Senate
5 December 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator J. J. Webster) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3163

PETITIONS

Academic Salaries

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 26 lecturers of New South Wales Colleges of Advanced Education:

To the Honourable the President and Senators of the Upper House in Parliament assembled: The Petition of certain lecturers of New South Wales Colleges of Advanced Education respectfully showeth:

That we strongly urge the acceptance of recommendations on academic salaries, to be announced by Mr Justice Campbell.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation.

Taxation: Education Expenses

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 Treasurer of the Australian Government has proposed that the concessional deduction for education expenses bc reduced from $400 to $ 1 50.

We, the undersigned, humbly petition the Senate to return any legislation which could give effect to such a proposal to the House of Representatives and request that the concessional deduction for education expenses be restored to $400 for each child attending an approved school or college,

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator GUILFOYLE. Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That the inclusion in Sub-section 54(2) of the Family Law Bill of the Clause recommended in paragraph 67 (f) (2) of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which will allow ‘any fact or circumstance’ to bc taken into account when considering maintenance, completely alters the whole concept of specific guidelines as now set out in Section 54, and we oppose it.
  2. That the removal of the word ‘exceptional’ in Subsection 92 (2) of the new Family Law Bill will result in a high level of bitter and costly litigation in ancillary matters, which the proposed sharing of costs with legal aid available, would otherwise minimise.
  3. That Judicial discretion which allows fault in Property Settlement, the usual accusations necessitating defence in custody and access matters, as well as (a) and (b) above, will result in very much the same litigation in ancillary matters as under the present iniquitous Matrimonial Causes Act.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator GUILFOYLE. Petition received.

page 3163

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3163

QUESTION

MR DAVID DITCHBURN

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask: Has the AttorneyGeneral appointed Mr David Ditchburn to the Films Board of Review? Further, is Mr David Ditchburn the husband of Junie Morosi, a former assistant to Mr Grassby and now a member of Dr Cairn’s staff, for whom the AttorneyGeneral attempted to obtain a low rental government flat in Canberra?

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

-The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is yes, Mr Ditchburn is the husband of Miss Morosi. As to the suggestion about low cost rental accommodation, I am informed by Mr Bryant that the accommodation that was sought is’ not low cost. May I say that Mr Ditchburn is qualified for the appointment. I have not heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate say that he is not.

Senator Withers:

– I have nor said. that.

Senator MURPHY:

– I heard him ask some questions yesterday.

Senator Withers:

– Perhaps you could give us his qualifications.

Senator MURPHY:

– If the Leader of the Opposition wants his qualifications he can ask for them. Mr Ditchburn is a mature person wim extensive experience in commerce and industry. He is familiar with community standards here and overseas and, in my opinion, was eminently suitable for appointment to that position. As 1 recall it, the other persons on the Films Board of Preview include a chairman who has been there for a very long time and who was connected with the film industry. One of my predecessors- I think it was Mr Chipp- appointed a long distance runner to the Board of Review. While long distance running may not seem terribly closely connected with films, persons from the community who are not film makers are needed there. Another person from the television industry was appointed to the Board by one of my predecessors.

I proposed the appointment of Professor Hammer, a psychologist, and Dr Middleton, another psychologist. I knew Mr Ditchburn and knew his outlook and in my view he was qualified to be appointed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to say that Mr Ditchburn was not competent to be appointed, that there is anything wrong with the appointment apart from his being married to a particular person, let him say so. There is a very low payment associated with the appointment and the man concerned indicated to me in writing at the time that he did not want the payment associated with the position. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to engage in these other matters, if he wants to question the competence or qualifications of Miss Morosi, let him do so. In all that he said yesterday outside this chamber, he did not say that she was not qualified and not competent to do the things she was appointed to do in the sphere of my portfolio.

page 3164

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION DISMISSALS

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for the Media seen Press reports that 70 production staff employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Sydney and Melbourne face the sack? Can the Minister outline the position of these workers and the future they face? Is there any possibility of their positions being safeguarded?

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

– I saw the report to which the honourable senator has referred. The production staff mentioned were casuals who were employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission for specific projects. In Melbourne they were engaged on set production and matters of that nature for the very highly successful ABC television production Rush’, filming of which has now finished. It has been shown on the ABC. The staff was told at the time they started that they would be employed only for the purpose of that series. As the honourable senator would know, the Australian Government provided the ABC with additional finance to enable it to go into that sort of television production. The 20 Sydney staff were employed as casuals to build a village at Belrose in Sydney for the production of a television series on the life of the Australian bushranger Ben Hall. That is a co-production arrangement entered into by the ABC and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Work has finished on that set production but the workers will be kept in mind for any future employment.

page 3164

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question to the Attorney-General refers to his letter of 8 November, about which he was asked a question yesterday, in which he asked Mr Bryant to exercise his ministerial authority to give Miss Morosi a Government flat. Did the Attorney-General receive any acknowledgment, either in writing or verbally, from Mr Bryant as to what Mr Bryant had done? If so, what was that acknowledgment? Was Miss Morosi in fact offered a Government flat? Did she in fact sign a lease for a flat?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Yes, of course I received an acknowledgment from Mr Bryant. Mr Bryant spoke to me about it. I told the Senate yesterday that Mr Bryant asked me to send a letter. I have seen something in the newspapers saying that I sent a letter in support of some letter by Mr Grassby, and that I had stated that in this chamber. I had not said any such thing and as far as I know Mr Grassby did not send any such letter. Mr Bryant asked me to send a letter. As I have indicated, I sent the letter and he spoke to me afterwards and said he was looking into the matter. I spoke to him yesterday about what happened and he said that in fact Miss Morosi had not been given a flat. I notice there is a question by the honorable senator on the notice paper about a lease. I am afraid I know nothing about that. I assume that as she had not been given a flat she would hardly have signed a lease. I will have that looked into.

page 3164

QUESTION

CHILDREN’S TELEVISION

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Media whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Children’s Television Action Committee to the effect that television stations in Australia are screening cartoons which have been either banned in the United States or carry a warning to parents. Can the Minister inform the Senate of steps taken to ensure that Australian children see the very best that television has to offer? Has his department contemplated instituting procedures such as prefacing certain films with a warning to parents?

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

– I have seen the report to which the honourable senator refers. The Australian Children’s Television Action Committee was formed to promote and agitate for better children’s programs on television. The honourable senator will appreciate that in this chamber this week there was a debate concerning amendments which the Government was seeking to the Broadcasting and Television

Act to put beyond doubt the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to police effectively the sort of thing about which the Australian Children’s Television Action Committee is now complaining. As a result of the Senate defeating that legislation the powers of the Board in this area clearly are the subject of some legal doubt. I know that officers of the Broadcasting Control Board last Monday attended a special film screening arranged by the Children’s Television Action Committee so that they could assess the situation. They had not done anything pending the outcome of the amendments that were sought by the Government to the Broadcasting and Television Act and debated in the Senate last Tuesday. What action the Broadcasting Control Board can now take, I suppose, is a matter for legal advice. I certainly will be having discussions about the general situation with the Attorney-General and the Board and it may well be that if this sort of thing is going on I will have to exercise my powers under section 1 8 of the Act and order a public inquiry into the matter.

page 3165

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister confirm that official figures now disclose that real output in the Australian economy fell by 5 per cent while prices increased by 1 2 per cent in the 6 months to September 1974? Does he agree that Australia has now entered a period of acute stagnation?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I cannot answer the first part of the question but as to the second part it is very easy. The answer is no. I am hopeful, and my observations tend to support my view, that we will see some improvement at least in respect of the number of vacancies. With the changes in the management of the economy which have occurred quite recently I think there will be an upturn in certain areas. It may well be that some of the trends, like an undercurrent, will continue in the other direction. But I am sure that we are not in a period of stagflation and the way the economy will start to go in the first half of next year will be an indication of a return to the problem demand position that we had some 12 months ago.

page 3165

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will he support the request I made of

Senator Bishop last week to urge the Prime Minister to lean on the Chairman of the Public Service Board, Mr Cooley, whom I regard as a bureaucratic sponger, to ensure that extra staff-

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise on a point of order. I suggest that that is a gross reflection on an eminent public servant,’ and this is no place for it to be made, except under formal motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There is no point of order involved.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-It is just like a bumper that one bowls to stir people up. 1 repeat the question. I said that I wanted the Chairman of the Public Service Board to be leaned on to ensure that extra staff is provided at the immigration offices in all capital cities so that Australians will get a much speedier service in the processing of their passport applications and so that people awaiting citizenship, which involves their permanency in employment, are also speedily dealt with. I say to Senator Murphy that if these things are not dealt with in that context it will mean that after 1 January, with the new visa control on Commonwealth citizens, the problem will be compounded. I repeat that what I have said has the backing of both the Immigration staff and many Australians who are complaining.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The nub of what Senator Mulvihill is putting to me really is whether some provision can be made by way of extra staff to see that the requirements of people in these areas to which he referred are met. I think he is really intending to say that Mr Cooley is the man who can get action in this area, and Senator Mulvihill is hoping to stir matters up. If his question is intended to stir things up it no doubt will do so. Everyone would hope that the problems in these areas can be attended to. I am sure that Mr Cooley, whom Senator Mulvihill really regards as quite a fine public servant, will try to do whatever he can in this area.

page 3165

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory whether he, in the interests of open government and in order to clarify aspects surrounding Miss Morosi ‘s application for a flat, will table the file that relates to her application.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– If the honourable senator wants to ask any questions which are not already covered by those appearing on the notice paper, let him do so. If there is some particular matter which excites his interest about this. further than has already appeared, let him raise it. I repeat that this subject matter- this point was raised just now by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack- refers to a public servant. According to the reports that I have received she has done her job extremely well and nobody has made the slightest suggestion in relation to her competence in the work which she has done with Mr Grassby. She has done a great deal of work. The Secretary of my Department assured me this morning that all of the reports that he has had from people who have worked with her in the Department are favourable to her. She has done her job extremely well and she has been extremely well qualified for it. The application which she made for accommodation in Canberra was a proper application. She was entitled to make it. The application was made while she was in the post with Mr Grassby, and apparently because as a result of the decision made by Dr Cairns she is transferring to his area of responsibility, this matter then becomes a great federal case. I say again that if the honourable senator has anything to say about her competence or her qualifications then he should say it. If he has anything to say about whether she was entitled to apply for accommodation, he should say it.

Senator YOUNG:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I will hear the question.

Senator YOUNG:

-I would like the Leader of the Government in the Senate to say whether or not he will table the file in the interests of open government.

Senator MURPHY:

-That is a matter for Mr Bryant. It falls within his area of responsibility, and I shall refer the honourable senator’s question to him.

page 3166

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether the pay and conditions of the Services are as attractive as the Minister has stated on many occasions. In view of the fact that the Kerr Committee completed a very searching inquiry into all aspects of the Services pay and conditions less than 2 years ago, why has the Government appointed a psychologist to find out what is wrong with morale in the Services?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The decision by the Minister for Defence in relation to an inquiry into the Services cannot be simplified by referring to the one sector of psychology. As the honourable senator knows, the criteria in respect of the inquiry have been announced. It will be an inquiry into all aspects of the Services like any other inquiry, such as those advocated by the Department of Labor and Immigration into the work force or in regard to particular industries to ensure the greatest job satisfaction. It is not a new idea. The idea of obtaining satisfactory employment performance on the part of an employee or a serviceman is many years old. In fact the Duke of Edinburgh, as everybody knows, has spent a good deal of time advocating that, industries and governments take more interest in this aspect. He inaugurated conferences on this in 1956 and I attended one such conference. The idea was to make sure that people in any field of employment, including the Services, should get the greatest satisfaction from industry. Of course the Labor Government has increased pay and improved conditions of servicemen.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– How did you do that?

Senator BISHOP:

-You have been told this before. It is estimated that during 1974-75 a record amount of $590m, or more than 8 per cent in excess of what was spent in 1973-74, was expended by the Labor Government on improved conditions and increased pay. As the honourable senator knows, for many years when he was Minister for Air and all the Services had separate Ministers, servicemen had great difficulty in getting improved payments. They were all subject to determination and often our own Regulations and Ordinances Committee delayed payments because the claims involved retrospectivity. We have put this on a proper basis. In addition, as the honourable senator would know, we have increased pension payments and because of this some officers have resigned. Then the honourable senator asks: What is wrong with the Services?’ I suggest that what we are doing in relation to the inquiry into the Services is what any intelligent management would do in respect of any field of employment, whether it be the Services or ordinary industry.

page 3166

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION IN COUNTRY AREAS

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is addressed to the Minister for the Media. Will the Minister tell the Senate what progress has been made regarding the introduction of colour television in Mount Isa? Will he also tell the Senate the position in regard to the introduction of colour television transmission in other major country centres?

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

-The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has informed me that the commercial television station in Mount Isa intends to start colour test transmissions in the near future. It is part of an overall program by that station to endeavour to meet the official starting date for colour television, namely, 1 March next year.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– What about Norseman? Have you got that in front of you too?

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

– I am coming to that because Senator McAuliffe asked me generally about the progress being made so far as country areas are concerned. My colleague Senator Bishop and I had general discussions on this matter and determined that action should be taken to expedite the introduction of television to country areas to a much greater degree than was planned by the previous government. As a result of the technical officers from Senator Bishop’s Department- the Post Office- and the technical officers from the Broadcasting Control Board getting together, it is now expected that we will be able to bring forward the date of the introduction of colour television to country areas by 2 years, this being 2 years earlier than was planned by the previous government. The situation in Western Australia depends on the microwave link arrangements, but it is expected that Norseman, the place about which Senator DrakeBrockman is concerned, will be able to receive a colour signal from Perth in 1975, although there may be some problems with the link.

page 3167

QUESTION

POSTAL STRIKE

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. I refer to the postal strikes which obviously are gathering momentum. I appreciate the answer the Minister gave me yesterday in the Senate and his efforts to get the parties to arbitrate. I now ask: Will he assure the Senate that he will uphold the authority of the arbitration system in relation to the present strike and not succumb to the guerrilla warfare tactics which apparently have been threatened by Mr Slater?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-I have been advised this morning that the Postal Workers Union intends to appeal to the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I presume that the Union is now considering what it has been proposing in relation to stoppages. I think in that event that I should not do any more than say I have been trying, as the honorable senator knows, since I have had this portfolio, with the assistance of Don Hancock, to minimise the number of stoppages in the Post Office, and we have been successful. I have figures to show that. At this stage I would not intervene or make any comment. I hope what I have said and what the honorable senator knows will help to obviate what would be, in my opinion, unnecessary delays to mails, particularly during the Christmas period. I hope to be able to talk some time today to Mr Bob Hawke to see to what extent he can help in this regard.

page 3167

QUESTION

CHILDREN’S TELEVISION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Media. I refer to the answer given by the Minister with regard to the report of the Australian Children’s Television Action Committee. I ask: Had he received a report from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, prior to the Press report, with regard to the cartoon films mentioned by Senator Melzer? What was the comment of the Board? What action has the Board taken? Does the Board rely on the Australian Children’s Television Action Committee to initiate action on such matters? What other matters were deferred by the Board pending the Senate’s debate on the amendments to the Act

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

Members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board have been in Perth during the last week conducting a hearing in connection with a television station at Geraldton, I think. Arrangements were made for officers of the Board, not the members of the Board, to attend the screening of these films arranged by the Australian Children’s Television Action Committee. It was reported to me that the officers were attending the filming. Because they are officers of the Board, which is a statutory body, they would be tendering their report to it. The Board undoubtedly will be in touch with me on the matter.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The last part of my question was: What other matters were deferred by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board pending the Senate’s debate on the amendments to the Act? The Minister specifically mentioned that the Board was unable to deal with the matter pending the debate in the Senate.

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

-No, I did not mention that the Board was unable to deal with the matter. I mentioned that its powers in this area generally were under considerable legal doubt. There are also a number of other matters about which we will need legal clarification. I refer to violence in children’s programs, the number of advertisements that are shown in children’s viewing time, what programs should be shown in children’s viewing time, family viewing time, or adult viewing time and the Board’s powers generally. The whole ambit of the powers and functions of the Board is under question, I have asked my colleague, the Attorney-General, to provide me with the benefit of senior counsel so I can have legal advice as to the real powers and functions of the Board in the light of the present law.

page 3168

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER PRICES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that following a lengthy submission to the Prices Justification Tribunal by newspaper publishers, newspaper prices were increased by 2lA per cent to 9c? Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that subsequent to this decision, the proprietors of the Sydney ‘Sun’ and the Daily Mirror’, apparently acting in collusion, have begun an economy drive and have reduced the number of editions previously printed? Is the Attorney-General aware that as a result of this economy drive, reputed to save $5,000 a week, country people now receive the cable edition which is largely a re-hash of the morning papers? Are not country readers now seriously disadvantaged by the arbitrary moves of the Press proprietors? Will the Attorney-General investigate all the circumstances leading to the rearrangement of editions to see whether it is a breach of the findings of the Prices Justification Tribunal?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not aware of these facts. If I recollect correctly the Prices Justification Tribunal comes within the area of the Prime Minister. I will refer the observations and the request of the honourable senator to him.

page 3168

QUESTION

ROYAL FLYING DOCTOR SERVICE

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question relates to an answer given by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation on Tuesday to a question by Senator Grimes which was asked, I imaginerather unsuccessfully- to try to embarass Tasmanian senators. Senator Grimes had asked whether Government supporters did not know that the intention of a policy proposal was to station an aircraft permanently in Tasmania for the Royal Flying Doctor Service and also to be available for some social and health welfare work, with particular reference to pensioners who are at the moment discriminated against.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I am sorry, I did not quite hear the question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The Minister has requested that you read the question again, Senator Bessell.

Senator BESSELL:

– It is about the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The policy point was that the

Royal Flying Doctor Service aircraft be stationed permanently in Tasmania and be available as well for some normal social and health welfare work, with particular reference to King Island and Flinders Island pensioners who at- the moment appear to be discriminated against by both the socialist governments- State and Federal. I ask: If the Minister does not know this will he acquaint himself with this policy point and also give it the special consideration that such a worthy and humane cause would demand?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I will give consideration to a number of matters that the honourable senator has raised. I am delighted but, I must confess, somewhat surprised to learn that there is a socialist government in Tasmania. I accept Senator Bessell ‘s assurance that that is the case. I was not fully acquainted, I have to confess, with the policy. I do not know whose policy point this was. I take it that it is Senator Bessell ‘s policy. It is someone’s policy, anyway. In itself, it does not sound a bad sort of a policy. As I remember the question, it was stated that Mr Snedden had said that a Royal Flying Doctor Service would be installed by a Liberal Government to serve King and Flinders Islands. There already has been a Royal Flying Doctor Service serving those Islands for approximately 15 years. Senator Bessell tells me now that somebody has a policy- someone I take it who deplores the rampant socialism in Tasmania- that the Royal Flying Doctor Service will provide an aircraft to be engaged in social purposes. This could have mixed value, I suppose. I thank the honourable senator for his suggestion and I will pass it on to the responsible Minister for investigation.

page 3168

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATION OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS IN QUEENSLAND

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he saw an article in the Brisbane Sunday ‘Sun’ last weekend which alleged that three young Aboriginal girls were taken from their beds in a church hostel in Rockhampton, Queensland, and locked in the local watchhouse because apparently they had walked off an Aboriginal settlement? Has the Minister inquired into these allegations? Was the newspaper correct in stating that the girls had committed no offence and that, in fact, no charges were subsequently laid against them. If this is the case, does the Minister regard this incident as a serious indictment of the present administration of Aboriginal affairs in the State of Queensland?

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

-Yes. I have seen the article. I obtained a minute on the question because the account of the incident that I read seemed unrealistic. I do not think it could have happened anywhere other than Queensland. The matter is somewhat old now. It appears that on 12 September at 9 o’clock at night three Aboriginal girls aged 20, 16 and 14, were asleep at a local hostel in Rockhampton. The girls were all from Woorabinda Aboriginal settlement and had recently left the settlement. I am informed that they were picked up by the police and conveyed to the watchhourse where they were placed in one of the cells. The following day, 13 September, a solicitor retained by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Aid Service went to the watchhouse and discovered that the girls had not been arrested or charged with any offence. The charge book kept in the watchhouse was noted ‘Females. Held at the request of the Woorabinda police pending return to settlement’. So apparently it was a common occurrence.

The solicitor made unsuccesssful inquiries of the State Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs and then saw the local inspector of police who advised him that the girls had been picked up at the request of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs and that the police were led to believe that they would be acting lawfully in acceding to that request. After the solicitor’s discussion with him the inspector agreed that the girls had been unlawfully detained, and he arranged for their immediate release. However, in my opinion the incident vividly illustrates the complete disregard for the rights of individuals that characterises the administration of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. In this case it can be seen that false information was given by the Department to the State police in order to enlist their aid. It is one of the things that I think should never happen. As I said in my opening remarks, it could not happen anywhere but in Queensland, but unfortunately it is happening today.

page 3169

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question which is addressed to the Attorney-General arises because of the conflicting reports in the media concerning this subject. I ask the Attorney-General: Will he as soon as practicable inform the Senate on what date Junie Morosi commenced work on the staff of the former Minister for Immigration, Mr Grassby, and when she left that post? On what date did she commence work on the staff of the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns? When was Mr Grassby informed of the transfer of the lady to her new job?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not sure of the date on which she commenced, but that can be readily ascertained. As to the transfer, I spoke to Dr Cairns this morning about it and he told me that actually the instruction was given by him the day before yesterday, and apparently the matter is being processed. He was not quite sure whether it had gone through or what stage it had reached in its progress through the various Public Service mechanisms. That is the best information I can give.

Senator Marriott:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral, as I started: Will he as soon as practicable tell me the dates when this happened?

Senator MURPHY:

– I will endeavour to find out the dates.

Senator Marriott:

– You have made it more conflicting than the original confliction

Senator MURPHY:

– I will endeavour to find out the dates, but it is not usual for me to be expected to carry these dates.

Senator Marriott:

– The whole episode is not usual.

Senator MURPHY:

- Senator Marriott says that the whole episode is not usual, and I think that is right. I suppose one might say that if we were dealing with a father of 3 adult sons instead of a mother of 3 sons the Opposition would not be asking the kinds of questions that have been asked about this matter. I will endeavour to find out what the dates are, but the honourable senator would know that this was announced several days ago by Dr Cairns. My assumption was thai the process, in any event, had been initiated. I told the Senate that yesterday, and Dr Cairns confirmed to me this morning that that was so.

page 3169

QUESTION

MR DAVID DITCHBURN

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the AttorneyGeneral inform the Senate whether Mr Ditchburn and his wife had interests in the travel agencies called Offline and George R. Smith? Is it true that one of these agencies is currently being inquired into by the New South Wales Commissioner of Corporate Affairs?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I cannot tell the honourable senator with any precision about particular names, but no doubt Mr Ditchburn and his wife had some interest in travel agencies. The honourablesenator’s information may be correct. I do not know whether such companies are being inquired into by the Corporate Affairs Commission, but I am informed that neither of the 2 persons has ever been convicted of any offence or charged with any offence. My information is that Miss Morosi has never been questioned by the Corporate Affairs Commission or by the police. If one were to look at the companies which are being inquired into by the Corporate Affairs Commission- I take it that the honourable senator was referring to New South Wales- and if I were asked about the persons who are associated with those companies, particularly the directors of them, I could give a roll call of half the prominent people in New South Wales.

page 3170

QUESTION

SUBSCRIBER TRUNK DIALLING TO DARWIN

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the PostmasterGeneral inform the Senate when subscriber trunk dialling into Darwin is likely to be introduced?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– It was introduced officially by me on Monday night at a function. Honourable senators will recall of course that subscriber trunk dialling out of Darwin was introduced in August of this year.

page 3170

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the official statistics that were published yesterday showing that in the September quarter of this year economic growth, as measured by gross domestic product seasonally adjusted at constant prices, declined by 2.8 per cent- apparently the sharpest decline of any quarter since the depression of the 1930s, and a decline indicating severe and chronic recession during that period and for the future. I refer also to the very many statements made in the Senate by the Attorney-General during the September quarter in which he claimed that the economy at that time was sound, robust and healthy. Since the official figures for the period have totally discredited all the Minister’s statements on the economy, will the Minister admit his serious misleading of the Australian people and refrain in future from such grossly erroneous comments and predictions.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not aware of the figures to which the honourable senator refers. It is verydifficult to know what the people sitting opposite want the Government to do. Only yesterday we were given a lecture by Senator Drake-Brockman, the Leader of what was the Australian Country Party and apparently now is the National Party, telling us that it was the duty of the Government to give encouragement to the people and not to spread gloom. Now Senator Carrick of the Liberal Party says that things are bad and will be bad for the whole future. He is trying to spread gloom and despair in the community whereas he ought to be saying that the Government is taking action that is designed to improve the economy. He ought to be encouraging the people of Australia, in accordance with what Senator Drake-Brockman said, to have some confidence, to fit in with the Government’s plans, to get together and start to make the economy work. I am afraid that Senator Carrick is adopting a very negative approach. I would be pleased if he took some of the advice that was given yesterday by Senator Drake-Brockman.

page 3170

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT BOOKSHOPS AND INQUIRY CENTRES

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media in relation to the network of publication and inquiry centres throughout Australia. Do the Department of the Media and the Government have plans for an extension of that network? Approximately how many centres are in operation at present throughout the nation? What is the volume of the inquiries those centres have received? Generally, does the Minister regard this initiative of the Government as one which could be said to be successful?

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

-The honorable senator will be aware, coming from Hobart, that about 2 months ago I opened a government bookshop and inquiry centre in Hobart. Last Monday I had the privilege of opening another one in Brisbane. All of the capital cities of the States and Canberra have now been equipped with a government bookshop and inquiry centre. I think that some time next week or the week after a bookshop and inquiry centre will be established in Darwin. Thus every capital city in Australia will have been provided with a bookshop and inquiry centre. The sales in the last 12 months of publications from the bookshops alone- apart from the other sales of government publications- have amounted to over $600,000. The inquiry centres are handling people at the rate of, from recollection, 15,000 a month or in round figures about 200,000 a year. Very shortly I will be putting a proposition to my Cabinet colleagues that this service be extended into a number of regional areas. The officers of my Department have been looking at places like Townsville, Ipswich, Newcastle, Wollongong and Launceston to name just a few. Hopefully, when centres have been established in all those localities, the service will be extended to regional areas. Thus the policy of open government that is being pursued by this Government will be more effectively taken to all sections of the Australian people.

page 3171

QUESTION

ATTENDANCE IN PRESS GALLERY

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

- Mr Deputy President, do you know that the Press gallery has been almost packed out this morning? Would you say that it was the great national social gossip question concerning a female government employee’s flat that brought those people into the Press gallery? In view of the attendance today will you take up with the President on his return the question of whether a request should be sent to the owners of the media that whenever legislation of national consequence is being debated in this chamber in the future they might see that a similar representation is present instead of attending only for gossip questions?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I have no information on the subject on which the honorable senator seeks information from me. I will consider his request concerning an approach to the President.

page 3171

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY SENATOR

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Strange to say, Mr Deputy President, I also direct a question to you. Has Senator Greenwood, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia in the Senate, yet made a public statement to the effect that ‘its’ - the Government’s-corruption extends to the officers for whom it is responsible’? If Senator Greenwood has not yet made public the allegation he made in the Senate last night will you ask him to indicate when he is prepared to do so and thereby honour the undertaking he gave last night?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I have no information on the subject on which the honourable senator seeks information. I would say that criticism in the Senate by any member of the Senate of senior public servants is to be deprecated and that the wording used in this regard should be of a more moderate nature. That is evidently the feeling on both sides of the chamber, as was indicated this morning and last night. However, I have no information regarding the question which the honourable senator has asked of me.

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented, and I seek leave to be heard as to how I have been misrepresented.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- With Senator Greenwood’s indulgence I would rather take his request for leave at the end of question time but if the Senate wishes to grant him leave at the moment I shall adopt that course. As Senator Greenwood indicates that he does not seek leave at this moment I call Senator Jessop.

page 3171

QUESTION

POSTAL STRIKES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, addressed to the Postmaster-General, is supplementary to that asked earlier by Senator Durack concerning the current postal dispute. I was encouraged to hear that the Minister is going to consult with Mr Hawke. I hope that the move meets with some success. In view of the statement by Mr Slater, secretary of the Australian Postal Workers Union, that he intends continuing guerrilla tactics to achieve the aims of his union, will the Minister assure the Senate that he will strongly uphold the arbitration system with respect to this current postal dispute?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I answer that question in the same way as Ministers representing Ministers for Labor answered similar questions when Senator Jessop ‘s Party was in government. In the circumstances of what could easily be action by the unions to settle the dispute, and having had some experience in these matters, I do not think I should make any comments at this stage.

page 3171

QUESTION

QUESTIONNAIRE TO SCHOOL TEACHERS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Education been drawn to a questionnaire circulated recently under the auspices of the Australian Schools Commission seeking information from teachers at schools in relation to various aspects of the Commission’s functions? Has his attention been drawn to the fact that the concluding questions in the questionnaire, Nos 40 and 41, seek the following information: ‘Your last vote- Labor, Liberal, Australia Party, Democratic Labor Party or other’, and ‘Your next vote’, and similar party names are set out? What is the purpose of seeking that information from school teachers around Australia? Is this a form of attempted intimidation? In any event, will the Minister seek to have the Minister for Education direct that this abuse be discontinued and that the recipients of this questionnaire so far be informed that they should not answer that part of it?

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

– I am completely unaware of the matters which Senator Rae has raised. I will discuss them with my colleague the Minister for Education.

page 3172

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Media. Are television stations approaching what is called the nonsurvey period? Is this the time when the quality of programming falls off because many popular productions go into recess, to be replaced by low quality repeat shows, many of them imported? Is this related to the fact that the ratings survey firms do not conduct surveys? Is the Minister prepared to do anything about this in the interests of the Australian viewing public who usually have to face up to a wasteland of television entertainment over the next 3 months?

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

– A question of this type was raised with me last year in the Senate and I expressed my concern on behalf of the Government that there seemed to be an excessive number of repeat programs put on at this time of the year, ostensibly because the commercial ratings system was not in operation. I have had a discussion with officers of my Department about the matter and my Department is going to conduct a special check survey in January. It is considered that the survey is necessary not only because of complaints from the public about holiday programming but also because it is essential that advertisers, particularly the Australian Government, be informed of station performances over this important period.

Requests have been made to the Australian Government by some television stations that because January is a poor period so far as advertisers are concerned, the Australian Government might consider advertising over television and radio during that month. Therefore, in order to test the market, as it were, my Department intends conducting a survey in the non-survey period of January. In the non-survey period last year I expressed concern about the possibility of retrenchment of staff working on local productions. I am told that this will not happen this year because of actions taken during the year to ensure continuity of employment through changes in the points system requirements. Nonetheless my Department is concerned about the public reaction to the lay-off of some major programs, although I do accept the right of stations to program repeats while staff is on vacation. 1 also understand that stations may have to experiment with new programs prior to the new season commencing in February.

page 3172

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I rise only because in a question asked by Senator Milliner he brought together 2 separate parts of a speech I made last night and sought to relate one part to the other. That is not valid. I refer to Hansard. I simply said last night: . . what is contained in this letter -

That is, from the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation- as a statement of the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation warrants the closest scrutiny, the closest investigation, because I believe that implicit in the letter, if it is carried out. is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Commissioner of Taxation, and I will assert that proposition both inside and outside that chamber.

I then went on to say that I regarded this Government as a corrupt Government. I do believe that.

Senator Wheeldon:

– And the Public Service.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Because there was some allegation thereafter that that was extending to an individual, I made the statement which is recorded in Hansard to make quite clear what I was saying. For the record I quote it:

But to suggest- and I do not suggest it- or to imply that I am saying that the First Assistant Commissioner was in some way corrupt or motivated by money, I do not allege nor did I intend to allege and I do not believe that what 1 said fairly raised that suggestion.

That ought to be taken into account in any allegation which is now made.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

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

Senator WHEELDON:

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation as one who took part in the debate last night. I claim to have been misrepresented in what I said last night by implication in what Senator Greenwood has now said. I refer to Hansard and the final paragraph of Senator Greenwood’s speech where he said, referring to the Government:

  1. . its own corruption extends to the officers for whom it is responsible.

This statement followed references to the Commissioner and the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation. I stand by what I say, and that is that last night Senator Greenwood said that they were engaged in corruption.

page 3173

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY SENATOR

Ministerial Statement

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- Mr Deputy President, I ask for leave to make a statement in connection with this matter.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The Leader of the Government is seeking leave to make a statement. Is leave granted?

Senator Withers:

– I think the matter ought to be concluded.

Senator MURPHY:

-I will conclude it.

Senator Withers:

– There has been a statement from either side of the chamber and I think it ought to be concluded.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order ! The Minister is on his feet. Is leave granted?

Senator Withers:

– No.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Withers:

– I said no.

Senator MURPHY:

-Then I will move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement. A very serious statement has been made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which went beyond any explanation on his own behalf, affecting the integrity of a high officer of Australia, and I think that this statement should be responded to by me as Leader of the Government. I was not present in the chamber last night to hear the allegation of corruption against the Government and the allegation of dereliction of duty against the Commissioner of Taxation. I ask that the Senate permit me to respond without any delay.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The situation is unclear to me at the moment. I will ask the Senate again whether the Leader of the Government is given leave to make a statement. There being no objection leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– The accusation made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today, and apparently last night, is a very grave allegation against the Government. There can be no doubt of that. We are used to this kind of allegation being made against governments and, to some extent, members of Parliament and the public have treated them not with all the seriousness with which they once may have been treated, because they are regarded as somehow being part of a political game which is played in these chambers. It is an entirely different matter when an allegation of corruption or dereliction of duty is made against a high officer of the Commonwealth. Sir Edward Cain is a man of the highest reputation and the highest integrity.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Hear, hear!

Senator Cotton:

– Hear, hear!

Senator Carrick:

– Hear, hear!

Senator MURPHY:

– I am pleased to hear the approval of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, Senator Cotton and Senator Carrick of what I am saying. He is a man of the highest reputation. He has a reputation for unimpeachable integrity. He is a man who has to exercise discretions of the most delicate kind in carrying out a very difficult statute. He is a man in whom there must be the utmost public confidence, except for this statement which has been made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He has made that statement not on some substantial motion in the House to deal with this high officer, not after a presentation of proper particulars and evidence to support this extremely grave allegation. There is no doubt that if the Commissioner is guilty of corruption or dereliction of duty, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has suggested, he would not be ableSenator Greenwood- I did not say that.

Senator MURPHY:

-I am certain that with my own ears I heard a few moments ago the allegation by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Commissioner of Taxation was guilty of a dereliction of duty and that he would repeat outside the House what he said inside the House. If he does that he will suffer the consequences. I will read from yesterday’s Hansard what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said last night. A copy of yesterday’s Hansard has been handed to me by Senator Wheeldon. Senator Greenwood said:

Why would a taxpayer making a donation -

Senator Withers:

– From what page are you reading?

Senator MURPHY:

– It is page 3139. Senator Greenwood said:

Why would a taxpayer making a donation to the John Curtin House Appeal have little difficulty in establishing that the gift was for business purposes? Why? Is it to be said that if anyone makes a donation to a Labor Party appeal, in the estimation of the public that has the same character as a donation made to a desirable public objective. Is that what the First Assistant Commissioner is saying? We are not told, and I believe that what is contained in this letter as a statement of the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation warrants the closest scrutiny, the closest investigation, because I believe that implicit in the letter, if it is carried out, is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Commissioner of Taxation, and I will assert that proposition both inside and outside the chamber.

On page 3141 Senator Greenwood said:

I believe that the statement contained in the letter of the First Assistant Commissioner is an indication that the Commissioner is not prepared to carry out the discretion which is conferred upon him under the legislation. It is the Commissioner’s duty to assess whether or not an expense, a deduction claimed by a taxpayer is or is not a business expense. If he is prepared to say in advance, as he does say, that it is thought that taxpayers carrying on business operations would have little difficulty in establishing that the gifts were made solely for business purposes and would qualify as allowable income tax deductions, it is to say in advance that the discretion conferred upon him is not going to bc exercised.

The other passage to which Senator Wheeldon has referred me appears in the next paragraph where Senator Greenwood said:

Surely every particular case must bc examined in the light of whether or not it is a proper deduction, and I think it is high time that the people of this country became aware of the shabby sort of government we have got and the way in which its own attitudes and doctrines and its own corruption extends to the officers for whom it is responsible. This is a letter which I believe any taxation commissioner could not sustain if it was sought to be justified publicly.

There is no doubt that that is an allegation of corruption against the Government which is extended to the officers for whom it is responsible, and the relevant officers who are indicated to be involved in this are the Commissioner and the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation. On behalf of the Government I repudiate what has been put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition against the Government. I repudiate what has been put against eminent officers of the Government in whom I say the Government has every confidence, in whom confidence has been expressed here openly on the floor of the House by three Opposition senators, and they are three distinguished Opposition senators. I repudiate what Senator Greenwood has said, as it is not fair, it is not just, it is not decent to make an attack upon the officers of the Australian Government in the manner in which he has done.

This is no way at all for such a matter to be handled. It is disgraceful that the Opposition would permit the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make such an attack upon those high officers in such a way. I think it is unprecedented that a person holding such a position as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should come into this House and in this manner make such an attack last night and repeat in the chamber today an allegation of dereliction of duty and of corruption of officials. Mr Deputy President, we do get disturbed at what is happening in this Parliament. I must say that this is one of the most disturbing incidents with which I have been associated.

Senator Withers:

– What about the flat?

Senator MURPHY:

– One speaks of natural justice. Apparently Senator Withers, by his interjection, is defending in some way what has been done by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of this Government I completely repudiate what has been said. I say that it is a disgrace that it should have been done in this manner by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If he makes outside the House the statements that he has threatened to make, then he will suffer the consequences.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It may suit the purposes of the Senate that further debate on this matter be curtailed at the present time. The incident was debated last evening and again on the floor of the Senate this morning. Both sides may perhaps have some reflection on their own words. I have not upheld points of order relating to the criticism of individuals outside the Parliament. While no statement in disparagement of any member of Parliament shall be made, the Standing Orders do not protect other persons. Nevertheless, I think that any disparagement of public servants in ordinary debate is to be deprecated and I would suggest to the Senate that we proceed to the business before the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:

-( Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate)- I seek leave to make a statement on the same matter.

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not wish to bring any heat into the debate but in fairness a couple of things ought to be said. As I examined the Hansard report this morning I noticed that after Senator Greenwood spoke he was followed, I think, by both Senator Bishop and Senator Wheeldon. In fairness and to keep the record straight, irrespective of what Senator Greenwood may have said in the heat of the debate, I should point out that he rose in this place and said:

I rise only because of what Senator Wheeldon said and I believe that I have been misquoted or misunderstood. I certainly accused the Government- and I do not retract from the accusation I made- of corruption, and my recollection is that I said that that corruption or the taint of it had extended to its officers.

Senator Wheeldon:

– That is a pretty serious allegation.

Senator WITHERS:

-Wait a minute. Let us have the whole of it.

Senator Wheeldon:

– You were not here last night. I was here. You walked out when he started talking.

Senator WITHERS:

-I heard it. Do not get excited. If we are going to cast aspersions I ask honourable senators opposite to remember what their colleague Senator Georges accused the Commissioner of Taxation of over the Patrick case some 2 years back. He accused the Government of manipulating taxation officers to protect Patrick Partners. Remember that? I do not remember any of you honourable senators opposite being terribly excited or rushing to the defence of the Taxation officers at that stage. As my friend and colleague Senator Carrick interjected, What happened about the serving that Mr Cooley got this morning?’

Senator Wheeldon:

– So you think this is in order now?

Senator WITHERS:

-Oh no, but I did not notice you all rising in protest against your colleague then. He who wants equity had better come with clean hands. You are all terribly uptight about it and one starts to wonder why. Then of course you also overlook the fact that Senator Greenwood later said- I will read the lot if you like but you can read: . . I do not allege nor did I intend to allege -

That is important, ‘ nor did I intend to allege ‘- and I do not believe that what I said fairly raised that suggestion.

Prior to those remarks he said:

I certainly did not intend to make any such accusation.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Well, he did make it and he repeated it this morning.

Senator WITHERS:

-He said this after he had spoken last night. I thought this morning he only read from Hansard. I did not think he went outside that. Senator Greenwood having said last night ‘I certainly did not intend to make any such accusation’, that ought to solve the matter completely. If we are going to look for bodies around this place in respect of what somebody said about somebody else in the course of the last 5 or 10 years, we are going to have very delightful days here for the rest of the session just digging up bodies and exposing skeletons. I think we ought to accept what Senator Greenwood said after Senator Wheeldon had spoken and regard the incident as closed.

page 3175

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present an interdepartmental committee report entitled ‘Proposed Freedom of Information Legislation’.

page 3175

REPORT ON LAW OF GUARDIANSHIP AND CUSTODY OF INFANTS

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the law of guardianship and custody of infants prepared by the Law Reform Commission of the Australian Capital Territory.

page 3175

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) ACT 1972-73

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

– Pursuant to section 7D. of the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1972-73 I present a statement of approvals given during 1974 in respect of the grants for special education in colleges of advanced education.

page 3175

MIGRANT EDUCATION

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

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971-1973 I present the annual report on migrant education for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3175

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) ACT 1972

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

– Pursuant to section ls. of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-1973 I present a statement of the payment of moneys made to each State under that Act as grants for recurrent expenditure during the 1973 calendar year.

page 3175

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) ACT 1969

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

– Pursuant to section 7 of the States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969-1972 I present a statement of the payment of moneys made to each State under that Act as per capita grants in respect of each independent school during the 1973 calendar year.

page 3175

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table protocols for the extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement 1971.

page 3176

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present the first report of the Department of Environment and Conservation covering the period from the establishment of the Department in December 1 972 to 30 June 1 974.

page 3176

REPORT ON NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SYSTEM

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report on a national highways system by a committee of senior representatives of the Australian Government and State road authorities. In tabling this report I should make it clear to senators that this is not a report to the Australian Government.

page 3176

URBAN PAPER ENTITLED ‘POVERTY

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present an urban paper prepared by Peter Le Breton entitled ‘Poverty’. Due to the limited numbers available arrangements have been made to have reference copies of the paper placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 3176

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-I bring up a report from the Joint Committee on Prices relating to the practice of retailers repricing existing stock, together with minutes of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)- by leaveagreed to:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 3176

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-I bring up a report from the Joint Committee on Prices relating to the import prices inquiry on price effects of currency changes, report No. 3, together with minutes of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)- by leaveagreed to:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 3176

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

-I present a report on the proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control since it reported last in October 1972, and to table the evidence taken during the Committee’s public hearings in respect of the fuel and energy resources inquiry conducted during 1 973.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Senator McAuliffe)- by leaveagreed to:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Motion (by Senator McAuliffe)- agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 3176

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-I bring up a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. As the report is only 2 paragraphs in length, I trust that honourable senators will bear with me while I read it. It reads:

Under the terms of the resolution re-appointing the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees on 1 7 September 1974, the Standing Committees have power to inquire into and report upon matters which were referred to them during previous sessions.

In the light of this discretionary power, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has considered three references in this category, namely:

Thailand ‘;

All matters relating to the recognition of China and the status of Taiwan’; and

The role of ANZUK as a result of change in Australia ‘s defence establishment in South East Asia ‘; and has resolved not to proceed with them.

page 3176

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Murphy and relating to the introduction of a Bill formal or not formal?

Senator Murphy- Formal

page 3176

CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES INDUSTRY BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to Corporations and the Securities Industry.

page 3177

QUESTION

DAYS OF MEETING

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

– I move:

The withdrawal of this motion means that the Government does not intend the House to sit on Friday. Normal sessional orders will prevail and the House will rise at 10.30 this evening and will resume at 1 1 a.m. next Tuesday.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3177

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Delivered Meals Subsidy Bill 1974

Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Bill 1974

States Grants (Schools) Bill 1974

Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1974

Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1974

Queensland Grant (Bundaberg Irrigation Works) Bill 1974

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1974

Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Bill 1974

Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill 1974

Customs Tariff 1 974

Customs Tariff(No. 2) 1974

Customs Tariff Validation Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974

Customs Bill (No. 2) 1974

Excise Tariff Bill 1974

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Bill 1974

Queensland Grant (Clare Weir) Bill 1974

Air Navigation Bill 1974

page 3177

STATES GRANTS (NATURE CONSERVATION) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

I make this second reading speech on behalf of Senator Wheeldon. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

In my second reading speech on the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill I drew the attention of honourable senators to world-wide concern for the conservation of wildlife and of places of natural, scenic, scientific and recreational significance. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation, established under the previous Government, stressed the need for a national policy aimed at acquiring sufficient of the total land area of each State and Territory to ensure that all types of wildlife habitat will be preserved. The Committee recommended that grants be provided to the States to enable them to acquire areas of wildlife habitat which are of national significance.

The Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate, established by this Government, also recommended a system of grants to the States to ensure that adequate funds are made available for acquisition of lands for national parks. This Committee stressed that the selection of areas for reservation should be based on objective scientific criteria which allow for representative ecosystems, protection of threatened species, and the recreation needs of urban populations. The Committee also recommended that the Australian Government, in close consultation with the States, take urgent steps for the preservation of the Australian coastal heritage including a States Grants program to assist in land acquisition. The recent report of Professor Specht and his associates, entitled ‘Conservation of Major Plant Communities in Australia and Papua New Guinea’, drew attention to the fact that only about half of the distinct plant communities in this country are protected in national parks and reserves.

The States Grants (Nature Conservation) Bill, which I now commend to honourable senators, complements the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill. It is in accordance with the recommendations of both the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation and the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate. To these ends, $9m has been provided in this year’s budget as part of a 3-year program for expenditure of $20m for the acquisition of land for national parks and nature reserves. This program will be determined in consultation with the States and the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) has already written to each State Minister responsible for wildlife and national parks asking for proposals of acquisition to be submitted for consideration.

We all share a responsibility to conserve for future generations as much of our natural heritage as possible- in terms of both area and diversity. This Bill accepts that responsibility. It enables the National Government- for the first time- to make a major financial commitment so that future generations will have the chance to see, understand and enjoy the special natural qualities of Australia. In short, I regard this Bill as a very significant part of this Government’s response to the growing public awareness of our precious but dwindling natural heritage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 3178

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (IMPACT OF PROPOSALS) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

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

This Bill seeks to improve consideration of environmental factors in the Government’s decision making through use of the environmental impact statement technique and public inquiries. The Government’s proposals reflect its belief that, in the past, insufficient attention has been given to environmental considerations when directions were being taken. The proposals we have developed should change this regrettable situation. This Bill also reflects the Australian Labor Party’s belief in open government and public participation in decision making. The Bill will effect many facets of the Australian Government’s activities; its operation will extend to every government department and authority. It is the most important piece of environmental legislation ever to be considered by the Parliament.

The environmental impact statement procedure introduced through this Bill represents a development and improvement of policies adopted by the previous Government in 1972. That Government had required impact statements to be prepared on environmentally important proposals being considered by Cabinet. In considering requests by State Governments for financial assistance for major development projects, the previous Government merely required assurance that associated environmental factors had been suitably investigated and taken into account. Under this legislation, the Australian Government will extend the impact statement requirement to cover any proposal in which it is involved and which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, irrespective of whether or not it is a matter to be decided by Cabinet. In addition the requirement will be extended to cover proposals to which Australian Government funds are specifically directed and which are being developed by State or local government. Thirdly, the requirement will be extended to encompass proposals which involve the constitutional power of the Australian Government. For example, it will be used to ensure that the environmental effects of mining and woodchip proposals are thoroughly evaluated before any decision is taken on export licences.

Some may seize on these extensions and claim they represent an unnecessary intrusion into matters that are State responsibilities. This, of course, is not the case. These extensions merely use Australian Government constitutional powers which, because of the indifference of earlier government to environmental issues, were never applied. I might say, in fact, that I see very considerable scope for co-operation between the Australian and State Governments. In this respect, I am encouraged that all States except Western Australia are requiring, or developing procedures requiring, impact statements on matters that are their responsibility. Within the Australian Environment Council there has been basic agreement on what statements should cover. This will mean that where 2 governments are involved in examining a proposal, only one statement will be needed.

The Australian Government will have to rely to a large extent on State Government advice in assessing the environmental consequences of proposals in which it is involved and which are being developed in the States. But it is not obliged to accept that advice or to leave investigations only to the State authorities concerned. The extent to which it will rely on State environment authorities will depend on the confidence it has in those authorities, on its judgment of their independence and on the significance of the proposals from the national viewpoint. In developing the impact statement procedure we have noted difficulties that have accompanied its use in the United States. These have largely stemmed from mandatory requirements for statements and from procedures which result in too frequent a resort to the courts. We hope to avoid these difficulties, firstly, by making the impact statement requirement discretionary so that we can concentrate on the most significant proposals and, secondly, by incorporating the requirement into the normal process of governmental decision making.

Although we will be limiting the requirement in terms of the environmental importance of a proposal, we will not be Limiting its scope in terms of the type of proposal that could be the subject of a statement. Proposals to change a tax or subsidy, to change a tariff, to plan and develop a particular construction, to become a party to an international agreement, to build a new city, to purchase equipment or to commence or extend a forestry or agricultural operation, for example, could all be the subject of an impact statement. A considerable part of the Bill deals with public enquiries into matters of environmental concern. It is a very real reflection of our commitment to open government. Under the previous Government, impact statements were to be made public immediately after a Cabinet decision was announced and before the related legislation or appropriation was passed by the Parliament. These arrangements provided the public with the minimum opportunity to influence a decision on environmental grounds.

Under this legislation, except where specifically exempted by the Minister, public comment will be sought before a statement is finalised and before any decision is taken on the proposal concerned. Exemption from comment will occur only in isolated cases such as where publication of the impact statement could lead to land speculation or endanger national security. The public will be given a real opportunity to influence decisions. The detailed requirements for impact statements and hearings will be set out in procedures to be established under clause 6 of the Bill. These procedures will be tabled in the Parliament as soon as possible after this Bill has received royal assent. They will provide that responsibility for the preparation of the impact statement lies with the organisation putting forward the proposal concerned. The statement will be required to set out the need for the proposal, the objective of the proposal, the alternative means of reaching that objective and the environmental effects of these different alternatives.

Once a draft impact statement is complete it will then be subject to public scrutiny which will be achieved through advertising the availability of the document and seeking written comment upon it. In addition, where the environmental consequences of a proposal are considered to be particularly significant, or where there is considerable public controversy over these consequences, a public inquiry will be held. Following public scrutiny the impact statement will be finalised and submitted, together with the report from any public inquiry, to the Department of the Environment and Conservation for assessment. The assessment of the environmental consequences will be conveyed to Cabinet at the same time as the proposal itself is put to Cabinet for consideration. Thus we will ensure Cabinet considers the economic, technological and environmental consequences of proposals at the same time, before any decision is taken. The procedure will not give to environmental considerations a veto-power in decision-making. Environmental considerations will become an integral part of the information upon which a decision is taken. This is the first Bill of this type to be introduced into a Parliament in Australia. It represents a very significant step forward in contributing to the adequate protection of our environment and should be of real benefit to all Australians, irrespective of their occupation, their political outlook or their place of living.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 3179

KING ISLAND SHIPPING SERVICE AGREEMENT BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to make available to the Tasmanian State Government a loan of up to $1.415m. The objective of the legislation is to enable Tasmania to maintain a shipping service to

King Island by financing the purchase of the vessel M V ‘Straitsman ‘. For some years King Island was served by a small 200 dwt vessel ‘King Islander’ owned and operated by R. H. Houfe and Co. Pty Ltd. The service received a Commonwealth subsidy. This subsidy ceased when the company introduced a new larger vessel, the Straitsman’ of 1,036 dwt which operated between Melbourne, King Island and Stanley. The service commenced on 1 May 1 972 but ceased after only 7 weeks because of the company’s acute liquidity problems.

Shortly after taking office we commenced negotiations with the Tasmanian Government. In the course of these discussions the Tasmanians indicated they wished to assume direct responsibility for the operation of the service. In the interests of maintaining this service the Australian Government agreed that a loan would be provided for the purchase of a vessel. The Tasmanian Government, as honourable senators will be aware, purchased the ‘Straitsman’ which re-entered the service in September 1973. It was agreed that the earlier undertaking to make a loan available would apply to this vessel.

The Bill before the Senate gives effect to the agreement contained in the Schedule and thus honours the Government’s undertaking. The agreement provides that a loan be made to Tasmania that shall not exceed in the aggregate $1,415,000. The loan is to be repaid over 15 years. The rate of interest charged on the loan will be the long term bond rate at the time the loan is made.

Honourable senators will of course be aware that the ‘Straitsman’ was operating in the King Island service when the tragic accident occurred in March 1973. The Tasmanian Government was immediately advised that approval would be granted for the temporary importation of a vessel should an Australian vessel be unavailable to continue the service. Interim arrangements were made to provide the King Island area with a shipping service whilst an appropriate vessel was sought overseas by the Tasmanian Government. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has recently approved the temporary importation by the Tasmanian Transport Commission of the vessel ‘Rah’ which is due to enter service early in December. The ‘Straitsman’ is presently in Launceston undergoing repairs. These are expected to continue well into 1975. The Australian Government is concerned that adequate transport links to outlying communities should be maintained. This loan to the Tasmanian Government recognises the needs of the people of King Island. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Young) adjourned.

page 3180

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 December on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– The Senate, of course, is debating in cognate form 4 Bills. I indicated last night that the Opposition supports two of these Bills- the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1974 and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974- and wishes them a speedy passage. In relation to the Estate Duty Assessment Bill, the Opposition has an amendment which has been circulated to honourable senators and which I will move at the end of the second reading debate at the conclusion of my remarks. My main remarks are concerned with the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974. 1 also foreshadow that the Opposition will move an amendment to the second reading of this Bill.

I remind the Senate that this Bill is a complex Bill covering such matters as increased tax liabilities for the mining industry, the imposition of taxation on fringe benefits, special allowance of deductions for depreciation of child care facilities, reduction of the limit on deduction for education expenses, the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, a reduced level of the special deduction allowable to life assurance companies, a rebate of dependants’ allowances for low income families, technical amendments of the principal Act with respect to dividends payable from Papua New Guinea, the relief of taxpayers in cases of hardship and provisional tax for 1974-75.

I said last night that in continuation of the Government’s punitive approach to the mining industry, this Bill took some further measures. Clauses 4, 2 1 to 29, 30 to 33, 39 and 45 relate to mining companies. The proposed amendments will provide an estimated $80m additional revenue in a full year and a further once-for-all gain of $50m in 1975-76 in terms of revenue previously forgone. The Bill itself follows upon the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1973. It has been introduced in spite of the fact that the whole subject of taxation of the mining industry is at this moment being reviewed by 2 expert public inquiries. I refer to the Taxation Review Committee and the Industries Assistance Commission. It is quite inconsistent as a Bill with the Government’s stated policy that it would not act to introduce or withdraw measures until the Industries Assistance Commission had reported. It also, of course, pre-empts the Asprey committee. Clauses 5 and 27 are designed to withdraw the 20 per cent tax exemption on income from the production of certain prescribed minerals including copper, bauxite, nickel and beach sands. This, of course, is another punitive measure. The Opposition is opposed to this proposal.

At a time when it is imperative that the mining industry, in common with other industries, should be given incentives to produce, to expand and to earn wealth for this country, we have the reverse occurring. We have disincentives. This Government in its blunderbuss fashion raided the overseas reserves of Australia and ran them down before it suddenly panicked. The overseas reserves of this country are vital to us as a great trading nation in order that we can, of course, buy from abroad. One of the ways- a major way- of recouping our trade balances is through the mining industry. This Bill is another disincentive in that regard.

Senator Walsh:

– What are our overseas reserves?

Senator CARRICK:

– They were in the order of $4,200m a year ago and rising. They have run down to about $3,000m. If the trend continues, by the middle of next year they will be some $2,000m, which is regarded by all authoritative people as perilous since it would be barely 2 months purchasing power for this nation. It is to be understood that the ability to sustain overseas reserves as a great trading nation is an ability which establishes a stability for Australia in the eyes of the world.

Senator Walsh:

-Did you say $2,000m would be 2 months purchasing power?

Senator CARRICK:

– In answer to Senator Walsh, who is particularly garrulous-

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I rise to order. Is it in order for an honourable senator to interject when he is not in his seat?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bonner)- Order! My understanding is that it is not in order to interject at any time but we show a blind eye to it on occasions.

Senator CARRICK:

-Nobody more than Senator Walsh would need to have educational answers to his questions. In that quite serious vein I proceed and respond. The fact is that I said that it would be dangerous if the level of our reserves ran down to, say, 2 months or even 3 months reserves.

Senator Walsh:

-And that is $2,000m?

Senator CARRICK:

– That would be dangerous and it would be in the order of $2,000m. But since the honourable senator continues to interject I say this to him, and he might in fact heed this because it is perhaps the most imperative of the issues confronting the community today: The quadrupling of the oil price by the Middle East countries means that those countries now preempt about $ 120 billion by way of trade reserves from the purchasing nations. The total trade reserves of all the purchasing nations of the world is about $160 billion. The honourable senator who has now retired to hibernation, making a study of this in hibernation, should realise that any country with any sense for its own preservation would want to maintain its trade reserves at the highest level possible.

Having said that, I remind the Senate that clauses 30, 31 and 32 of this Bill change the period over which expenditure incurred on a railway, road, pipeline or other facility for transporting minerals is deductible for taxation purposes over periods ranging from 10 to 20 years. This is another attempt by the Government at intervention in the minerals industry. I move from there to credit unions. Clause 6 of the Bill proposes that interest received by credit unions on loans made to their members be exempted from taxation and it provides qualifications. The Opposition wholly supports this measure.

I move now to the question of the qualifications on fringe benefits. This is a most curious matter. The proposal itself is one of intervention primarily upon what are private vehicles. The Government itself should define private vehicles. I invite the Minister representing the Treasurer, the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in his response to throw some light on this matter. What is meant by this? The provision, of course is that taxpayers who use privately a company car are to be required to declare as income an amount equal to 12 per cent of the car’s original price or 24 per cent where the original price exceeds $6,000. This relates, of course, to section 26a of the Principal Act. No doubt some clarification of the existing provision is necessary. The Opposition points out to the Senate and to the public that the proposal as listed in terms of the qualification of fringe benefits could mean to an ordinary person using a vehicle in the course of his duties- using a company car or an organisational vehicle- that his taxable income will be increased by about $400 or $500 a year. How do we define this?

For example, is a person who travels to and from home in a vehicle which might embody some mechanical contrivance- shall we say, a concrete mixer- covered in this way? How shall Ministerial cars be considered? I ask and invite the Minister to respond definitely to this question: Is a Ministerial car which is used to travel between the home and the point of business also to be considered in this way, and is a Minister to have his taxable income increased in this way? What is the definition of a vehicle in this regard? Why is the provision sought to be punitive? Why is it sought to reach out and to hit people who, as part of the ordinary amenities associated with earning their wages or salaries, have the ability to travel to and from their work in this way? Does a carpenter using his vehicle to take his tools of trade to and from his work, have to add into his tax return an amount to cover this, and, if so, what amount? We invite the Minister to clarify that.

As to the provisions regarding child care and the provisions regarding non-resident dependants, the Opposition places no qualification or obstruction on those matters. But when it comes to the decision under clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill to provide that the statutory maximum deduction of $400 allowance for educational expenses be reduced to $ 1 50, the Opposition emphatically opposes that. Not only shall we mention it in our addendum, but the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) is on public record as saying that upon return to government we will rectify this matter. It is notorious that a substantial section of the Labor Party Caucus itself saw the gross inequity of this measure and sought to rectify it. Only after a plea from the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), who put his leadership on the line, was this matter not rectified by the Caucus. It is significant that the Prime Minister put himself to the test in defending a reduction from $400 to $ 1 50. Let us see what this means. It is a common tendency of the Labor Party, of the Whitlam Government, when the Opposition seeks to defend the maintenance of the $400 allowance, to say: ‘You are seeking to protect the affluent, you are seeking to protect the wealthy’. This is absolute nonsense. It goes further and says: ‘You are seeking to protect the independent schools. You know nothing of the state schools.’ That is equal nonsense.

As a person who was educated, and is proud to say so, in state schools, and as a parent who sent his children to state primary schools, I emphatically applaud the work that is done by state school education authorities. Having been an active member of parents and citizens associations, I understand the problems of the parent in ordinary average income families in sending his or her children to state schools. Let us look this one fairly in the eye. Any person who sends his or her children to a state school today will incur expenditure of substantially more than $150 a year in education expenses. To this the Government intervenes and says that it has some abstract statistic, which must be a year or two out of date because all taxation statistics as published are, which shows that the average claim- a mystical figure- is $ 1 50 or less. Let us have this information tabled. If the Minister is going to use this argument let him put forward in the Senate a table on this question, giving us the years, the figures and the facts.

I have inquired of a multitude of parents- and I am an active patron of a public school- as to costs. Why, today if a couple of uniforms, a couple of pairs of shoes and some sports clothes are bought for a child, that purchase in itself exceeds $150. Does the Minister understand the cost of textbooks, the whole of the ramifications of the costs of excursions and tours, and the expenses of buying materials for arts and crafts? Does he seriously say- and this is importantthat in the year 1974, and prospectively next year, the average cost to a parent of state school children will be $ 1 50 or less? Let him stand up and produce the figures on this. Why should we put a limit of $150 on this? What has happened to make this desirable or necessary?

The second leg of this matter, of course, becomes clear. It is notorious that a significant section of the Whitlam Government is out to destroy the independent school system. It is notorious that what that section wants to do is to make that system so expensive that people are priced out of it. It is, of course, as part of that section’s class hatred and part of its sectional and sectarian hatred that it does this. It is an ugly and un-Australian thing. The Opposition places profound emphasis on the state school system.

Senator Button:

– Does that include the Catholic schools- the hatred directed against them?

Senator CARRICK:

– The question asked by Senator Button was: Was I implying that there was a hatred against the Catholic schools? In my private opinion, some sections of the Labor Party would be out to destroy the Catholic school system.

Senator Button:

– I am asking you to judge on performance.

Senator CARRICK:

-Yes, I will come to that shortly. I will judge on performance, because what the Government has provided through the Karmel committee for the parochial schools and for the other schools, now that inflation has destroyed the effect of the report of the Karmel committee, would be less than what had been foreshadowed by the McMahon Government; yes, indeed. Many a principal of a parochial school has told me that the policies of this Government will destroy those schools. It is on record in the Press this morning that a cleric, speaking at a non-government school, said exactly the same thing, that the Government was out to destroy the independent schools. But a fundamental freedom that this Senate is pledged to maintain is freedom of choice- the right to choose a state school, the right to choose a nonstate school, the right to choose a Catholic parochial school and the right to choose an independent non-Catholic school. That fundamental right must be a right quite irrespective of affluence. It must be a right for the humblest amongst us. It must be a right for people who are not affluent, who have not got the kind of earnings that are necessary to pay large fees, to pay $1,000 a year or more for their children’s education.

What a quaint thing it is that those who attack the independent schools and who stand up here talking as they do about these things send their own children to independent schools and, if I may say so by interpolation, come along to Liberals and ask their help to get their children into those schools. That is the measure of the humbug of these people. Here is a situation in which with ordinary good sense and in the ordinary course of events one would say that the Government would believe in freedom of choice and would want to allow people to choose. One would think in ordinary good economics the Government would say: ‘ It is good business for people to go to independent schools. It saves the Government the tax burden of State schools.’ If a taxpayer sends his child to a State school, primary school fees of approximately $600 a year and high school fees of at least $900 or $1,000 a year of taxpayers’ money are saved. It lowers the pupilteacher ratio. It enables people who are presently at State schools to have a better go. The Government is saying: ‘We will destroy this system. We will lower it.’ That means that those people who send their children to independent schools will now have to pay substantially more in 2 waysbecause of inflation in fees and because of the reduction in the tax allowance. This is a punishment of a very large section of the community, lt is in fact a punishment of the whole of the community.

I move now to clause 17 which provides deductibility of mortgage interest. This is a very belated provision. It was promised in December 1972. It is now December 1974-2 years later. It was promised that it would be introduced after the Whitlam Government was elected to office. Two years have gone by. The whole of the matter is obscure and thoroughly unfair. It is unfair because it discriminates against a significant section of the community- a significant section of the underprivileged and poor of the community. I think these are the people whom the Government tells us it is elected to look after. If one gives preference to those people who are buying a home, one punishes by difference those who are renting a home. The rent of a home is the capital cost and maintenance cost of that home plus profit. So this Government is punishing all those who rent homes. It is an extraordinary situation.

I put that matter aside and move to the next situation which is the idea of allowing a tax deduction to ease the interest rate. This scheme is fated for destruction before it starts because the level of interest rates has risen so much since the Government promised to introduce tax deductibility that the measure of relief now cannot be as great. First of all, it is not possible with the existing interest rates for a person on the average weekly income to get a loan from a bank or a building society. It is not possible under the quartering formula. The quartering formula means that one cannot pay more than one-quarter of one’s weekly wage as a mortgage repayment. To receive a loan of $22,000 today to buy the most modest of homes- if a person could get one- he would need to pay $240 a month- almost $60 a week. That means that under the quartering formula he would need to earn $240 a week. This is an illusion in itself. In the first place, the ordinary person in the future cannot benefit. It is true that those people who are paying off their homes now, having bought them during the time of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government, will obtain some measure of relief.

Let us examine this matter. Yesterday the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, rebuked me for using figures of 15 per cent, 1 6 per cent or 1 7 per cent. This morning I looked at the short term interest rates for bridging finance. They are in fact higher than those figures. I read last night in the Press that in Victoria the permanent building societies will be putting up their interest rates to 14 per cent. This kind of interest rate will simply cost the ordinary person out of a home. How can the ordinary person buy a home? The Government has destroyed the homes savings grant scheme that had been one of the pivotal points of home purchase in Australia.

Senator Cavanagh:

– For some people.

Senator CARRICK:

– One of the very valuable points, because it gave them a help towards their deposit and a help without interest for bridging finance. The Government has destroyed that. What has it done? In its place, it has made the cost of a home impossible, as I have demonstrated. It has created all-time record interest rates. It has reduced the rate of building by half at least. It has depressed the industry to such a state that its recovery for some years to come will not be smooth and effective. Authoritative statistics show a lag of at least 50,000 homes now and a prospective lag next year of 100,000 homes. The amount of money, $150m, that the Government is proposing under another Bill to inject into the community through the banks to help housing would make provision for 7,500 houses, which is precisely the number of houses that the New South Wales Housing Commission has had to add in terms of demand to its books. There are now 35,000 urgent applications from low income earners for homes. In the face of a deficiency of approximately 50,000 homes and the prospect of a deficiency of 100,000 homes the Government’s response is to create more scarcities by providing effectively about 7,500 extra homes through that measure. Lest it be said: Yes, but we have increased the savings banks’ ratio from 60-40 to 50-50 to help housing’, I point out that the Banks (Housing Loans) Bill is emphatic that it is regarded as the key to break through the problem of housing.

I point out also that in each of the States during the past 2 years of Labor Government the scarcity of serviced land- of housing blocks available for building- has increased chronically. The Government has made much of its claim that it has provided record funds for water and sewerage. At a time when the housing industry has collapsed and at a time when the Government could have overtaken the problem of servicing housing blocks in the city of Melbourne alone for a period of 3 years to 5 years there is a prospective serious shortage. At a time of mounting unemployment when we could be putting people to work in this servicing area to do the headworks we are moving in a slow and stolid way. This problem is being overtaken by massive inflation and massive costs.

The Bill attacks life assurance companies and by doing so reduces the benefits to be paid by the life assurance companies. Life assurance in this community is the little man ‘s saviour. The provident week by week payment at the door of a policy against retirement, accident or illness is the little man’s provision for the future. In this situation the Government has reached out to impose punitive conditions upon life assurance companies to such an extent that now the returns to those people are going to be seriously diminished. I have pointed out the punitive attacks upon the mining industry. I have pointed out the great ambiguity regarding fringe benefits. I have commended the provisions regarding credit unions and child care. I have pointed out the hopeless confusion surrounding the mortgage interest deductibility provision. I have referred to the quite unfair reduction from $400 to $ 1 50 in the tax deductibility of educational expenses. I have referred to the attack on life assurance companies under clause 19 of the Bill by increasing by $25m the tax paid by life offices. That clause, of course, reduces the amount of calculated liabilities as deductions from 2 per cent to 1 per cent and therefore will reduce the bonuses.

There is under clause 35 provision for a rebate for low-income families. The Opposition supports that. There is a proposal in respect of hardship on taxpayers and dividends in Papua New Guinea. The Opposition supports that. Taking those things as such, the Opposition proposes to move 2 amendments to this legislation. To the motion for the second reading of the Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1 974 I propose to move the following amendment:

At end of motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill do not provide adequate relief to the taxation of deceased estates in a period of unprecedented inflation.’

To the motion for the second reading of the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974 I move the following amendment:

At end of motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill which reduce the limit on deductions for education expenses from $400 to $150 seriously restrict the freedom of choice which now exists in the Australian education system, are a contravention of the Government’s election undertakings and will impose unwarranted burdens on parents with children attending both public and private schools and. further, that the Bill specifically:

inadequately compensates home buyers for the massive rise in housing loan interest rates and takes no account of those persons unable to purchase a home:

jeopardises the bonuses of thousands of small investors by increasing the tax liabilities of Australian life assurance companies, and

further erodes the confidence of the Australian mineral industry by reducing vital incentives to investment’.

I commend the amendment and the proposed amendment to the Senate.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I second the amendment.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-Of the 4 Bills before the Senate at present I would like to mention firstly the Estate Duty Assessment Bill and to say, in a very brief way, that I am one of those who think that estate duty is something which should not be assessed at all.

Senator Cavanagh:

– My, how your estate will get hit hard.

Senator WOOD:

-My estate will not get hit hard because I will not have any left for assessment. I feel that the abolition of estate duty should come about only after consultation between the Commonwealth and the States in which the Commonwealth agrees to make ample provision of finance to enable the States to abolish estate duty. That would then provide the Commonwealth with an opportunity to abolish estate duty in the Commonwealth field. I have held that view for quite a long time and I think it is one that is gaining ground with the people. I think that the sooner estate duty is abolished in both the State and the Federal spheres the better. That is all I desire to say on the matter. That puts my view very clearly.

The other Bill upon which I wish to speak is the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2). I feel that the attitude of the Opposition in this regard is again one that does not have my support. I believe that this Bill gives the Opposition an opportunityunlike the Bill about which we spoke last night, which the Senate would have had to throw out completely- to move for the elimination of sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 16 from the Bill. It would be a very simple matter for us to do that. I indicate that at the Committee stage of the debate I intend to offer opposition to this part of the legislation. I hope that somebody else will support me and that we will have a division on the question, thereby showing just where the people stand on this issue.

Once again we have had the Opposition stating that it is opposed to this provision and saying that when it gets into office again it will repeal it. How ridiculous that is. People will be made to suffer through the loss caused by the reduction in this tax allowance from $400 to $150 over the period of time that it takes certain events to take place before the Opposition again gets back into Government. During that time people will lose the benefit of the higher taxation concession. I know that it is very easy for people in the capital cities and the major cities to treat this matter in an airy-fairy way and say that it is of no great importance. As one of those who live in a provincial city I know what takes place in the provincial towns and country areas in my State of Queensland- no doubt the same takes place in other States as well- when people take the opportunity of sending their children to the major schools which are very often to be found in the capital cities and, in the case of Queensland, mostly in the southern centres. Naturally that entails a considerable amount of expense. The desire of those people is to give their children what they think is a good education.

I have always felt that the giving of a taxation concession to individuals who send their children to such schools is more in keeping with my line of thinking about keeping the private schools going than the provision of straight out subsidies by the Government, which has never been to my liking. Such individuals are getting a concession because they are trying to give their children a better education. There is no doubt that these expenses are incurred. There is no question that very often the schools to which they send them are much better than the schools they have in their own small communities. In fact, they probably do not have schools up to the same standard in their own areas. When one looks around country centres one can visualise that there is not the opportunity in those areas to give children higher education. Because of the great distances in States like my own that people have to send their children if they are to get such an education and because of the cost of keeping their children at such schools, surely to goodness those people are entitled to some concession for giving their children the opportunity of obtaining a good standard of education.

It seems rather strange to me that the government of the day has decided to cheesepare with the individual in this regard. It has been pointed out by Bishop Shevill that certain people, such as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), Mr Hawke and others, went to some of these private schools. No doubt they did so, in the opinion of their parents, to get a higher standard of education. It was all right for them because they lived in the areas in which such a standard of education could be obtained but what about the people who do not live in such areas? I feel that the Government has shown itself to be really miserly towards the people from country areas who desire to educate their children to a high standard. These people should be commended and encouraged by the Government because of their desire to give their children a higher education. There is no question that if we could lift the standard of education of people throughout this nation, to get them to think clearer and along better lines, this country would be all the richer and all the better for it. 1 was one who did not have the opportunity of a secondary education having left school at the age of 12 years and 10 months, but I know the value of education. I know that people of their own volition can educate themselves in various ways after leaving school, but there are many people who probably require education in a more compulsory manner, by their parents sending them to the schools which they think are necessary and which they think sometimes are of a higher standard.

Therefore I think that this Bill is very bad in that regard. There should be a stronger expression about it by people generally and by this Opposition. It really bewilders me that the Opposition adopts this nebulous fashion of moving a motion condemning this Bill instead of opposing it. This was one opportunity for the Opposition to show strength on an important question, but unfortunately the leaders or the people within the organisation decided otherwise. They talk about when they get into office again but that depends upon their political nous. As I said last night, that might happen quickly; it might take a long time. A decision on when one goes to an election is a matter of political judgment.

I want to refer to what Senator Hall said last night. He was not at the particular meeting and would not be aware of the details but he said that no doubt I was one of those who voted for the Government to be forced to an election in May. As a matter of interest, I was not one of those people who considered that an election in May was appropriate. My assessment, based on my judgment and political sense, and it was expressed at that time, was that after another 9 to 12 months- that is from December to Marchwould be a better time to have an election. I thought that we as an Opposition would then walk in and become the Government. As the situation has developed today, I am convinced that the Opposition should have taken a strong stand in connection with the Budget on items such as this and taken the matter to the people. We have the right to force the Government to the people if we believe that the country is being badly managed, as I believe it is, and that things are going contrary to what the people require. If we had an election now, or at any time within the next 2 or 3 months, there is no question that there would be a change of government.

The financial situation in this country has become serious as a result of the actions of this Government.- There is raging inflation, massive unemployment and the economy is in a real mess. The Government has made certain moves since coming to office which it considered were forward moves but they were backward moves. The Government has backtracked on practically everything it has done in relation to the economic aspects of this country. That shows that its handling of economics is very bad. What staggers me and frightens me is that I read the other day that Mr Whitlam is going to take a stronger hand in the control of the economy of this country. That frightens the life out of me because Mr Whitlam is a babe in the woods as far as economics are concerned, and that is generally recognised. If he is to take a stronger hand in the running of the economy of this country, it makes one wonder what could happen. I have no faith in him so far as economics are concerned. The situation is serious. The Opposition should have taken the opportunity on this occasion of letting the people again express themselves on how dreadful they think things have become. I am surprised that the Opposition has not seized the opportunity. To deal with legislation such as this and for the Opposition to express itself as being strongly opposed to it and then to move a pious amendment to add words to the end of the motion, is not to act according to my way of thinking. Naturally I will have to support that expression but I want it to be known that when we come to the Committee stage I shall oppose this clause. I hope there will be others who will oppose it also in order that we might have a division to see who really opposes this type of legislation.

I do not want to delay the Senate. Those are my feelings on this matter. As I have said before, I think that the Government’s action in cheeseparing to the disadvantage of worthwhile citizens who send their children to schools in order for them to have a higher standard of education, indicates just how mean it has become in relation to certain very important aspects of the development of this country.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I want to refer briefly to matters contained in 2 of these Bills. The first relates to death duties. I was chairman of the committee which investigated death duties until the change of government in 1972. Subsequently the new committee presented a report. Three honourable senators on this side of the House brought in a minority report asking that death duties be eliminated. The main report referred to 2 matters that are contained in this Bill. It referred to the question of the matrimonial home being left to the surviving spouse, and the other concession being given in this Bill. In cases of extreme hardship a beneficiary will be able to apply to a board and put a case for relief.

I refer firstly to the matter of the matrimonial home. The concession will cut out if the estate has a valuation of $85,000. Let us consider the case of a farm or something like that. The committee of which I was a member ran into a lot of trouble in regard to the huge capital investment, or apparent huge capital investment, of the primary industry sector of the economy. The figures showed, if I remember rightly, that 6 per cent or 7 per cent of the people paid 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the death duties. The concession in the case of the matrimonial home in an estate of up to $85,000 is not going to help tremendously in many cases. It will simply mean that the matrimonial home will have to be left to the surviving spouse, usually the wife, for her lifetime, and the duty will have to be paid when she passes on. What happens to the farm, the property or whatever it is, in the meantime? It cannot be left under those circumstances to any sons of daughters, and they cannot be given a share for this very reason. We put in a minority report- Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Cotton and myself- suggesting the elimination of this duty. We believed that should be the ultimate aim. This Bill may be just a small step towards achieving that but it is nothing like what we wanted. For that reason I propose to support the amendment. Cutting out the matrimonial home concession at $85,000 is not going to mean very much. Because of raging inflation, apparent values, but not real values, are increasing at 1 5 per cent or 20 per cent or more a year. All these things have to be taken into consideration.

I refer now to the concession to be made available to people where difficult circumstances are supposed to be involved. Until we have determined some cases and we have people appointedcommissioners or whoever they are- to look after this matter, it will be pretty hard to say how this concession will work out or to decide where we will go from there. We are told that next year the Government intends bringing in a capital gains tax and from the information available at present that tax will be more or less complementary to death duties. Many properties left by a deceased person to his family will have to be disposed of to meet all these heavy imposts. Until we see the capital gains tax legislation we will not know just what is in it and it will be pretty hard to assess its effect. The Opposition thinks that if we are to have a capital gains tax we should not have death duties. It has to be one or the other. We recommend, and stick to it, that death duties be completely eliminated.

The other matter I want to mention briefly is the reduction in the education allowance from $400 to $150. This has caught many Government supporters in this country, not just Opposition supporters. In country towns, with the high prices of high school uniforms, books and that sort of thing, it does not take long to reach a cost of $3 a week for each child. Parents will not get any concession above that. In this regard one of the biggest worries that the Opposition has is the possible slanting of education. We believe that the design is to eliminate all private schools from our country- there is no question about that- just as the Bill I was just discussing is designed to eliminate from our country all property ownership by private landholders, all farms and all businesses. In education the socialistic policies of this Government are designed to eliminate completely the private schools, whether church or other private schools. Once private schools are eliminated, as we have seen in many other countries, education can and will be slanted. This is the ultimate design.

Socialist and communist writers throughout history have said that it is necessary to teach the child at its most impressionable age the principles of socialism and communism. Impress them then and they go on to secondary education and become part and parcel of a socialist or communist organisation in our own country. We know from experience and from travellers who have been to Red countries that the people in those countries do not even know the rest of the world exists. They have not been taught that and they will not be taught it, and that is what will happen in this country if we get complete socialism or communism in education. The cutting out of this allowance and the eventual closure of private schools is the first step towards that. Boarding schools today, as most people who have any knowledge of them know, are in desperate trouble. Quite apart from the salaries of staff there are the salaries of the people who run the schools, the housekeepers, the commissariat of the school and everybody who works in the schools. These costs have become prohibitive. In fact the position has become so serious that these schools do not know whether they can start again next year.

So the Opposition moves that the education allowance be restored from $150 to $400 and so give help to a lot of people. There are many people in country towns and villages, without high schools and away from the bus limits. whose children cannot go to local high schools. They have to be sent to a boarding school or have to board somewhere in town. We have the spectacle of many people who live 50 or 60 miles from town having to run 2 homes- one in a village with a high school so that they can send their children for secondary education, and their other home. They spend 4 nights a week in the town where the school is and go home for 3 nights a week. I know a lot of people who are doing this.

These are some of the reasons why the Opposition does not want the complete elimination of private schools from this country. We do not want education slanted to suit the teaching of communism and socialism. We want a fair and reasonable education. It is most noticeable when one travels the world that people from this country, as a result of the broad and true system of education they have had, have more knowledge of the rest of the world than many people they meet on their travels overseas. People overseas perhaps have heard of Australia or Sydney but that is all they know whereas the average Australian child, through the comprehensive education system we have had in the past and which we want to keep, knows all about the rest of the world. That is all I wanted to mention, death duties and the allied capital gains tax which is coming in next year to make the position even worse, and the education allowance which has been reduced from $400 to $ 1 50 but which, as soon as the Government is changed, will go back to $400 at least.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to support the amendments and to speak in this debate on the 4 cognate Bills before us, the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974 and the 3 following Bills. I wish to make various observations on them and to preface my remarks by saying that I am in total agreement with the wide-ranging criticism promoted here last night and again this morning by Senator Carrick of the various taxation provisions in these Bills. I shall refer briefly to a few of those taxation provisions. When I chose to say a few words on the passing of these Bills through the Senate I felt, having looked at the sort of taxation measures that are part of this Government’s economic attitude, that I should attempt to find some sort of background or basis or yardstick by which I could measure the many taxation proposals. As I wondered about that sort of yardstick I found perhaps ironically but to my surprise, that the yardstick was contained in an important speech made very recently in Melbourne by none other than the Honourable Frank Crean, the Australian Government Treasurer.

In that speech the Treasurer made some remarks and references to the standards of an economy and the things that make an economy work, and those remarks are a truly significant background against which to judge some of the taxation measures that we are looking at in the Senate today. When we read the extremely accurate economic assessment of the Honourable Frank Crean we must wonder whether the accuracy of his economic attitude and his knowledge of economic theory and of the things that make an economy work could be the reason that he is unfortunately very shortly to cease to be the Treasurer.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator SCOTT:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I said how fully I am in agreement with the wide ranging criticism that was delivered by Senator Carrick with reference to so many elements of this tax legislation. I said further that I had been looking for some sort of measuring stick against which we could discuss these Bills and that I had, perhaps somewhat ironically found that measuring stick in what I believe was a very fine speech from an economic point of view, delivered recently by the Federal Treasurer, the Honourable Frank Crean. Indeed it was a fine speech. I shall mention some of the major features of that speech in just a short while. It seemed to me to indicate his recognition of the basic economic theory that is needed for an economy such as ours to survive and develop and, indeed, for it to recover from the disastrous circumstances in which it finds itself today.

It seemed also to reveal to me that whilst the Federal Treasurer had indicated a very fine concern for the realities of economic theory in our economy, this concern was to be contrasted against that of the incoming Treasurer who may be more concerned, as I believe much of the taxation material is concerned, with matters which are basically ideological rather than economic and social. I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to one or two of the things that were revealed by the Federal Treasurer in Melbourne so recently. Mr Crean said, amongst other things:

The major cause of price increases in Australia during the past year are not to be found in external factors. We have suffered less than most countries in the oil price escalation. Our problem is due to demand and cost pressures . . .

It is significant indeed that the Treasurer should have made such a statement, for we are constantly being reminded that the inflationary tragedy in our economy is a world wide disease, and the presumption is that it is contagious and that in Australia ‘s case it is an imported situation. The facts are, as the Treasurer recognises, that inflation in this country has been nurtured by the economic and social attitudes of the Federal Government. Indeed, it has been in large measure due to the constant escalation of wages and salaries over the past 2 years. It has been increased by the ever growing unemployment. Industrial unrest has caused an ever lessening production of goods and services being chased by more and more money in volume. Indeed, in the second of the three Budgets of the last 6 months it became evident that the Government’s policy is to transfer in this circumstance large measures of resources from the private to the public sector. The Government intends to increase expenditure in the public sector by 32.4 per cent. Surely this can only increase the hazardous inflationary situation in which we find ourselves. Mr Crean further said:

Energies are directed to enlarging certain slices of the national cake rather than the size of the cake. Unless size is increased, the whole exercise becomes part of a zero sum in which one group’s gain is another’s loss.

Surely this is an extremely accurate assessment of the position in Australia today. Surely we are witnessing what is virtually an ideological operation in which a cake is being cut into different sized pieces instead of attention being given to the matter that needs the entire and total attention of this economy, of this society, and I refer to the matter of increasing the size of that cake. I believe that the Federal Treasurer remarked very accurately on a circumstance that is related almost totally to ideology and not to the economic theory of the matter. Indeed, he went on further to say:

Readiness to invest in plant and equipment is a vital sinew of economic growth.

Who can deny it? I ask honourable senators: In what way does the taxation situation that confronts the Australian people give any form of incentive that will lead to a strengthening of the vital sinew of economic growth- investment in plant and equipment? These are the very things that involve themselves with the production of more goods and services, the very things that involve themselves with an increase in employment rather than the snowballing of the unemployment situation in this country today. Mr Crean said:

Shorter hours, more leisure, better environments, more consumer purchasing power need an increase in the amount of capital employed relative to labour- a capital deepening in fact.

Of course, this is so. Those objectives are most attractive, but they cannot be realised unless we create through our economic policies the sort of incentive that is necessary to increase the productive capacity of this economy. This can be done only in the sort of circumstances that exist today by a deepening of the capital involvement in production. That is the sort of circumstance that finds through lack of incentive very little, if any, possibility of being realised in the near future. There is regrettably an enormous amount of uncertainty in the Australian economy today, and this of itself is destructive to the area of production and employment with which we must all be involved. Everyone will accept that a normal measure of risk taking is the proper and natural province of a free enterprise society, but I am sure that everyone will agree that the sort of inflationary risk taking with which the Australian economy is faced today is most definitely incapable of being solved by the best managerial skills here or anywhere. Perhaps that is why people with some of the best managerial skills have been regrettably leaving the Australian continent in the last 6 to 12 months. Mr Crean also said:

Runaway inflation increases uncertainty, interest rates and time horizons shorten- a robust, confident business sector becomes volatile and edgy.

These are the words of the Federal Treasurer. In the circumstances I suppose we must agree that it is not much wonder that he is soon, I believe regrettably, to become the ex-Federal Treasurer. In the history of this country there could be very few, if any, occasions on which there has occurred a greater measure of volatility and edginess in the Australian commercial and industrial community than is occurring today. This volatile nature, this edginess, must surely be related to the lack of confidence, the uncertainty which is depriving industry and indeed the total Australian people of investment and employment opportunities. The tax measures which have been dealt with so broadly and completely in this chamber in the last few hours create no form of incentive to enable this tragic trend to be altered. The well known 20th century economist Lord Keynes has said, among other things, that there is no subtler or surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. I believe that this has been happening, and is happening, in the Australian scene to a very marked degree. In the last 2 years or slightly less we have had something like 4 revaluations of the currency. There has been an across the board cut in tariffs of 25 per cent without any reference to the varying capacities of the industries involved. These things have happened, so we are creating through our tax process that debauchery of the currency to which Lord Keynes referred.

We are in fact creating that very currency debauchery which of itself not only destroys confidence in the Australian scene but, even more importantly, destroys confidence overseas in the Australian scene. I believe that the currency situation is such that it has developed and accelerated problems in the fields of employment and production which confront us today. Mr Crean further said:

A growing work force needs a growing business sector if employment opportunities are to be maintained. One man’s higher pay packet is another man’s higher cost of living, or perhaps his job.

Surely this is relative to the remarks I made earlier in regard to the national cake. The cake must become larger if a growing work force is to receive growing employment opportunities. There has to be instilled into this economy- I suggest that one of the most important ways that this sort of thing can be instilled into the economy is through taxation measures- a confidence and a determination to increase productivity across the board; in other words, to increase the size of the national cake instead of spending our energies on dividing it in different ways and leaving its size the same perhaps as it was or even smaller. In view of the remarks that were made, I believe by Senator Walsh, concerning prices and incomes- he was referring last evening to the failure of the Government to gain control over prices and incomes- it may surprise him to know that the Federal Treasurer, a very eminent man in this Government and indeed in the parliamentary Labor Party, has said very recently:

Experience overseas demonstrates that even if they were available, controls on prices and incomes do not work. Profit, investment and employment all interact on one another and high rates of inflation have a depressing influence on all three . . .

As Senator Bishop said last night, the Federal Treasurer is, amongst other things, a thoroughly honest man so those must be his convictions. They suggest that simple controls on prices and incomes have been tried elsewhere, as we all know, and have not worked.

A Labor Government wants, Mr Crean has said, a profitable growing business sector. If this is so- I certainly hope it is so- then why present the September Budget, the one that preceded it and the one that followed it, all within 6 months, and all with taxation measures that have lent literally nothing to the incentive capacity within this economy. Mr Crean referred most pertinently to the ‘distorting lens of the monetary illusion’. Those are the lens in which we are suffering today. We are suffering today in a monetary illusion which, in very remarkable degree, is referrable to the tax situation that confronts the Australian economic and social community.

If I may I will briefly look at one or two areas of tax with that sort of background, that sort of measuring stick which after all, is the economicmeasuring stick which has been given to us as a community by no less a person that the Federal Treasurer. Let us look for a moment at just two or three tax areas that have already been dealt with. The income tax cuts of themselves were a step in the right direction but the truth unfortunately is that they were delayed 6 or 8 months longer than they should have been and they were so insignificant ultimately in size, compared with the escalating rate of inflation, that they are going to be, I understand, totally eroded by the end of this year. Therefore they cannot give the incentive, the real satisfaction, which hopefully would develop in the wage and salary earning community a desire to get on with the job and not be constantly seeking to catch up with a spiralling inflation.

The tax on unearned income was dealt with at some considerable length by Senator Carrick and I can only concur with his deliberations on that tax. In view of the words of the Federal Treasurer, it is a tragedy that this tax should be invoked. It can only help to stop the amassing of investment which brings about a great increase in employment and productivity at a time probably when this economy has never needed it more. A tax of 10 per cent on so-called unearned income is, to me, insulting in itself for it suggests that everybody who has invested anything has contributed nothing work wise. Why the extraordinary definition of ‘unearned’? Virtually every investment in this community and in any other free community is an earned increment and from that point it is invested. Why then should there be a penalty such as this tax imposes upon that sort of incentive, that sort of initiative, that sort of drive?

Briefly I pass through the area of education where it is unbelievable to me, and I believe to a very large number of members of the Government, that the Government should have brought down legislation which will reduce from $400 to $ 1 50 the allowable tax deduction of money spent on a child’s education. This seems to be an incredible attitude to take at a time of spiralling inflationary costs and at a time when the pressures on education are growing continually. Is not this virtually denying everybody across the board a real measure of aid in education? What do we gain if, through taxation, we destroy the right of this community to have freedom of choice in education as we imagine the community would require freedom of choice in so many other areas? What do we gain by establishing a situation were it may be impossible for an independent stream of education to survive? There can be no gain in that sort of circumstance in a democracy, in a free society. Let us hope that the Government of this country is not viewing education as being indoctrination rather than education. If we do slide into a situation where we, as Australians, lose our freedom of choice in that field, that field will have become, I suggest, purely a field of indoctrination, whether it be of the Left or the Right. The tax attitudes that literally encourage the establishment of this circumstance are to be deplored.

Life insurance companies have contributed a great deal, by investment, to the development of this country. In 1 973 the tax deduction on their calculated liabilities was reduced from 3 per cent to 2 per cent. Now it has been reduced from 2 per cent to 1 per cent. All this does in the long term- a not very long term- is to deny to the Australian people a large measure of investment and development and to deny to millions of policy holders, large, medium and small, the sort of bonuses that are desperately needed even more so in the inflationary circumstances of today than at any other time in the economic and social history of this country. I concur totally with Senator Carrick ‘s remarks on the mining industry. Taxation in this area is of such a nature that it is tending to destroy initiative, research and development in an area in which Australia has a unique capacity, a capacity which could, if thoroughly and properly exploited, see this country right at the head of the economic circumstances that pertain to countries throughout the world. To me it is a tragedy that at a time such as this we should see a taxation system introduced which will deny to Australians the opportunity to receive the benefit of research and development in such an enormous potential industry as the petroleum and minerals industry of Australia.

Let me remark for a moment on the projected, though as yet somewhat undefined, capital gains tax. This tax, if it becomes law, will not only prove expensive to collect and its yield, in the short term, will be small but also it will be yet another depressant on productive activity. It is another anti-move in a society and in an economy that deserves and must have circumstances that bring a real incentive to bear on our operations. I draw the attention of the Senate to the way that this capital gains tax may operate. One can imagine a small factory valued at, perhaps, $50,000 being sold for $100,000 and thus showing a capital gain of $50,000. It is being sold so that its owner can establish himself in a larger and better province and in a larger and better productive capacity in some other field. In doing that, because of the capital gains tax, another $17,000 will be involved. This will have to be recouped if the industry is to survive and people are to be employed. It can only lead to an everincreasing price snowballing situation.

I could go on but, as I support the amendment moved by Senator Carrick, I choose to say in closing my remarks that the tragedy of the Bills we have been discussing is that they are totally designed- I regret to say designed but I assume that is the correct word-to deny incentive at a time when this economy and this society needs nothing more and certainly nothing more urgently.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 3191

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS (QUEENSLAND DISCRIMINATORY LAWS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-The Bill with which we are concerned will override certain Queensland legislation relating to Aboriginal people in that State. The major problem, I suppose, with which we are concerned, is what is the basic interest of those people. I do not doubt that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) will say- and I accept his sinceritythat he believes that to take this action is in the best interests of those people. But there is a dearth of evidence to confirm the Government’s view that the action it is taking is in the best interests and is considered to be in the best interests of those people. After all, if we look at the recent past history of performance by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Canberra, there is really not much evidence to suggest that there has been greater efficiency, greater sympathy or greater empathy flowing from the Department in Canberra than there has been from the Department in Queensland. 1 do not want this debate to proceed on a basis of a comparison of the Departments. I want to draw attention to the fact that no evidence has been produced so far, notwithstanding the debate just a few nights ago on the motion that the House adjourns, which would indicate that the action being taken by the Government is other than an action taken at its whim and probably against the will of a majority of the people who are living in the reserve communities in Queensland. This Bill really raises the question of the administration of Aboriginal affairs in Australia. It raises then the question of whether the Commonwealth at the moment- and I emphasise ‘at the moment’- is in any position to look at anyone else and say: ‘We know better. We can implement better than you can.’ The Commonwealth’s history since the change of government was admirably summed up by the Minister himself when he said that the implementation of the Government’s policy had been a disaster. I just would add that it continues to be, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Minister who apparently is not receiving the sort of support from his Department that he would like.

I evidence, in relation to that, an example which occurred the other day when the Minister during a debate replied to Senator Lawrie. Senator Lawrie had said that public funds had been spent by the Minister’s Department on transporting people to the Weipa conference held in October. The Minister denied this and denied it positively. I know the Minister well enough to know that he is a man who says what he believes and believes what he says. When he denied it positively he would not have done it carelessly. He would not have done it without having a reasonable basis for believing what he said was accurate. That belief must have come from his Department. He asserted positively that no such funds had been paid. It happened that I subsequently received affirmative proof of the orders that had been placed by his Department. I have copies of the orders for transport with the various charter services which were used.

I did ask a further question drawing the Minister ‘s attention to the situation and asking whether he had reconsidered the matter. He then did reconsider it, sought further information and obtained information which he supplied to the Senate in a statement, the unfortunate aspect of which was that although it did state that $4,800 had been spent of Commonwealth funds- notwithstanding the fact that the Minister had denied that previously- it did not in any way explain how the Minister came to be misled and how the Minister came to mislead the Senate. It did not explain that in any way. I can only assume that there was- as there has been in so many other areas- a breakdown between the Minister and his Department. Either he was prepared to assert something positively without knowing- I do not think that that is the case and I do not suggest it is the case- or, alternatively, he was clearly misled by his Department. I wonder whether, in relation to this Bill, he has not been misled in some way. The evidence would tend to support the view that a large number of the elected councils on the various reserves in Queensland do not want some of the provisions in this Bill. I read, only as an example, a telegram which I received from Mr John Watson, Chairman, Palm Island Council, Townsville.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Who sent it?

Senator RAE:

– The Minister may have a look at the telegram and work out who sent it.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Senator Bishop told us.

Senator RAE:

– This is dated on a different day to that which Senator Bishop’s investigations covered. I do not want to re-debate last week’s nonsense that the Minister raised in this place. We debated that matter the other day. I simply reassert that I believe people are entitled to make their views known by telegram. It does not really matter who sends the telegram for them. While speaking about telegrams I will refer to some that the Minister has sent. I will read a telegram which is addressed to me at Parliament House, Canberra. It states:

Still concerned with new legislation. Please take no action on legislation till you hear our side. New legislation will undermine council authority and Palm Island way of Iiic.

That telegram was signed by John Watson, Chairman of the Palm Island Council, Townsville. If the Minister and other honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, believe that they are acting in the best interests of these people, it seems extraordinary to me that all the evidence which comes to me is totally against that conclusion. As was made clear last week, people from the various councils around Queensland- for instance, Mornington Council -object to the proposal in the Bill concerning the permit to enter Aboriginal reserves. The telegram from that council states:

Proposed law should be discussed by Advisory Council before any action by Australian Government.

That telegram is signed by Nelson Gavenor, Chairman of the Aboriginal Council. That telegram was also sent on a date different from the day on which we discussed some telegrams last week. There were more than 20 telegrams. There were 22 telegrams. I think the Minister referred to 2 1 telegrams but I think that there must have been one that he did not have last week.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator is more popular than I am.

Senator RAE:

– Yes, with good reason- if I can just inject a little lightness into a serious matter. Further telegrams which I have received, include one from Les Stewart, Chairman of Cherbourg Aboriginal Council and of the Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council. In a telegram to me he said:

On behalf of the Aboriginal Advisory Council I wish to strongly object to the present Bill before Parliament whereby present Councils will have no right to determine who visits and resides on their communities. We object to any new law which will take away our tribal right. We ask you to support us in every way to make sure we retain our rights. We assure you we have not even been consulted as to our views or wishes in regard to proposed new law. Further telegrams of protest sent to Prime Minister . . . Senators Cavanagh Lawrie Bonner Leader of the Opposition Mr Snedden and Mr Anthony Leader of the National Party.

That telegram is signed by Les Stewart, Chairman of the Cherbourg Aboriginal Council and Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council. There are such a large number of telegrams of expressions of view that I find it very difficult to accept that all of these people are, over a period of time, simply acting on the instructions of or being directed by the Premier of Queensland, as was suggested the other day. The telegrams 1 have read today are ones which have been sent in the past few days, since the debate on the adjournment when the matter of telegrams was raised by the Minister. I think we can take it even further than that and say that, in relation to Aboriginal Affairs administration throughout Australia, the attitude of many is exemplified in this telegram which was sent to me from Alice Springs, lt states:

Crucial time in Aboriginal affairs. Aboriginal affairs must be taken out of the inflexible archaic bureaucratic institutions of Australian Public Service and a national Aboriginal statutory commission control and operated by elected Aboriginal people with a secretariat to implement its decisions. Well intentioned Labor Government Aboriginal policies are being screwed up.

Using that word seems to have become popular lately. It continues:

  1. . And destroyed by Department of Aboriginal Affairs at the expense of our people. Widespread dissatisfaction with Department of Aboriginal Affairs amongst our people. Our views must be taken seriously.

That was signed by the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress. I mention it as some further indication of the views which have been expressed by Aboriginal people in Australia in the past week or two in relation to the administration of Aboriginal affairs by this Commonwealth Government. If we go further -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Does the honourable senator not have any more telegrams?

Senator RAE:

– Yes, I am going to read some more. I have another one sent by Mr Les Stewart to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 2 December which is worth reading. It states:

After knowing what is in your Bill we are unable to accept assurances of Senator Cavanagh that we need not fear and all is well. It is our tribal right to say who we will accept and reject on reserves. We must retain this right otherwise there is reason for considerable fears as to our well being and our future. We sincerely hope you will respect our rights and delete from your Bill such clauses referring to entry and residence.

I do not think it is unreasonable when one has regard to the telegrams which I have read out to believe that there is at least a case for demonstrating that consultation has taken place. Is it not part of the Government’s policy that there should be a right to self-determination amongst Aboriginal people? Is it not part of the Government’s policy that there should be consultation with Aboriginal people? Yet these telegrams claim that there has not been adequate consultation. These telegrams claim that the people do not want what the Government is trying to force on them. I believe that we in the Senate would not be carrying out our duty were we to permit this Bill to be passed today without some demonstration, by way of a poll or otherwise, that this did reflect the wishes of the people concerned. My colleague Senator Bonner will be able to speak in some greater detail on that aspect.

What have been the results of the approach of this Government to Aboriginal affairs? Tents have been erected outside Parliament House, protests have been mounted against the Government’s administration through the Department. We find that confrontations are being deliberately brought on between the Aboriginal people and either the Minister or the Department. There was a very dangerous situation not so long ago involving the New South Wales Legal Aid Service, when the Minister at first decided upon a confrontation policy while he was engaged in a tour of the north west of Australia. Fortunately, shortly afterwards he decided to pull back from the extreme confrontation which he had precipitatedand I applaud him for pulling back because I think that it was in the best interests of the administration of Aboriginal affairs in Australia that that confrontation which had been called on by the Minister was avoided. We also find protests being made in relation to almost all aspects of the administration of Aboriginal affairs. I am surprised to find myself in possession of a letter which again gives some idea of the way in which the policy on Aboriginal affairs in Australia is being administered.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why are you surprised to find yourself in possession of it?

Senator RAE:

– Because it came to me by an unknown means. I do not know how it came to me, and I was just going to explain what it purports to be. It is a letter written by one Fred Fogarty from the Northern Territory. It refers to an aspect of the administration of Aboriginal affairs. I believe that there is a sufficient likelihood of its having a foundation to warrant my reading from it. It says, amongst other things, that so far as his case was concerned: . . the case was adjourned, sine die, a Latin word that means in the future, in my case it means never as the AttorneyGeneral Murphy rang Friday afternoon instructing my solicitor and the Crown Prosecutor what to do. I have an assurance that my case will never come to trial.

When something like this happens there is always someone in the Legislative Council that comes close to guessing the truth, in this case Letts.

He goes on to comment about a debate which took place in the Legislative Council. It refers to guessing the truth’. In other words, he was apparently one with sufficient perspicacity to see what had happened.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Do you mean to say that the Attorney-General intervened with the defendant’s lawyers?

Senator RAE:

– This is the claim which is made in this letter which I will be happy to table. I want to read something further from it.

Senator Keeffe:

– Can we get your assurance on that, or do we need a resolution?

Senator RAE:

– You have my assurance that I will table it. It continues:

I can safely say I am out of the woods, thinking back on all the riots in the NT, we are the only one that ever got away with it, funny, ours was the most serious we burnt and bashed the white man with chains and chased them to buggery the other only ran rampage, maybe threw a few spears, yet they got gaoled.

It is signed ‘Fred Fogarty’, and attached to it is a report of the court proceedings. Mr Fogarty ‘s case was reported in the Darwin Press as having been adjourned sine die upon the application of Mr Fogarty ‘s counsel, which was not opposed by the Crown Prosecutor.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He was convicted and gaoled. You are greatly out of date.

Senator RAE:

– I want to read this letter as to what he says happened -

Senator Keeffe:

– What is the date?

Senator RAE:

– It is dated 20 February 1974. 1 want to read what he says happened, so far as the Attorney-General was concerned, and the claim that he makes in relation to what is apparently the attitude of this man towards the administration of Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory.

Senator Keeffe:

– To whom was it addressed?

Senator RAE:

– I do not know, but it starts off by saying: ‘Hullo dear friends at the National Black Theatre’. So I presume that it was addressed to someone at the National Black Theatre. I do not know any more than that. That is the letter. It is a letter which claims that the AttorneyGeneral intervened and directed that the case should not proceed, that it should be adjourned sine die.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is not supported by the facts, because it did proceed.

Senator RAE:

– I raise it with the Minister so that he may be able to explain to us some time later why the case was adjourned, who intervened, why they intervened, whether it was after discussion with the Minister or not, and whether it is a fact that Senator Murphy did intervene. The case was undoubtedly adjourned, and Mr Fogarty felt that he had been able to obtain a freedom. I think it is a matter of curiosity why the Attorney-General should intervene in that way. I think it is a matter of some reasonable curiosity as to why the case was later continued. The Minister may be able to answer. It is the expression of a view, though, about the administration of Aboriginal affairs in Australia.

Returning to the matters more closely related to this Bill, I suggest to honourable senators that it would be difficult to claim that the record of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Canberra is so good that it can claim that all wisdom and administrative efficiency reside with it and that there is none in the Department in Queensland. I think it would be very difficult for us to assume that the people living on the reserves in Queensland wish to have this type of legislation imposed upon them. But if it is so, and it is demonstrated to be so, obviously the Parliament should accede to those wishes and pass the legislation. But until that is demonstrated I think there is a very strong case for believing that the people do not wish to see their right to remain protected by the restricted entry provisions in relation to reserves taken away from them.

For that reason it is the Opposition’s view that debate on this Bill should be adjourned to enable the Government to consult with the Aboriginal people living in the reserve communities in the State of Queensland and with their elected councils and other representative bodies, and further to ascertain, by a poll taken within those communities, the wishes of those people in relation to future restrictions upon the right of entry to those community areas. The procedure which will be adopted to assert that view is something which I will come to shortly. But I will summarise in this way: I think that we jointly share a concern to see that any legislation is in the best interests of, in this case, the Aboriginal people of Queensland.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You know you have no interest in the Aborigines in Queensland. You have a bigger interest in maintaining the rump government in Queensland.

Senator RAE:

– The 2 things may be synonymous. I do not pause to debate that, and I would not expect the Minister to agree that they were synonymous. There are others who might assert that the 2 things are synonymous, and in fact a number of the Aboriginal leaders in Queensland would assert that they are synonymous. The 2 things are the best interests of the Aboriginal people of Queensland and the interests of preserving a non-socialist government in Queensland. But it is a joint view that the interests of Aborigines in Queensland should be served. In the absence of any evidence to suggest that the Aborigines want the withdrawal of this restriction, and when there is a very strong prima facie case that they do not want it to be withdrawn but prefer to retain the protection which they regard that it gives to them, it is our view that this Government is not acting in their best interests in proceeding with this legislation.

We shall attempt to adjourn the debate on the Bill. If we fail to adjourn it we shall vote against the clauses that are opposed by those members of the Aboriginal communities who have made their views known by way of telegram and other contact both to the Government and the Opposition. At a later stage today I would propose that we move that the debate be adjourned. If that is carried, on the motion that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting or for a later hour, whichever the Minister would like, I would move that it be the first day of sitting in March 1975, to enable the Government to consult the Aboriginal people living in the reserve communities in Queensland, their elected councils and other bodies and further to ascertain, by poll taken within those communities, the wishes of those people in relation to future restrictions upon the right of entry to those community areas. The Opposition parties simply wish to see that the people are consulted, that their views are taken into account and that a Big Brother socialist government does not dictate to them what it thinks is in their best interests as opposed to what they think is in their best interests. This appears to us at the moment to be what is happening. We would need some sort of evidence such as a certified poll to indicate that what the Government proposes by way of removal of restrictions and the protection that it affords is in their best interests.

The restriction is no more than a restriction against an unqualified right of entry by any outsiders on to the reserve areas. It is regarded obviously by a large number of chairmen of the councils and by the councils of these Aboriginal communities as providing them with a protection which they value and which they think enables them to enjoy their life on the reserves free from interference which is unwanted by them. I can fully recognise that one would not expect to have that type of restriction imposed in our type of society, but if communities desire to have it and desire to continue to enjoy it and if it is quite clear that they do, why should they not be able to enjoy it? I put that very strongly. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to consider paying particular attention to that point in his reply. Why should not people who want this sort of restriction be entitled to have it? Until such time as a poll has been taken in those communities there is an obvious difference of opinion as to whether they want it. There is certainly sufficient prima facie evidence to indicate that they are not anxious to change the current situation. For those reasons the Opposition will seek to have the debate adjourned with a view to moving that it be adjourned to 1 March so that a poll can be taken. If that motion is not successful we will at the Committee stage vote against the provisions of the Bill to which exception is taken.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Before I call Senator Keeffe, you indicated, Senator Rae, that you wish to seek leave to table some documents.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise on a point of order. I question the proposed procedure. In opening the debate for the Opposition Senator Rae has said that at some stage the Opposition will move that the debate be adjourned. He indicated that the purpose for adjourning the debate was to conduct a poll. I submit that if the motion for adjournment has tags to it such as for the purpose of conducting a poll- for which some responsibility, I suppose, would rest on myself and my Department- it should be moved as an amendment to the motion for the second reading, because the main question is whether we want a poll, not whether the debate be adjourned. If it is to be a straight out debate on a motion for an adjournment, when we have been notified that after Opposition speakers give reasons why it should be adjourned someone will move that the debate be adjourned, I would respectfully submit that that is in breach of standing order 431 which does not permit any debate on a motion for adjournment. If this debate is to precede -

Senator Rae:

– I think the Minister has misunderstood me. May I explain again so that he does not spend a lot of time taking a point of order? If I may intervene by leave of the Senate, I suggested that there be a motion to adjourn the debate. If that were carried the next motion would be for the resumption of the debate. I would seek to word that motion in terms that I have supplied to the Acting Deputy President. So the procedure is not in breach of standing order 431.

Senator Cavanagh:

– With due respect, I submit that it is. I understand that at some time there will be a motion that the debate be adjourned. That motion must be put without debate. The first speaker in the debate has announced that he will move the adjournment of the debate and every speaker will give reasons why the debate should be adjourned. As debate on a motion for adjournment is not permitted, the Opposition gets over that by speaking to the Bill, and the adjournment motion will not be put until everyone has given the reasons it should be adjourned.

Senator Rae:

– I have endeavoured to be cooperative. That is what it boils down to. I have tried to enable this matter to be debated so that views could be expressed because we seek an opportunity for a poll of the views of the Queensland Aboriginal reserve community people to be taken.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Move it as an amendment to the motion for the recond reading.

Senator Rae:

– The best way to enable that to be done is to move for the adjournment in the way that I have suggested. If the Minister wishes to propose another course of action I do not think it will make any major difference provided there is an opportunity for everyone who wishes to speak to speak and there is a clear opportunity for us to have a vote on the concept. The concept is that the Bill should not become law until a poll has been taken. If the Minister wishes to propose another course I will try to be co-operative.

Senator Cavanagh:

– My proposed course is that it should be moved as an amendment to the motion for the second reading.

Senator Rae:

– I do not see that as being as efficient in this case because it does not carry any impact unless the Minister gives me an undertaking, if that motion were carried, that he would not proceed with the second reading.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I could not.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have considered standing order 431. The question before the Senate is that the Bill be read a second time. Senator Rae has indicated that it is proposed to move an amendment. He has not moved the amendment. In those circumstances I rule that there is no merit in the point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I wish to contribute to the debate on this Bill. I wish to touch first of all on some of the statements that have been made by Senator Rae, the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He finalised his remarks by claiming that the Government was adopting a Big Brother, socialist attitude to Aborigines and suggested that a poll be conducted on the reserves. But he refrained from going into any detail on that. I do not quite know how or why he wants the poll to be conducted. The Australian Government has adopted the attitude that in every way possible Aborigines will make their own decisions anyway. Senator Rae is claiming that by conducting some sort of poll on some specious grounds he is going to solve all the problems that he and his race have created insofar as the Aborigines are concerned. I respectfully submit that the real reason why Senator Rae is wanting to adjourn this matter is the same reason as his Party had yesterday when it stonewalled on Bills which ought to have been cleaned up in this chamber in an hour or two; that is, that he and his Party are afraid of the political consequences of this Bill. They did not want it debated yesterday when the proceedings of the Senate were being broadcast because the things that they have to say are politically unacceptable to the public at large and to Aborigines in particular. That is the main reason. Senator Rae wants to defer further consideration of this Bill because of that political fear.

Amongst the alleged evidence that he produced in favour of his submission was a telegram, which he read, from John Watson. Let me go back to what I said in this chamber some time ago. John Watson, who is quite a nice young bloke, is Chairman of the Council on Palm Island because of white interference in the Council which had been properly elected previously. I said then and I repeat now that the petition which was taken up was completely false. Many of the signatures were forged. The names of people who had been dead for some time appeared on the petition. The names of people who have never been able to sign their own names appeared on the petition. Some people were persuaded to sign it because they were given various reasons other than what was on the petition itself. Senator Rae also read a telegram from a Mr Les Stewart of Cherbourg- Senator Rae probably would not know where it is- who is the Chairman of the Advisory Council.

Senator Rae:

– I mentioned that.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Has Senator Rae, who is speaking as an expert on this matter, been on the Woorabinda settlement? Has he been on any of the other reserves in Queensland? Of course not.

Senator Rae:

– I answered your query.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Senator Rae should not sit over there and in his great depth of ignorance say that he is an expert in this field because he is not. Senator Rae quoted from documents on a subject about which he knows nothing. Let me say that Mr Les Stewart was under the domination of white people in interfering in the Palm Island ballot. I am saying with some degree of evidence that, in spite of all the good intentions of John Watson, that telegram or the major part of it was drafted by the white management of Palm Island in the last few days. Let me quote from an article concerning a statement made by John Watson 3 days ago. It has not been denied by either John Watson or John Dillon, the current manager of Palm Island. He said:

There would be no Council and no opportunity for the people to demonstrate their ability to handle the job in hand if the 2 Acts were abolished.

That is surprising because that man had never said that before in his life. It is obvious that he is only saying it now because he has been bulldozed and intimidated by the current white management of Palm Island. John Dillon went on record in the same article as saying other things. I must admit that it surprised me to find that a man who has so many good attributes is now falling into the error of the Director of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, who follows the same line as the Premier of Queensland, of adopting the attitude of warning all politicians and others from making any statements until they again examine the situation.

The claim has been made insofar as Palm Island is concerned that millions of dollars have been spent there by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. That is a downright and utter lie. Every penny spent in that direction has come from the Australian Government. Most of it has come from this Government, but some of it came from its predecessors. So that any expenditure which has been undertaken there by the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland is coincidental. There has been some income, of course, because 23.26 tons of bananas have been harvested from the local crop in the last few months. But did that go back into the Island’s financial resources? No. It went into the funds of the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland; that is where it went. A fairly large number of crates of pawpaws also was produced on that patch. The returns from that also went back into the same funds. The artifacts produced on reserves in Queensland, with minor exceptions, cannot be sold for the benefit of the people on those reserves. The money received for them must go back into the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. In the same way any return on the artifacts shop in George Street, Brisbane, goes back into the Department. .Very little of it ever sees its way back to the people who, by the sweat of their brows and their brains, produce the things which are produced. So that it is not only hypocritical but also downright dishonest for the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to say that no legislation of the nature projected by this Government is necessary in Queensland. I want to go on a little further on that track. The great pity, of course, is that the shadow Minister does not know what he is talking about. He has almost reached the stage where he is like the Leader of his own Party, who is trying to get an aerial ambulance to operate to the Islands off Tasmania when one has been operating there for 1 5 years.

Senator Rae:

– That is a total lie and you should withdraw it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Do not get excited. We are going to need medical treatment for Senator Rae shortly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Senator Rae, you know that that is an unparliamentary remark. We have had sufficient trouble with that sort of thing over the last day or two. I ask you to contain yourself.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am not asking for a withdrawal, Mr Acting Deputy President. Whenever Senator Rae gets upset he uses all sorts of epithets. He has no control over himself; so we do not worry about him.

Senator Marriott:

– He has not been put out for a week, like you have.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Senator Rae has been known for this over a long period of years. He has something wrong with his metabolism or something because when he gets upset he has a tendency to flare up in an uncontrolled manner. So we are not going to take a great deal of notice of that sort of thing. Sometimes he does it to divert attention from the argument under discussion; at other times it is just a physical weakness.

Senator Jessop:

– What about talking about the Bill?

Senator Marriott:

– He knows nothing about it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– When I want treatment from an optomotrist I will ask for it. I return to the points which raised by Senator Rae. Senator Rae made reference to the tents which have been erected outside Parliament House. I know that he objects to them. I know that he took strong exception to them in the days when his Party was in government. In fact, he was one of those who came into this chamber and supported the then Minister for the Interior, Mr Ralph Hunt, when he was able to get something like 60 to 80 police over there with guns and batons and belt the blacks into the ground so that the lawns were not green but red with the blood of Aborigines. This man, who now claims to be a great humanitarian, stood in this chamber and supported the bashing of Aborigines outside this Parliament. He now claims to be great humanitarian. He is a basher of Aborigines from way back. That is the sort of thing he wants to do now. He wants to keep the Aborigines under subjection and he has no other way of getting around it. That is why he is running away from this issue. He fears the granting of freedom to the Aboriginal people of this country.

Senator Rae:

– Would you like to quote the reference, otherwise you will be again taken as a liar?

Senator KEEFFE:

– What was that?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Senator Rae, I have already warned you once in that respect. If you want to ask for a withdrawal -

Senator Rae:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, the remarks which have been made are untrue.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder! I happen to be on my feet, Senator Rae. You will resume your seat. You know the correct procedure to follow if you want to ask for a withdrawal of anything which has been said.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The honourable senator was in this chamber when this matter was debated. He supported the attitude of the then Minister for the Interior in carrying on his bashing of Aborigines outside of this House. There is no use his now trying to evade the issue.

Senator Rae:

– Would you like to quote the reference?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Hansard is good enough, is it not, or do you not believe Hansard either? The evidence is in Hansard. The honourable shadow Minister belongs to that section of the white community which believes that the Aboriginal people ought to be kept in subjection at all times and in its own way, subtle or otherwise, it builds up this idea of hate, this idea of colour distinction, and it contributes to the backlash. There was an incident at Bamyili not so many weeks ago when 3 classrooms were burnt and a Molotov cocktail was hurled under the teacher’s house. An attempt was made by some white people in the area to blame Aboriginals for this. It was amazing that when a certain white man left the settlement all of these things stopped; nothing further of this sort occurred.

Senator Marriott:

– Where did you move to?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will answer intelligent interjections, Senator Marriott, but as I said before I will not answer unintelligent ones. That is the feeling in the community which is supported by most members of the Opposition. There are some honourable senators opposite who have quite humanitarian policies and do not support that attitude.

Senator Sheil:

– Is not Bamyili under federal control?

Senator KEEFFE:

-Bamyili is under federal control. I am not talking about control, Dr Sheil. I am saying that there are some white people in the community who endeavour to build up this feeling. If the honourable senator had been listening earlier instead of wandering around mentally he would have heard what I said and he might have been able to absorb it. I have complained in this chamber about the attitude of the Premier of Queensland in regard to the purchase and sale of houses for Aboriginal people. If this is not discrimination, nothing is. I have cited an example which I have placed in the hands of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) for investigation. I cited it in a previous debate in this chamber and I repeat it because it is only one of many examples. This case is documented and clear to understand. A house was bought for some $9,000 and what happened some4½ years later? We have to blame the Premier of Queensland for what happened because the Federal Minister has no authority in

Queensland. All activities in that State in regard to Aboriginals are carried out between the Director and the Premier. The Premier has said: ‘They are my blacks and it is my land, and the Commonwealth is not going to get them anyhow’. That is the attitude he has adopted. He wants to profiteer to the disadvantage of the Aboriginals. The house that was purchased for around $9,000 he now wants to sell to an Aboriginal family for $ 1 7,000 odd. The rent which they paid for over 4 years was to have been taken as the deposit, but in addition to that rent he now wants another $2,000 odd in cash before that Aboriginal working class family can obtain possession of that house.

I want to mention another example for which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has the documentation. A long time ago I wrote about the disappearance of a child from Weipa. I will not mention the name of the family but if any member of the Opposition wants to look at the document he is free to do so. This child was adopted out with the aid of a departmental officer of the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs and a missionary or a lay missionary- nobody is quite sure of his status. The child was fostered out. I asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to conduct an investigation as the family wanted their baby girl back. After a lengthy investigation by the Australian Government Minister he finally received a reply from the Queensland Department saying that the girl could not be found but that it would be putting the matter in the hands of the police. In a letter dated 25 October 1974, directed to the Australian Government Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and signed by the Queensland Minister, the Queensland Minister stated:

I refer to my letter of the 14 June 1974 concerning the whereabouts of -

The lass is named-

Daughter of Mr and Mrs . . .

At this time, I assured you that the matter had been placed in the hands of the Commissioner of Police and that further attempt would be made to locate the child.

I must now inform you that extensive inquiries within the State of Queensland have failed to reveal the whereabouts of the child but the matter will be pursued further and I will write at a later date to inform you as to the outcome.

That family does not come from way out in the top end of the Gulf somewhere. Certainly they come from the far north of Queensland. That child was fostered out with the knowledge and responsibility of an officer of the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland and a preacher or a lay preacher, and they have lost all trace of her. The parents have been denied access to their daughter. Will the shadow Minister, who has now become a shadow because he has disappeared from the chamber, and others on his side of the House say that they do not want this sort of legislation to protect the rights of Aboriginal people in Queensland? How hypocritical can you be.

Senator Sheil:

– Why did they foster her out?

Senator KEEFFE:

– There were certain domestic circumstances at the time and it was not done with their written permission. They were stood over by departmental officers. That is why the child was fostered out. Similarly, thieving of Aboriginal children goes on in other parts of Queensland under the so-called protection of the State Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. There are kids stolen from families in Queensland. If we ever have the opportunity to turn up some of the Queensland files we will see how many kids have disappeared over the years into the hands of so-called do-gooders in the white community. The honourable shadowy Minister for Aboriginal Affairs made reference a while ago -

Senator Young:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I clearly heard Senator Keeffe say ‘the honourable shadowy Minister’. That is casting a reflection upon a very responsible member of our Party. I take exception and ask for a withdrawal.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I think Senator Keeffe might moderate his tone. I do not uphold the point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I take it back because the shadow Minister has now appeared again in the shadows of the doorway. Tabled in this chamber yesterday- this is where the shadow Minister claimed that false information was being given by the Minister–

Senator Rae:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. A point of order was taken a few moments ago by Senator Young. To compound what he had already done Senator Keeffe, knowing full well that I was standing in the area immediately in the precincts of the chamber looking up documents to verify some of the claims that he had made and which I believed to be erroneous, has repeatedly referred to my absence from the chamber. I have heard every word of the nonsense that he has spoken.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I must be excused because the honourable senator was standing in the shadows. When a shadow Minister stands in the shadows it makes him very difficult to see. The document which was tabled yesterday by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) came from official records and shows everyone involved. Senator Rae alleged that he had received 22 telegrams, the Minister said he had received 21. Give or take one telegram or two, the principle is still the same. All of these telegrams, without exception, came from the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. Honourable senators on the other side implied the other night that council meetings had taken decisions as to the contents of the telegrams and as to how they would be forwarded.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I take a point of order on this matter, Mr Deputy President. I realise that the Postmaster-General made some reference to the source and times of these telegrams earlier this week. I understand that the PMG regulations make addressing, lodging and everything else associated with telegram private. I think that this information should never have been disclosed in the Senate. It should not be talked about or disclosed now.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I am not in a position to say whether the matter should be discussed in the Senate in view of certain PMG regulations. It seems quite appropriate for discussion in this debate.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I would not do so if it was out of order, Mr Deputy President. Senator Lawrie is quite wrong. These things are subject to inquiry, particularly if there is any falsification of Post Office records. After all, it is a public organisation and the origin of these telegrams was not as was claimed by members of the Opposition. So, whether they came from Cowal Creek, Bamaga, Woorabinda or anywhere else, they were all transmitted by the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. I know there is a telegram- I do not have a copy of it- circulating and in the possession of some people on Cape York giving a direction for this sort of telegram to be sent. The Minister read a similar telegram the other night.

I have heard it said by the shadow Minister and others that there are free elections on every reserve in Queensland. 1 challenge the Queensland Department and the shadow Minister in this chamber to produce the evidence that there has been a free election on every reserve in Queensland this year or last year. I was on one reserve within recent months at which no election had been held for 4 years. Yet the shadow Minister has the effrontery to tell us that there are regular free elections. They do not take place, in spite of what the Queensland Act may say, in spite of what the regulations may say and in spite of what magic plan there is for the future. A very close Aboriginal friend of mine was here this morning and was telling me with some glee about a beautiful dream he had last night. He dreamed that it was 8 December and he woke up on that Sunday morning to discover that the Country Party had been defeated. He said: ‘I enjoyed the dream so much that I went back to sleep and by the time I woke up 5 minutes later not only had the Country Party been defeated but also there was not one of its members left in the Queensland Parliament’. This Aboriginal is a very good friend of mine and is a very distinguished Aboriginal from Queensland. That was a beautiful dream he had last night. He comes off a reserve too. It does not happen to be Palm Island, Bamaga or Woorabinda but it is one of the other reserves. He told me that the white manager- the Omo white manager, you know- woke him late at night to make arrangements for a telegram to be sent for a purpose other than that for which the telegram came here. Not only was pressure applied to people under these circumstances but also they were told lies in some instances so that if there was any check back they would be able to say: ‘Yes, I authorised the telegram’. What a great shame this is. Yet the shadow Minister says that we do not need legislation of this type.

I could go on for a lengthy period of time but I know that there are honourable senators on this side of the chamber who would like the Senate to adjourn on 24 December even though some on the opposite side want to sit here till 26 December. They endeavoured to set up the platform for that yesterday. The reason an adjournment is being sought is the political fear of members of the Liberal and Country Parties, the same political fear that they have shown in this chamber over the last 2 years when they have stupidly blocked legislation which was for the benefit of the Australian people. They are doubly intent on blocking this legislation because it is for the benefit of the Aboriginal people of Australia. They do not want to seem them get any benefit unless they, as white people, can get 4 times as much in advance.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I want to say a few words about this Bill.

Senator Keeffe:

– Do you want the telegram?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I have some telegrams, thank you, senator. I have mentioned before the position of the Aboriginal reserves in

Queensland and on the Islands. They do have councils democratically elected. Most of them are pretty well run. As I mentioned before, they have their own police force, they have their own native police and the council runs the whole island. The main problem with this Bill is the provision relating to the permit to enter reserves. The position under Queensland law is that no person can enter, visit or reside on a reserve without a permit from the democratically elected council- not from any European or anybody of that nature- and the main purpose of the Bill is to maintain that condition on these reserves and settlements and on the islands. It is easy to understand why the people have their reserves and islands well run. A document which I have states:

Permits to enter Reserve areas specially reserved for the use of Aboriginal people are determined conjointly with the Aboriginal Council. The people themselves require control of access thus an entry permit is required.

If refused the individual has a Right of Appeal against the decision. The desirability of entry permit is based on

a ) The propensity of an Aboriginal to virtually ‘squat ‘ in a relative or friend ‘s home and ethnically the householder is unable to expel him thus, apart from overcrowding in homes . . .

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to order for the purpose of asking the honourable senator to table the document he is reading from.

Senator Rae:

– On the point of order -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Just before you speak, Senator Rae, I inform Senator Keeffe that at the end of Senator Lawrie ‘s speech he can ask that the papers from which he is reading be tabled.

Senator Rae:

– That was the point I was going to make.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The document continues.

  1. The propensity of an Aboriginal to virtually ‘squat ‘ in a relative or friend’s home and ethnically the householder is unable to expel him thus, apart from overcrowding in homes, maintenance responsibilities devolve on the householder.
  2. Entry of undesirable persons to invade the habitat of the residents;
  3. Unrestricted entry could create slum and/or very sub-standard conditions in Community areas. The Advisory Councils at their recent Conference were adamant that these permits should be retained within their laws.

I think this means the issue of permits. The position is that these people want to keep the right to issue permits and the right to prevent people coming in. Senator Keeffe referred to Palm Island. Palm Island has about 1,200 people on it now but if there was no control of entry we do not know how many people would go there. It could have up to 5,000 or 6,000 and the hospital system, the schools, the water supply and the whole general supply system would break down. There are very good reasons for the people who live on these reserves- the reserve is their home- to have some control and say as to who comes to visit them and who stays there. The document continues:

The Federal Labour administration has always regarded these permits as a barrier to unrestricted access to Queensland reserves by their Ministers officers, or any other Federal advisor-type personnel. The Torres Strait people arc particularly opposed to this form of intrusion.

Early in 1973, the people of Yam Island asked the Commonwealth Department for assistance to buy a new tractor and trailer.

On 27th July, 1973, the Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Dexter, wrote to the Chairman Yam Island, and I quote the text of that letter. ‘I refer to your request for a grant of $4,200 for the purchase of a tractor and trailer for use on Yam Island for general community purposes. I am happy to say that the Minister has approved of this grant and a cheque for the amount will be sent to you in due course.

The Minister has asked me to say that his approval is subject to the proviso that the Minister and his staff, Departmental officers, or Members of Parliament, should be able to visit your Island as the opportunity arises.’

Senator Bonner:

– That cannot be right.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– That is what is in the letter. It continues:

No greater insult could have been directed to this proud race. I am advised that the Council Chairman courteously declined the offer and returned the cheque.

I have explained why we are objecting very much to the elimination of permits to visit the reserves. There are 7 million acres of these reserves in Queensland. As has already been mentioned, one bone of contention between the Federal Minister and the Queensland Administration is that Queensland will not give up the reserves, whatever else happens. Some telegrams have been quoted here today. I would like to quote one which is from the opposite point of view. This one is signed by the Minister, J. Cavanagh. It is addressed to Les Stewart, who is the Chairman of the Cherbourg Aboriginal Reserve Council and the Chairman also of the group of councils in Queensland. The text of the telegram from Senator Cavanagh is as follows:

Les, as prisoner on a reserve, you have no right to stop any Aboriginal from re-uniting with their relatives. Support my Government in this and subsequent legislation and upon return of Cherbourg settlement to Aboriginals, with the right of ownership, you will have the right to decide who enters your private property. Cease being an agent of Petersen and fight for the rights and freedom of your people.

This is a unique telegram. The man is being asked to agree to people coming onto the reserve without a permit and yet it is calling the reserve his private property. I do not know how one can get around this sort of thing, but that is what is going on. I am told that on the last occasion on which Senator Cavanagh visited Cherbourg he openly stated that he was happy with the Cherbourg settlement, and he congratulated the Council and the people on that settlement. I have been asked to deliver a message from Mr Les Stewart, the man I have just mentioned as receiving the telegram which I read. The message from Mr Les Stewart of Cherbourg is to Senator Cavanagh, and it is this: ‘If this Bill is passed in its present form the first person to be debarred from visiting Cherbourg under our tribal rights will be Senator Cavanagh’. I refer again briefly to the meeting at Weipa. In answer to a second question put to him, the Minister finally came out with the story that about $4,600 had been spent to hire aeroplanes which were used to bring the people to this meeting.

Senator Rae:

– Even then he did not fully disclose it.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– That is what I am coming to. He told us in the course of that speech that apart from the use of his VIP aeroplane the only other thing that he knew of was that these people had the use of a car at the Weipa meeting. I have here copies of a couple of receipts. They are signed by a gentleman called Joe Callope. The first receipt is for an amount of $30 and it is concerned with the transportation of ex-Mapoon people to the meeting. Apparently the $30 covers 5 trips made by a 22-seater bus of 12 miles either way. The money was paid by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The other receipt, which is also signed by Mr Joe Callope, is for money paid to him as chairman of the Weipa South Community Council. That receipt is made out for the sum of $300, According to the receipt the money was paid for ‘attendance of ex-Mapoon people at community meeting’. The expenditure of that money is additional to the money spent on the use of the car which, according to Senator Cavanagh ‘s story, was the only money that was spent. But I am also told that a gentleman called Jerry Hudson received $20 per head to pay to some ex-Mapoon people to attend that meeting.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It sounds like a Whig landlord in the 1 8th century.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– These are the facts and figures. I have told the Minister before that he should check with his Queensland officers; he is getting the wrong information from somewhere. Everything is not as bad as he tries to make out. We have already found out that most of the people wanted to keep this permit system. This is the main thing that they want to keep. If the Bill goes through as it stands, which I believe is unlikely, it will mean that the people who have their homes on these reserves will have little control. I refer to the people on the reserves as distinct from those who live away from the reserves. Almost half the Aborigines in Queensland live away from the reserves. The passage of this legislation will enable them, if they wish, to visit places where probably in many cases they are not wanted. A person who lives in a particular place might want some say in who can visit him, who can come to see him. He would want some control over that. Such a system applies now. It is working pretty well. Why not let them keep it?

I have with me here a copy of the recent Queensland Act. The Bill before us completely eliminates from the Aboriginal Act and the Torres Strait Islanders Act provisions in relation to the management of Aboriginal and Island affairs. The other matters referred to are, one might say, pretty well redundant, except for this one particular point about which the Minister is so persistent. If he is successful in his endeavours it will have a very disastrous effect on the people on these reserves and particularly on the islands. If the restrictions in relation to visitors are lifted on the islands, anybody can go there. You could start a tourist resort or anything. Whether or not Senator Cavanagh wants Federal laws to apply in relation to this matter, the position will arise where he has to depend on the State laws of Queensland in looking after its Aboriginal reserves and in keeping control of them. Yet he wants everybody to be able to visit them. They are State property. Unless the Commonwealth is prepared to buy them from the State of Queensland- 7 million acres of them- they will remain State property.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They are not; they are Aboriginal property.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– They are marked as reserves for the use of the Aboriginal inhabitants of the State, and that can be varied by Act of Parliament from time to time. They are not in perpetuity; they do not go on for ever. They are still the property of the State of Queensland. Unless they are purchased they will remain the property of the State of Queensland. We have the extraordinary position today in which we are dependent upon the State laws to run these councils. Even in the preamble to the Bill mention is made of the fact that the right to enter these reserves is subject to the State laws of Queensland.

So I support some form of postponement of this Bill until we can check with these people. The telegrams which we have already read to the

Senate and which we have explained indicate that they want time to allow the people on the reserves- not the other people- to vote on this matter. They are not interested in the people who do not live on the reserves entering into this matter. These other people are living in places away from the reserves and they are no longer controlled. I think that the Government and the Minister would be well advised to drop or at least to defer that part of the Bill which deals with this matter until an adequate vote or plebiscite of some kind can be taken of all people on all of these reserves and islands.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Bonner.

Senator Rae:

- Mr Deputy President, before Senator Bonner commences to speak may 1 have leave to make a personal explanation in relation to certain allegations made by Senator Keeffe in his speech and which I have now had the opportunity to check?

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

Senator RAE (Tasmania)- I thank the Senate. I will be very brief. The accusation was made that I had participated in this chamber in supporting the action taken by the then Minister for the Interior, Mr Hunt, in relation to the removal with bloodshed, so it was said, of certain tents and Aboriginal persons from the lawns outside Parliament House. I have checked the Hansard. The debate is recorded in Hansard of 20 September 1972. The Hansard report shows that I neither participated in the debate nor did I participate in the vote. It so happened I was paired on that occasion, and I did not vote. Senator Keeffe, as he did in various other parts of his speech, has made a sweeping statement which was totally inaccurate.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I want to make clear at the outset that I will be supporting the amendment that will be moved later in the day by my colleague, the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Rae. He will move:

Leave out all words after ‘Order ofthe Day’, insert ‘for the first sitting day in March 1975 to enable the Government to consult with the Aboriginal people living in reserve communities in the State of Queensland and their elected councils and other bodies and further to ascertain by poll taken within those communities the wishes of those people in relation to future restrictions upon the right of entry to those community areas ‘.

I will certainly be supporting my colleague when he moves that motion. Apart from that I enter into this debate because I am in some ways disturbed and disappointed in the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) for even bringing forward this Bill in its present form. I support some clauses of the Bill because I think they are very good. I refer to clause 9 which provides that an Aborigine should be represented at any of the council courts or community courts. I think that is a very good thing and I am sure that the councillors, in consultation with the Queensland Government, in going through the legislation very shortly, as they will, will ensure that this does happen. The other clause that I support is clause 1 1, although it is not as simple as the Minister seems to think. The fact that an objective is in the Bill does not mean that it can be achieved. When I say that it may not be achieved I mean that it will not be in the best interests of the Aboriginal people living on the communities if it is achieved. Clause 1 1 reads:

A person shall not employ an Aboriginal or Islander in Queensland (whether on a reserve or elsewhere) unless the terms and conditions of employment are not less favourable than they would be required to be if the employee were not an Aboriginal or Islander, . . .

That is a very very good suggestion but the effect of the implementation of it on the communities does worry me because I lived on a government community for a number of years. I lived on Palm Island for nigh on 17 years and I was for a time the assistant settlement overseer with some 250 to 300 people under my charge. At that time under the Act which was in force from the late 1930s to the early 1950s we had a work force of about 300. In its Budget the Queensland Government allocated a certain amount of money for various things that would be done on the settlement. In those days it was the old handout system, as has been referred to from time to time- we had free food, free clothing, free housing, free electric, lighting and things like that. Now under the Queensland Government Budget a certain amount of money is allocated for each one of those things. Employment opportunities were created for those who wished to earn some money. When the superintendent of the day and other members of the staff got together, we worked out how much money we had and how many men we could employ. We would look at that amount of money and say: ‘Is it better to pay a number of people on the community the full award according to the amount of money that we have, or should we try to employ as many as we can even though they have to be paid a little less?’ It was decided it would be far better to give a lot of people some money than to give some people a lot of money. I think that was common sense then as it is even today. I am quite sure that if the Australian Government were prepared to make available sufficient money to the authorities in Queensland so that all the people employed on the communities could be paid the award wage, then the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and particularly the Director of Aboriginal Affairs would be only too happy to pay every person on the communities the full award wage and slightly better, that is, if they had sufficient money. But here again, I believe that in some respects the Australian Government does not live up to its responsibilities.

Senator Keeffe spoke about the amount of money spent on Palm Island, and he said that all of the money spent on Palm Island comes from the Federal Government. I want to give the lie to that because all of the money that is spent on Palm Island, or in any other community, does not come from the Australian Government. For the current financial year the Queensland Government has set aside in its Budget some $7m for Aboriginal welfare in the State of Queensland, which amount is matched by some $I0m from the Australian Government. It seems strange that the Australian Government, through the Minister, saw fit to take some $3m-odd from Queensland in relation to Aboriginal people on Aboriginal communities.

My feeling in relation to this Bill is that I would go even further than what is proposed in the amendment to be moved by my colleague, Senator Rae. I would strongly suggest that this Bill should be deferred until the Aboriginal people in Queensland are consulted. I suggest that they should have a type of mini-referendum within the Aboriginal communities for the Aboriginal people who are affected by this legislation, not the people who do not live on the Government communities, not the people who are not affected by this Bill. I believe in some respects that both the Queensland Government and the Australian Government are adopting subconsciously a racist attitude on this whole issue because the Queensland Government is saying, The Australian Government is not going to take over Aboriginal affairs’ and the Australian Government is saying, ‘We are going to take over Aboriginal affairs’, but the people who are affected are not being consulted. It is of no use for the Minister to tell me that he met with some of the councillors and they told him that they want the Australian Government to take over. I will not buy that one. What I want to see is that the Federal Government, or the Australian Government as it calls itself, and the Queensland Government have the opportunity of sending onto the communities people to explain in simple language exactly what it is going to mean to the people if the State government authorities retain the responsibility for Aboriginal affairs. They should explain in simple language what benefits would flow to the Aboriginal people. The Government will then be allowing the Aboriginal people to make their own choice. I should like to quote from a Press statement which was released by the elected leaders of the Queensland Aboriginal reserve residents. The statement was released in Brisbane on 24 October 1974. It states:

The Chairman of the Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council, Mr Les Stewart, said that the Council had mct Senator Cavanagh at his request earlier in the year and had told him that in consultation with their people they were in the process of formulating any necessary changes in the law. The Premier has told the Advisory Council on several occasions that he would abolish or amend the Act in accordance with their wishes.

I emphasise the words ‘in accordance with their wishes’. That relates to the Aboriginal people in Queensland. The statement continues:

Some amendments had already been made and more were decided upon over the past 2 days.

However, being fully aware of this, Senator Cavanagh has insulted the Queensland Aboriginal representatives by threatening to introduce his own laws to override State legislation.

Mr Stewart said that the empty promises made by Senator Cavanagh and his Departmental Officers had only strengthened the Queensland Aboriginal people’s resolve to remain within State jurisdiction.

Legislative changes recommended by the Advisory Council today include amendments to the management of property clauses so that any doubt regarding a person’s complete freedom of choice to manage his property would be removed; a relaxation in the regulations controlling the entry and sale of liquor on reserves and the removal of the community councils from all functions dealing with an Aboriginal Court. After careful consideration Council had decided that the permit system which gave them power to control entry to a reserve should remain for the time being.

I think that clearly demonstrates the wishes of the people of Queensland. I shall follow on by proving that the Queensland Government did listen to what the Aboriginal councillors recommended. I have a copy here of a Bill which is entitled ‘A Bill to amend the Aborigines Act 1971 and the Torres Strait Islanders Act 1971, each in certain particulars’. The Queensland Government has kept faith with the Aboriginal councils. The Bill repeals a section of the Act. The old section concerning termination of management of property has been completely deleted from the Act. There are quite a few other changes. If the Minister would like to have a look at them I will be quite happy to show them to him. He might then be able to understand why I argue against what he is attempting to do at the moment, which is against the wishes of the Aboriginal people.

My colleague, Senator Lawrie, during his speech read a telegram that was addressed to Mr Les Stewart from the Minister. The telegram reads:

Les Stewart Chairman

Cherbourg Aboriginal Reserve Council

Les, as prisoner on a reserve, you have no right to stop any Aboriginal from reuniting with their relatives. Support my Government in this and subsequent legislation and upon return of Cherbourg settlement to Aboriginals, with the right of ownership, you will have the right to decide–

I emphasise the words ‘you will have the right to decide ‘- who enters your private property. Cease being an agent of Petersen and fight Ibr the rights and freedom of your people.

As my colleague, Senator Rae, said: ‘How paternalistic can you be?’ The telegram was addressed to Les Stewart, a highly respected gentleman of the Aboriginal community of Cherbourg, a man who has done remarkably well for himself and his family. He is not only respected at Cherbourg. He is respected wherever he goes. He is respected in Murgon and Wondai. He is a man of high principles and integrity. Yet the Minister says to him:

Les, as prisoner ona reserve -

Let me took at that a little more closely. Les Stewart spent his early formative years on Palm Island. I happened to be there at that time. He was a young fellow who wanted to better himself. He did not think he could do the things he wanted to do on Palm Island. So he decided to transfer himself to Cherbourg. He moved to Cherbourg of his own accord because he wanted to further himself in a particular field. He went to Cherbourg and he completed his education at the Cherbourg school. He trained to become a first class fully qualified cabinet maker. He further studied and became a fully qualified carpenter. He has lived on Cherbourg since the early 1940s. That is when he moved there from Palm Island. He is not a prisoner on Cherbourg because Les could leave Cherbourg at any time he wants. No Aborigine in a community in Queensland is a prisoner. They are not prisoners in the communities. They can leave the communities whenever they so choose. Depending on the way they go about things they can go back if they want.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Depending on how they vote in the election.

Senator BONNER:

– As the Minister has not lived in Queensland and has not lived in a community he should at least listen to somebody who has.

Having spoken about Mr Stewart and the Minister’s paternalism towards him and his inaccuracies in saying that Les is a prisoner, let me go further and refer to the part of the telegram which states:

  1. . and upon return of Cherbourg settlement to Aboriginals–

I detest the word myself because we are Aborigines. The telegram continues:

  1. . you will have the right to decide who enters your private property.

What is all this about? According to the Minister whilst the Aborigines are living in the community now, as councillors of the community, they should not have the right to stop people from going in. The Minister, in his Bill, wants to take that right away from the Aborigines. Having taken the right away from them, later he will give it back to them. How hypocritical can he be? What is his argument? The Minister does not feel they should have the right now to say who should go on to the reserves. Later on the Minister will say: ‘Later on when we, Big Brother in Canberra, take over Aboriginal affairs in Queensland, we will give you the right to say who goes on a community’. That is what the Minister is saying. He said it in his telegram. He is arguing against himself. In one breath the Minister brings in a Bill to say that the Aboriginal councillors should not have this right and then he sends a telegram to say that when he takes over in Queensland the Aborigines will have the right to say who enters their reserves. Why can they not have that right now?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Sit down and I will tell you.

Senator BONNER:

– It does not make sense to me. Of course I am only j just a poor old Aborigine from Queensland; I would not know. I come from what is called the deep north. It seems strange that the only Aborigine in Parliament comes from the deep north. I cannot support the Minister in that part of the Bill. In any case I cannot support the Bill at all. Really I do not support any of the Bill. I go further than my colleague because I believe that it is time that the Aboriginal people were consulted. I am quite sure there is no real hardship in holding a mini-referendum- I do not know whether that is the correct word- or whatever one might like to call it.

It seems strange that just recently in Queensland- in Brisbane and in Ipswich- when a licence was to be issued for the establishment of a tavern, a hotel or something or other, all the people in the community were given the opportunity of voting to say whether they wanted that tavern opened in their community or not. This can be done for people in Ipswich and for people in Brisbane but it cannot be done for the Aboriginal people in the communities. The Government believes that they should not have any say. The Government is going to tell them, as usual, what is good for them in the State of Queensland whether they like it or whether they do not like it. What I am saying is that until such time as the Australian Government and the State Governments are prepared to hold a poll on the communities and allow the Aboriginal people to tell the Parliaments- both State and Federalwhether they want the laws changed in Queensland, whether they want the Act abolished, and whether they want the Queensland Government to give up its responsibility for Aboriginal affairs and hand it over to the Federal Government, I do not believe I can support what the Minister is proposing at this time.

I have nothing to fear politically, as was suggested earlier by Senator Keeffe who indicated that we had something politically to worry about on this issue. I have no worries politically. I stand here as an Aborigine and I am standing up to be counted for those who have spoken to me. Those who have faith in the Aboriginal community in Queensland have faith in me. It is no good Senator Keeffe or any other honourable senator saying that I am in any way influenced by the Queensland Government because there is very little communication between me and the Queensland Government. I have no intention of standing in this place and painting the Queensland Government lily white because it has made mistakes in the past and I am sure it will make more mistakes. At least it has accepted its responsibilties. I am indebted to one of my State colleagues, the honourable member for Chatsworth, Mr Bill Hewitt, because if it had not been for him I would not even have had a copy of the new Bill that was introduced into State Parliament.

I am here speaking on behalf of the Aboriginal people in the communities whom I know very well. I am in constant contact with them. As a matter of fact, as I said recently, I have relatives on many of the communities. I think Senator Keeffe found that out to his sorrow when he visited Weipa because I think it cost him quite a few bob to shout a lot of my relatives when he went down to the Aboriginal canteen. I am speaking on behalf of the Aboriginal people. I will certainly, on this occasion, support the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Rae. I do not believe the Government has gone far enough. I would like to see the whole Bill thrown out until after the Minister has had the decency to consult the Aboriginal people on the Aboriginal communities in Queensland.

Senator Poyser:

– As a point of order, Mr Deputy President, I ask has an amendment been moved by Senator Rae?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I do not have an amendment before me.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

-The Bill we are discussing purports to move certain discriminatory clauses from the current Queensland legislation. I have read the Bill and I have read the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). I find they are full of deceit and duplicity and that the Minister himself has made a subversive use of words by using half truths and distortions. The Bill is out of date already but, more particularly, it ignores the wishes of the Aborigines and the islanders in Queensland. The Queensland Act came into force in 1971. It is important to note that it applies only to those Aborigines -

Senator Keeffe:

– That is wrong. It did not come in in 1971. It came in on 4 December 1972.

Senator SHEIL:

– All right. The important thing is that the Queensland Act applies only to Aborigines and islanders who live in the communities. There are about 30,000 Aborigines in Queensland and only 10,000 live in the communities. The Act has been worked out in consultation with the Aborigines and the islanders. Despite what has been said here this afternoon the councils are fully and freely elected. One important point about those councils is that they are statutory authorities. There are frequent consultations between the councils, the Department and the Premier of Queensland. The Act has always been amended in accordance with the wishes of the councils. The Premier has offered to amend or abolish any clauses which it may be deserved to be amended or abolished on the advice of the councils, which is vastly different from how things were when Labor was administering the Act which was known to the Aborigines as the ‘Dog Act’. Under that Act mail was censored.

The situation of the Aborigines and islanders in Queensland is one of quiet development which is both harmonious and progressive. The administration is enlightened, unlike the current Federal administration. There is co-operation and consultation all the time. The Act is not designed as an instrument of racial supremacy, bigotry, hatred or discrimination. The Minister’s second reading speech was really just a word salad. The Minister made 7 charges against what he said were discriminatory clauses in the Queensland Act. Firstly, he claimed that the Act authorised management of property of Aborigines and Islanders without their consent. Secondly, he said that there is a prohibition of liberty of movement to enter a reserve. Thirdly, he said there is an absence of legal representation before an appeal from Aboriginal and islander courts. Fourthly, he said there is compulsory labour in the communities. Fifthly, he claimed that all communities have to conform to a code of conduct. Sixthly, he said there is a discriminatory right of certain people to enter the premises of Aborigines and islanders without their consent. The seventh point he made was that there are discriminatory terms of conditions of employment. I should like to deal with the charges in turn. I should like to deal, firstly, with the management of property without consent. This has always been on a voluntary basis. The Minister has noted that on 1 November it was spelled out in the legislation that management of property was to be on a voluntary basis. In the past, management of property has always been undertaken only when Aborigines were incapable of managing their own affairs. But it has always been done with the agreement of the councils. Even now, an Aboriginal or an islander has only to signify his wish to terminate the management of his affairs and it is granted.

Concerning the prohibition of liberty to enter a reserve, this is the most important provision that the community people wish preserved. It is the Aboriginal and islander councils which have complete control of access into their communities. To prevent access is one of the main desires of these people because they want to keep people off the reserves who would cause disharmony, which is probably the reason why they sent that telegram today- the one that refers to keeping the Minister off reserves. To remove this right to prevent access would be to ignore the wishes of the councils altogether.

The present Federal Minister was at the conference of the councils in the north in Februarythe Premier of Queensland was there- when this wish was expressed and it was granted by the Premier. He has since stated that he and the director of his Department consulted privately and singly with the councillors and found that they all had unanimously reversed this decision. I am not surprised at such unaninimity of opinion under such circumstances, because he should know that, if he does put an Aborigine under duress like that, the Aborigine is certain to tell him what he thinks he wants him to know, because that is one of the Aboriginal’s characteristics. The people of the communities regard it as their traditional tribal right to control access to the communities.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is not what we asked you.

Senator SHEIL:

– I did not hear what you asked me. I challenge the Minister to ask Les Stewart, who is the chairman of one of the councils, and Tanu Nona, the Islander chairman, to come down here, address the Senate and tell us what they think.

The third charge is that there is an absence of legal representation before and appeal from Aboriginal and Islander courts. The communities have a simple life style and most offences are of a minor nature, a misdemeanour nature. They often involve alcohol, and many are related to the Aborigines’ or Islanders’ own tribal laws and customs. They bear little relation to our laws or our sense of justice. But the Aboriginal courts actively discourage legal representation in the early stages of a case, in much the same way as we operate our industrial courts. So there is nothing really unusual about that. Aboriginal and Islander offenders on minor offences are better cared for in an informal setting and before the elders of their tribe who are familiar with them and the circumstances of the offence. It would be a misdirection of justice to force, by laws, our lawyers into this simple setting. For more serious cases Commonwealth and State Aboriginal legal aid already exists and is used where necessary. This is nothing but a mischievous charge. The fourth charge of compulsory labour is soon dismissed because it does not occur and is not referred to anywhere in the Act.

Senator Keeffe:

– They get half the award rate.

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– That charge was compulsory labour- nothing to do with award rates. The fifth charge was that the dwellers on the communities have to conform to a code of conduct. There are Aboriginal reserves in almost every town in Queensland, and where the Minister in his speech and in the Bill refers to ‘reserves’ he should really use the word ‘communities’. But the code of conduct that is to be observed in the communities is one that is determined by the councils. The Aborigines regard these communities as their homes, and it is perfectly normal for them to require a code of conduct, just as we do in our homes and just as we do in the Senate with our own Standing Orders.

The sixth charge concerns the right to enter premises. This is allowable only with the permission of the dweller or with a warrant, just as happens outside the communities. It may be pertinent to note here that under the present Customs Act customs officers can enter anyone’s premises at any time without permission or notice. The seventh charge referred to the discriminatory terms of employment. The Minister stated that Aborigines are paid less if they are aged, infirm or slow workers. What would he have us do with them? Give them all the sack? If they are aged or infirm they could possibly qualify for an invalid pension, but if they are slow workers does the Minister want us to put them off and have them qualify for unemployment? It is a means of encouraging Aborigines. If an Aboriginal is doing a regular job, he or she is paid award wages in Queensland. In addition, a training allowance is paid where an Aborigine is learning a job. Far from being an act of discrimination against Aborigines, the Queensland Act discriminates in favour of them, which is in accord with the Schedule of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Paragraph 4 of article 1 of Part 1 states:

Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination provided, however, that such measures do not as a consequence lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

The Queensland Act does this, and it does it effectively and with the active co-operation of the Aborigines and the Islanders. In Queensland Aborigines and Islanders are free to enter and leave the communities at any time, at their own wish and according to their own rules. An Aborigine or an Islander cannot be moved from a community without his consent. The councils control access. They control most legal problems. They have control over liquor- the hours during which it is served, and what is sold. This has greatly reduced the problem that Aboriginesand Islanders, to some extent- have with alcohol.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– And mtho

Senator SHEIL:

– And metho. The profits from the sale of houses, from the sale of Aboriginal creations that are sold in a shop in George

Street, Brisbane now, and from the sale of produce from cattle stations, such as the one at Woorabinda, which are run by Aborigines, are all paid into an Aboriginal trust fund which is used for both Aborigines and Islanders. There is no government profiteering on this fund. It is a trust fund like any regular trust fund. Wet canteens are established only after local option polls have been held, and the profits from these canteens go into the same trust fund.

Any controls exercised by the director are no more than the controls exercised by the director of local government in any State. They all have the power to override their local government, just as Mr Bryant has the power to override the local government in Canberra. Shortly in Queensland the Aboriginal and Islander Commission will be formed. It will have a direct policy-forming function, which is some measure showing the degree of advancement reached in Queensland. I do not think that it exists in any other State; certainly it does not exist in the Federal sphere. Where are disasters in Queensland? Where are the starving children, the riots, the demonstrations and the staff walking off the communities? They are not in Queensland. But these things exist in other places. They are in evidence amongst the Aborigines under the care of the Commonwealth Minister. He is the Minister who walks with radicals, yet he has them camping on his doorstep outside Parliament House for weeks, abusing him. I wonder whether he has read the scathing report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs concerning his own Yirrkala people and their starving children. Right at this minute the Torres Strait Islanders are living in fear of this Federal Government concerning their borders. They do not want any change. They do not want to be split up, because they consist of several ethnic groups. They could be shattered by one Federal stroke of the pen which would move their border down to 10 degrees south, passing right through Thursday Island.

The Commonwealth at the moment is handing out money to Aborigines without requiring any civic responsibility of them at all. This is devastating and destroying many of the Aboriginal people. Yet this dauntless disciple of racial discrimination, with his Department divided, his radicals ridiculing him and the children under his care starving, presumes to discredit Queensland’s Aborigines and Islanders, the Queensland legislation and the Queensland Premier with a Bill that is nothing more than deceit and duplicity. Has he not noticed the vote of the Aborigines in the recent Northern Territory election? They did not vote Labor. Labor did not gain one seat in that election. Did he not notice that the Aboriginal candidate, Hyacinth Tungatalum, who was elected, is a member of the Country-Liberal Party in the Northern Territory? Has he not noticed that the only Aboriginal candidate in next Saturday’s Queensland State election is standing for the National Party under the leadership of Joh Bjelke-Petersen? I support the amendment that will be moved by Senator Rae to leave out all words after ‘order of the day’ and to insert: for the first sitting day in March 1 975 to enable the Government to consult with the Aboriginal people living in the reserve communities in the State of Queensland and their elected councils and other bodies and further to ascertain by poll taken within those communities the wishes of those people in relation to future restrictions upon the right of entry to those communities.

Like Senator Bonner, I would rather go much further and reject the Bill altogether. However, the Opposition has agreed on the procedure proposed by Senator Rae and I support it. I realise that the Minister has not had a chance to reply, but he will get an opportunity in the debate on the foreshadowed amendment. Alternatively, he will get his chance to speak if the motion to adjourn is defeated.

Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 25

NOES: 24

Majority……. 1

Teller: Young. H. W.

Teller Poyser. A. G.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I have taken note of the fact that it is the intention of Senator Rae to move an amendment to that motion. I think that I should have a few words to say on that amendment. I do not know whether I will have the right of reply after he has moved it.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

- Mr Deputy President, the Opposition will give the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) leave to reply if leave is necessary. I move:

In moving that amendment I indicate to the Senate that it is in the terms foreshadowed during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. It is designed clearly for the purpose of enabling the views of the people concerned to be ascertained, it having been made clear thatprima facie, anyway- there is no enthusiasm amongst those people for this part of the legislation; in fact, there is direct opposition to it. As previously indicated, the Opposition wishes to ensure that those people are consulted and sees this amendment as the appropriate way of ensuring the consultation without preventing the Bill from being proceeded with when the Parliament resumes next year. I shall mention only one other point. The procedure which had to be adopted to achieve this purpose was to move for the adjournment of the debate. I know that that has deprived the Minister of his right to reply to the points raised in the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, although he will have such an opportunity later when the matter is brought back before the Senate. We will facilitate in every way his being able to make such comments as he wishes in relation to the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– In closing this debate I do not want to transgress Standing Orders, despite the kind offer of Senator Rae. There is a lot to which I wish to reply in relation to the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The question now before the Chair is whether further consideration of this Bill should be adjourned. Two questions are involved in this Bill. Firstly, should the people concerned be consulted further? I assure honourable senators that I have been around and consulted the people concerned and no prima facie evidence of any substance has been brought before me as to whether the people want further consultation.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Only a lot of telegrams.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Twenty-two telegrams were received, but as was exposed the other night, they were sent at the request of the very department which can bring about a resolution of this matter at the conference I am to attend by facilitating the expression of the opinion which one honourable senator said we will get from the Aboriginal people when they get away from the tyranny under which they find themselves. It has been pointed out- I do not want to go into the question of Mapoon- that in an effort to obtain an expression of opinion from the Aborigines I travelled all over Queensland. It has been pointed out also that I have paid out a fortune simply to enable them to attend conferences at which I can meet with them and speak to them. So it cannot be said that I have not been to see the Aborigines and that I have not discussed this matter with them. It has been demonstrated that I have arranged for aeroplanes to bring them to see me and that I have travelled by aeroplane to see them. The whole purpose of that was to obtain an indication of the opinion of the Aborigines of Queensland on the question of what they want.

Senator Bonner would know full well that the Aborigines are in favour of my proposition. He mixes with them. He knows about the demonstrations conducted by them. Tents were erected on the lawns of the city square in Brisbane by Aborigines demanding the repeal of the Queensland Act. Senator Bonner knows that one of the demands of the embassy in front of Parliament House is the repeal of the Queensland Act. He knows that the Aborigines throughout

Australia are in favour of the repeal of the Queensland Act. The entry of Aborigines onto reserves is a vital issue that involves the right of the people who came from such reserves and who are not on them now to return to their tribal land. One could not get all of them to express an opinion in a referendum. Some of them may be living in the Northern Territory or Western Australia at present. Therefore what would be the purpose of holding such a mini-referendum?

The attitude of the Liberal Party on this occasion is contrary to the attitude of the Liberal Party on the occasions when Mr Hasluck, on behalf of the Liberal Party, signed the United Nations declaration which was followed by the introduction in 1957 of International Labour Organisation Convention 107. We want to ratify that Convention. The Aborigines on settlements in Queensland are an impediment which is preventing us from becoming part of an international effort to solve an international problem. Convention No. 107 is the convention concerning the protection and integration of indigenous and other tribal and semi-tribal populations in independent countries. Do honourable senators opposite think that we should not sign that Convention? Every State but one has introduced suitable legislation which would permit our ratification of the Convention. The exception is Queensland. The members of the Opposition want a ballot to be conducted to ascertain whether we should be allowed to play our part in relation to the indigenous people of the whole of Australia. The Opposition wants the Aborigines of Queensland to decide this vital issue of whether we should play our part in relation to the indigenous people of the oppressed countries of the world. That is ridiculous. It is not a question of which department is most fitted to deal with the Aborigines of Queensland. It is not a question of whether the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs should take over responsibility for Aboriginal affairs in Queensland. All this Bill does is state that an Aboriginal in Queensland should have the same freedom to do on a reserve as he is permitted to do outside a reserve.

Why does the Opposition want to adjourn further debate on this matter until March? Honourable senators opposite should be honest and frank about this matter. Their political interest is greater than their humanitarian interest in the Aborigines in Queensland. Their political interest is in support of their big master in Queensland. They do not want to be exposed for what they are by the Aborigines in Queensland so they have sought to adjourn this matter sine die, knowing that that would be the death knell of the Bill. Honourable senators opposite have sought to kill the Bill for political reasons. They do not give a damn about the people who are suffering under the tyranny of the Queensland legislation. That is their attitude to this matter. They are trying to avoid being found out. Senator Sheil thinks that Aborigines are so stupid that they will say yes to one person and no to another. He thinks that they just want to go around drinking metho. That is his opinion of Aborigines. We are trying to lift them out of the area in which such accusations are made. We recognise that they have enough ability to be able to hit honourable senators opposite on this aspect. The tactics of honourable senators opposite of delaying the passage of this legislation will not be accepted by the Aboriginal communities in Queensland. I hope that the amendment will be defeated.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Rae’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 25

NOES: 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Question put:

That the motion (Senator Cavanagh’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) proposed:

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

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J.J.Webster)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I ask leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation in relation to the original vote.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I believe I owe it to the Senate and certainly to those of my colleagues on this side to indicate that on the occasion of the first vote I was in my office throughout. I was writing letters and it was not until I went downstairs to the office of the Government typist to ask her to type out the letter which I had been writing in my office that I heard the announcement of a division in this chamber. Mr Deputy President, I assure you and the Senate that the bells did not ring in my office. As a consequence the Government lost the division.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They took advantage of it.

Senator DEVITT:

– I am not saying anything about that. I think it my responsibility and duty to report the happening to the Senate. I can recall on past occasions since I came to this place similar circumstances and an opportunity was given then for a further vote. I think it was an occasion when Senator Davidson was in the Library and did not hear the bells. We, as the then Opposition, accorded to Senator Davidson an acceptance of the explanation which he made to the House and again submitted the measure to the vote. I earnestly suggest that that practice be followed on this occasion in the light of the circumstances.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Immediately the matter was mentioned to me and the suggestion was made that the bells had not rung in a particular room I arranged for an officer of the Senator to check this matter. When I have a report from him I will report to the Senate.

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

– I seek leave to make a statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objecton, leave is granted.

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

-After the division to which Senator Devitt refers was held and very shortly after his coming into the chamber, he reported to me and to the Government Whip, Senator Poyser, that he was in his room and that certainly the division bells did not ring in his room. I have told Senator Young, the Opposition Whip, and also the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) of these circumstances. I accept Senator Devitt ‘s word although I know that you, Mr Deputy President, are arranging to have the division bells in his room checked. When the Government was in Opposition, on an occasion when Sir Alister McMullin was embarrassed because of a similar circumstance when he was in the the Prime Minister’s room, and on another occasion involving Senator Davidson, the then Opposition agreed on both occasions to the recommittal of the division. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition give consideration to such a course being followed now.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate

- Mr Deputy President, may I have leave of the Senate to make a statement on the same subject?

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I can well recall 2 occasions when this sort of thing happened when I was Government Whip. One of the occasions was the incident referred to by Senator Devitt which involved Senator Davidson. Whether or not the bells rang in his room, I think, is irrelevant. The fact that Senator Devitt said that they did not ring satisfied me. I do not think that they need be checked for my satisfaction. I have consulted very quickly with my colleagues and they agree with me that governments or oppositions ought not to win by misadventure, and that is what the whole thing is. In accordance with the normal practice, and I take it the future practice, when there is a misadventure and when a senator has not deliberately absented himself from the chamber, we will not resist the recommittal of the question. We know of the problems of getting from Committee Room No. 1 to the chamber. I have certain views on that. Somebody is going to drop dead in that gallop one day. Therefore, should the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) or Senator Cavanagh ask for leave to move some motion or to recommit the original motion, we will not resist it. We will suggest that the question be put forthwith.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have had the proposition put before me that I put the question to the Senate again. Is it the wish of the Senate that I put again the question: ‘That the debate be now adjourned ‘?

Honourable senators; Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It is the wish of the Senate that I put that question. I thought that my doing that might save the Minister from moving it. I put the question: ‘That the debate be now adjourned’.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 25

NOES: 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– There has been rather a mix-up. I was about to reply to the second reading debate. The motion to adjourn the debate was defeated. However, because the Government desires to get over to the other House before it adjourns some taxation legislation and some legislation affecting the wool industry- it is essential that the other place deals with this legislation- I have arranged with

Senator Rae that 1 now take the risk of moving for the adjournment of the debate until a later hour in the day. Senator Rae has given an assurance that he will not move an amendment to the motion. Accordingly, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) agreed to:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour of this day.

page 3213

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Carrick has moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill which reduce the limit on deductions for education expenses from $400 to $150 seriously restrict the freedom of choice which now exists in the Australian education system, are a contravention of the Government’s election undertakings and will impose unwarranted burdens on parents with children attending both public and private schools and, further, that the Bill specifically:

inadequately compensates home buyers for the massive rise in housing loan interest rates and takes no account of those persons unable to purchase a home;

jeopardises the bonuses of thousands of small investors by increasing the tax liabilities of Australian life assurance companies, and

further erodes the confidence of the Australian mineral industry by reducing vital incentives to investment. ‘

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- We are dealing with the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974 to which Senator Carrick has moved an amendment, a copy of which is in my hands.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– In reply- In view of the circumstances I will have to confine my remarks and be as succinct as possible. I shall isolate perhaps two or three points that were made during the course of the debate and which appear to me to be of some concern. A question was raised by Senator Carrick concerning the definition of a private car under the legislation and he invited me to comment on it. ‘Car’ is defined in the legislation as including a station waggon, panel van or utility truck and any other vehicle that is designed to carry at least one passenger if it does not have a carrying capacity in excess of one tonne. Under the legislation ‘private use’ means essentially non-business use, that is, use not directly associated with employment or the rendering of services, and includes travel between home and work except where the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that for the efficient performance of an employee’s duties it is necessary for a car to be kept at or near his residence.

Senator Carrick also made reference, as I think did one or two other honourable senators, to housing loan interest deductions. It has been estimated that 1.4 million taxpayers will benefit under the housing loan interest deduction scheme for which provision is made in the Income Tax Assessment Bill. The scheme will have a full year cost to revenue of $ 120m and arrangements have been made for the reduction to be reflected in weekly tax instalment deductions if the employee so wishes. Two examples of the effect of this deduction on interest rates show the following figures: In the case of a net annual income of $6,240- that is $120 a week- as a result of the interest deduction for housing loan interest the effective rate of interest on the loan will be reduced to 8.4 per cent in the first year of the loan. That is a reduction of 2.35 per cent. The reduction in his weekly tax instalment deductions will be nearly $7. On a net annual income of $7,280-that is $ 140 a week-the effective rate of interest on the loan will be reduced to 8.28 per cent in the first year of the loan. That is a reduction of 2.47 per cent. The reduction in the weekly tax instalment deductions will be nearly $8. That is, the weekly take home pay will be increased by $8 as a result of this deduction.

Senator Carrick also indicated in his amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Bill that the Bill takes no account of those persons unable to purchase a home. As this matter is referred to in the context of housing loan interest rates the suggestion is that the interest deductibility scheme should be extended to rent payers. It was decided by the Government that the question of extending the housing loan interest deduction scheme to cover a notional interest component of rent should be referred to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) for advice on particability and cost. Information was provided to the Government committee by the Treasurer on this proposed extension and apparently the proposal was dropped.

The other matter concerning mining, which is another important aspect to which some time should be devoted, involves section 23A of the principal Act which frees from tax 20 per cent of the net income dervied from mining prescribed metals and minerals. This provision has been in the law since the Second World War and its original justification was to assist mining companies called on to accelerate their production of scarce materials at a time when heavy tax rates applied because of war-time conditions. There is no good reason for a concession of this nature to continue under present conditions. Many of the metals and minerals prescribed are no longer in short supply, for example, copper, bauxite, nickel, uranium and the beach sand minerals, and the concession discriminates unfairly in favour of companies mining eligible minerals against those mining minerals not listed for the exemption. Further, the nature of the exemption ensures that the greatest benefits from the concession go to the most successful companies mining the richer deposits and which do not need any incentives to produce, whereas the less profitable companies receive little or no benefits from the provisions in that section of the Act.

I refer briefly to the matter of education expenses. It should be borne in mind that the Budget proposal to reduce the maximum amount claimable for each student for education expenses has been thoroughly examined by the Government. The amount has been reduced from $400 to $150 mainly because the Government’s programs involve substantial increases in direct expenditure on education. The actual annual increase in expenditure on education in 1973-74 was 94 per cent and the estimated increase in 1974-75 is 78 per cent. In these circumstances there is no longer a case for providing substantial indirect assistance through the taxation system which is not based on needs or any other criteria of relevance to the Government’s own educational programs. However, the Government does appreciate the difficulties faced by people living in remote areas and has accepted responsibility for improving educational opportunities for children whose families live in isolated areas far removed from normal school facilities. One of this Government’s first initiatives was to introduce the isolated children’s scheme of financial assistance. My colleague, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), is responsible for the administration of this scheme and as he announced in a statement tabled in the House of Representatives on 24 September 1974, the rates of allowance and means test are to be adjusted as from the begining of 1975.

I believe it is not in the interests of the Senate that the amendments which have been moved should be carried. The Government has given a good deal of consideration to the matters which have been placed before the Parliament. I must say on behalf of the Government that we will oppose the amendments which have been moved. We believe that it would be in the interest of the community as a whole if the motion goes through in its original form.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Carrick’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 26

NOES: 24

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:
TASMANIA

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole?

Senator Wood:

– I should like clauses 1 to 15 to be taken together. I wish to oppose clause 16.

Clauses 1 to 15- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 16 (Expenses of self-education).

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-I have spoken earlier in the afternoon on this Bill. There is no question that clause 16 does not find favour with people who have the responsibility and the cost of educating children. One of the aspects I do not think the Government has taken into consideration is that the $400 allowance today, with inflation the way it is, is not worth as much as it was a few years ago. It is wrong to suggest that it should be reduced to $150 in view of the inflationary trend of the last couple of years. I suggest that an allowance of $150 does not have the true worth of that amount a few years ago. I believe that people on this side of the House do not support me in this attitude so I have decided to oppose clause 16 myself. I strongly oppose it because I think the reduction in the allowance is a backward movement on the Government’s part. I know that there was considerable dissention and opposition to this clause in the Government’s ranks. In those circumstances I oppose the clause. If anybody is prepared to support me I shall call for a division.

Senator CARRICK:
Victoria

– I rise to state briefly the position of the Opposition on this clause. The Opposition will not oppose the clause. Nevertheless in my speech at the second reading stage of the Bill, on behalf of the Opposition I made it abundantly clear that we are implacably opposed to the policy inherent in the clause and that upon re-election to government we will restore the benefit. I made the comments on behalf of the Opposition at the second reading stage. I do not wish to delay the Senate now. We will support the measure. Because it is a Budget measure we will not obstruct it. We register our protest against what we regard as an iniquitous policy.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Wood and with those echoed by Senator Carrick. I certainly agree with the estimates they make of the noxious aspects of this clause, the way it has harmed many hundreds of thousands of people in Australia and the damage it will do to the private school system in this country. However, I have replied in writing to the many hundreds of people who have written to me and have said, just as Senator Carrick has said, that the clause is part of the Government’s Budget proposals. Its defeat should cause an election, if there is a serious assessment of the Budget by the Government of the day. I assume that the Opposition is not ready to cause an election at this time. I assume also that Senator Wood is not ready to cause an election. That being so I cannot be a party to promoting that contest again for the second time this year. Therefore I must join with the Liberal and Country Parties in reluctantly not opposing the clause. I cannot find the words to explain my reluctance to vote with Senator Wood. It would take far too long and hold the Senate up uselessly to spread my limited vocabulary as wide as I should like.

I think the matter should be put in simple terms. I think it is not really a matter of expressing just the opinion that Senator Wood has. It is a matter of whether this House will say there ought to be an election on this issue. That is the simple issue and it ought to be put in plain terms. There would be people who would be disappointed in Senator Carrick, myself and others on his side for not following Senator Wood. They ought to know the reason. If I could vote in this House simply to excise that clause and leave the rest of the machinery run on, I would do so. Make no mistake about that. That is what I would do if that were the simple choice before me. But I recognise that it is not the simple choice. As I have said, the question is whether there will be an election on this issue. As I cannot countenance that at this time I express my very great concern at this matter. I end my short remarks by saying publicly what I have said to everyone who has written to me: The only way in which this matter can be put right is to defeat the Government so that the position can be restored by a non-Labor administration.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– Further to what has been said in connection with this clause, I should like to say that it is rather interesting to note that it has been suggested that this chamber should not cause an election even if honourable senators feel that way. I take the view- I go back to the constitutional basis of this Senate- that we have the right to review legislation and to amend or reject it. On that basis, under the Constitution I believe that we have the right to amend this clause. It is up to the Government to decide whether it ‘ants an election on this question. So . n as I am concerned, I would not hesitate if the Government wanted to have an election because I know what the results would be. I think from my Party’s point of view there would be no question but that the Government would go out of office. The responsibility of deciding whether an election will be held lies with the Government. As a senator I take the view that if the Senate feels strongly that something is wrong then it is our responsibility to take action.

I look upon this question as one which will cause great expense to people to educate their children. It could possibly mean that some of them will have to forgo education that they have in mind for their children. It is very easy for us to say that we will correct the situation when we are in government. We do not know how long it will be before we are in government. We do not know how often opportunities such as this will arise and we do not know whether the Government will want to have an election over them. Therefore, I think we should amend legislation when we can do so. We should not baulk at it. It is a case of whether it is right to do so or whether it is wrong to do so. I think in this case we should stand up to our responsibilities and vote against this clause if we feel that way.

There has been an indication that because this is a Budget item the Senate should not touch it. I wonder what the Opposition will do when the next Budget comes along. I wonder, if it feels that the occasion warrants the holding of an election, whether it will keep to its present view. I think we have to be consistent in these matters. When I look back to the days when we were in government and the present Government formed the Opposition, it had no hesitation about moving amendments to the Budget. I think it is a matter of being consistent.

As far as I am concerned, as a senator, we have certain rights. This Senate has constitutional rights. Whether those rights have been acted upon since the creation of the Senate or not does not make any difference. The people who founded the Constitution desired certain actions or gave certain powers. I remember that during the Budget debate last year I was one of those honourable senators who wanted to have an election. I remember the discussion about defeating the Supply Bill. I remember that some honourable senators and some of the members of the other House said that we should not defeat the Bill. The Constitution gave us that power and under the Constitution if the Senate wants to refuse a Supply Bill it has a perfect right to do so. I am upholding the rights of the Senate and the rights of a senator. Consequently, I have no hesitation on opposing this particular clause.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The Government will oppose the amendment moved by Senator Wood. I wish to make only one comment on the undertaking given by Senator Carrick that in the event of a return of a Liberal-Country Party Government it would increase the deduction from taxable income of educational expenses from $150 to $400. I would have been more impressed had he also, in the same breath, given the same commitment that that Government would maintain the same level and rate of expenditure on education that this Government has. If he is prepared to give that commitment, then I will believe that there is some genuineness in the undertaking that he has given. I do not mean that personally. I mean from the point of view of his own party.

Senator Carrick:

– We will give a commitment to more real contribution to education.

Senator WRIEDT:

– In the absence of that undertaking it is quite apparent that this undertaking that the honourable senator has given in respect of this increase is not a very convincing statement. The Government stands by its record in this area. Within 2 years of this Government’s coming to office it has helped solve the financial problems of the States in relation to education. This was done after many years of extreme difficulty which the States suffered in relation to education. The Government will oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Senator Wood:

– I should like my name recorded in Hansard as voting against this clause.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3217

INCOME TAX (BEARER DEBENTURES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3217

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3217

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Amendment (by Senator Carrick) put:

At end or motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill do not provide adequate relief to the taxation of deceased estates in a period of unprecedented inflation.’.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 26

NOES: 24

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I make just a brief statement on the Bill. The fact that the Opposition is agreeing to the quick passage of this Bill is not to be taken as an indication of Opposition policy. The Opposition policy was expressed in the second reading debate on the Income Tax Assessment Bill. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the Opposition opposes many- indeed, a great number- of the Budget proposals. For example, it is opposed to the so-called tax on unearned income and to the penalties on the mining industry. It is opposed to half a dozen or a dozen main issues. The fact that the Opposition is opposed to these issues nevertheless does not impel it to reject the whole or part of the Budget. The government itself must take the responsibility for the Budget. The Opposition looks to estate duty in terms of an overall look at taxation, in terms of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee report and in terms of the forecast capital gains tax. The Opposition itself sees the need for massive reform. On that basis it will not oppose the passage of the Bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Sitting suspended from 6.4 to 8 p.m.

page 3218

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Industry Act in accordance with decisions of the Government which I announced on 27 August. Senators will recall that during August the Government reviewed the then existing and anticipated circumstances of the wool market and made one of the most important decisions in respect of the wool industry that has been made for many years. In brief, the Government guaranteed the availability of sufficient finance to the Australian Wool Corporation to operate a minimum floor price for wool equivalent to 250 cents per kilo clean for 21 micron wool sold during the 1974-75 season. In response, woolgrowers agreed to contribute a levy of 5 per cent of the proceeds from wool sales in 1974-75 to establish a fund to make good any losses incurred as a result of wool purchases by the Corporation. Under the Wool Marketing (Loan) Act 1974, the Government has already provided $150m to finance the Corporation’s floor price activities. This amount is in addition to a previously existing Appropriation of $13m, and commercial loans drawn by the Corporation to the extent of $34m covered by a Government guarantee of repayment. Presently before the Parliament is an Appropriation measure which will authorise the provision of up to a further $200m to the Corporation.

Evidence of the Government’s determination to support the wool industry during the present period of weak demand for wool is clearly seen in these actions. Not only has the decision to support a minimum price in the market during the season prevented a collapse of wool prices, but the assurance that the floor will be maintained is providing both woolgrowers and wool users with confidence in the future of the industry. In announcing the Government’s decision on the support of the wool market, I stated the intention of the Government to assist the Corporation in operating the floor price, and in its general activities in the market, by providing it with adequate powers to manage the supply of wool offered for sale, and by widening its trading powers.

I also announced that attention would be given to the possible restructuring of the board of the Corporation to provide appropriate improvements, where necessary, having regard to the additional powers to be conferred on the Corporation. This Bill is designed to implement the arrangements I foreshadowed. I turn now to the main provisions of the Bill.

Market Support Fund

The Bill contains detailed provisions to govern the use of the 5 per cent marketing levy contributed by woolgrowers during the 1974-75 season. In accordance with the wishes of the industry, the relevant provisions have been so drafted as to ensure that the proceeds of the levy and their use will be separately identified and accounted for. To this end the levy and all revenue from it will be channelled into a special fund to be established by the Australian Wool Corporation and known as the Market Support Fund. As announced when the decision to introduce the levy was taken, the object of the levy is primarily to provide funds for meeting any losses incurred as a result of maintaining a floor price in the wool market this season. However, since such losses, if any, cannot be determined until after the end of the season, the Bill provides that the levy funds may be put to other uses in the meantime of benefit to the industry.

Specifically, it is provided that moneys in the Market Support Fund may be used by the Corporation during the season to purchase wool under the reserve price arrangements, to pay advances to growers the sale of whose wool has been delayed by the Corporation’s supply management, or they may be invested. Income from investment of Fund moneys will be paid into the Fund, as will interest on advances made to growers, less administrative expenses incurred by the Corporation in connection with those advances. Also allocated to the Fund will be an amount representing an appropriate charge for interest where money from the Fund is used by the Corporation to purchase wool. As well as maintaining a floor price in the wool market, the Corporation will continue to operate flexible reserve price arrangements when the market is above the floor. It would be neither practicable nor desirable to differentiate between the 2 operations for accounting purposes, and, accordingly, the profit or loss from this market support role will be determined over the total reserve price activity.

Since revenue and expenses in respect of advances to growers whose wool has been delayed from sale will play a part in the financial result of the Corporation’s marketing operations over the same period, they will be also taken into account in the determination of profit or loss. If a loss results, it will be met from the Market Support Fund. If, on the other hand, a trading profit eventuates, it will be dealt with as profit made in other periods, namely, to help repay any past losses which had been met by the Government, as a reserve against future losses, or for other purposes related to the performance of the functions of the Corporation. Any balance remaining in the Fund after losses or profits have been dealt with will be kept as a separate reserve and used for purposes determined by the Minister for Agriculture with the approval in writing of the Australian Wool Industry Conference. These procedures for the final disposition of the Fund have been made at the request of the Australian Wool Industry Conference.

Supply Management

The Bill strengthens the hand of the Australian Wool Corporation in ensuring the regulation of the flow of wool on to the market in keeping with demand. Whilst the Corporation already participates in the determination of wool auction sale rosters and the scheduling of offerings, it does not have power to control the quantity of wool offered for public sale. A new provision explicitly confirms the right of the Corporation to withhold its reserve price protection in situations in which it believes deferment of all or part of a proposed offering should be made, but, contrary to the Corporation’s wishes, the offering is not deferred.

Extension of Trading Powers

Amendments are proposed in the Bill to enlarge the specific trading powers of the Corporation. The present powers of the Corporation in this area were originally designed principally to enable it to dispose of the wool purchased under its reserve price operations, and, although they extend somewhat beyond this, they include restrictions which hamper the Corporation in some transactions. The new provisions will enable the Corporation to be empowered to engage in a wider range of trading activities. The precise extent to which the Corporation will be able to exercise its enlarged trading functions will be a matter for approval by the Minister for Agriculture. Subject to this approval, the Corporation is being authorised to trade not only in wool but also in wool products, to supply wool for Australia’s foreign aid programs, and to process wool and manufacture wool products, or to commission such work.

These are very wide powers and hence the necessity for some ministerial control over their use. It is not envisaged that the Corporation will use all of these powers immediately, but rather as and when circumstances warrant their use. The legislation therefore provides a framework for approval to be given to the Corporation to engage in particular forms of trading activity appropriate to the needs and best interests of the wool industry, and in accordance with any guidance provided by the Minister for Agriculture concerning the exercise of those powers. Transactions that could be undertaken, for instance, may involve sales of wool on a forward basis. As forward selling involves a risk due to market price fluctuations, the Corporation is being empowered to buy and sell wool Futures with a view to reducing that risk. The exercising of this power is also to be subject to the approval of the Minister for Agriculture.

Preparation of Wool for Sale

A provision is included in the Bill to enable the Corporation to withhold reserve price protection from any lot of wool that has not been prepared and presented for sale in accordance with standards approved by the Corporation. This is intended to discourage careless classing and presentation for sale, and ensure that the Corporation is not obliged to support bad preparation of wool.

Terms and Conditions of Sale of Wool

The Corporation is being authorised to restrict its reserve price operations to those sales where the terms and conditions of acceptance, offering and sale have its approval. In this way, the Corporation will be able to exert a stronger influence than at present over such matters as, for example, selling charges.

Membership of Corporation

In keeping with the increased powers and responsibilities of the Corporation, its membership is being increased by adding another member with special qualifications to the existing 3 members in this category. This enables a wider range of expertise and experience to be available to the Corporation.

Method of Appointment of Corporation Members

At present, the members of the Corporation representing woolgrowers are appointed on the nomination of the Australian Wool Industry Conference. This requirement is being maintained, but provision is being made for the members to be selected by the Minister for Agriculture from a panel of names submitted by the Conference. This provision will bring the Wool Corporation into line with similar provisions for the selection of grower representatives on the Australian Meat Board. Provision is also being made under which the Minister for Agriculture may request the Conference to submit additional names to the panel. A further amendment provides that the 4 woolgrower members and the 4 members with special qualifications will retire by rotation. This will be achieved by making two of the initial appointments in each category for a term of 2 years and two for a term of 3 years. In this way the retirements will be staggered to avoid the bulk of Corporation membership retiring at the same time. The object is to retain a nucleus of experienced members on the Corporation at all times.

Consultation with Trade Unions

The Bill introduces a requirement for the Wool Corporation to consult with the trade unions concerned before taking action likely to affect the conditions of employment or the demand for labour in the wool industry. The Corporation already follows a usual practice of consultation with unions on relevant matters but the amendment now formally requires such consultation.

Minor Amendments

Included in the Bill are several minor amendments which are either complementary to the major provisions or are designed to clarify and harmonise other provisions of the existing Act where experience in administering the Act has shown this to be desirable. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Maunsell) adjourned.

page 3220

WOOL MARKETING (LOAN) BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

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

Honourable senators will recall that on behalf of the Australian Government, I announced on 27 August that the Australian Wool Corporation would operate a minimum (floor) price equivalent to 250 cents per kilo clean for 2 1 micron wool during the 1974-75 season and that the Government would guarantee sufficient funds for this purpose. Honourable senators will also recall that, in addition to the $ 13m provided in the Budget for advance to the Corporation, Parliament, in September last, made available $150m by way of special appropriation under the Wool Marketing (Loan) Act. The purpose of this Bill is to amend that Act to enable the Treasurer, on behalf of the Australian Government, to make further loans of up to an additional $200 m to the Corporation. Thus the total provision under the Act would be increased to $350m. Proceeds of loans to the Corporation under the Act are available for financing purchases of wool at auction- including tender- and for the making of advances to growers whose wool is withheld from the market by the Corporation.

Since the 1974-75 wool selling season commenced the Corporation has, under its minimum reserve price operations, purchased on average approximately 50 per cent of the offering at auction. As at 15 November its stockpile had reached some 800,000 bales, and it had committed over $90m of the $ 150m. Clearly there is the prospect that the $150m could become fully committed while the Parliament is in recess. It is therefore necessary, before Parliament rises, to make provision for further loans to the Corporation.

It is considered that the amount available to the Corporation should be sufficiently large to cover its requirements to the end of the wool selling season. The total amount of funds likely to be required for the Corporation’s purposes is difficult to establish, depending as it does on the extent to which the trade supports the market. But insofar as it is possible to predict at this stage, we judge that a further amount of $200m should be adequate for this purpose, and the Bill seeks an additional appropriation of that amount. We shall, of course, keep the position under close review. We do not rule out the possibility of the Corporation obtaining further trading bank finance later in the season. In that event the amounts the Treasurer would need to advance to the Corporation under the Act would of course be correspondingly reduced.

I am sure that honourable senators will appreciate the need for expeditious action in this matter, to ensure a continuing provision of funds to the Corporation and to demonstrate beyond all possible doubt the Corporation’s capacity to sustain its floor price operations. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Maunsell) adjourned.

page 3221

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL (No. 2) 1974

Debate resumed on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

- Mr Deputy President, I suggest that the Wool Industry Bill (No. 2) 1974 and the Wool Marketing (Loan) Bill (No. 2) 1974 be debated cognately.

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

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I realise that a measure such as this has great importance for our greatest industry in Australia, the wool industry, but unfortunately we must rush these Bills through the Senate without sufficient time to study them. We know that in the other place the Bills were debated at some length. I realise that if amendments are carried the Bills will have to go back to the other place before it rises.

Firstly, I refer to the Wool Marketing (Loan) Bill. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill, but we would like to emphasise that it provides for a loan at current interest rates and is not a contribution by the taxpayers. We appreciate that some time ago we passed a Bill that imposed a levy on growers of about 5 per cent which, under current production and with the reserve price set by the Australian Wool Corporation, should bring to the Corporation approximately $50m a year of growers’ money. Consequently, it will be only a matter of time before the growers ‘ contributions will be sufficient for the operation of the Wool Corporation. Of course that will take a few years. In the meantime the Government is lending $200m which the Corporation can call on, as it requires to carry out the floor price scheme. We believe also that the Corporation should, whenever possible, be encouraged to borrow its money from the private sector because if growers’ contributions in the future are to be sufficient to operate the whole of the marketing arrangements, no doubt the Corporation should be able to get its money from wherever it desires and not be subject to any government interference. We would prefer that opportunities be given to the Corporation to look to lenders other than the Government for loan money. Because the growers will in time contribute all that is required to operate this scheme, we believe that there should be little government interference in the operations of the Corporation. That is why we have moved so many amendments in the

Senate that are aimed at taking away Government directions and control and leaving control mainly in the hands of the industry.

During the Committee stage I will be moving amendments to various clauses of the Wool Industry Bill. We will be opposing clause 5 of the Bill which is aimed at expanding the membership of the Corporation. It may be that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) can explain why he wants to have an extra member and why he wants greater control over the membership. However, to save time I think we can deal with this matter at the Committee stage rather than now. We seek to amend other clauses. At this stage I state that the Opposition has consulted all sections of the industry to ascertain their views on this matter. I must say that the Australian Wool Industry Conference, which is the major body controlling the interests of wool growers in Australia, agrees with the amendments that we will be putting forward.

The wool industry is going through a very difficult period at present. We know that in many cases the returns to growers are below the cost of production. We hope that the returns will improve to such an extent in the future that this great Australian industry will be able to operate on the buoyant basis on which it operated for so many years. Whilst the wool industry may not be as important to the Australian economy and our overseas funds as it was in past years it is probably still the major contributor, taken over a period of years, of all industries to our overseas funds. Because 95 per cent of our wool is sold overseas and only 5 per cent of it at the most is used locally the industry has always been in a position in which it has been dependent upon the state of the economy of the purchasing countries and has always been in difficulty in Australia because of the high cost structure at home. It is one of the few industries that cannot pass off its costs because of the high export factor.

We believe that the Australian Wool Corporation has a tremendous job to do. We are endeavouring to see that it can function in such a way that it will be able to do all it can in the interests of the wool industry, which encompasses not only the wool growers but also many other people. In fact the whole nation is eventually involved in the prosperity or otherwise of the wool industry. We believe that the industry itself should decide on and have the major say in what should happen and how it should conduct its marketing operations and that it should not be under the direction of governments or that it should be as little as possible under the direction of governments. I will not hold up the Senate any further at this stage. I will be moving a number of amendments to this Bill at the Committee stage of the debate. I will have a lot more to say then about why I am moving them and why the Opposition believes that the amendments are necessary. Suffice to say that we of the Opposition agree with a great deal of what is contained in the Wool Industry Bill (No. 2).

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– In brief terms I point out that I am pleased to support the essentials of this Bill. I congratulate the Government on the support it is providing to the wool industry by way of loan funds at a time when it is needed in perhaps greater measure than ever before. I have looked at the proposed expanded powers of the Australian Wool Corporation and I have seen a number of factors which I would like to see attended to in Committee. However, I will support the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in the major aspects of the Bill in general, in the way in which the members of the Corporation will be selected and in other aspects which seek to expand the marketing potential of the Corporation itself. Further than that I think it is a matter for the Committee to discuss the various amendments which will be proposed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- I believe that it is unnecessary at this stage to say a great deal, but I wish to restate the confidence that the Government has shown in the wool industry through this legislation. The more specific matters will be dealt with at the Committee stage of the debate. The only point that Senator Maunsell made on which I wish to comment is that the Australian Wool Industry Conference supports the amendments which are to be moved to this Bill by the Opposition. I have some reservations about that aspect which I do not wish to spell out in any detail. I believe that the consultations which took place between the Government and the AWIC before this legislation was drawn up were such that the legislation reflects the agreement which was reached between the Government and the Australian Wool Industry Conference with the one exception of the right of the AWIC to agree to the use of any surplus moneys from the market support fund. The Government, of course, moved an amendment along those lines in the House of Representatives and that has already been incorporated in this Bill. Otherwise I believe that the Bill reflects accurately and faithfully the agreement reached with the AWIC. I suggest that we proceed to the Committee stage of the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Membership of Corporation).

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– The Opposition will oppose clause 5. We do not see why an extra member should be appointed to the Australian Wool Corporation. Whilst there are provisions within clause 5 with which we agree- for example, that there be a rotation of the membership and that all the members should not be elected at the one time- we are concerned that if this clause is passed certain members of the Corporation will be replaced before their term is due to expire. I say that particularly in view of speeches made in the other place by supporters of the Government. I refer to the Minister for Northern Development. Because of statements made concerning certain members of the Board, we believe it would be very bad at this stage anyway if confidence in the Corporation was destroyed by removing certain members. Also we do not see why, in the short term- when I say in the short term I mean maybe four or five years- when the growers themselves will have contributed the necessary funds to operate the reserve price scheme, the grower members should be subject to selection by the Minister. If the industry is to have so much financial involvement in the operations of the Corporation, we believe it should have the right to select its own members of that Board without having to submit a panel of names from which the Minister can choose whomever he desires. We believe that the bad features of this clause outweigh the good features. At no stage have we heard why a special member or a new member with special qualifications should be appointed. We do not know what special qualifications are required. We do not have any idea of the type of person the Minister has in mind. Consequently in that case we believe that we should not extend the composition of the Board. We believe it is sufficient as it operates at present. We will oppose clause 5.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– Not all of the Opposition opposes clause 5.I do not. I think it is reasonable that the renovation of the constitution of the Australian Wool Corporation in this fashion is reasonable in view of the Government’s support of the industry. While the industry will put in proportion of the funds which will be employed in market support, as Senator Maunsell has said, the Government certainly is taking some risk in what it is doing. I believe it is reasonable for the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) to ask for the alterations he is seeking to add expertise to the Corporation and to increase its ability to perform its functions which are expanded by this Bill. I have confidence in the Minister. I believe that within his province he would appoint men whom he believed were good for the industry. I believe he would do that and that he would put any other consideration in second place. I do not think there is any honourable senator in this House who could say otherwise. We know that legislation is made to cover a long period of time but one cannot look too far ahead. We cannot secure all the future options that all parties in this chamber would like. After free and frank discussions with the Minister- I am sure such discussions are available to any member of the Senate- I am willing to vote for this measure. I do not believe it is reasonable for the Senate to refuse him this clause. Before honourable senators vote lightly on this matter, following party lines, they ought to consider what they are doing in relation to the furture efficiency of the Corporation and the growers welfare. I say that after considerable thought about this point. I believe that rejection of clause 5 will lower growers prospects in the future. I say no more than that.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I believe I should support the elimination of this clause. I recognise the wishes of the Minister in this case but I think that of essence the Australian Wool Corporation must be a very independent commercially based operation if it is to work for the greater benefit of this immensely important industry. Probably it is the only industry in Australia in which we produce the most and the best of the product. Whilst there is some reason for the changes proposed in the Bill in the establishment of the Corporation personnel, on balance I do not believe they are justified. I believe that in reality they ultimately could make the Corporation very little more than the tool of the Minister and the Department. That would not be in the interests of the industry, certainly not in the interests of the Corporation as an independent and responsible trading organisation.

I see no real reason for increasing the number of men on this Corporation body, nor can I see the logic behind the suggestion that the Minister should have the capacity to literally continue asking the industry to keep on submitting names until he finds four that are acceptable to him.

After all, this Corporation has an immensely important job to do and in the long term- by that I only mean annually- is referrable to the Australian Parliament. Surely that is sufficient control. I do not believe there is any unreasonable licence contained within the manner of election to the Corporation or in its powers. I must indicate that I support the maintenance of the formation of the Corporation according to its former accepted manner.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I want to comment very briefly on the remarks that have been made. The purpose of the clause is to provide the Corporation with an additional person who has special qualifications. It is important to recall that when the Corporation was formed by the previous Government the majority representation of the growers was taken from them by that Government. That was not done by this Government. The growers had four of the nine members of the Corporation. Prior to that growers had a majority on the old board of the Commission. The purpose of this clause is to give the Corporation added expertise- the term used by Senator Hall and I believe correctly used- in view of the Government’s very significant financial involvement in the wool industry, which this legislation extends to $350m. It is only reasonable that the people controlling the destiny of the wool industry should be people with the necessary competence and people divorced from sectional interests. That is the reason this clause is being inserted.

I refer now to the method of selection. The proposal is to allow the Minister- that does not mean only myself but any subsequent Minister of any government- the right to make a choice from the names submitted as grower representatives. That principle is not being established in this legislation; it was established by the previous Government as a method of selection to the Australian Meat Board. The methods being used under this legislation are exactly the same as those initiated by the Liberal-Country Party Government in respect of the meat industry. I repeat what Senator Hall said. Honourable senators ought to think carefully about voting on this measure. It is not designed to enable the Corporation to be stacked by any Minister; it is designed to allow additional competence and experience to be brought on to the Corporation for the benefit of the wool industry.

Question put:

That clause 5 stand as printed.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Meetings).

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– Following the last division in which the increased membership of the Corporation was successfully opposed, the Opposition does not see any need to extend the number of members required for a quorum. So as far as the Opposition is concerned there is no need now for clause 8.

Question put:

That clause 8 stand as printed.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 9

After section 20 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 20a. (1) Before taking any action that could reasonably be expected to affect the conditions of employment, or the demand for labour, in the wool industry, the Corporation shall consult with, and have regard to the views of, the appropriate trade union organizations.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I move the following amendment to clause 9:

At the end of proposed section 20a. ( 1 ), add ‘and appropriate employer groups ‘.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. Did 1 understand Senator Maunsell to say that he is moving an amendment to clause 9? That amendment is not on the circulated list of amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:
QUEENSLAND

– Yes, it is. It is amendment No. 1 on the list.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is all right. I apologise.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– As indicated by the amendment I have moved, we desire to add to proposed section 20a ( 1 ) the words ‘and appropriate employer groups’. The reason we move this amendment is that we find it very hard to understand why only the trade unions should be consulted in relation to the matters mentioned in this proposed new section. This matter has been canvassed to a great extent in the other place and I do not want to go into all of the arguments. However, I wish to state briefly the main arguments. Can anyone tell me what is the definition of ‘the wool industry’? If the effect of this proposed new section is to allow the Corporation to interfere in operations between the wool growers, for instance, who are part of the wool industry and the decisions of the arbitration court, or between the wool growers and the appropriate trade unions concerned with, say, the shearers award or the station hands award, we fail to understand why the Corporation should get involved in these sorts of operations. We believe in consultation and co-operation, and we feel that if employer groups are included in these things the normal operations will apply. I believe that people in the Australian Labor Party believe in consultation and co-operation. Also we propose to move for the deletion of sub-section (2) of proposed section 20a..

Senator Gietzelt:
Senator MAUNSELL:

– I do not know whether the honourable senator has read the proposed sub-section, but it reads:

The Minister may give to the Corporation such directions in writing as he thinks necessary in connection with the performance of the duty of the Corporation under sub-section (1).

That proposed sub-section clearly provides for government interference in the operations of the Corporation, particularly if it is going to be concerned with directions in relation to what trade union organisations may decide is in the interests of their members. Why should the Minister be able to direct the Corporation to operate in this field? Therefore I move:

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added to proposed section 20a (1 ) (Senator Maunsell’s amendment) be added.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R. E. McAuliffe)

AYES: 26

NOES: 24

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– We oppose this proposed sub-section. I have already moved that it be deleted.

Senator Walsh:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, may I just ask a question? Are we to be asked to vote on this without any reason whatsoever being given by the mover of the motion for why it should be deleted?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable senator is in order in moving only that the words be left out. He does not have to give any reason.

Senator McLaren:

– I raise the same point as Senator Walsh raised. This Bill is very important to the wool growing industry of this country. We have witnessed here tonight Senator Maunsell moving certain amendments. He has given no reason to the chamber why he wants these amendments carried. I think in fairness to honourable senators, wool growers and employees in the wool industry whom he mentioned when he spoke very briefly to the last amendment, he should give the Committee and the people involved in the industry some reason for moving this amendment.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– He did.

Senator McLaren:

– He did not. He did not say anything.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I gave the reasons. I said that we do not believe that there should be any direction given by the Minister to the Wool Corporation. As I pointed out earlier, the Corporation, within a matter of time, as a result of a 5 per cent levy on wool growers which will return $50m a year, will be able to finance its own operations. We believe there should be as little Government direction as possible. That is the reason we are opposing proposed sub-section 20a (2) which reads:

The Minister may give to the Corporation such directions in writing as he thinks necessary in connection with the performance of the duty of the Corporation under sub-section (1).

I referred to that earlier when I dealt with the proposed sub-section 20a. ( 1 ). The Government wants this Bill put through in a hurry. This legislation was debated in the other place at great length. I could go through all the arguments that were put in the other place and we could all get up here and have a good old donnybrook. I presume that all honourable senators opposite have read the record of the debate in the other place. The arguments are in the Hansard. All I am doing now is putting the amendment. I have given a brief explanation of the reasons we are opposing proposed sub-section 20a. (2).

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The amendment which has been moved by Senator Maunsell on behalf of the Opposition is, of course, in conflict with the provisions in other Acts which were passed during the time the Liberal-Country Party was in power.

Senator Walsh:

-Section 13(3) of the Wheat Stabilisation Act.

Senator WRIEDT:

-That is right. Powers of direction were given to the Minister in exactly the same way as this power is proposed to be given to the Minister. I am not aware that LiberalCountry Party Governments were averse to giving powers to Ministers under certain Acts when they saw fit to do so and when it was appropriate as on many occasions it is appropriate as it is in these circumstances. This proposed sub-section seeks to do no more than to allow the Minister to ensure that the consultations that are required under proposed sub-section 20a ( 1 ) are held by the Corporation. The need would probably never arise. Nevertheless the precaution is taken to ensure that those consultations will take place. This is even in the 1972 Act which was brought down by the previous Government. If Senator Maunsell cares to look at section 41 (4) of the Wool Industry Act 1972 he will find in that Act power of direction given to the Minister by the previous Government.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– What does it say?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I will read it for you. I thought you would have known it. It reads:

The Minister may, on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth, if he thinks it necessary to do so, give a direction in writing to the Corporation with respect to the operation of the reserve price scheme of the Corporation, and the Corporation shall comply with the direction.

That is a specific power of direction given to the Minister.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That is very different from what you have here.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It is not. It is in respect of a different matter but the power of direction is still clear, and the same applies in this case. It is evident that we are now getting to a stage of sheer obstructionism. No intelligent argument has been put up to justify deleting this proposed sub-clause from the Bill. I suggest that the Senate would be well advised to support the clause that the Government has incorporated in the Bill.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out, sub-section 20a. (2), (Senator Maunsell’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R. E. McAuIiffe)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That clause 9, as amended, be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary .Chairman- Senator R. E. McAuIiffe)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 10 (Market Support Fund).

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

Leave out the clause, insert the following new clause:

  1. After section 28 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 28a. (I) The Corporation shall establish and maintain a fund to be known as the Market Support Trust Account.

    1. Amounts paid to the Corporation in accordance with section 84b shall be placed to the credit of the Market Support Trust Account.
    2. Moneys standing to the credit’ of the Market Support Trust Account may be used by the Corporation for the purchase of wool in the performance of its function or in the payment of advances to growers the marketing of whose wool has been delayed by reason of the exercise of the powers and functions of the Corporation, or may be invested in accordance with section 36 and the accounts of the Corporation shall identify amounts so used or invested.
    3. There shall be credited to the Market Support Trust Account-
    1. income derived from investments made in accordance with sub-section ( 3 );
    2. interest received on advances made in accordance with sub-section (3), less administrative expenses incurred by the Corporation in connexion with those advances; and

    3. amounts representing interest on moneys standing to the credit of the Market Support Trust Account and used by the Corporation for the purchase of wool, being interest at rates determined by the Corporation.

    4. As soon as practicable after 30 June 1975, the AuditorGeneral shall certify to the Minister whether the Corporation has made a profit or incurred a loss as a result of the operations of the Corporation in respect of its reserve price scheme in the period that commenced on 2 September 1974 and ended on 30 June 1 975 and the amount of that profit or loss, and the Minister shall deliver a copy of the certificate to the Corporation.
    5. The operations of the Corporation referred to in subsection (5) shall be deemed to include its operations in connexion with the making of advances to growers during the period referred to in that sub-section, and costs (including valuation costs), losses and receipts of interest (other than amounts credited to the Market Support Trust Account) in connexion with those advances shall be taken into account accordingly and separately specified and in the event of this not being achieved within six calendar months of 30 June 1975 then an interim report on the operation of this account will be presented to the Parliament by the Minister, within fourteen sitting days of 30 December 1 975.
    6. The certificate referred to in sub-section (5) shall not be given until the whole of the wool purchased by the Corporation under its reserve price scheme in the period referred to in that sub-section has been disposed of, and the proceeds of that disposal (including disposal after the end of that period) shall be taken into account for the purposes of that sub-section.
    7. The costs to be taken into account in ascertaining, under sub-section (5), whether the Corporation has made a profit or incurred a loss or the amount of such a profit or loss include interest paid or payable by the Corporation on borrowed moneys used for the purposes of the operations referred to in that sub-section and costs incurred by the Corporation in connexion with those operations that are of a kind that have been approved by the Minister as being storage, handling or selling costs but, subject to sub-section (6), do not include costs incurred by the Corporation in connexion with wool before it is purchased by the Corporation.
    8. If the certificate under sub-section (5) discloses a loss, the amount of that loss, as specified in the certificate, shall be debited to the Market Support Trust Account.
    1. 10) In ascertaining, for the purposes of section 33, the profit or loss of the Corporation for the financial year ending on 30 June 1975, there shall not be taken into account the operations of the Corporation referred to in sub-section (5) or any income or interest referred to in sub-section (4).

    2. If the certificate under sub-section (5) discloses a profit, that profit shall be dealt with in accordance with section 33 as if it were profit of the Corporation for a financial year to which that section applies.

    3. If any moneys stand to the credit of the Market Support Trust Account after the profit or loss certified under subsection ( 5 ) has been dealt with in accordance with subsection (9) or ( 1 1 ), those moneys shall be applied by the Corporation for such purpose in relation to the wool industry as is determined by the Minister after approval has been given by the Australian Wool Industry Conference in writing to the Minister.

This is quite a long amendment but we are merely trying to change the fund from the Wool Marketing Fund to a trust fund. We dealt with this argument on the last occasion this matter was before this House. Debate on this Bill has taken place in the other place. We believe that there is more security so far as a trust fund is concerned. However, I will not canvass all those arguments now. There is one section of our amendments which we believe is necessary. I should like to hear the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) comment on it. Sub-clause (6) of clause 10 states in part:

  1. . an interim report on the operation of this account will be presented to the Parliament by the Minister, within fourteen days of 30 December 1975.

The Bill as presented to us by the Minister states that a report should be presented ‘as soon as practicable after 30 June 1975’. We believe that the Parliament should know the situation in relation to wool that has been purchased by the Corporation over any length of time. Wherever possible, reports should be made to the Parliament at least every 6 months. I will not pursue this further. We simply believe that a trust fund should be established. I think one of my colleagues wishes to elaborate a little further on this matter.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I want to elaborate only briefly. It is felt that by establishing a market support trust fund we would in fact be tidying up the whole exercise and making it more secure. The fund would become subject to audit and, indeed, it would be putting the holding of 5 per cent of growers’ moneys into a fund which has an identical degree of security to that fund which is set up to maintain the 2% per cent of growers’ moneys which are contributed towards research within the wool industry. This amendment has been moved because we feel it is reasonable and sensible to make this a more watertight compartment by forming what we propose to call a ‘market support trust fund’ to handle the 5 per cent of moneys and that they should in fact be checked and accounted for by a specific date, as indicated by Senator Maunsell, 30 December 1975. lt should be accounted for at 6-monthly periods. We believe this is a worthwhile and sensible amendment. It is little more than an exercise in tidying up and in general it will provide reasonable and proper security.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I do not believe the amendment moved by Senator Maunsell is a wise one. It seems to me it opens up the arguments which were well canvassed in the previous Bill concerning the wool industry which was debated earlier this session. It seems to me to be very much a contradiction that on the one hand we should claim freedom of action for the Corporation in pursuit of its commercial, industrial and wool industry activities and yet, on the other hand, we stipulate that its funds shall be put into a trust fund which will have some disciplinary effect as to how that money can be used. In my assessment it does nothing that more securely ties the funds. There certainly has to be a report as to the usage and dispensation. I can only see this as an inhibiting factor on the freedom of the Corporation in maintaining its commercial operations. For that reason I do not believe that it is a good thing for the Senate to approve this amendment.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– As has been stated the amendment moved by Senator Maunsell has been debated earlier this session. This very same matter was fully debated at the time that the meat inspection levy legislation was brought before this Parliament. The Act already contains sufficient safeguards for the growers. It seems that one has to maintain a constant awareness of the lack of trust that exists between the people who allegedly represent the farmers of this country and the statutory marketing bodies of this country. It seems that these people have an absolute distrust of everybody who is appointed to those bodies. It seems that they distrust every intention of these bodies. Has it not ever occurred to them that the people who operate the statutory authorities of this country are genuine and fair dinkum and want to help the rural industries? Does this not ever occur to honourable senators opposite? They do not trust the people on these statutory authorities. The Opposition wants its own way all the time. It wants to put its own henchmen into positions on statutory authorities as it did under the previous legislation. That is what is really bugging honourable senators opposite. Indeed, honourable senators opposite know that they have an opportunity to put their own henchmen into the positions they would like them to be in, despite the fact that when the Opposition was in power it allowed the wool industry to sink to the depths of despair 4 years ago. That is typical of their attitude. Senator Webster, who is seeking to interject, is a great champion when he gets into the chair. He calls upon people to behave themselves but when he goes back to his own seat he acts like the larrikin he is. The Government will oppose this amendment. We know full well that this amendment has the same purpose as the previous legislation. We have given every protection to ensure that the woolgrowers’ money is properly accounted for and we believe that the clause should stand as it is.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 10a.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– In accordance with the amendments which have been circulated, I move:

Actually, the intention to move for the insertion of this new clause was provisional upon proposed new section 28a being agreed to.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 1 1 agreed to.

Clause 12.

After section 39 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 39a. Without limiting the functions of the Corporation under section 38, the functions of the Corporation include, to such extent as the Minister approves, trading in wool and wool products, acquiring and supplying wool for the purposes of programs of aid by Australia to other countries, and manufacturing, or arranging for the manufacture, of wool products. ‘.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I move:

This clause extends the function of the Corporation and includes the word ‘acquiring’. In assessing the purpose of the phrase ‘acquiring and supplying wool for the purposes of programs of aid by Australia to other countries’, it would seem to me that the word ‘acquiring’ has been really chosen unthinkingly or unknowingly when it is used in relation to a discussion of the wool industry, because the word ‘acquistion’ has a particular meaning to those who have discussed wool management and wool buying in Australia. It would seem to me that the use of the word ‘acquiring’ in clause 12 does little, if anything, for the purposes of this phrase which is concerned with programs of aid by Australia. If the words acquiring and’ are left out of the phrase the clause would read: ‘supplying wool for the purposes of programs of aid by Australia to other countries’. Of course, other provisions in this amending Bill and in the Act give the Corporation power to buy in all forms, but of course not the power to acquire as is somewhat inherent in this clause. I believe that the Corporation would not use this power in any untoward fashion, but because of that fact and the fact that it frightens some people, I have moved the amendment.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– The Opposition will support Senator Hall in this amendment. We believe that the clause has connotations that worry a lot of people. Provided that the Corporation can secure wool, which it no doubt can through the reserve price scheme- under that scheme it buys in wool- I believe that it will be able to supply any aid programs without this word ‘acquiring’ appearing in the Act.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

- Mr Temporary Chairman, the Government will oppose the amendment because the word ‘acquiring’ is in the clause for a technical reason. It is unfortunate that it is being confused with the term ‘acquistion’ which certainly has some emotional connotations in the wool industry and to a lot of people in the wool industry. But the word ‘acquiring’ in this clause is not used in that sense. Honourable senators will find that the word ‘acquire’ is used in other sections of the Act, but no one could possibly interpret it to mean acquisition.

Senator Devitt:

– A compulsory taking

Senator WRIEDT:

-That is right. It is not intended to be that way. The word ‘acquiring’ in this context means obtaining wool should the Corporation deem it necessary to do so. I believe it is unfortunate that there is a genuine misunderstanding in this case as to the meaning of the word ‘acquiring’. But, nevertheless, irrespective of what one’s interpretation is, the Government will oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I move:

This amendment is linked with a subsequent amendment to clause 13 in which I will move to delete the words ‘process or’. My intention is not to give to the Corporation the power to become a manufacturer or processor of wool or woollen products in its own right. I do not see the purposes of the Corporation extending into that industrial field. If that is a necessary requirement in some future market situation, the Minister of the day can come back to this place and ask for that power to be given to the corporation. But at this time it seems to me to be quite outside the purposes of the Corporation and can be seen as a threat to the institutions and industrial organisations in Australia today which very efficiently and carefully have built up, over 100 years, very efficient wool processing plants. I do not think it is necessary to antagonise them by including in this legislation definitions which are not needed.

Senator Webster:

– You cannot be a socialist.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am sure that the honourable senator wants to widen this debate, but I will try not to do so. However, I thank him for his help.

Senator Primmer:

– It goes a bit too far, does it not?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– No, I did not say that. It is only a matter of time and place. I do not think that I have to expound on this amendment very much. It is not my philosophy that the Corporation should go into the industrial processing of wool or woollen products. However, it could very well be a requirement that the Corporation can arrange for the manufacture or processing of wool or woollen products. I think one can visualise that the Corporation could have stocks of particular types of wool left on its hands at particular time of the season, which could be quit only by processing. If that is the case, the Corportion should have the power to arrange for treatment or manufacture. But that is quite a different proposition from the Corporation proceeding to treat or manufacture in its own right.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– The Opposition will support Senator Hall in this amendment. We do not see the necessity for the Corporation to get involved in the processing of wool. I know that there are difficulties in certain areas, and as far as the United States market in the future is concerned it may be that we will have to process our wool to a certain stage in order to enter that market to any great extent. Wool processing plants in the United States are going out of production. But that processing can still be done under this Bill by the ordinary private enterprise processors within Australia. That is why we will support Senator Hall in this amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Steele Hall’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R. E. McAuIiffe)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 13

Section 40 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I have an amendment which is similar to the previous amendment, but it seeks to delete different words. It has the same basic reasoning, that is, not to give the Australian Wool Corporation the power to process wool but to allow it to have the power to arrange for the processing of wool. It would then not be able to become a processor with its own industrial plant but would be able to arrange for the processing of any stocks of wool that it held for whatever commercial judgment it made. I move:

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– The Opposition will support the amendment.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The Government will not oppose this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Clause 16 (Payment to Corporation of proceeds of marketing levy).

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– The Opposition’s proposed amendment to clause 16 is now unnecessary. We will not proceed with it because we were defeated on a previous amendment which makes this amendment redundant.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18

Section 90 of the Principal Act is amended by adding al the end thereof the following sub-section:-

  1. A report under sub-section ( 1 ) shall refer to any directions given by the Minister under sub-section (2) of section 20a in the year to which the report relates. ‘.
Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– Because we have taken out proposed section 20a (2) we believe that clause 18 now becomes redundant.

Clause negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3232

WOOL MARKETING (LOAN) BILL (No. 2) 1974

Consideration resumed on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3232

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 December on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-The Opposition will be taking a certain course of action with regard to the National Health Bill (No. 2), which contains some proposals with which we concur and other proposals to which we are opposed. At the appropriate time in Committee we shall be voting against some of the proposals in the Bill. The Bill which we are considering has, briefly, 5 proposals within it. There is a proposal which will lead to control by the Minister for Social Security over the health insurance funds in this country; there is a proposal which will increase the subsidies for nursing homes; there are proposals which will correct anomalies with regard to handicapped children’s payments 9nd which will widen the provision with respect to surgical aids and medical aids and applicances; and there is a proposal which provides for an extension of full approval rights for certain friendly society dispensaries.

As I have said, the Opposition supports part of this legislation. The parts to which it is opposed relate to the unnecessary ministerial control that is sought to be gained over the voluntary health insurance funds in this country and the additional provisions which relate to friendly societies. The Opposition has on various occasions in both Houses of this Parliament and in the Joint

Sitting of both Houses of this Parliament indicated that it is totally opposed to the Government’s proposed national health scheme. Because some of the proposals contained within the National Health Bill (No. 2) are related to the voluntary health funds and are some of the steps which would have to be taken by the Government in the implementation of its proposed scheme we have maintained the attitude which we have repeatedly stressed, that is, that we are opposed to the introduction of the proposed scheme.

It has been suggested that the Government intends to introduce the new national health scheme on 1 July of next year. It has been of interest to us that there have been discussions between the Government and the voluntary health associations with regard to the insurance funds acting as agents for the Government in the paying of medical rebates under the Government’s scheme. It has been noted that within the last few days the health funds have indicated to the Government that they would not be prepared to accept the Government’s offer and would refuse to act as agents in the way suggested. We understand that some 60 private health insurance funds have decided to reject the offer from the Government to act as agents. We realise that this must place in question the commencing date of the Government’s national health scheme, but we can understand the attitude of the health funds because to have accepted the agency requirements of the Government would have been to place at risk the independence of the health funds and the way in which they have functioned as bodies for voluntary contributions and benefits which have been developed from time to time.

I want to refer to some of the matters dealt with in the Bill itself. I want to reiterate the support that was given in the other place by the Opposition spokesman on this subject with regard to the nursing home and handicapped children ‘s payment. We support and congratulate the Government for widening the provisions with regard to surgical and other appliances, which will be of personal assistance to those people who will benefit from them. I believe that it is fair to say that we welcome the recommendation to provide for a standardised form of assistance throughout Australia and also the move for some form of standardisation of equipment. There is need for careful cost control in any benefit of this type which is offered. I and the Opposition spokesman on this subject in the other place would be interested to hear what the Government’s proposals are with regard to cost control of the benefit which is now to be offered.

We have adopted certain attitudes with regard to the provisions concerning the friendly societies in Queensland and South Australia. We will be talcing a course of action in the Committee stage of the debate which will make it clear that we do not support the extension which has been offered through this provision of the Bill to those friendly societies. We do not wish to go through in detail at any great length the matters contained in the Bill. The Bill already has been dealt with by our colleagues in the other place. In general terms I wish to indicate, at this stage of the parliamentary session, that we will support the positive proposals for assistance contained within the Bill, that we will very strenuously reject the proposals for the control by the Minister for Social Security of the health insurance funds and that we will give our support to the other proposals, as I shall indicate in the Committee stage of the debate. I feel that it would be of assistance to the Senate if we could take this Bill into Committee and deal as expeditiously as possible with the matters to which I have referred as I understand that this Bill is required. The clauses which we will be voting against and on which we will be dividing are all related to the attitudes we have adopted with regard to the health insurance funds and the other matters concerning the friendly societies. With those brief comments, I indicate the course of action that we will take in Committee; that is, to reject those 2 proposals and give our support to the others.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– in reply- I do not want to speak at any length on this matter. The Government regards all of the provisions of the Bill as being integral to the Government’s purpose in establishing a national health scheme throughout Australia. We believe that it was part of the mandate on which we were elected to office. I do not think that any purpose is served at this time in going into the matters to which Senator Guilfoyle has referred in detail. They will certainly be raised again in the Committee stage of the debate. I think that it would be much to the Senate’s satisfaction if I were to leave the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill at this stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 2 1 -by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 22 and 23- by leave- taken together.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-I wish to speak quite briefly to clauses 22 and 23, which refer to applications by organisations for registration as medical benefits organisations and hospital benefits organisations. The Opposition will be voting against these clauses. They are related to the attitude which we have adopted to the attempt by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) to gain control of the medical and hospital benefit funds. We will seek a division on clauses 22 and 23.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:

– Have copies of the proposed amendments been circulated?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– There are no amendments. We simply seek a division on these clauses. We will be voting against them. The Clerk has a document showing the stages at which we wish to divide.

Question put:

That clauses 22 and 23 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator D. M. Devitt)

AYES: 23

NOES: 25

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 24 and 25- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 30- by leave- taken together.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-The Opposition opposes clauses 26 to 30 inclusive. As I mentioned earlier, they relate to the health funds and I require a division.

Question put:

That clauses 26 to 30 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator D. M. Devitt)

AYES: 23

NOES: 25

Majority……. 2

Clause 32 (Reimbursement of registered organisation in respect of amount standing to debit of special account).

AYES

NOES

Question put:

That clause 32 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 25

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 33 to 35- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 36 (proposed new Part VIa).

Question put:

That clause 36 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38.

Section 9 1 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-The Opposition would like to see clause 38 taken in sub-clauses for the reason that the Opposition -

Senator Wheeldon:

– On the advice of the learned Clerk, we do not accept the proposition that the clause be taken seriatim, by sub-clauses.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:

– So the Committee is addressing itself to clause 38 in its entirety.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Perhaps I should take a minute or two to explain the reason we have asked that this clause be dealt with in subclauses. I understand that it is competent for the Temporary Chairman of the Committee to rule that a clause may be dealt with by sub-clauses.I believe that it would be in the interests of the Government to accept the proposition that this clause be dealt with in sub-clauses, because if the clause is referred to it will be seen that clause 38 (a) deals with section 91 of the principal Act and is related to the deletion from sub-section (3) of the words ‘under the age of sixteen years’ wherever occurring. That sub-clause is acceptable to the Opposition.

I may point out that sub-clause (b) is quite a different matter and has no reference to subclause (a). It is simply in clause 38 because it also is referred to in section 91 of the principal Act. These are quite unrelated matters. If the Minister is prepared to accept that these 2 sub-clauses be dealt with separately, I indicate that the Opposition would concur with clause 38 (a) but we would be voting against clause 38 (b). If the Government is unable to proceed in that way, we will have no alternative but to vote against clause 38 entirely.

Senator Wheeldon:

– If I may intervene, Mr Temporary Chairman, after further discussion with my advisers, I indicate that the Government will accept the proposition that the clause be taken seriatim.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN To put the matter in its proper perspective I ought to ask the Committee whether it would agree to taking the clause in the manner suggested, that is, subclause (a) and sub-clause (b) separately. Is leave granted for the Committee to deal with clause 38 (a) and clause 38 (b) separately? There being objection, leave is not granted. Therefore the Committee will be dealing with the clause in its entirety.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Was a vote called for?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– There was a vote against the proposition. The Committee did not agree.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– With great respect, Mr Temporary Chairman, you did not call for a vote. You asked for leave to deal with the sub-clauses separately and you said that you were going to have a vote. The Minister said that he was agreeable to the sub-clauses being dealt with separately. Then you asked the Committee whether leave was granted, and some honourable senators on the Government side said ‘no’. So, with great respect, I think you should do what you said you were going to do.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Drawing on the knowledge and the assistance of the learned Clerk of the Senate, it was put to me that the proper procedure would be for the Committee to give leave for the sub-clauses to be dealt with separately. The Committee did not give leave to do that. I am left in no other situation than to rule that the clause be dealt with in its entirety.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Perhaps you would be agreeable to put the matter to the Committee again, Mr Temporary Chairman.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I would be quite agreeable to that proposition. I want to meet the wishes of the Committee. I ask the Committee whether leave is granted to deal with clause 38 (a) and clause 38 (b) separately. There being no objection, leave is granted. We are therefore dealing with clause 38 (a). I put the question: ‘That clause 38 (a) be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 38 (a) agreed to.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I indicate that the Opposition is opposed to the proposals in clause 38 (b). These are the proposals to which I referred earlier which have reference to friendly society dispensaries and give an extension to the friendly societies which is not acceptable to the Opposition. We will oppose clause 38 (b).

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I urge the Committee to accept the proposals outlined in clause 38 (b) of the Bill. What is suggested by the Opposition has resulted from nothing more or less than pressures from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, spearheaded in the Senate by one of the Opposition senators who owns a pharmacy. This is entirely wrong. The friendly society pharmacies do and have done over the many years, and will continue to do over the many years, a wonderful job of work . for the people in the area in which they operate.

Senator Webster:

- Dr Grimes, is it?

Senator MILLINER:

– Hello, the ignorant Chairman of Committees is at it again.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Milliner will address the Chair.

Senator MILLINER:

– The reason that the Pharmacy Guild is able to put pressure on the Opposition to move in this direction is because the friendly societies do not belong to the Guild. Let us take the situation of a pharmacy operating in an area in which a friendly society is operating. After the Pharmacy Guild chemist closes a person who wants a prescription filled has to go to an all-night chemist which may be located some miles away. But the friendly societies, as a general proposition, are always available for the people. If it is the intention of the Opposition to restrict the work of the friendly societies in this direction then it is going to do something which is not in the interests of the people. I go a step further and say that the friendly societies give rebates to people who have their prescriptions made up with them. Chemists, of course, do not like that.

Opposition senators are the people who are pledged to support competition, but when competition is in the interests of someone who is not a member of the Pharmacy Guild the pressures of the Pharmacy Guild prevail. The Opposition proposes a retrograde step, and the people of Australia will be the ones who will suffer if this proposition is carried. I have been in this chamber only about 7 years, but I have never seen such sloppy arrangements as are being presented by the Opposition tonight. At one time today it proposed to refuse to give the Bill a second reading. That attitude changed. Subsequently it proposed to oppose all of the clauses in the Bill. Of course, that attitude changed. Now we are presented with a series of amendments. The other day honourable senators opposite were chiding the Government with not being competent to run the affairs of government. I ask: What is the situation in regard to this Bill? We now have amendments coming in, whereas earlier we were told that there would be no amendments moved to the Bill whatsoever. I ask the Senate to carry clause 38 in its entirety. If it fails to do that it will be playing into the hands of the Pharmacy Guild and it will be taking action which will be against the interests of many people in Australia.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-Mr Temporary Chairman, I claim to have been misrepresented. Is this the right time for me to make a personal explanation?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented by something that Senator Milliner has said?

Senator TOWNLEY:

– Yes, I do. Senator Milliner said that what the Opposition is suggesting in relation to clause 38 (b) of the Bill represents an attack on the friendly societies which is being spearheaded by someone in this chamber who owns pharmacies. That is just another indication of how Senator Milliner comes into this chamber ill prepared. He also said that that person is a member of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. I am not a member of the Guild.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator, you are proceeding on the assumption that he was referring to you.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-Yes, I am presuming that he was. He has been very wrong in a lot of the things he has said about my ownership of pharmacies in the time I have been in this place. He somehow claims to be an expert when very often he does not know what he is talking about, and this is another case in which he showed he did not know what he was talking about because he indicated that I was a member of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. I am not. I have not spearheaded any of these amendments. In fact I did not know what amendments were proposed by the Opposition. I can see Senator Milliner chuckling. I did not know what amendments were going to be suggested this evening by the Liberal Party Opposition until about half an hour ago. I had no amendments of my own nor would I have suggested any amendments of my own. It is interesting to note that in all the votes that have been taken on this tonight I could have remained out of the chamber and the results would have been the same. Senator Milliner was very sloppy- I think that was one word he used- as he often is. He is a sloppy person and the research he has done tonight has been sloppy and he has misrepresented me.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I will not take a good deal of the time of the Committee but a couple of points mentioned by Senator Milliner should be answered. First of all, there has been no confusion about the Opposition’s attitude to this Bill because the attitude was made clear in the other place when it moved as an amendment that the following words be added to the motion that the Bill be read a second time: whilst not opposing the positive sections of the Bill which relate to nursing homes, handicapped children and surgical appliances, this House is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted -

Here are the critical words- to omit those provisions which relate to unnecessary ministerial control over health insurance funds and the additional provisions which relate to friendly society dispensaries.

So if there has been any confusion, it is in the mind of Senator Milliner because what is clear is that we have not been moving amendments; we have merely been opposed to the passing of certain clauses. I think that is probably the origin of the confusion which obviously existed in his mind. In respect of the idea of competition- as a Liberal I do pay heed to the principle that we ought to be encouraging competition- I point out that friendly societies are now largely commercial trading bodies which at the moment enjoy certain competitive advantages over private pharmacies, and in particular they enjoy certain tax advantages. I for one would support a general review of the law which ensured that private pharmacists and friendly societies were put in an equal competitive position, and then I would agree that some of the restrictions which at present exist on the expansion of friendly societies might well be removed, but until there is equality of competition, until the taxation laws apply equally to both bodies, I would suggest that the comments that have been passed by Senator Milliner are totally irrelevant to the present debate. I support the omission of the clause from the Bill which would widen the unfair competition which is at present faced by private pharmacists.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I wish to reply very briefly to what has been said by some Opposition speakers. The purpose of clause 38 (b) is to retain the number of existing friendly society pharmacies. We think it would be most disgraceful if the friendly society pharmacies- they are small in number and do provide services for many people who would not, in the past at any rate, have been able to afford to obtain pharmaceutical goods without the existence of friendly societies- were to be destroyed through the introduction of a national health scheme. I would be interested to know what suggestion could be made as to how the same sort of taxation provisions as are applied to a private entrepreneur could be applied to a cooperative of the nature of friendly societies which conduct pharmacies. I think this is contrary to the encouragement to which lip service is paid by most governments which would be content at least to say that they were in favour of cooperative enterprises. I believe that the Opposition should be clear about what it is saying here. It is saying something which is consistent with the whole theme of its approach to a national health scheme. The Opposition Parties believe that health services ought to be conducted for profit, whether it is by a private medical practitioner, a private hospital or a private pharmacy. What we are trying to do in this case is to encourage the sort of thing which they have said in debates on other Bills in relation to social welfare which have come before this place ought to be encouraged, namely private initiative. Although it is not private enterprise in the ordinary sense of the words ‘co-operative enterprise’, it is private initiative. I am informed that according to the Commissioner of Taxation- I know he is not held in very high regard by some members of the Opposition, or at least by one of themthere is no differentiation in taxation as between friendly society pharmacies and private pharmacies. That is what the Commissioner of Taxation informs us. I know that reflections were cast last night on the Commissioner and I hope that we will not hear the same reflections cast on him again this evening. If the argument of the Opposition Parties is that there is some differentiation in taxation, all I can say is that my advice from the Commissioner of Taxation is that this is not so. We do believe in co-operative enterprise as far as health is concerned. We do not believe that health is something which ought to be in the hands of private enterprise for individuals to make private profits from, and for that reason we are opposed to the deletion of sub-clause 38 (b).

Question put:

That clause 38(b) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 25

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 43- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3238

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I wish to introduce an important Bill. I wish to have it on the record. It is the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill 1974.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Has the question that the Senate do now adjourn been negatived?

Senator MURPHY:

– No, I am speaking to it. I seek leave to introduce the Bill.

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

page 3238

CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES INDUSTRY BILL 1974

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Pursuant to the leave granted this day I bring up a Bill for an Act relating to corporations and the securities industry. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the securities industry in Australia to operate on a sound basis with an effective system of controls administered nationally by a commission to be called the Corporations and Exchange Commission. More specifically the Bill aims to maintain, facilitate and improve the performance of the capital market in the interests of economic development, efficiency and stability. This is in accordance with the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange.

The introduction of legislation to establish a commission such as the one provided for in the Bill was promised in the policy speech of the Australian Labor Party prior to the election in December 1 972. One of my first tasks on becoming Attorney-General was to put in train the preparation of the legislation. The Bill has been tailored to the requirements of the securities industry in Australia. Many of the provisions are derived from existing State and Territory legislation. But a number of changes have been made. As the classic example of a Securities and Exchange Commission is to be found in the United States of America, due regard has been paid to the laws and practices in that country. In some areas proposals have recently been made in the United Kingdom and some of those proposals have commended themselves for inclusion in the Bill. In other areas the Bill has taken the opportunity to implement changes recommended by the reports of the Company Law Advisory Committee, which was under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Eggleston.

The Bill is a lengthy one and it covers a wide range of complex matters. In its consideration of those matters my Department has been fortunate in having assistance from eminent persons from the United States of America. In the early stages of the preparation of the Bill valuable assistance was provided by Mr Sol. Freedman, a former senior officer of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Later on we were indeed fortunate to obtain the assistance of Professor

Louis Loss, Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of an authoritative work on the securities industry in the United States. Professor Loss submitted a report setting out his comments in the light of American experience. On the 12 September 1973 1 tabled that report and invited comment on it to assist in the preparation of legislation that would be suited to the needs of Australia.

Professor Loss’s report was followed by the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, which was tabled on 18 July 1974. The Senate Committee’s report revealed a disquieting state of affairs in the way in which the securities industry was being conducted. The Committee’s main finding, which underlined the need for the present Bill, was that there was a need for the immediate establishment of an Australian Securities Commission to regulate the securities market in Australia and the conduct of those engaged in that market. The Senate Committee’s report has been studied closely, and changes have been made to the draft Bill that had already been prepared in the light of the matters discussed in the report and the recommendations made by the Committee.

The many detailed provisions of the Bill cover a wide range of important matters and deserve close consideration before they are passed into law. With this in mind I am introducing the Bill now at the end of the present sittings so that its provisions can be studied during the recess and the reactions and comments of interested organisations and members of the public made known. My Department has already had the benefit of much useful discussion and consultation with the stock exchange committees and other interested organisations and individuals. They have been generous in the time they have given to the task of assisting to formulate legislation that will be workable and effective. I hope that all interested persons will now take this opportunity to study the Bill and to make their comments to the Government. For its part the Government will give close consideration to any representations made to it and will make amendments where that course appears to be desirable. The aim will be to get the best possible legislation- legislation which will provide protection for the interests of investors and restore confidence in the capital markets of this country.

The Bill deals with a wide range of matters that are currently contained in the companies legislation of the States and Territories, and it therefore represents a first step towards the objective of national companies legislation, to which the Government is committed. Other matters of company law, being matters that are not so closely related to the conduct of the securities industry, will be the subject of a further National Companies Bill, which I propose to introduce next year. The further Bill will be integrated with the one I am now presenting so that the 2 Bills together will then make comprehensive provision on a national and up to date basis for both company law and the control of the securities industry.

When I moved in the Senate on 19 March 1970 for the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange I referred to the series of company crashes that had occurred in the 1960s and to the widespread evidence of improper practices during the speculative boom in mining shares in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I drew attention then to the fact that members of the public had been induced by false rumours to buy shares, that inside trading was rife and that self-regulatory bodies seemed either powerless or unwilling to act to protect the public against this and the many other market abuses that were prevalent at the time. I have heard it said that the boom time in which these market abuses prevailed is over and that there is no point now in introducing legislation which will merely lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. It would be quite irresponsible for the Government to proceed on such a short-sighted view. The need remains for effective legislation which will, so far as practicable, prevent a recurrence of such abuses at any time in the future. Before indicating the nature of the main provisions in the Bill I shall say a word or two about some of the basic requirements for such legislation.

The need for national legislation

The report of the Senate Committee on Securities and Exchange drew attention to the need for the securities industry to be subject to national legislation rather than legislation of individual States and Territories. The report made it clear that the securities industry functions on an Australiawide basis, and that control on any other basis is bound to be inadequate. The requirements of the law and the administrative procedures should be the same throughout Australia. The persons responsible for the administration of such legislation must have direct access to information in all parts of Australia. In addition, there is the consideration that there are many large corporations operating across the Austraiian continent for which the need to comply with the requirements of separate State and Territory laws involves pointless frustrations and unnecessary costs.

Uniform State and Territory legislation is not the answer. That approach has been tried and failed. Efforts to achieve uniformity are invariably slow, and seldom more than partially successful. Even where uniformity has been achieved problems arise from differences between the separate administrations of individual States and Territories. The only satisfactory course, and the course which is adopted by this Bill, is national legislation, and a single administrative agency with jurisdiction throughout Australia.

The need for continuous reform of the law

One of the problems we have had with company and securities law in Australia has been that the need for changes in the law has occurred more rapidly than the responsible legislatures have been able to make those changes. It has become increasingly evident that it is just not enough to have an expert committee examine certain aspects of company or securities law once in every 15 to 20 years or so. There is a need, which was recognised long ago in the United States and in the First Interim Report of the Eggleston Committee, for an expert body with continuity of existence to be charged with a responsibility for seeing that the laws are kept up to date at all times. There are many matters of detail with respect to which the expert body should be trusted and empowered to make rules of its own having the force of the law. It is sufficient for Parliament to have a power of disallowance over such rules. In other matters of more fundamental importance the expert body should be responsible for submitting reports recommending changes in the law which it considers desirable.

The need for a preventive approach

The experiences of recent years have made it clear that it is not sufficient for legislation with respect to securities to prescribe rules and provide remedies that are available when those rules are broken. All too often the remedies prove to be worthless, either because the trail of the offender is well-covered or because he has placed his assets beyond the reach of the persons who have been defrauded. There is a need for more emphasis to be given to the prevention of fraudulent conduct. The Bill that I now present recognises this need in a number of ways, but mainly in providing for the establishment of a strong administrative agency, which will have access to relevant information and effective powers to intervene where intervention appears to be desirable.

The self-regulatory role of stock exchanges The management of a stock exchange in Australia is in the hands of a committee elected from its members. The Committee has responsibility for a range of matters including the admission of new members, the disciplining of members who act improperly and the listing of securities to be traded on the market of the exchange. The Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange found that in the discharge of those regulatory responsibilities the stock exchanges in Australia had been ‘seriously wanting’. In fairness to the exchanges I hasten to add that the situations they had to deal with during the boom years were anything but normal. But the fact remains that the Senate Committee’s report has shown very clearly the need for some changes to be made in the self-regulatory roles of the stock exchange committees.

Criticism of the stock exchange committees should not overlook the fact that the committees perform valuable functions. But there is a need for the committees to be brought under some degree of surveillance by an official body representing the public interest generally. In the United States of America this has been recognized. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been given what has been described as a ‘lookingoverthe shoulder’ role. That is to say, the immediate day to day management of an exchange remains with that exchange, but the Commission is responsible for ensuring that the rules of the exchange are satisfactory, that those rules are properly enforced and that generally the exchange is conducted with due regard to the interests of the public.

The present Bill provides for a similar role for the Corporations and Exchange Commission. In doing so the Bill recognizes that the stock market of a stock exchange is like any other market in the sense that it is a place where the public may buy a commodity- in this case securities of corporations. The public needs protection as it does in any other market, and the protection should be provided by appropriate laws coupled with a strong administrative agency representative of the public interest.

The need for prompt and adequate disclosure by corporations

Legislation cannot protect the individual against his folly or lack of judgment in the making of investments in securities. But there is a need, which the legislation should recognize, to ensure that the investor has access to information which is both relevant and up to date. It should not be overlooked that the funds of public companies come from the public. Relevant information should not be regarded as the exclusive property of the controllers of such companies. There is, in particular, a need for the financial position of companies to be properly disclosed in its accounts, for information concerning matters significantly affecting a company’s prospects to be promptly made available and for the identity of the persons beneficially entitled to major shareholdings to be ascertainable.

The need to prohibit undesirable market practices

The report of the Senate Committee on Securities and Exchange disclosed a number of undesirable market practices. Practices such as market manipulation, insider trading, short selling and dealing in undesirable conflict of interest situations, to name a few, are referred to in the report. They need to be dealt with effectively by the legislation if public confidence is to be restored in our stock markets.

The need for proper examination of prospectuses

It is also clear from the report of the Senate Committee on Securities and Exchange- if indeed it was not clear before the report- that there is a need for prospectuses by which the public is to be invited to contribute funds towards companies to be subjected before issue to a more through examination by the administering authorities than has been the case. The lack of adequate investigation into prospectuses during the boom years plainly led to millions of dollars being subscribed by the investing public for worthless ventures. Apart from the inevitable losses to the individuals concerned, this involved a substantial misallocation of the country’s resources.

The need for appropriate investigatory powers

If one thing has been made clear in recent years it has been that the existing methods of investigating the activities of companies and the conduct of their officers is altogether too ponderous. All too often reports that are made following investigation action do little more than provide a record for history. It is of the utmost importance that company investigations be made in good time and that they are no longer impeded by the irrelevancy of state boundaries. In recognition of this fact the present Bill contains provisions which will enable the Corporations and Exchange Commission to act quickly and effectively throughout Australia in the conduct of investigations.

The provisions in the Bill

It will be convenient now for me to indicate what is provided in the Bill. Having regard, however, to the length of the Bill, and to the comprehensive explanations provided in the explanatory memorandum I have circulated, I shall confine my present observations to some of the more important provisions.

The Corporations and Exchange Commission

The Commission will be a body of high standing with a positive and on-going role in a wide range of matters with respect to the securities industry. It will be a body corporate consisting of 5 full time members appointed by the GovernorGeneral for terms of years. A member of the Commission will need to be qualified for appointment by virtue of knowledge of, or experience in, industry commerce, economics, law or public administration. He will have to make public disclosure of his financial interests. Specific duties of the Commission will be:

  1. to ensure adequate protection of investors,
  2. to maintain surveillance over stock exchanges and the holders of licences,
  3. to enforce the Act,
  4. to make relevant information available to investors and other interested persons,
  5. to conduct research,
  6. f) to develop and facilitate opportunities for persons to participate in the ownership and control of Australian industry by means of collective investment schemesand in particular to conduct an inquiry into such schemes as soon as practicable after the commencement of the legislation.
  7. to promote the establishment of a national stock market, and
  8. h ) to recommend amendments to the law.

Corporations that are public companies will have to register with the Commission and keep the Commission informed of prescribed matters. The Commission will be able to supplement this information by using powers which enable it to require information to be furnished on an ad hoc basis. The Commission will also have power to nominate an officer to attend meetings of the directors, members or debenture holders of a company. In general the records of the Commission will be available for inspection by the public, but documents of a truly confidential character will be treated as such. The Commission will have a rule-making power, which will be generally coextensive with, but subordinate to, a regulationmaking power of the Governor-General. Before the Commission makes a rule it will be required to give not less than 30 days public notice of its intention and to invite interested persons to make submissions. Either House of Parliament will be able to disallow a rule made by the Commission.

Control over stock exchanges

All stock exchanges will be required to register with the Commission. The rules of a stock exchange will have to comply with requirements in the legislation. In particular, the membership of an exchange will have to be open, without unreasonable restrictions, to any person who is the holder of a dealers licence. The Commission will be responsible for ensuring that the rules of each stock exchange make satisfactory provision with respect to the matters mentioned in the legislation. If it appears to the Commission that they do not, the Commission will be able to require appropriate changes to be made. In the last resort, if the need arises, the Commission will itself be able to make a rule to give effect to a proposed change.

A stock exchange will be required to report to the Commission each month and set out details of complaints made to it concerning the conduct of its committee, employees and dealers. The report must also state the action taken in respect of the complaints and the result of the action. Where the Commission considers it necessary or desirable for the protection of investors or in the interests of the public it will have power to prohibit trading in a specified security for up to 2 1 days. Any such action by the Commission may be cancelled by the Governor-General, who will have a power of his own to prohibit trading on a stock market. The Governor-General will be able to prohibit either all trading on a particular exchange or trading in a particular security. He will be able to exercise that power for such period as he thinks fit.

I would expect that neither the Commission nor the Governor-General would find it necessary to exercise these powers except in very special circumstances. But it is necessary that the legislation provide the powers and thereby avoid any possibility, however remote, that a stock exchange might deliberately refuse to take action of its own accord after the need for such action has been established.

The Commission will be able to nominate one of its officers to attend any meeting of the members or of the Committee of a stock exchange.

The officer is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard on any issue, but he will not have any voting rights. If a stock exchange fails to enforce its rules, the Court will be able, on application by the Commission or by a person affected by the failure, to give directions requiring due enforcement.

Licensing requirements for persons conducting business in the securities industry Licensing requirements will apply for the following 4 classes of persons: Dealers; dealers representatives; investment advisers; and investment representatives.

The power to grant suspend or revoke these licences is vested in the Commission. A licensee, and also a financial journalist, will be required to maintain a register of his interests in securities of corporations and to keep this register open for public inspection. Dealers will be required to keep appropriate accounts and the Commission will be responsible for ensuring that those requirements are properly complied with. The accounts will need to be audited by auditors registered with the Commission. A dealer will not be permitted to deposit documents of title of a client as security for a loan to the dealer unless he gives his client 3 days notice and complies with relevant requirements in the Bill.

Prohibition of certain conflicting roles

The report of the Senate Committee on Securities and Exchange made it clear that it is undesirable that dealers engage in certain classes of activities which lead to conflict of interest situations. While it is plainly not practicable to ensure that dealers conduct their businesses in such a way that conflict of interest situations never arise, certain restrictions are desirable. The approach of the Bill is to prohibit dealers from engaging in certain activities which would be bound to lead to undesirable conflicts. In addition, the Bill requires a dealer to make disclosure of his interest when a conflict of interest situation does arise.

Particular attention has been paid to dealers who are members of a stock exchange. These are the dealers to whom the general investing public resort to have their dealings transacted. They provide the public market. There is a need to ensure that the members of the public have access to dealers who will, as their agents, attend to their transactions for them free of conflicts of interest. In dealing with persons who are not members of a stock exchange, for example, merchant banks, the client is normally an institution or a sophisticated investor who is better able to look after his interests and less in need of protection from the law. A dealer who is a member of a stock exchange is required by the Bill to give his clients’ orders priority over any transactions he is permitted to carry out on his own account.

The Bill also provides restrictions on the right of such a dealer to engage in trading as a principalincluding trading on behalf of an associated person, and causing or procuring an associated person to deal. The only forms of trading as a principal that will be permissibleapart from trading in accordance with regulations or rules or with the consent of the Commissionwill be:

  1. transactions in the ordinary course of trading on the stock market of a registered stock exchange, and
  2. transactions with a person, other than an associate, whose ordinary business or a part of whose ordinary business is or includes the purchase or sale of securities.

I would not wish the exemption in favour of floor trading to be taken as an indication that such trading does not need to be controlled in the public interest. I envisage that the Commission will give close attention to this form of trading and make rules forks regulation.

The practice of stock exchange dealers holding directorships of listed corporations has long been a matter of concern. A director inevitably acquires information about his company which is relevant to the value of its securities but which he is not then permitted to disclose. Yet in the ordinary course of his business, a stock exchange dealer is expected to advise clients in their dealings in those securities and clients should be able to expect full and unrestricted advice from their dealers. The 2 roles are plainly incompatible, and the Bill accordingly prohibits a stock exchange dealer from being a director of a listed corporation.

The right of a stock exchange dealer to act as an underwriter is also to be restricted. The restrictions apply in cases where the dealer has an interest of a specified kind in the corporation making the issue or where he may profit from the issue otherwise than by reason of acting in a professional capacity. Another provision prohibits a dealer-underwriter, whether or not he is a member of a stock exchange, from giving credit to a person to enable him to subscribe for securities the dealer has underwritten. Strong forces generally operate on an underwriter to dispose of all the securities he has underwritten and thereby avoid a shortfall. The giving of credit in such circumstances can be an undesirable means of sales promotion.

Undesirable Market Practices

The Bill contains provisions to deal with a number of undesirable market practices most of which were referred to in the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. The most important practice is probably that of insider trading. This is a practice that is engaged in by persons known as insiders who have access to confidential information of a company. They engage in the practice if, in dealing with the company’s securities, they make use of such confidential information for their own purposes.

The story of the ruthless exploitation of the Australian investing public by corporate insiders during the mining boom is now well documented and it constitutes a sorry indictment of the commercial morality of some Australian businessmen. Other countries like the United States of America have long ago prohibited insider trading and this Bill now adopts a similar approach. The effect of the provisions in the Bill is that an insider is prohibited from dealing in securities while he is in possession of confidential information that would, if it were generally available, materially affect the market price of those securities. For this purpose the term insider covers a wide range of persons connected with a company. In addition to this prohibition the Bill requires directors and officers to make monthly reports to the Commission disclosing any change in their beneficial ownership of securities- irrespective of whether they possessed any confidential and price-sensitive information at the time. These monthly reports will be open to the public and this will enable checks to be made on non-observance of the trading prohibition.

Breach of the insider trading provisions will be an offence with a heavy penalty, and it also gives rise to a civil right to recover damages. It has become clear that some of the worst cases of insider trading in the past have been perpetrated by persons who have covered their traces by engaging in dealings on an Australian stock market through the agency of overseas intermediaries. The Bill makes it an offence for a person in Australian to engage in such conduct except in accordance with the regulations or by consent of the Commission. The Bill also makes it an offence for a person to engage in the practices of stock manipulation wash sales and matched orders and fraudulent by inducing a person to deal in securities. Conduct known as short selling is also prohibited except in certain defined circumstances. The provisions relating to all of these practices are explained in some detail in the explanatory memorandum.

Improved disclosure by Corporations

As I indicated earlier, there is a need for the legislation to ensure that the investor has access to information that is both relevant and up to date. The Bill provides for a number of improvements in this regard. A great deal of basic information about corporations will become available as a result of the registration provisions. These provisions apply to corporations that are public companies and require those corporations to lodge with the Commission copies of their basic documents.

The corporations are required to keep this information up to date. They are also required to lodge their annual accounts with the Commission. Their accounts will need to contain information that has not previously been required. For example, turnover will now have to be disclosed and the directors’ reports will have to deal with the additional matters. These include: directors’ interests, direct and indirect, in the securities of the corporation and in contracts with the corporation; the number of persons employed by the corporation; arrangements made by the corporation for protecting the safety and health of its employees and of the public and for protecting the environment; and arrangements made by the corporation for the protection of its consumers.

Another new provision will require quarterly reports to be submitted to the Commission. These reports will not have to be audited but they will, nevertheless, do much to ensure that the information available to the investing public is kept up to date. The provisions in State and Territory legislation for disclosure of substantial shareholdings have been modified in a number of important respects. For example, the threshold reporting percentage has been reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent of the nominal amount of voting shares. The time for notification under these provisions has also been shortened from 1 4 days to 3 days.

The substantial shareholding provisions are to be supplemented, moreover, by provisions enabling particular requirements to be made as to the persons beneficially entitled to holdings. Such requirements may be made by either the company or the Commission. These provisions will go a long way towards removing problems which are created by the holding of shares in the names of nominees.

Raising of moneys from the public

The control of public offerings of shares and debentures by companies is an important function of the Commission. It is closely related to the question of disclosure which I have just discussed. The Bill contains provisions in this area which are stronger than those of existing law.

An important question to which consideration was given in the preparation of the Bill was whether it would be practicable to define what constitutes an offer to the public. Close consideration was given to the recommendation of the Eggleston Committee, and also to the somewhat similar proposal advanced by Professor Loss. In both cases a definition in the form of a mathematical formula was proposed. The Eggleston Committee envisaged that the number of offerees would be counted; Professor Loss favoured the counting of acceptances. Each of these solutions, however, presents considerable difficulties the nature of which is outlined in the explanatory memorandum. The difficulties are probably similar to difficulties that have occurred to others engaged in law reform in the common law countries, where the concept of ‘the public’ has so far defied statutory definition. Pending further close consideration of the matter, the Bill has not attempted to define in this manner what constitutes an offer to the public.

Prospectus requirements

I shall mention briefly some of the more important changes that have been made with respect to prospectuses. In addition to these changes a number of the recommendations in the Fifth Interim Report of the Eggleston Committee have been implemented.

A prospectus is not to be issued unless it has been registered by the Commission after inquiry and investigation. Before registering a prospectus the Commission is to make such inquiries and investigations into it as appear to be necessary or desirable for the protection of investors or in the interests of the public. It is to refuse to register a prospectus if it is of the opinion that it contains a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular or if there is some material omission.

The Bill provides that if a registered prospectus contains an untrue statement as to a material fact, or omits to state a material fact, the persons responsible for the prospectus are guilty of an offence as well as being liable to pay compensation to a person who subscribed for securities. The civil rights of action for issuing unregistered prospectuses, or prospectuses which contain material misstatements or omissions, have been made more effective. The nature of the changes made appear from the explanatory memorandum.

Prospectuses confined to existing shareholders or debenture holders

Under the existing State and Territory legislation an offer or invitation which is confined to existing shareholders or debenture holders of a company does not have to be registered as a prospectus. Such an offer or invitation is treated as not made to the public. The Eggleston Committee in its Fifth Report concluded that this position was not satisfactory. It recommended that a prospectus be required for offers and invitations to debenture holders and that something less than a prospectus- described by the Committee as a director-proposal- be required for offers or invitations to shareholders. The Bill requires a prospectus in each of these cases. The matter is discussed in greater detail in the explanatory memorandum.

Liability of Underwriters

For the first time in Australia an underwriterbut not a sub-underwriter- of an issue is made liable in respect of the contents of a prospectus.

Oversubscriptions for debentures hot to be accepted

The Bill puts an end to the practice under existing State and Territory law of a corporation accepting oversubscriptions to an issue of debentures if a power to do so has been reserved in the prospectus. This change gives effect to a recommendation of the Eggleston Committee.

Sharehawking

Deficiencies in existing State and Territory legislation in relation to sharehawking were adverted to by the Eggleston Committee in its Sixth Interim Report. The recommendations of that Committee have been implemented in the Bill.

Interests other than securities

Existing company law contains provisions for the control of offers and invitations to the public with respect to interests that are not securities. For the purpose of these provisions an ‘interest’ is widely defined but so as not to include a share or debenture. The main application of the provisions is in the field of unit trusts. It has been widely felt that these existing provisions relating to ‘interests’ are not entirely satisfactory. It has been generally recognised for some time that the law in this area should be amended but there is a clear need for a prior inquiry into the matter. The Bill provides for the Commission to conduct such an inquiry and pending its completion the Bill largely adopts existing law.

Investment Corporations

Another area of existing State and Territory legislation that has been largely adopted without modification at this stage relates to investment companies. These provisions relate to companies that have been declared to be investment companies, and the power to make such a declaration is vested in the Commission. Experience in the United States of America has shown that this is an important area of securities legislation and I envisage that the Commission will give consideration to improved legislation at an early date.

Take-overs

The take-over code in existing State and Territory legislation gives effect to recommendations made in the Second Interim Report of the Eggleston Committee. Having regard to this recent review of the matter, the Bill has, in a large measure, adopted those existing provisions. However, experience since the provisions were enacted has indicated the need for a number of amendments and these have been made. The amendments are discussed in some detail in the explanatory memorandum, and, with 2 exceptions, I shall refrain from referring to them here.

One of the amendments applies, to a greater extent than is presently the case, the principle enunciated in the Second Interim Report of the Eggleston Committee that ‘so far as practicable each shareholder should have an equal opportunity to participate in the benefits offered ‘. The effect of the amendment is that, in the case of a bid for less than all the shares in a company, every shareholder is entitled to accept for the same percentage of his holding.

The other amendment to which I would draw attention provides that during the period of a take-over the offeror or invitor is not to be entitled to acquire shares in the target corporation by transactions on the market. As appears in the explanatory memorandum these 2 amendments are related to each other. The latter provision is in line with the law in the United States.

There can be no doubting the need for legislation of this kind to provide for the securities industry in this country. If ever there was any doubt about the need for such legislation that doubt was finally dispelled by the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. The Bill that I have presented contains a great many provisions that will have an important bearing upon the functioning of our securities industry in the future. I am confident that they will cause the industry to function much more efficiently and with better regard for the rights of investors.

A great deal of careful consideration has already been given to the provisions and I believe that the Bill will rank with the best of securities legislation in the world. But it is desirable that the detailed provisions be subjected to close study by all interested persons before final decisions are made as to the provisions that should go on to our statute book. I hope that the Bill will be subjected to close consideration. But I trust that the consideration will be on a constructive basis so that the best possible Bill can be enacted without any unnecessary delay. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate adjourned.

Notice of Motion

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) I ask for leave to give a notice of motion.

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

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Senate dissociates itself from and rejects the accusations made by Senator the Hon. Ivor John Greenwood. Queen’s Counsel, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, against the Commissioner of Taxation, Sir Edward Cain, and the First Assistant Commissioner, John Curtin.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

page 3247

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Social Security: Purchase of Computer (Question No. 134)

Senator Baume:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What were the reasons given in the request for the certificate of inexpediency’ which enabled a 370/ 168 computer system to be purchased for the Department of Social Security at a cost of $5.4m without public tenders being called.
  2. ) On what date was the request made for the issue of the certificate.
  3. 3 ) On what date was the request agreed to.
  4. On what date was the ‘certificate of inexpediency’ issued.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The proposal to purchase equipment direct from I B M. Australia Ltd was based on two major considerations related to the severe time constraints associated with the Government’s intention to achieve a 1.7.1974 implementation date for the then proposed National Health Insurance Plan.

The first consideration was the need for the equipment to be fully compatible with the Department’s existing I.B.M. computer network. This compatibility was considered essential in order to avoid the need to retrain programmers in new language versions, new control procedures and new operating systems which would otherwise have lengthened the time of A.D.P. application, development and implementation and increased the costs of programming.

Secondly, the time constraints would have imposed an impossible delivery schedule for such large scale equipment if normal open tendering procedure was followed and if sufficient time after delivery was to be available for systems development and testing.

  1. 6 September 1973
  2. 3 October 1973
  3. 3 October 1973

Army Uniforms (Question No. 274)

Senator Sheil:

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

  1. 1 ) Were a sizable quantity of Australian Army uniforms labelled ‘Made in China’ landed at Darling Harbour, Sydney, recently.
  2. Are a large number of Australian Army uniforms marked ‘Made in Japan’, to the value of several million dollars, being held in Australian Army Ordnance Depots.
  3. Are a number of Australian clothing factories which were previously engaged in making uniforms now idle.
  4. Is there a possibility of Army Inspection Service personnel being made redundant due to lack of work.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. ) and (2) No; over many years all uniforms purchased for the Australian Army have been made in Australian factories using for the most part Australian made materials.

To ensure uniformity of texture, colour and shade the materials used for Army uniforms are first purchased by the Department of Manufacturing Industry and then issued to the clothing contractors from Army stores. The same procedure applies to uniforms made in the Government-owned factory.

All woollen and wool mixture cloths purchased for making uniforms have been made in Australian mills. In the case of cottons and other non-woollen fabrics some comparatively small quantities have been imported including some from Japan. By far the greater proportions of these types of cloth, however, has also been produced in Australian factories.

  1. TheDepartment of Manufacturing Industry which arranges the contracts for Service requirements has advised my Department that all of its usual suppliers of uniforms are still tendering for Service contracts. Some of these firms may have been affected by the present conditions in the textile industry but any reduction of workloads being experienced is not due to Service uniforms having been purchased overseas. No such orders have been placed.
  2. Yes.

Electoral: Employment of Candidates (Question No. 294)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards. Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of the Labor Government.
  2. What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
  3. What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
  4. What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
  5. What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1975.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question on Notice No. 302 (Hansard. 31 October 1 974, page 2198).

Inflation and Unemployment (Question No. 324)

Senator Sheil:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister on 28 October 1 974 make several predictions on the economy and unemployment: if so. did he forecast that inflation and unemployment would continue for the next 6 months, both at the present levels and not higher, and then the situation would improve in both areas.
  2. Are these predictions based on the same source of information that led the Prime Minister to tell the nation in May that inflation was dropping and would be down to 8 per cent by the end of 1 974.
  3. What new measures are proposed to cause a marked improvement in the economy at the end of the next six months.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) On 28 October I indicated in the course of a television interview that I did not expect a significant improvement in the prices and employment figures for the December and March quarters. I also expressed the view that measures to improve the economic situation could not be expected to have an impact in less than about 6 months. Comments I have made from time to time on the likely future course of the economic situation have, of course, been made on the basis of the considerable volume of data on economic matters available to me from a variety of sources.
  2. The Government has taken a number of measures to improve the economic situation in recent months and these have been well publicised in the media. The most recent measures were outlined in my statement to the Parliament on 12 November 1974 (Hansard, pages 3341-9). The Government is continuing to watch the economic situation closely and will take further measures as appropriate.

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 363)

Senator Townley:

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

  1. 1 ) Is it possible for the wife of a university professor, who is already in receipt of a sizeable private income, to apply for, and receive, a re-training grant; if so, what means test is applied in respect of such a person.
  2. For how long is a recipient permitted to study under the re-training scheme.
  3. 3 ) Over what period of time can a grant be received.
  4. Is a recipient of a re-training grant eligible to apply for another grant if he, or she, changes his or her mind on the completion of the original re-training period.
  5. Are recipients of grants required to undertake any work in the field for which they were re-trained.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) NEAT is intended to assist persons unemployed for various reasons, those facing unemployment or other persons experiencing difficulties .I,:es in obtaining satisfactory employment. Persons a1 j/ed Ibr training under NEAT may be eligible for training allowances. As under the employment training schemes introduced by the previous Government and in accordance with the recommendation of the Tripartite Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Training, training allowances are not subject to a means test. However, as previously announced, training allowances paid under NEAT arc liable for income tax.
  2. Periods of training are determined according to the length of time needed for a trainee to attain the level of skills required to find suitable employment. Past experience has been that average periods of training are less than 12 months.
  3. Training allowances are paid for the duration of the approved training period subject to the trainee making satisfactory progress.
  4. No. Persons are not eligible for assistance in these circumstances.
  5. Trainees are expected to enter employment on completion of training and the services of CES are made available to assist them find suitable employment. The great majority of trainees enter training related employment, but they cannot of course be compelled to do so.

Indian Ocean: Maritime Reconnaissance Squadrons

Senator Bishop:
ALP

-On 20 November 1974 Senator Drake-Brockman asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, a question without notice relating to patrols by maritime reconnaissance squadrons in the Indian Ocean.

The Minister for Defence has provided me with the following information:

Aerial surveillance patrols are conducted in the wider maritime spaces of the Indian Ocean. These patrols use as appropriate, Western Australian bases of Learmonth and Pearce, as well as others, for example Edinburgh in South Australia.

In addition to the long range maritime patrol sorties specifically tasked for ocean surveillance, some aircraft tasked for coastal surveillance search sufficiently far to seaward to provide additional maritime surveillance data.

The RAAF has increased its long range maritime patrol surveillance activity in the Indian Ocean over the past six months.

Devaluation: Price Increases

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– On 25 September 1974 Senator Carrick asked me certain questions without notice on the devaluation of the Australian currency. The Treasurer has supplied the following information in answer to the second part of the honourable senator’s questions:

As the honourable senator will be aware, the Prices Justification Act was recently amended in order to strengthen the Prices Justification Tribunal and extend its scope. The Tribunal’s additional powers will enable it to make a large contribution in the fields of retail prices and prices of imported goods.

The honourable senator will also be aware that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices appointed on 23 July 1 974 has the necessary power to inquire into and report upon complaints arising from prices charged by private industry.

Thus both the Tribunal and the Joint Committee are in a position to concern themselves with any abuses, in relation to prices charged for goods, which might arise out of the recent re-alignment of the Australian currency.

Overseas Revolving Credit

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 3 1 October 1974 Senator Cotton asked me a question, without notice, concerning overseas revolving credit. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Australian Government is not seeking to negotiate an overseas revolving credit of $ 1,000 million.

Taxation: Surcharge on Unearned Income

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 24 September 1974 Senator Marriott asked me a question, without notice, concerning the surcharge on unearned income. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The 10 per cent surcharge on the tax payable on property income does not apply to persons whose taxable incomes do not exceed $5,000. In respect of those with incomes above $5,000 the surcharge will apply to any part of their income which is derived from interest but not to any pan of their income which comes in the form of superannuation.

Taxation: Surcharge on Unearned Income

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 24 September 1974 Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson asked me a question, without notice, concerning the surcharge on unearned income. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The 10 per cent surcharge on the tax payable on property income of persons with taxable incomes in excess of $5,000 per annum does not discriminate between interest payments by different types of financial institutions and hence does not place building societies at a competitive disadvantage.

Taxation

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 13 September 1974 the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate asked Senator Murphy a question, without notice, concerning capital gains tax and the surcharge on property income. Senator Murphy indicated that he would refer it for consideration to the Treasurer who has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) No. The Government’s decision to introduce a capital gains tax on realised capital gains accruing after 17 September 1974 is based on considerations of equity. Capital gains constitute an increase in ability to pay in much the same way as increases in income in the form of wages, salaries, interest, dividends and rents. It has therefore been unfair that income has borne full tax while capital gains have borne none. Further, taxpayers have been able to manipulate their transactions so as to substitute capital gains for income and thereby avoid taxation.
  2. No. The Bill incorporating the surcharge on the tax payable on property income was introduced in the House of Representatives on 14 November 1974.

Financial Assistance to States

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– On 14 November 1974 Senator Young asked Senator Murphy a question without notice concerning the granting of additional financial assistance to the States. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is the case that the Premier of South Australia has stated that if his State were to receive certain amounts of additional financial assistance, in an appropriate form, from the Australian Government, it would not be necessary to impose certain proposed new forms of taxation. The Premier’s request for additional financial assistance has been given full consideration.

The States have not been ‘overlooked’. The Australian Government’s 1974-75 Budget provided for an increase in the total of payments to the States and the States’ Loan Council programs (which the Australian Government has undertaken to support) of 38.4 per cent. With the increase in funds for welfare housing which has subsequently been approved, the increase is over 40 per cent. General purpose funds (that is, funds to which no expenditure conditions arc attached) are presently estimated to increase by 26 per cent.

Land Tax

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– On 14 November 1974 Senator Steele Hall asked Senator Murphy a question without notice concerning the taxation levied on land used for primary production in South Australia. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is a matter for the State Government and Parliament of each State to decide on what basis land tax and other State taxes should be imposed in that State. Moreover, it in no way follows from the nature of the revenue assistance arrangements between the Australian and State Governments or from the operations of the Grants Commission that tax rates and bases of assessment should be uniform as between the States.

Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 306)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards. Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of the Labor Government.
  2. What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
  3. What, if any, additional staff and facilties have been provided for each such appointee.
  4. What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
  5. What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1975.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister to a similar question asked by him (see Hansard of 31 October 1974. page 2198).

Overseas Investment in Australia

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 31 October 1974 Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following question without notice:

I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister’s pending visit to the United States and other countries to persuade overseas enterprises to invest in Australia. As this seems to be an incredible reversal of Government policy in respect of overseas investment in this country, can the Minister give details of the type of investment that the Government has in mind and the amount of capital that the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to attract from foreign investors?

The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the answer I gave to a similar question asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives on 29 October 1974 (Hansard, pages 2909 and 2910).

Australian Overseas Trading Organisation (Question No. 357)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government intend to create a State overseas trading corporation, or other similar Government body, to engage in trade with other countries on a government to government basis.
  2. Is it prepared to do so without legislation authorising the creation of such a body and without Parliamentary approval.
  3. Have written and oral protests against this proposal been received from represenatives of commercial and business organisations; if so, what were those protests.
  4. Does the Minister intend to advise the Parliament of the details of the proposals.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In a press statement on 7 August 1974, 1 detailed Cabinet’s decision to establish an Australian Overseas Trading Organisation. The proposed Organisation would be empowered to engage in Australian overseas trade with particular emphasis on the development of new markets in the Centrally Planned Economies and the Middle Eastern countries.
  2. The Trading Organisation will be established in accordance with the laws of Australia. It is intended to submit legislation to Parliament in the Autumn sitting.
  3. 3 ) Representatives of major commercial and business organisations have been consulted on all aspects of the proposal and their views have been given careful consideration.
  4. Yes.

International Women’s Year

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 21 November (Hansard, page 2630) Senator Scott asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning International Women’s Year 1975. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am informed that the submission by the Co-ordinating Women’s Group requires elaboration before an assessment can be made. The Australian National Advisory Committee on International Women’s Year has consequently requested more details from the Chairman of the Group.

When this additional information has been received consideration can be given to this particular request in relation to the many other requests for support under the program m for International Women ‘s Year.

Immigration (Question No. 125)

Senator Poyser:

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

  1. In which countries does the Australian Government have Immigration representatives.
  2. What number of migrants were obtained from each of these countries in the past three years.
  3. What requirements must a person meet before an application to migrate is approved.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Officers of the Department of Labor and Immigration are currently in the following countries: Arab Republic of Egypt, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Britain. Chile, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany. Greece. Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya. Lebanon. Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea. Peru. Philippines, Poland, Portugal, South Africa. Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United States of America, Yugoslavia.

In a number of instances officers visit neighbouring countries on immigration matters. In these and other countries where there is no immigration officer permanently located. Department of Foreign Affairs officers are responsible for immigration matters.

  1. The number of migrants obtained over the past three years from each country in which there is an immigration officer/s is as below. Settler migration would not of course, be the total responsibility of all these officers.
  1. Priority is given to the reunion of families i.e. where residents of Australia sponsor their spouses, dependent children, dependent parents, and fiance(e)s. These migrants need meet no requirements beyond sound health and good character.

Other people may be considered for migration having regard to Australia’s national needs. Such persons, or breadwinners in the case of a family, must have skills which are in continuing demand.

In addition they must show that they have the personal qualities that will enable them to fit into the Australian community; are medically fit; have a satisfactory character record; and have a sincere intention of making a permanent home in Australia.

Priority is given to sponsored family members over sponsored friends and unsponsored people.

State Overseas Trading Corporation (Question No. 357)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government intend to create a State overseas trading corporation, or other similar Government body, to engage in trade with other countries on a government to government basis.
  2. Is it prepared to do so without legislation authorising the creation of such a body and without Parliamentary approval.
  3. Have written and oral protests against this proposal been received from representatives of commerical and business organisations; if so, what were those protests.
  4. Does the Minister intend to advise the Parliament of the details of the proposals.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In a press statement on 7 August 1974,I detailed Cabinet’s decision to establish an Australian Overseas Trading Organisation. The proposed Organisation would be empowered to engage in Australian overseas trade with particular emphasis on the development of new markets in the Centrally Planned Economies and the Middle Eastern countries.
  2. The Trading Organisation will be established in accordance with the laws of Australia. It is intended to submit legislation to Parliament in the Autumn sitting.
  3. Representatives of major commerical and business organisation have been consulted on all aspects of the proposal and their views have been given careful consideration.
  4. Yes.

Land Tax in South Australia

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 14 November 1974, Senator Steele Hall asked Senator Murphy a question without notice concerning the taxation levied on land used for primary production in South Australia. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is a matter for the State Government and Parliament of each State to decide on what basis land tax and other State taxes should be imposed in that State. Moreover, it in no way follows from the nature of the revenue assistance arrangements between the Australian and State Governments or from the operations of the Grants Commission that tax rates and bases of assessment should be uniform as between the States.

Financial Assistance to the States

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– On 14 November 1974 Senator Young asked Senator Murphy a question without notice concerning the granting of additional financial assistance to the States. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is the case that the Premier of South Australia has stated that if his State were to receive certain amounts of additional financial assistance, in an appropriate form, from the Australian Government, it would not be necessary to impose certain proposed new forms of taxation. The Premier’s request for additional financial assistance has been given full consideration. The States have not been ‘overlooked’. The Australian Government’s 1974-75 Budget provided for an increase in the total of payments to the States and the States’ Loan Council programs (which the Australian Government has undertaken to support) of 38.4 per cent. With the increase in funds for welfare housing which has subsequently been approved, the increase is over 40 per cent. General purpose funds (that is, funds to which no expenditure conditions are attached) are presently estimated to increase by 26 per cent.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 December 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741205_senate_29_s62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant