Senate
16 October 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1727

PETITIONS

Baltic States

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 22 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

African Guerrilla Movements

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-At yesterday’s sitting the Senate suspended standing order 76 to enable me to present the following petition from 6 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas it was reported in ‘Newsweek’, August 26th page 12, 1974 that the Australian Government agreed to send $225,000 for ‘humanitarian purposes’ to black guerrilla movements fighting Rhodesians, South Africans and Portuguese in southern Africa;

And whereas these guerrilla movements being members of Zapu, Zanu, Frelimo and Frolizi and other kindred organisations have been guilty of 96 documented acts of murder, abduction, mutilation, arson, cattle maiming and rape chiefly against other peaceful Africans between 22nd December, 1972 and 10th May, 1974, in Rhodesia alone;

And abducted 295 people chiefly school children from St Alberts Mission in Rhodesia as reported in the newsmedia;

And whereas these above mentioned and kindred organisations have been guilty of many other barbarous acts of brutality as reported in ‘The Silent War’ by Chris Vermaak and Reg Shaay, and the ‘Real Case for Rhodesia’ by Charlton Chesterton, both books widely read in Australia.

So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to prevent material and other assistance being sent to the above mentioned organisations in southern Africa which are guilty of various acts of terrorism as such assistance would give the impression of agreement of the Australian People and the Government to the various acts of brutality which have been perpetrated by the organisations concerned.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

African Guerrilla Movements

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 55 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas it was reported in ‘Newsweek’, 26 August, page 12, 1974, that the Australian Government agreed to send $225,000 for ‘humanitarian purposes ‘to black guerrilla movements fighting Rhodesians, South Africans and Portuguese in southern Africa;

And whereas these guerrilla movements being members of Zapu, Zanu, Frelimo and Frolizi and other kindred organisations have been guilty of 96 documented acts of murder, abduction, mutilation, arson, cattle maiming and rape chiefly against other peaceful Africans between 22 December 1972 and 10 May 1974 in Rhodesia alone;

And abducted 295 people chiefly school children from St Alberts Mission in Rhodesia as reported in the news media;

And whereas these above mentioned and kindred organisations have been guilty of many other barbarous acts of brutality as reported in ‘The Silent War’ by Chris Vermaak and Reg Shaay, and the ‘Real Case for Rhodesia’ by Charlton Chesterton, both books widely read in Australia.

So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to prevent material and other assistance being sent to the above mentioned organisations in southern Africa which are guilty of various acts of terrorism as such assistance would give the impression of agreement of the Australian people and the Government to the various acts of brutality which have been perpetrated by the organisations concerned.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

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

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator SHEIL:

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

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording and from 2, 10 and 20 citizens of Australia respectively in the following terms:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 6 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 1 16 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

3 ) The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I present 8 petitions, identical in wording and from 5, 6, 11,15, 19, 23, 26 and 27 citizens of Australia in the following terms:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill, 1974, would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition from 141 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled : The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can. assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording and from 88, 110 and 143 citizens of Australia respectively in the following terms:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $ 1 50 is $50 below the 1 956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already overcrowded and understaffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian Government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-1974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and the first petition was read.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 187 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.

That we strongly oppose the introduction of legislation which would lessen the $400 education rebate to $ 1 50:

That we require the members of Parliament to keep to the spirit of Section 13, 4(b), of the Australian Schools Commission Act which states that the Government, “Asserts the prior right of parents to choose whether their children are educated at a government or at a nongovernment school. “

That the reduction of the education rebate would prejudice the practice of this prior right as stated in Section 13, (4b), of the above mentioned Act.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measure to reduce the education rebate.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Rural Telephone Exchanges

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 30 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

1 ) That once telephone facilities have been established in rural areas, these facilities should not be discontinued in certain areas, as they deprive people the opportunity of making urgent contact with such people as medical practitioners and stock agents, who are many miles away;

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the Government to have reopened, those telephone exchanges in rural areas which previously open at all times, have now been closed during certain night hours.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 127 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Human Rights

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: whereas the countries and peoples now being administered by communist governments-Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Russia, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Romania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Albania and Cuba- are entrapped by political and economic ideals repugnant to Australian concepts of liberty and fair play; and whereas the freedom of religion, assembly, speech, movement, fair trial, and enterprise are denied to these people by their governments; and whereas Opposition political parties are suppressed, the right to strike refused, and conscripted labour cruelly exploited by these same governments.

According to the Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of the United Nations, these peoples under communism are entitled to the same freedoms as enjoyed by Australians, including independence and self-determination.

We beg that all Australian economic ties be severed with these governments until such time as they grant to their peoples the freedoms freely enjoyed by Australians as enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Human Rights

Senator CARRICK:

– I present the following petition from 25 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: whereas the countries and peoples now being administered by communist governments - Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Russia, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Romania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Albania and Cuba- are entrapped by political and economic ideals repugnant to Australian concepts of liberty and fair play; and whereas the freedom of religion, assembly, speech, movement, fair trial, and enterprise are denied to these people by their governments; and whereas Opposition political parties are suppressed, the right to strike refused, and conscripted labour cruelly exploited by these same governments.

According to the Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of the United Nations, these peoples under communism are entitled to the same freedoms as enjoyed by Australians, including independence and self-determination.

We beg that all Australian economic ties be severed with these governments until such time as they grant to their peoples the freedoms freely enjoyed by Australians as enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. (Government senators interjecting)-

Senator CARRICK:

– I am pausing to get more signatories, because the remarks of Government senators are testimony to the veracity of this petition.

Petition received.

page 1730

FAMILY LAW BILL 1974

Notice of Motion

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate is of the opinion that the Family Law Bill 1974 should not be further considered by the Senate for a period of at least 6 months, in order that-

full and proper consideration can be given by senators and all other interested persons to the Report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, tabled in the Senate on 1 S October; and

full and adequate opportunity be available for all interested persons to consider the details of the Bill and the possible or likely effects of its implementation, if carried.

page 1731

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1731

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REPORT

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Attorney-General. Has the interdepartmental committee which was investigating the application to Australia of a freedom of information Act finished its deliberations? Has the report been forwarded to the AttorneyGeneral? If it has been forwarded to the AttorneyGeneral, will he table the report so that this aspect of open government may be given open scrutiny by anyone interested in the processes of government?

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

-My understanding is that the report of the committee has been completed and some legislation has been prepared. I would like to inform the Senate with some precision on this matter, so I ask the indulgence of the Senate so that I may inform it later today or tomorrow.

page 1731

QUESTION

YANCHEP SUN CITY

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I am assuming that the Minister has been made aware already of the recent Press reports regarding the Bond Corporation’s Yanchep Sun City project in Western Australia. Is he aware that residents claim that representatives of the Bond Corporation have informed them that there are ample employment opportunities in reasonable proximity to the project, there is a private hospital in the area, local doctors are practising, there are 10 schools and a comprehensive bus service? As Yanchep Sun City is 30 miles north of Perth and does not have any industrial activity in the immediate vicinity outside the actual building of the project, does not have a private or public hospital, has no local doctor, no schools and virtually no bus service, will the Attorney-General undertake a complete investigation of the situation to ensure that the rights of the complainants are protected and that misleading information of this nature is discontinued?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Yes, I will do so to the full extent to which it is possible for this to be done under the laws of the Commonwealth.

page 1731

QUESTION

CARNARVON SPACE TRACKING STATION

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation. It relates to the closure now being effected of the space vehicle tracking station at Carnarvon in Western Australia. In view of its considerable historical and tourist value will the Government consider preserving the main building and vesting the building and immediate surrounds of the telemetry and control area in the shire of Carnarvon for the purpose of a museum? Towards this end will the Government assist also in the retention of photographs, plaques and other data worthy of preservation?

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

-The matter that has been raised by the honourable senator raises issues which would appear to impinge on the responsibilities of several of my ministerial colleagues and their departments. I am given to understand that the station was established as an essential link in the worldwide chain of stations that were set up to help the Apollo project originally to put a man on the moon. I am given to understand that the station is to be vacated next year and the equipment at Carnarvon is to be removed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The future use of the buildings is to be examined by the Department of Services and Property. I believe also that the Department of Manufacturing Industry is considering what sort of mementoes might be passed on to the local authorities at Carnarvon. I suggest to the honourable senator that the Carnarvon Council might agree to bring its plans to establish a museum to the attention of the committee of inquiry that has been established by the Australian Government to inquire into museums and matters relating to national collections.

So far as the tourist aspect of the honourable senator’s question is concerned I have been informed by my colleague the Minister for Tourism and Recreation that there will be a continuing interest in the tracking station by visitors to the area although its appeal as a tracking station itself naturally must diminish when activities cease there. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has advised me that the highway to Port Hedland is almost completely sealed and that an ever increasing number of motorists visit the area. I am sure that the preservation of the station and the associated relics would add very much to the attraction of the area. If the honourable senator or the Carnarvon Council, through him, wishes to pursue any further matter having regard to the answer I have given him, I suggest he write to me and I will take up the matter with the relevant Ministers.

page 1732

QUESTION

SALE OF FIREWORKS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware of the recent Press report announcing the intention of the Government of Victoria to ban, from 15 November, the general sale to the public in that State of all exploding fireworks? In view of the serious concern expressed by the general community over the misuse of fireworks, will the Minister be prepared to prohibit the importation of exploding fireworks?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Yes. I am aware of the very great concern which has been expressed. I will give consideration to the proposal made by the honourable senator. Some work has been done already in this connection by the Department.

page 1732

QUESTION

EXPORT OF KANGAROO PRODUCTS

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. In reference to the ban placed on the export of goods made of kangaroo fur, is it possible for him to lift the ban on manufactured goods or at least give a definite date as to when the ban will be lifted? I am informed that there are manufacturers who have great quantities of these articles. Some 1,500 employees are dependent on the ban being lifted as the local market is not able to use the amount of goods being manufactured, even though there has been a cut back in production over the last 18 months. I am informed also that only Government authorised culled pelts are used. Therefore it would seem sensible that full use be made of these by-products.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Of course, it is possible to lift the ban but the question of whether it should be done is another matter. The Senate may recall that the ban, as such, was imposed in 1923. The law then provided- since then there have been some slight changes- that there should be no export of such items as the skins of native animals of Australia. A provision was added that these skins could be exported with the consent of the Minister. Until last year, of course, the Minister responsible always consented in the case of kangaroos. This matter has been examined and it was found that there was no proper nationally co-ordinated program of conservation and management, despite all the suggestions that there was such a program. Therefore, consent was refused on and from 1 April.

My understanding is that we have still not reached any nationally co-ordinated program of conservation and management. Some States have endeavoured to do this; there has been quite a bit of progress in some of the States. What has happened is that no commercial exports have been permitted, but noncommercial exports of manufactured goods have been permitted. We have probably reached the stage where the non-commerical export should be restricted to those articles which derive from those States or certainly those places which are acting in accordance with the working program for conservation and management, as an encouragement to the others to pursue this course.

What disturbs me, though, is that I have been informed that a great deal of killing has been going on in the anticipation that this ban which the honourable senator has described will be lifted. I would think- and I am certainly speaking for myself- that under no circumstances would the ban be relaxed so as to enable the export of skins which have been taken during the period when the ban was imposed and which have been stored up in the thought that there might be some bonanza when the ban was lifted or consent was given. Therefore, I am not able to say more than that the ban, if one so describes it, might be intensified in the sense that only manufactured goods of non-commercial quantity when taken in accordance with the working program would be permitted to be exported in the future. If a scheme can be devised to do that, I think, this intensification would be in the interests of the conservation of kangaroos and an encouragement to those areas which were acting in accordance with the program.

page 1732

QUESTION

ALLEGED BREACHES OF TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Attorney-General as the Minister administering the Trade Practices Act, a new version of which came into operation on 1 October this year. Does the Minister recall my recent approach to him concerning allegations of breaches of the Trade Practices Act in respect of practices in Tasmania in relation to the production and processing of certain types of farm produce and also in relation to buying practices in stock saleyards? Can the Minister indicate to the Senate the means to be provided to detect or otherwise to bring to notice offences under the Act, and also the means to be employed to examine instances of offences under the Act?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The Trade Practices Act provides for the institution of proceedings either by the Attorney-General or by the Trade Practices Commission, and the Senate may recall the various other provisions in the Act. Normally it would be done in either of these 2 ways. That means that where evidence is brought to the attention of the Attorney-General’s Department or directly to the Trade Practices Commission, investigations can take place by the officers of the Department or of the Commission, and if it is demonstrated that there is a breach of the Act various proceedings can be instituted. Also, there is the opportunity for private persons who have been damaged by breaches of the Act to institute proceedings.

page 1733

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Is not the admission by the United Nations of the Palestine Liberation Organisation into a United Nations debate a regrettable recognition by the world body that international terrorism pays? Has the Minister read the description in the editorial of one of our Australian newspapers of the Palestine Liberation Organisation as responsible for more murderous terrorism outside Northern Ireland than any other organisation in the world? Why did not the Government vote against the admission of the Palestine Liberation Organisation into the United Nations?

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

– I read a leading article which made some reference to this matter. I thought it was quite fair because it went on to say that here was a situation with which the United Nations was confronted and if, in some way, it could bring about some sort of resolution of the Palestinian problem that would be a plus. Let me give the full story on this matter. A resolution which provided for the Palestine Liberation Organisation to participate as ‘the representatives of the Palestinian people’ in plenary session during the General Assembly’s deliberations on the question of Palestine was put to the vote on 14 October. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of PLO participation. It was recorded as 105 for, 4 against and 20 abstentions. Australia was one of the abstainers. Israel, the United States of America, Bolivia and the Dominican Republic were the only countries which voted against the resolution. Australia’s abstention was in the company of Belgium, Burma, Canada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Laos, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and some 10 others. New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, France, Italy and Ireland were among those countries which supported the resolution.

In an explanation of vote, the Australian representative expressed doubts about departure from the established practice of keeping debates in plenary session to representatives of the member states of the United Nations. However, he stated that organisations and individuals having legitimate reasons for doing so should not be denied the opportunity of addressing the United Nations by invitation, but that these opportunities had traditionally been provided by the committees of the General Assembly. He added that if a representative of the PLO had addressed one of those committees he would have been listened to just as closely, whether or not he was speaking for the whole of the Palestinian Arab Liberation Movement and whatever views we may have about some of the methods of that Movement. In the same explanation our representative also stated that there can be no permanent and just settlement in the Middle East which takes account of all the provisions of Security Council resolution 242 until the Palestinians can be assured of fair treatment, permanent homes and secure hopes for the future. In conclusion our representative explained that Australia was also unable to support the resolution because we were not convinced that it would assist the delicate process of negotiation towards a lasting Middle East settlement.

page 1733

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE BOUNTY

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he has seen reports of a recent meeting between Dr Cairns and Mr Noel Hogan, President of the Australia Farmers Federation. Was the Minister informed that the meeting was to take place? If so, was the Minister present? Has the Minister seen a transcript of Mr Hogan ‘s interview of 9 October on ‘National Farming News’ in which he said that Dr Cairns had indicated with very nice assurances that the Government might change its mind about abandoning the superphosphate bounty? As the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, has made such comments, will the Minister make a firm statement on this matter to clarify the situation?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-I am not aware that Dr Cairns had discussions with Mr Hogan. I see no reason why he should not. Any Minister is at liberty, as is any other member of Parliament, to hold private discussions with any member of industry, if he so desires. I am not aware of the alleged statement. I did not hear Mr Hogan ‘s comments on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think it would be more appropriate for me to advise Dr Cairns of the question and to seek any further comment he wishes to make. As to the Government’s policy on superphosphate, that has been stated on innumerable occasions. It has not altered. That is the position that stands now.

page 1734

QUESTION

CYPRUS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the Greek language newspaper ‘New Country’ of 10 October? That publication asserts that of 138 speakers at the United Nations the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs was the only one who did not refer to the current problems in Cyprus. The article went on to say that the Greek Government was astounded by this lack of concern and that a protest had been made to the Australian Government. Consequently, I ask the Minister to give us the facts of the incident referred to in the article.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I would very much like to give the facts. I have seen the article. It appeared on the front page of the newspaper to which Senator Mulvihill referred. I do not think it would be possible for the story to be more wrong since every one of the points it rnakes is quite false and is based on allegations which have no foundation whatever in truth. Let me take the allegations point by point. The first point is that I as Australia’s Foreign Minister was the only Foreign Minister making a speech to the United Nations who did not refer to the Cyprus situation. I would like to quote from a copy of the address I gave as leader of the Australian delegation in the general debate in plenary session on 7 October. It is a little lengthy but because of the serious allegations that have been made, Mr President, I ask for your indulgence. I said:

In the case of Cyprus it is again easier to state broad principles on which there would be general international agreement than to set out a position in detail. Indeed, those details, for example, whether there should be a federal form of government, and if so, with what provisions, we see as matters for negotiation and agreement between the representatives of the 2 communities. Governments that are parties to the I960 agreements and the Secretary-General and his representatives may be able to assist in this process, yet the ultimate choice must be for the communities to agree upon. It is not for outsiders to say what the people of Cyprus should choose. The Australian Government does say unequivocally that it fully supports the continued independence of Cyprus and that the solution of its problems must be reached without outside force.

One immediate and pressing humanitarian problem is that of the many thousands of refugees displaced by the violent events of the past 2 months. Australia has joined with other countries in making a special monetary contribution to assist them, but the real refugee problem is clearly a much deeper one than immediate relief and is entangled with the question of a political solution. For over a decade Australia has also contributed and paid for a contingent of police to the United Nations force in Cyprus. This we will continue to provide along with the additional financial contributions we have also been making each year to the United Nations efforts in Cyprus.

The second point which the article makes is that the Greek Government was astounded by our supposed lack of concern and made a protest to the Australian Government. It is absolutely untrue that any protest was made to us over this issue since the Greek Government is much better informed of the facts of the matter than the particular newspaper which published the article to which Senator Mulvihill referred. As to the attitude of the Greek Government, in New York I spent more time with Mr Mavros. the Greek Foreign Minister, than with the Foreign Minister of any other country. I had 2 long conversations with Mr Mavros and was a guest of his at dinner.

I can assure the Senate that the Greek Government has no complaint to make, no concern to express and no quarrel at all with Australia ‘s policy on the matter of Cyprus. My relations with Mr Mavros were excellent and he appreciatedhe stated this- the concern Australia had shown over the Cyprus question. I should also inform Senator Mulvihill that my office has written to the ‘New Country’ newspaper seeking a retraction of the item in question which I cannot help but think was based on information supplied by people who would seek to bring discredit on the very responsible and very concerned role which Australia is playing in Cyprus as a member of the Security Council, through our peacekeeping force in Cyprus and through our humanitarian assistance to refugees in Cyprus. I am glad that the Greek Government has given no currency to this mischievous story.

Senator Greenwood:

– I wish to raise a point of order. Are we still at the time of questions without notice and was the questioner reading the answer which Senator Willesee was in fact giving to the Senate? If that be so, is it a practice which is to be continued?

The PRESIDENT:

– There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent Senator Willesee answering in full the question which was asked by Senator Mulvihill.

page 1734

QUESTION

PETROLEUM SUPPLIES

Senator SCOTT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the evidence submitted to the royal commission on petroleum in Sydney last week emphasising the critical fuel supply position throughout the country, will the Minister undertake that the Government will use its maximum influence to ensure an urgent increase in supplies, in particular of distillate and gasoline to secure full scale operation in harvest, soil preparation, sowing, factory and council operations in the immediate and continuing future?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I shall refer the question to the Prime Minister so that he may answer it if he thinks that any further answer needs to be given than the information which I have just received from the Minister for Agriculture who has told me that an announcement has been made by one of the major oil companies- the Shell company- that adequate supplies are available.

page 1735

QUESTION

LOCUSTS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen reports in the Queensland Press that the Australian Government, while assisting financially in the control of the plague locust, has refused funds to fight the spur throated locust swarms now threatening crops in Queensland? What are the facts of the situation?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-This matter was raised, I think by Senator Martin, some 2 or 3 months ago. I indicated at that time that the position which was taken by the Australian Agricultural Council last February was that the Australian plague locust constituted a national problem whereas the spur throated species, which is the main concern in Queensland, is largly confined to that State. It is customary in relation to matters which are of concern within a State’s borders and where that State seeks assistance from the Australian Government, that the State concerned approach the Federal Government on a Premier to Prime Minister basis. No such request has come forward to the Prime Minister in relation to this current outbreak in Queensland. Until such time as a request does come forward, the Australian Government cannot be expected to initiate any moves to assist in that area. We have agreed, in conjunction with Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, to establish the Australian Plague Locust Commission. Those 4 States and the Australian Government will share the financial cost involved. Even though it is called the Australian Plague Locust Commission the door has not been closed to extending the activities of the Commission to cover such species as the spur throated locust, which undoubtedly does cause a problem in Queensland. But until such times as we receive a request from the Premier of Queensland, there is certainly no action which the Australian Government can be expected to take.

page 1735

QUESTION

COLLAPSE OF BRISBANE COMPANY

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that George Stevens Pty Ltd, a Brisbane based building contractor and land developer, has gone into receivership and that Mr Stevens has blamed the Marxist policy of the Australian Government for the collapse of his company? Is the Minister also aware that the same Mr George Stevens picked up the tab for $20,000 from Leo Burnett Pty Ltd, an advertising agency, on behalf of the Australian Country Party in Queensland? Will the Minister inquire whether this bill has been paid? If it has not, will he use his best endeavours to see that the payment of it does not get priority over the payment of tradesmen or other people in the building industry?

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

– I know very little about George Stevens Pty Ltd. I know more about the Marxist policy of the Australian Labor Party and I make no apologies if it puts out of business those who pay the advertising debts of the Australian Country Party in Queensland. Anyone supporting the Country Party in Queensland- as distinct from the Country Party in other States- would see a Marxist threat or a communist bogey under every bush in the State. I am asked: Who will be paid? I suppose Mr Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland thinks that he should have some priority for payment of his advertising transaction. Under Commonwealth bankruptcy legislation the priorities are clear. I know that wages, long service leave and annual leave have high priority. Having been in the Senate on the occasion when the relevant Bill was discussed, I cannot recall a high priority being given to the payment of the debts of a political party. I do not think it will receive preference over workmen.

page 1735

QUESTION

LABOR PARTY CONFERENCE

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the next triennial Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party is due to be held in a few months’ time? Is it also a fact that decisions made by that Conference are binding on all parliamentary members of the Labor Party? In the event of the Conference bringing down policies contrary to those adopted by this Government, with particular reference to the recent Budget, does that mean that those measures which have been overturned by the Conference will be rescinded?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-We have heard a lot of nonsense from time to time from honourable senators opposite, even when they were in government, about outside interference and people being bound by votes. They always forget that it is a traditional feature of our parliamentary party system that even Cabinet is bound by votes. The important aspect about the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party is that for the whole of this century there has been a great party representing about half of the people- sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less than half- and it has evolved a democratic structure whereby delegates are elected properly from the various States and from trade union organisations to conferences at State level. From there they go to the Federal Conference which meets and debates openly in the full glare of publicity, with television coverage. It makes decisions which are publicised to all the people of Australia. We know what those decisions are. We know that when the members of Parliament go into Parliament they faithfully try to carry out those decisions.

On the other hand we have a party which seems to operate in some very curious way. It meets but its decisions are not properly publicised. Even when decisions are made it reserves them to itself. The members of that party are subjected to all sorts of powerful and unknown influences outside. Pressure groups and lobbyists can go along. No matter what has been stated, a Liberal-Country Party Cabinet can be influenced. Ministers from the Liberal and Country Parties can no doubt be influenced by powerful unknown pressures upon them. I think it is for the people of Australia to decide which they prefer, and they have indicated that twice in the last couple of years. They prefer the open, democratic and well-known method instead of the secret pressure groups which are behind and pushing those opposite and keeping them where they deserve to be, in opposition.

page 1736

QUESTION

HOUSING FOR ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Has a firm of consultants, Clarke, Gazzard and Flower, put forward a plan for re-housing the Aboriginal community at Mowanjum? Does the plan provide for the construction of homes on part of an easement for the overland telegraph line and was the proposed site within 1,000 feet of a projected extension of the local airport runway? Has the re-housing plan for this area been cancelled and was the firm concerned paid or is it to be paid approximately $7,000 in fees for a plan which was unworkable?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I know nothing of the housing plan, the period when the consultants made this report, or what the report is about. I suggest that the honourable senator put the question on notice and I will get the full details.

page 1736

QUESTION

FAMILY LAW LEGISLATION

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to Senator James McClelland as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and it relates to a report of that Committee. I ask this question in the light of a statement in the Senate yesterday that the Committee limited its work on the Family Law Bill as follows:

Indeed, it is only with regard to the term of reference relating to the clauses of the Bill that any work has been done. . . .

Obviously the consideration of the clauses of the Bill was to be a pan of the consideration of the larger matter. What we are denied by this report is the consideration by this Committee of all the submissions which it received prior to 1 973 in terms of what should be the objectives of family law legislation in this country. We have, as it were, an isolated examination of the clauses of this Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator Chaney to ask his question.

Senator CHANEY:

-That is the end of the quotation. Can Senator James McClelland inform the Senate what consideration, if any, the Committee when preparing its report gave to the larger matter of the philosophy and objectives which family law legislation should be recognising and endeavouring to achieve? Further, what was the Committee’s action with respect to receiving the views of persons opposed to the Bill, noting its comment that it received the views of adherents to the Bill only?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback yesterday by Senator Greenwood ‘s readiness to give a considered opinion about a document which, on his own admission, had been in his hands a couple of minutes. I can only hope for the sake of his clients that his legal opinions are based on a longer examination of the facts.

Senator Webster:

– What a lot of rubbish.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Senator Webster obviously needs no enlightenment on these matters but seeing that a member on the other side of the chamber has asked me for some information I assume that other honourable senators would like to hear what I have to say. One of the things that was said by Senator Greenwood was that copies of the Bill had not been readily available for consideration by people who might be opposed to it. I would remind honourable senators, including Senator

Webster, that the Bill which we are now considering and which was considered by the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is identical in the matters to which exception is taken to a Bill which was introduced in this Senate on 13 December 1973. The present Bill, it is true, differs in some particulars from that Bill but the gravamen of the complaints against this Bill is about the one ground of irretrievable breakdown that is introduced in place of the guilt grounds which at present exist in the matrimonial law. This section of the Bill which the Committee has been considering is the same as that introduced in December 1973. The Bill was also introduced in April 1 974 but it could not be considered because of certain events with which we are all familiar. Is it seriously suggested now by anybody, including Senator Greenwood, that somehow or other the opponents of this Bill have been ambushed and have had no opportunity to consider it? Such a suggestion certainly will not stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Abundant copies of the report, which was introduced yesterday will be available to members of the general public. Those who are opposed to the Bill will have abundant opportunity to study the report and to lobby members of the Senate or of the other place in opposition to it. No attempt has been made or is being made by anybody to ambush the opponents of this Bill.

The suggestion has been made that we were limited in our consideration of the Bill by the mere fact that we did not invite members of the public who were opposed to the Bill to put in submissions on the general philosophy of matrimonial law. I suggest that all honourable senators who entertain that doubt seriously should examine the report, which sets out in detail the submissions which were available to the Committee in reaching its conclusions on this Bill.

Senator Carrick:

– Did you advertise for submissions?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I invite Senator Carrick to have a look at the report.

Senator Carrick:

– I am asking.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will answer the honourable senator. The reference made to this Committee on 16 August, inviting us to make a report on the Bill, was such that we were asked to report to the Senate on the clauses of the Bill by 18 September 1974. Is it seriously suggested that we should have sent out a message inviting the whole world to put in submissions, given people time to put in their missions

Senator Carrick:

– Did you ever advertise?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. If the honourable senator looks at the report he will see that back in 1971-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask the honourable senator to reply to the question asked by Senator Chaney.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, Mr President. We did advertise and we received voluminous submissions, all of which were considered by all the members of the Committee. The Hansard record containing evidence from witnesses who were called as long ago as 3 years back was considered by the Committee in reaching its conclusions on the Bill. So the suggestion that in some way this was a slap-dash examination on narrow grounds and directed only to the Bill itself just will not stand up. The Committee’s conclusions on this Bill were informed by a close examination of the points of view which were put by people representing a wide spectrum of opinion in the community.

One of the points made in particular by Senator Greenwood was: ‘Many people feel they have been misled and let down by the course which this Committee has adopted ‘. Again I ask honourable senators to read the report, in which it is made clear that the church organisations, which presumably are the people to whom the honourable senator refers, dragged their feet in a very odd way in putting in submissions in regard to the original reference, so much so that on 12 June 1973- almost 2 years after we received the general reference- it was necessary for me to write to the heads of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational Union Churches in Australia asking them to put in their submissions to the Committee. Are these the people who have been misled or who have not had a chance to let us know what their opinions are? We had to go after them to get them to tell us what their opinions were. Finally, they did put in opinions which were considered by all the members of the Committee in bringing down this report. So the suggestion that somehow or other people have been ambushed or do not know what this Bill is about or that those who feel strongly about it have not had a chance to be heard on the matter is just so much hogwash.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

- Mr President, I have a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honourable senator needs clarification-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– No, I was going to make a statement in the same way as we have heard Senator James McClelland make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, I will not allow that. I do not really want questions of the nature of that last question asked. In future, questions will be confined to seeking information from chairmen of committees. Any further elaboration on the matter can quite easily be covered during the debate on the matter later.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

- Mr President, will you allow my supplementary question?

The PRESIDENT:

– No, the honourable senator said that he wanted to elaborate.

page 1738

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF ABORIGINES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of a report which appeared in the Murray Valley ‘Standard’ of 3 October stating that 25 Aborigines were dismissed from the Murray Bridge Corporation when Aboriginal employment grants were stopped? Did the Australian Government make funds available to the Murray Bridge Corporation for the employment of Aborigines? If so, were these funds stopped? If they were, what were the reasons?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I have not seen the report referred to, but at no time were funds stopped, refused or withdrawn from the Murray Bridge Corporation. I recall attending a meeting of the Murray Bridge Corporation once with Senator McLaren to discuss the matter. On that occasion we granted $34,000 in funds to employ 18 Aborigines on a special works project during the last financial year. I believe this project, as envisaged, has been completed and we have reports that the Corporation was very pleased with the standard of work attained by the Aboriginal people. But it does appear that the Murray Bridge Corporation neglected to lodge a further application for funds for this financial year. The work ceased because the other funds ran out. An application was not lodged in sufficient time for a continuation of funds. We have now received from the Murray Bridge Corporation a further application for a special works allocation of $37,400 to employ Aborigines during the financial year 1 974-75. Such funds will allow the continuation of the previously commenced employment project. I am advised that the funds will be shortly available to the Corporation.

page 1738

QUESTION

CALL FROM THE CHAIR

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, are you seeking to ask a question? If you wish to seek elucidation of an answer you are entitled to ask a question but you must not debate the issue.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Perhaps the simple way would be to give me the call in due course and I will ask the question. That may avoid getting into controversy. I wish to make a point in relation to Senator James McClelland ‘s answer.

page 1738

QUESTION

AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS LICENCES

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the PostmasterGeneral advise whether the Australian Post Office proposes to lower the qualifying standard for an amateur radio operators ‘ licence?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-There is the odd case of a person who is well equipped theoretically to pass the examination but who fails to do so. Following a recent representation a special examination was arranged for such a person who had tried several times. However, we do not intend to lower the standard. It is proposed to introduce Novice Amateur Radio Operators ‘ Certificates ‘ and ‘Associated Amateur Radio Operators’ Licences’. These novice certificates and licences will be available regardless of the age of the applicant. However, it is intended to restrict the power and the frequency of the station when so approved.

page 1738

QUESTION

REDCLIFFS PETROCHEMICAL PLANT

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy aware that a number of speculative reports have been published concerning the proposal to build a petrochemical plant at Redcliffs in South Australia? Is the Minister aware that despite a huge projected public expenditure, said to be of the order of $90,000 a job, the plant is likely to have a life span of between 10 and 15 years only. Is the Minister aware that the cost of gas has been raised by approximately 25 per cent because of the altered tax provisions concerning the mining industry included in the Budget? Is the Minister aware that a report in this morning’s Age’ indicates that the Minister for Minerals and Energy has over-estimated the gas reserves at Palm Valley by 700 to 800 per cent? In view of these factors will the Minister clarify the Redcliffs position and give an undertaking that he will not approve any reckless commitment by the South Australian Premier for the disposal of South Australian gas resources for the benefit of industries situated in foreign countries, which will put at risk the supply of gas needed for existing and potential users in South Australia and Sydney?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The matter raised by Senator Hall is a long question. It is an important matter which I think should go to the Minister concerned for an appropriate answer.

page 1739

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY AT ALBURY-WODONGA

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Education inform the Senate of the progress that has been made in the planning of the university to be established at Albury-Wodonga? What is the proposed opening date of that university?

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

– I do not have the facts available to me. I therefore request the honourable senator to put the question on notice.

page 1739

QUESTION

RESTORATION OF INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

Senator SHEIL:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that restoration of the investment allowance as a means of boosting business confidence could not be justified but that the Government would consider restoration if circumstances changed. I ask: Is the Government concerned about the present low level of confidence within the business community? Does the Government expect this situation to improve or deteriorate as a result of the Budget and other recent economic measures? Under what changed circumstances would the Government reconsider investment allowances?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The answers to the honourable senator’s questions, as I recall them, are yes, yes, and when the time seems appropriate.

page 1739

QUESTION

ADVANCE TO WHEAT GROWERS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Agriculture what progress has been made in speeding up the flow of funds to wheat growers from the 1973-74 wheat pool? Has the third advance been paid and, if not, when is it expected?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– There were delays in the third payment to wheat growers from the 1973-74 crop which were occasioned by several factors. The Senate will recall that recently the Parliament passed new legislation in respect of the wheat industry which now permits the Australian Wheat Board to borrow money commercially for the purpose of expediting further payments under the pool system. The third payment has in fact been made. It was made yesterday. An amount of $5 per tonne, which is 13c a bushel, was paid. It should be remembered that the amending legislation that has been passed recently has enabled the Australian Wheat Board now to borrow and thus to accelerate the payments to wheat growers. The accommodation has been found through the Commonwealth Trading Bank and I understand the repayment of the loans will be made within about a week.

page 1739

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator MISSEN:

– I ask my question of the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. My question relates to the confusion which has arisen in relation to the procedures laid down for applications for financial assistance by local government bodies to the Grants Commission. I ask: Does the Minister agree that there is some confusion in the brochure forwarded to local government bodies which refers, at one point, to the Prime Minister’s statement that applications for assistance with single purpose or specific developmental projects will not be the concern of the Grants Commission, yet advises that councils may identify particular expenditure or revenue disabilities likely to justify their claim for financial assistance? Does he agree that in Victoria at least, certain councils have enumerated specific projects and have received grants for these purposes while other councils have refrained from doing so and have suffered accordingly? Is he prepared to re-examine and clarify the brochure to ensure that obscurities will be removed so as to assist in the preparation of applications for the forthcoming year?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I will refer Senator Missen ‘s question to the Special Minister of State and obtain an answer for him.

page 1739

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT

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

-Has the attention of the Minister for the Media been drawn to the editorials appearing in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ and the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ expressing criticism of proposed amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act which have been designed to settle the ambiguity of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s powers under the Act? Are both of these newspapers very heavily involved in commercial television companies, and do they both enjoy the protection of what are known as the excessive interests section of the Act? Do the newspapers therefore very much have a vested interest in seeing that the Control Board remains a toothless organisation? Is it right to say that the present Bill does not contain a right of appeal from determinations of the Control Board?

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

-My attention has been drawn to the editorials in today’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ and Melbourne ‘Herald’. As the honourable senator has stated, these 2 newspaper interests enjoy the benefit of the protective interests section of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that they are the only two remaining newspaper interests which do enjoy the protective benefits of that section of the Act. I also have noticed a lot of uninformed and, might I say, near hysterical comments about a number of sections in the Bill. For instance, I saw it written somewhere that the Bill takes away the right of appeal against determinations that are made by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The simple fact is that under the existing Act- an Act of the previous Government- a right of appeal against such determinations has never existed. But if that be a criticism, because we are legislating to provide that the Board in exercising its powers under this section shall confer not only with the commercial broadcasting and television stations in reaching determinations under this section of the Act, as it has to do at the present time, but also with other interested parties, I certainly would be prepared to consider giving a right of appeal to all such organisations and persons. That right would have to apply naturally to any interested person or organisation as well as to commercial broadcasting and television stations, and it certainly would have to apply to the unions that are involved in the media industries.

I inform the honourable senator that tomorrow I shall confer with representatives of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and of the Federation of Commercial Broadcasters, and I have requested my colleague the Leader of the House of Representatives not to proceed with the debate on the legislation that has been introduced into that chamber pending my discussions with those organisations. However, I want to make it quite clear that the Government insists that the legislation is designed to confirm what already has been believed by the Parliament and the public to be the existing powers of the Board, and the legislation is being introduced only because those powers have been challenged by some of the stations. On 7 April 1972 the then Acting PostmasterGeneral, Senator Cotton, said that the then Government- the Liberal Government- would be asked to consider an amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act to clarify the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to regulate programs on Sunday mornings. The Acting Postmaster-General then said that he was taking the course of making the announcement immediately to avoid putting the stations, the Commonwealth or any others to the expense and difficulty involved in legal action; that it was particularly important in a matter which the Government recognised was open to doubt that the position be made clear for the benefit of licensees generally; and that he hoped the then Government would be able to consider the proposed amendment to the legislation within the next 10 days. The then Government did not introduce legislation to amend the Act. This Government is seeking to amend the Act to confirm the existing powers of the Control Board.

page 1740

QUESTION

REPORT OF THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In reply to the first leg of the question, yes, it is a fact that only 2 honourable senators have been members of the Committee from the time of the first reference, namely, Senator Durack and myself. The other members of the Committee, Senators Missen and Chaney from the Opposition side and Senators Everett and Button from this side, have been members of the Committee only since 18 May. But I really commend to Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson that he read this report a little more carefully and that he also read the interim report which was tabled by the Committee in September 1974. He will find that an abundance of evidence, including the original Hansards which were received by the Committee before the 4 last named honourable senators came on to it, was available to those honourable senators. I commend to the honourable senator also what Senator Missen said last night. He said that he had carefully read the previous Hansards and all the submissions. To suggest that any member of the Committee was starved of information once again just will not stand up.

The second leg of the question was: Was the specific reference on the Family Law Bill made to the Committee only on 16 August 1974? Yes, it was. It is clear, if the reference is studied with any sort of care, that the Senate certainly did not have in mind that the Committee would embark on a wide ranging, general inquiry into the history, philosophy and sociological implications of matrimonial law; otherwise surely it would not have set us the herculean task of reporting within one month. So we believe that we were carrying out the clear intention of the Senate in using as background information all the submissions which we had received previously, over a period of 3 years, but directing our inquiry to the clauses of the Bill.

The third part of the question was: Is it a fact that we sat only 3 times to receive oral submissions? Yes, that is a fact. We chose the people whom we heard with great care. We chose practising lawyers, including a judge of the only family court which exists in Australia, namely, Judge Burnett of the South Australian court. We chose members of the law councils of Australia. We chose practising barristers, judges and people of that ilk so that they could tell us in a workmanlike way what was wrong with the detailed clauses of the Bill. The selection was not based on any notion that we were receiving evidence only from those who favoured the Bill. We selected the people who as practitioners could tell us what was wrong with the Bill and how it could be improved. I believe that the Committee has had its mind amply informed and that it has had the opportunity to consider everything that it needed to consider in order to make up its mind about this Bill. As I said yesterday, I believe that the work of the Committee has been a credit to the Senate. It has been the Senate system of committees at its very best. I have never seen a committee which has applied its mind so well, so conscientiously and with such dedication to its task. I believe that the report it has put down is one of the very best reports to emerge from the Senate committee.

page 1741

QUESTION

CAMBRIDGE CREDIT CORPORATION LTD

Senator MILLINER:

– Can the AttorneyGeneral indicate whether Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd accepted financial investments almost up to the day on which it was announced that the company was in the hands of a receiver? Will the Minister ascertain whether the aforementioned circumstance is substantially correct? If so, is the acceptance of financial investments in such a circumstance legal?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I do not have any relevant information I can supply to the honourable senator about how the company is operated. However, I will have inquiries made and will inform the Senate about the matter as much as the Senate can properly be informed.

page 1741

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator MISSEN:

– Yes. I refer to a statement which appears on page 4 of today’s ‘Australian’ and an almost identical article which appears in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’. The article which appears in the ‘Australian’ is headed ‘Divorce Law Study agrees with Proposed Bill’. In many ways what follows is a most inadequate and misleading report. But the part of it which refers to me is a statement which describes the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in these terms:

But the committee differed along Party lines on the length of period of separation in proving irretrievable breakdown.

The four Labor members opted for a 12 month period while the two Opposition senators preferred two years.

This difference will be resolved when the legislation is being debated in the Senate.

Which period is accepted will depend on the votes of the two independent senators.

There are several misrepresentations in that statement. The Committee did not differ on party lines in relation to that matter. It divided 4 votes to 2, and the 4 votes included my vote as a Liberal Party member of the Senate. There are not 4 Labor Party members on the Committee in question. Of course, the conclusions that follow from that in the report are misleading. There was no difficulty in determining the members of the Committee because page 24 of the Committee’s report lists the members of the Committee who had differing views on the matter in question. I say that the article is defamatory, particularly in the eyes of members on this side of the Senate, because it claims that I am a member of the Labor Party. For different reasons it is probably equally abhorrent to honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. Whatever may be the feelings of honourable senators, I object to the article because of what it says and what it claims. I raise this matter in the Senate in the hope and the expectation that the newspapers in question will correct the gross misrepresentation which they have published.

page 1742

REPORT ON TOURISM AND RECREATION

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

For the information of honourable senators I present a report prepared for the Australian Department of Tourism and Recreation by Consultation Planning Survey Services entitled ‘Demand for Recreation Workers’.

page 1742

AUSTRALIAN WINE BOARD

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the interim annual report of the Australian Wine Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1742

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)Pursuant to section 122 of the Repatriation Act 1920-1974 I present for the information of honourable senators the annual report of the Repatriation Commission for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1742

QUESTION

CONFERENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICERS AND CLERKS OF PARLIAMENT

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) I seek leave to table the report of the sixth Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks of the Parliaments of Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being not objection, leave is granted.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-For the information of honourable senators, I lay on the table of the Senate the report of the sixth Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks of the Parliaments of Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, and Western Samoa, which took place in Darwin from 1 8 to 20 June 1 974.

page 1742

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the States in relation to the Aboriginal people of Australia.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This is the eighth States Grants Bill in relation to Aboriginal affairs to be introduced into the Australian Parliament since the Australian Government entered this field after the referendum in 1967. Previous Acts have carried the title ‘States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Act’, but the title of the present Bill demonstrates the Australian Government’s wish to move away from the patronising attitudes connoted by the use of the term ‘advancement’. This Bill provides for a total of $40.79m to be paid to the States in 1974-75 for the purpose of financial assistance in relation to Aboriginal people. This amount represents an increase of $7. 54m or 26 per cent over the funds of $32.25m provided to the States for this purpose in 1973-74.

As honourable senators will know, my predecessors developed the practice of using the second reading speech for this Bill as a kind of annual report on the Australian Government’s work in Aboriginal affairs. My Department is now preparing a report on the activities of its first 18 months, and intends to follow this with regular annual reports. I do not propose, therefore, to set out in this speech details of programs other than those related to the States grants, but to speak briefly about the Australian Government’s general policies and approach in this field. I seek the agreement of the Senate, however, to the incorporation in Hansard of several tables similar to those of previous years. Table 1 sets out the broad purposes of the proposed payments to the States, and the increases in the 1974-75 proposed payments as compared with the 1973-74 programs. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 1743

TABLE 1

page 1743

PROPOSED PAYMENTS TO THE STATES-1974-75

Figures in Brackets are 1 973-74 payments

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– Table 2 sets out the grants to the States over the 6 year period 1968-69 to 1974-75. Honourable senators will notice that by far the largest single increase in grants to the States, $ 12.8m, occurred in the first year after the Labor Government took office. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 1743

TABLE 2

page 1743

GRANTS TO THE STATES-TOTALS 1969-70 TO 1974-75

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– Honourable senators will also notice that an increase of $400,000 is provided for Queensland in this Bill. The Senate will be aware of the intransigence on the part of the Queensland Government in respect of the Australian Government’s attempts to achieve a collaborative approach to Aboriginal affairs throughout Australia. A large measure of cooperation has been achieved with all other States. Not only have the Queensland Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs refused to co-operate; they have refused even to participate in discussions on matters of mutual concern to the Queensland and Australian governments in the Aboriginal affairs field. In the light of this attitude, the Australian Government has decided to make funds available under this legislation to the Queensland Government only for programs for which an unavoidable commitment has been entered into.

The Australian Government will ensure that additional programs in Queensland will be carried out through local Aboriginal community organisations, the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs and other instrumentalities. It will ensure that the Aborigines and Islanders of

Queensland are not disadvantaged by this decision and it believes that, because the Australian Government’s approach is to involve Aborigines to the maximum extent possible in matters affecting them, this decision will ensure greater benefit in the long term to the Aborigines and Islanders of Queensland. Payments to the States are one part of the Australian Government’s total effort in respect of Aboriginal affairs. This financial year a total of $163.6 18m has been allocated for direct Australian Government expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. This represents an increase of 66 per cent over the $98.59m actually spent on Aboriginal affairs during the financial year 1973-74. Of this year’s funds, $126.4m will be spent through my Department, either directly in the Northern Territory and elsewhere, or through grants to the States. The balance will be expended by other departments such as the Department of Education for study grants and secondary grants and special programs in the Northern Territory, by the Department of Health in the Northern Territory, and the Department of Labor and Immigration under its employment training scheme. I seek leave to incorporate Table 3 which is a statement showing how the $163.6 18m being spent this year by the Australian Government is to be allocated.

The PRESIDENT:

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

TABLE 3

DIRECT AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS(a) ($'000)
The table excludes, as far as possible, expenditure on services to which Aboriginals are entitled as Australian citizens, for example, social security benefits. However, some items of expenditure, such as the provision of education and health services at Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, while designed to meet the special needs of the Aboriginal people, al.so represent to some extent the equivalent of services provided for the general community. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- The increased budget for Aboriginal affairs reflects this Government's efforts to free Australia from the social tensions which issue from poverty, social injustice and inequality. More specifically, expenditure on Aboriginal affairs reflects this Government's commitment to increase the general wellbeing of the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal population is increasing at a rate considerably higher than the Australian average and it is essential that the problems besetting Aboriginal Australians be tackled with determination through large scale programs. In summary, the policies of the Australian Government in respect of Aboriginal people might be described as seeking: to encourage and strengthen the capacity of Aborigines to manage their own affairs and to increase their economic independence; to enable Aborigines to have a real freedom of choice about their life style and the extent to which, particularly in the more remote communities, they maintain their traditional customs and culture- a freedom which can be exercised to the extent that communities have local authority, in particular through land ownership; to make equality a reality for Aboriginal Australians by working to overcome those handicaps which generally face them in fields such as housing, health, education, employment and civil liberties; in doing this, to help Aborigines themselves to provide services designed to overcome handicapsfor instance, through Aboriginal housing societies, medical services and legal services- and to act in the closest consultation with Aboriginal communities and individuals at both the national and the local levels. The pattern of Australian Government expenditure is changing to reflect these goals. Funds provided for direct grants to Aboriginal communities have been substantially increased, reflecting the Government's determination to deal direct with Aboriginal groups, and enable them to set their own priorities and manage their own affairs. Many of the programs now being funded by direct grant to Aboriginal communities and organisations and to local government bodies would formerly have been included in grants to the States, and this should be borne in mind when comparing the annual increase in funds provided to the States. The Australian Government never intended the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to assume wide functional responsibilities for Aboriginal affairs. It has always regarded the provision of services such as health, housing, education, employment, legal aid and others to Aborigines as being the responsibility of functional departments and authorities. The role of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is to stimulate and support the extension or the accommodation of existing services to Aborigines and to ensure that special services and programs are provided for Aboriginal people where necessary. Payments to the States should be seen in this context. It is not the Australian Government's intention to assume permanent responsibility for the activities of State departments in fields such as health and education in respect of Aboriginal people. Rather, its intention is to help responsible departments make up the backlog caused by past neglect or indifference. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Rae)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1746 {:#debate-39} ### ABORIGINAL LOANS COMMISSION BILL 1974 Motion (by **Senator Cavanagh)** agreed to: >That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of financial assistance for certain purposes conducive to the advancement of the Aboriginal people of Australia. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing orders suspended. {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I move: The Bill is an important one. Its purpose is to replace the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act 1968, under which the capital fund for aboriginal enterprises was established, by an Act providing means of making loans to Aborigines both for enterprises as in the past, and for housing and for personal purposes as denned in section 24. Thus, the Bill seeks to establish 2 funds: An Aboriginal Enterprises Fund and an Aboriginal Housing and Personal Loans Fund. It is intended that both funds be controlled and administered by an Aboriginal loans commission comprising a board of 5 commissioners, at least 2 of whom are required in the legislation to be Aborigines. The commissioners, who would serve on a part-time basis, would be appointed by the Minister for periods not exceeding 5 years. The commission would be constituted as a corporation with perpetual succession and would be subject to the direction of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on matters of policy. The Aboriginal Enterprises Fund continues the scheme established in 1968 whereby the capital fund for aboriginal enterprises may make loans to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to start or develop business enterprises which have prospects of success. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the annual report on the operations of that fund for 1972-73 which was tabled in Parliament. I should emphasise that the capital fund has not been a 'hand out' operation but has provided loans on reasonable terms to Aboriginal men and women who have sought to improve their economic circumstances by their own efforts. This same concept would apply to the fund now proposed. The present capital fund is administered by the Minister as a corporation solely for that purpose. Under this Bill, the board of commissioners would administer the fund. It is proposed initially to appoint two or three leading financiers and businessmen, as well as at least 2 Aborigines, to the board of commissioners. The establishment of a fund from which to make loans direct to individual Aboriginals to assist them to obtain housing is intended to encourage Aboriginals to become home owners. Few Aboriginals are able to provide homes of their choice for their families because they are unable to obtain finance from existing sources. Housing finance would be available to Aboriginals who could service the necessary loan repayments and maintain their homes. These would, until the loans are repaid, be subject to mortgage to the Commission. Only a minority of Aboriginal householders may be able to afford home ownership, even under the favourable terms of this scheme, but the need for such a scheme has been apparent for some years and it is hoped that increasing numbers will be able to buy their own homes with help from the housing and personal loans fund. Few Aboriginal householders are able to obtain loans for the purchase of items such as household furniture and refrigerators, because they cannot establish to the satisfaction of the usual lending institutions that they are acceptable credit risks. The availability of personal loans to Aboriginals who are able to service the repayments could provide the means, in our credit orientated society, for many to attain the standard of living enjoyed by other Australians. Personal loans would be available for the purchase of essential household effects including appliances, floor coverings, tables, chairs, beds and bedding. They would also be available to assist with payment of medical, dental, funeral and educational expenses. The purchase of motor vehicles would also be financed from the fund where the Aboriginal breadwinner's employment opportunities would be enhanced. I propose initially to direct the Commission to apply a general rate of 5 per cent per annum when assessing applications for loans for enterprise and for personal loans. This rate could fluctuate from an administrative rate of *Vh* per cent up to bank interest rate which is around 9 per cent. The rate of interest payable on housing loans would not exceed the rate, as provided from time to time in the housing agreement with the States in relation to homebuilders account moneys. The current rate is 5% per cent per annum. With respect to housing, I propose to ask the Commission to consider utilising relevant services of the proposed Australian Housing Corporation, the proposal to establish which was reGently announced by my colleague, the Minister for Housing and Construction **(Mr Les Johnson).** The Bill provides that the staff of the Commission will be public servants and this will mean that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs will service the Commission. In view of the current restrictions on staff growth in the Public Service, it is possible that the extent to which the functions of the Commission will be capable of performance in the early stages may be limited. Nevertheless I hope that the Commission will be able to give some emphasis to the provision of housing loans within the limited scope in which it might initially be constrained to operate. I intend, however, to direct the Commission to examine other ways in which, for example, housing loans may be made to Aboriginal organisations on a 'wholesale' basis, to enable those organisations to provide loans to individuals. I commend the Aboriginal Loans Commission Bill 1 974 to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Rae)** adjourned. Motion (by **Senator Cavanagh)** proposed: >That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. {: #subdebate-39-0-s1 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE:
Tasmania -- I wish to speak briefly to this motion. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Cavanagh)** said, this is a most important Bill. It is introducing something which in concept we certainly support, but I seek from the Minister some time for the Opposition to consult with the appropriate interested bodies to see how the Bill provides for the requirements of the people concerned. So in supporting the formal motion that the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, I ask that the debate be not brought on for at least 2 weeks. **Senator CAVANAGH** (South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- in reply- I think we can comply with that request. It is not my desire to hurry this Bill through. The programming of the business of the Senate is now in the hands of **Senator Douglas** McClelland. I shall talk with him and do what I can. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1747 {:#debate-40} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-40-0} #### AFRICAN GUERRILLA MOVEMENTS {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate -- On behalf of **Senator Greenwood,** I move: At the bottom of the petition appear the names of 5 persons who have signed on behalf of the Australian-Rhodesian Association of Victoria. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1747 {:#debate-41} ### ADELAIDE TO CRYSTAL BROOK RAILWAY BILL 1974 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I move: This Bill seeks the ratification by the Parliament of an agreement made between the Australian and South Australian Governments for the construction of a standard gauge railway linking Adelaide to the transcontinental line at Crystal Brook. Honourable senators will realise that the new railway will complete the linking of the mainland State capital cities to the national standard gauge network which has been a policy accepted by both sides in the Parliament. This project had its origins in the Standardisation Agreement of 1949 in which the Australian Government agreed to convert to standard gauge the entire South Australian railway system. Following commencement of the Port PirieBroken Hill standardisation project the Premier of South Australia in 1964 sought provision of a standard gauge connection from this line to Adelaide. In 1965 the State proposed an alternative scheme involving substantial standardisation of lightly trafficked country lines. Following lengthy discussions with the State it was finally agreed to employ consultants to study and report on the most efficient, economic means of providing a standard gauge link to the interstate network. Maunsell and Partners were appointed consultants and a report outlining the intended scope of the subject was presented in March 1970. Following a change of government in South Australia the earlier proposals were again raised and it was not until January 1974 that the consultants were able to submit their master plan for the works to be carried out. Some other minor matters were raised by the State and finally the formal agreement was signed in May by both the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** and the Premier of South Australia. The new standard gauge line involves construction of a high capacity railway from Adelaide approximately 192 kilometres to link with the transcontinental standard gauge line at Crystal Brook. The route will follow the general line of the existing broad gauge railway from Adelaide to Red Hill and then deviate on a new alignment to Crystal Brook. Included in the project are standard gauge connections from Snowtown to Wallaroo, to industry at Mile End and Port Adelaide and the livestock sidings at Pooraka. The work entailed is to be carried out by the South Australian Railways as constructing authority under the supervision of the Department of Transport and is expected to take over 5 years to complete although standard gauge trains should be able to operate to the Adelaide metropolitan area within approximately 3 years of commencement. The consultants estimated the total cost of the project to be about $81m at January 1974 prices. In common with other standardisation projects which were previously undertaken, the Australian Government is committed to meeting the total cost of the project; 70 per cent of the total expenditure will be treated as a non-repayable grant and the State will repay the remaining 30 per cent of the expenditure plus interest over 50 years. I have already mentioned that this project will result in the linking of the last remaining mainland State capital city to the national standard gauge system and I am sure honourable senators will recognise the benefits which will accrue nationally from increased efficiency and lower costs resulting from the construction of this railway. In addition it may be expected that South Australia will benefit substantially from the improved access to markets on both the eastern and western seaboards. I will mention in dealing with the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway- the Bill dealing with that railway will be introduced shortly- the benefits for the people of the Northern Teritory in a uniform gauge railway from Adelaide to Alice Springs. A further point which should not be overlooked will be the added convenience for passengers with the introduction of through running to Adelaide and the elimination of the necessity to change trains for journeys on the 'Indian Pacific' route or to Alice Springs. I am sure this project will have the unanimous support of honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Jessop)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1748 {:#debate-42} ### TARCOOLA TO ALICE SPRINGS RAILWAY BILL 1974 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I move: As this second reading speech is a repetition of a speech on the same subject delivered in the other House, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)-** Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- This Bill seeks the ratification by the Parliament of an agreement made between the Australian and South Australian Governments for the construction of a standard gauge railway from Tarcoola on the Trans-Australian Railway, to Alice Springs in the Northern Territory. Honourable senators will recall from statements made by the Minister for Transport **(Mr Charles Jones)** that Agreement had been reached in April with the South Australian Government for the construction of the railway. The construction of a line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs was an option open to the Australian Government in the Railways (South Australia) Agreement Act of 1926, but instead the present narrow gauge line from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs was constructed. The possibility of constructing a standard gauge line from Tarcoola was not again considered until 1966 when the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner took the initiative and examined the advantages of a completely new route. In 1967 he made his report examining three alternative proposals but coming out strongly in favour of the new route which is now proposed. At the time the Commissioner was concerned at the very high cost of maintaining the existing narrow gauge railway, the continued disruptions to the service and he was no doubt also influenced by serious flood damage which occurred in 1966. The Senate will remember that the worst flooding in Central Australia in living memory occurred this year and that services on the Central Australian Railway were virtually suspended for 3 months, with serious consequences for the people of Alice Springs and the Northern Territory. In 1968, the then Government decided to investigate the relative merits of an improved road link as against an improved rail link. The resulting study led to the conclusion that the economically preferred course was to go ahead with the standard gauge railway, but that a fully sealed road to Alice Springs was also justified. In July 1970 approval in principle to construct the line was given and negotiations to obtain the consent of the South Australian Government for the construction of that part of the line within the State were begun. These negotiations proved to be protracted and it was not until earlier this year that the Minister for Transport was able to finally resolve the numerous difficulties raised by South Australia. The Agreement, which is a schedule to this Bill, was then signed by the Premier and the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam).** The State Government has agreed to introduce enabling legislation as soon as possible. The new route, approximately 830 kilometres in length from Tarcoola, has been carefully chosen to avoid areas subject to flooding and indeed some minor changes have been made as a result of the exceptional 1974 conditions. Honourable senators may appreciate that the construction of the proposed line will be a project of world stature. Commonwealth Railways will be the constructing authority. An amount of $ 145m has been provided in the Bill as the maximum allowed by the legislation and includes provision for minor design changes and some increases in costs that may occur over the duration of the project. It is expected that construction of the line will take about 5 years to complete; however, it is likely that goods will be transferred to road transport at the railhead after 3 years or so. The diversion of some traffic to the new line will relieve the pressure on the narrow gauge section of the present line and improve the service to the Northern Territory at the earliest possible time. In addition to the benefits of a high capacity line and freedom from interruptions to the service by floods provided for the Northern Territory by this line, further advantage will come from the construction of the standard gauge link from Adelaide to Crystal Brook which is the subject of separate legislation. This latter line will be constructed at about the same time and will allow the through running of standard gauge trains from Adelaide to Alice Springs. This will eliminate the delays in transit at present caused by the transfer of goods to standard gauge at Port Pirie and then to narrow gauge at Marree. The people of the Territory can look forward to a substantial improvement in the service provided by their railways. I am sure the Bill will receive the support of all honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Jessop)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1749 {:#debate-43} ### AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING COMMISSION BILL 1974 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I move: Again, as this second reading speech has been made in another place, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)-** Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- The main purpose of this Bill is to amend certain provisions of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956-1973 in order to alter the name of the Commission; increase the number of Commissioners from five to seven; make specific provision for the appointment of a full-time Chairman of the Commission; to alter the basis on which the Commission is reimbursed for losses in the operation of a shipping service undertaken at the direction of the Minister for Transport; to eliminate an anomaly in the present Act relating to rights and benefits of the Commission's officers formerly employed in the Australian Public Service. At the same time the opportunity will be taken to make several amendments of a machinery nature in relation to financial provisions of the Act and to effect some largely formal amendments including those arising out of the Statute Law Revision Act 1973. The proposed amendments are intended to update the Act and enable the Commission to more effectively perform its role as a national shipping line in both coastal and overseas trading. I would like to draw to the attention of honourable senators the development of the Australian National Line since the Commission was established in late 1956. The fleet then comprised 42 ships, with a total deadweight tonnage of 250,960, representing an investment of $24.5m. The fleet now comprises 31 vessels, with a combined deadweight tonnage of 65 1 , 1 36. The Line now has total fixed assets, at cost of $ 183m. Turnover of the Line has increased from $32m in 1957-58 to over $100m. The Commission's important contribution to the increased efficiency of Australia's coastal shipping services is well known. It has a proud record of innovation and development of new and more efficient ships, terminals and handling methods. The Une was, for example, the first to introduce the roll-on roll-off concept of transportation into Australian coastal trading, as a fast convenient and economical method of moving passengers, vehicles and cargo. The Line has a further 5 ships for the coastal trades on order. After an absence of 40 years the Line returned the Australian flag to regular overseas operation. It now has 4 modern vessels in our overseas liner trades and these are to be joined shortly by another two, with a third on order. Four large bulk carriers for the overseas bulk trades are on order. The Government sees the Australian National Line as the pacesetter for implementing our declared objective to achieve a more equitable share of the carriage of our overseas trade in Australian flag ships. This development and expansion places a great responsibility on the Commission. The Government considers that some changes are required to permit the Commission, now entirely a parttime body, to be better equipped to handle the challenges of continued growth, increasing technological development and complexity of operation. Let me now speak separately to the main provisions. Firstly, the Commission's name is clearly an anachronism. Overseas operations are already a significant portion of its activities and will become more important. It is proposed therefore that the name of the Commission be changed to the Australian Shipping Commission to more accurately reflect its proper function. Honourable senators will be aware that the Commission was established under the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act in 1956 and since then has consisted of 5 Commissioners, one of whom is appointed Chairman and another Vice-Chairman, and all of whom, as I mentioned previously, act part-time. The Government regards the separate public transport authorities in the different modes as important agencies through which its policies, not only in the transport, but in other fields, will be forwarded. This demands a closer understanding between the various authorities and the Minister and the Minister's Department. These policies, in respect of the Australian National Line, envisage the Line initiating programs in accord with the Government's objectives and these carry with them heavy investment decisions. Of course, a great deal has already been achieved. I shall detail these developments in a moment. However, with such major investment decisions the Government attaches great importance to ensuring that the Commission be afforded the assistance it will receive from the appointment of a full-time Chairman. His appointment will permit the continuing oversight of the Line's objectives and review of the Line's operations and financial arrangements. It will allow the Commission, as a whole, to be kept closely informed on all matters relating to the Commissioners' collective responsibility. Qantas Airways Ltd already has a full-time chairman. It is proposed also to increase the number of parttime Commissioners assisting the Chairman to six. One of these 6 part-time Commissioners will be a Vice-Chairman. Let me indicate in more detail the extent of the Commission's current involvement with initiatives taken since the Government took office. Since December 1972 there has been unprecedented activity by the Australian Government in all forms of transport, because this Government takes a multimodal approach to the total national transport task. Shipping must take its place amongst the whole range of transport policies that the Government is striving to implement. Additionally, in relation to shipping, it was not expected that we could achieve overnight the policy objectives announced by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech. However the opportunities for expanding coastal and overseas shipping were examined as soon as we won office and the first proposal aimed at expanding the Australian National Line's coastal shipping operations was put forward as early as 15 December 1972. Since that time a progressive increase in Australia's share of trade from Japan from 17.2 per cent to 30 per cent by 1979 has been successfully negotiated. The Line has already achieved an increase in the wool trade to Japan from 23 per cent to 28.3 per cent. To carry this increased cargo volume a hybrid roll-on roll-off cellular container vessel, the 'Australian Emblem', is being built for use in this trade and was launched on 9 August. This is a 22,400 d.w.t. vessel with a capacity of 1,431 twenty feet length containers. The Line's Australian partner in the Eastern Searoad Service, the Flinders Shipping Company, has negotiated the purchase of a similar vessel. The 2 vessels already in this trade, 'Australian Enterprise' and 'Matthew Flinders', are to be diverted to the East Asia trade to provide an entirely independent Australian flag service to Korea, Hong Kong and the Philippines. The Commission has arranged to purchase 'Matthew Flinders' from the Flinders Shipping Company. The placing of an order by the Line for the construction of a 29,000 d.w.t. cellular container ship for the Australia-Europe cargo liner trade has also been approved. This ship is expected to be delivered in 1977 and will join 'Australian Endeavour', also operated by the Line, in the Associated Container Transportation (Australia) Ltd-ANL service to Europe. Steps have been taken to secure, for the first time, regular participation by Australian flag vessels in our bulk minerals export trade. In November last year the ordering by the Line of 2 bulk carriers of 121,000 d.w.t. each for use in the Australia-Japan ore trade was authorised. Delivery of these vessels is expected in July 1976 and May 1977 respectively. More recently, the placing of a further order for 2 bulk carriers was approved. Each of these vessels is 140,000 d.w.t. and they are also planned for use in the Japan ore trade. These ships are expected to be delivered in July and December 1976. For coastal trading the Line has been given approval to purchase 2 general cargo vessels, the first of which is scheduled to enter service in February next year and the second a year later. In addition the Line has ordered 2 25,000 ton bulk carriers and these vessels are expected to enter service in November 1976 and May 1977. These 11 ships currently on order for ANL and the associated seaborne equipment necessary for their operation involve a capital expenditure of approximately $235m. Discussions have been held with the New Zealand Minister for Transport concerning an Australian flag shipping service in the transTasman trade. Feasibility studies have been conducted by the Commission but vessels have not been introduced into the trade as speedily as the Government would have wished, mainly because of the problem of securing suitable vessels in current market conditions. The search for suitable tonnage is continuing. The problem of securing suitable tonnage has also been the main difficulty standing in the way of total Australian flag participation in the Christmas Island rock phosphate trade. Early this year I decided not to renew the exemption of this trade from the coasting provisions of the Navigation Act. Such an exemption had been granted by our predecessors in Government, the effect of which was to enable the use of foreign flag vessels for carrying phosphate from Christmas Island to Australia. I have asked the Australian National Line to seek suitable tonnage on the world market to ensure that sufficient Australian manned tonnage is available to handle the total trade. Negotiations are currently under way for the Line to acquire its first vessel for this trade and I expect to be in a position to make an announcement shortly. Discussions have also been held with the Chinese Government to undertake a feasibility study for the introduction of a direct AustraliaChina liner service. Officers of the Australian National Line are visiting China in October of this year to examine port facilities and to have further discussions on the practicability of a direct liner service between Australia and China. Before I sanction entry into any trade I require to be satisfied, and must be able to satisfy my colleagues, that the service is justified, can be done efficiently and is appropriate to the national interest. These responsibilities rest directly with the Commission. The Government is pleased that it has responded so directly and positively to the need for new initiatives. However, the Government is also aware of the extra burden these impose upon it. The measure now proposed should substantially assist the Commission to develop the role the Government requires of it and of the Australian National Line. Turning to the Commission's operational activities, section 17 ( 1) of the present Act provides that, if desirable in the public interest, the Minister may direct the Commission to establish, maintain and operate a shipping service to meet the requirements of a particular area. If such a shipping service suffers a loss in any financial year, and, if an overall loss results from the Commission's whole operations for that year, the Commission is entitled to be reimbursed by the Australian Government to the extent of the lesser of the 2 losses. This provision is contained in subsection 4 (b) and (c) of section 17. This provision which was designed to protect the Commission can, in fact, be damaging to the Line's overall operations. The practical effect of such a direction under the present provisions of the Act is that the Commission is required to crosssubsidise such a service from other profitable operations. The Government considers the Line's overall operation as a competitive shipping line should not be penalised as a result of providing an uneconomic shipping service, even though this is operated in the public interest. Subsidies made for such reasons in the Line's operations should be identified and repaid. It is, therefore, proposed that sub-section (4) of section 17 be amended to provide that when the Minister directs the Commission to establish a shipping service in the public interest, the Commission shall be directly reimbursed to the full extent of any losses sustained in operating such a service. The provisions of the Act relating to the appointment of officers to the Commission also require amendment. Sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Act provides that the terms and conditions of employment of officers appointed by the Commission shall be as determined by the Commission. However, sub-section (2) of section 22 provides that the Commission shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, determine the salary of a position in the service of the Commission at a rate exceeding $7,000 per annum. The intention of the original Act was that the salary limit would equate with approximately the maximum of the top Public Service Third Division classification. This section was amended in 1 964 in order to retain such equality. It has not been updated since, with the result that more and more routine administrative matters must be referred to the Minister for approval. The current salary figure of $7,000 per annum is equivalent to a Clerk Class 2/3 in the Australian Public Service. To update this provision of the Act the figure of $7,000 is amended to $15,739, which is currently the maximum of the top Third Division classification. In order to avoid further similar amendments to the Act there will be provision for a higher amount to be prescribed, the intention being that the amount prescribed will be kept in line with the top Public Service Third Division salary. In addition to the amendment to sub-section (2) of section 22 a further amendment is proposed to eliminate an anomaly which exists in respect of sub-section (3) of section 22. This latter sub-section of the Act purports to give officers of the Commission who were formerly employed in the Australian Public Service the same rights and benefits as if they remained in the Public Service. These rights and benefits are enjoyed by officers in other statutory authorities, such as Commonwealth Railways. As presently worded the sub-section does not provide for this. It is without meaning for the reason that Public Service rights and benefits are given pursuant to appointments under section 22 only, whereas appointment of officers is authorised only under section 2 1 and 23. Sub-section (3) of section 22 is to be amended appropriately to remove this anomaly. Because of the number of former Australian Public Service officers already employed by the Commission retrospectivity will be necessary. Several amendments are proposed to financial provisions in the Act including section 30 provisions relating to borrowings. The purpose of these amendments is to bring the principal Act into line with the provisions of comparable sections of legislation relating to other statutory commissions operating business undertakings. There are also some formal amendments and these are detailed in the Schedule to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania -I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party Opposition. I do not adopt the normal procedure of seeking the adjournment of the debate. I do this because when we can co-operate with the Government and when it deserves that cooperation we co-operate. We understand that the Government desires this Bill to receive the royal assent and its clauses to be put into operation as soon as possible. As we believe that nothing but good can come from the Bill, we are prepared to aid its speedy passage through the Senate. It may seem unfamiliar to honourable senators for a Tasmanian senator to be prepared to agree to allow a shipping Bill to pass through the Senate quickly without enumerating the many hardships suffered by my State of Tasmania because of its shipping problems; but other legislation that the Government is introducing today will give us the opportunity to put forward the problems of our State. This Bill deals with the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. Under the Bill, the Commission is now to be called the Australian Shipping Commission. Hitherto, the Australian National Line has had authority under legislation to trade only interstate and around the coast of Australia. Its present name is an anachronism because it has embarked on overseas trade. The Australian flag is being carried into many foreign ports. It is obviously the Government's intention that this development will be increased. So we are not opposing that. Incidentally, the legislation will help Tasmania specifically, as I will outline briefly in a few minutes. I want to emphasise that in another place yesterday this legislation was debated thoroughly by members on both sides of the House. Once again, the Australian Government Minister for Transport, **Mr Jones,** showed his willingness to co-operate and to accept amendments that will improve the legislation that he has placed before the Parliament. This is the third major occasion in the life of the new Parliament on which this Minister has shown statesmanlike qualities that have enabled him to persuade his Government to accept important amendments moved by the Opposition. I refer to the Loans Bills for the airlines and the roads legislation. In this Bill we have another instance of amendments put forward by the Opposition on behalf of the people to improve the legislation having been quickly and willingly accepted by the Minister. They are now in the Bill before the Senate. I have referred to the first amendment in this legislation- the change of name from the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission to the Australian Shipping Commission. Because of its increased responsibilities naturally the Government has found it necessary to increase the number of commissioners from five to seven with one full-time commissioner. I congratulate the Government on deciding to appoint one full-time commissioner for this very, very important job as far as Australian shipping is concerned. The Bill alters the basis on which the Commission is reimbursed for losses in the operation of a shipping service undertaken at the direction of the Minister for Transport. That is of great assistance to shipping in Australia. In other words, it is not being said: 'You must make a profit' or you cannot make losses.' As I understand the legislation, it will mean in layman's terms that the Minister may request the Commission to operate a service, and if that service cannot be operated at a profit it can be reimbursed for the losses incurred by this ministerial or governmental direction. This is something from which we Tasmanians would, I think, hope to benefit. We know of the ad hoc decisions taken recently by the Government to tide us over serious shipping problems, but I believe that this Bill puts into legislative form a means by which this Government and all future governments will be able to help places like Tasmania and possibly the Northern Territory. Other shipping schedules may need to be operated and have the losses incurred reimbursed from the Commonwealth purse. The other amendments are mostly of a minor and machinery nature, and we agree with them. One ensures that any moneys loaned to the Commission for its operation- its capital expenditurewill be loaned at the long term bond interest rate. I believe it is fair that a government business undertaking should not have to go into the open market for funds. It is working for the government. Therefore, it should be able to get money from the government at the interest rate that the government is paying for that money on the long term loan market. Another amendment agreed to by the Minister was to the important section 17 of the principal Act. The amendment added a sub-clause 5 by which the Minister gives a direction for the Commission to run a service. It says: >The Minister shall cause a copy of any direction given by him under sub-section ( 1 ) - That is of the principal Act- {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . to be laid before each House of Parliament within IS sitting days of that House after the direction is made by him. In other words, the Opposition proposed, and the Government agreed, that Parliament must be given the oversight of any ministerial action which ordered a government business undertaking to enter into a certain aspect of trade. I conclude by supporting the legislation on behalf of the Liberal Opposition. I trust that the new Commission will take a very deep- deep is rather an awkward word to use when talking about the sea, I suppose, and those who go down to the sea in ships- interest in Tasmania's shipping interests. I hope that it will keep a constant watch on them. I hope that through its expertise and direct communications with the Government and the Minister, it will keep the Government informed of our problems. Governments in the past- I am not saying this Government only- have not realised that national governments never make profits out of roadways. Their building and maintenance cost money. Bass Strait is the highway to and from Tasmania, albeit sometimes rough and always wet. But no national government should seek to gain a profit. It should reimburse the losses and help the people who trade and whose lifeline is that shipping service. With those few words, I support the legislation before the Senate. {: #subdebate-43-0-s2 .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania -I shall depart somewhat from my normal commencement of a speech in this chamber by complimenting **Senator Marriott,** my predecessor in this debate, on the capable, competent and very fair minded way in which he has put the position to the Senate. I suppose it would be reasonable enough to say that we on this side have a very high regard for the way in which **Senator Marriott** conducts himself in matters of this kind. He has taken a statesmanlike stance on this matter and has given, as he has indicated to the chamber, the support of his Party to this measure. He has put on record some of the historical background of the matter that we are now considering. I would like to take a few minutes to complete the record, if I can put it in those terms so that the significance of this measure is understood now and in time to come when somebody reads the debates, particularly as they relate to the great problem in Tasmania of having one system of transport, if one disregards the air services, for trade and commerce. The other States in what we choose to call the mainland of Australia have alternatives open to them. So the business of shipping services is very important to us. I wish to acknowledge at this stage that the decision to increase shipping freight rates was not unexpected. We all know that in the course of conducting businesses in this country, and in any other respect of human endeavour, costs are rising all the time. We have the alternative of funding adequately the operations of the Australian National Line or sending that operation out of business. In that circumstance we in Tasmania would be far worse off than we believe we are at present. So it was reasonable to increase the shipping freight rates to enable the viable operation of that service. We were very concerned with the implications to the Tasmanian trade and to the general economy of that State. That is what occasioned us to work with such alacrity in approaching the Minister which we did on 4 occasions during the week in which that announcement was made. Subsequently my colleagues in the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party- 10 of us who were joined in this venturehad 4 meetings with the Minister for Transport **(Mr Charles Jones)** and also had a long meeting with the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** in which the position of Tasmania was put clearly and succinctly. Immediately the Minister was seized of the importance of this proposition he was not unsympathetic. He was aware of the difficulties that would result to Tasmanian trade as a consequence of this position. He was very amenable to the approaches which we made to him. Because the implementation of a decision to change the present arrangement meant an Act of Parliament, very quickly the assistance of the draftsman was sought and the Bill was prepared. At this stage I would like to mention that because of a statement which was made in Tasmania a week or two ago a popular misconception now exists in the community and I would like to correct it. Possibly due to a misunderstanding, the State Opposition shadow Minister for Transport by imputation said that the Government of the day was holding up this legislation. He said that it had passed the House of Representatives and that the legislation was being held up. I want to place the facts on record. I am quite certain that if the member of the State Parliament concerned studies the history of this matter he will acknowledge that what I say is correct. I hope that he will make some public acknowledgment of the fact to clear the record. Members of Parliament come in for a good deal of criticism. I refer not only to Government members of Parliament but also to those who sit opposite. We are especially vulnerable to criticism when we make statements which are subsequently found not to square with the facts. The fact of the matter is, of course, that the Government as fast as it possibly could produced this Bill, introduced it in the House of Representatives and, as is the normal course in such matters, the adjournment of the debate was secured by the Opposition. In this instance the motion for the adjournment of the debate was moved by the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party, **Mr Sinclair.** The following week Parliament was not sitting. The matter was placed at the top of the notice paper in the House of Representatives. The legislation was duly debated yesterday which was the first sitting day after the recess. The Bill was passed by the House. I am grateful to **Senator Marriott** and his colleagues on the other side of the chamber for agreeing that this legislation is urgent and that we need to put it into effect as quickly as possible. We have therefore dispensed with the normal adjournment procedure in this House so that we can hopefully- it looks as though this will be the case- pass this Bill so that it becomes law. The people of Tasmania were not being conned at all, as has been stated by that member of Parliament in Tasmania. We, with all expedition, set out to correct a matter which we considered to be one of very serious implications for Tasmania. As honourable senators are aware a committee has been established to inquire into the general shipping situation in Tasmania. It is called the Nimmo Committee. I understand that **Mr Nimmo** is overseas currently examining situations comparable to those which exist between Tasmania and the mainland of Australia. The last I heard of his movements was that he was studying the relative situation between Nova Scotia and the mainland of Canada. We hope- I am sure we all hope- that when that report comes down it will cover for a great deal of time the question of the disabilities suffered by Tasmania in the relationship of its freight rates to the cost of freight per ton mile in the mainland States of Australia. This is what we are attempting to achieve. If we adopt a system of the kind I envisage Tasmania will not be under a disability because of the fact that it has one system transport available to it whereas the other States have 3 systems of transport available. I think it is accepted by most authorities, if not all, that shipping costs are higher than land based transport systems. I think the Government acted swiftly to try to overcome the immediate disability in anticipation of a proper report and a total evaluation of the situation by the Nimmo Committe. What the Government thought it should do was to grant a subsidy of $2m in addition to the $ 1 m that is already provided for the passenger service. In fact, what we will now see is a subvention of $3m a year for Tasmanian shipping to cover its disabilities. It will cover outward cargo from Tasmania other than bulk cargo and, of course, at the moment will exclude paper. I understand an inquiry is proceeding at present to determine whether in fact some assistance ought to be given towards the cost of shipping paper. The State of Tasmania will be receiving $2m. Since about 1,000,000 tons of northbound freight each year will go out of Tasmania it will mean approximately $2 per ton on the particular type of cargo to which I have just referred. I think it is a reasonable proposition for the moment, at least, until, as 1 say, the whole system is completely revealed to us. It is consistent with an undertaking given by the Prime Minister in 1 972 during an election campaign and restated in 1974. I sincerely hope that the situation which exists in Tasmania at the moment is held. This is not the first occasion on which we have had freight rates of this kind. I recall- I am fortified by some information I have before methat in August 1 970 there was an increase of 1 2 per cent in all Tasmanian general cargo freights. In July 1971 there was a 1 2 *Yi* per cent increase in freights between Sydney and Tasmania and an 8 per cent increase in July 1 97 1 in freights between Melbourne and Tasmania. In August 1972 the freight rates were increased 25 per cent on the freights between Melbourne and Tasmania by the removal of the concession on dense cargoes. There was a 12 per cent increase in SydneyTasmanian freight rates. There was then an increase due to the removal of concessions on heavy cargo which was the equivalent of a 22 per cent increase in freight rates for that cargo. There was a 20 per cent surcharge applied on hazardous cargoes and an 1 8 per cent increase due to the removal of the concession on industrial machinery and also a 1 7 per cent increase in the freight rates for newsprint. That is what happened in the past. On all those occasions it was not possible to get any sort of relief. Here we have a situation which recently arose where a 25 per cent increase was applied by the Australian National Line. As a result of the urgings of the people who are the representatives of Tasmania in this Parliament we now have a situation which has been referred to by **Senator Marriott** and which I have covered where $2m a year will be provided to meet the situation in Tasmania until a total resolution of the problem can be found when the report of the Nimmo Committee is presented. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator Milliner: -- Is there another $lm for passengers? {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -Yes. The sum of Sim will be provided for passenger services. This is a $2m subvention in addition to that. As I said, **Senator** Marriott has covered a part of the historical situation relating to the position with which I have dealt. I have attempted to complete the record by saying what I have. I certainly hope that what I have said will clear up doubts which exist in the minds of some people in Tasmania who think that the Government, as it were, has been dragging the anchor and has not measured up to its responsibilities. I believe it has. I believe that what the Government has done is in the interests of Tasmania and will be of very considerable assistance to that State. I believe I should leave it at that. Honourable senators in this place have agreed to pass this legislation so that it can be put into effect. In conclusion I would like to refer to a remark which sometimes one hears or reads in the Press in Tasmania in relation to the representation of its elected representatives in this Parliament. I embrace all honourable senators on both sides of the House in this remark whether they belong to a particular party or whether they are independent. Often comments are made at a public gathering- those who have used this expression must estimate it to be a way to popularity- that cast reflections on the work and capacity of members of Parliament and on the way in which they apply themselves to problems of this type as they arise. I think that is completely unfair. I want to debunk it. I say it is a cheap jibe and it does not square with the facts insofar as it relates to members of this Parliament. I say again that I do not relate these remarks only to Government supporters. What I have seen indicates to me that all members of Parliament work hard, energetically and apply themselves totally to the work of representing the State of Tasmania. I suppose it is because we do this sort of thing that ministries and governments are responsive to our approaches and we obtain the sort of relief that we have on this occasion. I commend the Bill to the Senate and I thank **Senator Marriott** and the Opposition for agreeing to the passage of this legislation. {: #subdebate-43-0-s3 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- in reply- The debate on this Bill makes one nervous in having the conduct of the Bill in this chamber. This is the first occasion on which everyone seems to be praising everyone else, and the mutual admiration is creating a strange environment. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- We will not repeat it in future if you do not like it. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- I do like it, **Senator. I** am most appreciative of the expeditious manner in which the Bill is going through the chamber. I repeat what **Senator Devitt** said and commend **Senator Marriott** who led for the Opposition in this debate for the way in which he has assisted to get the Bill through the chamber. I also commend him for recognising the statesmanlike qualities of the Minister for Transport **(Mr Charles Jones),** and I can assure him that there are in this Cabinet many more Ministers who. have equally statesmanlike qualities. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- You say that with modesty. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -Yes, but **Senator Marriott** did not move an amendment which would have given me the opportunity to demonstrate that I may have the same qualities. But this is the first time it has been recognised that such statesmanlike qualities exist. No opposition has been offered to the Bill, and I thank the Opposition parties for assisting to get the legislation through the chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1756 {:#debate-44} ### STATES GRANTS BILL 1974 Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 October on motion by **Senator Wriedt:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #debate-44-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE:
Tasmania **-Mr Deputy President,** let me assure **Senator Willesee** who just expressed his disbelief that he should see the previous Bill go through the chamber so quickly and without a great deal of debate, that he will not find himself overwhelmed with disbelief by that course being repeated because the Bill which we now wish to debate - {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- Wait a minute. I did not say it. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- I am sorry, I thought I heard the Minister say it. That view was expressed by **Senator Cavanagh** to an extent and I thought that I heard **Senator Willesee** also say it as he walked into the chamber. I simply say that having seen the Australian National Line ships put smoothly across the waters of Bass Strait, we now find ourselves in the position where we are dealing with the States Grants Bill which affects Tasmania and provides for the sum of $ 15m to be granted by the Commonwealth to the State. As **Senator Marriott** indicated, we were most anxious that the Bill relating to the ANL should go through immediately and that there should be no delay in debating the measure when there would be the opportunity to debate related matters on this the following Bill. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- You are not going to spoil the atmosphere? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- Without wishing to spoil the atmosphere in any way I should like to refer to some of Tasmania's problems, not the least of which- in fact, probably the greatest of which- is the Federal Labor Government. One finds that this is the case particularly when one remembers that just recently we have had all sorts of helpful contributions from the leading members of that Government. After all, it was the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** whose contribution to the problem of unemployment in the textile industry in Launceston was to accuse those of us on both sides of the chamber, and those trade union leaders, who have expressed concern about increasing unemployment in the textile industry in Launceston, of peddling lies. He accused certain of the trade union leaders of being in collusion with multinational corporations. Such was his misunderstanding, his lack of knowledge of the problem that he made a complete fool of himself by claiming that the figures to which reference had been made were wrong. They are demonstrably correct, and I have already referred to that matter in this chamber. I simply repeat that the Prime Minister's disinterest in Tasmania was manifested by the manner in which he made that false accusation about some of his own colleagues, other members of this Parliament and members of the trade union movement. Then the Deputy Prime Minister **(Dr J. F. Cairns)** visited Tasmania. His reaction to some of the problems of Tasmania was to tell Tasmanians to stop whinging. He claimed that we were all on velvet. Apparently he has some strange ideas about what it is like to be on velvet, or certainly he has a different idea from the one which I have. As for telling us to stop whinging, I am afraid that I am one example of someone who does not intend to stop because the Deputy Prime Minister tells me to stop. Today I propose to refer to a number of matters where I believe that Tasmania is being disadvantaged as a result of the failure of this Government to have any real idea of what the needs of Tasmania really are. I remind the Senate that this is a Government which is sufficiently insensitive to the needs of individuals to have increased personal income tax this year, in this year's Budget, by an amazing 46 per cent. I think that a lot of people have not realised what this will mean to them in their real take home pay. Of course, those people are from throughout Australia, and they include Tasmanians. But unfortunately fewer and fewer Tasmanians each week will be affected by this measure because the number of unemployed is increasing so rapidly. I will simply refer to today's 'Mercury'. The headline reads: >Our jobless worst. Total now stands at 4,937. . . . constitutes 3. 14 per cent of the labour force. Of course, it is a substantially higher percentage in the Launceston area which has been affected by the measures which the Government took in relation to the textile industry. I simply remind the Minister and the Senate that there is no doubt as to who is to blame for the situation, because the blame has been accepted by the Government. After all, it was **Senator Wriedt** who on 1 August last, when I had raised the problem concerning the Launceston area and asked for a task force to be sent to Tasmania, said, as reported at page 772 of Hansard: >Of course, the problem that he - Referring to me- raises flows from the Government's decision last year to reduce tariffs across the board by 25 per cent. 1 do not want to canvass the rights or wrongs of that decision either; but when the Government took the decision it was aware that there would be repercussions in certain manufacturing industries in Australia, and it was anticipated that the textile industry, in particular, would be affected. There is a major textile industry in Launceston and it has been affected as a result of the Government's decision. There was the clearest indication by the Minister for Agriculture, **Senator Wriedt,** of an acceptance. I pay him due credit for that. I think that **Senator Wriedt** has received credit on other occasions for being prepared to admit what has happened and for not attempting to prevaricate. In this instance he clearly accepts that the problems of Launceston are directly the fault of the present Labor Government. Not only have **Mr Whitlam** and **Dr Cairns** made their various contributions to making Tasmanians feel a little happier because the Government is aware of their problems; **Mr Jones** has too. I know that he has acted in a responsible way in accepting amendments to certain legislation in recent times, as was referred to by **Senator Marriott** a little while ago. But he did not seem very responsible when he said in Hobart some time ago, in effect, that he was not very interested in Tasmania because there were more votes in Newcastle than there were in Tasmania. I believe that that attitude has been exemplified in his approaches to a number of Tasmanian problems. It was exemplified when he said just recently that he did not agree with any area receiving special transport consideration. Apparently he has been persuaded by **Senator Devitt** and others to go back on that attitude. But this is clearly the idea which **Mr Jones** has in his ministerial capacity. None of us has been very successful in being able to change his mind about another matter to which I shall make reference. This is the Bass Strait islands air transport situation which, as **Senator Devitt** no doubt is well aware, is causing considerable disquiet among the people on both Flinders Island and King Island. This situation has arisen because of the Government's action in withdrawing a subsidy which had been paid by the former Liberal-Country Party Government to ensure the maintenance of air services by suitable aircraft to those 2 islands. As a result of the withdrawal of the subsidy it has become uneconomical for Ansett Airlines of Australia, which was conducting the service, to continue to do so. Ansett has had to withdraw this service. In its place a temporary service has been put on. It is operated by 6-seater light aircraft. A petition which has been signed by some 200 women on King Island exemplifies the concern and the attitude of a number of people on both those islands. I have a copy of the petition and I would be happy to table it if called upon to do so. It states: >We feel this is a retrograde step - That is taking the step which I have mentioned - and some points of special concern are- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. . No alternative means of transport. 1. Only one pilot. 2. No facilities for the help of aged people, mothers with small children or sick people. No help in administering oxygen in case of need. 3. No toilets. 4. Several retarded children attend special school in Tasmania and require to be in the charge of a hostess. 5. There are approximately 50 children travelling frequently to Tasmania for higher education, and parents are concerned about them in small aircraft with the lack of these facilities. 6. The air fares have been increased by $ 10 and at $46.20, we feel this service does not justify the cost involved. 7. Even when the Fokker Friendship service is reintroduced - we strongly object to the very large increase in fares due to the depressed economic situation of the Island and our isolation. The insensitive Federal Labor Government has not responded in any favourable way to the pleas for assistance. In fact, **Mr Jones** has made it very clear that he has not the slightest intention of going to King Island to discuss with the residents the problems which they have in relation to both their air service and their shipping service. Aspects relating to their shipping service have been well aired in the Senate in the past year or so. I shall not refer to them in detail. The problems in relation to the air service have not been well aired, although I did ask a question about them recently. I got an answer from **Senator Cavanagh** in which he simply said that he could not see much reason for wanting to put on a reasonable type of aircraft even once a week. This is the sort of action which has been taken by this Government in relation to Tasmania. This is the sort of action which causes editorials to be written in Tasmanian newspapers with headings such as: 'State Hit Again'. That was the headline in an editorial in the 'Examiner' on 12 September this year. It is not an uncommon editorial headline. It is not uncommon for us Tasmanians to feel that we have been hit yet again by this insensitive Government. As I have mentioned, we now find that we have increasing unemployment in Tasmania, yet no plan has been disclosed to date. As I mentioned last night, the Minister for Agriculture, **Senator Wriedt,** has not been able to obtain publication of the task force report because the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, **Mr Enderby,** has claimed that it is an inter-departmental committee report and he has no intention of tabling it. I wonder whether the real reason for not tabling the report is that if it were tabled a certain Prime Minister might wind up with even more egg all over his face. After all, we hear around the corridors that the report from which the Prime Minister quoted when he was speaking at the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association dinner was this particular task force report. Had the Prime Minister read the report instead of misreading it, he would have seen that the figure upon which he relied was an old figure and was not the figure that was being referred to by those who were seeking some assistance for Tasmania. Presumably there are those in the Government who think that the publication of the report would further embarrass the Prime Minister. If it is not that, then perhaps we can hear some good reason why it cannot be produced. I find it very difficult to understand the point of having a task force report which presumably makes recommendations and suggestions as to what can be done to help overcome the unemployment problem in the Launceston area when it is not published. If it were published we, the people of northern Tasmania, would be able to evaluate the report, make further suggestions and perhaps, from what was suggested, know what we could do to help ourselves. At the moment the refusal to publish the report is in no way assisting to overcome the problem. In any event, I wonder why it was necessary- notwithstanding the fact that everybody knew for so long that high unemployment would be caused by the Government's action- for us to get to the near-desperation stage before any action was taken by the Government to even maintain some degree of employment in the textile industry in Launceston and other parts of Tasmania. One of the saddest advertisements I have seen in recent times was inserted last Saturday by a textile company which has closed down as a result of this Government's actions. It was advertising a remnants sale- the remnants of the textile industry, the remnants of Australian manufacturing industry. Is it any wonder, with this sort of thing going on and with the way in which Australia has been affected by this Government's economic mismanagement, that **Mr Bill** Hughes, the General Secretary of the Australian Textile Workers Union, should say yesterday that he could not understand why any person employed in manufacturing industries in Australia would vote for the return of this Government. I simply add that anybody who would do that would be voting to increase by a very large degree the likelihood of that person being put out of work because that has been the history of this Government's actions. What a commentary it is on the less than 2 years of Labor Government that we should have the highest unemployment in Tasmania and in Australia in recent history; that is, since the 2nd World War. I refer also to other questions related to Tasmania and assistance. I take this opportunity to inquire whether the Government is doing anything about these matters. Does it propose to do anything about them in the future? The matters to which I refer include the Warner Creek dam. No doubt **Senator Wriedt** would be familiar with this, as a project which would have tremendously beneficial effects. It has been regarded, on a costbenefit analysis, as one of the best projects in Australia. It is likely if allowed to go ahead to lead to the opportunity for the Meander River to be freed from the pollution from which it now suffers. Good water could be made available to the towns throughout the Meander Valley and irrigation would be possible in that very fertile region. However, so far we have heard nothing at all notwithstanding repeated requests for some sort of response on the issue from the Government. The Labor Party promised in election speeches in 1972 that the Government would reintroduce the Interstate Commission. I am referring to this matter in the absence of my colleague **Senator Wright** who is at present attending the United Nations as the representative of this chamber. The Interstate Commission is a matter very near and dear to **Senator Wright's** heart. It was promised by the Government but we have not seen any action taken on it. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- You are referring to **Senator Reginald** Wright. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- Yes. He is no relation to **Senator Ken** Wriedt who is in the chamber and has drawn attention to his presence here. I accept that there is a possibility of confusion between the 2 names. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- Only the names. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- Yes. I simply referred to the promise of the Labor Party. In Hobart in November 1972 **Senator Murphy,** Leader of the Government in the Senate, explained how the Commission would help to overcome all Tasmania's transport problems. Not only have we not seen the Commission; we have not seen either any help being given to overcome Tasmania's transport problems. I do not regard the action taken by the Government and so proudly proclaimed by **Senator Devitt** as anything other than giving with one hand and taking back with the other hand. We have not really advanced towards reducing the disparity between Tasmania 's transport costs and those which are common between, say, Melbourne and Sydney. I believe that the Government has displayed monumental disinterest in the problems of Tasmania. This is exemplified by its refusal to have a single member of the Government attend the protest rally which was organised yesterday in Launceston. Various reasons have been given why individual members could not attend but I do not accept them, particularly in view of the availability of Royal Australian Air Force transport, the use of which enables people to fly from Canberra to Tasmania to attend a function and to return to Canberra with a minimum loss of time. RAAF transport has been used quite extensively by Ministers to attend functions and I do not believe that it would not have been possible for a Minister of the present Government- preferably **Mr Barnard** as a Minister and the member for Bass- to attend the rally yesterday. That absence exemplifies the Government's monumental disinterest. That it is creating a reaction in Tasmania is to be expected and not the least reaction has come from none other than the Labor Premier of Tasmania. In today's issue of the Hobart 'Mercury' he is quoted as saying that he is 'browned off with people from Canberra tramping their hobnails over the State'. He is not particularly thrilled with what might be regarded as the Labor Government's approach to the problems of the island State. I want to take the opportunity also to comment generally on the Government's approach to expenditure and to tie such comments in with my specific concluding remarks. The Government has made a very loud noise about the extent to which it has been prepared to help the people, the magnificence of its social welfare program and all sorts of things. Let us debunk that claim by looking at Treasury Information Bulletin Number 75 of July 1974. At page 35 is a table setting out the percentage increases in various fields of expenditure. It shows that the Federal Government in 1973-74 increased its total receipts by 26.1 per cent. If in an area the increase in expenditure is less than 26 per cent it means that that area did not keep up with the general increase in income. Under the heading Social Security and Welfare the increase shown is 18.5 per cent for 1973-74 whereas expenditure for Legislative Services- running the Government- increased by 51.6 per cent. One may well deduce where some of the Government's emphasis on expenditure wentnot on helping the people but on helping itself. There are similar increases in all sorts of ways which further make the point. The only one to which I will specifically refer is the fraud one in education. The claim is made, as is usual, that expenditure was increased by 94.8 per cent in 1 973-74. We all know that that is a total fraud. In no way did the Government increase expenditure on education by anything like 94 per cent because more than one-third of the increase - $144m out of $4 16m- was simply a transfer of money which formerly had been paid to education by the Commonwealth through the States and now was being put into the Commonwealth's education budget. It did not represent a single solitary cent of extra expenditure on education. It is important for us to remember that the Government has been living upon that fraud for some considerable time, inducing people to believe that it has done far more in increasing expenditure on education than it has in fact done. The Government's claim is based upon a manipulation of figures and is in no way representative of the facts. I turn now to the shipping problems of Tasmania, a matter referred to in the debate just concluded but which needs referring to in greater detail. We were anxious to see the Australian Shipping Commission Bill go through as quickly as possible so that the assistance it provides at least would be available to Tasmania forthwith. That a problem exists is not disputed. Tasmanian senators have referred to it here over the years. In 1 970 we had occasion to debate freight rates of the Australian National Line when I moved for reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade the increases in freight rates applicable across Bass Strait. At that time I referred to the huge amounts of expenditure by the Commonwealth Government over the years on beef roads, Commonwealth railways and assistance in the transport problems of the other States and the Territories while Tasmania had received virtually nothing. That situation prevails. About $400m a year is being spent on interstate highways yet **Senator Devitt** proudly crows about an extra $2m for Tasmanian shipping. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- But your Government did not do it over about 5 rises in freight rates. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- Will you let me continue? {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- Yes, but give the full facts. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- The report of the Committee was presented to the Senate in 1971. The Liberal and Country Party Government accepted at least one of the recommendations made by the Committee. It did accept more than one of them, but one of them was a recommendation that the extent of the disability suffered by Tasmania should be the subject matter of an inquiry, an investigation, by the Bureau of Transport Economics. The second recommendation in the report was that as soon as practicable the Bureau of Transport Economics be asked to attempt a quantitative assessment of Tasmania's transport disabilities relative to the other States. The point that I want to make to **Senator Devitt** and to other honourable senators is that the then Liberal-Country Party did do that. It did have carried out that Bureau of Transport Economics assessment and that assessment did quantify the extent of the disability suffered by Tasmania. It made it abundantly clear. That report has been available to this Government throughout the whole of the term of its office. Yet it makes the excuse that it cannot do anything positive about overcoming the problems because it needs further information. As **Senator Bessell** made quite clear in his maiden speech just a week or two ago, there can be no doubt at all as to the nature of the disability suffered by Tasmania. The then Liberal-Country Party Government did take steps and it indicated that it would act on the report. Had it remained in office, its actions would have been carried out years ago. Its action would be years old by now had it remained in office. But instead of that this Government has just caused one further deferral of any real action to overcome Tasmania's major shipping problems. The extent of the disability being suffered by Tasmania is growing all the time, and this Government is prepared to approve a 25 per cent increase in the freight rates across Bass Strait and then proudly say: 'Having taken that much away from you we will give you back half by simply covering the freight rates on outward bound cargo'. Of course, the fact that the 25 per cent increase remains to be imposed upon inward cargoes means that all foodstuffs which have to be imported and all the raw materials for Tasmanian industries which have to be imported have to suffer a 25 per cent increase in the loading imposed on them. This is highly inflationary, amongst other things. It means that industries which have to import raw materials and then export their products will remain less competitive. Whilst we look forward to receiving the Nimmo report, and whilst we look forward to receiving any assistance that the Government may eventually find itself able to give, Tasmania is, in economic terms, bleeding to death. I simply remind the Government that the Australian National Line is not the only shipping line involved in shipping to and from Tasmania. Assistance is required not only in relation to the Australian National Line; assistance is required in relation to any form of shipping which operates to and from Tasmania. It is that factor with which we are concerned. As an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the States Grants Bill, I move: I challenge the Tasmanian senators on the Government side of the chamber to put Tasmania first and to join us in demanding a fair go for Tasmania. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)-** Is the amendment seconded? {: .speaker-K1X} ##### Senator Bessell: -- I second the amendment. {: #debate-44-s1 .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania -- It is a remarkable but sad reflection on the objectivity of the Liberal-Country Party Opposition that in a debate on a measure which generously ensures the future governmental financial viability of the State of Tasmania it should, through its principal speaker in the debate, confine itself to vilifying the Australian Government and hardly mentioning the name of the measure being debated. **Senator Rae** certainly failed to refer to any of the terms of the measure or to attempt to explain to the Senate what it is all about. The pattern that was followed by **Senator Rae** is similar to that which was followed in the House of Representatives when this Bill was debated in that chamber. For **Senator Rae** to organise his emotional approach by relying on editorial headings in the newspaper of his own city shows how bankrupt he is of any real arguments with which to attack the Australian Government. Since he did not deign to explain what this Bill is about, I suppose the first speaker in the debate on this side of the chamber today ought to do so. It is a Bill which has 3 basic objectives. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- Does every speaker have to explain the Bill? {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -The honourable senator has already spoken for half an hour. If he cannot take a little criticism such as that then he is not learning very fast. There are 3 points that I would make as to what this Bill does. Firstly, it increases by $ 15m the amount of financial assistance to Tasmania in the current financial year. Secondly, it writes into the States Grants Act 1973 the sum of $ 15m as part of the base upon which future grants under that Act to the State of Tasmania will be determined. In other words, it provides a permanent extra growth factor of $15m. Thirdly, it is clearly the means whereby Tasmania was able to escape from the Grants Commission system to which it had been tied for some 41 years and, so far as smokers in Tasmania were concerned, it was the means whereby they did not, following the judgment of the High Court of Australia early this year, have to continue to pay the tax which had been imposed despite the opinion of the High Court. All that is of the essence of this Bill, and **Senator Rae** did not make one syllable of reference to it. I thought that we could have done without his reliance upon the editorials of the 'Examiner'. The uncontroverted fact- this ought to be stated in view of the irrelevant remarks of **Senator Rae-** is that as a result of this Bill the total grants to Tasmania in the current financial year are nearly double the total of those grants in the last full year of Liberal-Country Party administration, namely 1971-72. When I refer to the total grants, I include all general purpose grants and all special purpose grants, both capital and income. The figures, which I have taken from official documents, are these: In 1971-72, which was the last full year of Liberal-Country Party administration, the total of those grants was, in round figures, $122m. In 1972-73, during which period both major parties were in government, the figure was $ 140m. In 1973-74, which was the first full year of Labor administration, the figure was $164m. In 1974-75, which is the current financial year, the total is $2 1 5 m. So the total has been increased to $2 15m in a space of 3 years. Yet the debate on the Bill which provides for that amount is used by **Senator Rae** as the vehicle for a vilification of the Australian Government, that told us nothing new, that was largely unsubstantiated, that was not particularised and which, I suggest, was simply a product of his anti-Labor attitude. But, of course, he is not consistent in his anti-Labor attitude because for some little time he has been flirting with the unions in Tasmania. He was away from the Senate for a time yesterday flirting with the unions on a matter which he said was of such importance that the Minister for Defence **(Mr Barnard)** should have laid aside what he was doing in Canberra and travelled to Tasmania to attend this epoch making rally. Even Tasmania's anti-Labor Press gave it the heading: 'North Snubs Union Rally'. That is the mighty meeting that this senator, who flirts with the unions when he thinks it might advantage him, suggests presumably that all members of Parliament and senators from Tasmania should have attended. Let me return to the measure that is before the Senate. An important factor in this Bill is that the specific increase of $ 15m in the grant for Tasmania for the current financial year will be written into the base figure for calculating on an escalating basis the grants for future years. This means that in perpetuity, so long as this legislation remains, Tasmania will receive an added growth factor. It was the absence of a growth factor that for almost the whole of the period of Liberal administration- between 1949 and 1972-held Tasmania back. That fact was asserted time after time in my hearing by the Premier of Tasmania, **Mr Bethune,** between 1969 and 1972. That has been remedied by a Labor Government. I will confine myself for the time being at least to the contents of this Bill. The legislation is historic because, as I have said, it is the practical vehicle whereby Tasmania can get out of the clutches of the Grants Commission. The disadvantages of being in the clutches of the Grants Commission, quite apart from the actual grants that are made, are matters that I will refer to later. I have said that as a result of this Bill and other measures the total grants to Tasmania for the current financial year are nearly double those for the last full year of the Liberal Administration. But quite apart from that general statement, the simple fact is- contrary to the impression that **Senator Rae** would seek to create- that many areas in Tasmania have been completely revitalised by the new initiatives of the Australian Government in less than 2 years. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -Tell us about the $500,000 grant. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -The honourable senator, who has spoken for a full half hour and still wants to continue his speech from his seat, .will not divert me from quoting from proper documents and from illustrating the point I am making. I have said that large areas have been opened up in Tasmania as a result of the initiatives of the present Government. I refer to expenditure on new areas, expenditure on areas which had been left financially arid over a period of nearly a quarter of a century. They are set out in an extremely convenient form on pages 4 and 5 of the document headed 'Grants to Tasmania' which was part of the Tasmanian Budget papers which were tabled in the House of Assembly in Tasmania a few weeks ago in relation to the present Budget. It is a document that I would commend to **Senator Rae.** Since last time I referred to a document he asked whether he could borrow it by my tabling it, I offer to do the same thing in relation to this one if he is interested at all. But I doubt whether he is interested. I just mention a few of the areas that, by virtue of Australian Government initiative, have been made fertile in a period of less than 2 years. I use the same words as are used in the document to which I have referred. These areas are as follows: Dental therapy assistance, pre-school education, community recreation complexes, the State Strategy Plan, urban public transport, community health, community mental health and the National Estate. I will not pause to read them all as there are 2 pages of them. But it is because of what the present Government has done that that situation is possible. It is a gross distortion of the truth for **Senator Rae** to use this measure as a vehicle for a general condemnation of a Government which has shown more interest in Tasmania, both when in Opposition and in the past period of nearly 2 years, than was shown by the Liberal-Country Party Administration for nearly a quarter of a century. As you no doubt know, **Mr President,** before 1972 it was a rarity to see a Liberal Minister in Tasmania. The children in the streets used to stare at them and ask 'Who are they?' as if they were men from the moon. What a contrast even then with the attitude of the present Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** who, as Leader of the Opposition, made himself familiar with Tasmania's problems. I well remember the occasion when he responded to an invitation to go to a tiny placeMount Nelson- near Hobart and open a school dental clinic on a Saturday morning. That is the measure of the interest that the present Prime Minister had in Tasmania. The measure of the interest that the Liberal Party had in Tasmania is that its members were hardly ever seen, except at election time. I do not wonder that, according to Press reports, the Liberal Party has decided to introduce a special platform into its policy called the Tasmanian platform. I can understand that after its clean-sweep defeat in 1972 in the House of Representatives and after its clean-sweep defeat in 1974 in the House of Representatives it would take heed from the Labor Party and say to itself 'It's time; we must think again', because 10 ducks and 10 innings is a pretty poor political record. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- You would not get a game in the Fifth Eleven on that performance. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- If he was supported by some of his union friends maybe he would get a game, but it was not a very promising performance yesterday, was it? The Labor Party is not at all concerned that at long last, after 25 weary years, the Liberal Party has at last decided that Tasmania is of sufficient importance to merit some special policy considerations. The Government welcomes it. It would be delighted. But it knows of course from past experience that for a quarter of a century the Liberal Party was not interested and it wonders what has caused this sudden interest in Tasmania. What is it? {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: **- Senator Townley?** {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -No, I do not believe that it is related at all to **Senator Townley.** I believe that it is a question of trying to impress the selectors after 10 ducks in succession. Reverting to the Bill - {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- That is interesting. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -At least the honourable senator who interjects now knows that it is customary at times in a speech on a Bill to refer to its terms. I come back for the third or fourth time to the Bill. I imagine that the honourable senator is rather sorry that he did not refer to it in at least one sentence. I have said that, as a result of this Bill and other measures, the total grants for Tasmania of all kinds for the current financial year will be a little more than $2 1 5m. The significance of that, I suggest, is seen more clearly when the Tasmanian Budget is analysed. This is of extreme importance when the general, unparticularised charge of neglect has been made as it has been this afternoon. According to the Budget figures- again for **Senator Rae's** benefit I will let him see the official papers if he wishes- the estimated total Consolidated Revenue for Tasmania this financial year will be $247.9m. The estimated Loan Fund expenditure will be $86. 5m, making a total of $334.4m. So when one considers that $2 15m of that revenue and capital expenditure is being found from Australian Government sources one realises that the simple arithmetical fact is that about two-thirds of the total funds available for Tasmania come directly from the Australian Government. That I suggest is a record that the Liberal Party never got near in nearly a quarter of a century. I suggest that its new Tasmanian platform will not go within a bull 's roar of it, if I can put it that way. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- Just tell us about inflation at the same time and what effect that has on these figures. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- How many goes does **Senator Rae** want? He speaks on the adjournment, he speaks on Bills but does not refer to them and he continually interjects. We know he is making a ploy and I propose to ignore him. I pass on to the third aspect of this Bill which I mention and that is the fact that it permits Tasmania to leave the Grants Commission system. The announcement that was made on 1 1 June this year by the Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** and the Premier of Tasmania, **Mr Reece,** ended, I would remind the Senate, a continuous association between Tasmania and the Grants Commission for a period of 41 years dating back to the inception of the Grants Commission in the early 1930s. The announcement also ended Tasmania's association with section 96 of the Constitution because even long before the Grants Commission was established Tasmania had, going back to 1912-13, received section 96 grants from the national Government. It is important that the Senate should appreciate from one who has had some experience of the operation of the system just what the advantages of this legislation are, particularly in the context of the Grants Commission that I have just mentioned. The first advantage is that starting with this financial year and continuing so long as the legislation remains, and escalating, Tasmania will receive an extra $15m. Compare that with the grants that it received in the past 3 years through the Grants Commission: 1970-71 $9.6m; 1971-72 9.65m; 1972-73 $10m; and 1 973-74 $ 10m. I point out in relation to those last 2 years that because of the arrangements made in June of this year between the Australian Government and the Tasmanian Government there were no completion grants, but unfortunately in recent years they had been running in the negative. So that was a fortuitous thing for Tasmania. As I have said, that extra amount is written in and, together with increases in population, increases in the average national wage and the betterment factor of 1 .8 per cent, ensures for Tasmania continuing governmental financial viability so long as the State is managed properly. The second important aspect is that no matter what the Grants Commission said- and it kept saying it for over 40 years- as a matter of practical consideration it did influence Tasmanian Government policy. The Grants Commission was always careful to say: 'We are not directing you as to what your policy on any particular issue should be. All we say is that if you do a particular thing then, depending upon the position in the standard States of Victoria and New South Wales, you may be financially prejudicially affected'. A supreme example of that is in relation to poker machines which have been verboten on Tasmania for a very long time but which seem to grow from strength to strength in New South Wales. As a result of Tasmania not having poker machines and one of the standard States having them, Tasmania has for a very long time been penalised approximately Sim per annum. So the Grants Commission has been able indirectly and in effect to influence policy. Those days, so long as Tasmania does not have to go back to the Grants Commission have ended. The third thing I mention simply for the sake of completeness but make no comment on is that the arrangement made between the Australian and Tasmanian Governments which has resulted in this legislation enabled the Tasmanian Government to put in mothballs the somewhat ill-fated tobacco tax legislation which caused so much controversy, at least after the High Court decision was given in February or March this year. That is what this legislation does for Tasmania. It has been said by **Senator Rae** that there is complete disinterest by the Australian Government in Tasmania. I have already indicated how, in contrast with the attitude of the LiberalCountry Party Government, the present Government has in effect saturated Tasmania with visits displaying its interest. I have had the welcome opportunity of being associated with a number of Ministers in my very brief time in the Senate on their visits to Tasmania. Dealing with the merits of this Bill I want to quote from what was said by the Minister for Defence **(Mr Barnard)** when it was debated in another place because I want to get back to the fundamentals of this Bill to indicate that Tasmania is receiving very just treatment indeed. As recorded at page 2009 of Hansard on 1 October, **Mr Barnard** said, speaking of the Bill: >It arose because we believed that the Tasmanian Government was entitled to some improvement in its financial affairs. When we are debating a Bill which involves an amount of $ 1 5m it should be remembered - This is the point- that this is the amount that was asked for by the Premier of Tasmania- no more and no less. It was not reduced. The Treasury officials and I- at that time I was the Deputy Prime Minister- agreed that if this was the requirement of the Tasmanian Government it represented a fair proposal, and the $ 15m was granted. Can **Senator Rae** or any of his colleagues point to a case in which his Government, their Government, treated Tasmania as generously as is summed up in that sentence I have read from **Mr Barnard's** speech? I think that Seantor Rae ought to hang his head in shame because he lives close to the Bell Bay railway and he knows- it has been stated so often- that the deal that was done by the Liberal-Country Party Government led by **Mr McMahon** in relation to assistance to Tasmania to establish that railway was the worst in the history of Federation. Contrast that with a situation in which every cent that is asked for by the Premier of the State is granted. What a mockery that makes of **Senator Rae's** criticism, in the context of this Bill, of the Australian Government! {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- Given a chance I will reply to that. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I do not doubt that the honourable senator will use up my last two or three minutes with another inane interjection. He does not need to tell us he will reply. He speaks on the adjournment most nights on this subject. It has become a nightly affair. I am proud to be associated with this Bill. I do not agree personally with everything that is done by the Australian Government in relation to Tasmania or any other State. One would be a rather weak creature if one meekly agreed with everything. But by and large the Australian Government has shown a real and genuine interest in Tasmania and in this Bill which is what we are really concerned with at this moment. It has acted generously and, I believe, wisely and in a way for which future generations of Australians will come to thank the Australian Government and not vilify it in the manner in which **Senator Rae** chose to do so tonight. {: #debate-44-s2 .speaker-K1X} ##### Senator BESSELL:
Tasmania -I wonder whether the impressive list of figures that **Senator Everett** gave us during his address on this Bill took into account the dramatic increase in inflation since 1972. He said that the figure was around 50 per cent. But when the inflation rate has increased from 4.5 per cent per annum to 20 per cent per annum there is a fairly obvious need for a dramatic increase in the grant to take up this sort of slack in true money terms. I agree with **Senator Everett** when he says that in freeing itself from the Grants Commission Tasmania has made a real step forward. I also agree with him when he says that the Grants Commission has had an effect on policy. We all can remember that not so very long ago the Totalisator Agency Board issue was raised. It was a policy that had to be looked at very carefully by the governing party. The direction that was given by the Grants Commission in its report for that year indicated fairly clearly that unless TAB operations were introduced there would be an adverse decision the following year. By enabling Tasmania to get out from under that sort of direction, the action of the Tasmanian Government has been of tremendous value to the people of Tasmania. But there have to be reasons why this action was sought and why it was needed. **Senator Everett** mentioned the increasing number of visits to Tasmania that have been undertaken by members of the Federal Labor Ministry in recent times. I wonder whether those visits are not related to the particularly high vote that the Liberal Party received at the election in May this year. Of course, both parties are quick to recognise moves in public opinion. I think that at present the Government is recognising some signs which are unpalatable to it. This is the sort of situation that will make any government respond, and respond in much the way that **Senator Everett** outlined; that is, by sending its representatives into the area and by trying to overcome disfavour and unpopularity by the sheer weight of numbers and personalities. This will not necessarily achieve the result that is hoped for. When we look at the situation in Tasmania and relate it to the debate that is taking place at the moment and to the debate that we had a few minutes ago on the Australian Shipping Commission Bill, we can see that there is some reason for disquiet. I mentioned a fortnight ago today in my maiden speech that in Tasmania there is tremendous disquiet in the business community, in the farming community and in the commercial world. The quarterly report of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group released just recently indicated clearly that a very large number of manufacturing businesses in Tasmania were looking closely at the possibility of moving out of that State. There is only one reason why they cannot do it: It would cost too much to move, notwithstanding that the present cost of getting their raw materials into Tasmania and their exports out of Tasmania is nearly as high. The inflation rate and the high interest rates have destroyed the confidence of the people throughout Australia in this Government's ability to handle the situation. More particularly, this situation applies to Tasmania which, by reason of its size, does not have the ability to be flexible in its policies and does not have the resources to call upon to make job opportunities available to people who are displaced from industry. **Senator Rae** mentioned in his address to the Senate the number of people who are out of work in Tasmania. The figures show fairly clearly that the situation is worse there than anywhere else in Australia. The figures show that 3.14 per cent of the work force is unemployed in Tasmania. This percentage is above the percentage in other States. The 2 areas in which the greatest pressure of unemployment is being felt are the textile industry, in which there has been a 5.15 per cent increase in unemployment, and the building industry, in which there has been a 1.78 per cent increase in unemployment. It is fairly obvious that, with the policies that have been adopted over the last 12 months, these are the sorts of industries that will react most quickly to changes in the economic climate. The building industry has always been a wonderful barometer of the economic situation. If there is a recession or if there is a downturn in demand, fairly obviously this industry will respond very quickly on the employment side. If there is an upsurge in activity, as we hope there will be in the not too distant future, the reaction is just as quick. But in the textile industry it is a different story. The position would not be so bad in the textile industry if there were only unemployment in certain of the mills. But, when the action of the Government causes the complete closure of a mill, this is a more difficult position. The mill then has to be reestablished and made into a viable business. This is not always easy and it is certainly extremely costly. The subsidy that has been mentioned without doubt represents a recognition of the seriousness of the situation. Mention has been made of the reason for the payment of the subsidy, not only in the Senate but also in the other place. The reason why this has been brought about needs some explanation. We find, when we look back at the situation, that the accusation that the previous Government did nothing for 23 years cannot be borne out by a close look at the facts. There is no doubt that into the late 1960s, with the introduction by the Australian National Line of the roll-on roll-off method of shipping, Tasmania, in common with other areas of Australia, enjoyed a relatively competitive cost of transport. But, as time went on, this situation slowly started to change. It was recognised by the then Government and by people on this side of the Senate towards the end of the 1960s and in the early 1970s that something needed to be done. In this respect, we have the report that was mentioned earlier by **Senator Rae.** It is the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade on Freight Rates on Australian National Line Shipping Services to and from Tasmania. On 3 September 1970, the Committee was appointed to look into this matter. It made various recommendations. Two quite interesting reservations were expressed by 2 of the members of that Committee. The first reservation to which I refer is in relation to subsidy arrangements. **Senator Rae** stated: >I recommend that > >the questions related to the introduction of some scheme of subsidy or freight cost equalisation be referred to the Bureau of Transport Economics for consideration at the same time as they carry out the recommended quantitative assessment of Tasmania's transport disabilities relative to the other States (Committee Recommendation No. 2); > >the Bureau's report upon both matters be published for the consideration of all interested persons to then determine what action should be taken at a Government level. **Senator Wriedt,** who was then a member of the Committee, said in his reservations: >For this reason alone, and for several others, particularly the vast sums of Commonwealth money which has been spent on mainland railways and beef roads, I believe the Commonwealth has an obligation to directly assist Tasmania in respect to shipping freight rates. > >The significance of the comparatively low degree of departmental spending in Tasmania has been largely overlooked in the past and coupled with the declining rate of private investment in secondary industry in Tasmania, is a major factor in the State's inability to maintain a level of economic development with Australia as a whole. > >I agree with the Committee's finding that the normal subsidy methods would prove difficult to achieve but I also contend that a taxation allowance on company tax should be given favourable consideration. The present rate of tax on all the shipping operators trading to Tasmania is a major factor in their consideration of freight rates. I think it was clearly demonstrated at that time that these 2 honourable senators, who sit opposite one another in the Senate chamber, recognised that there were problems which, within the scope of the inquiry, the ability of the Committee and the time allowed to it, it would be impossible to unravel. The subsequent report that it was recommended be supplied by the Bureau of Transport Economics was made available in March 1973. I quoted from that report a fortnight ago many of the pertinent points which are still relevant to the situation that exists today. We see from that report that it is not easy to find a long lasting solution. The Government has had this report for nearly 1 8 months. It has not been able, from the information contained in the report, to arrive at a solution. Therefore, it has commissioned the Nimmo Committee report. We hope that that report will contain the details that will give sufficient clarity and a decision that is permanent, just as permanent as the one referred to by **Senator Everett** in regard to the $ 15m that is being made available to Tasmania. It will be of tremendous value, I think, to Tasmania which has shipping problems in its Transport Commission notwithstanding that two or three of its ships have finished up at the bottom of the sea. I think it is important that there is room for the Tasmanian Government to have opportunity to manoeuvre in the capital field and in the budgetary aspect, without continual recourse to Federal Government funds. The other important subject with regard to costs in the freight field is the unquestionably very high pay that seamen get. I do not think anybody disagrees that a seaman like any other worker in Australia is entitled for his labour to a fair and equal share of the products of the nation. When one considers that these people work only a 32-week year, their rate of pay is over $300 a week. If shipping is to be effective on a scheduling basis, fairly obviously this must be extrapolated out to 12 months- 52 weeks of the year. If we do that we find that the cost of a seaman on each of the ships is in excess of $15,000 a year. It is fairly obvious that costs must of necessity increase very rapidly. When an inflationary pressure exists, as at present, it is fairly obvious that there will be large jumps in demand for increased wages and an increased share of productivity. There are many other aspects and side issues. I think that I demonstrated fairly clearly during the Budget debate that Tasmania is disadvantaged to the extent of $5m. I do not agree with the supposition that because certain goods that are imported into Tasmania receive the benefit of a freight equalisation scheme, there is no increased cost to the people of Tasmania. If one goes to the worker, the carpenter, the builder or the housewife, they will all tell you that there is very definitely an additional increase in costs. Some of those people still have enough money left, notwithstanding the economic situation in Tasmania today, to travel occasionally to another State. They can compare then quite easily the cost of groceries. Women seem to have a particularly keen eye for doing so. Another matter has been causing a good deal of concern in my region of the State- the northwest coast. As many of the senators from Tasmania know, for many months there has been a good deal of speculation on the possibility of establishing a vegetable processing factory on the north-west coast with assistance from the Australian Industry Development Coporation We were trenchantly criticised by senators on the other side for our refusal to pass the AIDC and NIF Bills. When we look at what happened on Saturday of last week we realise that honourable senators opposite can hide no longer behind that excuse for the non-establishment of this factory. In the 'Advocate' of Saturday, 12 October, **Mr Costello,** the Minister for Agriculture in Tasmania, in answer to an accusation by **Mr Mervyn** Radford from the north-west coast that the Minister was unaware of what was going on, stated: >My Department co-operated with the feasibility study being conducted by the PDS, both in the provision of statistical information and also in discussions. This company from Sydney was looking into the economic viability of the project. The report continues: >I also was present when the then Acting Prime Minister **(Dr Cairns)** visited the North- West. > > **Dr Cairns** had made it quite clear that, although he personally was in favour of the project, the Australian Industry Development Corporation had rejected it since it did not believe it was economically viable. > > **Dr Cairns** had gone on to say that, had the Senate not refused to pass the amendments to the AIDC Bill, then it would have permitted the establishment of such projects as the co-operative. But the AIDC had decided already that they would not approve this project. For Government senators to use that as an excuse for their inability to compromise on such an important issue does them less than credit in this sort of situation, because it was not a point of policy in the Bill; it was just a request for a finalisation of the investigation. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-K1X} ##### Senator BESSELL: -- Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was trying to explain that the much vaunted processing factory in north-western Tasmania has not received the support of the Australian Industry Development Corporation because they themselves with all their wisdom and their ability have realised that it is not an economically viable proposition. Earlier, **Senator Everett** mentioned that there had been a 100 per cent increase in the amount of moneys received by Tasmania from the Commonwealth Government. I think the relevant point here is that during the last 4 years the tax revenue to the Commonwealth has doubled. Four years ago it was $7,248m. It is estimated that this year the amount will be $14,5 18m. If we take into account the 100 per cent increase in moneys received by Tasmania we must also take into account the 100 per cent increase in revenue to the Commonwealth Government which is about the same figure. There is not quite the generosity that would appear from what **Senator Everett** said. It is fairly clear that while **Senator Everett** said we ignored the situation it is important that he, in turn, ignored the amendment moved by **Senator Rae.** I think it is an extremely important matter. To support the amendment would show a solidarity to the people of Tasmania. It would show the people who elected us to this place- on whichever side of your chair, **Mr President,** we may sit- that we are vitally interested in what is going on and that we earnestly desire to get together to try to formulate a plan that will act as a solution for the disadvantaged people in Tasmania who have suffered, unfortunately, for too long a period. Between us I think we have explained quite readily the reasons for the difficulty in arriving at a rational or workable decision. It is not a matter of just coming up with money. The money has to be applied in such a way that it will give relief that is needed. Mention was made of the $2m in connection with exports from Tasmania. Unfortunately, this could not relieve the disadvantage that Tasmania already suffers. It will also do nothing to relieve the import factor. We hope that the Nimmo report will bring down the types of figures and the types of graphic detail that is needed to arrive at a formula whereby this continuing problem to Tasmania which has occurred over the last 4 or 5 years can be finally solved to the satisfaction of the people of Tasmania. It has a relevance, of course, to the people of Australia. I think that we all realise because of the very nature of the agricultural activities in Tasmania, particularly on the north-west coast, a tremendous amount of frozen food and other things of this nature are produced which find their ready markets in Victoria and New South Wales. For this reason it is extremely important that everybody should share the cost of transport between centres. Everybody in Australia should be prepared to accept something of the burden of the disadvantages suffered. I think the reference made by **Senator Everett** to a group of people who were in Launceston yesterday hardly acknowledged the real situation. I understand that at one stage there was somewhere in the vicinity of 500 people. This has been brought about by a genuine desire of the people to bring to the Government's notice the real situation that faces this part of Tasmania. It is terribly important, I think, that we should recognise that there are areas in Tasmania and in other parts of Australia which have been sadly affected by policies of this Government. The Government acknowledges that some of the policies that it has followed in recent months have been responsible for the present situation. The Government has done what it could in this respect but there is still very much more to do. In closing, I should like to return to the amendment. I again ask other members of the Senate from Tasmania to support the amendment moved by **Senator Rae.** In this way they will show the people of Tasmania the genuine desire of us all to find a solution to a problem that has been with the State of Tasmania for a long time. Unless a genuine and earnest desire is demonstrated to the people of Tasmania by us all they will lose faith that we will ever find a solution to their problems. {: #debate-44-s3 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania -- I rise to support the State Grants Bill 1974. 1 oppose the amendment moved by **Senator Rae.** The purpose of this Bill- which has been discussed tonight so far as I can remember only by **Senator Everett-** is to provide an extra grant of $ 1 5m for this year to Tasmania, the outcome of which will be that Tasmania will be removed as a claimant State before the Grants Commission. I think it should be emphasised that the grant of $ 15m is not simply a one-year grant. Provision for this amount to be increased in future years, dependent on such things as population increase and wage increase is incorporated in the Bill. It is not simply a one-year grant- a one-shot effort. The importance of the Bill for Tasmania lies in the fact that, as I have stated, it removes from the State the necessity to apply for special grants before the Grants Commission. It is equally important in that it does not affect the ability of the Grants Commission to assist local governmenta desirable reform which was instituted by this Government. The necessity for the Tasmanian Government to consider the levels of charges and social services in the so-called 'standard States' before it legislates and applies these taxes- a factor that has been important in Tasmanian legislation- to avoid a negative adjustment by the Grants Commission has been considered a constraint by Premiers, including the previous Liberal Premier, **Mr Bethune.** The Premiers also felt constrained by having to go cap in hand to the Grants Commission explaining why they needed more grants and why they should not receive lower grants. It has made it difficult for the State to progress in the way it wanted to. Although for more than 40 years the system of the grants has helped the States considerably, times have changed. The demands of the States have grown more and more different from what they were before. In fact, problems in each State are frequently different. Freedom to legislate with respect to social security, health matters, transport costs and transport charges has been a very difficult problem for those Tasmanian governments which have been in power. New methods of raising revenue have been considered by previous governments. The most publicised, of course, was the notorious consumer tax on cigarettes. This proposition was conceived by a previous Liberal government and was put into effect by a Labor government. It was found to be ineffective. It was a regressive tax with which I did not agree and with which many people did not agree. Out of this arose the present agreement whereby Tasmania can be freed of the constraints that it felt were difficult and which made matters difficult for that State in general. Much has been said of this Government's treatment of Tasmania. Indeed, in the debate on this Bill in another place the whole time was spent in denigrating the efforts of the Australian Government in Tasmania. It was heartening to many Tasmanians that the Liberals had suddenly discovered that Tasmania existed. I think it is necessary therefore to make some reference to both the efforts of this Government in Tasmania and some of the efforts made by the previous government. I think firstly we should look at the record of the previous Government- the LiberalCountry Party coalition Government. Acknowledgement of the practice of the previous Liberal-Country Party coalition Government to ignore Tasmania is contained in a statement of the Leader of the Liberal Party in Tasmania, **Mr Bingham,** M.H.A. On his return from the Liberal Party conference this weekend he was quoted as saying: >There has been a tremendous change in the attitude of the Liberal Party to Tasmania. One assumes that he means it is a change for the better. Therefore one assumes that the previous attitude of the Liberal Party was inadequate. The second indication of the fact that the previous Government's attitude to Tasmania was inadequate is best demonstrated, I think, by the attitude of the electors in Tasmania over the years. In 1949 when the Liberal-Country Party Government came to power, **Mr Duthie,** the member for Wilmot, was the lone Labor member from Tasmania in the House of Representatives, and he sat there alone until the present Minister for Defence **(Mr Barnard)** won the seat of Bass. Then shortly afterwards, in 1956, the year in which the Australian National Line was formed, **Mr Davies** won the seat of Braddon. Some time later **Mr Sherry** won the seat of Franklin, and finally in 1972 the Labor Party had won all seats in Tasmania in the House of Representatives. In May of this year this clean sweep was confirmed. This surely demonstrates the concern that Tasmanians felt at the neglect of the Liberal-Country Party Government. I hope that the attitude of the Liberal Party to Tasmania has changed, but I wonder whether the people of Tasmania can really trust such a change in attitude in a very short time. I think that we must put into perspective the treatment that Tasmania has received from this Government compared with the treatment that it received from the previous Government. I believe that under the present Government Tasmania has not been treated ungenerously, but this does not mean that I will not fight for further and more generous treatment. I think that the example relating to transport, which was one of the examples that **Senator Rae** used, is an interesting one because it demonstrates the attitude of the previous Government to Tasmania and the attitude of the previous Government to its own members. **Senator Devitt** has given some figures to illustrate what happened between 1 970 and 1 972, but I will repeat some of them. In August 1970 there was an increase of *2lA* per cent in all Tasmanian general cargo freights. In July 1971 there was an increase of 12V4 per cent in freights between Sydney and Tasmania and an increase of 8 per cent in freights between Melbourne and Tasmania. In August 1972 there was an increase of 25 per cent in freights between Melbourne and Tasmania, caused by the removal of concessions on dense cargo. There was an increase of 12 per cent in freights between Sydney and Tasmania, again due to the removal of concessions on heavy cargoes, and a surcharge of 20 per cent was applied to hazardous cargo. This problem was recognised by all Tasmanian senators, including the Tasmanian Liberal senators who, on a motion moved by **Senator Rae,** moved for the referral of the question of the Tasmanian freight problem to a select committee of the Senate. The difference between what happened then and what happened with the recent ANL freight increase is quite significant. The previous Government had no choice but to accept the referral of this question of these freight difficulties to the Senate select committee, but the previous Government did nothing about the matter. It applied no subsidies. In fact, after the committee was formed the previous Government continued to agree to the removal of subsidies on these freight lines. Recently ANL decided to increase its freight rates by 25 per cent. It did this on sound business principles, as it had to do under the Act which we are trying to amend. In fact, what happened was that Tasmanian Labor senators and Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives were justifiably concerned. We immediately went to the Minister for Transport **(Mr Charles Jones),** who was sympathetic. The Minister, the Tasmanian Labor senators and the Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives went to the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam),** and a fortnight later a $2m subsidy was announced. The legislation passed this afternoon will allow this subsidy to be applied. This is the big difference between the attitude of the previous Government and the attitude of this Government to Tasmania. Our Government was responsive to the difficulties facing Tasmania. We did not have to come into the Senate and move motions and amendments in order to get anything done. We got a quick response and, despite the remarks of some Liberal members of the State Parliament in Tasmania, we are not conning anybody; the money will be there. The provision of this money is an interim measure until the Nimmo royal commission reports on Tasmanian freight rates and Tasmanian freight difficulties. The reason why it was necessary to set up the Nimmo royal commission to inquire into the freight difficulties facing Tasmania was that the previous 2 reports on this matter- the one of the Senate select committee and the one of the Bureau of Transport Economics- created difficulties and raised questions which had to be answered before some rational solution could be found. It is a sad fact that the first Senate select committee, which was appointed, I think, in 1903, dealt with Tasmanian freight problems and I think that there have been 6 similar inquiries appointed since then. This present royal commission, we hope and pray, will be the last. The reason why the subsidy was applied only to outgoing freights was that the 2 previous reports had stated, firstly, that as far as bulk cargoes were concerned Tasmania was not disadvantaged. The report of the Bureau of Transport Economics pointed out the difficulties in deciding how to apply any sort of a subsidy on inward freights. Many goods coming into Tasmania are subject to a price equalisation scheme which applies all round Australia. Many groceries, tobacco, cigarettes and some cars are subject to this scheme. To apply an overall subsidy would mean that this price equalisation scheme would probably have to be removed, and in many cases the only people who would benefit would be the companies which were sending goods to Tasmania. We hope, and we think, that the Nimmo royal commission will bring forward solutions to the Tasmanian freight problem. But this freight problem will also be helped by the expenditure of $55m which this Government is prepared to spend on new boats which will be used for the Tasmanian trade. But Tasmanian freight problems do not relate only to the sea leg across Bass Strait. Freight has to be forwarded at each end of the trip. The Senate select committee report indicated that the cost of freight forwarding at each end represented about SO per cent of the cost of transporting goods from a place in Victoria or New South Wales to a place in Tasmania. Apparently in many cases ANL, in its trips across Bass Strait, has reduced its freight cost to 40 per cent or less of the total freight cost. I think that it is wrong for people to get the impression, and it is wrong for us to give the impression to people in Tasmania, that by reducing ANL's freight rates we will suddenly solve the problem and that all the freight rates will be greatly reduced. I think that the Nimmo royal commission will look at- and we will have to look at- the possibility of allowing ANL to be its own freight forwarding agent or, if that is not possible or desirable, of allowing ANL to contract its own freight forwarding. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- That was one of the recommendations of the Senate Committee. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES: -It was. This matter will have to be decided. But we cannot do things in one hit. It cannot be changed until the agreement finishes, I think in June next year. When it does finish I think it is very desirable that we make some change. Also we have to solve the problem of freighting in Tasmania. There may be some element in the report which suggests that in some way we have to rationalise our port facilities in Tasmania. The solution to Tasmania's freight problems will not come only from the Australian Government. It will not come only from subsidies. It will have to be a combined effort. Tasmanians from all areas will have to combine with the Federal Government to solve this problem which has been with us not for just 5 years or 6 years, as **Senator Bessell** said, but in fact, since Federation and before. Personal abuse, abuse between State and Federal Governments and abuse between various parties will not solve this problem. A lot of co-operation and a lot of thought will be required. Some people may even have to bury some of their differences to solve the problem. **Senator Bessell** suggested that the reason for the travelling to Tasmania by Ministers of this Government which has gone on since we were elected in 1972 was that we recognised that we were in some difficulty in Tasmania. That is not so. As **Senator Everett** said, **Mr Whitlam** and other Ministers travelled to Tasmania frequently before the election and they have travelled there frequently since the election. If visits of Ministers and other senior members of a party merely reflect a sudden interest in Tasmania, one can only say that it has taken 25 years for the Liberal Party to become at all interested. Despite the gradual erosion of Liberal Party representation over those years and the obvious signs that the Liberal Party might end up with the disastrous result which it obtained in 1972 and 1974, the efforts of **Senator Rae, Senator Marriott, Senator Lillico** and **Senator Wright** were to no avail. I suggest- perhaps immodestly- that the efforts of the 10 present Tasmanian Federal Labor Party parliamentarians bore fruit within a fortnight. Attempts to deride those efforts have been plainly unsuccessful, as is shown by the Bill which was passed this afternoon and by the money which will be coming forward very shortly. **Senator Bessell** made some remarks about the vegetable processing factory on the north-west coast. In fact he suggested that **Dr Cairns** and, I believe, at another time myself were not being truthful in saying that the amendment to the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act would make a difference to the vegetable processing factory. In fact the vegetable processing factory may not come into being; but, as has been explained in this place and in the other place, it is not possible to use the AIDC Act as it stands at the moment to fund this vegetable processing plant. Under the amendment to the AIDC legislation this may be possible. I was at the meeting at La Trobe when **Dr Cairns** said: This may be possible'. I was reported as speaking and I was quoted correctly as saying 'It may be possible'. At least it will give us the opportunity to fund financially sound but not necessarily high profit making industries which may be necessary for the survival of other industries such as the vegetable growing industry in northern Tasmania. We are not making wild and rash promises. This may happen. We hope that it will happen. But without the modification to the AIDC Act it is impossible to see how this could possibly happen. In summing up I point out that in some other fields Tasmania has not done as badly as the Opposition in its many attacks on this Government would like us to believe. For instance, per capita Tasmania receives from the Federal Government $572 a year as compared to some $273 a year, I think, in the case of the other States. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- That is per head. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES: -- Yes, per head or per capita. I do not object to this. In fact, I do not think that it is enough. Apparently **Senator Rae** does not think it is enough. I hope that he will be able to convince his Party, if it ever gets back as the Government, that that per capita allocation is not enough. I agree with the remarks **Senator Wriedt** made 2 years ago in a Senate Select committee report when he said that the allocation ignores many things. It ignores the fact that Tasmania does not have big Australian Government department offices and that it does not have big defence establishments as some other States have. But what concerns me and what should concern the people of Tasmania is that one of the greatest cries of the Liberal Party, and also of the Australian Country Party, is what it will do if it gets back into power. One of its biggest claims is that it will reduce government spending considerably. In a small State like Tasmania, with a small population which is spread across the State, some forms of social services, health and education cost more than they do in other States. I hope and pray that this does not mean that if a Liberal Government were in office Tasmanian expenditure would be cut drastically. But I cannot see how the Liberal Party could avoid this if it intends to cut Government spending drastically. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- Would it not be cut? It was in the past. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES: -I am afraid that it has been cut in the past, as **Senator Devitt** said. And it would happen again. For instance, university expenditure by the Australian Government in Tasmania this year comes to $20m. This is more than 3 times the amount allocated in the previous 2 years. For colleges of advanced education $14m has been provided, which is about 4 times the allocation of the previous 2 years. There is $2m for technical education which is 3 times the allocation for the previous 2 years. There is $ 1 6m for government and non-government schools, which is 4 times the allocation of the previous 2 years. For public hospitals $ 1.6m has been provided. There was nothing in the previous years. The money is to go to meet half the cost of a new Launceston general hospital and to build a new women's hospital in Hobart. There is $2m for community health centres on which money had never been spent before and $3m for the school dental health scheme. This means that Tasmania gets more than 10 per cent of the total allocation for this purpose, although we have only 3 per cent of the population. Aid for housing has risen from $300,000 in 1972-73 to $20m in 1974-75. Recently an extra $2.5m was provided for public housing in the State. These figures show that this Government has not been ungenerous to Tasmania. They show that we are concerned about Tasmania. This does not mean that we are complacent about Tasmania. We have never been complacent and we never will be. The Tasmanian members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives will continue to fight for the necessary subsidies and benefits which this Government can give to a small island State which is disadvantaged in many ways. In September 1972, before the election, we were assured by the then Minister for Education and Science and by **Senator Rae** that the removal of the Antarctic Division to Tasmania was impossible and undesirable. In the year following the election this Government after investigation found that it was indeed possible and desirable. Immediately there was great support from **Senator Rae** and other members of the Opposition who a short time before had said that the move was not a good thing. We have not had any complaints from them since. That is one example of how the parliamentary representatives of Tasmania by bringing the relevant facts to the notice of the Government can succeed in getting institutions and other aid for Tasmania. This Bill will be of great benefit to Tasmania financially and the present amount of $ 15m will almost certainly be increased in future years. As **Senator Everett** has demonstrated, the amount represents a considerable increase on the provisions of past years. It will also be of benefit to the people and the Government of Tasmania psychologically. The Tasmanian Government will not have to go on behalf of Tasmanians to the Grants Commission to explain how, why and where it spends its money. It will be of great benefit to Tasmania in providing more efficient government. The Tasmanian Government will be able to apply charges, social services, taxes, transport costs and everything else without being concerned about how they compare with those in the standard States. It is a very desirable move that has been advocated by Labor and Liberal Premiers and governments. I commend the Bill and feel that it can do nothing but good. {: #debate-44-s4 .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania -We are discussing a Bill to grant to Tasmania an amount that will enable it to withdraw as a claimant State to the Grants Commission. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise additional financial assistance to Tasmania and, of course, I am in favour of such action. In Tasmania there is urgent need for heavy financial assistance. Tasmanian industries are under tremendous wage and cost pressures, including freight cost pressures due to what I regard as the 'couldnotcareless' attitude of this Government, irrespective of what has just been said by **Senator Grimes.** In spite of the moneys that **Senator Grimes** has told us have been spent by the present Government, economic collapse could easily occur in Tasmania. We have the highest rate of inflation in the Commonwealth and certainly the highest unemployment. Tasmania is always the first to suffer from a credit squeeze but this time we have the added trouble caused by the reduced tariff on textiles and consequent unemployment, particularly in the Launceston area. I believe that in Launceston one firm has put off 600 employees this year. A couple of weeks ago I heard **Senator Rae** ask for the report of the task force on the unemployment situation in Launceston. I heard him ask for it again last night. It has not yet been presented to him or to the Senate. Yesterday's figures show that over 3 per cent of Tasmanians are out of work. Perhaps the Government is scared to release the report of the task force because it will show the effects of some of the Government's economic policies, particularly of the high interest rates. The present interest rates are the highest in the history of Australia and have come from a government that claims not to believe in high interest rates. I referred last week to those people who are lucky enough to own their own homes. They certainly cannot include our young people who will not be able to get houses until interest rates are reduced. Home owners have certainly felt the effects of the high interest rates that councils have to pay when they obtain a loan. Of course, they have to pass their expenses on to householders. I have been informed that even with very considerable increases in rates charged this year many councils will have to curtail some of their activities. I do not want to talk only about housing. I am quite sure that the Tasmanian Government could well use more than the $ 15m that this Bill will give it for expenditure on housing alone and even then we would not catch up. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- They got that grant only last week. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -How much was that? {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- It was a housing grant of $17.5m. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- I still say that they could probably spend this $ 1 5m as well. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- This is what the Premier asked for and got- every cent. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- The point has already been made tonight about the Premier asking for and getting just what he wanted- this $ 15m. He asked back in June. I think the Premier of Tasmania is known to be a fairly stubborn man. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- He needs to be with the mob he has around him in Opposition. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -He could very well insist that the Federal Government give him what he asks for because I do not think the Federal Government wants to see the spread of the tobacco tax throughout the Commonwealth. I think that is why he got what he asked for, and no other reason. In many ways Tasmania has been and still is a lucky State. We have clear skies a lot of the time and over many areas and we have ample water supplies to drive our electric turbines. We have good farmlands and forests and I hope that the Government will ensure that the forests are not destroyed by excessive chipping. We also have a couple of distinct disadvantages and on that point I am not in any way going to deal with governments that happen to be in office. Bass Strait is a natural disadvantage. It has proved to be a most expensive stretch of water. **Mr Whitlam** promised before the last election to equalise freight costs between Tasmania and the mainland, with the cost of rail freights on the mainland. Unless that is done we can easily foresee economic disaster for Tasmania. Recently an attempt was made to raise the Australian National Line, charges by 25 per cent. Over the years we have seen too many of these increases. Freight rates have been raised by people in Canberra who do not seem to know what effect the increases have on Tasmania. At times I feel that they do not care and in that category unfortunately I class our present Minister for Transport **(Mr Charles Jones).** I do not think that until now he has really cared about the effects on Tasmania of increasing ANL charges. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- That is the first increase since he became Minister. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- I am not saying anything about the increase. I am saying that it was done by people in Canberra and I do not think the Minister for Transport cares too much about what happens in Tasmania. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- He responded with $2m. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- That is the first time ever. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -One at a time, gentlemen. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Senator Townley,** you will address the Chair and take the responses as opportunity offers. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- I will try to do that, **Sir. Another** disadvantage for Tasmania is that we have a very small population. It is not growing very rapidly. We have a small local market. If industries face high, costs in sending their goods to the mainland they are going to find their operations much more difficult. Many of our young people are tending to leave Tasmania. Maybe the bright lights of the bigger cities attract them. At least that is what I think may have been the attraction in the past. I think that over the next few months we may see them leaving for a different reason; they may have to leave to look for jobs. In spite of the money that Tasmania receives from the Federal Government, I feel that it is fading into a kind of economic oblivion. We have the highest inflation and the highest unemployment, and I think this has been brought about by this Government 's ' don 't care ' attitude. Maybe it is part of the deliberate process of socialisation or attempted socialisation by this Government. It appears to want to socialise everything from housing to farming. Maybe it wants Tasmania's industries to give up. I know of several that have given up already. Maybe Tasmania's present plight is just part of the Government's total plan to allow Tasmania to go down the drain. Much of Tasmania's income and its economy depends upon rural production and mining. Many of the smaller rural industries are in trouble because of the deliberate actions which have been taken by this Government which appear to be aimed at our rural community. The apple industry is one example of how a once flourishing industry has been allowed to collapse. It is an example of how a government run by union pressures, by the powerful trade unions, does not care about anything as small as Tasmania. The situation has got to the stage where **Mr Reece** is reported in today's 'Mercury' as saying that he is browned off with people from Canberra tramping their hobnails over the State. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator Everett: -- Do you think that statement is consistent with what **Mr Costello** said, as reported in the same newspaper? {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- All I know is that it is quite easily read in the headline on the front page of today 's ' Mercury '. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- Read the small print. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- I can read the small print. I can read it even without my glasses on. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator Everett: **- Mr Costello** later refers to a misunderstanding. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -Wait a minute. If you remember, a moment ago - The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Senator Townley,** you will address the Chair. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -Yes, **Mr Acting Deputy President.** A moment ago when **Senator Everett** was interrupted by **Senator Rae** during the course of his remarks he said that he intended to ignore **Senator Rae.** Now I am saying that, as much as I would like to answer his interjection, I will do so only if I get the opportunity. I would not be rude enough to say that I will ignore him. As I said, the headline in today's 'Mercury' states that **Mr Reece** said that he is browned off with people from Canberra tramping their hobnails over the State. I am inclined to believe that many people in Tasmania feel that way. I genuinely believe that some of the Labor members of the House of Representatives are extremely worried about the way in which Tasmania has been neglected by this Government. But they do not have a big enough voice in Caucus to cause any real change in the Government's policy. If the five of them were really serious they would just about have the numerical strength to force anything through the House of Representatives if they were to cross the floor. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- Who is the chief of your caucus? You could have your caucus meeting in a phone booth. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- I do. It is the only private place I can find. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator Townley, I ask you to confine your remarks to the States Grants Bill. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- I am sorry, **Mr Acting Deputy President.** I was distracted again. We had a decent sort of spirit in the Senate earlier today and I am glad to say that it has prevailed this evening. Because of the way in which the Government has been handling the economy- I do not say that it has been bungling the economy because I believe that all that has happened has been carefully planned- it can be seen that it wants to restructure the way in which the country is run. I think Tasmania can look forward to retaining its dubious honour of being both the leader in the inflation race and the leader in the unemployment race. I feel that the $ 15m which this Bill provides will not be nearly enough and Tasmania will soon need to find another tax similar to the tobacco tax to rip a little more money from its citizens. I was asked a couple of days ago whether I thought inflation was a world wide thing, and my answer was that at first sight it may appear that it is a world wide thing- and to a certain extent it is- but in Australia I feel that we have been very responsible for our own inflation. I do not think we have been hit very much by imported inflation yet. Some countries which have to import all of their fuel oil, of course, would have their inflation rate increased because the cost of fuel oil has increased many-fold. But many countries which have to get all their fuel from outside in fact have lower rates of inflation than does Australia. Approximately 70 per cent of Australia's oil needs are locally produced. I feel that our inflation rate has increased mainly because of excessive government spending and increasing costs brought about by excessive union demands. Much of the inflation in Tasmania has been passed on fron union demands which have been made in the other States of the Commonweath. Just finishing off that point, I expect that real inflation is just about to start in this country. Although I could be wrong I genuinely fear for the future. At a time when this disastrous rate of inflation is raging in this country we see that the Government is intending to increase its expenditure by almost one-third. This, to me, will add to inflation. Many people today would prefer sizable tax cuts to an increase in government spending. But if there is to be an increase in spending then Tasmania should be getting even a better deal than the one it is getting now. It should be getting the special treatment that an island State needs. The worry that many people in Tasmania have was well expressed in the motion that was moved in Launceston yesterday and to which **Senator Rae** referred last night. It shows, in spite of many things, that there is anti-government feeling developing in Tasmania. The provision of $ 15m for Tasmania which was arranged back in June as a means of stopping the Tasmania tobacco tax should by now be increased almost $ 1 8m just to allow for inflation. But as this year goes on I think the State of Tasmania will need a great deal more than that. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator Milliner: -- How much extra are you charging in your chemist shops? {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- I was hoping **Senator Milliner** would come in today. If, because of the attention that the debate on this Bill has brought to the plight of Tasmania, the Government now really looks after my State, I will be more than grateful. But if that does happen, it will not be because of the actions of the Tasmanian members of the Government; it will be because of the pressure that other people outside the Government have applied to it. I will support the amendment. {: #debate-44-s5 .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania -- I would like to take a moment or two to make some observations on one or two aspects of this debate which have been left somewhat in the air. In the first place, the $ 1 5m which the Tasmanian Government has secured from the Commonwealth Government to meet its financial commitments is not meant to cover the tobacco tax which the Tasmanian Government decided not to continue with. I know that we are fairly heavy smokers in Tasmania, but I would not imagine, and I do not think anyone would accept, that we would need $15m to offset the loss of revenue consequent upon the discontinuance of that tax. I think something which ought to be acknowledged and which ought to be well understood right across the Commonwealth of Australia is that for the first time in its history the Government of Tasmania is able to implement its own political philosophy. Up to the present time this has not been possible because it has been tied to the performance of the standard States- Victoria and New South Wales, or one or the other as the case may be. From time to time other States in the Commonwealth have come into this system of receiving financial help to enable them to carry on their services. They have dropped out of the system as soon as they possibly could because naturally they want to assert their own political independence. It would not matter what sort of political philosophy was current in the party governing the State of Tasmania over these very many years, because it was not possible for the Government to exercise its own political judgment in doing the things that it wanted to do. For the first time in its history, it is now possible for the Tasmanian Government to implement the policies which it believes in and which are designed to meet the requirements of the people. I can recall the occasion last year when Queensland became a mendicant State and claimed $10m which it was not otherwise able to obtain. I issued the warning then that it would not be possible for that State to go its own independent way and to do the things which it believed in its own judgment were necessary to be done for the benefit and development of Queensland. This happened in Western Australia and South Australia. Tasmania has been measured against the performance of the stronger States of the Commonwealth. I think that **Senator Everett** covered the situation very well indeed today when he referred to the fact that because New South Wales had poker machines and Tasmania did not, Tasmania suffered a disability under the Grants Commission formula for determing what moneys it should receive. This is almost like the reports we are receiving now about the rally in northern Tasmania yesterday. It reminds me of the wonderful gesture of the present Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Snedden)** when he gets on the public platform and puts his arms up expecting to receive the applause of the whole community. To me it merely represents the credibility gap between him and the rest of Australia. He seems to have a faulty smile-switch which flicks on and off for the most incredible reasons which nobody has been able to work out. Let me refer to the shipping position in Tasmania. When this Government inherited the destiny of Australia it found that there was an inadequate shipping capacity to meet the needs of this country. It immediately got to work to correct that situation. Orders have now been placed for additional ships to ply the Australian coast. In fact the Government has implemented overseas shipping services as well. Some figures have been supplied to me by the Australian Shipbuilding Board. They show that on 2 December 1972 there were 39 vessels on order or under construction in Australia and on 7 October 1974 there were sixty-eight. At December 1972 there were 7 vessels on which tenders had closed but no order had been placed and at October 1974 there were 13, or almost double that number. On 2 December 1972 there were 2 vessels on which tenders had been called, and there were six on 7 October 1974. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- The only reason for that is that there have been so many strikes that there are a whole lot more orders because of uncompleted vessels. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -- The Opposition is still pursuing the policy which **Mr Snedden** is trying to ram down the throat of every Australian. He says that we should stop Government expenditure. If we stop Government expenditure how can we put ships on the Australian coast and how can we provide the financial underpinning for the States? The Opposition can have it one way or the other. It cannot have it both ways. Of course, **Senator Rae** is becoming rather angry about this matter because he set out to rubbish the Australian Government and he has been well and truly done over in the course of this debate. It is not my fault if he leads with his chin. If he sticks his neck out someone will have a crack at him. The Government has never resiled from that situation. If somebody wants to take us on we will get up and get into him. I can remember occasions since we have been in Government when the Opposition has proposed matters of public importance and before the 3 hours for the debate were finished Opposition members had run for cover. They had finished it half an hour early. We had been waiting to go and debate the matter but they had received such a belting and such a hiding in the course of the debate that they had run for cover. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- I rise to order. I do not want to take up the time of my colleague but I think that it is against the Standing Orders to refer to another debate in the same session. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)-** I ask **Senator Devitt** to confine his remarks to the States Grants Bill. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -- That was a fair way of getting under cover. If the Opposition is as sensitive as that, of course I will not go on with the matter. I do not want to hurt honourable senators opposite unduly. I have referred to the situation as we find it at the present time. As one of my colleagues in the House of Representatives said recently, it appears that **Mr Snedden** has suddenly found Tasmania. He has waited a long time. As **Senator Everett** pointed out, the Opposition has had 5 ducks in each of 2 innings. It has not a member in the House of Representatives from Tasmania. To suggest that there is some fault on the part of the Labor Party is the strangest reasoning I have heard for a long while. The fact is that the people of Tasmania suffered for a quarter of a century under a government that did not give a damn for them. Now they have found that there is a government that will do something for them. Of course we make mistakes. Anybody who does anything makes mistakes. What happened in the past was that no mistakes were made because nothing was done. The Menzies doctrine came right down through the years. It said: What is, is good. Do not alter it because immediately you start to do something you run into trouble. You upset some sections of the community.' This Government is not frightened to do that because it believes that Australia wants a change and wants something new. Let us look at this innocuous amendment. I call it that for want of a better name. The parliamentary term is an amendment'. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator Everett: -- It is like a powder puff. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -- As my colleague **Senator Everett** said, it is a powder puff. The motion before the House is: That the Bill be read a second time. **Senator Rae** has moved: >At the end of the motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the proposed provision of grants to the State of Tasmania is inadequate-- After 25 years the Opposition has the gall to suggest that the provision is inadequate, especially when we consider that the Premier of Tasmania asked for $ 1 5m and received every red cent of it. But that is not satisfactory to the Opposition which did nothing. It did damn all, to use a common Australian term. Now we are told that it is inadequate. But it was not inadequate when the Opposition was in government. That is the incredible thing. The amendment goes on to say: The Government should forthwith'. There is no reference to the state of the economy or to the pleas of the Leader of the Opposition to cut down Government expenditure. It says: . . that the Government should forthwith make provision for further funds to enable Tasmanian people and commercial undertakings to enjoy a shipping transport cost no greater per ton mile than the rail freight applying in the other States of Australia. Let us forget **Mr Snedden** for a moment, for God's sake, and think about it in sensible terms. The amendment says 'no greater per ton mile than the rail freight applying in the other States of Australia '. Is that not what the Nimmo inquiry is about? Does the Opposition not know about the Nimmo inquiry? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- Do you not know about the Bureau of Transport Economics report? {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -- Yes, I know about it. I reckon that your Government knew more about reports and inaction than any other government in the history of this country. What did your Government do to assist the situation? It let the shipping Une run down. **Senator Grimes** went into great detail, as I did earlier in the day on another matter when we were much more harmonious than we are now, about the increases that had taken place from time to time in shipping freight rates. I acknowledge that **Senator Rae** and his colleagues got on to the government of the day and said 'Look, you cannot do this', but it was not successful. It does not matter how much you protest; if you are not successful it is a wash-out. Immediately the quite justifiable 25 per cent increase in freight rates was asked for by the Australian National Line the Labor Party representatives from Tasmania went to the Minister for Transport **(Mr Charles Jones).** I have not heard anybody suggest that the increase is not justified. If one is running a business one has to do it on the basis of the costs applying at the time. The senators and members of the House of Representatives from Tasmania immediately went to the Minister. We had 4 meetings with him in the course of that first week. We had a meeting with the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam).** As a consequence of that the Government decided that, despite the fact that it was waiting on the Nimmo report, it would do something immediately to alleviate the situation- not for the other States of Australia but to meet the legitimate requirements of Tasmania. The Minister said: 'You have $lm to cover passenger services in Tasmania but, on the basis of what we believe to be a reasonable thing, we will provide $2m a year until the Nimmo report comes down, which will give a complete evaluation of the situation'. Then the Government will make a decision and implement a policy which Will meet that situation. But for the moment we believe that Tasmania is disadvantaged. I think everybody accepts, no matter what we may say, that Tasmania has this tremendous disability. I suppose every person who has graduated to this chamber and to the other place has at some stage or other delivered himself of words about the problem of transport in Tasmania and I guess we will go on doing it. But whereas in the past those Tasmanians who represented the anti-Labor government were quite unsuccessful in their approaches to the Minister of the day, we have been successful. I can understand that this is pretty galling to honourable senators on the other side. They are jealous and rightly so but in all modesty we must say that we came as a group- as a lobby, if you like- to the Minister and to the Prime Minister and got a response. After all, that is what the game is all about. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- Go on. He did not tell you about the increases - {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT: -Politics is the art of being successful. If **Senator Rae** did not finish his remarks this afternoon, and that is understandable because he has not yet addressed himself to the Bill, I will move later on if the forms of the Senate allow it that he gets another go. But for the moment let us say that this amendment is completely innocuous. The Opposition is not going to vote against the Bill but wants to take something out of it. It wants to dissanguinate it in some way. So far as we on this side of the chamber are concerned we will not be in it. The Opposition may have the numbers to get this amendment through, I do not know, but it will not mean very much after all. If the Opposition gets a victory it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Let me say- and I hope the people of Australia acknowledge it- that this Government has done more for Tasmania than any other. The figure of $500-odd per capita for Tasmania as against $300-odd per capita for the rest of Australia indicates that there is an awareness of the particular problems there. There is a sensitivity about it and there is a desire to do something to correct it. This is what this Bill is all about. I suggest to the Senate that it forget about this amendment which does not mean a darned thing. Let Nimmo bring in his report based upon the per tonne mile performance in other States against which the Tasmanian freight rates will be measured and in the meantime let us get on with the job of allowing this State to do its best. {: #debate-44-s6 .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania -I had not intended to take part in this debate - {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- You were very wise. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator MARRIOTT: **- Senator Wheeldon** may have thought so but he will be sorry later on that I did. The cold hard fact that seems to have been forgotten for an hour or two is that the Senate is debating a measure which will provide a special grant of $ 15m to Tasmania- no small amount, nothing to be scorned or laughed at. The reason for the giving of this money has never been made completely plain but one result of it is that Tasmania ceased to be under the dominationand I use the word advisedly- of the Grants Commission and does not carry the sobriquet ' mendicant State '. Whether or not that will be beneficial to the people of Tasmania in the years that lie immediately ahead is something to be doubted by me. Having great faith in the knowledge and experience of **Senator Everett,** I thought that the Senate could have got from him some very helpful advice as to the economic factors for and against Tasmania accepting what appeared to us to be a mysteriously produced $15m that is seeing the light of day through this legislation. To the motion for the second reading of this Bill giving effect to this grant, **Senator Rae** on behalf of the Opposition moved an amendment couched in friendly, sensible and easy to understand terms: >But the Senate is of the opinion that the proposed provision of grants to the State of Tasmania is inadequate - Every State and every government wants more money, so that is a statement of fact. The amendment continues: and that the Government should forthwith make provision for further funds - And we give a specific reason- we do not offer criticism- why we want more funds- to enable Tasmanian people and commercial undertakings to enjoy a shipping transport cost no greater per ton mile than the rail freight applying to the other States of Australia. If we are criticised for putting that to the national Parliament when dealing with a Bill to which it should be attached and Government senators do not vote for it, they are saying: 'We heard the promise of the Prime Minister at election time. We do not believe he meant it. We know he will not implement it and therefore we cannot support your amendment.' All we are putting into print as an addendum to the motion for the second reading of the Bill is 'Welcome to the promise of the Prime Minister of Australia to arrange, as it were, a roadway across the Strait'. I am not allowed to refer to previous debates in this Parliament but I have at times expressed the view that shipping is Tasmania's greatest problem. Therefore it is only right that the Senate should be the informing House because in the other place the Opposition does not have a voice from Tasmania. I wonder whether this is part of the cause of the disarray amongst the people of Tasmania at the present time. Before I get on to that I want to remind Government senators that either their memories are short or their expressions are unfair; they can please themselves which side of the coin they take. It was a Liberal-Country Party government that gave Tasmania's shipping and transport communications the greatest impetus they have ever received. The 'Princess of Tasmania', 'Empress of Australia ', 'Australian Trader' and other ships such as the 'Darwin Trader' and the Townsville Trader' were produced during the time of Liberal-Country Party government in Canberra. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- What about the Taroona'? senator MARRIOTT- The 'Taroona' was subsidised by that government at the rate of over £1,000 per day but as the 'Taroona' was not capable of carrying the bulk of the cargo or of providing the modern roll-on roll-off passenger ferry service, we had ships specially built. These came from the Liberal-Country Party government. There have been plenty of ships available to carry all the passengers and all the freight between any mainland port to any Tasmanian port but Tasmania's problems have been threefold. First and foremost has been the industrial unrest. Passengers now feel that it is not worth while booking. They will get on to the ship, one or other of the unions will go on strike and they will be left lamenting with nowhere to go and no means of travel. The same applies to cargo. More cargo is sent by air from the mainland to the apple island because of industrial trouble in respect to shipping. As a result of this loss of freight, the Australian National Line has taken ships off the run to Tasmania. It is a tragedy. We saw the 'Empress of Australia' in its early days bringing great business from Sydney to 3 ports in Tasmania. Look at it now with the lack of support it is given. Ships have been taken off and from time to time there are heavy shortages of shipping. It is not normally my custom to praise a Labor Government Minister twice in the one day. But again I praise the Minister for Transport **(Mr Charles Jones)** for issuing authority for international ships to trade between coastal ports in Tasmania on special licences. But what has happened? Industrial disputes have arisen and it will not be long before overseas shipping companies say that they do not want to take this coastal freight or engage in this coastal traffic. They will say that they are not interested because our Seamen 's Union and other unions will not have a bar of them. They will not go on losing money, thus pushing up freight rates further. We talk about how we suffer in Tasmania because of increased freight rates. It must be admitted that over and above the present rate of inflation- it was 4.8 per cent when we were in power and it is over 20 per cent now; a big increase in 2 yearsfreight rates have increased because of the heavily increased costs of shipping caused by industrial disputes. In my opinion, this Government has not lifted one finger, said one word to help the position or said anything in reprimand to the unions that are crucifying trade between Tasmania and the mainland ports. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- What would you do about it if you were in government? {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator MARRIOTT: -- I will deal with that in a short time. But I will make my speech in the way that I want to make it and according to my desires. We have been told in this debate, and it is true, that Tasmania's rate of unemployment is over 3 per cent of the work force. It is the highest rate of unemployment in Australia and it is the highest rate of unemployment in Tasmania for many years. It is a very serious situation. Those who are unemployed in Tasmania and who read or hear this debate will not regard very favourably the parliamentarians who rose to say: 'Everying is marvellous. We are giving the people of Tasmania more money than we are giving to anyone else. We are spending more money on education and the arts. We are buying paintings such as " Blue Poles " and " Woman V ".' These things do not appeal to the people who are unemployed. I do not know whether any honourable senator has been here long enough to remember this. But the predecessors of the present Labor Party senators used to cry, when there was an unemployment rate of more than 1.2 per cent in Australia: 'You will be cool in Hytten 's Pool'. This was because the great Professor Hytten suggested that a country always must have an unemployment rate of about 1 per cent or 1 .2 per cent. Now, the unemployment rate is 3.14 per cent. I say that people can now say that they can be bleak in Crean 's Creek. **Mr Crean** is the Treasurer of Australia. Since the day the Budget was presented, we have heard that he went overseas but we have not heard one word on the economic state of Australia. We do not know whether he still holds the job or whether **Mr Hawke** is acting as Treasurer from the board room of the Reserve Bank of Australia. This is the point I want to make to the Minister for Agriculture **(Senator Wriedt)** who will reply for the Government: Labor Party senators boast that their Party has been in government in Tasmania for all but 3 years since 1934. But no one has referred to the fact that there were 3 years of Liberal government- good government- which ended abruptly. No one has ever stated the reason and the conditions under which that government fell. We have had many years of continuing Labor Government in Tasmania. We hear Government senators boast about how wonderful they are. It is true that the Labor Party has won 5 seats in Tasmania in the House of Representatives and holds a number of Senate seats. So it has by far the greatest political power over the people of Tasmania that any government has had for many years. The Labor Party has had the longest run as a State government in Tasmania. As a result of that- it cannot be denied- Tasmania today is in the worst state it has been since the depression of the 1930s. There is no doubt about it. I am not a chaser after doom. But, unless very wise action is taken in respect of tariff cuts, bounties and grants- not just grants which for a time enable some people who are unemployed to be employed but grants to get people back to work and to get the money rolling around through business- the Government will have every cause to face a motion of no confidence. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator MARRIOTT: -- I mean this. The situation in Tasmania is grave. This Bill is only doing something that was promised some months ago. All that we forward thinking Liberal Party senators want to say to the Government tonight is that we want the promise of the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** redeemed by the Government taking action to lower freight rates, not just northbound from Tasmania across Bass Strait but to and from Tasmania. I conclude my remarks by wholeheartedly and sincerely supporting the amendment and by saying that Tasmania will not be put on the road to recovery until the sea-road freight is subsidised and shipping schedules are not only adequate but also regular. Some authority has to provide that sort of service if the Tasmanian population is to return to its former economic position. {: #debate-44-s7 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP -- The Senate has been debating a States Grants Bill which provides for a payment of $ 15m to the State of Tasmania. The Opposition has moved an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. **Senator Marriott** calls the amendment a reasonable one. On reading through the amendment, one wonders why it is worded the way it is. In fact, it confuses issues. It talks about the provision of grants to Tasmania being inadequate, despite the fact that **Senator Marriott** says that the amount involved in the grant being made under this Bill is very large. The amendment then goes on to talk about shipping costs to that State. I would have thought that the Australian Shipping Commission Bill, which was passed by the Senate today, would have provided a more pertinent opportunity to talk about shipping freight costs. However, the Opposition has *s4en* fit to move this amendment which, of course, is unacceptable to the Government. One would imagine, from listening to the contributions of honourable senators opposite, including **Senator Townley,** that they were arguing from a position of strength. We have to go back only 2 years to find out that all the liabilities about which honourable senators opposite talked tonight were liabilities which the Tasmanian people had to experience during 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government. No moves were made by our predecessors to overcome these problems in respect of the shipping freight rates. Along with other senators, I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade as it was then known. The Committee was commissioned in 1972 to inquire into these problems. It is a measure of the difficulties which Tasmania was suffering at that time that the Senate was compelled to have a committee inquire into the matter. No one would claim that the solution to the freight rate problem in Tasmania is simple. It will not be solved easily by this Government or by any other government. It is sufficient to say that this Government has taken steps to subsidise the passenger ship service to that State. Under the terms of the legislation that was passed by this chamber this afternoon a further $2m will be paid until the Nimmo report is made available. These have been the concrete steps taken by this Government to alleviate the problem that exists in Tasmania. Listening to the Opposition one would imagine that it had a glorious record of achievement in this area. It had no record of achievement worth speaking of. I find difficulty in answering **Senator Townley** because I do not know whether he is a Liberal or an Independent or an Independent Liberal or just a common old senator. I suppose we will find out at the next election when he is endorsed on the Liberal ticket and we find out which one of the sitting Liberal senators in Tasmania is sacrificed to give him a safe berth on that ticket. Then we will know the situation. **Senator Townley** referred also to the costs which have been increasing the difficulties of Tasmania. He said that Tasmania is fading into economic oblivion. Of course, that is despite the fact that the value of production in Tasmania, for primary and secondary industry, last financial year has been the highest on record in that State. He referred to the industries which have been giving up in Tasmania. It is true that a lot of industries have been giving up in that State for many years because of the disabilities they had to face. Because of the efforts of men like Roy Fagan, the Minister for Industrial Development in Tasmania, many of the industries that were attracted to Tasmania were kept there, and they have established themselves as viable operations. But we were told by **Senator Townley** that Tasmania is neglected and that costs are pushed up because of the unions and all these people. Only recently in this place **Senator Townley** admitted that he puts up the costs of the goods he sells in his chemist shops when he sees fit. How is he in a position to criticise other people when they seek to increase charges? {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator Townley: -- I do not think I said that. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -I think that **Senator Townley,** if he checks the Hansard record, will find that that was the answer he gave to my interjection. The central theme of this legislation is to relieve Tasmania of the grip of the Grants Commission. I think **Senator Everett** made one of the best speeches on this subject that I have heard in this Parliament. This is the really significant point of the detailed speech that he made: Tasmania has laboured under the Grants Commission for many years. It has been disadvantaged. **Senator Marriott** indicated his concern about what the future might hold. I wish to draw to his attention these words in the second sentence in the first paragraph of the second reading speech: >It provides - That is, this Bill- for the payment of an amount of $ 15m in addition to the financial assistance grants otherwise payable to the State in 1974-75 and for the incorporation of this amount into the base' for purposes of calculating the grants payable to the State under the formula in 1 975-76 and subsequent years. That is the key to this legislation. It is the great change for which Tasmania has been waiting for many years. I believe that consistent with the efforts that have been made by this Government to assist this critical problem of shipping freight to that State we have relieved this mendicant State of the disability that it has suffered for so long. Let us re-state what the Australian Labor Government has done on a broader plane for Tasmania. General revenue grants in 1973-74 were $ 1 0 1 m. This year they will be up to $ 1 30m, an increase of nearly 30 per cent. The general purpose capital funds rose from $64m in 1973-74 to $76.4m in 1974-75. 1 could quote so many other areas. Despite the figures that **Senator Rae** quoted for education, the net total payment to education in Australia by the Australian Government in 1973-74 was $459m, after allowing for offsets, to be increased in the 1974-75 Budget to $825m, again allowing for offset payments. These figures have been supplied by the Treasury which I think is reasonably conversant with the matter. These are the increases which the Australian Government has effected in these areas and they flow - {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator Townley: -- Where are people going to get jobs when they leave school and university? {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -The honourable senator will find that most of them are absorbed. I think the record shows that over the years most of them were absorbed, even under a Liberal government. I will look at the position as it affects Tasmania specifically. The grant for tertiary education has gone up from $ 11.4m in 1973-74 to $22.5m this year. The grants for schools are up from $4.5m last year to $ 11.5m this year. Reference was made to other matters, such as the fruit industry, with which I will not bore the Senate. But it is sufficient to say that no government has ever done more for the Tasmanian fruit industry than the present one. As this Bill concerns the Grants Commission, I feel that I should mention the decision of this Government to make for the first time direct payments to municipalities in the various States of the Commonwealth. I would like to read into the record some of those municipalities in Tasmania which will directly benefit by the total of $ 1 .7m that this Government is making available. The Clarence municipality, for example, will receive $220,000. It has never received this before. The Glenorchy City Council in Hobart will receive $106,000. The Kingborough Council will receive $46,000; New Norfolk, $66,000; Burnie, $94,000; Devonport, $95,000; Queenstown, $45,000; Beaconsfield, $50,000; Launceston, $130,000 and Lilydale, $42,000. So we can go on to make a total of $ 1.7m which this Government, on its initiative, is now providing to assist in the development of the municipal areas of Tasmania. **Mr Acting President,** the essence of this Bill is, as has been stated by speakers on the Government side, a giant step forward for Tasmania. I am quite sure that even under a Federal Liberal government, the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, should he ever become the Premier, which is certainly very unlikely, will be very glad of the decision that has been taken by this Government, and the negotiations between **Mr Eric** Reece, the Tasmanian Premier, and the Australian Government to effect this vital change. That point and the significance of it was made extremely well by **Senator Everett.** I suggest that the Senate in its wisdom should reject the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition as the steps that have been taken by this Government indicate the genuine concern that this Government holds for Tasmania. Question put: >That the words proposed to be added **(Senator Rae's amendment)** be added. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin 0 'Byrne' AYES: 25 NOES: 25 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Senator Wriedt)** proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I rise only to say that a valiant effort was made by the Opposition this evening to draw attention to the plight of the State of Tasmania in the present circumstances in this nation. That situation has been highlighted by Tasmanian senators from the Opposition. I speak on this motion for the third reading only to highlight the fact that the people who on other occasions have said that they speak for Tasmania voted against a proposition as indicated in the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading which indicated that the moneys which were advanced to Tasmania were inadequate and that the Government should make provision for further funds to enable the Tasmanian people and commercial undertakings to enjoy a shipping transport cost no greater per ton mile than the mail freight rate applying in the other States of Australia. We know that is something that was promised by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** of this country before he became the Prime Minister. We only regret that the man who speaks for the State of South Australia as he claims, as the Liberal Movement senator, was not prepared to speak on behalf of the State of Tasmania. {: #subdebate-44-0-s1 .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania -I do not think that it would be proper for this motion to be agreed to without someone from Tasmania putting the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Greenwood)** in true perspective. It was not made on behalf of Tasmania at all; it was made as part of a vendetta against **Senator Hall** of South Australia. I do not believe that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition cares 2 hoots about Tasmania so long as he can pursue a personal vendetta. If **Senator Greenwood** has paid any attention to the debate today he will realise that the simple fact is that as to the first part of the amendment, the total grants for Tasmania in the current financial years are nearly double those made during the last full year of his Party's administration. As to the second part of the amendment, the Liberals have just copied **Mr Whitlam** 's policy speech. After 23 years of non-action the simple fact is that very shortly after the Federal election in December 1972 the Nimmo commission was appointed to deal with every issue of freight rates to Tasmania. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- Where is the report? {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -Are you criticising **Mr Nimmo?** {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- No. I am waiting for his report. You are talking about it. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -Of course, we now have an expert on transport from Tasmania, and that is **Senator Marriott.** He was so expert that in the period of nearly 20 years as a Liberal senator he failed to persuade his Party to do one thing in relation to the very matters of which he complains tonight. That puts his interjection in proper perspective. I did not want to speak at length on the third reading because I had already spoken on the second reading, but I did wish to draw the Senate's attention to the very obvious reason why **Senator Greenwood** rose to speak tonight. He cannot bury his dislike of **Senator Hall.** {: #subdebate-44-0-s2 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria -I feel that it is reasonable for me, not having entered into the debate at the second reading stage, to speak on the third reading. I did not enter into the debate at the second reading stage because I thought that senators from Tasmania should have some say in the matter. But **Senator Everett** has attacked **Senator Greenwood** in this instance although **Senator Greenwood,** as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place, had quite rightly risen to point out that on a delicate balance of one vote- and that was the vote of the member of the Liberal Movement in this placethe Government had carried its motion. It carried its motion on the vote of Government senators from Tasmania who voted to deny further funds being allocated to the State of Tasmania, and that is the fact of the situation. If anyone had a right to speak on this Bill from the outset it was I, being a Taswegian by birth and having worked as a unionist on the waterfront in Melbourne and dealt with cargoes coming from Tasmania. I know very well the shipping problems that were involved with timber cargoes that used to be shipped from Tasmania. In my extra-senatorial duties I am now involved in questions concerning the great problems related to the bulk timber shipments that arrive on the mainland from Tasmania. It is interesting to note that the problems that exist in Tasmania can well be predicted to continue under this Labor socialist Government. I do not know why I mention **Senator McLaren** when I am speaking, but I think that by interjection to one honourable senator on this side of the chamber he asked: How would you cure it?' Obviously the Labor Government is devoid of any vestige of idea as to how it can cure the dastardly problems that exist in Tasmania at the present time. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator Milliner: -- Hoo, hoo. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- I hear 'hoo, hoo' coming from the Government side. Honourable senators opposite are not interested in this matter. Not one of them mentioned the unemployment problem in Tasmania. Did the Minister for Agriculture **(Senator Wriedt),** take the side of those who are unemployed in Tasmania and try to give some proper evaluation - {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP **- Mr President,** on a point of order I draw your attention to standing orders 213 to 216 relating to motions for third reading. Standing order 2 1 6 states: >On the Order of the Day being read for the Third Reading of a Bill, the Question shall be proposed 'That this Bill be now read a third time. ' If one refers to page 271 of the 'Australian Senate Practice', which was written by **Mr Odgers,** one finds the following: >The motion for the third reading is open to debate. On this motion it is permissible only to advance arguments why the Bill should or should not be read a third time. During the second reading and other stages there is ample opportunity for discussing everything that is relevant to a measure, and that opportunity is also available on the motion for the third reading; but at the third-reading stage, a **Senator is** not permitted to revive arguments raised and dealt with earlier in the proceedings on the Bill. Fresh argument may, however, be introduced, and misapprehensions arising from the second-reading debate may be discussed at the third-reading stage. For the honourable senator to be reviving the debate and discussion at the second reading stage, as I suggest he is- having regard to his reference to the contribution to the debate by my colleague **Senator McLaren-** is, I submit, completely out of order and you should so rule, **Mr President.** {: #subdebate-44-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -I listened very closely to **Senator Greenwood** and to **Senator Everett,** and I felt that they raised matters that had not already been raised in the second reading debate. But **Senator Webster** was approximating the tenor of the second reading debate, and I was about to intervene when the Minister took this point of order. I ask **Senator Webster** to confine himself to fresh argument which may be introduced or to any misapprehensions arising from the second reading stage. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: **-Mr President,** I acknowledge your ruling on the matter. I was interested to note that the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** should point out to you that there could be raised at the third reading stage only matters that had not been raised previously, or reasons why a Bill should not be read a third time. I was attempting to put forward arguments in those areas. I acknowledge that the Minister for the Media became agitated because I was pointing out some of the matters which concerned Tasmania and the fact that Labor senators from Tasmania had not directed their attention to the subject of unemployment in Tasmania. I consider that to be a very new subject to which Labor senators from Tasmania should be directing their attention. I would have thought that it was very appropriate for the Minister and **Senator McLaren** to seek arguments and suggestions as to how the problems in Tasmania could be cured. They would embrace a senator very rapidly if he could help them out of the economic morass into which this socialist Government is getting Tasmania and Australia at the present time. However, knowing that the Minister is anxious to secure the passage of this Bill and knowing of the embarrassment which he is feeling because of the facts which I am giving at the present time, I shall leave my argument on this matter to a more appropriate time such as a debate on an appropriation Bill. {: #subdebate-44-0-s4 .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement -- I understand that, while I was in the Library trying to assemble some anti-Government propaganda and speech-making material for another subject to be debated in the Senate, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Greenwood)** used my name when referring to a vote which was just taken in the Senate. Senate Missen- He never mentioned it. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -- I did not get a mention? Well, I am disappointed. In any case, I understand that criticism was made of the Tasmanian senators for taking the position which they did. There is one word which **Senator Greenwood** does not understand and that is credibility'. That is one thing which he is continually destroying for his Party because of the attitude which he takes in this place. In this instance we have an agreement between the elected representatives of Tasmania on a State basis and on a Federal basis to further the interests of Tasmania. Obviously this agreed basis is of benefit to Tasmania. In the past I have had some experience of States which have moved away from the Grants Commission. In so moving they have always done so with some advantage to their own area of representation. I am sure that this is done with some advantage to Tasmania. But to this agreed movement for improvement to Tasmania would be tacked on by the Opposition's amendment a subject of very great criticism of the Government which is a party to this agreement. This is misplaced. It destroys the credibility of the Opposition as it is placed in the position where this is not a proper basis on which to attack the Government. Honourable senators opposite should understand that if they want to be believed. I say to **Senator Greenwood** that I will match the small Liberal Movement's credibility against the major Liberal Party's credibility on any platform he likes in Australia. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: -- Let us go to an election. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -- Yes, let us go to an election. If **Senator Greenwood** thinks that I am frightened of facing the public of South Australia because of what I have done in this chamber, let him try it on. Next time in similar circumstances we will come back with 2 representatives, whereas we came back with one last time. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- Big deal Steele. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -Never mind; the public will speak, not **Senator Young. Senator Young's** remarks on television on election eve are well remembered by South Australians. The situation as presented by the amendment was that in isolation, disregarding all the other States- including South Australia- which are parties to Premiers Conferences and Loan Councils and disregarding the general agreement which must be reached about these matters, the Opposition says that Tasmania should get more money. How does this fit into the general economic policy of the Liberal Party? Which part of the economic policy which is put forward by **Mr Snedden,** who is the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, does this fit into? The Opposition has not said anything about that. It has simply said that Tasmania should get more money at a time when it is saying that the Government should be more economical and should reduce expenditure. All I am asking the Opposition to do is to present a credible argument and to say on which part of its economic planning this argument is based. There is no credible basis. This is the point I am making. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: **- Mr President,** I raise a point of order. I apologise to **Senator Hall** for interrupting him. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator, please** address the Chair. What is your point of order? {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: **- Mr President,** I am anxious to have from you a view as to whether the Chair would be consistent. It was suggested that I should resume my seat if I were not speaking according to the terms the Minister suggested to you. **Senator Hall** has proceeded very much on similar lines for quite some time. I am anxious to be assured that there will not be an instance where one speaker is allowed to proceed because he supports one view. It appears to me that that may be the situation. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: **- Mr President,** I wish to speak to the point of order. The passage from **Mr Odgers'** book 'Australian Senate Practice' seems to indicate clearly that it is proper for there to be debate on the third reading as to whether the Bill should or should not be read a third time. Insofar as I was able to understand **Senator Webster** at all, I understand that the point which he was making was not that the Bill should not be read a third time. **Senator Hall** is arguing that the Bill should be read a third time. The issue raised by **Senator Greenwood** in fact was a personal attack on **Senator Hall** under the guise of a contribution to the debate on the Bill. But, presumably, the issue was that the Bill should not be read a third time. Surely **Senator Hall** is entitled to debate whether the Bill should be read a third time. In his case he is arguing that the Bill should be read a third time. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: **- Mr President,** speaking to the point of order, I would not necessarily disagree with what **Senator Wheeldon** has said. I can understand why he argues the way he does. His side of the chamber being indebted to **Senator Steele** Hall for a number of certain votes, I can understand the way he argues. Therefore we understand that he puts that argument in that context and not in the context of the Standing Orders. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The practice of the Senate has been that in the debate on the third reading fresh argument may be introduced or misapprehensions arising from the second reading debate may be discussed. I would like to hear **Senator Steele** Hall further. If he transgresses I certainly shall bear in mind the matter which **Senator Webster** has raised. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: **-Mr President,** I do not wish to transgress against Standing Orders or your interpretation of them. I think that **Senator Withers'** remarks more than any others clarify the Opposition's intention in regard to the amendment which the Opposition tried to impose on this legislation. It is simply a matter of political gamesmanship. The Opposition has tried to obtain some foothold in Tasmania, where so far it has been an abject failure. The Opposition is attempting at every opportunity, whether it is justified or not, to mount some sort of campaign to make some type of come-back in that State. All I say is that the Opposition has not been able to attack the Government effectively on this issue. The Opposition has not grasped the imagination of the Senate in any of the arguments it has put on this Bill because, as I said earlier, they have not been well placed. It has not been an overall attack. It has been a parochial argument advanced for political purposes. I suspect that the future of Tasmania has figured very small indeed in the Opposition thinking. It has been largely political thinking on this issue. I do not intend to shirk the responsibility of my vote, which I believe is far more pro-Tasmanian. I did not support the divisive element of an unnecessary addition to the Bill which the Opposition wanted to put on to it. I shall stand up on any platform with **Senator Greenwood** concerning credibility. I believe that the votes which I cast in this chamber will gain greater credibility by the public of Australia than those cast by **Senator Greenwood.** {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: **- Mr President,** I raise a point of order. **Senator Hall** is confusing the debate by suggesting that the amendment was an amendment to the Bill. Apparently his understanding of what took place is sufficiently obscure for him not to know that, in fact, it was an amendment to the motion for the second reading and was to add some words to that motion. In no way would it have affected the Bill. But **Senator Hall** apparently is not aware of that because his attention to the content of the debate was so limited. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: **-Mr President** - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Hall,** are you speaking to the point of order? {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -No. I had not finished my speech. I sat down to give way to the honourable senator who raised the point of order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -I heard no point of order. **Senator Rae** did not cite which particular Standing Order he was relying on and I do not uphold his point of order. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -- I have nothing more to say except that I repudiate what **Senator Rae** has said. I fully understand the intentions of the Opposition. It is playing with words to say that it is not an amendment to the Bill. It was an attempt to add a very divisive and bitterly held amendment to a proposal which had the undivided support of the Tasmanian and Commonwealth governments. Because it was misplaced and was in no way a proper attack on the Government I voted as I did. My vote is in no way a reflection of my opinion of the Government. {: #subdebate-44-0-s5 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- I shall be brief. What I have to say arises out of the remarks of **Senator Steele** Hall. As I understand it, after this Bill is passed we will then be embarking upon a debate on 2 Bills concerning railways in South Australia. The Opposition is not opposed to them. I understand from **Senator Hall's** opening remarks that he was in the Library before coming in to the chamber for this debate gathering what he is pleased to term antiLabor propaganda. I therefore assume that when that debate comes on he will not engage in parochial, States-righting, party political propaganda. But that rather belies his first statement. He accused **Senator Rae** and his colleagues from Tasmania who spoke on this issue of engaging in parochial, party political propaganda. By his own admission in the debate on the next 2 Bills he intends to engage in exactly what he accused **Senator Rae** of engaging in. I hope that when we come to debate the Bills- I take it he is not opposed to them, as we are not opposed to them- he will not engage in narrow, miserable, party political propaganda for a party which could not obtain 0.9 per cent of the vote in the whole of Australia. {: #subdebate-44-0-s6 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP -- in reply- It is quite obvious that **Senator Greenwood** spoke on the third reading of this Bill for a specific purpose and that has been spelled out and clearly understood by **Senator Hall. Senator Hall** may have been in the Library looking up anti-Labor propaganda but I do not think he needs to go to look up arguments against the Liberal Party because he is obviously very well versed in them. I think the substance of what he was saying is quite correct. There is no real substance in the amendment. It is quite true that the Opposition is incapable of moving amendments which can properly be used as a vehicle to criticise the Government. That is the essence of what has been said and I suggest we put it to the vote. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1785 {:#debate-45} ### REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE {: #debate-45-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate stating that **Senator Wright** has indicated that he wishes to be discharged from attendance upon the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and nominating **Senator Missen** to be appointed to the Committee in his place. Motion (by **Senator Douglas** McClelland) -by leave- proposed: >That **Senator Wright** be discharged from attendance upon the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and that **Senator Missen,** having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36A, be appointed to the Committee. {: #debate-45-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- The Opposition supports the motion. It has been moved because of the absence of **Senator Wright** at the United Nations on parliamentary business. It is the intention of the Opposition that when **Senator Wright** returns he will replace **Senator Missen** on the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1785 {:#debate-46} ### ADELAIDE TO CRYSTAL BROOK RAILWAY BILL 1974 {:#subdebate-46-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed. {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I suggest **Mr President,** that it would suit the convenience of the Senate if a cognate debate were held on this Bill and the Tarcoola to Alice Springs Railway Bill. {: #subdebate-46-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is it the wish of the Senate? There being no dissent that course will be followed. {: #subdebate-46-0-s2 .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP:
South Australia -- I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party Opposition to support these Bills. It is not unnatural that I would want to speak in this debate because for a long time I lived at Port Augusta. In my view Port Augusta is the headquarters of the railways of Australia. When I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1966 I quite naturally took a very intimate interest in railway projects, particularly in South Australia. Late in the election campaign when I was gaining some confidence, and recognising the dangers of a politician's making any promises, I said at Whyalla that when I was elected to the House of Representatives I would ensure that a railway line was constructed from Port Augusta to Whyalla. In spite of some of the criticisms that were levelled at Liberal Party members in the other House yesterday that we are going to do this and going to do that but do not do anything, I can fairly say that the Liberal-Country Party Government at that time certainly recognised the need to construct a railway line to Whyalla. In October 1971 that line was constructed true to the promise of **Mr Gorton,** the then Prime Minister. The railway from Port Augusta to Whyalla was completed in accordance with the program laid down by the Liberal-Country Party Government of the day. After that my interest extended to connecting Adelaide by rail to the east-west line. Having seen the Indian Pacific line well on its way this was a very important project to contemplate. I was in a fortunate position, being a member of the Transport Committee of the Liberal-Country Party Government. **Mr Calder,** the member for the Northern Territory, was secretary of the Committee and in the latter days of my time in that House I was chairman of the Committee. We were able to persuade the Government of the importance of the projects that we are considering tonight. I am glad to say that provision was made for money to be allocated to those jobs. It was rather unfortunate with respect to the Crystal Brook to Adelaide section that there was trouble with the South Australian Government. It had doubts as to where the spur line should be situated and because of that some time elapsed before the work could proceed. I recall that **Mr Gorton** mentioned in his policy speech in October 1969 that we would build the Port Pirie to Adelaide railway at an estimated cost of between $30m and $50m. It was suggested that the project could take about 2 years to complete. The Bill under consideration which deals with that particular project suggests that the cost will be $81m, and this gives a clear indication of what has happened since the Liberal-Country Party Government was defeated in 1972. The cost has escalated to that amount and, I might say, that is calculated on January prices. Being a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and having some knowledge of public works, I realise just how much more the cost of that line would have escalated since January 1974. It would be my estimate that the cost of that project would now be approximately $90m. I would like the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Cavanagh)** to inform me of the current estimates of the cost of construction of that line. The previous Government saw fit to designate the construction of that line as one of its priorities, and it was only because of the difficulties with the South Australian Government that the work could not be proceeded with much ahead of the timing that we are considering tonight. My concern is that the recent Budget has appropriated an expenditure of only approximately $900,000 this year for this project. At this rate, of course, its construction will take much longer than the 3 years which I think is suggested. The Government must certainly do something about allocating far greater sums of money to this project next year and in subsequent years if its program is to be completed. I wish to refer now to the standardisation program in South Australia. This line, of course, will connect Adelaide to the east-west line. I noted that in his speech in another place on this Bill the Honourable W. C. Wentworth said that there is still one bit missing and that, of course, is the standard gauge link between Melbourne and Adelaide. In spite of bogey exchange methods, which have certainly improved the efficiency of rail transportation, the standardisation program should become a matter of high priority for this Government, and I urge the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to direct the attention of his colleague to this project which will complete the program of linking up all the capital cities in Australia with a standard gauge railway system. I now direct my attention to the TarcoolaAlice Springs railway line. This railway line has been of particular interest to me. I recall that in 1967, 1 think it was, the Commissioner for Railways furnished to the Government, at the request of the Minister of the day, **Mr Sinclair,** a report on an adequate link between South Australia and the Northern Territory. The report suggested 3 proposals. I believe one of the proposals was an upgrading of the existing line. Another proposal was that the railway line should follow quite a different route to the one that we are discussing tonight. The third proposal, which we are looking at, seemed to me to be the obvious choice. The proposal was that the route should be on higher terrain, and at that time it was certainly a much better economic proposition. The report became the subject of attention of the Government Members Transport Committee, of which I have said I was Chairman and **Mr Calder,** who has a particular interest in this project, was the secretary. We were requested to make a submission and we collated the material that was available. Having had the support of the national development committee of" that time, we submitted a proposition to the then Minister. As a result of this joint submission to the Minister of the day, **Mr Sinclair,** and the Prime Minister, **Mr Gorton,** this project ultimately received the blessing of the Liberal-Country Party Government. Following upon that an amount of money was set aside so that a survey could be carried out of the route that the line was to take. I forget the exact sum which was set aside, but it was something of the order of $250,000 or $300,000. As a result of that survey, in 1972 the Liberal-Country Party Government made an allocation of $54m for this project. In the 1972-73 Budget an amount in excess of $2,500,000 was set aside so that construction on this project could commence. The cost of the project at that time was estimated to be of the order of $54m. We find that today we are contemplating a project with a ceiling cost, according to the Bill, of $ 145 m. The Budget, of course, allows only $2m to be spent on the project in the current financial year. It is my assessment that the cost of the work could well exceed $ 145m. Unlike the Adelaide-Crystal Brook Une, I have not seen any indication of the specification of the rails for that line. I think the Adelaide-Crystal Brook Railway Bill outlines the specifications for that line, and I may have missed the specifications in the Tarcoola-Alice Springs Railway Bill. But perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on this. I think it is desirable that the lb yard weight should be at least 107 lb or possibly even 1 15 lb, because in my view this line could be a very significant transport facility in the future. Because of the rising cost of fuel, I envisage that shipping companies will be looking to discharge their cargo at Darwin, for example, which is much closer to most overseas ports than other ports on our eastern seaboard. It occurs to me that the Government ought to be looking ahead to the time when Darwin will become a major overseas container terminal. Therefore the railway line to Alice Springs ought to be capable of carrying heavy cargoes at high speeds. This brings me to the point of suggesting that the Government ought to be looking further ahead to the linking of Alice Springs to Darwin by rail. I share with other people a concern about the problems that may be faced by the people living in the northern part of South Australia in the William Creek-Oodnadatta area. The honourable member for Wakefield, **Mr Kelly,** said that he had some concern about future transport problems in that area. I recognise that we must have a look at the economic feasibility of the line and the route which has been suggested will certainly provide an opportunity for smaller mining enterprises to be viable. The line will run I think, east- I am sorry, west of Coober Pedy. {: .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: -- Is it east or west? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- The honourable senator has never been to Coober Pedy; he would not know anything about it. The line runs somewhere near Mabel Creek homestead, which is very near Coober Pedy. That area makes a great contribution to the economy of South Australia. The Minister has probably travelled over the area by Landrover and no doubt he knows the precise route that it will follow. I understand the area fairly well. I have visited Coober Pedy on many occasions and realise that that area will profit by having this railway line. Let me refer again to the plight of the people in the Oodnadatta area. I suggest that this is a problem for the Government for the future. Hopefully it will be a problem for a LiberalCountry Party government. We would like to be looking towards the provision of a more adequate road in that area to offset the problems of these people. I realise that the present Government is continuing the policy of the former Government and is progressing with a sealed road from the Top End down to the Northern Territory border. I hope that this will proceed and that those people up in that area will at least have some access by way of a sealed road, even if it is to the north. It is my view that the State Government ought to be given some help in providing the facility, at least from Marree up to Oodnadatta. I understand that the State Government has already announced its intention to provide a sealed road up to Marree in, I hope, the relatively near future. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- It will take a long while under the Dunstan Government. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- I must agree with **Senator Hall** there. The way that the Dunstan Government is behaving at the moment absolutely horrifies people on this side of the House. It may well be that a future Liberal-Country Party government will have to help out in that respect. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Who wrote that speech? The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)** Order! {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: **-Mr Deputy President,** it would take far more than **Senator McLaren** to ruffle my feathers. I would like to quote a passage from 'Railway Transportation'. I do not know whether **Senator McLaren** has read this but the article illustrates the present situation. It says: >Copper concentrates from Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory are sent by road to Alice Springs for railing to Port Pirie for processing and export; at present these are conveyed over the Commonwealth Railways . . . line from Alice Springs via Oodnadatta and . . . from Marree south. This route is due to be replaced by the line that we are considering at present. The article continues: >The greater haulage capacity of the new route would enable expanded production from Northern Territory mines, and make several proposed small-scale operations there more viable. While we are referring to this north-south line it is as well to remember that frequent washaways have created tremendous problems for the inhabitants of the Northern Territory. I was in Tennant Creek the weekend before last. I was talking to residents up there who were most upset about the way in which their food supplies were disrupted by the frequent flooding of the north-south railway line. The business people there expressed great concern that the Government had not been doing enough to ensure that they received adequate supplies of fresh foods at reasonable freight costs. I was alarmed to learn this. One can learn these things only by going to these areas. It is a pity that more members of Parliament do not take the trouble to do so. These people told me that unless something is done to provide the shopkeepers with fresh vegetables and fresh food to feed the population, some of them are seriously contemplating leaving the town during this critical time and returning when the flooding is not likely to occur. In my view, this is a very important matter. It is a matter that I think is quite appropriate to raise on this occasion because during the construction of this railway line it is quite feasible that more floodings will occur and continued disruption will affect the provision of food to those important areas of Australia. So I ask the Minister to bear that in mind. I think that I have taken up enough time of the Senate. I support both of these Bills. They are a continuation of the policies that were promoted and initiated by the previous Government. I am glad to see that the present Government is continuing those policies. My only regret is that it has not had sufficient funds, because it has squandered them in many other ways, to provide far more money in this financial year to get on with the job and to see that these projects are finished as early as possible. {: #subdebate-46-0-s3 .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement -- These are 2 very important Bills for South Australia. I am very pleased to be able to support them in the House and to know that these important transport links for my State will be beginning. They have been long in coming and are overdue, but now it is pleasing that they are being commenced at this stage. I am also pleased to see that the Opposition is not prejudicing further requests on behalf of South Australia by coupling with this very desirable substantive motive a subject for criticism as it did with the States Grants Bill and that we are not prejudicing South Australia's case as Tasmania's case would have been prejudiced had the Opposition been successful in putting its denigratory clause alongside the Tasmanian proposal. I am pleased to see that this stands in isolation as a matter of positive legislation for my State. I appreciate the remarks made by **Senator Jessop.** I know of his long interest in this matter. I remember that at one stage in 1969 he became a little excited about the lack of progress on these proposals and said that the State Government was holding up the matter. I remember that the Premier of the day had to say: 'I was sorry to see in this morning's Press the report intimating that the South Australian Government was holding up the matter. **Mr Jessop** is either misinformed or in error. In fact the situation is that the South Australian Government is awaiting word from the Commonwealth Government on this matter. ' That was said on 19 June 1969. 1 know that the situation that existed then is the opposite to that existing now. The Government in the State as well as in the Commonwealth sphere was to the right of centre and both areas were better governed than they are at the moment. I can understand **Senator Jessop** 's impatience, which all of us in South Australia shared at the time, at the lack of positive progress in this proposal. I also remember that the subject became one of some dissension between the 2 governments, as good as they were at the time, and it was eventually agreed that independent consultants would be given terms of reference, which were quite extensive, to report on the possible solution to the- I will not say 'disagreement'inability to reach agreement on this matter. The proposals were presented to the State Government by the independent consultants just prior to the State election in 1970. They were not entirely satisfactory to the South Australian Government of the time. I know that the Government then was trying to arrange a satisfactory agreement for all sorts of reasons, and the forthcoming election could well have been one of them. But it was impossible with the pressure of time to reach an agreement. However, an agreement was almost within grasp in the early 1 970s. That is the fact of the matter between the State Government of the time in South Australia and the Federal Government of the day. It rather intrigues me why it is 1974 in which we see this legislation coming forward and why it was not late in 1970, 1971 or even 1972. Then we had a break in continuity in South Australia with the Labor Government assuming office and a government of a contrary nature in the Federal sphere. If there had been any argument that the State and Federal governments were at cross purposes in their ideological approach that would have been met in 1972 when the very undesirable fact emerged that there was a Labor government on both the South Australian and Federal scene. There can be no excuse for the delay since 1972 in bringing forward this legislation which is so essential to South Australia. {: .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: -- December 1972. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -The Labor Party was long in opposition and spent much of its time evolving policies which took many dozens of pages to write up. I am sure it had plenty of time to work out what it would do with standardisation in South Australia. However, it took until now. I say to the Minister: I hope that this major work of great importance to South Australia is not relegated to the sort of importance that was given to water nitration in South Australia, another major project which will cost $50m by the time it is achieved in the metropolitan area. I tell the Minister, if he does not know it, that his Government in South Australia has announced that project at least 4 times. I see it has been included in the Federal Budget this year. I hope this is not one of those things which the Government with legislative backing tends to delay. I hope it gets on with the project because delay will only add to the cost and the cost will not be simply an inflated cost of construction but will be added to by the inefficiencies of transport which apply in the outmoded system and will apply until it is replaced. There is only one other point I would like to make. I have not read the Minister's speech which he gave this afternoon but I understood him to say that the South Australian railways will be the constructing authority. From that I assume that they will bear the entire responsibility. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: -- Under the supervision of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -- I take **Senator Jessop** 's addition 'under the supervision of the Commonwealth'. I would like to know how far that goes to the actual completion of the work. Does that mean that the South Australian Railways Department will do all the work, or will it tender for essential items of that work? Here arises a very important question of economies, and I say without fear of correction or contest that work that is let out to tender will certainly be far more economical than work done by the Department. If the South Austraiian Railways Department is simply the responsible construction authority it will use its discretion, no doubt, and let out some work for tender. That ought to be inherent in the construction work. However, I would like a further explanation if the Minister can give it, and confirmation of the view which I hold that the work should not be done entirely departmentally but should bring within its scope the efficiencies which can be obtained only by large construction companies on tender. With those few remarks I certainly add my wholehearted support to the Bill. It gives me great pleasure to support it having had some personal involvement previously in the setting up of the agreed independent consultancy which arrived at what was to be the basis of final agreement. I hope that the work is carried out as speedily as can be arranged. {: #subdebate-46-0-s4 .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG:
South Australia -- I rise to speak on this Bill and give my support to it. Whilst I am very pleased that at last agreement has been reached between the State and Commonwealth governments, at the same time I, like many South Australians and Territorians, have been particularly concerned that it has taken so long to reach a situation where finally we can see a start on this very important rail link. Transport is one of the most important areas in any community. It adds so much to costs generally and, therefore, if we have inefficient transportation we will have costs unnecessarily added to our economy. This is something that we in South Australia particularly have faced for a long time because we did not have what could be termed a uniform rail link with the other States of Australia, with the exception of Victoria. With the construction of the standard gauge rail from Adelaide to Crystal Brook, Adelaide will be connected to every capital city in Australia. Perhaps more importantly, South Australia will have a uniform rail, without the need for transhipment from one gauge to another as we have had in the past, connecting our eastern and western seaboards. The industrial areas of Adelaide, particularly Mile End, will have direct access and efficient transportation to the markets both east and west. We already have a standard gauge railway line established in the industrial area of Whyalla at the top of Spencer Gulf, connected to our eastern and western seaboards. When this line is finished this industrial town will be connected to a uniform gauge to Adelaide. Port Pirie was known for many years- it sits directly across the Gulf- as one of those rare railway stations with 3 gauges coming into them. Soon Port Pirie will have a single standard gauge connecton to places throughout South Australia. There is still one link that is not connected. No doubt it is full of great problems. I refer to the standardisation of the railway line between Adelaide and Melbourne. One would hope that this will not be forgotten in future projections for rail transportation in Australia. Whilst Adelaide will be connected to the eastern and western seaboards it still would be to its advantage and to the advantage of cities on the eastern side to have an alternative rail route. I hope that the Government has not lost sight of the need to standardise the railway line between Adelaide and Melbourne. One other aspect which I am also pleased to see in this Bill is that some of the feeder lines are being standardised. I refer particularly to that rail link from Snowtown to the port of Wallaroo. South Australia is fortunate in having quite a few seaports but Wallaroo services quite an area and will be able to service a much larger area with the standardisation of the railway line. This should be of great benefit to so much of the midnorthern area of South Australia. The Government has made certain allocations for the development of this railway, lt has left the construction of it in the hands of the South Australian railways. **Senator Steele** Hall queried whether the railways will be able to sub-contract any of this work or will do all the work themselves. This is one question I would like anwered because one of the areas of great concern, particularly at present, is the escalation of costs through inflation. There is so often a tendency when governments try to do work themselves for the work to take much longer than planned and for costs to be far more than originally provided for in the Budget. This has been one of the tragedies of this project from the very beginning. In the initial stages when it was mooted the cost would have been minor compared with what it will be today. One wonders, even though the Government has stated figures, what the ultimate cost will be when this line is completed. With so much unemployment at the present time and the problem of finding positions for so many people who would much prefer to be employed than to be receiving charity, as so many people call it, through no fault of their own, I wonder whether the Government could not increase the work on this railway line. This would not require any increase in total budgeting for it, but it would give many people employment and at the same time hasten the final standardisation of this railway link. I refer particularly to the rail link between Adelaide and Crystal Brook and to the feeder line between Snowtown and Wallaroo. We hear talk about giving assistance in regard to unemployment in the rural areas and in the cities. So much assistance could be given in this bad unemployment situation. People could feel that they were receiving an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I make that suggestion to the Minister very seriously. I turn to the other proposed rail link between Tarcoola and Alice Springs. This is a rail link that is long overdue. For so long we have seen a situation in which at certain times of the year the rail and road links to Alice Springs are completely closed. This is a matter that should be given priority and should have been given priority before this time. It is interesting to note that the route for the projected railway will not be the same as that taken by the present railway. Great problems are faced because the rivers flood out over great areas. Hence, the route will be west of this area and will be away from this watershed. I would hope also that, in the development of this rail link, the establishment of the road will not be forgotten. I think it is essential that there also be a highway through that area. I remind the Minister of the statement made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign this year. The Prime Minister stated in South Australia that the Government intended to build a 2-lane highway- I emphasise the words '2 lanehighway' from Adelaide to Alice Springs. I have asked a question of the Minister on this matter. He has supplied an answer to me, indicating that the Government intends to make a start on this project by way of undertaking surveys this year. I feel that this is essential, because 2 things are necessary when this new rail link is eventually built to Alice Springs. It is taking a new route. This will affect adversely such areas as Marree and so much of the high quality cattle country in that area of South Australia and also the Northern Territory. I hope that priority will be given to such matters as efficient feeder roads. Beef roads have been constructed in Western Australia and Queensland. I hope that the same consideration will be given to developing feeder roads to serve these areas, once served by a railway line, to make sure that they have good transportation to the rail link. Alice Springs is a rapidly developing city. It is no longer a bush town in the centre of Australia. It is essential that it have good communication. By communication, I do not mean communication by telephone or by radio; I mean physical communication or transportation. This is affecting so many things, not just the people living in Alice Springs. This country is trying to develop tourism. We advertise so much for people to go the Centre. But how often do we read of passenger buses loaded with tourists being bogged in the mud for days? It provides no encouragement for people to go on a tour of the Centre when they have this fear in the back of their minds. There is not much fun in sitting around in a bus with a sea of mud about you when you want to get out and see other parts of the country. There are many reasons why the rail link and the road should be developed as quickly as possible. I am very pleased that politics have not been brought into this debate so far. I feel that the Senate tonight has discussed this matter on a level of national interest serving not just my State of South Australia but the whole of Australia. However, there is one matter that concerns me and I must make reference to it. It is a statement made by the Minister for Transport in his second reading speech in another place. The Minister said: >I emphasise that it was the Commissioner - That is the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner who took the initiative and not the then Liberal-Country Party Government. I think it is unfortunate that the Minister saw fit to introduce politics into the matter in that way. I remind honourable senators that the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner was doing his job. But he was doing Ins job for a government. That government, the then Liberal-Country Party coalition Government, was the government of the day which initiated investigations for the development of a new rail link to Alice Springs- a standardised rail link. Successive governments have continued with this task. It has been a very big task, but progressively it has reached the stage where today we are going to make a start. I commend this Government for being in the position that it is ready to make the start. I take nothing away from this Government for the fact that it is about to make the start. But I regret the fact that the Minister for Transport sees fit, in regard to national issues such as this one which are of great importance to this country and which do not serve one State more than another, to introduce cheap politics into the matter. I wish that that sort of practice would be dropped. There are far more important things to do than to play petty politics on issues of such great magnitude as this. I mention this matter because the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport delivered in another place was also delivered in the Senate. This statement appeared in the second paragraph of the Minister's second reading speech. It was set in a position of prominence to try to make out that the present Government should be given the kudos for what is being done and that no credit should be given to any other government of this country. I do not accept that sort of thing in politics and I regret very much that the Minister has seen fit to do it. I also wish to make some comments in relation to Tennant Creek. There is much mineral development in the area and no doubt there will be much more as time goes on. One of the great deterrents at the present time to the development and expansion of the area and to the encouragement of further exploration for and exploitation of minerals is the high cost and inefficiency of transportation. **Senator Jessop** has referred to this position tonight. I might say that **Senator Jessop** has shown a great interest in the development of transportation to the north for many years. He referred to the great problems of obtaining foodstuffs in Tennant Creek during the floods last year. The livelihood of so many people in this area is dependent wholely and solely upon mining. Yet some of those mines reached the very dangerous situation of having to close down completely last wet season because communications with Tennant Creek were completely cut off. Food and other supplies were short for the mines themselves. Also, stockpiles were built up, causing disruption to shipping and exports to other countries. One mine in particular exports a great deal of concentrate to Japan. It had the problem of re-arranging shipping. All these things add to costs. These increased costs add to the discouragement of further expansion and development in this area. It is most important that encouragement be given for further development of mining and other projects in this area. I state again that I hope the Government will not lose sight of the need eventually to have a rail link to the Tennant Creek area and that in the interim the Government will make sure that the people have good road communication. I repeat that I support strongly these Bills, and I am glad that at last a start is being made on 2 very important and necessary projects for the welfare and benefit of this country. {: #subdebate-46-0-s5 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -- It is not my wish to take up much of the time of the Senate because we were hoping that these Bills would be passed tonight. I am very pleased that these Bills have now reached this Parliament. At last we will see the commencement of work on the Crystal Brook-Adelaide link and also on the Tarcoola-Alice Springs link. I do not agree entirely with **Senator Hall's** statement that the Commonwealth Railways are not capable of being a very good constructing authority. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- They are. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- The honourable senator said that he thought the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Cavanagh)** said in his second reading speech that the Commonwealth Railways would be the construction authority. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- I said the South Australian Railways. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -Even if it is the South Australian Railways, I wish to state that I have great confidence in the Commonwealth Railways and the South Australian Railways as the constructing authorities for both these railway lines because they are the experts in the field and the people best equipped to do the job. I feel that as it is a government enterprise we should have government employees on the job. The other thing I am most happy about now that these Bills have come to fruition is that both the Commonwealth Government and the State Government have made the decision to use concrete sleepers. This will have a very marked effect on the people who live in the area and on the manufacture of concrete sleepers. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which we had some years ago about the problems of using concrete sleepers as compared to the use of timber sleepers. But I am happy to know that we will use concrete sleepers. This will be of great benefit to the durability of the railway line and the creation of employment in the area. **Senator Jessop** said that when he was in Tennant Creek recently the residents had told him that they would be leaving town in the future if floods occurred because they could not get fresh fruit and vegetables. Listening to **Senator Jessop** one would think that the only time these people in Tennant Creek and the areas north of Alice Springs have experienced any problem is since December 1972. This is not so, as he well knows. I go to Tennant Creek on many occasions, and I am well aware of the disabilities that the people there suffer. I am well aware also that we have had to wait for 62 years before certain sections of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act of 1910 have come to fruition. I hope that the Government, whatever its political colour, on the completion of the link from Tarcoola to Alice Springs will decide to construct a railway Une from Alice Springs to Darwin. This is most essential for the people who live in the Territory and for the manufacturing industries in South Australia. I am very pleased that this legislation now is coming to fruition. I hope that we can get on with the job and no more delays will occur. {: #subdebate-46-0-s6 .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia -- The Senate is debating 2 Bills relating to the approval of agreements between the Australian Government on the one hand and the South Australian Government on the other. They refer to the construction of a railway between Adelaide and Crystal Brook and another between Tarcoola and Alice Springs. We support the construction of the Une. It has been pointed out that these railways are of significance and value to South Australia, in varying degrees. Both make a substantial improvement to transportation within the State and from the State to other areas. Both projects are in greater or lesser degree of special significance and will influence the South Australian commercial and social relationship in the State and with the rest of Australia. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Cavanagh)** referred in his second reading speech to some historical facts in connection with both lines. I rather regret that he was, in my view, less than fair when he placed the credit where he did when he by-passed the work which was done by previous administrations and previous transport committees. Detailed studies were carried out by other people and other committees. While we applaud the Bills and recognise the benefits which flow from them, I think it is important that we place on record a tribute to those people who have done a great deal of work in time past- not the least of which has been the enthusiasm and knowledge of the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth).** Whatever the history, we come to a situation which has been outlined by the Minister and the Government. We support the measures and wish them a speedy passage. The important thing to observe here is not only the long-range effect that the line will have on the total life of South Australia in the fields of transportation, business and commerce, but also let me emphasise the strong social effect that the development of these rail links will have. They will link the city of Adelaide with all the mainland capitals by standard gauge rail. This is something for which those of us who are connected with Adelaide and who live in Adelaide have long been desirous. It will mean that passengers, goods and freight are able to move without impediment to the west and, of course, to the valuable market areas on the eastern seaboard. I am contemplating with a great deal of anticipation that the development of both of these raU links will make Port Pirie a central point in the north-south and east-west transportation units and of particular significance as far as the Indian-Pacific routes are concerned. The Tarcoola to Alice Springs line will be of particular value because it will avoid, I believe, in future the very serious inconvenience which has been created over a period of years by the problems of flooding. In our enthusiasm for the Bills I think we should remember that when the new Une is constructed a considerable area of South Australia will be without a rail link. As has been said here tonight and in other places, in addition to the historic and important centres such as Oodnadatta and elsewhere, the whole cattle station area of the northern part of South Australia will be without this particularly valuable link to the market areas in the south. I hope that as the plans develop considerable attention will be given to the construction of adequate roads. While all of this is to be applauded, and we offer our support for the Bills, I think that it opens up also the whole question of transport in our total community. Transport is everybody's business because everybody needs it and it has a considerable significance in the cost structure of the community. Transport is a public utility with a particular responsibility to the community. I suppose that the argument will always be as to how much the community must be prepared to meet from public funds the cost of transportation services. The Government may well undertake certain promotion activities in order that the resuscitation of rail transport, which is being known and experienced all over the world, will be facilitated in Australia by a variety of means, not only in terms of freight or livestock but also in the very important matter of rail passenger services. The rail pass scheme which has proved so successful in Europe may well be introduced in Australia to enable a greater number of people to use the rail services for passenger purposes. After all, a great deal of money and maintenance will be involved, and we hope that the Government will promote the use of the railway system. The hour is late, **Sir. I** would like to have developed the theme further, but I will content myself by indicating my support for both Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-46-0-s7 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- in reply- I just want to say that in a desire to get these Bills through the Senate this evening I shall not speak at length. The questions raised by honourable senators have been noted. I thank the Opposition for their support of this Bill. Replies to questions raised will be sent to honourable senators in letter form. Bill agreed to. {: .page-start } page 1793 {:#debate-47} ### DOCUMENT' A {: .page-start } page 1793 {:#debate-48} ### DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY {:#subdebate-48-0} #### Age, Invalid, Wife's and Widows Pensions and Supporting Mothers' Benefits Paid Overseas By Sex, Paying Office, Type of Pension/Benefit-Numbers Current at 30 June 1974 Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-48-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1793 {:#debate-49} ### TARCOOLA TO ALICE SPRINGS RAILWAY BILL 1974 {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1793 {:#debate-50} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Portability of Pensions: Overseas Payments {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- It being after 1 1 p.m. in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-50-0-s1 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I will not encroach very much on the time of the Senate. I thought it was incumbent on me tonight to make a few comments on the question of petitions presented to the Senate and their successful outcome. In order to compress my argument I ask leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard several documents that deal with the successful implementation of the portability of pensions. Firstly, I ask permission to incorporate a document marked 'A' which gives details of the 5,560 people living abroad who are in receipt of Australian pensions. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. London Office pays persons residing in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Geneva Office pays persons residing in the Western European and some West Asian countries. Wellington Office pays persons residing in New Zealand. New York Office pays persons residing in North America. {: #subdebate-50-0-s2 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -I also ask leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document marked 'B' which provides a breakdown of the numbers of people of Greek, Italian and Yugoslav origin with Austraiian citizenship who are in receipt of age and other categories of pension. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: .page-start } page 1794 {:#debate-51} ### DOCUMENT 'B {: .page-start } page 1794 {:#debate-52} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-52-0} #### PORTABILITY STATISTICS Number of pensions/benefits being paid overseas at 30 June 1 974 in Greece, Italy and Yugoslavia {: #subdebate-52-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -- I commenced by mentioning the value of petitions and I have in mind other parliamentary methods of obtaining objectives also. In this regard I simply want to place something on record with all deference to members of the Government who made this matter a feature of their 1972 election campaign. I should like to place on record the names of a few men who have given tremendous citizenship service in this country. They are **Dr Evan** Costanzo, editor of ' La Fiamma '; **Mr Jim** Calomeris a prominent member of the Greek Community; Joe Cujes, President of the Triglav Club of Sydney; Jim Kaldis of the 'Hellenic Voice'; and John Kosovich, editor of 'Nova Dobra'. I mentioned these people in alphabetical order. To strike a sympathetic note I might mention that in the 1930s John Kosovich was a young Yugoslav worker in the gold mines and some of his contemporaries are among these people who gave the best years of their lives in Australia, which would be of interest to **Senator Durack.** The Minister for Social Security, **Mr Hayden,** has done a considerable amount to make the humanitarian policies of the Whitlam Government a reality. I wish to say in paying this tribute to those people that I feel that in a sentimental vein I should make one postscript to this address. In Sydney a big rally, which echoed down to Melbourne and Adelaide, was held in order to get this scheme under way. One of our former Senate colleagues who is well known to you, **Mr President,** in the person of **Mr Fitzgerald,** who was not enjoying good health at the time, came along and graced several of the rallies with his presence. I thank the Senate for being so attentive this evening. I wanted to place on record this milestone in Australian social security history. I think that with the sort of people I have mentioned, including the former **Senator Fitzgerald,** in a democracy like Australia you can achieve a certain aim with parliamentary agitation. I leave it at that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 1 1.6 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1795 {:#debate-53} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-53-0} #### Latch-Key' Children (Question No. 47) {: #subdebate-53-0-s0 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Government going to shelve or slow down implementation of its promise to provide for 'latch-key ' children. 1. Will the Minister undertake to make urgent inquiries into this matter and provide the Senate with the results of his findings. {: #subdebate-53-0-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) In a Ministerial Statement on 19 September 1974, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, MP, drew attention to the Budget appropriation amounting to $75m that will be set aside in 1974-75 for Australian Government expenditure on childhood services. **Mr Bowen** 's statement made it clear that the Government had decided to implement an imaginative, innovative and comprehensive program of diversified and integrated services encompassing many of the important aspects of the Government's responsibility. The Terms of Reference for the Interim Committee for the Children's Commission make it clear that that Committee will work towards the provision of services for children out of school hours as well as children below school age. The Terms of Reference also require that Committee to examine the relative needs of communities in Australia for the provision of integrated, diversified and comprehensive childhood services. {:#subdebate-53-1} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Eligibility of Air Force Personnel (Question No. 74) {: #subdebate-53-1-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many Air Force personnel, other than officers, who left the Air Force in 1972 and 1973, were eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme. 1. How many Air Force personnel, other than officers, who re-engaged, would have been eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme if they had not re-engaged. {: #subdebate-53-1-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 180 in 1972; 251 in 1973. 1. During the period January 1972 to December 1973 387 airmen with 20 or more years of service re-engaged for a further term of service. These airmen would have been eligible for a pension had they not re-engaged, and of course, will receive a pension when they leave the Air Force. {:#subdebate-53-2} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Eligibility of Naval Personnel (Question No. 75) {: #subdebate-53-2-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many Naval personnel, other than officers, who left the Navy in 1972 and 1973, were eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme. 1. How many Naval personnel, other than officers, who re-engaged, would have been eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme if they had not re-engaged. {: #subdebate-53-2-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 98 in 1972; 83 in 1973. 1. During the period January 1972 to December 1973, 45 sailors with 20 or more years of service re-engaged for a further term of service. These sailors would have been eligible for a pension had they not re-engaged, and of course, will receive a pension when they leave the Navy. {:#subdebate-53-3} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Eligibility of Army Personnel (Question No. 76) {: #subdebate-53-3-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many Army personnel, other than officers, who left the Army in 1972 and 1973, were eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme. 1. How many Army personnel, other than officers, who re-engaged, would have been eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme if they had not re-engaged. {: #subdebate-53-3-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) 347 in 1972; 388 in 1973. 1. During the period January 1972 to December 1973, 884 soldiers with 20 or more years of service re-engaged for a further term of service. These soldiers would have been eligible for a pension had they not re-engaged, and of course, will receive a pension when they leave the Army. {:#subdebate-53-4} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Eligibility of Army Officers (Question No. 77) {: #subdebate-53-4-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many Army Officers who resigned in 1973 and 1974 were (a) eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme; (b) ineligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme; and (c) above 38 years of age. {: #subdebate-53-4-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Of the male Army officers who resigned in the period 1 January 1973 to 31 July 1974, (a) 290 were eligible for a pension under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme; (b) 127 were ineligible for a pension under the Scheme; and (c) 308 were above 38 years of age. {:#subdebate-53-5} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Eligibility of Naval Officers (Question No. 78) {: #subdebate-53-5-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many Naval Officers who resigned in 1973 and 1974 were (a) eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme; (b) ineligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme; and (c) above 38 years of age. {: #subdebate-53-5-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Of the male Naval Officers who resigned in the period 1 January 1973 to 31 July 1974, (a) 55 were eligible for a pension under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme; (b) 45 were ineligible for a pension under the Scheme; and (c) 53 were above 38 years of age. {:#subdebate-53-6} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Eligibility of Air Force Officers (Question No. 79) {: #subdebate-53-6-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many Air Force officers who resigned in 1973 and 1974 were (a) eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme; (b) ineligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme; and (c) over 38 years of age. {: #subdebate-53-6-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Of the male Air Force Officers who resigned in the period 1 January 1973 to 31 July 1974, (a) 134 were eligible for a pension under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme; (b) 140 were ineligible for a pension under the Scheme; and (c) 144 were above 38 years of age. {:#subdebate-53-7} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Expenditure (Question No. 83) {: #subdebate-53-7-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What amount was paid out in service pensions under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme in 1971-72 and 1972-73. 1. What is the estimated amount to be paid out in 1973-74 and 1974-75. {: #subdebate-53-7-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1 am advised by the Chairman of the DFR&DB Authority as follows: >(1) (2) Estimates of 1974-75 expenditure are not yet available. {:#subdebate-53-8} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Contributions (Question No. 84) {: #subdebate-53-8-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What contributions were paid by servicemen from each Service into the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme in 197 1-72 and 1972-73. 1. What is the estimated amount to be paid in contributions by servicemen during 1973-74and 1974-75. {: #subdebate-53-8-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >I am advised by the Chairman of the DFR&DB Authority as follows: > >(1) {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The amount of contributions paid by servicemen during the year 1973-74 was $26,904,704. Details of the 1 974-75 revenue estimates are not yet available {:#subdebate-53-9} #### Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme: Surplus (Question No. 85) {: #subdebate-53-9-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the present surplus in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Scheme. {: #subdebate-53-9-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The report by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the results of the Fourth Quinquennial Investigation of the Defence Forces Retirements Benefits Fund for the period 1 July 1964 to 30 June 1969, tabled in the Parliament on 26 October 1972, disclosed that in respect of the Pre 19S9 entrants there was an available surplus as at 30 June 1969 of approximately $14.9 million of which $3.1 million was attributable to pensioners; the report also disclosed that in respect of Post 19S9 entrants and pensioners there was a final net deficiency of $544,000. For the purpose of the investigation as at 30 June 1969 the Australian Government Actuary was required to assume that the Fund would continue in its then present form but with the introduction of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, which received Royal Assent on 19 June 1973 with retrospective effect to 1 October 1972, the contribution and benefits arrangements changed. Under the provisions of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1973 which also received Royal Assent on 19 June 1973 the moneys of the Fund are transferred to the Commonwealth and as the new Scheme is not funded, all benefits, irrespective of when members retired, are now payable from Consolidated Revenue. In view of the changed circumstances arrangements have been made for the Australian Government Actuary to make a final investigation of the Fund as at 30 September 1972 but until it is completed I am unable to advise the results. {:#subdebate-53-10} #### Underdeveloped Countries: International Aid (Question No. 122) {: #subdebate-53-10-s0 .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator Davidson: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. . Has the World Bank produced figures showing that imitative development models based on high-technology Western economies have led to worsening income distribution patterns in the under-developed countries. 1. Has the Australian Government obtained these figures; if so, is the conclusion reached by the World Bank correct. 2. Is the Government conducting research into the various types of international aid originating in Australia. 3. Is there any resistance by the Governments of underdeveloped countries to self-help projects. {: #subdebate-53-10-s1 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy:
ALP -- The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In his address to the Board of Governors of the World Bank Group on 24 September 1973, Robert McNamara gave broad figures from income distribution studies in developing countries. The figures indicated that, in developing countries, the top 20 per cent of the population, by income, received SS per cent of the national income, while those in the lowest 20 per cent received only S per cent. He concluded that policies aimed primarily at accelerating economic growth, according to the Western pattern, have benefited mainly those whose incomes place them in the top 40 per cent of the populations of developing countries. The World Bank has not made available the detailed studies on which this conclusion is based. 1. No; but a request has been made to the World Bank for information on the subject. The World Bank has reached a very broad conclusion which could only be sustained on the basis of detailed research. Research conducted by such institutions as the Research School of Pacific Studies at the Australian National University tends to support the conclusion. 2. Yes; the Australian Government, through the Australian Development Assistance Agency is researching ways and means of achieving increased emphasis on development assistance which provides greater social welfare and distributional effects. With regard to our development assistance to Papua New Guinea, we endorse the objectives of the Papua New Guinea Government's 1973-74 Improvement Plan to achieve a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development, and will keep under continual review the question of how our development assistance can best support this objective. The remainder of Australia's development assistance is distributed through a variety of bilateral and multilateral channels. The roles which these channels play in achieving more equitable distribution and improved welfare are being examined. 3. It is difficult to identify resistance as such, on the part of aid recipient governments, to the involvement of aid donors in self-help projects. The implementation of such projects presents many problems which require delicate handling and close co-operation between national governments and local authorities. Governments are often wary of foreign aid personnel working at the village level. For these reasons, it is very difficult for a donor to make self-help a precondition for assistance. The Australian Government views favourably the provision of development assistance to self-help projects where the momentum for such participation comes from the communities involved and is sustained by the national government. Health Programs in New South Wales: Terminology (Question No. 138) {: #subdebate-53-10-s2 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the difference between a Community Health Complex and a Community Health Centre, in relation to the community health program grants for New South Wales. 1. Does the program provide for the establishment of 12 Health Centres. 2. What was the basis for the establishment of each of these Centres. 3. Was each Centre established only in an area of need; if so, how was this need assessed. {: #subdebate-53-10-s3 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. The Hospitals and Health Services Commission accepts considerable freedom and variety in local usage and terminology concerning projects submitted to it under the Community Health Program. In relation to New South Wales, the Health Commission of New South Wales views a Community Health Complex as a project serving approximately 60,000 persons and providing a wide range of primary care services together with specialist back-up services. It views a Community Health Centre as a project serving a population of up to 20,000 persons and providing, in the main, only primary care services. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. 15 Centres and 2 Complexes were included in the approved 1973-74 Community Health Program for New South Wales. These projects are at various stages of development towards full operational status. 1. Approval of the above projects was made by the Minister for Health on the recommendation of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. In formulating its recommendations, the Commission took account of the needs and priorities for the provision of community health services and facilities as submitted by the Health Commission of New South Wales. The Hospitals and Health Services Commission, in consultation with the State Authority, also took account of the benefits of emphasising the allocation of Block Grants under the Community Health Program to integrated regional systems for the provision of needed community health services and facilities. The 2 Community Health Complexes funded in 1 973-74 were part of a regional plan for the Western Metropolitan Region of Sydney. The Centres at Warilla and Cringila were funded as part of a regional plan for the Illawarra Region and the Centre at The Entrance was funded as part of a regional plan for the Central Coast Region. The other Centres were each funded under a specific Grant to meet urgent needs given a high priority by the New South Wales Health Commission. 2. ) In reaching the decision to fund the projects referred to in (2) above, assessment was made that the proposed services were needed in the area which they would serve. The Australian Government relied heavily on the expert views of the Health Commission of New South Wales in determining the need for these initial facilities. {:#subdebate-53-11} #### Human Experimentation: Consent (Question No. 183) {: #subdebate-53-11-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will the Minister inform the Senate of the extent to which medical investigators using National Health and Medical Research Council funds must adhere to the requirements for consent in human experimentation set out on pages 444-5 of the Council's 1972 Report on Medical Research. 1. Does the National Health and Medical Research Council insist upon and monitor compliance with the requirements set out in the Report. {: #subdebate-53-11-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Investigators are required to sign an undertaking that they will adhere to the conditions for grants, which includecompliance with the Statement on Human Experimentation. 1. The Council requires that each application for a research grant involving human experiments be subject to prior scrutiny and approval by the ethics committee of the institution in which the applicant proposes to undertake his research. {:#subdebate-53-12} #### Hospitals: Federal Funding (Question No. 188) {: #subdebate-53-12-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has a letter been written by the Minister for Social Security to the State Ministers for Health setting out the Commonwealth offer on Federal contributions to the funding of hospitals under the proposed new National Health Insurance Scheme. 1. In what manner do the offers vary from the proposals contained in the 'White Paper'. 2. Are there any qualitative variations in the offers made to the States, one compared with the other. 3. Will the Government, in the interests of 'Open Government', make the letters public, so as to enable electors to know the basis of the offer being made to their respective State governments. {: #subdebate-53-12-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I have written to State Ministers for Health, setting out the suggested contents of the proposed agreements between the Australian and State Governments on the provision of public hospital services, including funding of hospitals. The purpose of my letter was primarily to seek each Health Minister's reaction to the general principles of the proposed agreement, which is based on the Heads of Agreement set out in Schedule 2 of the Health Insurance Act 1 973. I further proposed that once the Health Ministers had given a general indication of their views, officers of my Department and the Health Ministers' Departments might proceed to develop a detailed proposal for our examination. 1. The proposals contained in the document are based on the White Paper. 2. No. 3. The interests of open government have been better served by procedures adopted in this matter than on any other matter handled by any government previous to 1972. There was intensive public discussion on the 'Green Paper' and subsequently the 'White Paper' on the Health Insurance proposal extending over several months. The principles proposed in the letter to the States are set out in Schedule 2 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, as mentioned in paragraph ( 1 ) above. {:#subdebate-53-13} #### Poison 1080 (Question No. 209) {: #subdebate-53-13-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: - >Have untrained operators been allowed to carry out poison treatments using the poison 1080. {: #subdebate-53-13-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No. {:#subdebate-53-14} #### Rats: Baiting and Trapping (Question No. 213) {: #subdebate-53-14-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Is the baiting and trapping of rats seen as a passive and secondary control measure. {: #subdebate-53-14-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No. Baiting and trapping is a useful guide to establishing the extent of rat infestations of vessels. It is also a convenient and effective control measure in cases of slight and moderate infestations, and in small areas and compartments such as galleys, lockers and storerooms. {:#subdebate-53-15} #### M.V. Lorana: Rat Guards (Question No. 216) {: #subdebate-53-15-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Was the M.V. Lorana docked at Fremantle from 1 7 June 1974 for 23 days with no effective rat guards on its mooring lines nor with any acceptable alternative provided for under the Quarantine Regulations. {: #subdebate-53-15-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The vessel was in port for 23 days undergoing extensive structural alterations and repairs. Difficulty was experienced in keeping rat guards on mooring lines at all times. The vessel was visited daily to ensure that any guards displaced by winds and tide movements were restored to their positions. {:#subdebate-53-16} #### Woodman Point Quarantine Station : Fumigations (Question No. 208) {: #subdebate-53-16-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Have untrained staff carried out fumigations, using methyl bromide, at the Woodman Point Quarantine Station in Western Australia. {: #subdebate-53-16-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No. Fumigations using methyl bromide are carried out at the Woodman Point Quarantine Station for animal and plant quarantine purposes. The staff engaged in methyl bromide fumigations are trained and have been performing this work for many years.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741016_senate_29_s61/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant