathetic understanding and appreciation. I give credit to the Minister for having said very quickly that, when moneys are being provided for Aboriginal enterprises, those enterprises should be properly vetted. At the dme the Minister mentioned this initially he said that he thought the best body for determining the acceptance or rejection of a given proposal would be an all party parliamentary committee. But since then the Minister has announced that he will have a special committee within his Department thoroughly to vet every proposal.

It is important that when moneys are expended for Aboriginal enterprises, the enterprise on which that money is expended should have a reasonable chance of being viable and that through its success it can add to the personal satisfactions and the dignities of the Aboriginal people. In my opinion, no greater harm could be done to these people than would be done if they are encouraged to take control of enterprises which in themselves do not have the actual capabilities of being successful. So when I speak of moneys being allocated, I am saying that we have no objection but rather welcome every possible concern and assistance which can be rendered to the Aborigines and the Torres Strait islanders. But greater care has to be applied to the direction of those finances.

I read in the Adelaide ‘News’ of 2 1 November that the Minister said there was merit in some criticisms levelled against the Department and at the way in which the Government was handling Aboriginal problems. He said this in reply to an article appearing in an earlier edition of the Adelaide ‘News’ written by Professor P. G. H. Strehlow, a professor of linguistics at the Adelaide University and one who had been engaged very actively in Aboriginal welfare through many years. Professor Strehlow was born at Hermannsburg mission in the centre of Australia and he grew up with the Aranda tribe. He is a very knowledgeable man and is most knowledgeable in all matters pertaining to Aboriginal welfare. He is also a man of deep understanding and dedication to these people. He said that some problems have grown in direct ratio to the money spent on their solution. This provides a pretty serious note to ponder over. He points out that in many instances moneys are being devoted not to the benefit of the Aborigines but to administering schemes in a proportion which is far in excess of that which should apply.

I see that the Minister is prepared to say that things certainly require very close investigation. I am not speaking now about enterprises such as the turtle farming about which many questions have to be answered and in relation to which much has to be sorted out. I am saying that there is an awareness on the part of the Minister of a situation that really requires the closest attention and the critical appraisal of what has been done, particularly in the last year or so with the increased amounts of money being made available.

The previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who is the present Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant), was a very generous man and a man who sought in a very real way the betterment of the Aborigines. But he did not achieve that which was being sought by him. In my opinion, the whole thing has gone back because of insufficient research and insufficient knowledge as to the way in which money could best be directed in the interests of these good people. We will give this Bill a speedy passage. In the process of doing so, we trust that the situation of the Aboriginal people of Australia will improve continuously until they are happy with their lot and we ourselves are content in their happiness. I support this Bill.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-The Australian Country Party does not oppose this Bill. But as had been pointed out already, a very large sum of money is being spent by way of State grants under section 96 of the Constitution. Apparently, the States have control over the spending of this money although they have to account to the Commonwealth for what they spend. It is strange that the Northern Territory should be included in a States Grants Bill and included in all the schedules that are attached to it. Large sums have been provided for expenditure in the Northern Territory. The areas in which the $32,250,000 to be paid to the States is to be spent is spelt out in great detail. Some of the amounts are quite small. Some should be checked a little to see that there is no waste. I notice that in some areas substantial sums are being invested in cattle properties. I hope that some form of overseeing is undertaken if the management is to be in the hands of the Aboriginal people to help them and to give them guidance.

Quite a lot of money is to be spent on housing. I suppose that the biggest single item for expenditure is for houses that are to be constructed pretty well all over Australia. I notice that $205,257 has been provided to develop a cattle project in the Northern Territory. It is proposed to spend $198,720 to develop a similar cattle project at Unia. The acquisition of Willowra Station will cost $325,000 and phase one of a development program for Roper River will cost $336,000. Then there is the matter which has been under discussion in the Senate already concerning Applied Ecology Pty Ltd for which $430,000 has been allocated. I do not know what is the position in regard to that. I do not know whether we will approve of it now or whether it will be held up for further discussion or investigation. There is another matter in which I am just a little interested. One of the islands in the Tones Strait-I think that it is St Paul Islandhas a wolfram mine. I do noi know whether it is producing or whether any great investigation has been made into it. But there is an item of expenditure for $20,000 for a manager’s salary and operating expenses. I would like to know who is the manager and whether this is a viable proposition.

There are quite a lot of smaller amounts spelt out in great detail which are to be expended all over Australia, including the Northern Territory, even though this is a States Grants Bill. During the hearing of a Senate Estimates Committee we were told that an effort was being made to teach various Aboriginal dialects in schools in the Northern Territory. We were told that there were special sections in these schools and that there were many, although I do not know how many, of these dialects in the Northern Territory. I asked a question in regard to this because I was interested in how the dialects were committed to paper. The answer I received was that there was a system of phonetic spelling and that they even had trouble when they came to spell some of the words on a typewriter. It was very interesting to see that this way of life and language is being preserved with this type of teaching. An enormous number of specialists will be needed for this work. Generally speaking, we support the Bill, but we appeal for full supervision and checking of expenditure to see that the’ money is spent wisely, with as little waste as possible.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-As has been stated by Senator Laucke and my Country Party colleague, Senator Lawrie, we in Opposition do not oppose the Bill. We support it and I particularly welcome the Bill because it makes available about $32.2Sm for Aboriginal advancement. I am most relieved to note that about $14m will be channelled towards better housing for the Aboriginal people of Australia. Once again, I must stress that Aboriginal people in Australia today are in varying stages of development and contact with white society. Despite the criticism I have received for using those terms, I will continue to do so because I know that what I say is true. I do not mean to denigrate in any way any of my Aboriginal fellows when I say that. One needs to face up to the facts of life. I am an Aborigine and have moved amongst my fellow Aborigines, particularly in my own State. Especially since coming into Parliament, I have had an opportunity to move around the other States, seeing the conditions under which many Aboriginal people are living.

I am sure that my colleagues on the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment will agree with me when I say that Aborigines are in varying stages of development. I do not think that money or legislation provide the whole answer to the question of the future of the Aboriginal people of Australia. I am also very pleased to note that $Sm is being made available to local government bodies. In my own State particularly, these organisations have played a very prominent part in finding and providing employment for the Aboriginal people in many areas. The problems of employment, housing, and education for Aboriginal people are real problems indeed that need to be tackled with a sense of responsibility and concern in order to ensure that the Aboriginal people are provided with a program of self-help and not a program of handouts, under which money is made available without complete and proper supervision over how it is spent, without ensuring that it is used in the best interests and to the advantage of the Aboriginal people.

Over the last few months, I have noted with some concern the amount of money that has been made available. From some of the discussions that have taken place in this Parliament and in Estimates Committee hearings it appears that the expenditure of some of the money has not been properly supervised. Consequently, because of lack of supervision and perhaps unwise spending on the part of those responsible, the Aboriginal people are not truly benefiting from the large sums of money made available. During the course of the last few weeks, I have levelled some criticism at the Government for establishing a consultative committee. I do not back down from what I said. I still maintain that establishing this committee was not in the best interests of the Aboriginal people, yet I agree that there must be consultation with Aboriginal people. This must be done in the areas in which the Aboriginal people live. The people involved must meet with the Aboriginal people in the local area and environment to look at the problems with which they are faced in these important fields of housing, employment, education and health.

A department has been established and is being maintained by expenditure of a sound amount of money, and I believe it is the responsibility of the officers of that department to consult with Aboriginal people in their own areas. The officers could go to places such as Charleville or Cunnamulla in Queensland, meeting the Aboriginal people there and looking at their problems and opportunities in housing, employment, education and health. They could discuss these problems with the Aboriginal people, finding out from them what they believe should be done on their behalf for their advancement. The officers should consult not only Aboriginal people but also the rest of the people in the area so that they can see how those people feel about integration. Do the people want Aborigines living in their community? Such an approach by the officers would help to bring about a better understanding and relationship between the Aboriginal people and the rest of the people in an area.

That is the type of consultation that is so sorely needed. Having done that, the officers should get all the Aboriginal people together and ask them to nominate a competent Aborigine in the area in whom the other Aboriginal people have confidence and who they believe can do the job in the best interests of the people, liaising with and working amongst them. By this means, the Aboriginal people will be represented by a local person who understands the problems in the community and who has a proper and easy communication with his fellows in the area. In this way, many of the problems faced by Aboriginal people today could be solved, particularly in the important fields that I have already mentioned three or four times- housing, employment, education and health. In these fields, the Aboriginal people are facing and have faced for several years real problems.

As I have said money and legislation are not the solutions to the problems of the Aboriginal people. If these problems are to be solved people will have to get their hands dirty. Work must be done amongst those who are need of counselling and guidance. A program of self-help must be introduced to help Aborigines to better themselves in the community so that they can become respected and responsible members of it as fellow Australians, not as something separate. Let us forget about this idea of separate development. We do not want separate development. We are Australians first and foremost. If the Government is fair dinkum, let it ensure that there will be consultations on the spot with Aboriginal people so that they can take advantage of some of the opportunities available to them today. I certainly support the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) will see to it that his Department keeps more careful scrutiny on the expenditure of this money so that it is used in the best interests of the Aboriginal people for thenadvancement.

My colleague mentioned money being made available to some of the voluntary organisations. These organisations work in all the States, doing a remarkably good job. Unfortunately, some of these organisations, because of a lack of training, education, or business sense, have not always been wise in the way they have spent this money. I do not believe that parliamentarians should criticise or condemn the Aboriginal people for what has happened. What we should condemn and criticise is the Department that has allowed this to happen by its lack of supervision to ensure that the organisations were equipped to handle sensibly the money made available to them. There are quite a number of these organisations in Queensland. Despite what governments can do, as you Mr Acting Deputy President, and I know, they cannot do everything. There must be voluntary organisations in various social service fields and not only in the field of Aboriginal development.

Some voluntary organisations can do much better work because they are more closely in contact with the people, knowing the needs of the people better than they are known by a government department. I agree that the voluntary organisations working in the field of Aboriginal advancement must certainly be given some financial assistance by the Government. But by the same token I plead with the Minister to ensure that these organisations are properly geared to handle the amounts of money that are allocated to them so that it can be used in the best interests of the Aboriginal people.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– In reply- I thank members of the Opposition for their contribution to the debate. I welcome the fact that they are not opposing the Bill and that they will assist to give it a speedy passage. Members of the Opposition did not criticise what is being done for Aboriginals, and I have found that this is the normal practice when Aboriginal affairs are being discussed in this place. But they did introduce a note of caution and warned the Government that it should be careful of how it expends funds. Expenditure on Aboriginal affairs is mostly made out of the Minister’s advance fund at the discretion of the Minister and is subject to confirmation by the Treasurer. There is not in this area the supervision that possibly one would find applying to another organisation that is set up under an Act of Parliament. When I say that I am somewhat critical of previous expenditure I am expressing my own opinion and I do not want to criticise what any previous Minister has done. He made his own decision as to where expenditure should go. My opinion today is that possibly we were misdirecting moneys into areas where they were not doing the most good for the greatest number of people. Our goal at present is to see that the most good is done for the greatest number of people.

Because of the risk attached to assisting Aborigines financially there must be from time to time some wasteful expenditure which does not produce results. The Aboriginal Enterprises Act, which is the legislation which has received the most criticism, provides that an amount up to $20,000 can be advanced to an Aboriginal or a person of Aboriginal descent subject to a supervision fee of 1.5 percent. If we establish an Aboriginal or a person of Aboriginal descent in a business or an operation which looks like being successful we take a risk that no bank in Australia would ever take. In most cases these people have no equity. Some do not have sufficient business acumen to justify a loan. Finance may be provided on the basis that the applicant has a good record and that he may have the incentive to make a success of his business.

Applications for finance are studied by a committee on which is a representative of the Reserve Bank of Australia. This Committee establishes whether a business venture has any chance of success. Sometimes we may stipulate that a qualified business manager be appointed to the enterprise or, as is more commonly the case, that an accountant be available to advise on the accounts. We make investments on this basis. Some seventy such projects have been successful to date. Some of the Aboriginal enterprises which are operating today were established subject to a risk which only a government can take. People are only too ready to point to individual failures. They say that an investment should not have been made in a particular venture.

One of the ventures that we are supporting at the moment- and this was raised by Senator Lawrie- is the purchase of cattle properties for Aborigines. Our activities in this field are restricted because we will buy only properties which are up for sale. We will not acquire any properties at the present time. This will be our attitude until such time as the report of the Woodward Committee is presented. The big cost in ventures of this kind is in the purchase of the properties, stock and plant and possibly in the wages of staff on the properties for a 12-month period. Most of the properties that we have purchased have a white experienced cattle manager who trains Aborigines to manage the property and to carry out the various operations involved in property ownership. Of course, the Aborigines work on the properties, all of which are in areas where Aboriginal communities are established. The proceeds from each property are used not just to feed the actual workmen but to feed the Aboriginal community. Some very successful ventures have been established in this field.

The matter of Aboriginal housing has been raised. Provision has been made in this Bill for grants to be given to the State Housing Commission for the housing of Aborigines. An Aboriginal at any time has the same right as any other person r * ustralia to make an application for a commission home. He is then put on the waiting list. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs, through grants such as this, allocates money to the States for either the purchase or the building of special homes which are earmaked for Aboriginal occupation. Whilst these homes are built by the States and are owned by the States they are occupied by Aborigines. Aborigines who do not qualify for the normal waiting list must comply with the tenancy requirements of the various State Housing Commissions and must be able to meet the interest and rental payments that make for a viable proposition. But many Aborigines cannot meet the requirements laid down by the State Housing Commissions. In fact, fewer than 10 Aborigines in Victoria would qualify for Housing Commission homes in that State which could be financed with the allocation made under this legislation. We have practically solved the problem of housing for that section of the Aboriginal community in some States.

But, as I said, another section of Aborigines cannot meet the requirements of the Housing Commissions. I refer, for example, to transient workers who come and go and to deserted wives and the families who do not have jobs and are not able to meet the requirements. In such cases the Department of Aboriginal Affairs gives special grants to various community organisations so that the community itself can build homes to meet the requirements of such people. These organisations may build hostels for such people and house Aboriginal people in settle.ments who today live in tin huts, bowers and wurlies. As a matter of fact, in a short period we have developed some quite respectable and very interesting Aboriginal community housing projects. A European architect draws the plans and supervises the construction and we have someone with knowledge of building construction for the purpose of directing work. These people have done a wonderful job. Where money is not the solution, establishing an involvement has created an interest among Aborigines which has not been seen in such communities before. That is perhaps where their involvement is more important than the money advanced.

I know that I criticised Senator Bonner for his use of the expression ‘the various stages of their development’ in referring to Aborigines. It is an expression I hate to see applied to Aborigines. Only the other night I saw a film about the Yirrkala tribe. The members of the Yirrkala tribe were a happy, contented, proud people before they came into contact with the white man. As was pointed out in the film, all their happiness, contentment and pride disappeared when mining commenced at Gove. They were poisoned with the belief that if they had to be like the white man they should do what the white man does. They began to drink. The fauna on which they had lived by hunting was driven away from the populated areas. They had to travel further to hunt. As they were members of what was once such a happy and proud race, I was wondering whether it would not be better to use the expression ‘the varying stages of their degeneration until they eventually got down to the level of the white man’s commecial way of living in the cities of the various States and the drinking of his poison’.

There are sections of the Aboriginal community which will not assimilate with the Australian community. Those closer to the main cities are more inclined to do so. We have realised that they should not be compelled to assimilate. What they want is some dignity, pride and job opportunities. We are seeking to take industries to the Aborigines rather than to bring the Aborigines to the industries. We have been criticised for our venture into the nearly impossible task of turtle farming on the Torres Strait islands. Our aim was to employ Torres Strait Islanders on this project. We hoped that it would result in the return to the Torres Strait islands of those who had left them to obtain employment elsewhere. Concern was expressed to me today by a delegation from the Torres Strait about the possibility of the closure of this project. That is but one of the problems we are experiencing in relation to our Aboriginal communities.

The provision of local government loans is something about which I am not happy. It appears to me as though we have taken over from the urban relief or rural relief loans that were once forthcoming. We are now getting claims from various councils that they want to employ Aborigines on such jobs as kerbing and guttering work. That work probably would not be available to Aborigines if money provided for Aboriginal affairs were not involved.

Senator Bonner:

– It is creating employment opportunities. Is that not good?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes, I think it is. But I think it would be better if the money were to be spent on a venture that continued to provide employment. At present an amount of, say, $10,000 is made available to provide employment for 8 Aborigines for 8 months. When the money has been spent they are out of work and all they have done is improve the shire or town for the white people in the area.

Senator Bonner:

– But a lot of the Aborigines are being taught skilled work. They are being taught tractor driving, plant operating and things like that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My experience is that the claims have always been ibr fencing, kerbing or guttering. The present system must continue because we do not have any alternative. Nevertheless I hope the day will come when money set aside for Aboriginal affairs will be expended on projects which will not only provide employment for Aborigines and give them an opportunity to participate in the management of their own affairs but also produce something effective for their own purposes.

I turn to the subject of the supervision of money expended on Aboriginal affairs. I think I should have mentioned this matter earlier. I have said that the procedure in relation to ministerial responsibility for this expenditure must be changed and that I favour the supervision by a parliamentary committee of the allocation of large amounts of money. I am still inclined to favour that system. Because of the heavy legislative program I have not been able to put a proposal to the Government for its adoption. I am waiting for an opportunity to do so. The Department has established a study group of Second Division officers to advise me on such matters. It should be pointed out that the parliamentary committee or the Second Division officers will be only advising me or any future Minister. It will be up to the Minister to make the final decision. From now on any expenditure will not be as a result of the recommendation to the Minister not of one individual but of a number of individuals. At times those individuals could disagree on the recommendation.

IrefernowtotheNationalAboriginalConsultativeCommittee.Iappreciatethevalueof goingouttoseehowAboriginesliveandwork andwhataretheirrequirements.Ithasbeensaid thattheprovisionofmoneyisnottheanswerto theproblemandthattheAboriginesarenohap- piertodaythantheywerebeforetheallocation oflargesumsofmoneyforvariouspurposes.It alsohasbeensaidthatthisisbecausethe requirementsoftheAboriginalpopulationare notappreciated.Onecouldgofromtribetotribe andfinddifferencesbetweenthemintheir requirements,desiresandeverythingelse.The NACCwasnotmybrainchild;Iinheritedit. NeverthelessIthinkitcanwork.Weshouldall trytomakeitwork.Thepeopleelectedbythe varioustribeswillknowwhatiswantedintheir area.Tomymindthatismorepreferablethan ourgoingtothevariousareasandexamining theirclaims.Theywillbebetterabletounder- standwhatwehaveinourpurseandhowitcan bebestallocated

The only other subject to which I wish to refer istheproliferationofvoluntaryorganisations.I appreciatethegoodworkthatthevariousvolun- taryorganisationsaredoing.Buttheyareacostly formoforganisation.Theyarealways impoverishedbecauseinsufficientmoneyis availabletothem.Muchoftheirimpoverishment isduetothefactthattoomanyvoluntaryorgan- isationsareduplicatingworkinparticularareas Everyoneseemstowantsomecreditforthees- tablishmentofanorganisationwhoseaimsareto dosomethingfortheAborigines.Manyare employingAboriginesasfieldofficers.Ithinkthe employmentoffieldofficersisessentialbecause thereareanumberofpeoplewhoneedtobe contactedintheirownhomes.Thepointisthere arefieldofficerscallingontheAboriginalcom- munitiestoassistthemwithlegalaid,thereare healthofficerscallingonthemtoassistthemin health matters and there are social workers and other groups calling on them tosee whetherthey canhelpthem.Theyarealldoinggoodwork,but isitalwaysnecessaryfortheretobesuchcallson afamilybymorethanoneorganisation?

Whileweareprovidingaccommodationfor theseorganisationsineachofthecapitalcities andinotherlargecentresthroughoutAustralia theamountofmoneywecanallocatetoan individualorganisationislimitedbecauseofthe numberoforganisationsinvolved.Theorganis- ationswouldbefarbetterofffinanciallyifthey weretocombinetheiractivities.Iftherewerenot somanyorganisationstherewouldbelessad- ministrativeexpenseinvolved.Wedonotwant to force that on them at the present time, but we do think that more emphasis should be placed on this fact. I was very impressed by the steps taken in Western Australia to form a management committee comprised of delegates from each Voluntary organisation to try to get some coordination. If we had a system whereby we made an allocation to the management committee of a particular State and the organisations involved were allowed to divide it up between themselves I think we would see some of the less effective organisations being phased out.

I think I have answered in detail all of the subjects which have been raised by honourable senators. This is an emotional subject. Everyone wants to do the best he can for this section of the community.

Senator Little:

– That is one of the dangers associated with it, is it not?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, I do not think it is. Our opinions may differ on the subject, but I think we must try to avoid the making of political capital out of some mistake which may be made by a Minister who is doing his best- perhaps the mistake is due to insufficient guidance- to help the Aboriginal community. I thank the Opposition for the attitude it has adopted towards this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2610

AIRLINES AGREEMENTS BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 November (vide page 2357), on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I suggest that the Airlines Agreements Bill 1973 and the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1973 be taken together.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the wish of the Senate that we take the Bills together as a cognate debate? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator WITHERS:

-The Opposition is not opposed to either the Airlines Agreements Bill 1973 or the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1973. We support the policy of full recovery of operating costs, but we do believe that the proposed recovery rate of 80 per cent within the next 5 years will prove too high. We agree that it is essential that a ‘reasonable proportion’ of costs is recovered. I would point out that Mr Charles Jones, now the Minister for Transport, as Labor spokesman on civil aviation prior to December 1972 criticised the liberal-Country Parties’ civil aviation policies and repeatedly stated that if the Labor Party ever got into Government, it would ensure that lower air fare were introduced. However, the proposed increases in the air navigation charges will mean that the increases will be passed on to the man in the street in the form of higher fares.

According to my calculations, within the next 5 years’, there will be at least a 50 per cent increase, in air fares if the 80 per cent recovery is met. The return economy fare from Sydney to Melbourne rose from $54.60 to $60.00 in October of this year, and on the above reckoning will rise to $90.00 within 5 years. The return fare from Melbourne to Canberra rose to $53.00 in October and will rise to $79.50 within 5 years. These figures, high as they are, could well go higher if the airlines find they have to pass on a higher percentage of the increases to the passengers and they take no account of the present 14 per cent inflation rate. If this should continue, the air fares could be astronomical at the end of the 5-year period.

One point to’ remember is that the .increased air fares could permanently harm the Australian tourist industry. The level of fares which will inevitably result from these Bills will put our internal tourist industry at a competitive disadvantage with countries such as New Zealand and Fiji. The only way to promote the tourist industry is to keep prices as low as possible. One factor which brings this about is that .domestic airlines pay a fuel tax which, I understand, at the moment amounts to almost 18c a gallon whereas the international companies pay none.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Opposition is not opposing these Bills but merely wants to point out the pitfalls it sees in them. We, are pleased that the international operators will be treated in the same way as the domestic airlines in respect to air navigation charges; that is, the Government will increase the rate of air navigation charges to the international operators by the same percentage as that applied from time to time in respect of Trans- Australia Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd.

One area which does concern the Opposition is how the increases will affect the general aviation industry. We ask: Can the economic state of the domestic general aviation industry withstand these increases? We do not want this sector ofthe industry put into jeopardy. However, the Bills provide for an increase of 15 per cent in air navigation charges, and other costs associated with, the operation of aircraft in the general aviation field will be doubled on some activities, and increased by 66-2/3 per cent for charter aircraft.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– The Australian Country Party will support the Airlines Agreements Bill 1973 and the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1973 and the amendment to the second Bill which will be moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers). We are very pleased to see from these Bills that the Government will continue the 2 airlines policy. There is no doubt that this policy has served Australia well. We have had healthy competition between the 2 airlines,” and of course our air safety record is extremely high. However, I would appreciate the maintenance of a policy to provide adequate services to the remote areas of this country. In the past it has been obligatory on the airlines, even if they “ran at a loss, to provide a service to many of these far flung areas and to make up the loss by the profitability of the” more lucrative routes. I sincerely hope’ that this Government will continue, if. not extend, that policy. We must ensure that the people in remote areas are given adequate communications. Most of them have to travel long distances to conduct their business affairs and on occasions this can be very costly. The amenities in many of these places are not so great. Surely we can assist them, particularly families going on holidays, so that they will receive the service at a reasonable charge.

I would also appreciate the Government’s doing something about the schedules of the 2 airlines; This concerns the are old problem of aircraft of the 2 airlines taking off together, after which hours may elapse before the next flights are due. I know that northern Queenslanders have a problem with afternoon flights from Canberra. We have to catch an early flight to Sydney and then wait for 2 or 3 hours before we can catch, the north-bound flight. Two aircraft leave Canberra at about the same time. Irrespective of which aircraft one takes one is in the position of having to sit in Sydney for a couple of hours waiting for the northern flight. Surely a. system can be . worked out whereby the. departure times of aircraft are staggered. I believe! it is something which should be encouraged.

Once again I am a little disturbed at the increases in taxes and charges which are made under the Air Navigation (Charges) Bil). We could reach the situation of pricing air travel out of existence, except for the few. who could afford it. As was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate the tourist industry is very important to this country and airline operations are very important to the industry. If we are to attract overseas tourists and if we are to gain the money which they bring with them we must increase the tourist traffic within Australia by providing facilities which will encourage overseas people to come here. Unless we have the facilities people will not come. I think that the first thing that we have to do is to encourage Australians to travel to see other parts of this great country of ours. They will be prepared to do that if the charges are sufficiently low. They like the aircraft because of limited travelling time. It means that they can go to these places quickly and have the maximum time there. The Australian Country Party supports the amendment to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

-I support the views of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) regarding the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill. I was somewhat critical of the increases in air navigation charges when the Liberal-Country Party was in Government. I believe that while it is fair that airlines and those who use them should pay a proportion of the costs of maintaining airports and facilities, I think it becomes counterproductive when the costs rise too high. I urge the Government to have a good look at these charges not only in relation to the tourist trade but also in relation to increasing costs of air travel which will be eventually, as I say, counterproductive. It is all very well to want to claim 80 per cent or whatever the figure is of the costs of the facilities, but I do not think that that is the approach we should be using. I ask honourable senators not to forget that air services and the facilities at airports are also important to defence. They are not just for the carrying of passengers. They have importance in other areas.

The real reason why I rose is to refer again to the entry of Trans-Australia Airlines into Western Australia. Last session I spoke on the problems of maintaining the positions of highly trained pilots who are employed by MacRobertson Miller Airline Services. I said then that we could not afford to lose these people either overseas or elsewhere because we will need them. I notice that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) in a Press release gave a very qualified assurance regarding the maintenance of the pilots’ position and also of other people employed by MacRobertson Miller Airline Services. He referred to Air Niugini and patted himself on the back. I suggest that Air Niugini has no relationship to the position in Western Australia.

The Minister referred to the Commonwealth Government’s proposed takeover of the operations of State railways and the assurance that any employee who was transferred would do so on terms no less favourable than his current conditions. Having patted himself on the back with regard to that he then came to the position of the employees of MacRobertson Miller Airline Services and started to qualify the position. The Press release states:

  1. . he was confident that, with the expansion of traffic and services in Western Australia-

I do not quite know on what he based that- any problem of surplus staff would be minimal, even if there were some staff redundancies brought about by TAA’s operations, and TAA could not absorb the people concerned, the Australian Government would look sympathetically at proposals to correct the situation.

Of course that is entirely different from the position in regard to the railways. I express a fear that if TAA operates, a number of pilots will no longer be required. If the Minister is sincere in what he has said, before this happens the Government should look sympathetically at the position to ensure that these pilots are not lost. There are various ways in which this may be achieved. I spoke of those ways before. I do not know whether anything has been done about it or whether it has been thought about. Nevertheless, I assure the Minister that unless this matter is looked at there could be some trouble. The other matter concerns the spending of $ 1.3m to upgrade some airports for DC9 operations. I am reminded that when the previous Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator Cotton, announced that TAA would be allowed to operate on the PerthDarwin flight, in a letter dated 6 October 1972 to both airlines he stated:

In this regard, the Government’s decision on the Perth-Port Hedland-Darwin route is on the basis that there is no commitment on the Commonwealth to upgrade airport facilities on any proposed intermediate stopping place to cater for any proposed aircraft type.

In other words the airlines would have to use the type of aircraft which suited the runway conditions. I felt that this was a sound proposal because there are fast, modern jet aircraft which meet these conditions. A Treasury statement- I take it that it was put out by the present Treasurer (Mr Crean) stated:

We have decided that all future proposals for investment in civil aviation projects should be subject to economic evaluation.

I ask the Minister whether this project has been subject to economic evaluation. He made some fairly extraordinary statements in reply to Mr Nixon. At one stage he said that by some means there would be a saving of some $800,000. 1 am not quite sure how he arrived at that figure because he did not explain. He just said:

The increased revenue from the use of the DC9 aircraft plus the great saving to the people of Western Australia.

That was not explained- more than balances out the increased cost.

Mr Nixon said:

Very strange economics I must say.

Mr Charles Jones replied:

To me it appears to be pretty good economics.

To me it seems like political accounting, not financial accounting. The Minister went on to cite a saving of something like $800,000 to the people of Western Australia if TAA were to come into operation on the Perth to Darwin service and the intrastate services in Western Australia. I would like an explanation from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) of how the Minister for Transport arrived at that figure of $800,000. It may be that we can obtain that in some detail. There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. The Minister made a statement which is completely untrue. He referred to the problems of freight in Western Australia. Mr Nixon said that perfectly good aircraft in the form of the F28 were operating very satisfactorily in Western Australia without any increased cost for airport construction. He asked why the DC9s should operate. The Minister replied:

  1. . the F2 8 is leaving behind a considerable amount of freight each trip. This was one of the major complaints that was made to me- that whereas the rest of Australia could send freight at the average freight rate, in Western Australia in order to ensure delivery it has to be sent as express freight, which means an increased charge. This is as a result of the F28 not being big enough and not providing a service for the people of Western Australia. The DC9 aircraft will provide them with a service.

That statement is not correct. I have checked the figures and the express freight carried by MacRobertson Miller Airline Services represents 1 6 per cent of its total freight while that carried by TAA, I understand, represents 22 per cent of its freight. I do not say this in a critical fashion; it is a fact of life. It is also interesting to note that Ward’s Freight Services Pty Ltd, which apparently is a big freight company, has a contract with MacRobertson Miller Airlines to cart freight to the north west and has expressed the view that it is more than satisfied with the service provided. Again I say to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs so that he can pass the information on to his colleague the Minister for Transport, that because of MacRobertson Millers capacity to carry express freight it is looking for more freight. It is constantly seeking greater freight loads. I do not know where the information in the statement ofthe Minister for Transport came from but in fairness to MacRobertson Miller he should correct it. Therefore while I am not opposing this Bill, I believe that the Government has a responsibility to the people concerned- the pilots and others employed by MacRobertson Miller Airlines. On the basis of fairness and fair play it has a responsibility to ensure that the pilots employed by MacRobertson Miller Airlines are not disadvantaged. I seek some assurance from the Minister on this matter.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I will be brief. The Democratic Labor Party will support the two Bills that are before the Senate at the moment. We are pleased that the dual airline system is to be continued. I suppose we need no better example of a requirement of that character than the recent unnecessary strike in one of the airlines. The country was able to hobble along with the alternative airline which did a magnificient job in filling in and handling the situation that faced the travelling public of Australia. That strike highlighted the requirement that there should be the competition which can be achieved with the 2 airline system. However, as the capital investment in airlines is so enormous it is very unlikely that a country of this size could sustain more than 2 airlines.

I refer now to the amendment which it has been foreshadowed will be moved to the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill. It could very well be that what is stated in the foreshadowed amendment is the broad policy that the Government has in mind. As the foreshadowed amendment represents an expression of opinion- quite a rational opinion although I do not think it will be possible to carry it out in exact detail- the Democratic Labor Party will support it. I do not know whether it is possible today for the Government or anyone else to look into the future and gain a clear and precise understanding of what future charges will be. As a business man I would not commit myself to being able to accomplish that miracle in any industry or in any business project today. I could not give a clear and precise- particularly precise- understanding of what charges will be in the future. I think there is some danger in approaching this matter in an analytical way, working out what the prices will be in 5 years time and then relating them to today’s circumstances. A charge or a price is relevant only to the day, the times, the conditions and circumstances under which it is fixed. If we looked back at the times when we could buy a pair of men’s shoes for 3s 1 Id or 4s lid and tried to relate that to today’s prices we would say that we are living in a crazy world. Perhaps we are. In the days when things were as cheap as that, if we could have projected out minds into the future we would certainly have been scared, perhaps to such an extent that probably most of us would not be here. We would have taken an easier way out. -

The Democratic Labor Party does not join in some of the propositions put forward but we think that the general principles of these Bills are good and will support them. As the foreshadowed amendment merely conveys an expression of opinion to the Government, one which the Government might well intend to adopt anyway, we are prepared to support it

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Minister, are you going to endeavour to get one of these Bills passed before the Senate adjourns?

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia-

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) (6.55)- in reply- I hope so, Mr President. I shall takeyour hint and say in the short time available tome that if I am unable to reply to everything that has been raised by honourable senators I shall get the information and forward the details to those concerned. The Government will not accept the foreshadowed amendment. The indications are, however, that it will be carried. If it is held to be carried on the voices the Government will not ask for a division.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2614

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 November (vide page 2359), on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

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

page 2614

ADJOURNMENT

Government’s Land Policy

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) proposed.

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-Mr President, I should like to say a few words. I have noticed that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) have been speaking about controls over the price ‘of land but the tendency is to concentrate onareas fringing cities, towns and so on. The indication is that people who have rural lands to which cities and towns have extended must not make any worthwhile profit, out of their land. We know thatover a period of time appreciation takes place and it always has been the accepted thing that where people have held onto property over the years they are entitled to the return that comesfrom it. There is noarguing that such people often did not buy this land for another purpose. However, with the change of circumstances, I believe that these people have the right to get whatever comes outof it. I have been rather struck by the Way that the attack is always about rural lands. We never see the Prime Minister or his colleaguesmakingan attack about the great appreciation of land that is bought and sold in the main parts of our cities and towns.

SenatorWebster-Mr Whitlam sold his house.

Senator WOOD:

– We know that often people buy business properties in acity or a town. After a few years the properties; appreciate greatly. There is no indication that this type of profit on thesale of land comes within the ambit of the Government’s proposal. The referendum seeks control of prices. I feel that the’ Government has adead set on anything pertaining to the rural areas. There is no questionabout it, the Govern- ment is city oriented. We mustthink of things on a broader basis than that.I feel that attention should be drawn to the one sided attitude which the Prime Minister has been taking in regard to land sales in rural areas as against land sales in city areas.

Senator Webster reminded me of the sale of Mr Whitlam ‘s house. We know that he had a home at Cabramatta. I asked a question about this sale some months ago. According to real estate people in the suburb in which he lived, he asked apricewhichwas$14000 more than the home was worth. Iknow that the matter was taken up byoneof the newspapers. An article appeared inthat newspaper. Mrs Whitlam replied to it.Thetopreal estate man in that community said that, the price was $14,000 too high. It is rather hypocritical forMr.Whitlam to talk about the cost of homes and the price of land being too high and that the prices should come down. But did he ask for a low saleprice? He went for the big price. He thought that people would pay the top price because he is Prime Minister.

In response to the article which appeared in the ‘Australian’ Mrs Whitlam wrote a letterstating that the reasonsuch a big price was put on the home was that they thought that they would make the price so high that they would not be able to sell it. What sort of moonshine or fairy story is that? In these days of realistic thinking, I think that that story can be treated for what it is worth. There can be no question about it, the Prime Minister talks one way when he talks about other people ‘s property, but when it comes to his own property he gets lockjaw. I believe that when people such as the Prime Minister are pressing an idea they should at least show that they are sincere and that they are not just doing things to make a case which isnot sincere. The prices referendum will be held on Saturday. I think that the Prime- Minister’s hypocrisy inrelation to this matter/should be widely known. I hope that when the people go to the polls they will treat that question with the due respect that it deserves and will not pass any more power to parliamentarians in Canberra.

We are getting near the endof a session which has been a very heavy one so far as work is concerned. One thing about which I am always; concerned is the status and conduct of parliamentarians. When all is said and done Parliament should be a placeofdignity and a place to which people can look with respect. I was greatly concerned two or three weeks ago when the Prime Minister acted in a disgraceful manner, He accused a parliamentarian of being drunk after a function at whichthe Prime Minister said, he had extended hospitality. The hospitality wasextended by this Parliament, not by Mr Whitlam. I know that the way in which he spoke caused resentment not just among people on this side of the chamber but among some of hissupporters. I know that quite a number of supporters of the Government take a very decentview and that quite a number do not like the Prime Minister speaking with a bitter tongue. Investigations that I have made of 3very respectable parliamentarians who werewith Dr Forbes show that Dr Forbes was sober. In those circumstances, I think it is a very serious matter for somebody to be libelled when he isnot guilty.

Senator Webster:

– I saw Dr Forbes at 8 p.m. that night, when the bells rang, and he was as sober as a judge.

Senator WOOD:

– There is another one who says that Dr Forbes was sober.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I do not think that the honourable senator should continue to reflect on proceedings in another place.

Senator WOOD:

– Statements were made outside, too. I am concerned that the dignity of Parliament should be maintained. We know that from time to time things happen. Things have happened in this chamber. One happened in relation to the place in which I sit. A member of another party was involved. One Labor senator said to me: ‘You have never mentioned it’. I said: No’. We are expected to behave decently and to act respectfully to each other. We should not accuse people of things of which they are not guilty. Dr Forbes is not a particular friend of mine by any means, but I believe in honesty in these sorts of things. I think that the Prime Minister tends to debase Parliament and parliamentarians when he lowers himself in the way that he did.

I am raising these 2 matters now because we are nearing the end of the session, and there probably will not be a chance for me to do so next week. The Parliament and the nation should remember the sincerity of the Prime Minister on Saturday when the prices referendum and the incomes referendum are held. The Prime Minister has put these questions forward. I do not believe that he is sincere. In those circumstances, I hope that the people of Australia will treat those (questions in the correct way and vote No, No.

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · South Australia · ALP

– in reply- I had a lot of respect and liking for Senator Wood. I took pride in what I thought was his decency. I listened, with some great expectation, to the start of his contribution to this Parliament tonight because he rarely speaks on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. He started off by attacking the proposed control of urban and regional land prices. Naturally I forgave him because I thought that he was possibly peeved that the repercussions may have caught up with some of his investments. I thought that he may have had some justification in protesting. He concluded his speech by referring to the conduct of Parliament. This was only an attempt to get down as low as possible for the purpose of condemning other politicians, including the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Of course the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) is interested in controlling the price of land on the fringes of cities because he wants to make land available for those who want to build homes and to stop land speculation. Surely someone who has a farming property, the value of which has enhanced one hundred fold not because of anything that he has done but because of something that someone else has done- the spread ofthe city has come to the boundary of his land- should not exploit the land hungry public because of that spread. We are not seeking to control the price of land to help the centre of the city dwellers. This is not where the need is urgent. If Mr Whitlam has something to sell and no restriction is placed on the price that he can get for it, like everyone else he will seek to sell it to the highest bidder. Senator Wood, who has just resumed his seat, is renowned for this practice. He does not sell his shares when the market is low; he waits until their value goes up. If it is wrong to engage in this practice, it is because the system makes it possible to do so.

We should be in this campaign to see that we have the power to stop any Whitlams who might want to exploit a property and see that we get the power next Saturday. The only anxiety that the honourable senator had was to condemn the Prime Minister, In doing so he even condemned his own colleagues. Whatever state a member is in- I never reflect upon a man ‘s state- whether it can be said that the Prime Minister was snarling at the individual or not, it was over and forgotten. Now it is revived so that the public again must listen to the misdeeds of the honourable senator’s colleague. The honourable senator chose to show disrespect to everyone for the purpose of attacking the Prime Minister. He disregarded scruples, honesty and decency. This is a man we have so long admired. We have just seen a shameful exhibition here tonight and I hope that it is never repeated.

Senator WOOD ( Queensland )-Mr President-

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wood, you have no right of reply. You have already spoken.

Senator WOOD:

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) said something-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Does the honourable senator intend to reject my ruling? You have already spoken, senator, and you cannot speak again.

Senator WOOD:

– I want to make an explanation in relation to something that the Minister said about me which was wrong.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator WOOD:
The PRESIDENT:

– What is the misrepresentation?

Senator WOOD:

– I have a very great respect for the Minister. I want the Senate to understand that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Just confine yourself to the matter of misrepresentation.

Senator WOOD:

– The misrepresentation is this: The Minister said that I may have land for sale, no doubt implying that I probably would be concerned about making a profit. I want to make it quite clear that I am not concerned about making a profit because the money I make from my investments I propose to give away to very worthy causes while I am alive and as soon as the profits are realised.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 7.12 p.m.

page 2617

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Alice Springs Tourist Promotion Association and Ayers Rock Progress Association (Question No. 518)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did a deputation representing the Alice Springs Tourist Promotion Association and the Ayers Rock Progress Association travel from the Northern Territory to Canberra earlier in October 1973.
  2. Did many of the members of the deputation pay their own fares and incur other heavy expenses as a result of their visit to Canberra.
  3. Were arrangements made for the deputation to see the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and the then Minister for the Northern Territory; if so, did the first three Ministers not attend the meeting and was the then Minister for the Northern Territory two hours late.
  4. Has the Prime Minister received a letter of protest from the Associations.
  5. Will the Minister, in view of the fact that the deputation is anxious to effect early development of facilities in the Ayers Rock area due to increased tourist interest, inform the Senate which of the Ministers referred to in (3) have responsibility for Ayers Rock, so that effective representations may by made on this matter.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I have no information as to the costs incurred by the individual members of the deputation. (3)I understand that, while my ministerial colleagues were anxious to join in discussions with the deputation, they were prevented from doing so by Parliamentary commmitments. The deputation’s leader, Mr J. Nelson, the Mayor of Alice Springs, subsequently wrote to my predecessor and, I understand, the other Ministers involved, that ‘the position was understood by myself as one of the hazards to be accepted when arranging meetings of this kind ‘.
  3. The Prime Minister received a letter dated 3 1 October on this subject from the Alice Springs Tourist Promotion Association.
  4. The written submission which the deputation left with Ministers represents an effective statement of the deputation’s views. The future of Ayers Rock was also the subject of a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, recently tabled in the House of Representatives. I expect that the views of the deputation as contained in its submission will be taken into account by the Government when considering the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation.

Referendum: Export of Merino Rams (Question No. 360)

Senator Webster:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When does the Minister expect the referendum relating to the ban on the export of merino rams to be held.
  2. Is there a delay in the production of a case supporting the ban.
  3. Is there a delay in the production of a case opposing the ban.
  4. Who is responsible for the production of the cases for and against the ban.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. The referendum was conducted within the period 22 October to 22 November and the results of the Ballot have been announced.
  2. and (3) No.
  3. A statement of the principal substantive issues raised by those who have supported opposing views on the matter was prepared by my Department after consultation with representatives of the Australian Wool Industry Conference, the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers’ Council, the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation and the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders. This statement was included with the ballot papers provided to voters.

Had they so wished organisations, groups and individuals were free to present their respective points of view on the matter to voters in their own way.

Royal Assent to Bills (Question No. 491)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Since the establishment of the Commonwealth how many proposed laws, passed by both Houses of the Parliament, have been reserved for the Sovereign’s pleasure.
  2. What were the Tides of such Bills.
  3. Did the Sovereign assent to such Bills on the advice of her Australian Ministers or on the advice of other, and if so, what Ministers.
  4. Did any such Bills reserved for the Sovereign’s pleasure fail to receive assent
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

I am informed that the information sought by the honourable senator is:

Customs Tariff(British Preference) Bill 1906.

Navigation Bill 1912 (No. 4, 1913).

Judiciary Bill 1914(No. 11, 1914).

Navigation Bill 1919(No.32, 1919).

Navigation Bill 1920 (No. 1, 1921).

Navigation Bill 1925 (No. 8, 1925).

Navigation Bill 1 926 (No. 8, 1 926).

Navigation (Maritime Conventions) Bill 1934 (No. 49, 1934).

Navigation Bill 1935 (No. 30, 1935).

Judiciary Bill 1939(No.43, 1939).

Navigation Kil 1942 (No. 1,1943). “ Royal Style and Titles Bill’1953 (No. j2 1953).

Hags Bill 1953 (No. 1,1954). . Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Bill 1968 (No. 36,1968).

Royal.Style and Titles Bill 1973 (No. .1 14, 1973).:

  1. The practice from 1953 is that Bills reserved for Her Majesty’s pleasure, are assented to by the Queen solely on the advice of Her Australian Ministers.

Prior to the enacting ofthe Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 all Bills reserved for the King’s pleasure were sent toEngland. Records are available in respect of the Navigation (Maritime Conventions) Bill 1934 and the Navigation Bill 1942 which show that the Attorney-General requested the Governor-General to transmit the Bill to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs with a statement that it was the view of the Australian Government that His Majesty should be advised to give his’ assent to the Bill.

Available records show that in regard to the 1912, 1934 and 1942 Bills, the King assented to such Bills on the advice of. His Majesty’s Privy Council, British Ministers being present. Records are not readily available of the practice with respect to the other Bills reserved prior to 1942, but proclamations appearing in the Gazette notifying His Majesty’s assent, indicate that it is likely that the same practice was followed as with the 1912, 1934 and 1942 Bills.

  1. Yes, the only proposed law reserved for the King’s pleasure which failed to receive his assent was the Customs Tariff (British Preference) Bill 1906.

Papua New Guinea: Military Aid (Question No. 524)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article entitled “Commandos train for Papua New Guinea ‘extraction’ operation” in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 22 October 1 973, in which it was stated that use of the Special Air Service Regiment ofthe Australian Army is part of a contingency plan which has been drawn up in case of trouble in the post-independence era in Papua New Guinea.
  2. Will the Minister assure the Parliament and the people ‘ that Australia will not be a party to furnishing any military aid in an internal security situation in Papua New Guinea.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) I. am informed that the article mentioned by the honourable senator almost certainly referred to an exercise codenamed TAM TULU. The Papua New Guinea Government has agreed to this exercise, which is to take place in Papua New Guinea in February 1974. The exercise will involve one squadron of the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) and elements of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force. It is designed to practice in a tropical environment the specialist military techniques normally employed by the SASR. The exercise is planned to encompass acclimatisation, parachute trainings patrol and reconnaissance skills, techniques for the insertion and extradiction of SAS elements and waterborne operations. Exercise TAM TULU is one of a regular series of exercises conducted by the Australian Military Forces in Papua New Guinea over the years. It was originally scheduled for October/November 1972 but was postponed because of the heavy involvement of elements of the Australian Services in famine relief operations in Papua New Guinea at the time. The exercise is not related to any ‘contingency plan’ as is claimed in the article, nor will the civilian population be involved in the exercise in any way. -(2) Regarding internal security, I refer the honorable senator to the statement made by the Minister for Defence in the House of Representatives on 22 August 1973, and tabled by me. in the Senate the following day. The minister for Defence said: “… Honourable members will have noted the important statement on 20 August by the Minister for Defence and Foreign Relations in the Papua New Guinea Government, Mr Kiki. The Minister said that ‘Papua New Guinea was determined to look after its own security problems in the future ‘, and that ‘no country can lightly contemplate either the despatch of their own forces or the acceptance of foreign forces to deal with an essentially domestic situation’. I can say that Mr Kiki’s views are very much in accord with those of this Government, and, I am confident, those of all members ofthe House. “

Papua New Guinea and Australian Ministers have constantly stated that primary responsibility for the maintenance of internal security in Papua New Guinea rests with the Papua New Guinea Police Force.

Commonwealth Superannuation Fund (Question No. 537)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

When will the five-year review of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund ending 30 June 1972 be tabled in the Senate.

Senator Willesee:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

The Reports on the Tenth Quinquennial Investigation of the Superannuation Fund as at 30 June 1972 were tabled on 21 November 1973.

Prime Minister’s Visit to China (Question No. 538)

Senator Maunsell:

asked trie Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Tom Burns, an Australian Labor Party member ofthe Queensland Parliament, travel with the Prime Minister’s party to mainland China.
  2. If so, in what capacity was he included in the party and who paid his expenses.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. (Senate Hansard, 20 November 1973, page 1904 Question 533).
  2. Mr Burns was a guest ofthe Government and people of the Peoples’ Republic of China, as he and I had been in July 1971. Apart from travel costs, his expenses were met by the Government of the Peoples ‘ Republic of China.

Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance (Question No. 540) /

Senator Greenwood:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Are the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance, dealing with takeovers, designed to prevent the acquisition of control of a listed company, by means other than purchase at ordinary meetings of the Stock Exchange, without all shareholders having equal opportunity to dispose of their shares.
  2. If this is the intention of the Ordinance, is it operating effectively, having regard to the recent acquisition control of A. and K. Cement Holdings Ltd and the subsequent drop in market price of shares in that Company following this acquisition of control.
  3. Has any investigation been made of the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of control of that Company to ensure that the provisions of the Companies Ordinance were complied with; if not, is any intended.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1) The provisions were included with a view to implementing recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Company Law Advisory Committee, designed to have the effect stated in part one of the question.
  2. and (3) In general the takeover provisions appear to be working effectively. The manner in which control of A. and K. Cement Holdings Limited was recently acquired raises the question whether dealings at meetings of the Stock Exchange should be controlled during the currency of a takeover offer. The Company Law Advisory Committee concluded that competition on the Stock Exchange should remain as free as possible where a takeover bid has been made. However, my Department will give consideration to this question, having regard to the circumstances of the A. and K. matter.

Interest Rates: Primary Producers

Senator Murphy:
ALP

-On 18 September 1973, Senator Wright asked Senator Willesee, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice seeking confirmation that the effective trading bank overdraft rate of interest prevailing now is 9.5 per cent. He also asked whether there is any differential in favour of primary industry or whether 9.5 per cent is the rate of interest currently being charged to primary producers by trading banks.

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

The rate of 9.5 per cent is the maximum overdraft rate which banks may charge on loans drawn under limits of less than $50,000, but not all such loans carry the maximum rate. A maximum rate has not been established for loans drawn against limits of $50,000 or more since February 1 972-interest rates on these loans are left to negotiation between banks and their customers.

As regards the second part of the question, the Governor of the Reserve Bank on 14 September announced that:

For some years banks have, at the request of the authorities, offered concessional rates on loans in a number of areas. In the light of the buoyant conditions now prevailing throughout the economy it is no longer appropriate for this request to be maintained ‘.

Accordingly, subject to the maximum overdraft rate where applicable, the rate of interest charged on loans to primary producers will be negotiated by banks wholly on their own assessments of credit worthiness and other factors associated with the borrowing.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On 16 October 1973, during my absence, Senator Davidson directed the following question to Senator

Murphy in his capacity as Minister representing me.

  1. Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission a policy allowing for the presentation of an alternate view-point when a particular argument has been put forward on a given issue?
  2. If so, why was noopportunityprovided in this morning’s radio program ‘A.M.’ for an alternate view-point in relation to statements made yesterday concering the Australian Conservation Foundation, especiallyasalternate viewpoints were given, and with some clarity, at thetime?

I am now able to give Senator Davidson the followinginformation: (a)Yes.

  1. The item about the Australian Conservation Foundation broadcast in ‘A.M..’ on October 16, was balanced by an item broadcast in ‘AM.’ on October 17, in which Mr John Blanch, Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation put an opposing point of view.

Sugar Salesto China

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On6 November 1973, Senator Lawrie asked theMinister representing the Minister for NorthernDevelopment the following question, withoutnotice:

My question refers to the reported sale of sugar to the People’s Republic of China. Were the Australiansugar marketing authoritiesinformedof this sale beforehand, or was the first they knew of it whentheyread of it in the Press?

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

The Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) has informed me that the Australian sugar marketing authorities were aware of his intention to discuss in Peking the question of permanent access for Australiansugar to China. Such discussions were a natural sequel to talks Dr Patterson had in Peking when he first visited China with Mr Whitlam in 1 97 1 , to the signing of the Trade Agreement between Australia and the People’s Republic of China in July 1973, and to the efforts to sell sugar to China pursuedatthe commercial level by the industry itself.

As a result of the Peking discussionswith Dr Patterson, the Chinese Government has agreed to provide long-term access for Australian sugar.The Chinese Governmenthas undertaken topurchase, by wayofa long-term sugaragreement, in the vicinity of300,000tonnes annually for athree to five year period tentatively agreed to commence in 1 975.

This undertaking was announced in Peking by Dr Patterson with the agreement of the ChineseGovernment.

The actual terms of theproposedagreement, including quan- tities and pricing arrangements, willbe thesubject of negotiation at the commerciallevel as provided forunder the terms oftheTradeAgreementbetweenthe two Governments.

Dr Patterson met with senior executives of the sugar industry in Brisbane on 9 November to explain these developments.

Sugar industry representatives have toldDrPatterson that theywelcomed the initiative hehad takenwith the Chinese Government which had achieved the basis of long-term access to the Chinese market for Australian sugar. This achievement has now set the stage for the negotiation of detailed terms of an agreement and related commercial contracts.

National Superannuation Scheme

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 7 November 1973, Senator Townley asked Senator Willesee a question without notice, concerning Superannuation Funds. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government has no plans to freeze funds of private superannuation funds and use this money towards a compulsory national superannuation scheme.

In his Election Policy Speech of 13 November 1972, the Prime Minister undertook the National Superannuation would be established in Australia after a thorough enquiry into overseas examples and Australian proposals for such a scheme and he indicated that a Committee would be appointed to recommend a scheme of National Superannuation.

A Committee of Enquiry was established on 20 March 1973 with the following formal terms of reference:

To examine and report on-

overseas and Australian proposals for national ‘ superannuation schemes;

existing overseas national superannuation schemes;

the relevance of the above proposals and schemes to present and future Australian needs; and

the financial, economic and social implications of such proposals and schemes in the Australian setting.

To make recommendations to the Government on a suitable national superannuation scheme. ‘

In carrying out its task the Committee will examine a wide range of matters including the treatment of entitlements under existing superannuation schemes, whether and if so what provisions should be made for ‘contracting out’ of the scheme and the most equitable way of financing the scheme and distributing its cost

The precise form of a National Superannuation Scheme will not be settled until after the Government has received the Committee’s recommendations.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 December 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19731206_senate_28_s58/>.