Senate
6 April 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1027

PETITIONS

Controlled Logging

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 958 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we the residents of Eden support the controlled logging of the ‘Eden Management Area’ for integrated logging.

That we do so with the addendum that the management of the forest and industry connected with the logging take all care possible with the environment that surrounds Eden, in order to support the principles of conservation and planned management of native forests.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Employment and Training Scheme

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that whereas from 1 October 1974 the National Employment and Training System came into operation; and that at that time the then Government agreed that widow pensioners and recipients of Supporting Mothers Benefit will be in no way disadvantaged . . .’under the National Employment and Training System; and that ‘ for all trainees over 2 1 years and Junior trainees with dependents a full-time training allowance equivalent to the average adult male award wage, which will be adjusted quarterly- at the present time approximately $90 per week’, is to be provided; and that there is strong objection to the reduction in training allowance to trainees under the National Employment and Training System, to be effective from 1 April 1 976, as this places these trainees at considerable financial disadvantage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Members in the Senate assembled will take the most urgent steps to readjust the payments under the National Employment and Training System so that they are equivalent to the average adult male award wage.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Overseas Development Assistance

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 28 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $2 1 m, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

as a matter of urgency, reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote, so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance is spent this financial year to meet the pressing needs of those in the developing countries;

reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP, and

establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Overseas Development Assistance

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 37 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975/76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $2 lm, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

as a matter of urgency, reverse the decision to cut the 1975/76 Overseas Development Assistance vote, so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance is spent this financial year to meet the pressing needs of those in the developing countries;

reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP, and

establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 1027

NOTICES OF MOTION

Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence

Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) Mr President, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the following matter:

The implications for Australia’s foreign policy and national security of proposals for a new international economic order.

Air Navigation Regulations

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I give notice that 7 sitting days after today I shall move:

That the amendments of the Air Navigation Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1976, No. 67, and made under the Air Navigation Act 1 920- 1 974, be disallowed.

Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

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

That there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment for report from time to time the following matter:

The continuing oversight of Australian science policy in the physical, social and life sciences.

The direction, priorities, efficacy, and ultimate application of Australian research and development efforts in the above scientific fields, with particular reference to:

Comparison with other countries of recent trends and expenditures in Australia;

Examination of Federal assistance granted to Australian research and development activities; and

Appraisal of the research and development effort devoted to future energy sources.

page 1028

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1028

QUESTION

EDUCATION EXPENDITURE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Education aware of claims by the New South Wales Teachers Federation that the New South Wales Government is deliberately increasing the size of classes in order to reduce the number of teachers employed in New South Wales schools? I point out that 3000 teachers in New South Wales are already unemployed. In view of the Minister’s constant claim that Federal Government education grants to the States are essentially unchanged, why is the New South Wales Government now claiming that it has insufficient funds to maintain education facilities at the same level as 1975? Will the Minister ascertain the true facts from the New South Wales Premier with the purpose of ensuring that Federal moneys being paid to that State for education are, in fact, being used for education, and advise the Senate accordingly?

Senator CARRICK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As anyone who had been a Minister in a government must know, the moneys given for education must be spent not only on education but also in the categories and programs as delineated under the specific purpose grants. Senator Wriedt ‘s final question, therefore, ought not to have been asked by him in view of the knowledge that he ought to have possessed. The simple fact is that money given to the State must be spent on the programs outlined by the State. If it is not, the expenditure would be identified otherwise. I am not aware what the New South Wales Teachers Federation is saying in this regard but I am aware of certain facts and it is as well that Senator Wriedt should understand them. Because of the undue expectation promoted by the Whitlam Government last year when it instituted investigations into a program for the 1 976-78 triennium and allowed the program for that triennium to be published, thereby giving an indication to the world that what was contained in it would be the items on which money would be spent in the States, the States proceeded with the securing of teachers, including some overseas teachers, on the basis that they would be receiving money in accordance with that 3-year program. It is now history that the then Government abandoned the triennial program, placed it under strict guidelines and took the year 1976 out of the triennium, thereby restricting very severely money to the States. Consequently the plight of the States with regard to teacher employment today is linked directly with the change of pace of the former Federal Government.

It is a sad fact that the gross overspending in the general Budget of this year and the year before by the former Federal Government produced a situation which compelled it to abandon the triennium. From that flowed a situation in which an undue expectation or a belief was built up that teachers would be employed, and overseas teachers were engaged as a result. The fault therefore lies not with the New South Wales Government but with the former Federal Government.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that it is only against the Government of New South Wales that this accusation is being levelled and that only the New South Wales Government and no other State government claims to have been disadvantaged by these conditions? That being the case, I ask again: Will the Minister ascertain whether the New South Wales Government is not receiving, as it claims, sufficient funds to maintain educational facilities at their 1975 level?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am not aware that only the New South Wales Government is making claims with regard to alleged shortages of Federal funds for education. It seems that throughout Australia there is a similar claim. I am not aware that the State Government has failed to spend the money provided, nor am I aware that New South Wales has made the claim that it is not receiving the money allocated in the 1976 education program. However, as Senator Wriedt has alleged that it has made these claims, I will seek information and let him know the situation.

page 1029

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICE APPEALS

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security whether she has seen recent newspaper reports referring to the number of appeals by members of the public against decisions taken by the Department of Social Security which are upheld by the Social Security Appeals Tribunals? It has been said that 70 per cent of appeals have been upheld by the Tribunals. Is this figure correct and, if so, can the Minister explain why it is so high?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The figure given by the honourable senator is not accurate if it refers to appeals which have been dealt with by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. In fact the number of appeals which have been upheld by the Tribunal is closer to 1 1 per cent of all appeals heard. I have seen figures that 70 per cent of appeals are upheld by the Tribunal but this is not the fact. It would be understood by honourable senators that there is provision for appeals to be made to my Department. Appeals can be made to my Department or they can be made to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Specifically in answer to the question let me say that closer to 1 1 per cent of appeals are upheld by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

page 1029

QUESTION

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that since the change of government there has been an apparent increase in racial discrimination? Is he aware that members of the Aboriginal Lands Trust were recently refused service at the Royal Hotel, Wee Waa, New South Wales, and that Mr V. Dobbs, licensee of the Moree Hotel, Moree, New South Wales, has fixed a retail service price at almost double the normal lounge prices for most customers who are black? Will the Minister take appropriate steps to eliminate such racial discrimination?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · VICTORIA · LP

– I am not aware that there has been any increase in racial discrimination since an arbitrary date, namely, the date of the last election. I do not know how anybody could make any assessment as to whether or not there is any such increase. The fact is that legislation on this matter has been passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and there is a man who holds the office of Commissioner for Community Relations whose job it is to investigate any allegations of racial discrimination and, if he finds there are such allegations, to endeavour by consultation and talking with people to avoid the consequences of a practice which all Australians would abhor. I suggest to the honourable senator who asked the question that is does not help the cause which I think he and I both wish to promote- racial harmony in this country- to identify people in the manner in which he has. Why does he not take his complaint, if he believes it to be well grounded, to Mr Grassby, whose job it is to investigate these matters, and ask him to deal with it in the proper way.

page 1029

QUESTION

YENNORA WOOL STORES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: Was not the prime objective of the construction of the wool stores at Yennora to improve the efficiency of wool handling and eliminate the manhandling of wool bales? Did the Government not provide a loan of $ 17m to enable the construction of these stores? Does not this modern facility and ones similar to it in other States, together with the technical equipment available for handling bales, justify an increase in bale weights and therefore a resulting saving to the wool grower? Is this not a vital consideration to an industry which has been under a sustained cost pressure for several years?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have some information on this matter. The statement is rather long but I think it might be of value to the honourable senator. The basic overall objective of the construction of the Yennora wool selling centre was to reduce the man-hours per bale required to receive, warehouse, market and deliver the wool. Mechanical receival arrangements and extensive use of fork lift trucks and low slung bale carrying trucks were developed with this objective in mind. Manhandling of bales was virtually eliminated. During 1972-73, credit facilities amounting to $ 17m were made available to permit the Australian Wool Board to construct the Yennora facility. The money was provided by a consortium of Australian banks under cover of a government guarantee of repayment.

The facilities at Yennora readily permit handling bales of greater mass than those at present entering the store. The aim at Yennora, confirmed as desirable in the light of subsequent developments in the industry, was to progress towards the handling of larger bales. The annual Australian wool clip of some 700 million kilograms is packed in over 4 million bales averaging at around ISO kilograms each. So many of the costs of packing, sampling, marketing and shipping wool are incurred on a per bale basis that an increase in bale size seems a vital measure in mitigating the rapidly mounting cost pressures to which the wool industry has been subjected for some years past.

page 1030

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and refers to a report in today’s Australian Financial Review regarding a Cabinet submission made by Mr Eric Robinson seeking a wide ranging inquiry into the broadcasting and television industry. The report suggests that the Government intends to restructure the Australian Broadcasting Commission by giving representation to commercial broadcasting interests. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government is in fact considering such a restructuring? If it is, will submissions from other groups such as Australian Broadcasting Commission employees, interested community groups and the general public be invited and considered?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the report in the Australian Financial Review. If the report is as the honourable senator states- I accept that it is-it has no basis in truth. The honourable senator should know, as I stated here recently, that my colleague in another place has indicated that he intends to recommend that there be an inquiry. When the Government has made a decision in the matter, it will be announced. I am sure that any such inquiry will allow the fullest representations by the whole community. Until then I suggest that all honourable senators contain their imagination and patience.

page 1030

QUESTION

TELEVISION INTERVIEWS AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. Will you investigate whether television interviews were conducted with Mr Neville Wran, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, on the roof of Parliament House last Wednesday? If interviews were conducted, who conducted them and upon whose authority were they conducted? Was the roof of Parliament House used to defeat the instruction that the inverview room in Parliament House may be used only for interviews with Federal parliamentarians?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall make inquiries into the matter raised by the honourable senator.

page 1030

QUESTION

MIGRANT COMMUNITY SERVICES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. When will the Migrant Community Services Branch of the Department of Social Security be transferred to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no knowledge of any intention to transfer the Migrant Community Services Branch of my Department to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In the Administrative Arrangements which were issued on the formation of this Government the Branch remained with my Department. At present an administrative review is being undertaken by Sir Henry Bland. No recommendation of that nature has yet come to my notice.

page 1030

QUESTION

EDUCATION EXPENDITURE

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Education whether he is aware that the Parents and Citizens Association of New South Wales, perhaps prompted by the Teachers Federation, plans a protest operation in Canberra for Thursday 29 April. Is the Minister aware that the source of concern appears to lie around a 3-year expenditure program in education? Is it not the policy of this Government that such a program will be developed and implemented? Could the concern stem from the Whitlam Government’s abrogation of its commitments to education in the current triennium? Does the Minister feel that pressure is being created by the Teachers Federation on the Parent and Citizens Association to adopt this militant operation? Will the Minister comment on the extremely constructive role normally played by P & C associations throughout Australia, a role not identified with militancy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I shall deal firstly with what I think was the sixth point made by Senator Scott. I think all of us who have been associated with the work of parents and citizens associations throughout Australia, in their Federal and State bodies, will acknowledge the very great work which the associations do. It is non-partisan, non-political work and their devotion to the true objective in education, which is the welfare of the student, is well known. I say that in an unqualified way as one who has had the happiest association with them. I think I am still a member of a P & C association. I am not aware that the Association intends to hold a protest meeting. If the Association has any serious worries at present- I understand its concern- my door is open to it. I would be very happy in the days and weeks immediately ahead to meet the Association at a mutually appropriate time to discuss its problems. I share with it the concern at the splurge and squeeze on education in recent times as a result of the former Government ‘s policies. (Honourable senators interjecting)

Since honourable senators opposite interject, I remind them of the doctrine- why there had to be a squeeze on top of a splurge- put forward by their own Treasurer and supported by Senator Wriedt, who was then Leader of the Government, at the time of the last Budget. This was referred to in the Budget when the former Government said that had it continued its spending this year at the same rate as last year the deficit would have been $5,000m. Honourable senators opposite seem to want me to talk about the splurge and squeeze of the previous Government. The thesis of splurge and squeeze was embodied in that Budget. On behalf of the then Treasurer, Senator Wriedt, when introducing the Budget, said:

In the context of an economy beginning to pick up, a deficit of the order initially projected -

That is $5,00Om- would have been a prescription for accelerating inflation. Its acceptance would have been tantamount to abandoning concern with inflation, discarding our wages policies, condemning the corporate sector to an attack upon its profitability and threatening the future jobs of thousands of Australians . . .

That is the previous Government’s thesis for adopting the stop and go process. I am not aware of any influence by the Teachers Federation upon the parents and citizens associations. I share with both bodies grave concern at the necessity this year and the year immediately ahead of major economies not only in education but also in all great social programs in Australia. It is my Government’s intention to minimise that concern to the full. I repeat the comment I made to Senator Scott earlier: If indeed the Association has a matter which is of concern to it, I invite it to approach me. I will certainly welcome seeing any members of it and hearing their views.

page 1031

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Social Security refers to the recent statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that people who become voluntarily unemployed will not be eligible for unemployment benefits until a period of 6 weeks has elapsed. I ask the Minister, whose Department is also concerned with these payments: Will this period of 6 weeks date from the time a person is voluntarily unemployed or from the time he registers with the employment service? If the former applies, does this in fact not represent a liberalisation of the present rules? If the latter applies, will this not cause considerable hardship to the unemployed person who has attempted to seek employment without the aid of the employment service?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The honourable senator raises 2 questions relating to voluntary unemployment. The first question poses whether the unemployment benefit would date 6 weeks from the date of voluntary unemployment or whether it would date from the date of registration for unemployment. I think it would be understood by the honourable senator that registration for unemployment is required before there is eligibility for benefits. I will look into the question posed by the honourable senator to determine the precise way in which we will interpret the new guidelines.

page 1031

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION IN TASMANIA

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Education aware that a fear has arisen in certain quarters of the University of Tasmania that if the Karmel report on tertiary education in Tasmania is not implemented the Australian Universities Commission funding to our State will suffer severe cuts? Will the Minister give an assurance that these fears are unfounded?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have not heard that assertion, nor can I understand the reason for the association. The matter of the Karmel Committee report relating to post-secondary education in Tasmania is primarily one on which a decision must be made by the Premier of Tasmania, in whose constitutional responsibility the decision reposes. We are in close association with the Premier in that regard. If, indeed, the Premier decides, as it seems he will decide, to proceed then the Commonwealth Government will assist with funding, as it must do anyhow, in a sensible rationalisation which will be, according to our goal, in order to strengthen 2 great institutions in Tasmania- the Hobart University on the one hand and the Launceston College of Advanced Education on the other hand. There will be no link whatsoever with any budgetary situation in this funding of the Universities Commission. We shall await moves by the Premier of Tasmania and shall act then in accordance with the advice I get from my Commission and from my Government. While I am on my feet, I add that we shall be interested also to ensure that, in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government, any persons displaced from the staffs of those institutions will be taken care of. I think that a question asked by Senator Wriedt remains unanswered but I hope to be able to give him an answer in precise terms fairly soon.

page 1032

QUESTION

AGED PERSONS WELFARE PROGRAM

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In directing my question to the Minister for Social Security, I refer to her recent announcement that a departmental working party had been set up to review the aged persons welfare program. Was not a Ministerial working party set up by the previous Government late last year to review this program? If so, has this working party reported? What were the working party’s findings? Why is it necessary to conduct a further inquiry?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I think that probably more working parties have been set up to review aged persons homes in the past few years than have been set up to review any other single issue. The reason I have asked a working party to make some recommendations to me is that it has been brought to my notice that under previous funding arrangements of a four for one subsidy, on which I have spoken before, organisations are now meeting something like 39 per cent of the reasonable building costs for units for aged persons. I have asked a working party to look closely at the funding arrangements as they exist at the present time so that we might come forward in the next Budget with something more realistic that will give support in the terms of the Government’s intentions towards those who are proceeding with the building of accommodation for aged persons. It is true to say that working parties that have been set up both within Government and within voluntary organisations have been looking at these matters. In fact, a long list of reports is available already. But the working party which I have asked to do some work is one which will bring to me precise recommendations with regard to funding support.

page 1032

QUESTION

HALLUCINOGENIC DRUGS

Senator MISSEN:

– In addressing my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, I refer to an article which appeared in the Melbourne Herald on 1 April 1976- possibly an appropriate datewhich quoted a police report stating that a large amount of hallucinogenic mushrooms was being brought into Canberra. The mushrooms, known as ‘blue meanies’ or ‘gold tops’, are found, according to the report, about 130 kilometres from Canberra. The police report referred also to young Canberra people experimenting with a plant known as ‘loco weed’. In view of these developments, can the Minister assure the Senate that added precautions will be taken to see that such delicacies are not introduced to the parliamentary cuisine, bearing in mind particularly some indications of unusual behaviour observed in this place last week?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– I noted the article in the newspaper to which the honourable senator referred. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories are available at all times to analyse any of these drugs. Indeed they are constantly doing so at the request of the State police. However, the question requires an answer on several other points. I noticed the unusual condition of some honourable senators last Wednesday evening. I do not know whether it had any relationship to the subject matter of the question. I would have thought that the condition of members of the Opposition was caused more by the name Harradine than by a hallucinatory drug. The matter concerning the kitchen is a matter for you, Mr President, or for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

page 1032

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND FINANCES

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister in a position to say whether the Queensland Premier, Mr BjelkePetersen, is indulging in sleight of hand in saying that he will forgo $30m in death duties and pick up $60m in Medibank payouts? Is it true that the Queensland Government will receive this Medibank money? If so, does the Minister approve of this type of deceit where Mr BjelkePetersen gives away $30m on the one hand and on the other recoups it plus another $30m in Medibank credits?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am unable to say whether any of the matters raised by the honourable senator are factual. However, I could remind him that apparently the people of Queensland believe that the decisions which are taken by the Premier are in their interests, in view of the voting pattern in that State.

page 1032

QUESTION

WOOL HANDLING DISPUTE

Senator JESSOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and it concerns the dispute between the Storemen and Packers Union and the wool selling brokers which is holding up the movement of wool, with disastrous results on the industry’s economy. Is the Minister acquainted with a reported attitude of the Minister for Agriculture in South Australia? Is he aware that the South Australian Minister for Agriculture is on record as saying that if the wool growers wanted to be paid for their wool they should put their support strongly behind the Storemen and Packers Union?

Senator McLaren:

– I would like to see you lift one of those bales.

Senator JESSOP:

-I could do it better than the honourable senator could. In fact I might be forced to do it before long. I repeat: Is the Minister aware that the South Australian Minister for Agriculture is on record as saying that if the wool growers wanted to be paid for their wool they should put their support strongly behind the Storemen and Packers Union to see that the union’s claims were met by the wool selling agents? Does the Minister agree with the South Australian Minister’s further contention that there is nothing the State Government can do to help the farmers in the present dispute? Is there any action which can or should be taken by the Federal Government which could relieve the plight of those affected by this protracted and irresponsible dispute?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I did not read the statements made by the Minister for Agriculture in South Australia but my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry did. He apparently read them with some degree of amazement. He found it very hard to understand how a responsible Minister could take an attitude like that. It would seem from what is being said about this matter that these sorts of comments are unduly partisan and most unwise. It is the job of a Minister in any parliament to try to represent the public interest. One finds it very hard to see how the Minister in South Australia is representing the public interest.

As far as I am able to judge the facts in this matter, the increase in income of the storemen and packers working in these areas has been substantially greater than the increase in income of the wool growers. In fact, wool growers mostly got a decrease in income, and many of them are almost on their knees financially. The Federal Government is very concerned about this matter, as is Mr Justice Moore who quite recently made some comments about the whole position. What I might do is give to the honourable senator and any of his colleagues on both sides of the Senate who are concerned about the matter, copies of the comments made by Mr Justice Moore. I understand that he is trying to get this matter resolved. From what he has said, he must be as concerned about it as we are. I speak for myself, not for Mr Sinclair, when I say once again that I fail to understand how any responsible Minister can take an attitude like that in regard to this industry.

page 1033

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by saying that on 1 9 February this year I asked the Minister a question relating to a claim made by Mr Lopez da Cruz, Vice-President of the so-called provincial government of East Timor, that some 50 000 to 60 000 people had been massacred by Indonesian troops operating in that country. On 2 March the Minister replied, in part:

In response to its inquiries in Jarkarta, the Government was informed that the figures of 50 000-60 000 mentioned by Mr da Cruz related to victims of the fighting since it first began in August 1975, and that the figures included the 40 000 refugees who fled to Indonesian Timor in August and September . . .

I now ask: From whom in Jarkarta did the Government obtain its information that the 50 000 to 60 000 casualties included 40 000 refugees? Is the Minister aware that Mr da Cruz has repeated his allegation in that he is quoted as saying 2 weeks ago ‘I have told the Press in Jarkarta some 50 000 to 60 000 people have been massacred’, only on this occasion Mr da Cruz seeks to blame Fretilin for these excesses?

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I do not have that information at my fingertips. I will ask my colleague in the other place whether he can supply an answer.

page 1033

QUESTION

WELFARE FUNDS

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I remind the Minister of her re-affirmation, by way of a Press release on 2 April, that $500,000 was allocated for grants in 1975-76 under the special assistance scheme of grants to welfare organisationsknown in the trade, I might add, as the departmental slush fund. Is it not a fact that in the last financial year under a Labor Administration the grant under that item was under-spent by a large amount even though many organisations had applied for money under the scheme and their applications had been received in time? Since eligible organisations are operating now under conditions of financial stringency, will the Minister advise whether any large amounts available under this item remain unspent? Is she able to give an assurance that the available money will not remain unspent at a time when voluntary welfare organisations are in real trouble?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The item referred to by the honourable senator is a fund which is administered jointly by the Treasurer and myself. I can assure the honourable senator that that removes much of the ‘slush’ from it. The Treasurer’s approval must be obtained before I am able to make any payments to organisations in emergency circumstances. I have been able to make grants from this fund to several organisations. I can only assure the honourable senator that applications which are received and which meet the conditions of the emergency fund will receive my consideration and that I will endeavour to obtain the Treasurer’s approval of them.

I remind the Senate that this is one area where the Prime Minister refused to accept savings when we were looking at a review of expenditure, because he believed that the use of this emergency fund for voluntary organisations was an important way in which we could obtain cooperation between voluntary organisations and the Government. I cannot assure the honourable senator that large amounts will remain unspent in the fund but I can assure him that any applications I receive will be given sympathetic consideration.

page 1034

QUESTION

HOME SAVINGS GRANT

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. What constitutional authority has the Government to make home savings grants to single persons, as proposed in the statement submitted to the Senate?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

-The question which the honourable senator has asked is essentially a legal one. I doubt whether the Standing Orders would permit me to deliver any commentary or opinion on the Commonwealth’s legal powers. I will refer the question to the AttorneyGeneral and he will give such reply as he considers the question warrants.

page 1034

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN OPERA COMPANY

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. How much financial support does the Federal Government give to the Australian Opera Company? Does this Company’s schedule include visits to all States? If not- I am led to believe it does not- considering that all taxpayers contribute to the Australian Opera Company’s upkeep, why not?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will have to seek that information for the honourable senator from the Prime Minister.

page 1034

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and I hope that he is as well informed as he was earlier when answering a question asked by Senator Jessop. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to statements made by the Minister for Primary Industry in a speech to the Central Coast Graziers Association concerning beef exports to the United States of America? Accepting that Australia has been joined with New Zealand in the allocation of United States beef shortfall contracts this year, has the Minister’s statement placed in jeopardy Australia’s continuing negotiations to obtain previously exclusive contracts? If so, what action will the Government take to ensure that this lucrative market which yielded additional beef contracts to the order of 23 million lb weight last year and valued at approximately $ 13m will not be lost because of the uninformed and reckless indifference displayed by the Minister for Primary Industry?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am sufficiently well informed to detect once again the usual load of rubbish that comes from Senator Gietzelt in the form of a question and also to say to him that negotiations are taking place on this matter between the Department of Primary Industry and other relevant departments.

page 1034

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– Since questions of varying degrees of importance have been asked by honourable senators from both sides of the Senate, I will ask my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether he will make a statement on this subject.

page 1034

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the recent Government decision to place very severe restrictions on persons seeking unemployment benefits, and as these restrictions will greatly distort the monthly unemployment figures of the Commonwealth Employment Service and therefore render the figures useless as a true indicator of the actual number of persons unemployed, will the Government give urgent consideration to publishing a more reliable set of unemployment figures each month?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I will convey the honourable senator’s question and his reasons for the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and ask him for a reply.

page 1035

QUESTION

WOOL HANDLING DISPUTE

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Social Security aware that 3 men employed by the Dewez Export Co. of Brisbane were given one week’s notice because they refused to pay a voluntary levy of $10 a week sought from members of the Storemen and Packers Union to fund workers sacked in the wool bale dispute in which that Union is demanding a reduction in the maximum bale weight? If the Minister is aware of the news report, does she also know that two of the men, according to that report, do not have other jobs to go to and will join the ranks of the unemployed as from this week? In the circumstances of their dismissal, will these men be eligible for unemployment benefits?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the 3 men who have been referred to by the honourable senator. However, I would point out that a condition of eligibility for unemployment benefit under section 107 of the Social Services Act is that the applicant must be unemployed and his unemployment must not be due to his being a direct participant in a strike. Members of striking unions at the establishment at which the industrial dispute is in force are not eligible for unemployment benefit according to section 107c of the Act. Persons who are stood down at other establishments as a result of the dispute in the first case are to be granted unemployment benefit subject to the normal conditions, irrespective of their union membership. Whilst the honourable senator has asked a precise questionI will obtain an answer on that for the honourable senator- I would point out that the conditions I have just mentioned with regard to members of striking unions are matters that have been upheld by honourable senators opposite on previous occasions. I can only reiterate that these are the provisions of the Act under which my Department works. I will obtain any further information which relates to the 3 individuals concerned.

page 1035

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Has the Government yet reached decisions on the forms and levels of assistance, in specific terms, which will become available to local government? If so, when will details be announced?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-They will be announced when the Government is ready to announce them.

page 1035

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer again to the article, with headlines and photograph, on page 1 of today’s Australian Financial Review relating to the inquiry into broadcasting. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that there is to be a substantial downgrading of the Australian Broadcasting Commission as reported in the article and greatly increased opportunity to the commercial broadcaster? Does the submission mean that there is going to be a severe restriction on the ABC especially in relation to its Country Hour broadcasts and similar programs? Will it eliminate its symphony orchestra programs? Will these matters be left to other interests? I further ask: Has the Minister studied the earlier progress reports of the Senate Committee inquiring into radio and television? Will the Minister urge his colleague to refer this proposed inquiry to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which is already conducting an inquiry of this nature?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As I indicated earlier, it is my misfortune that I have not read the front page of the Australian Financial Review today. Therefore, I am not aware of the content of the article. I repeat, however, that those details as suggested earlier by Senator Ryan are untrue. As to the questions asked by Senator Davidson, it is the clear policy of the Fraser Government to establish and to maintain an effective, completely balanced, comprehensive, fair and objective Australian Broadcasting Commission. Let that be quite clear. It is our aim to have a dual system of broadcasting with a national system and a commercial system as such, and within the national concept to have a completely fair, comprehensive and balanced television and broadcasting system which would operate in a true national sense. Therefore, there will be no substantial downgrading of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. These kinds of rumours, I suggested, should be put to rest. As to all the talk that we would do certain things- cut back the symphony orchestra and cut back in other areas- let me make it clear that this is just-

Senator Georges:

– You have already done it.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, if ever I wanted a canard, a duck on the run, I have it here in Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

– You have done it. We asked a question.

Senator CARRICK:

-I said that talk of cutbacks was exaggeration or was wrong. I repeat what I said in the Senate only some weeks ago: The story that this Government, the Fraser Government, had cut back the Budget of the ABC by $8m is entirely wrong. Of course this is being echoed by Senator Georges now as the typical ‘quack, quack, quack’ of a canard of the Labor Party. The simple situation is that the ABC asked for an extra $7.3m on top of its budget, was refused, and suffered a cutback of, I think, slightly over $lm. The ABC made it clear that it could keep within its staff guidelines and would not have to sack a single member of its permanent staff but could overcome this budgetary adjustment purely through ordinary wastage, particularly of temporary staff. This nonsense, which is the daily trade of the Labor Party- the only thing that it can deal in is rumour- ought to be put aside. The Fraser Government is committed to a thoroughly balanced and fair broadcasting and television system in Australia.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– I ask a supplementary question and refer the Minister to the last question again. Will he ask his colleague, if there is to be an inquiry, whether steps could be taken to refer the matter to the appropriate Senate committee which is already conducting such an inquiry?

Senator CARRICK:

-I am sorry but I thought I was asked by the honourable senator whether I was aware of the progress report. He is aware, of course, that I participated in its preparation. I would be happy to refer to my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in the other place, the work of the Senate Committee and ask him to take note of it in any inquiries or decisions that are made in the future.

page 1036

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. In view of his answer to Senator Davidson that the Government wants the Australian Broadcasting Commission to be fair, balanced and comprehensive, would he agree that it is a matter of opinion what ‘fair, balanced and comprehensive’ means? Therefore, will he give an undertaking that the Australian Broadcasting Commission itself will be allowed to determine whether its programs are fair, balanced and comprehensive?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shows his complete and abysmal ignorance of the Broadcasting and Television Act which, being a legal document and not a document of opinion, compels by law broadcasting and television stations to do exactly what I have said they are compelled to do. It does not leave it to their opinion. The law is there; it is not an opinion, and it is not to be the opinion of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which determines these matters. This Parliament of which we all are members was party to legislation which says that the ABC shall not have an opinion and shall not be the judge of what is fair, balanced and comprehensive but that legislation shall prescribe what is fair, balanced and comprehensive. Let me make quite clear what I said the other day. There is a thorough attempt by the Australian Labor Party to confuse means and ends. The Labor Party keeps insisting that the goal of a statutory corporation should be its independence. That is not true.

Senator Wriedt:

– You differ with Senator Withers on this point.

Senator CARRICK:

– Again, if Senator Wriedt will contain himself, 1 will repeat what I have said. Independence is good and is discharged only if the body exercising it is fair, objective and balanced. If it is not and if it is unfair and biased, independence is wrong. The job of the ABC by law is to produce programs which are balanced, fair and comprehensive, not according to its opinion but as tested by law.

page 1036

QUESTION

KATHERINE MEAT WORKS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. Northern Meat Exporters Pty Ltd has indicated that because of severe financial losses the Katherine Meat Works are not to reopen in May this year and that the opening date of the abattoirs is obscure. I understand that the Katherine Meat Works, because of these losses, possibly could work in liaison with the Wyndham Meat Works. Though this step may be of some assistance, the fact is that if the Katherine Meat Works did not open for the 1976 killing season this would be a further blow to the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory. What is the Government’s attitude to this matter of extreme concern in the Northern Territory?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Northern Territory has informed me that the Government is aware of problems associated with the Katherine abattoir. The delayed opening of the 1976 season has been the subject of Press reports. I am advised that the action of the company was a commercial decision based on the state of the overseas market at the time. I am informed that Mr Sinclair, as caretaker Minister and as the present Minister, immediately on assuming office was in consultation with Northern Meat Exporters Pty Ltd regarding the company’s plans for the 1976 season and the matter of loan repayments. Some of these matters are of a sensitive nature. The type of Government assistance that might be available is continuing to be discussed and the Minister is at present awaiting a further document from Northern Meat Exporters Pty Ltd which may clarify this matter.

page 1037

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORT DRIVERS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services, relates to future employment prospects for the skilled and experienced transport pool in Adelaide. Is it a fact that a number of regularly employed transport drivers in Adelaide are likely to be demoted to storemen positions or otherwise declared redundant? Is it a fact that at the same time as these management changes are occurring, taxi and hire car services are being used for duties formerly performed by these drivers? Are Commonwealth cars formerly driven by these drivers now being driven by administrative officers in other departments in order to save money? Will the Minister investigate this situation with a view to maintaining the longstanding and excellent services performed for all members of the Commonwealth Public Service, and people in the Parliament, by the transport pool?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I have some information on this. I do not have information on the last parts of the question but I will seek to obtain it. The situation at present is as follows: About 70 car drivers are employed in the Adelaide area. Following the program to curtail the use of car transport commenced by the previous Government in September 1975 and continued by this Government, there has been a significant reduction in demands on the Adelaide car pool. In addition, a number of cars on weekly hire with driver have been returned to the pool from the

Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury and the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh.

Driver strength in the Adelaide pool is now in excess of that required for operation at the present work level. Pool work is being issued to taxi and hire car contractors only in the silent hours or when Commonwealth cars are not available during the day. Overtime is severely restricted. Seven drivers have been transferred temporarily to other duties without loss of pay. No car drivers have been dismissed. There has been some normal wastage of drivers. The situation is being kept under close review. I repeat that I do not have an answer to the last parts of the question but I will get it for the honourable senator.

page 1037

QUESTION

DEVONPORT TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister for Education give information on the proposed Devonport technical college? Is the project still on the development list? Have funds been approved? Has a tender been accepted? When is it expected that construction will commence?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do have information. A number of honourable senators, including Senator Archer, in recent days have mentioned this matter to me. I think in November last year the then Government gave formal approval for stage 3 of the project. Tenders were called and have closed. It is expected that a contract will be let in the next few days. The project itself will be of the order of $5.4m. The Tasmanian Government obviously had given this project some considerable priority. It had indicated previously that it would devote an amount of, I think, $778,000-the amount that would have flown to it from the Commonwealth in the period July 1974 to June 1976 for major capital works- to the Devonport Technical College. Since then we have extended the capital project to the end of this year. Some Sl.lm will be available from the Commonwealth to Tasmania for such capital works. My understanding, subject to correction, is that the Tasmanian Government has in mind that some $900,000 of this amount which is available from the Commonwealth will be earmarked for the Devonport Technical College. I am happy to say that the contract ought to be let and that the work should proceed immediately.

page 1037

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Education. I put to one side his insults about running ducks. I inform him that it is a term that may be directed towards him before the end of the session. Is it not a fact that by an action of the Government the Australian Broadcasting Commission is now $8m short of its needs for this year? Is it not correct that as a result of an action by the Government many programs have been cut and many men have been sacked? Will the Minister be careful to state that where permanent members of the ABC have not been dismissed, many men in the category of temporary employees or under contract have been sacked?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– If I am guilty of as many canards as Senator Georges I shall accept the rebuke in the session immediately ahead. The honourable senator’s question discloses another series of canards, one following the other along a path. It is not true that by action of this Government the Australian Broadcasting Commission is $8m short. The contrary is true. Any statutory corporation or government can extend its wants to any figure which it so desires. I think the ABC will be just $ 1.1m or $ 1.2m below its budget. The extra amount which makes up the $8m- from memory it is $7.3m- is sought as an additional amount. I cannot apologise for the fact that the ABC may well find that due to the economic mismanagement of the previous Government its salary and wages bill and costs are so high that it must seek an extra $7m. That must be upon the head of Senator Georges. So it is not correct to say that the ABC is $8m short as a result of action by this government. It is not correct to suggest that any member of the permanent staff has been sacked. I understand that the advice of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is that it will be able to reach its ceilings without retrenching any of its permanent staff. It employs a number of temporary people or people on temporary contract. Upon the expiry of those contracts those people will not be re-employed. So the answer to each of the 3 questions is no, that is not correct.

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Education. In his terms and in human terms, what is the difference between a temporary employee and a permanent employee, especially when the situation relates to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and to many men who have been temporary for many years either under contract or under ordinary terms of employment?

Senator CARRICK:

-I shall be happy to answer. A temporary employee, by definition of the former Whitlam Government, is one of the 350 000 people who, through gross inflation and mismanagement by that Government, were forced onto the rubbish heap. In relation to the several hundred people of the ABC who, through the inflated cost programs of the former Whitlam Government, will be retrenched, let me make this clear: It is humbug for the Labor Party to pretend now that it has solicitude for people who are unemployed. That Party holds the record for having created more unemployment since the great depression of 1932. That Party now gets up in humbug and suggests to the Parliament that it has solicitude for some temporary employees who are to be relieved of their jobs in the Australian Broadcasting Commission. All of those people who are going to be relieved of their jobs bear with them a sacking notice of the former Whitlam Government because of it’s gross mismanagement of the economy.

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask the Minister for Education a further supplementary question: How can he continue to blame the previous Government when he and his fellows during the election campaign made certain promises that they could handle the economy, that they could bring confidence back to the economy and that they would protect the ordinary living standards of Australians? How can the Minister rationalise his blame of the previous Government when he recalls his own promises?

Senator CARRICK:

-If you will allow me, Mr President, to answer a question which bears no relation to the previous question, I should like to say that it is such a puerile question that it does not deserve an answer. It is quite clear that the sins over 3 years of the previous Whitlam Government cannot be undone in 3 months. It is interesting to note that commerce and industry in Australia are cautiously optimistic for the future. Those who created unemployment for 350 000 people can now look towards an efficient job of restoration by the present Government. I repeat that the cost structure of the ABC as it exists today is a cost structure created by the Labor Government of Senator George ‘s philosophy.

page 1038

QUESTION

TASMANIA MILITARY TATTOO

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware that the first Tasmania Military Tattoo has just finished and that it was an outstanding success? Is the Minister aware that it attracted participants of a high standard from various parts of the world? Does the Minister recognise that the Tattoo constituted an event of international significance as well as a major national event? Will the Minister assure the Senate and those now considering the planning of future Tasmanian military tattoos that the participation and assistance of the Commonwealth defence forces will continue to be made available?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-In answer to the honourable senator’s first 3 questions, I give an unqualified ‘Yes’. I have been told by many of my Senate colleagues from both sides of the chamber that the Military Tattoo in Tasmania was an enormous success. I am afraid that in relation to his last question I cannot give the honourable senator an unqualified assurance on behalf of my colleague in another place. However, I will seek it. I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

page 1039

ASSENT TO BILLS

page 1039

BANKRUPTCY ACT

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-1973 I present the eighth annual report on the operation of that Act for the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975.

page 1039

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 1 present an amending agreement in relation to dairy adjustment programs in South Australia (1976).

page 1039

ROYAL VISIT

Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– by leave- Where the personal pronoun I’ is used in the following statement, it refers to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I wish to inform the Senate that the dates for the Queen’s visit to Australia and New Zealand next year will be released from Buckingham Palace today. Her Majesty plans to visit a number of Commonwealth countries in 1977 as part of celebrations to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of her reign. I was pleased to confirm to the Palace in December last, after the Government had been elected to office, the invitation which had been extended at an earlier date by the former Prime Minister.

The visit to Australia will be planned to begin with an arrival in Canberra on Monday, 7 March and overall it is likely to last between 2 and 3 weeks. During that time Her Majesty, who will be accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, hopes to visit each State Capital. The sequence has yet to be decided and precise dates have yet to be settled. This news will be received with a great deal of pleasure. Everyone of the Queen’s subjects in Australia will be delighted to know that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness are able to come again and spend time with us. They will receive a very warm welcome.

The primary purpose of the visit will be to celebrate the silver jubilee of Her Majesty’s accession to the Throne and the Australian people will be pleased to know that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will be able to visit each State- even though their time in each will be limited. In March 1974, Her Majesty was to have made visits to South Australia and Western Australia and was greatly disappointed when her constitutional duties in Britain brought about their cancellation. For next year’s visit the Queen has asked that her itinerary include added time in both South Australia and Western Australia as they have not been visited by her since 1 963. The royal yacht Britannia is expected to be in Australian waters at the time of the Queen’s visit and will be used as Her Majesty’s home wherever possible. It will also be a means of transport and of rest between engagements, as well as being available for hospitality purposes.

page 1039

INCOME TAX INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE AND LEASED PLANT

Ministerial Statement

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– by leave- In view of the fact that the statement which I have to read was made in another place by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) last Thursday evening, I seek leave of the Senate to have the statement incorporated in Hansard

The PRESIDENT:

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

I rise to advise the Senate of the detailed arrangements that are to apply in respect of leased plant that attracts the new investment allowance. There has been a good deal of interest in this matter since it was mentioned in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm

Fraser). In his Press release of 26 January, the Treasurer repeated the broad outline of the Government’s attitude that had been envisaged in earlier policy statements. Briefly, this was that for eligible plant acquired and used under normal leasing arrangements, the allowance would accrue to the lessor. At the same time, it was the Government’s expectation and wish that the benefit of the allowance be passed on to the lessee-user. The Treasurer said then that there would be consultations with finance and leasing institutions and that, once assurances had been received that the benefit would be passed on, the amending legislation would have effect in respect of eligible plant acquired and used under normal leasing arrangements on or after 1 January 1976.

There have been consultations with representatives of the Australian Finance Conference which has been most helpful and co-operative throughout. As well, individual institutionssome Conference members, some not- have made representations to the Government on the matter. It appears from the information that has been put before the Government that, while the institutions are anxious to meet the Government’s wishes in this regard, there would be serious practical difficulties in the way of getting the benefit of the allowance effectively into lessees’ hands if the law were to provide simply that the allowance should accrue to lessors. Cases would arise in which the deductions available to an institution exceed its assessable income in which case there would be no immediate tax saving to be passed on. There could also be other, lesser, impediments to the immediate and substantial flow-on of the benefit to lessees. Very careful consideration has been given to the views expressed by institutions and to the suggestions made by them and others for some alternative form of arrangement.

While the Government is preserving the original concept in that, initially, the allowance will accrue to lessors it will now be modified so as to facilitate and encourage the flow-on of the tax benefit. The modified scheme will incorporate a declaration system under which lessors will be able, where they have reason to do so, to forgo entitlement to investment allowance deductions in favour of lessees. Thus an approved lessor company- a term on which I shall have more to say later in this statement- will have to discuss with its potential lessee how the investment allowance is to be shared between the parties at the time of the financial arrangements under the lease are being settled. An agreement having been reached that all or a part of the allowance is to be passed to the lessee, the lessor will need to furnish written advice of the relevant detailsplant cost, investment allowance claim, lessee’s agreed share- to the lessee. Lodgment of the advice by the lessee with his tax return will establish prima facie entitlement to the agreed deduction, subject of course to the plant transaction satisfying other conditions of eligibility. The lessor, for his part, will be required to lodge each month with the Taxation Office a schedule covering the various lease agreements made during the month to which the investment allowance was applicable. A declaration lodged with the schedule would operate to detach the agreed shares of investment allowance claims from the lessor, and at the same time provide a summary of lease transactions against which the claims made in lessees’ returns could be verified.

The modification of which I am speaking raises some questions as to the valuation basis to be adopted when the investment allowance is claimed by a lessee, the timing of his claim and the rate of allowance- 40 per cent or 20 per cent- at which it is made. Although arguments can be put either way, the Government has decided that lessees along with hire purchasers and outright purchasers should be allowed to claim any investment allowance entitlement that is ceded to them as an outright deduction at the rate ruling at the time the plant in question is installed or brought into use, and on the basis of the full cost of the plant to the lessor.

I have explained that the declaration system is to be introduced in part because of the tax loss situation into which some lessors might find themselves moving. With that contingency provided for, it is only logical that any tax losses that might still arise to lessors on account of the investment allowance- because of a reluctance, say, on the part of lessors to forgo their entitlement to the allowance- should not be available to be carried forward against income of future years. The amending legislation will provide accordingly. Since tax losses resulting from allowance entitlements will not be able to be carried forward by lessors, they will have the more incentive to forgo entitlements. There is, however, no intention to withdraw the availability of tax losses from lessees or purchasers of plant eligible for the investment allowance.

With a concession as generous as the new allowance, there could be some temptation to exploit it for tax avoidance purposes.. The Government is aware that leasing agreements of the traditional kind normally carry provisions against early termination. It considers that some safeguard should be provided in the legislation to prevent misuse of the new allowance for avoidance of tax and to restrict the availability of the allowance to lessee-users who may, for practical purposes, be regarded in the same light as owner-users. It is proposed, therefore, that the allowance will be available in respect of eligible leased plant only where the period of the lease is at least 4 years. This requirement will be reinforced by a further provision that, if for any reason, a lease of plant is terminated within 12 months, other than by the lessee becoming the outright purchaser, there would be an automatic disallowance of the deductions. It is proposed that purchased plant will also be subject to an initial 12 months retention test. There will be a further provision to disallow deductions, in appropriate circumstances, for example in taxavoidance situations where there is a disposal of an interest in the plant, or where the lease is terminated or the plant is sold outside the initial 12 months period.

I referred earlier in this statement to approved lessor companies. The use of this term reflects another aspect of the Government’s concern to prevent misuse of the concession through the establishment of what might be called personal leasing companies by individual taxpayers. To guard against this, the Government proposes that the allowance will be available only where the lessor initially entitled to claim the investment allowance is a bank or other company whose principal business is the provision of finance and is acting at arm’s length from the lessee. This very necessary restriction will cover the traditional kind of plant leasing arrangement under which a lessor selects the kind of plant he needs, and the plant is then acquired by the lessor and leased to the lessee-user. It will equally cover the alternative kind of arrangement under which the prospective lessee purchases the plant outright- using finance provided by the future lessor- and after a short initial warranty or shaking-down period, sells the plant to the lessor who immediately leases it back to him under a standard lease agreement. The full details of the declaration scheme will, of course, have to await the amending legislation which is expected to be introduced quite shortly.

But the Government trusts that the information conveyed in this statement will remove any doubts there may still be as to the operation of the investment allowance in relation to leased plant. If taxpayers do have any unresolved questions, the Commissioner of Taxation and his officers will do all they can to answer them in the meantime. It will now be practicable for the full benefit of the investment allowance to be received by the lessees who are the users of plant, either through lower lease-payments or by direct tax deductions. The Government will keep under review the way the leasing arrangements operate and will not hesitate to take whatever steps are appropriate if it appears that the benefits of the investment allowance are being unfairly withheld from lessees.

Senator COTTON:

-I present the following paper:

Income Tax Investment Allowance and Leased PlantMinisterial Statement, 6 April 1976 - and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1041

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

-Imove:

That Government Business Order of the Day No. 2 be postponed until after consideration of Government Business Order of the Day No. 3.

The purpose of moving this motion is that after consideration of the Australia-Japan Foundation Bill has been concluded we shall then move to consider the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill and, when that is concluded, move to the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1041

AUSTRALIA-JAPAN FOUNDATION BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 April on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– As I stated before general business intervened in the debate on this Bill last Thursday, I shall not speak for very long. The purpose of the Bill is to promote mutual understanding, cultural co-operation and reciprocal education between Australia and Japan and, in so doing, to deepen the long standing close economic links which exist between our 2 countries. I had mentioned, as Senator Button had mentioned before me, that it will not be an easy task to achieve the objectives of this Bill. In seeking those somewhat elusive objectives our efforts could well be sabotaged by such ill considered remarks, such crude threats, as were issued by the Premier of Queensland last year and issued also the year before when in his typically crude and offensive manner he attempted to blackmail the Japanese into accepting Queensland beef as a precondition to being supplied with Queensland coal. In the lucid and succinct prose for which he has become justly noted and justly famous he made this statement:

It cannot continue this one-way traffic as far as selling just- er- our minerals here in this State indeed Australia. We, we’ve got other things and I believe if they need meat and I’m sure they do they should think in terms of their good friends and their good customers in this area where they buy this vast quantity of coal that is so vital to them, that they should think of us to buy our meat, not New Zealand, noterTasmaniaThis is all I’m trying to . . . the message I’m trying to get over to them, they, they recognise that they . . . I’m quite sure.

That was all his own work and all his own words.

Senator Lajovic:

– You have quoted it twice.

Senator WALSH:

– I think it is worth quoting again and again as perhaps one of the most notable examples of the lucidity of the Queensland Premier as well as of the crude manner in which he practises his politician’s art, if indeed it could be called that. In seeking the objectives of this Bill no assistance will be rendered by the comments of other people, like those of Mr Anthony last week when he suggested that, unless Australia made its mineral resources readily available to the Japanese, the Japanese would be very likely to invade Australia, to launch another military attack. It is almost unbelievable that in 1976 a person who has risen to be Deputy Prime Minister of this country could have been so insensitive as to raise that issue, with the attendant dangers of stimulating once again irrational fears not only of Japan but indeed of Asian nations generally. It is hoped that in the last decade or so and in the last 3 years in particular Australia has emerged from that irrational fear and finally adopted a more mature attitude towards the rest of the world.

One realises, of course, that in making that son of statement Mr Anthony is conscious of the personal need that he has to attract attention to himself since it is a matter of common observation to anyone who sits in the House of Representatives or who follows the national Press that the present Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, appears to have a very poor opinion of Mr Anthony’s skills as a parliamentarian and as a politician. It is a matter of common observation that Mr Fraser does not seek any consultation with or advice from Mr Anthony when sitting in the House of Representatives and is in the habit of consulting Mr Anthony’s Deputy Leader, Mr Sinclair. In those circumstances one can understand Mr

Anthony’s fervent desire to attract some attention and to make himself appear to be an important man in the Government. Notwithstanding that very real personal problem that Mr Anthony has, it is to be hoped that he will not continue to exacerbate the problems which will inevitably be encountered in the pursuit of the very commendable objectives outlined in this Bill.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating the AustraliaJapan Foundation Bill 1976. 1 would like to say initially that this Bill, its passage and its consummation, are a tribute both to Sir John Crawford and to Australia’s Ambassador to Japan, His Excellency Mr K. C. O. Shann, both of whom have worked extremely hard to advance the ideas to allow this Bill to become reality. This foundation was announced in August 1975 and it has been acted on quickly. It represents an initiative of major proportions between 2 countries with a lot in common. These are both countries in Asia which are highly industrialised. They are major trading partners, they share common strategic interests and they are 2 great democracies in an area where democracy is not the common form of government. At the symposium on AustraliaJapan relations a couple of weeks ago the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department said:

Improved cultural relations between these 2 countries are no longer an option. They are essential.

If Senator Walsh had wanted to tell us last week that the provisions of this Bill are no panacea he should at least have admitted that the absence of this kind of Foundation would complicate or make more difficult the sorts of objectives which we seek to achieve. In 1972 the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence brought down its report on Japan. Senator Sim, in his most thoughtful contribution to this debate, referred to that report and to the work of that Committee. The report set down clearly that the future stability of relations between Australia and Japan had to be based on cultural and social factors as well as on trade and economic relationships. The kind of stimulus which that Senate Committee report gave is one of the factors leading to the production of this legislation.

In 1974-75 we saw an increasing amount of expenditure by Australia on Japan. In that financial year Australia spent $1.3m on cultural relationships in general. Of that amount, the largest single allocation was on relationships between Japan and Australia. The amount involved, just over $ 1 14,000 was not large enough. However, it was more than we spent on any other country and after 1 974, after the visit of the then Prime

Minister, Mr Tanaka, the Australian Government and the Japanese Government pledged larger expenditures to improve and expand cultural relationships between the 2 nations. If we examine relations between Australia and Japan we find that they rest on the 1957 commerce agreement and on the Australia-Japan cultural agreement of 1974. We hope that later this year relations will rest on the basic treaty of friendship and co-operation, the new umbrella treaty at present in preparation. It was a matter of some pleasure to see during Mr Anthony’s very successful visit to Japan some weeks ago that the instruments of ratification of the cultural agreement were exchanged and that the agreement has become operative.

The Australia- Japan Foundation is separate from the cultural agreement. However, it is supplementary in its activities. It is like contacts between countries to which our Churchill scholars go. We are looking forward to the emergence of this Foundation with its headquarters in Canberra and its office in Tokyo. We only hope that those who already have access to travel grants and money do not turn this Foundation into some kind of extra vehicle for their own enjoyment. Relationships between Australia and Japan have progressed considerably in the last 10 years. For instance, 10 years ago, there was no daily plane flight between the 2 countries. There was no direct air route between the 2 countries. Now one can fly direct to Japan each day. I was in Japan 10 years ago and even then I could notice the acceptance of our country. There are very much closer links today. As of last week it is possible to telephone Japan by direct dialling. As we work together and as our economic relations increase we are finding that there is a greater need to understand and to learn to accept each other. As Senator Sim pointed out, this has to include an acceptance of the undesirable features which we find in each other’s countries. We have to learn to accept each other, to use a phrase, warts and all. It is just not the kind of politeness found at tea parties. It is a capacity to understand and to work with each other through difficult and uncomfortable situations which we will find becoming more common as we work together more closely. The need for this foundation and understanding rests partly on the fact that relations between Australia and Japan are becoming closer. They will become more enduring and will increase in number and complexity.

Senator Button in his rather extemporaneous and cynical presentation talked about trade relations between our 2 countries as being sordid. This was the adjective he used not once but a number of times. He talked about it as a rather sordid relationship. He clearly misunderstands the value of this relationship and his sensibilities seem to have blinded him to the realities of what this means to Australia and Japan. It is true that trade relations are paramount. There is nothing wrong with this. The fact that we have built our relationship on trade has been of benefit to both nations. It is neither dishonourable nor improper. But our increasing trade has meant increasing contact. As trade increases further it must bring with it increasing problems which we must be prepared to resolve.

The degree of interdependence between Australia and Japan is really quite staggering. The Japanese, for their part, are concerned and worried by their undue dependence on Australia for supplies of some of their most basic commodities. I was in Japan just a few weeks ago. 1 talked to officials of the Atomic Energy Commission and to trade officials. They continued to express their concern that so many of their vital raw products came from Australia. They said that therefore they were very concerned that relations between the 2 countries should be stable and that we should each understand what the other country was saying. From the Japanese point of view, they see themselves as a trading nation. They live on trade. They live on buying and selling. But Japan also has to import 75 per cent of its petroleum and 80 per cent of its energy resources. We need to understand this. We need to understand the uncertainty and insecurity which it brings to the Japanese view of the world. We have to understand that in 1974 Japan imported from Australia 82 per cent of its wool, 48 per cent of its iron ore and 37 per cent of its coking coal. I am delighted, as a senator from a great coal producing State, to know that the Japanese want to import a lot more coal from New South Wales to supplement the 20 million tonnes that they can produce each year for themselves. They do not see themselves as increasing their own domestic production of coal with the capacity they have.

Japan relies heavily upon Australia. It takes 84 000 tonnes of our beef, even under present restricted conditions. Japan is the largest regular cash customer for our wheat, taking one million tonnes a year. It is a major market for ferrous metals, a major market for uranium and a major market for all our feed grain. It takes 85 per cent of our coal exports. The trade relationship between our 2 countries is a deep one. In 1949-50 Japan took only 5 per cent of our exports. She now takes 28 per cent of our exports worth $2,400m a year. This represents 6 per cent of all

Japanese imports. In 1949-50 we received from Japan one per cent of our imports. Now 17 per cent of all imports into this country come from Japan. The value of those imports is $1.4 billion and they represent about 10 per cent of the Japanese export market. The joint trade between our 2 countries is the seventh largest intercountry trade in the world.

The intensity of trade between our 2 nations is very high. In fact, Australia-Japan trade, on a per head of population basis, works out at about $150 a year for each man, woman and child in Australia. That is far ahead of the intensity of trade per head of population between any other 2 countries and certainly between Japan and any of its other trading partners. It is important for us to understand our major trading partner, to understand its character, history and traditions. In Tokyo recently I had an opportunity to speak to a number of Japanese and a number of foreigners. Included among these were 2 bureau chiefs of 2 large American newspapers. They made some points to us which are worth repeating. First of all, they said that Japan is unique as a nation in its character and institutions. It is not a Western country. It has the capacity to absorb and take in many cultures but to change them into its own pattern. It is a nation where relationships are built on obligations rather than on rights. In this country we keep talking about our rights vis-a-vis one another. In Japan, the Japanese will consider obligations one to another. If we do not understand this, we may not understand the situation in which we are dealing with Japanese counterparts. It is a nation where much of the major decision making rests with the 35 to 40 year olds who are not the nominal heads of organisations but who are at a lower managerial level. It is a nation where much of the decision making regarding international trade is made through its great trading companies which speak, as it were, as semi-official government bodies.

Recently, a seminar to discuss Australia- Japan relations was held in this city, lt attracted a record number of participants. We were told that Japan is a nation with a rather deterministic view of the world which tends to see things as given and which tends to see the responsibility of the Japanese planner as responding to the situation. It is a nation that appears capable of adjusting to any new realities in terms of its national interest and its understanding of what it can and cannot change. Japan wants us to understand these things so that we can understand what the Japanese are saying, They want from Australia in return certainty and predictability. The thing that they were finding most difficult about the Labor Government which preceded our Government was that they could not depend upon the Labor Government. They could not get a sense of predictability as to what was likely to happen in the time ahead.

One of the problems referred to by many honourable senators during this debate has been the problem of language, the difficulty of understanding each other’s language. If English is the lingua franca in the world today, it is not surprising that many Japanese are learning English at schools and have quite a good working knowledge of that language. The same situation does not apply with regard to our understanding of the Japanese language, a unique and difficult language. But whereas 10 years ago in this country very few schools were teaching Japanese and there were probably fewer than 100 students of the Japanese language in Australian universities in 1975 there were more than 7000 Australian school students studying the Japanese language. There are 77 high schools teaching the Japanese language now. There are 16 universities and institutes of advanced education teaching it. In addition to training in the Japanese language in this country, already we now have over 300 schools in New South Wales, for example, which are now teaching courses in Asian studies which include courses in Japanese culture. If a person wants to get to interpreter level- to get an advanced knowledge of Japanese- that person will still have to go to Japan to the great language schools in Tokyo or the language school in Yokohama which has trained so many of our own people. This Bill will provide one more way to help to improve our capacity with the Japanese language.

I was impressed a couple of weeks ago by a statement by Mr Rowlands from the Department of Foreign Affairs who in an address that he made on the question of cultural exchange between Australia and Japan said:

It is obvious enough that two such different countries, possessing such unrelated traditions and histories, and speaking languages which have no linguistic connection, should have at best an imperfect and limited knowledge of each other. There has simply not been the basis for the sort of instinctive understanding of how the other society works and how it goes about its business, how its people think and organise their affairs, which underlies Australia’s relations with, for example, Britain, the United States, Canada, New Zealand- or indeed all the other countries that share the European tradition and civilisation to which Australia also belongs.

He is quite right. He does highlight some of the problems. This Bill and the existence of this Foundation will help at least to make a start in overcoming those problems.

A journalist working in this country, a Mrs Robinson, a Japanese girl who married an Australian, came here 10 years ago. She told the recent Australia-Japan symposium that when she came to this country her parents wept because she was going, as far as they were concerned, to the end of the world, to an uncivilised land. Their understanding has improved sufficiently that they no longer weep. They envy her for various aspects of the life she has here. When she first came to Australia 10 years ago her hostessesthis is her own story- the people who entertained her, asked her such things as whether she knew how to cope with chicken when it was served to her at meals. They no longer ask such questions. On both sides, that kind of understanding of basic courtesies and basic matters has improved a lot.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is that the lady who lives in the Riverina?

Senator BAUME:

– I believe it is the lady who lives in Sydney and who writes regularly for one of the Sunday newspapers. I think some honourable senators may be aware of the column she produces.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is another lady named Mrs Robinson who lives in the Riverina but who comes from Japan.

Senator BAUME:

– The honourable senator may be correct. I cannot answer that. She made the point to the symposium that she wants to see more personal contact for progress between our two nations in the future. Senator Button, who took a rather cynical view, said that he really did not believe that we were interested in Japanese culture. Well, he is wrong. Japanese culture is fascinating as is Japanese history. The language is an interesting language. It is strange. It is set in a different framework. But it is wrong for the honourable senator to attempt to give it any value. Things which are different are neither better nor worse. They are things which concern us and about which we would like to know more.

Clause 5 of the Bill contains a list of the functions of the Foundation. It is a great pleasure to see that these will include the study of the Japanese language, culture and traditions, the social and political institutions, the economic and industrial organisation, the physical features, climate and ecology and that the Foundation will allow for visits between Australia and Japan.

With regard to cultural exchange, I echo the view put by a recent participant in this seminar in Canberra. He made the point that there was no purpose in limiting cultural exchange to what might be called ‘high culture’. There is not much purpose if from Australia we send nothing else but our string quartets and our ballet companies. While these are a valid part of Australian culture they are not all of our culture, which is broad. He hoped that some of our rock groups would go because they represent part of the Australian culture. He hoped that from Japan we would receive not just the No Theatre or the Kabuki, that we would receive also what is contemporary and modern Japanese culture, that we would take a very broad view and that we would learn something about the problems of Japan and the kinds of solutions which Japan is seeking in response to those problems.

He hoped that we would see the Foundation as operating rather in the way that the British Council operates- non government, rather independent, and taking a broad view of its function. I would find that a most worthwhile suggestion. He would hope- and I would hope- that the recipients of grants would exclude those, including academics generally, who have other access to funds. The people at this symposium, many of them academics, pointed out that they receive salaries and travelling allowances. We hope that people who can make use of the limited funds available to the Foundation will represent the very broadest cross-section of people from our nation. I refer to people who can get to know Japan, get to know some of the ways in which Japan works and how it relates to Australia.

In summary, this Bill will encourage the exchange of people and ideas, hopefully from many walks of life. It will allow research and comparative studies so that we will understand more about our major trading partner, a nation with whom our ties are becoming closer with the passage of each year. It will provide, we hope, a centre of knowledge on Japan-Australian relations. The cost is modest. My hope is that the size of the amount allocated will grow with time. I hope that the provisions of the excellent report prepared by Sir John Crawford will be implemented and that the aims which he sought to have achieved will be realised. I believe that this Bill represents a very fine initiative. It is a worthy venture. It has the support of the Governments of both countries and of all parties in this parliament. Its goals appear to be realistic and practical. I wish it well and commend the motion.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I support this Bill. I believe that it is an important measure to give a broader perspective and thus greater strength to the relationship between Australia and Japan. There are many facets to that relationship other than the economic and commercial ones. There has been very substantial development in recent years, as my colleague Senator Baume has just said. But I believe that our relationship with Japan must be more broadly based. We would be deluding ourselves if we believed that the relationship has the base which it ought to have. This AustraliaJapan Foundation, I believe, will be a first step and by no means the final one in providing a broader base on which a more substantive and stronger relationship between Australia and Japan can be built. There are few nations with which our relationship is more important. At the same time, there are few nations with which our relationship is so narrowly based, particularly when that relationship is founded on trade and commerce- areas in which we know difficulties can occur suddenly and often with devastating effects to the relationship between two countries.

Australia and Japan are nations whose histories, culture and development, I believe, until recently have rarely had much in common, although we have ideals in common expressed through the institution of parliamentary democracy and through the industry of our respective peoples. In recent decades, our histories and our outlooks have increasingly converged. This is partly because we share a common part of the globe. In that time, the relationship that we have built up has been based predominantly on trade and resources. But there are other important factors as I have mentioned already. Other honourable senators have referred to many of those, particularly Senator Baume in his speech preceding mine.

I would like to refer to some other matters, particularly our shared concern for the Western Pacific and the island nations of that region. Both Australia and Japan have considerable interests in the new nations of the South Pacific ranging from Nauru to Fiji. We are both concerned with the role of the United States of America in the Pacific and particularly the nature of its continuing role in the Western Pacific. We are both conscious of and concerned at the possible impact of the Guam doctrine on the area and on each of us. We equally share, though for different reasons, concern at the developments in China and the Soviet Union, their impact on each of us and their impact on the region in which Australia and Japan are. We share an interest and concern in developments in Indo-China and the Subcontinent, areas which both of us see as ones of potential instability. However, in each of those areas, as there is in Australia and Japan, there is a great interest in continuing stability, and that is a fundamental interest we share with Japan and one which we hope others increasingly will share.

I would like to focus attention briefly on the role that Australia and Japan play and may play in the future in South East Asia and the South Pacific. There are many areas of common interest there, areas such as trade, international transport and communication, the growth of developing countries in South East Asia and the Pacific, which encourage the prospect of closer consultations on a regular basis. Australia is a member of the South Pacific Forum and we have close relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations, while Japan has considerable interests in the South Pacific area and in South East Asia. I believe that the strengthening of ties between Australia and Japan will lead to closer relations and a stronger structure of relationships throughout that region. In fact, there have been proposals from various people, including Sir John Crawford and Dr Drysdale from the Australian National University, for some form of organisation for Pacific trade, aid and development. While it is a concept fraught with difficulties and complexities, it is one worth considering and perhaps worth considering now more than ever before.

In any such organisation Australia and Japan would have a substantial interest as in this area we are both considerable economic powers, relatively speaking.

Japan is a secondary producer; Australia is a major agricultural and resource producer. This relationship based on economic and commercial factors had its origins largely in the 1957 JapanAustralia Trade Agreement. When that Trade Agreement was signed the nature of the trade between the 2 countries was markedly different from the nature of that trade now. I shall refer quickly to a couple of statistics. In 1958, 75 per cent of our exports to Japan were agricultural products and 10 per cent were minerals. However, even by 1 970 more than half of our exports to Japan were minerals and during the decade from 1960 to 1970 our exports to Japan increased tenfold from $200m to $2 billion. There is no gainsaying the significance of minerals in the relationship which exists now, minerals such as iron ore, copper, bauxite, lead, zinc and, of course, coking coal. But even now we should not forget the importance of agricultural products such as mutton, beef, wheat, sugar, wool, cheese and butter.

As I mentioned earlier, the relationship has been too heavily dependent on economic factors.

It has lacked depth because of this and this Foundation will make a considerable contribution if it can remedy this and provide the basis for a much broader relationship between the 2 nations. There has been an awareness for many years of the need to do this. As early as 1967 it was agreed that there should be regular consultations between the 2 countries and these have been held. In March of that year the Foreign Minister, then Mr Hasluck, visited Japan and an agreement was reached that both governments should make a greater effort to promote active co-operation in the Asia-Pacific region, and this has been progressing. Since 1967 there have been annual high level consultations between the Japanese and Australia Foreign Ministries at the official level. In 1970 an Australian interdepartmental committee was established to review completely Australia’s relationship with Japan. It concluded its work in 1971. A standing inter-departmental committee presided over by the Department of Foreign Affairs, was then established and was charged with the task of keeping under review all aspects of the relationship between Australia and Japan. In 1971 there was an important development in the establishment of a ministerial committee to review each year all aspects of the bilateral relationship between the 2 countries, Equally importantly in 1 97 1 the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Senate was established and its first reference was one word- Japan. Its Chairman was my distinguished colleague, Senator Sim, and it made recommendations for the development of relations between the 2 countries which bear close scrutiny now as they did then. I shall quote from one part of that Committee’s report which bears significantly on this BDI and contains views with respect to the relationship between Australia and Japan which I consider are of great value. The report said:

The relationships between Australia and Japan have been almost exclusively in the area of trade in recent years. While these developments have been mutually advantageous and contributed to the prosperity of both countries, what has emerged most strongly from the Committee’s inquiry is the need to foster greater understanding- A broad and difficult term to define- between people at all levels in both countries. Commercial relations alone will not achieve this objective although it has been from commercial associations that the first moves have emerged. . . .

On the scale needed to achieve lasting and personal relationships between the peoples of two countries, it is difficult to see how more can be achieved without substantial participation by governments, and this area is one in which the Australian Government should take the initiative.

In such initiatives Australia must be able to explain clearly to the Japanese the role it sees for itself in relation with Japan, with Asia and with the rest of the world. . . .

There is evidence to show that a great deal of mutual goodwill exists at the present time arising largely from satisfactory trading, but goodwill alone is no substitute for understanding and if not nurtured by deeper understanding could wither- particularly if economic circumstances were to change.

That statement is as relevant today as it was then, and this Bill and the Foundation which it creates will mark an important step towards meeting the objectives which were set out by that Senate Committee.

My colleague Senator Baume already has referred to clause 5 of the Bill which sets out the purposes of the Foundation. Like Senator Baume, I applaud the nature of those objectives because if they are implemented they will mean a stronger and more effective relationship between Australia and Japan. I also endorse his view that there must be a broad cross-section of people involved. It must not only be the elite who benefit from this Foundation. The work of the Foundation must penetrate as far as possible into our society so that the understanding which the Foundation is aimed at establishing can be achieved on the broadest possible base in our community and, likewise, in the Japanese community. I think it is worth mentioning in this context the contribution that has been made by the Australia-Japan Business Co-operation Committee in recent years. I mention also the Australia-Japan symposiums which have been held. The fourth symposium was recently held at the Australian National University in Canberra and was attended by 2 14 participants. It was the largest ever held. It was opened by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and was attended by the distinguished Professor Kosako of Kyoto. The symposium was successful in promoting some of the aims which this Foundation is intended to achieve.

The Foundation will, I believe, add substantially to the many agreements and treaties which already exist between Australia and Japan. Let me name a few of these. There is the Air Services Agreement, the Commerce Agreement of 1957, the Agreement for the Exchange of International Money Orders, the Fisheries Agreement, the Taxation Agreement, the Agreement for Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, the Agreement for the Protection of Migratory Birds and the Cultural Exchange Agreement. I believe the Foundation takes those agreements and the relationship between the 2 countries a vital step further, as it must, if our relationship is to be sustained on a substantive and effective basis.

I recognise, as I believe we all must, that fundamental to any relationship between Australia and Japan in the foreseeable future will be our commercial and trading relationship. I hope that the Foundation will be seen to mark a new and effective step, in the relationship between Australia and Japan, towards providing the broader foundation for the more substantive relationship to which I have referred. I would like to take up one point made by Senator Button. He referred to the Foundation and the Bill as essentially a gloss to a trading arrangement.

Senator Baume:

– He said a sordid trading arrangement.

Senator KNIGHT:

-I think in this case he just said a trading arrangement. It was elsewhere that he referred to it as sordid. To refer to the Bill as essentially a gloss to a trading arrangement is to underestimate the potential of the Foundation. I make the point that I believe it is up to all of us and to the Government to ensure that the Foundation does not become just that. It must be more than that if the relationship between Australia and Japan is to grow in an effective fashion. I would like to conclude by drawing attention to the final words of the second reading speech of the Minister for Administrative Services. He said:

The Foundation is a first and necessary step in the creation of the bridge which we hope to build between our 2 peoples.

It is just that. It is only a first step towards that more substantial relationship. We must see it as that and must treat it as that. I believe it is a worthy first step. I support the Bill.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank honourable senators on both sides of the chamber for their support of this Bill. During his speech at the second reading stage of the Bill the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) posed a number of questions. I have sought the answers to those questions and I will read them into the record. Senator Wriedt asked whether it was the Government’s intention to ensure that once the Foundation was operating at the expected level of activity it would not be restricted by lack of finance or the effects of inflation. The answer is yes. Cabinet decided on 30 January to accept the recommendations of the Crawford Committee report on the proposed Australia-Japan Foundation. One of the recommendations of the report is that the Foundation shall be financed by an annual appropriation of $500,000 under Trust Fund arrangements, the amount to be escalated as appropriate for inflationary trends. Cabinet has noted however that expenditure by the Foundation for the balance of the 1975-76 financial year should be limited to $100,000. It should be noted that funds appropriated to the Foundation will be used exclusively for the propagation of the aims of the Foundation. The administrative costs of running the Foundation are to be met from departmental sources. I think that would allay a number of fears expressed by speakers on both sides of the chamber.

The second question asked by Senator Wriedt was whether the Government’s intention was to reduce the translation services which have been available in the Australian Embassy in Tokyo. The answer is that there are 5 translator positions on the Embassy staff”. One has been vacant temporarily but there is no present intention to reduce the establishment in this area of the Embassy. Senator Wriedt also referred to the disbandment of the Consulate-General in Osaka. He asked whether it was the Government’s intention to keep the post closed indefinitely. The fact is that the post is not being closed. Foreign Affairs personnel are being withdrawn but the post will remain open as a responsibility of the Department of Overseas Trade. Finally Senator Wriedt asked whether the Government intended to continue with the Australia-Japan cultural centre project. The answer is that there is no question of the Government’s reducing its participation in the project which is attracting increasing attention from Australian students in Japan and from Japanese students and academics. I hope those answers will be of value not only to the Leader of the Opposition but also to all other honourable senators.

Senator Wriedt was followed by Senator Sim who, if I may say so, earned quite a reputation for himself in the Senate because of his involvement in the production of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Japan. The report, I understand from my own admittedly limited contacts in Japan, is something of a textbook on AustraliaJapan relations. I think that Senator Button perhaps intruded an unfortunate note, but I would not worry about that overmuch. After all there is nothing wrong with linking trade and culture. As I understand it the minds of the people of the dark ages were unlocked because our medieval forefathers, wishing to trade with the Spice Islands, sought a route to China. As a result of seeking trade they unlocked all the treasures of the East- of China, Japan and the Spice Islands. They even discovered the Western Hemisphere. There has always been a close linkage. Let me say quite kindly to Senator Button that if during the 19th century instead of rivalry between Victoria and New South Wales in trade affairs there had been trade harmony Victoria might have been able to export its greatest cultural creature, namely Australian Rules football, to Sydney and Brisbane and the people of those States would not still be languishing under the rugby code. That is a very good example of how bad trade relations between States stop the export of cultures and bring about strained cultural relations. The one follows the other.

Senator Scott brought his usual thoughtful contribution to the debate and for that I thank him. Senator Walsh used it as an exercise to indulge in his normal National Country Party bashing. I understand he had to conclude his speech mercifully early. There is another Bill on which he can indulge in more of that exercise later today and he has had to rush off and prepare his speech on that matter. Senator Baume, as we know, has just come back from Japan, an invitation having been extended to himself and a number of his parliamentary colleagues. Senator Baume always has had a deep and abiding interest in this area and it is quite obvious that the journey overseas at the beginning of this year not only broadened the right end but also kindled more enthusiasm within him for a proper understanding of all the relationships between Australia and Japan. Senator Knight brought to the Senate that proper professional touch of a trained professional in this area. It is a delight every now and again to hear a professional speaking on his own subject with real knowledge and without so much prejudice. I thank honourable senators for their contributions. I have taken careful note of the view expressed by so many honourable senators that this Foundation should not be a financial prop for the pointy heads, the academics and those sorts of people. They appear to have access to enough funds already. I, too, hope that the Foundation will bring about a proper relationship between the Japanese people and what one might call not so much the average Australian but the normal Australian. Again I thank honourable senators for giving this Bill a speedy passage through the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I briefly ask a further question of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). I do not expect him or his advisers to have the information readily handy. In view of the answers I received during the course of the Minister’s reply, is it possible for the Minister or for his Department to supply me. by letter if it would be suitable, with details of expenditure by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Japan in 1975 and estimated expenditure for 1976?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to raise a question in relation to the Australia-Japan Foundation Bill because the meaning of clause 16 is not clear in my mind. It states:

A member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the Foundation, otherwise than as a member of, and in common with the other members of, an incorporated company which consists of more than 25 persons and of which he is noi a director, shall, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Foundation.

Of course, the clause also provides that the member will not sit on the Foundation while discussion takes place on that proposal. I ask this question for my own edification and for the benefit of those people who may become members of the Foundation so that they will know what they are entitled to do. I ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers): What is the meaning of the words ‘direct or indirect pecuniary interest’? I learnt at one time that there were 3 meanings to words. The first meaning was the dictionary meaning, the second was the normally accepted meaning of the word and the third was the legal meaning which would be given to a word in a document. These 3 meanings need not coincide; they need not be the same. We can all find out the dictionary meaning of ‘pecuniary interest’. We all know the accepted meaning of that phrase. But a Bill becomes a law and then it is a question of the legal meaning. We want to know the legal meaning of the phrase pecuniary interest’. I think when that phrase was used in other places, such as in the Constitution, everyone accepted that the legal meaning would be the same as either the dictionary meaning or the normally accepted meaning.

The case involving Senator Webster has established certain principles which tell us what the phrase does not mean. As a legal phrase there are certain things which it does not mean. One would believe that the things which it does not mean are the things which we would find in a dictionary or in the generally accepted meaning of the word. The Senate submitted the case of Senator Webster to the Court of Disputed Returns. I think the facts or conclusions were agreed, namely, that at one time- that is the time under dispute- Senator Webster had been the director of a company with less than 25 shareholders. He became a senator, which he was forbidden to do if he had a pecuniary interest in a company with less than 25 shareholders which had a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. The honourable senator’s firm had a contract with the Government through the Postmaster-General’s Department. The Senate thought that that was in breach of the Constitution because Senator Webster had a pecuniary interest. The Judge of the High Court found he did not have that interest and he was exonerated.

Let us look at a case where a member of the Foundation is a member of a company with less than 25 shareholders and that company has a contract with Japan in regard to the wood chip industry. If the Foundation were discussing the expansion of the wood chip industry with Japan that member would still be entitled to sit on the Foundation as his interest would not be a pecuniary interest. As a result of the High Court decision I do not know what a pecuniary interest is. I doubt whether anybody else knows. We thought it meant something but we now find it does not mean that. I say that in drafting legislation, when we come to an obstacle such as this and when we have a legal decision which confuses the true meaning of the word, we should try to use alternative words so that on future occasions a person will know his entitlement. We will not have to go to the judiciary in order to see what something means. We can put it in language so that there will be no ambiguity about the matter. Everyone will know what we mean. I think it would clarify the matter if we said that anybody who had an interest from which he could benefit should not sit on the Foundation. I ask: What is meant by ‘direct or indirect pecuniary interest’ and if there is some doubt about the meaning of the word, why do we not use alternative words?

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– We do not have the information to hand to answer the question asked by Senator Wriedt. I shall obtain it and I shall write to the honourable senator as early as possible. As to the question raised by Senator Cavanagh, if I could answer that with all the authority and certainty which Senator Cavanagh appears to require of me, there certainly would be no need for lawyers or judges and, most likely, there would be less need for Parliament. We cannot deal in the absolute with the meaning of a word. The honourable senator attempted to draw an analogy between clause 16 of the Bill and section 44 of the

Constitution. In clause 16 of the Bill we talk about a member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the Foundation. It is a fairly soft clause in that the member only has to make known his interest and take no further part in the meeting. This is not a disqualification. If the honourable senator likes to go to section 44 (v.) of the Constitution he will see quite different wording as that section states:

Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise . . .

I suggest to the honourable senator that he should read the judgment of the learned Chief Justice on that matter. He will see that the Chief Justice, drawing on historical precedent, gave an interpretation to that section of the Constitution. I repeat that it states:

Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth . . . shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator. . . .

That is a disqualification whereas clause 16 of the Bill is not. It states:

A member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered . . . shall, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Foundation.

With respect, I hardly imagine that the Australia- Japan Foundation, if it is carrying out its duties under clause 5, will spend its time worrying about the wood chip industry. I suppose that the woodchip industry could be covered by clause 5(1) which states:

  1. to promote the study by the people of each of those countries of the language, culture and traditions . . .
  2. to promote the study by the people of each of those countries of the physical features, climate and ecology of the other country;

I suppose that the woodchip industry could fall within that category-

  1. to encourage people of each of those countries to visit the other country; and
  2. to administer the Fund.

We are dealing with two different areas of pecuniary interest. One is the disqualification provision of section 44 of the Constitution which has been judicially interpreted by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Senator Wright:

– On a particular set of facts.

Senator WITHERS:

-You are quite right, Senator Wright, on a particular set of facts. I do not think the Senate came to any decision as to what conclusions the court should reach.

Senator Georges:

– We cannot.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, of course we cannot. We went, quite properly, to the High Court. The matter was argued by counsel for both sides. The matter was properly considered and the Chief Justice of the High Court brought down a decision. I have never heard anyone suggest, even in the softest tone, that an appeal on the question of law ought to be made to the Full Bench against the decision of the Chief Justice. I think that there the matter finished and there it ought to rest. We now have a judicial interpretation, on the facts as presented, of section 44, subsection 5, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. To my knowledge there has been no judicial interpretation of a clause such as clause 16 of this Bill. I think it is fair to say that in State local government Acts much the same provision applies. If any matter comes before a shire or a city council- whatever it might be- in which a councillor has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest he must stand, disclose that interest and leave the meeting. That is recorded in the minutes. That is all we are doing here. I fail to see the analogy between clause 16 of this Bill and section 44 of the Constitution.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to take this matter too far. I point out that I think there must be a doubt. The Leader of the Government (Senator Withers) quoted a particular case. The wording is the same but the penalty is different. The penalty in the Constitution is ineligibility to sit but the penalty in this Bill is in 2 parts. Clause 16(2) states:

A disclosure under sub-section ( 1 ) shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Foundation and the member shall not be present during any deliberation of the Foundation with respect to that matter.

Perhaps it is a minor issue and nothing will arise out of it. The point I am making is that when, as a result of the High Court’s decision, there is some doubt as to the meaning of words, we should seek to use alternative words for the purpose of clarification. I have never disputed the Court’s decision. I accept the ruling by His Honour, Sir Garfield Barwick. In relation to the right of a member to sit, he said that on the facts of that particular case the person did not have a pecuniary interest which debarred him from sitting.

I quoted the facts of a particular case in which, to my mind, the member concerned had the right to sit. We do not know when a person because of his pecuniary interest, becomes ineligible to sit in the Parliament I raise the question of whether we should have different wording in this clause because of that uncertainty. On the occasion to which I referred earlier the matter was before the

Court of Disputed Returns. I have read the judgment of His Honour and have studied it. He quoted precedent case law on the question but I do not think his decision resulted from the fact that he could find a great deal of case law to assist him. His interpretation was that the senator concerned had an interest but he did not think it was of such significance that it could either influence him in his activity as a member of the Senate or permit the Executive to be influenced by him by virtue of that interest.

Therefore, His Honour’s decision in that particular case was that the interest was such that it could not be counted as a pecuniary interest as intended by the founders of the Constitution and as written into the Constitution. He could not interpret, on the facts before him, that the member concerned had a pecuniary interest. As I said, applying the facts to this particular case, the same contractual arrangements could be made. In fact, the member does not know whether he has a pecuniary interest that he should declare. I think this matter should be clarified. I will leave it at that because I know that no alterations will be made to this clause. I think it should be conveyed to the parliamentary draftsmen that in future some words other than ‘pecuniary interest’ should be used because we do not know what they mean.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I will draw the attention of Parliamentary Counsel to the comments made by Senator Cavanagh.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I should like to make a few comments before the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) leaves the chamber. I listened to Senator Cavanagh without, I am afraid to confess, much enlightenment. All I want to say is that these words have been subjected to judicial interpretation in different cases and we have the advantage of the precedents that have built up. If we journey into the woods unknown and adopt a Cavanagh formula, we will begin again from the outermost circumference of the darkness. When this aspect goes before the Parliamentary Counsel, I have no doubt he will bear those matters in mind.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1052

PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 March on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is being asked to give its assent to a Bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives- a Bill which proposes to reintroduce the phosphate fertiliser bounty for a period from 1 1 February 1976 to 30 June 1977. Previous legislation lapsed in 1974. The former Labor Government decided to remove the superphosphate bounty because the cost to revenue was more than could be justified in the light of the benefits flowing from the application of the subsidy. In these circumstances, the Opposition will not support the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill 1976. When the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Bill 1976 later comes before the Senate for debate, we propose to support it. The fact that the Labor Party opposes one piece of legislation but supports another clearly establishes the fact that it is not per se opposed to giving assistance to the rural community. It has always been the philosophy of the Labor Party to support those sectors of the community which are most in need. I think that can be said about the whole legislative program of the Whitlam Government from 1972 to 1975.

It is pleasing to see even some belated recognition of this fact by people such as Mr Anthony, the Deputy Prime Minister. Within the last week he pointed out in a speech that during the period 1972-1975 the Labor Government had agreed to substantive pressures and approaches for assistance that had been made to it by groups within the community. One has only to look at some of the major areas- the Australian Assistance Plan, local government, the States Grants Commission and education- to see that in those 3 years the Australian Labor Party Government placed its emphasis upon the area of need. Of course other Ministers, such the Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, depart from that principle by suggesting that in giving recognition to areas of need we were creating some sort of a soft society.

Senator Wright:

– What are your objections?

Senator GIETZELT:

– That may be a view that is held by supporters of the Government but certainly it is not a view which is held by members of the Australian community. As this Government seeks to change the emphasis and to make changes in the allocation of resources it will come to appreciate how much it is out of touch with public opinion. The Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, under the chairmanship of Professor Henderson, has illustrated clearly that chronic poverty exists in the rural districts of Australia and has been overlooked and ignored by previous Liberal-Country Party administrations.

We submit that the continuance of the superphosphate bounty is a further illustration of the Government’s failure to appreciate the areas in which need should be met by activities within the Australian Government. The problems associated with rural proverty are, social problems which are associated usually with widowhood, desertion, single pregnant girls, geriatrics and also long-term unemployment, generally poor employment opportunities, poor education opportunities and so on. The problems associated with low income unskilled workers are particularly prevalent in country areas. As the Henderson Committee report states:

Families living on low incomes with little or no prospects of these incomes being increased substantially in the foreseeable future face many of the same difficulties whether they live in the country or in the metropolitan area.

The Labor Party opposes the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill on the general philosophical ground that the bounty does not alleviate the plight of those people in need in the rural communities. The cost to revenue of this bounty is greater than can be justified in the light of benefits flowing from the application of the subsidy. In the first half of 1976 the bounty will cost taxpayers approximately $ 1 7.4m, or $30m in a full year, at the present rate of usage. In 1973-74, the last full year of its usage, the cost to taxpayers was $67m. We oppose the Bill not because we oppose giving a bounty to those farmers who are in need of assistance but because of the way in which the bounty is applied. It is an across-the-board type of subsidy which fails to assist adequately those farmers most in need of assistance. It favours the greater users of superphosphate, who generally are those farmers least in need of assistance.

How significant is the superphosphate bounty? It is less significant than it was in the early 1970s. For example, last year there was a low usage of 1 .5 million tonnes which indicates, of course, that the usage of superphosphate fell rather dramatically. In 1973-74, the last year in which the bounty was applied, the average saving to the 140 000 users was $366 and 6.2 million tonnes of superphosphate was spread. It has to be said that one of the factors that prompted the Government at that time to make the decision that it made was that during 1974 superphosphate prices escalated from a point where the bounty represented a significant part of the cost, to a point where in 1975 it represented approximately 20 per cent of the price before it left the manufacturers. In other words, prior to 1974 the bounty represented some 42 per cent of the cost of the superphosphate. However, when the bounty was removed in 1975 it fell to some 20 per cent of the cost, indicating how the cost of superphosphate had escalated in one short year.

It has been established that the application of superphosphate increases, regardless of the bounty, as export prospects improve. For example, wheat farmers who are benefiting currently by high export prices, are maintaining their usage of superphosphate. This shows clearly that most of the 50 000 wheat farmers in this country will be in a good position, provided export markets hold, to increase the superphosphate application after receiving the returns from several good seasons. This fortifies our view that the bounty is going to those sectors of the community who are less needy. The bounty does not promote the use of superphosphate in itself. There is no point in promoting production of an item which cannot be sold. It is worth remembering that the introduction of the bounty back in the 1940s was designed to encourage farmers to use fertiliser as an important ingredient in production. Now many years later farmers need no longer to be convinced of the value of fertilisers. It is interesting to note that on 27 April 1975, just after Mr Fraser had been appointed Leader of the Opposition, he stated in an interview on Channel 7, referring to the policy applied by the Labor Government:

While the present policy in the strict sense says that the subsidy would be restored at its old rate since that was written the cost of superphosphate and the general inflationary impact on the farming community would obviously mean that we -

He was talking then of his Party- would have to look at the total value of the subsidy. Because I think that the old value of the subsidy would not increase the use of superphosphate by 1 ton- it would probably have to be a good deal higher.

Mr Fraser has implied an acceptance of the argument that the bounty would not increase the use of superphosphate as he has restored the bounty at its former level of $11.81 a ton and superphosphate prices have not fallen. The high price of superphosphate has meant that farmers are not prepared to use a highly expensive material to produce something that does not bring them enough income. Of course there is abundant evidence to show that it is not production, or even the cost of production, that is the difficulty facing the rural community, the difficulty is rather one of how to sell the production from the rural industries. The bounty at its present level is of little benefit to the users, whilst it is at the same time a considerable charge on the Treasury at a time when this Government and many of its supporters in the community are calling for budgetary restraint, restraint which Mr Fraser interprets as affecting those most needy for the benefit of the wealthy. This is the nature of the application of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill.

The Labor Party would not oppose this Bill if it were designed to assist the small and needy farmer, for example, the needy dairy farmer. But it has been established clearly that the contrary is the case. I think we are indebted to the Minister for Agriculture in South Australia, Mr Chatterton, for making available to us a detailed analysis of those who receive Commonwealth benefits. He has released figures which indicate that of the 25 052 farmers in South Australia, 18 500 used on average only 12 tonnes of superphosphate in 1973-74; 5000 used 60 tonnes; 1000 used 150 tonnes; 500 used 300 tonnes; 40 used 750 tonnes; 10 used 1500 tonnes; and 2 persons, corporations or companies used 5000 tonnes. It is in the light of this sort of information that the Opposition desires to move an amendment, a copy of which I presume is in the process of being circulated, to the motion which is presently before the Senate. I move:

I think it is important that this be done. Last year as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I was provided with some comments and conclusions which had been reached in the United States Senate about the use of subsidies, bounties and general assistance that was given to various groups and companies in the United States of America, whether they were in the pastoral industry or in secondary industry. The point which the United States Senate made very strongly was the need for public identification of the recipients of such government assistance.

The figures that I have quoted show that the overwhelming majority of people or companies who received assistance- 18 400 or about 70 per cent of those who participated in the scheme in South Australia-in 1973-74 received $141.72 a head in subsidy, forty received $8,857.50, ten received $17,715 and two received $59,050 between them. It is an incredible state of affairs that a bounty should be paid in such an acrosstheboard way, with clearly no relationship to need and no relationship to production. Therefore I think it is proper that the Senate should insist on some public identity of those receiving the sort of money to be made available in this legislation. I hope that the Senate in its wisdom is prepared to give support to that amendment. This is important for a number of reasons.

Over the last several months we have been regaled by the media referring to those unfortunate people who find themselves out of employment and in receipt of social service benefitscommonly known as the dole- as ‘dole bludgers’. Many people in the social welfare area, particularly those who are members of the Australian Council for Social Service, have drawn attention to the unfairness of categorising people in such a way. The point has been reached where the editorial of the Daily Telegraph yesterday had this to say:

The fact that the private sector provides three out of every four jobs means the first casualties of an economy drive are likely to be government or semi-government employees.

With those people jobless and the thousands of professional and skilled workers unable to find employment no matter where or how hard they try, the much-maligned dole bludger is very much in the minority on the dole queue.

There is no place for dole bludgers in our society -

We agree with that-

Mr Killen is right about that. But equally it is wrong to attack, by inference, the tens of thousands of other Australians who simply cannot find a job.

For them being on the dole is a deeply hurtful experience.

I submit that it is unbecoming for members of Parliament to use such a designation or phrase. It is certainly unbecoming that those who have such influence on public opinion should be putting into that category those people whose employment has ceased and who suffer sufficiently from being out of work without having that phrase applied to them. If that sort of behaviour continues I am sure that the expression will leave the metropolitan area and creep into the country. The people or companies in the categories of the top two or ten to which I have referred who receive $59,000 or $17,715 might well be described correctly as ‘bounty bludgers’.

The figures I have quoted for South Australia contrast with the official Australian Government documents which state that 40 tonnes on average are used in South Australia. Of the 25 000 farmers, 3000 dairy farmers use little superphosphate, 2000 poultry farmers get no benefit whatsoever, 1000 intensive piggeries and 2000 wine growers do not use superphosphate. The South Australian figures show that there are farmers receiving more than $8,000 a year from the bounty, yet this is in a period when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has instigated the use of the term ‘dole bludgers’ for people who are capable of seeking employment to sustain themselves but who have refused or failed to do so. In what other way can we describe wealthy people who can sustain themselves and their farms yet who exact from the taxpayer sums of up to $29,000 a year? That is precisely what this legislation seeks to do. These farmers are taking assistance away from their fellow farmers who are in need as well as taking it away from the Australian taxpayers generally.

I abhor the use of the word ‘bludger’ in any circumstances to describe any sector of the community because I believe that it is divisive and nothing is to be gained by the use of such emotive terms. In times of economic difficulty it is imperative that the whole community comes together in order to achieve an economic recovery. No farmer receiving a benefit which is calculated to assist him in pursuing his activities and to maintain an adequate standard of living wishes to be placed in the same category as those few people who are possibly cheating the system whether by receiving social security benefits or the major benefits under this legislation. No unemployed person receiving social security benefits wishes to be placed in the same category as those few people who cheat and obtain unemployment benefits contrary to the law. The temporary relief offered by this bounty does not warrant its cost, notwithstanding the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission which stated:

On balance it would be reasonable to give using industries the benefit of the doubt pending completion of its inquiry, lt does this notwithstanding its view that, at this stage of the inquiry, the assistance could be achieved at lower cost through more direct measures.

If in fact the legislation were designed to recognise need and not to give across the board assistance, the Senate and the Government would find much more sympathy from the Opposition.

No doubt dissenting Commissioner Robinson’s view that the generalised nature of the bounty makes it an inequitable and ineffective means of tackling the urgent and varied problems faced by many rural producers will prevail when the final report is handed to the Government. What is needed is a policy that would provide effective assistance for farmers in trouble, not a token political gesture or measure calculated only to be a banner under which antiLabor rural sentiment can be gathered. The Australian Labor Party while in government preferred to attempt to deal with the basic problems facing the rural community. It caused the terms of reference of the IAC to be effectively altered to include rural industries. It asked for a green paper on rural policy to be presented upon which effective planning could be carried out. In relation to the superphosphate bounty it preferred to take the advice of the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which indicates that the size of the task force needed to administer a tonnage limit farmer claim system could not be justified, that the complexities of establishing a per farm system would be great given such potential inequities as partnerships and so on.

The farm management adjustment changes that may have occurred since the termination of the bounty in December 1974 will now cease because of the interim restoration of the bounty. That is to be regretted. The re-introduction of the bounty- one of the few election promises carried out by the Fraser Administration- is and was a cynical attempt on behalf of the Liberal and National Country Parties to appear genuinely interested in the suffering of the small and needy farmers. If they were interested in this group of the rural community, an alternative measure based on a means test and giving a greater sum of money per tonne of superphosphate would have been a more effective way of giving financial assistance to those in need. No assistance of this kind will provide a long term benefit to the rural industries involved unless it is supplemented and complemented by other measures, such as policies of reconstruction taking into consideration, among other things, the changing markets which are now involved. Primary industries, which account for about 50 per cent of our export earnings, cannot continue to be subjected to ad hoc legislation of this type which do not deal with the rural problems which beset the industry.

I think that most of us who had the opportunity to see the Monday Conference program last evening will appreciate the need for us to make a much more fundamental analysis of the economics of our rural and secondary industries. The argument that we must keep people on the land is laudable but not when to do so places people in rural industries in a continual state of poverty, unable to acquire and maintain a reasonable standard of living. The Henderson reports which deal with poverty in the rural areas, and the Henderson report which specifically sets out where need has to be recognised by government, have to be examined by the Government. It is unconscionable to maintain people in a feudal state for the benefit of some not clearly defined political objectives. This is what I believe the National Country Party, which purports to represent the interests of the rural community, did during the 23 years it was in office after the last World War. It has applied itself to ad hoc legislation. It has applied itself to filling a gap when a problem developed. It has not really and sincerely got down to examining the base problems facing particular rural industries for the purpose of bringing about finally a proper restructuring of those industries.

No logical or rational economic argument has been advanced in either the House of Representatives or this place to support this bounty. If superphosphate users are to be subsidised, why are not the users of expensive chemicals, such as orchardists, or poultry farmers who use expensive feed, being subsidised? Why is it that a particular user of a product is isolated and given a benefit? As I pointed out earlier, the aims of the legislation which was introduced almost 30 years have long been realised. The viability of industries which use superphosphate is not increased by the bounty. Those who are against the subsidy have argued about the views expressed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and about the dissenting opinion of Mr Robinson of the Industries Assistance Commission in his interim report. The full report does not provide an argument for the continuation of the subsidy, though as an interim measure users of superphosphate were given the benefit of the doubt. Of course, it is on that basis that this Government has introduced this legislation.

The Green Paper on rural policy in Australia indicates that there is a conflict between the original aim which was to increase the use of superphosphate and the present aim which appears to be to reduce the cost of production. In that regard the whole question of marketing does not receive very much consideration. Some agricultural economists argue that measures such as bounties should be used to stabilise incomes and to cushion the effects of variations in production or in the market values of the produce. The bounty is not related to primary producers’ income. It is not so related. It is related to use. There is no protection against over-use which, in certain instances, has resulted in people who are referred to as Pitt Street farmers or Collins Street farmers over-using superphosphate as a means of achieving savings in taxation or other taxes, without considering whether there is a market for the type of produce which is encouraged to be grown by the payment of the bounty.

The average farmer does not want handouts. That has been my experience during the 4 years that I have been a member of the Senate. Farmers do not want to be called bounty bludgers. They do not want to be victims of economic downturn of activity. They do not want to be placed in special categories. That was made evident in the program Monday Conference last evening. They want government assistance that will provide them with a decent standard of living. That is the basis of the policy of the Australian Labor Party to which I belong. Where is the justice in continuing to expend millions of dollars on the superphosphate bounty during the next 15 months or 16 months when the Government has saved $29m by deferring pension increases, when it has cut funeral benefits for pensioners, when it has taken away the payment of $2 a day for private hospital patients, when it has adopted a more stringent work test for unemployment benefit and when it has taken a variety of other measures to save money?

We take the broader view that the Government should be giving the sort of assistance that will overcome the problems facing the small farmer, that need should be the cornerstone upon which rural policies are developed, and that government assistance should be given to those industries which badly need restructuring. It is in the light of that sort of public spending that we as the Opposition find ourselves in conflict with this legislation. We believe that we have consistently applied our philosophy to this legislation. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government is determined to proceed with the legislation. It is in the light of that that we believe there is something to be said for making available in a public way a list of those people who will benefit considerably from this legislation. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that our amendment seeks to have published a list of people who receive more than 400 tonnes of superphosphate in a 12-months period. The list would be small but it would give us some indication of who is benefiting from the Government’s assistance provided in this legislation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator McLaren:

– I second the amendment.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– rise to support the legislation before the chamber and to oppose the amendment which Senator Gietzelt has moved. Before I enter into a further analysis of the legislation before us I will devote a few moments to deal with one or two points which the Opposition, through Senator Gietzelt, has raised. It seems rather surprising to me that the Opposition should take the stance that it will support the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill and will oppose the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill. To me this seems to indicate that the Opposition perhaps does not understand the significance of these measures. The real purpose of applying superphosphate in the industries in which it is used is to establish nitrogen in the soil by encouraging the growth of legumes. So it seems rather fascinating to oppose a Bill, the operation of which must tend to increase the nitrogen content in the Australian soil and to support a Bill which is referable to a subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers themselves. In my view, both elements tends to contribute to the various bands of primary industries in particular the same sorts of advantages.

Senator Gietzelt said that in the legislation before us the cost to revenue is far greater than the benefits derived. This again seems to be contradicted by the facts as I have read them over the years, particularly in recent times. It has been found by numerous authorities that the return to the revenue department of this country from the superphosphate bounty, which at its pinnacle as Senator Gietzelt said amounted to $67m, amounted to some $200m. This is the sort of circumstance that the Opposition chooses to ignore. I believe that the Australian communitycertainly, the whole of the rural community and those who are involved with the manufacture, distribution and application of superphosphateis aware of the facts as I have promoted them to the Senate this afternoon.

It is extraordinary that this legislation should be opposed when one looks at its real nature. All that the Government is proposing to do is to reintroduce a superphosphate bounty until the end of June 1977. It is proposing to continue the nitrogenous fertilisers bounty until the end of this year. These are not only recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission established by the former Government- the present Opposition; they are also sensible undertakings. This legislation involves the introduction of a circumstance which is recommended by the IAC, which takes the view that it is reasonable that the period for the bounty should be extended to a year beyond the point at which its final recommendations will be brought down. That sort of extension gives the Government and the users and manufacturers of superphosphate alike an opportunity to assess the future needs in this area.

It may well be that the bounty should be abolished. It may well be that it should be diminished or increased. But it is important that industry and government alike have the opportunity to analyse the recommendations of the body which has been confronted with this task. The message I leave is that the final review is pending. It is perfectly logical and responsible that the Government should react to that circumstance. That is the objective of the legislation that is before us. Senator Gietzelt referred to the fact that the Australian Labor Party, when in government, had retained a great measure of responsibility towards the primary industries and those areas directly involved in primary industrial pursuits. Yet it seems rather extraordinary when one casts back one’s mind and looks at the contribution of the Labor Government’s first Budget that in one fell swoop the compensations and incentives that had been delivered and achieved over virtually a quarter of a century in primary production and, indeed, in petroleum and mineral production in Australia were wiped out. There was a dramatic reaction throughout rural Australia, a reaction which today has led to a circumstance in which hardly a single electorate in rural Australia is held by the ALP. This does not seem to me to suggest that the actions and attitudes of the ALP to that part of Australia have been terribly popular and effective in gaining the support of the people.

Indeed, the inaction that we have seen referable to the IAC recommendation on superphosphate has been typical of the inaction which has occurred over the last 12 months and in excess of the last 12 months by the former Whitlam Government. I recall not only the compensations and incentives which were wiped away; I recall also the suggestions of the IAC referable to the new land farms in Western Australia and to the use of superphosphate in that area. Those suggestions also were ignored until last November when the Labor Government ceased to operate. It seems to me that certainly this was a recommendation that should have been looked at and acted upon with great speed because in that particular area some 28 per cent to 35 per cent of the cost of the farming operation is referable to the cost of superphosphate alone. This is an area in which quick action most certainly should have been taken.

The April 1975 report of the IAC on the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis was another report upon which no action was taken.

Yet, in the relative short term a tremendous responsibility lies on the Australian beef industry and the Government to eradicate these diseases from the Australian herd. This is relevant to our capacity to maintain the markets that we have and to find potential new markets which we must have in the longer term if we are to grow in some sort of relationship to our capacity to produce. The report on rural income fluctuations was brought down in June 1975. There has been no action taken on it. I recall that the presentation of the report of the IAC on the beef industry was delayed for some 60 days until after the bringing down of the 1 975 Budget. The report of that IAC inquiry was again ignored by the then Labor Government. Senator Gietzelt said that we have lived up to none of our promises. Yet we have taken regard and acted upon quite a significant number of undertakings in a short period of 3 months. Producers in the beef industry are well aware that within a few weeks the recommendation to suspend the 1.6c per lb export levy, which has passed through the Parliament, will come into effect. I could refer also to the wool fiasco. But I will not go any further in reminding the Senate that there was literally no action taken by Senator Geitzelt and the Party that he represents in regard to rural Australia.

Senator McLaren:

– Your Government would not provide a guaranteed floor price for wool.

Senator SCOTT:

-I think it would not be desirable for the honourable senator to invite me to talk about what happened in May of 1974 in regard to the floor price for wool. So to spare the honourable senator the embarrassment of that, I -

Senator McLaren:

– It is not embarrassing me.

Senator SCOTT:

-If it is not embarrassing the honourable senator, it certainly should be. Senator Gietzelt said that the area of need is paramount in large areas of legislation. I agree with him. Let us have a look at the area of need in regard to superphosphate. I remind the Senate that only 20 per cent of superphosphate used in Australia is used in the wheat producing industry. The remaining 80 per cent of superphosphate is used for providing pasture for the production of beef, mutton and lamb. It is used in the dairying industry, in the dried vine fruits industry and in the apple and pear industry. The point I make is that these are the industries which, at least temporarily, are in greatest need in the whole of the Australian economy. The need certainly is there and in some measure it is met by the implementation of the superphosphate bounty.- 1 recall that Senator

Gietzelt said that prior to 1974 the bounty represented 42 per cent of the base price of superphosphate and that since its reintroduction it represents only 20 per cent the price of superphosphate due of course, to the increased price of phosphate rock. That is an extraordinarily poor argument for saying: Let us not reintroduce the bounty. I believe that it is an argument for making it heavier. Who knows what ultimately the decisions of the Industries Assistance Commission may be? But to suggest that because that factor now represents a smaller percentage of the price of superphosphate to the user is a reason to abolish the bounty to me seems a rather pathetic view. If it had any significance at all, it would suggest that it should be increased rather than diminished.

I agree with Senator Gietzelt that primary industries are a resilient type of industry. It is not in their nature to seek handouts. It never has been and never will be. But let us look for a moment at real farm income in the last few years. Let us see whether at least in the short term there is not a proper reason for an element of help in these industries? In 1972-73 real farm income was approximately $ 1,370m. In the following year, 1973-74, it rose quite dramatically through extremely high prices for a short period in the beef and wool industries to $ 1,930m. But the next year, 1974-75, it fell just as dramaticallyeven more dramatically- to a figure of $925m, less than half that of 1973-74. The estimate for 1975-76 is lower again, putting real farm income at$854m.

Senator Gietzelt:

– What was it in 1 970?

Senator SCOTT:

– This is an indication -

Senator McLaren:

– He will not tell you that.

Senator Gietzelt:

– It was $760m.

Senator SCOTT:

– The honourable senator says $760m. I might ask him: If it was $760m in 1 970 and the estimate for this year $854m, and if we take into account the relevance of inflation and spiralling costs which increased in 1974 alone by 34 per cent, is not $760m almost a grand figure when compared with $854m estimated in the current year? The point I make is that there is a real need in this industry for support at this time. I am certainly not suggesting that bounties and handouts are part of the nature or part of the need in the long term of primary production industries. They do suffer particular and peculiar ailments or, shall I say, problems, peculiar with their marketing circumstances. Primary industries and the minerals industry in Australia must seek on open world markets a demand for their product ranging from 65 per cent to 95 per cent of their total production. Herein lies the peculiar difficulty of primary industries in this country. They must find a market at a world price which bears no relevance to the cost circumstances in their own industry. This is the position that exists and this is the position in respect of which from time to time reasonable incentive and compensation becomes totally justifiable.

There are indeed considerable areas of economic justification for the bounty that is proposed to be reintroduced for a short term at this time. The first one certainly is referable to the agricultural, wool and meat industries of Australia insofar as they are low protection areas. In terms of economic justification, they certainly must rate high on the scale of industry support anywhere across the board.

Senator Gietzelt referred to the Green Paper on Agriculture that his Government sought. It was a most worthwhile paper. I seem to recall that among the recommendations of that Green Paper was a recommendation that a proper measure of tariff compensation was a reasonable and proper attitude. This is the purpose of legislation of this type and is far removed, I suggest, from the attitude which was tragically followed when the Whitlam Government sought to cut tariffs by 25 per cent across the board. Action of that type played a considerable part in bringing about rapidly the sort of disintegration that this economy suffered.

If there was any real reason for the reintroduction of the bounty it surely must be found in the fact that the price of rock phosphate itself has increased so significantly. In the last 12 months it has moved in round figures, from $35 a ton to $60 a ton. Surely that sort of movement is a justification, at least in the short term, for the reintroduction of a measure of assistance, which is the object of this legislation.

Sitting suspended from 5.46 to 8 p.m.

Senator SCOTT:

-Mr President-(Quorumformed). Such are the demands of tolerance. Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the possibility that in the longer term there may be a real reduction in the cost of superphosphate in Australia as a result of the development of our own phosphate rock deposits which at this stage are chiefly in Queensland. However, I said that in the short term, unfortunately, because of the cost of infrastructure, the changing of the rock itself and of the manufacturing equipment, there is no likelihood that there will be such a reduction in cost to the industry.

Very briefly I would like now to refer to a matter which I skimmed over early in my speech but which, I believe, is important to this discussion. It relates to the basic significance of superphosphate in the Australian scene. I raise the subject because I think there are some misconceptions about it. Superphosphate as it is used in Australia today, and as it is promoted in Australia today, is not necessarily being used in the right amount and it is not necessarily being applied in the right manner or in the right form. Although this is totally irrelevant to the Bill that is before the House, because we are suggesting the re-introduction of this bounty for a specific and relatively short period pending results of further investigations I ask the Senate to consider that there is a real need for the use of superphosphate in Australia. This need arises from the fact that Australia is the most phosphatedeficient land on earth and, being so deficient, we have a responsibility to make this type of fertiliser more easily accessible to the Australian producer.

Superphosphate is of great significance in affecting the soil structure so that there is a continuing increase in yield of agricultural products, whether in the form of grain, textile material such as wool and cotton, meat, dairy products or fruit. Referable to yield, superphosphate is of extreme importance. It is of equal importance to the quality of the product that the Australian industry produces. Superphosphate of itself does not add to or subtract anything from the soil but it does aid significantly the germination of plant life and promotes the growth of legumes- that is, various types of subterranean clover and lucerne which are the product in the main of Australia scientific and agricultural research- which add nitrogen to the soil. Legumes quite easily are the cheapest source of nitrogen for Australian soil and because superphosphate has this effect on legumes it has contributed significantly in the years from 1940 to 1970 and beyond to the quite dramatic increase in the average yield per acre in Australia. It has increased this yield not only in volume but also in quality.

I would be the first to admit that this is due to a number of other circumstances as well. It is due to the breeding of different grain and plant types. It is due to better methods of cultivation, to better control and understanding of soil texture. It is due to research and development in machinery. It is due to the constant research into and continuing use of chemicals in Australian agriculture. However, most of all this significant growth in agricultural production is due to the gaining of a nitrogen content in Australian soil at a very cheap cost. Superphosphate also has enabled increased production of swards of various types of legume pasture. It has been significant in bringing about a noticeable change in climate over a quite large area of Australia and has divorced our dependence for primary production from the river valleys. Today as a result of the intelligent application of superphosphate and the breeding of legumes we are able to conserve in areas well beyond the river valleys, which have been the traditional areas of fodder production, sufficient fodder to enable this type of country to carry the enormously increased stock numbers that it has on it.

At this time we are faced with a situation in which the cost of superphosphate has increased by about 22 per cent and in which for 12 months we have seen no bounty on this product at all. If we add to this the circumstance that relates to almost 80 per cent of primary production, one can see the real measure of need, the real responsibility that lies with a government, to ensure that there is aid by way of a bounty for the industry pending- and mark the word ‘pending’ the results of final investigations by the Industries Assistance Commission and the ascertaining by the Government of the correct promotion from that point. I refer the Senate to the statement of Professor Donald of the Waite Agricultural Research Institute in Adelaide. I believe that these are most significant words coming from one as prominent in agricultural research as Professor Donald. He said:

I cannot think of any incentive to the rural sector likely to return so much to the nation in both soil health for the future and in terms of straight economic returns.

I think that, in the light of those words and in the light of other things that I have said about the superphosphate and its value in the Australian agricultural and primary producing scene, I should quote the words of Mr Whitlam when speaking on this Bill in the other place. He is reported in Hansard as having said:

The $30m squandered by this legislation is waste and extravagance with a vengeance.

I am sure that no man or woman in rural Australia would agree with that sort of opinion. In fact that sort of opinion seems to me to promote a total misunderstanding of the significance of the whole matter that is before the Senate tonight.

In closing, I make the point that in this Bill we are proposing that a measure of support be reintroduced for a temporary period only pending an opportunity to examine the report of the Industries Assistance Commission. It is an attitude that is reasonable and responsible. I am somewhat sad to look at the Opposition’s amendment which we oppose and which seems to me to have nothing in its favour other than a sort of appeal to emotions in a circumstance that is totally unrealistic. We are talking about a bounty which will give the same percentage of advantage to anybody whether he be a small producer, a medium producer or a large producer. We are talking about something that is relevant to the total productive capacity of this country, not to individuals, to groups or to others. I support the Bill and oppose the somewhat irresponsible amendment.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I find it more than a little ironic that Senator Scott should describe the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Gietzelt, and which requires public disclosure of the expenditure of significant amounts of public money as being emotional and therefore to be condemned. I find it particularly surprising that that sort of comment should come from a member of a Party which went into an election campaign 10 years ago with an emotive slogan about the downward thrust of China. Senator Scott himself has been talking about such emotive issues as soil health. Senator Withers forecast about 3 hours ago that I would be speaking in this debate, and said that I would be criticising the National Country Party as was my wont. I shall certainly be doing that and I assure Senator Withers that I shall be extending the breadth of the target somewhat and will include a number of members of his Party including in particular his Leader.

The Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill 1976, more than any other single piece of legislation, establishes the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Fraser Government and of its Leader in particular. The spectacle of a government which preaches austerity ad nauseum, which proclaimed in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech opening the Parliament that one of its objectives was to prevent the increasing dependence of individuals on the state, which frequently reasserts that it is about to end the handout mentality, which withdraws financial benefits from pensioners, meal subsidies from children, pharmaceutical benefits from the sick and simultaneously introduces a subsidy from which half the Federal Cabinet will receive a direct financial benefit- the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) himself has been shown to be in receipt in the past of more than $5,000 in one year- must disgust all decent Australians. I believe that it is significant that in the House of Representatives not one of the Ministers who would receive a benefit had the courage to speak on this Bill. They left it to a light-weight Minister supported by a featherweight group of back benchers.

The Government’s intellectual bankruptcy was triumphantly established by the content of the speeches delivered in the House of Representatives by the 1 1 Government speakers who supported this Bill. After the inconsequential second reading speech delivered in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard), the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey), in his first paragraph, claimed that this Bill was based on an Industries Assistance Commission report tabled in January 1 975. In fact the report is dated 31 July 1975. There is one factual error. The Bill is not based on the IAC report either, and I will deal with that later. The honourable member then asserted that action had already been taken on aspects of the report on new land farms in Western Australia. I would like to know what action has been taken. I will say a little more about that later.

The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) then produced a lot of claptrap and rustic romanticism about the health of our soils, as though soil fertility or soil health, whatever that means, was an end in itself. I put to the Government supporters who sit opposite: What is the purpose of having fertile soil? Is fertile soil an end in itself? Surely fertile soil is of value only for that which it will produce. In case some of the members opposite want now to present themselves as latter day trendies, as latter day greenies, and they value this for its mystical qualities, I point out that among other things the payment of a superphosphate bounty has encouraged the destruction of vast areas of natural forest and natural bush much of which in my own State has subsequently been turned into saline wastelands which are polluting the major water supplies in the hills.

The honourable member for Angas then proceeded to develop an argument which Senator Scott touched upon, the argument that because Australian soils are the most phosphorus deficient of any continent we should immediately set about correcting this phosphate deficiency. Implicit in that argument is an attempt to seek a head-on conflict with the principles of comparative advantage. Surely we ought to make an adjustment to the limitations of our environment. Agricultural technology in Australia should be directed towards the most economical use of the resource which is most limited, and that is probably phosphate. I note in passing that a warning very similar to that was given by Mrs Hylda

Rolfe who was the presiding Commissioner on the IAC inquiry. Mrs Rolfe made the very sensible observation that phosphate was an expensive commodity, that it was scarce on a global scale and that it was becoming scarcer, and therefore Australian farmers should beware of becoming more firmly locked into a superphosphate subterranean clover agricultural technology. She suggested that we should be seeking agricultural technologies less demanding of this scarce and increasingly expensive resource.

For putting forward that very sensible point of view Mrs Rolfe was witch-hunted off the inquiry by members of the National Country Party and by its Leader in particular. Although the Government claims that its action is based upon the IAC report, the IAC report in question is a dissenting report. One of the remaining commissioners, Mr Robinson, dissented. Indeed, if Mrs Rolfe had remained on the Commission, judging from the type of attitude she had already expressed, it is highly probable that the Commission would have recommended that the bounty remain in limbo.

Senator Greenwood:

-Why did she not continue on the inquiry?

Senator WALSH:

– Because she was subjected to some of the most vile abuse under parliamentary privilege in the House of Representatives by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony).

Senator Greenwood:

– Was she dismissed or did she resign?

Senator WALSH:

-She retired from the inquiry. She was subjected to the most vile abuse for expressing a point of view which ought to have been apparent to anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject and any capacity whatsoever for rational thinking. The honourable member for Angas, to make sure that what he said was not a slip of the tongue, repeated a figure. He stated that wheat yields in Australia had increased from 363 kilograms per hectare in the 1940s. I do not know what relevance that has to the Bill but I feel under some obligation to correct the numerous errors which were made by honourable members on the Government side in the House of Representatives. In fact, the average wheat yield in Australia throughout the 1940s was 850 kilograms per hectare, not 363 kilograms per hectare.

The honourable member then asserted that 50 per cent of farmers in Australia are heavily in debt. I do not know the source of that assertion. The Green Paper which was brought down 2 years ago showed that approximately 50 per cent of farmers had no debt and that 24 per cent of the remainder had very limited debts- less than $10,000. He then stated, on somewhat firmer grounds, that all but a few farmers today were literally unable to purchase superphosphate or nitrogen. That is a significant statement and I shall return to it later. He was followed by the new honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury). His error was embodied in the statement that 5 per cent of the work force was engaged in primary production. In fact, the figure is around 8 per cent. He then postulated that sheep numbers had been known to fluctuate wildly in the western division of New South Wales. This is true. He then postulated that this was because superphosphate was never used.

It does not seem to have occurred to the new honourable member for Eden-Monaro that the non-use of superphosphate and the wild fluctuations in stock numbers in the western division had a common cause, the common cause being that the rainfall is both scanty and unreliable. The honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) informed the House of Representatives that rural industries- he used that term interchangeably with agricultural industries- represented the second largest force in the Australian economy behind the great mining industries. I do not know on what he bases that, whether it is the value of output, the percentage of employment or the amount of export income. On any possible basis that I could conceive that statement is wrong.

The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) stated that he was supporting the Bill on the understanding that it was an interim measure until the phosphate rock from the Duchess deposits was available. He was one of the few honourable members who did not fall into factual error. I suspect that his expectation in relation to the ultimate development of the Duchess deposits, bearing in mind that they are by current standards overwhelmingly low grade ore, is largely wishful thinking. Nevertheless, it was a point of view which had something to commend it. Mr Short, who is, I think, the honourable member for Ballaarat, stated that in the 3 years of Labor Government the overall real income of Australian farmers fell by no less than 50 per cent. I think Mr Short was once a Treasury official. In that case he ought to have had a more compelling obligation than most honourable members to look at his facts.

If we look at the year before the Labor Government came into office- I take this to be 1972-73- net farm income in constant dollars was $1,367. It is true that the estimate this year has fallen to $854. But that is not a fall of50 per cent. It is a pity the honourable member said that because he then put forward 2 sensible ideas. Sensible ideas were certainly at a premium on the Government side in the House of Representatives when this Bill was being debated. The honourable member said that there was a need for assistance from the Government in order to help rural industries to adjust to long term economic conditions. I do not think that statement could reasonably be disputed. I shall return to that matter later too. The honourable member then stated:

It may be that some form of income support scheme would be preferable, both on economic and welfare grounds, to a subsidy on one input such as superphosphate.

Some of us on this side of politics have been trying to get that message through for many years. I am pleased that it has got through to at least one member of the Liberal Party. He was followed by the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) who referred scathingly to the fact that there were 3 speakers from the Labor side in the House of Representatives compared with 11 speakers from the Government side. The honourable member seems to equate numbers with quality. He also referred to the lack of knowledge displayed by the Opposition regarding this Bill. I thought that tag could well be applied to most of his colleagues. The honourable member proceeded to demonstrate his point by saying that the beef industry depends on superphosphate as do the dairying and fruit industries. He ignored the fact that nearly half the cattle herd of Australia grazes on pasture which has never seen superphosphate. In fact, half a page later he contradicted himself by saying that a lot of beef in Australia is produced without superphosphate. He then repeated a statement which had been made earlier by another honourable member, whose name I have forgotten at the moment, regarding the grazing industry. He stated:

  1. . many of them -

That is the farmers- cannot even afford to buy superphosphate.

That is true and I shall return to that. The honourable member then postulated that we had a responsibility to produce food to feed the starving world. I shall return to that proposition too. He was helped along by the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) who, by interjection, stated that rural industries represent 65 per cent of our exports. Again, rural industries were equated with agricultural industries. The honourable member for Paterson was wrong. The latest figure is 46 per cent. It was around 50 per cent a few years before that. We then had one of the rare, useful and sensible contributions from a fellow West Australian, the honourable member for Forrest. Mr Drummond stressed the need for research into alternative methods of using superphosphate and of applying it in order to secure more efficient usage. He spoke about the need for alternative sources of phosphorous. That was a very sound observation which refuted the rationale for a subsidy.

The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) said that he would like to build on the solid framework of sound common sense which Mr Drummond, the honourable member who had preceded him, had so excellently laid. Unfortunately, the honourable member did not. For 20 minutes the honourable member for Darling Downs harangued the House with his customary gibberish, punctuated by genuflections to the conventional wisdom of the National Country Party of Australia. He gave us such pearls of knowledge as: The application of fertilisers enables more produce to be produced from a given area of land. That must represent the greatest extension of the boundaries of human knowledge since Copernicus established the existence of the solar system. The honourable member said that subsidies for phosphate were consumer subsidies which enabled the Australian people to have access to cheaper foodstuffs. He thereby exhibited his profound ignorance of the prevailing marketing system for agricultural products. The honourable member asserted that his colleagues had made the same claim. In fairness to his colleagues, it ought to be noted that they had not. The honourable member informed the House that for every $ 1 of nitrogen subsidy paid to Queensland grain growers the Taxation Office gained between $3 and $4. Senator Scott was on a similar tack about a quarter of an hour ago. If that is true, Queensland grain growers must, by definition, be grossly incompetent farm managers. I shall return to that subject later.

The honourable member said that for every kilogram of nitrogen applied there was a return of an extra seven or eight kilograms of grain. In saying that he displayed his ignorance of the phenomenon of diminishing returns. He told the House that Queensland wheat attracted a premium of $130.50 per tonne. That is the total price, not the premium. Finally, the honourable member advanced the highly original proposition that high levels of soil moisture during the ripening period boosted the protein content of wheat. He was followed by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) who delivered a dissertation on the relationship between soil acidity, lime and superphosphate. The relevant conclusion, which he obviously failed to grasp, is that in some situations lime can be a substitute for superphosphate. In acid soils, it makes the existing phosphorus more readily available in which case perhaps something could be said for subsidising lime but nothing could be said for subsidising superphosphate. He repeated the usual litany about farmers never having had it so bad as they have had it in the last 3 years. He incorporated a table into Hansard which showed the net farm income in real terms- that is in constant 1966-7 dollars- in the last 3 years to be $ 1,236m compared to $ 1,006m for the 3 preceding years of Liberal-Country Party government. With logic and integrity of that calibre governing the delicate operation of Patrick Partners it is no wonder that there were financial problems.

Neither in the Minister’s second reading speech nor in his reply did he make any serious attempt to justify the Bill which will appropriate and dissipate during its lifetime nearly $50m. The arguments put forward by the Minister and his colleagues were pathetic and puerile. At the very least, they might have consulted some of the more substantial submissions received by the Industries Assistance Commission and, in particular, the submission presented by the Australian Wool Growers and Graziers Council in 1975. Although that submission contains a number of highly improbable assumptions and some serious fallacies of reasoning, it does at least make the most of whatever can be made for paying a bounty. If Government members who have spoken in support of this measure, either through their own ignorance of the subject or some other personal inadequacy, were unable to present a decent case they might at least have asked Mr Trebeck to brief them.

Many attempts to justify this bounty have been put forward. With one partial exception all are invalid and frequently contradictory. The Government has been running away from the welfare argument. It tends to deny that there is a welfare intention underpinning this Bill. Notwithstanding that, it still proceeds to allege ad nauseam that things are very tough down on the farm and, therefore, the Government has to do something about it. It still hammers that particular point. It is not surprising that the Government should run away from any attempt to justify this measure on welfare grounds. It is well known, of course, that all agricultural subsidies are distributed regressively -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They are what?

Senator WALSH:

-They are distributed regressively Sir Magnus, in such a way that the greatest financial benefits go to people who tend to have the highest incomes and minimal financial benefits go to people who tend to have low incomes. In this particular case, the distribution appears to be even more regressive. Figures supplied by the South Australian Department of Agriculture- they were submitted originally to the IAC- show that 6.6 per cent of the recipients of the bounty received 46 per cent of the money, whilst 26 per cent of the money was distributed to 74 per cent of the farmers who received it. A temporary bounty is likely to be more regressive still for this reason. There is the Government’s own costing estimate, implicit in which is a superphosphate consumption of only 2.5 million tons. The peak sales of superphosphate -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– There is a parliamentary convention-

Senator WALSH:

-If Senator Sir Magnus Cormack wants to read my submission to the IAC, I will give it to him. These facts are contained in that submission. I stated it 12 months ago. Implicit in that estimate is the assumption that only 2.5 million tons of superphosphate will be sold in a full financial year. Maximum sales were 6.2 million tons in 1974. The maximum consumption was, no doubt, considerably less than that. Nevertheless, it represents a halving of the level of sales in 1973 which was the trend that had been established at that time. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) himself just one year and 2 days ago went on the public record in Perth as saying:

Restoration of the bounty at the old rate would not increase the use of superphosphate by one ton.

Why would it not increase the use of superphosphate? Incidentally, the same prophecies have been made by Pivot Superphosphates, the leading manufacturer in Victoria and by Mr Smith, the Victorian Minister for Agriculture. They were cited in the rural journal The Land on 19 and 26 February. All of these people agree that it will not increase the consumption of superphosphate. If that assertion is taken at its face value, it has destroyed utterly the rationale for paying a subsidy. I remind the Senate of the words of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) who said: all but a few farmers today are . . . unable to afford to purchase either superphosphate or nitrogen . . .

His colleague, the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), when referring to the. grazing industries, said:

  1. . many of them cannot even afford to buy superphosphate.

In my view all of those statements are exaggerations but only slight exaggerations. Basically they are correct. Most of the superphosphate used in Australia in the past has been applied to pastures because returns in the grazing industry, with the partial exception of wool, are now at low levels. This is because people who are solely dependent upon grazing this year will have low incomes and also because it is possible to withhold superphosphate from pastures for one or two seasons without any drastic effects on the pasture composition or production. Because of these factors, it is highly unlikely that these people will be buying much superphosphate within the lifetime of this bounty. It will not help those people very much. The benefit will constitute a gratuitous handout to the affluent wheatgrowers who also use a lot of superphosphate for pastures, as well as the Cabinet Ministers which Senator Scott and a few others seem to have overlooked.

The Government can find $50m for this purpose in the agricultural field. I have mentioned many of the other rather puny benefits which the Government has been mean enough to withdraw. I will forget about those for the moment and relate my remarks to agriculture only. What has the Government done towards implementing the recommendations of the IAC in its beef industry report to provide sustenance loans for beef producers who are non-viable? What has the Government done about that? Nothing! What has the Government done with respect to the Western Australian new land farms report? It is true that the IAC Report on New Land Farms was received some time ago. It is also true that the report severely castigated the State Government of Western Australia in the 1960s- that was the Brand-Court Government or, as it was officially known, the Brand-Nalder Government. The IAC said:

The Commission has no evidence that the State Government planned comprehensively for the financial needs of settlers, and land was released in some areas where development and farming alternatives were unproven.

That was what the Brand-Court Government did in the 1 960s. The IAC came to that conclusion. It continued and laid the primary responsibility for the plight of these farmers at the feet of the State Government of Western Australia. It said:

For those new land farmers who will be unable to adjust their farm enterprises to the new conditions, the Commission considers there is a need for re-establishment assistance. The

Western Australian Government should be primarily responsible for provision of this assistance.

In other sections of the report the IAC referred to the difficulties which had been inflicted upon these settlers by the introduction of wheat quotas in 1969- not introduced by a Labor government, I might add. It may have been necessary to introduce wheat quotas at that time given the state of the industry but quotas actually applied were more restrictive than they needed to be. Why? Some of the people who still sit in the benches across the aisle and their friends asserted that they had to stop the downward thrust of China and they would not recognise China. Therefore, for 3 years we sold not a ton of wheat to China. That was a crippling blow from which many of these new land farmers never did recover. The IAC report brings that out too. So the Commission placed the primary responsibility on the State Government of Western Australia and the secondary responsibility on the Federal Government. Neither of those LiberalCountry Party Governments have taken any steps towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission. They can find $50m for gratuitous handouts which will accrue overwhelmingly to the rich but they have nothing to spend on those recommendations.

Another attempted justification is that the payment of a bounty will increase production or productivity. Usually the terms seem to be used interchangeably but I shall explain the difference between them shortly. That argument, of course, is totally eroded by the assertions of the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King), the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) and the Prime Minister himself (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who have said that paying the bounty will not increase the use of superphosphate; ipso facto it will not increase either production or productivity. Returning to the difference between the terms production and productivity, production is just a volume- a heap, or an output, if one likes; productivity is the ratio between input and output. There is a difference in the meaning of the 2 terms. Using higher quantities of superphosphate or of any other fertiliser may increase the productivity of land but the productivity of fertiliser, at least after a point, will fall. That is a matter of some importance. Of course, implicit in the repudiated argument that the payment of a bounty will increase production or productivity, is the assumption that it is an unmitigated good to increase production. I find that an astounding proposition to be suggested at a time when the Government has just introduced legislation aimed to cope with chronic excess supplies in the dried fruit industries and the canned fruit industries; when the Government is facing a major disaster in the dairying industry; and when beef has been grossly over-supplied for almost 2 years. The previous Labor Government made more than $300m available to purchase 1.5 million bales of wool because there was no commercial market for that commodity either. Given all those instances, I find it astonishing that it could be suggested that it is an unmitigated good to increase across the board the production of agricultural commodities.

I recommend to Government senators across aisle that they read the letter which the New South Wales rural economist, Mr Dalton, had published in the Financial Review today when he quite explicitly stated that the problems of the beef and dairying industries are rooted in surplus supply.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Not world hunger?

Senator WALSH:

-I shall get to that, Sir Magnus. Please do not be so impatient. I am going to cover the whole spectrum. A variant of the confused production-productivity argument is that the payment of a superphosphate bounty will increase the efficiency of Australian agriculture. Granted, some of the people who use that argument fail to distinguish between technical performance and efficiency. The superphosphate bounty will usually improve technical performance in that higher rates of fertiliser application will produce higher yields. But efficiency is a different concept. Of course, no evidence is produced to back the assertion that the superphosphate bounty will increase efficiency. No consideration whatsoever has been given to balancing the marginal cost of the fertiliser which is applied with the marginal revenue from the commodity which it ultimately produces.

More importantly, let us assume that Australian farmers do make rational management decisions and that they attempt to equate marginal cost and marginal revenue, both between themselves and between all inputs. If that is true it is axiomatic that any given level of output will be produced at the lowest total cost if all inputs are costed at market prices. If one input is selectively subsidised that input will be over-used relative to all other inputs. To expound the argument that paying a superphosphate bounty will increase agricultural efficiency constitutes an insult to the managerial competence of Australian farmers.

A slightly more sophisticated version of that argument is that a concept called ‘credit rationing’ operates and that farmers have only X dollars to spend on fertiliser; therefore they can purchase only Y amounts of fertiliser. It is difficult to accept, given the Green Paper’s finding that 50 per cent of Australian farmers had no debts and that 24 per cent of the remainder had minimal debts. Even for those who do have significant debts it would be a very foolish and shortsighted bank manager who would refuse to provide credit for the purchase of essential fertilisers, except to a client who had no equity left in the property. Of course, if that were the case the client would have no future as a farmer beyond the next year or two anyway. So I suggest that although that argument is more sophisticated than the previous one, it has little validity.

Proponents of the increased efficiency theory ignore the possibility- it is more than a possibility the payment of a bounty on a particular input will induce overusage of that input by rational farmers, that is, by farmers who count the cost to them and the return to them from the output that extra fertiliser will produce. Those farmers will use more superphosphate than they should do if it is subsidised. Then of course, there are the irrational farmers who will throw the fertiliser around because it is cheap or because it is one way of dodging taxation. There appears to have been a fair bit of that in the past. In the Western Australian Press of around a year ago a number of examples of over-use of superphosphate by Western Australian farmers were cited. One such article appeared in the West Australian on 9 April 1975 and was headed ‘ “Millions wasted ‘ ‘ on super ‘. The article stated:

Hundreds of farmers- mainly in the South-West and Great Southern- are wasting millions of dollars on superphosphate this year.

The report continues and refers to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and to various analyses undertaken by those institutions. Even the Western Australian Minister for Agriculture said on 1 7 April 1975 with respect to the superphosphate bounty:

Efforts were being made to have the bounty restored, but in the meantime farmers could lower their cost of production by applying a recommended amount of super. In all probability farmers were applying an even spread of super when the bounty was in force.

The Minister for Agriculture, Mr McPharlin, was further reported as saying:

They may, however, not need as much as they previously applied.

There are marginal cases which are not so important in the aggregate, where superphosphate is used when in fact lime or sulphur should be used. Even the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) referred in his certainly confused manner to the use of lime as a substitute for superphosphate. Then, of course, there is the old practice which I noted in travelling up the country last week still has not died out entirely, of prespreading superphosphate on land that is about to be cropped with wheat, notwithstanding the quite decisive evidence of many years standing from the Western Australian Department of Agriculture that superphosphate applied in that way is only half as effective as superphosphate drilled with the seed. To argue that the superphosphate bounty is justified on grounds of efficiency is to argue that private entrepreneurs are not capable of making sensible management decisions unless they are coerced or cajoled by politicians and by Government bureaucrats. In other words, the argument repudiates the doctrine of free enterprise. Selfproclaimed exponents of free enterprise who embrace that apostasy expose themselves, at best, to charges of intellectual sloth and, at worst, to charges of hypocrisy. They infer that their support for free enterprise arises from a desire to rationalise an existing distribution of wealth and income, not from any conviction that it provides the best mechanism for organising a system of production.

It is true that Australian soils are more phosphorus deficient than most. Given that fact and given the fact that superphosphate is expensive, that it has become more expensive in recent years and, despite some of the hopes expressed by Senator Scott and Mr Wentworth in the other place, is not likely to become less expensive in the future, one would expect us to be looking for more efficient ways of utilising superphosphate and for developing less phosphate hungry agricultural technologies and producing less superphosphate hungry final products. An argument along those lines was put by the Liberal member for Ballaarat (Mr Short) in the House of Representatives and at somewhat greater length by the Victorian Department of Agriculture at the 1976 Industries Assistance Commission inquiry. Mr Short also said that the role of governments was to ease adjustments within agriculture to changing circumstances. It is perhaps a pity that the Liberal Government of the 1960s did not have the benefit of minds such as Mr Short’s. Had it done so it might have recognised the clear market signal that was coming through from the 1960s, that superphosphate prices were rising because the raw rock phosphate was rising in price and was scarce.

What Liberal governments in the 1960s did instead was progressively to subsidise away the increasing price of rock phosphate and lead Australian agriculture into a dreamland where it came to believe and to accept, sponsored and prodded by the Government, that superphosphate would remain forever virtually as cheap as sand. It would have been much more sensible for the government of that day to allow the market signals to be heard by Australian farmers who would then have thought very much earlier about economising in the use of superphosphate. Instead it subsidised away all price increases, thereby encouraging the development of acutely phosphate deficient land, some of which has been cited before the IAC, such as the wallum country of Queensland, some of the high plains and hills in New England and of course in Western Australia. It would also have induced a movement towards cereal or other cropping rather than grazing. Here the reference to phosphate hungry final products comes in.

The income normally received from cropping per acre, both gross and net- it varies from region to region- is usually about double the level of income that can be received from grazing. It is pretty obvious, given that fact, that cropping is more able to carry high fertiliser cost than grazing. Had Australian farmers not been encouraged to move into grazing instead of cropping they would not have done so to the same extent. It is true that we may run into marketing problems with cereals and other crops in the future, as we have done in the past, but it is difficult to make a major point of that argument while simultaneously ignoring the fact that we have already run into grave troubles with marketing the products of our grazing industries. I am sorry that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has left the chamber as he expressed some concern about the starving millions and inferentially endorsed the view that it was our duty to provide food for the starving millions. It is perhaps worth noting that some of the starving millions sometimes do use our cereal grains. Hardly ever do they use the products of our grazing industries. They are for the rich section of the world only, because only the rich section of the world can afford to buy them. So it is a lot of nonsense to suggest that our grazing industries will be feeding the world ‘s hungry.

I referred earlier to the Green Paper. I leave the technical economic arguments about superphosphate subsidies with this quotation from chapter V, paragraph 5.46:

A further, and in the long term potentially important, limitation of input subsidies or taxation concessions is that they encourage an imbalance in the use of inputs. If the problem is that the input’s price is rising, i.e. it is becoming scarcer, a subsidy encourages freer use of a commodity that the market suggests should be used more economically. Moreover, it discourages research into methods of substituting for the input or for using it more efficiently and discourages the adoption of management practices which economise in its use- the more nitrogen fertiliser is subsidised the more it will be used, in place of a legume crop or pasture, with possibly adverse consequences for soil structure.

It put the point very well. It is argued sometimes that there is no need to worry about the effect that subsidising this particular input has on research. Obviously, if the input is very cheap nobody is going to do too much research into economising on its use. It is argued that there is no need to worry about that because State governments will ensure that the research is done. Implicit in that argument is a belief in the consistency both within and between governments in following a particular line of policy- a simple faith which unfortunately history does not justify. We have only to look at the experience of the 1960s when a Federal government- a Liberal-Country Party government, to its credit -was pointing out to the Australian dairy industry that it was too large for the size of the effective market and at the same time the Victorian Government was establishing new dairy farms on the Little Desert and at Heytesbury. Although the Federal Government was saying in the mid-1960s that the dairy industry was too large for the size of its market, it was also providing taxation and other concessions- which Senator Scott loves so much- to encourage the expansion of dairying right around Australia.

There is one argument in favour of the bounty which, I regret to say, has not been decently put by anyone from the Government side, which is partially valid. That is the tariff compensation argument. Since honourable senators opposite seem to be unable to put it I will try to put it for them quickly. It is argued that the existence of the Australian tariff both raises internal cost levels, thereby raising the price of inputs which the farmers use, and also affects the exchange rate. For both these reasons, it is argued validly, exporting industries are disadvantaged. Therefore, the argument goes on, tariff compensation should be paid to exporting industries to offset the adverse effect that that has on the allocation of resources, and so on. It is true that there is an impeccable theoretical argument for paying ad valorem bounties on exports, at least if the rest of the world are free traders. There is an equally impeccable theoretical argument for abolishing the Austraiian tariff. The IAC in its 1973-74 annual report went on to develop that very point, that if we are going to pay full tariff compensation for exports right across the board we have moved back into exactly the same situation we would be in if we did not have the tariff at all. Therefore, the IAC said, if that proposition is adopted it is better just to abolish the tariff because it is simpler. That ought to appeal to the present Government, which claims to be interested particularly in small government and which does not believe in overt or indeed any interference in the private sector if one listens to its rhetoric.

However, although there is a theoretical argument for tariff compensation to exports only which has considerable validity, this particular measure is not appropriate. It is not appropriate because it is entirely unselective. Not all people who produce exports are consumers of superphosphate; not all consumers of superphosphate are exporters. One very good example of this is the Queensland beef industry which uses minimal quantities of superphosphate but which is a significant exporter. Then there are other industries- most horticultural industries, market gardening and so on- which produce only for the domestic market and which use some fertiliser. This argument about tariff compensation also ignores the fact that a great deal of indirect compensation already is provided to rural industries through heavy losses on country water supplies, particularly on irrigation if it is properly costed, and losses on rural postal services, rural telephones, rural railways, rural roads and, of course, the agricultural research and extension service which generally is funded by governments in Australia.

A point which is not often made or which is often overlooked is that many Australian commodities are sold on a protected domestic market. By this I mean that the domestic consumer pays, and the Australian producer receives, well above export parity for a number of agricultural commodities. The fact that agricultural marketing is structured in that way breaks the nexus between the marginal market price and the price received by farmers. That is important in another way: given that the markets are structured in that way, there is a built-in tendency for these commodities to develop a surplus capacity. The price received by the producer is an averaged or equalised price. In fact, the marginal price paid by the market is something very much lower than that. Therefore, some producers find it quite profitable to expand production even though in so doing the extra production which they have generated may be sold or dumped on export markets at ruinously low prices. That sort of marketing system applies for eggs and butter- in fact all dairy products. Normally it applies for sugar -temporarily that position has been reversedand a number of other fairly important foodstuffs which I cannot bring to mind at the moment.

That fact, of course, erodes very substantially the tariff compensation argument which is that because exporting industries are affected by the tariff fewer resources are devoted to those industries than would be devoted in an optimal situation. In a free market that argument might be valid. But because there is this in-built tendency, because of the structure of marketing many agricultural commodities in Australia, one factor probably offsets the other. On the one hand we have the tariff which has a tendency to restrict the size of these exporting industries because of the competition for resources from the manufacturing sector, and on the other hand we have the higher price protected markets which break the nexus between marginal prices and prices received by the producer and which therefore encourage producers to expand production when in a free market situation they would not do so.

That draws attention to the other furphy frequently thrown around by our opponents- that this superphosphate subsidy will provide cheap food for Australian housewives. In fact, when it generates increased production in a number of these areas- in the dairy products area, in the canned fruit area, in the dried fruit area, normally in the sugar area, and more often than not in the wheat area- it increases the temptation to try to extract a higher price from the captive domestic market and sometimes ask the Government for a subsidy as well. The most spurious argument of all is probably that we should subsidise superphosphate to feed the starving world. I have touched on this subject. Rarely have Australian agricultural products been consumed by the world’s hungry. They are consumed overwhelmingly by people who are well fed to overfedby the affluent at home and abroad. If we were really concerned about feeding the world’s hungry, apart from swinging over to grain production and away from pastoral pursuits, we would not launch campaigns designed to persuade Australians who already suffer from overeating to endanger their health further by consuming more eggs or butter or milk or what have you. Luxury commodities like beef and wool would not be produced at all. In any case, Australia produces somewhat less than 2 per cent of the world’s total food supplies. If that output were doubled, which may be technically feasible within a decade, it would feed only a bit more than one year’s normal world population increase.

Senator Greenwood:

– What are you arguing for on this point?

Senator WALSH:

– The point that I am making is that if the world’s population and food problems are ever to be solved, they can be solved only close to those areas where most of the world’s hungry actually are. They can be solved by improving agricultural technology in those countries where most of the world’s hungry are. Nothing is more critically short in most of those areas than fertiliser. If we were really interested in feeding those people we would be seeing that they received more fertiliser rather than increasing fertiliser usage for the production of luxury commodities in Australia, and we would be trying to help them to improve their agricultural technology. Those honourable senators who saw on Saturday night the television program Four Corners which dealt with West Africa would perhaps extend that a bit further. Half the ablebodied men in many villages are blinded and crippled by disease and that has drastic consequences on agricultural production in a primitive society. Perhaps we could try to do something about that. Of course, the Government has the numbers. It will carry this Bill. I leave with the Minister one thought, quite apart from any conflict which may exist between the 2 sides of the chamber. Allegations have been made- some have been made in evidence before the Industries Assistance Commission- that there is no effective quality control on superphosphate. It was stated in an article in the Canberra Times on 12 March that superphosphate is not defined in the Bill. I cannot entirely agree with this assertion. Although it is not referred to as superphosphate I think that superphosphate is satisfactorily defined in section 3 and section 8 (2.) and 8 (3.) of the Phosphate Fertiliser Bounty Act of 1963 which remain unaltered. For practical purposes it is satisfactorily defined there. Nevertheless, it appears that there is no mechanism to safeguard quality control. Therefore, I leave with the Minister a genuine suggestion which the Government may investigate. While quality control is not provided for in the Act perhaps it may be provided for by regulation. The last section of the Act provides for the issuing of regulations.

Senator Greenwood:

– What do you mean by quality control?

Senator WALSH:

– 1 mean ensuring that the fertiliser upon which the bounty is paid does contain P2O5- phosphorus pentoxide- in the quantity that it is supposed to contain and, moreover, that an adequate proportion of the total phosphorus pentoxide content is soluble in either citrates or water. Evidence was given to the IAC by- I have forgotten the name -

Senator Primmer:

– The Victorian Department of Agriculture.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, by the Victorian Department of Agriculture and also by a Mr Taylor of, I think, the Australian Government analytical laboratories. As far as I can establish there is no regulation or anything currently existing to ensure quality control. There are State Acts which do not appear to be entirely effective, nor are they uniform. Finally, I think that if the predictions which were made by Senator Scott should materialise and ultimately the IAC recommends against the payment of a bounty, and the Government accepts that advice, the real damage that this Bill is likely to cause is that it will undo the adjustment process which farmers already have undergone. That is a psychological adjustment process, not just a managerial adjustment process. It will undo that which has already been achieved. There is a grave danger that it will raise false hopes for the future. It not only contradicts the Government’s stated policy. It also repudiates its entire philosophy. It feeds a whole series of irrationalities and misconceptions which have damaged Australian agriculture for far too long. Of course, it also ignores need both within and without the agricultural sector.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

- Mr Acting Deputy President, thank you ibr the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Senate is debating the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill 1976 which seeks to amend the Phosphate Fertilizers Act 1963-71. The purpose of the Bill is to re-introduce the phosphate fertiliser bounty of $11.81 a tonne until 30 June 1977. As has been explained in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), this is an interim measure to give the Government an opportunity to consider the whole area of assistance to primary producers. It is interesting to look at the actions of the previous Government with regard to the superphosphate bounty. On 15 February 1974, the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) announced that the bounty would be terminated from 31 December 1974. The Government held to that decision in spite of an increase in the superphosphate price of 63 per cent during 1974, a reduction of 30 per cent in wool prices, an 8 per cent reduction in wheat prices and a 50 per cent fall in beef prices. Incidentally, these figures are taken from the Industries Assistance Commission’s interim report on superphosphate dated 31 July 1975. This also happened during quite a lavish spending spree by the previous Government on what were considered then to be worthless projects.

This was bad enough. But the actions of that Government with regard to the bounty were even more irrational in 1975. On 29 January 1975 Senator Wriedt, the then Minister for Agriculture, announced that a reference had been sent to the Industries Assistance Commission to inquire into whether the Government should provide assistance to users of superphosphate. I will read the terms of reference:

I, Lionel Frost Bowen, Special Minister of State

Refer the following matter to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry and report in accordance with section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 whether, to give effect to to the objectives in section 22 ( 1 ) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, the Australian Government should provide assistance for the consumption of phosphatic fertilisers, and if so

what should be the rate and duration of such assistance, and

what should be the basis of any payment including considerations of the end use, the point of payment, the phosphate content and the consequences of the amount of assistance being limited to a maximum tonnage.

Specify 31 July 1976 -

This is significant. I repeat:

Specify 31 July 1976 as the date by which the Commission is to report on the matters described in paragraph 1 of this reference.

Request the Commission to provide an interim report, by the 31 July 1975, on whether in the present circumstances interim assistance should be provided for the consumption of phosphatic fertilisers pending receipt of the Commission’s Report on this reference.

That reference is dated 29 January 1975. For the moment we will assume that it was a genuine reference and not one that was made for purely political purposes. The Industries Assistance Commission produced an interim report on 3 1 July 1975 which contained a dissenting opinion by one of the Associate Commissioners, Mr Robinson. I quote a relevant paragraph from the majority report:

Recommendations

The Industries Assistance Commission recommends that, pending completion of its inquiry on the Minister’s reference and the government’s consideration of the full report on that reference, the consumption of phosphatic fertilisers be assisted by restoration of the Bounty previously payable under the provisions of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1963-71.

The Commission draws attention to its comments that this recommendation should not be taken as being indicative of its attitude to continuing assistance in the longer term, and to its comments on retrospectivity and a tonnage limitation.

Attention is also drawn to the dissent of Mr Robinson, on the question of interim assistance expressed in pages 5 to 9 of this interim report.

Mr Acting Deputy President, in the remaining months the Government made no attempt to act on the advice of the IAC in the face of an even more rapidly deteriorating situation, particularly in regard to costs. Honourable senators can judge for themselves whether the previous Government was genuine when it made that reference to the IAC in January 1975.

Honourable senators may think it strange that a Government chooses to act contrary to the advice it receives from an organisation it established. Yet this has been the remarkable history of the former Government in relation to the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendations that dealt with rural matters. In May 1975 a report was released regarding new land farmers in Western Australia. In April 1975 there was a report on tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication. In June 1975 there was a report on rural income fluctuations and on 30 July 1975 there was an interim report on the superphosphate bounty. In none of these matters did the Government of the day do anything but ignore or act contrary to the recommendations contained in the reports.

I wish to deal with some of the issues raised by the Opposition in this debate. I would like to congratulate Senator Gietzelt on his elevation to the front bench and on his handling of the first Bill in his shadow portfolio of agriculture. He showed quite a considerable lack of knowledge of agriculture, but I guess we cannot expect everything. He said during the course of the debate that the cost of this subsidy cannot be justified. Why did his Government refer this matter to the IAC after it had made the decision to discontinue the bounty if in its opinion the cost could not be justified? Senator Gietzelt made the rather astounding point that superphosphate usage was reduced in 1975. It is rather interesting that farmers in Australia had almost 12 months warning that this bounty was to be removed. Is it any wonder that they bought vast quantities of superphosphate immediately prior to the end of 1974. This is why the purchases of superphosphate in 1975 were so much less. I would also like to point out to honourable senators opposite that this bounty was an election issue. It was referred to far and wide all over Australia. We all know the results of that election.

Honourable senators opposite also make great play of the fact that some users of superphosphate use large quantities of the fertilizer. Of course there are big users of superphosphate. But we should not assume for one minute that they are making a profit. There are many cases in which big users of superphosphate are not making a profit. Just because a farmer may be a big user of superphosphate it does not mean that he will make a big profit. The honourable senator suggested also that the people who use superphosphate are sectional. I would like to remind Senator McLaren, who is attempting to interject, that even the feed he buys for his poultry is subsidised to a small degree by the superphosphate bounty.

Senator Walsh made a rather interesting contribution to the debate. I would like to point out to honourable senators that he lives in the Federal electorate of Moore which showed one of the biggest swings against the Australian Labor Party of any Federal electorate in Australia. So his contribution to that election was not a great deal. I put the point that Senator Walsh probably lost the ALP the last 2 rural votes left for it in Australia. Perhaps he might be in a dead heat in this regard with Mr Mick Young who last night on the television program Monday Conference told the rather sick joke about the farmer getting a hernia lifting a bag of potatoes onto his wife’s back. I guess Senator Walsh and Mr Mick Young would be coming a dead heat in this regard. It would have been rather interesting to hear Senator Walsh’s contribution to this debate if he did not have a copy of the House of Representatives Hansard record. I suggest that almost all of the time he spoke was taken up by refuting arguments made in the House of Representatives without contributing anything to the debate himself.

I would also like to take him back to the times when Western Australia was releasing about 1 million acres of land a year for new land farming. There was no criticism from the honourable senator at that time. Intensive criticism- one could describe it as prolific- was directed at the Brand Government alleging that it was not releasing this land quickly enough. The situation in those days was entirely different from what it is now.

I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Walsh on one of the points that he made about the efficient use of superphosphate. That is a most important point. I agree also with his further remarks that we should try to employ a method of agriculture that uses less phosphate. The honourable senator was guilty of one rather amazing inaccuracy. He commenced his discourse by saying that he was going to rubbish the National Country Party. That was the one thing that he did not do; I was most surprised about that. It was rather relieving.

Let me say plainly that I personally do not believe subsidies and bounties provide the best long term solution to rural problems. But I support the Bill before us to the extent that it will provide some relief to what is a desperate situation for many. It must be remembered that we are not just talking about farmers. We are talking also about the thousands of Australians who depend on farmers for their living. I would urge our Government to take what action it can through the States to encourage the more efficient use of superphosphate. State departments of agriculture are doing some work in this area as are superphosphate manufacturers. It must be remembered also that many farmers use the application of superphosphate as a form of banking. This was referred to by the Opposition. In times of high return, superphosphate is applied in some cases with rather gay abandon, while in years of low income no superphosphate is applied. While this practice does lead to wastage of what is now an expensive commodity, it does provide one method for a farmer to average out his taxable income to a degree and thus reduce income tax.

I consider inflation the most serious problem facing rural communities, particularly if the producers depend largely on exports. Through inflation we are finding it more and more difficult to compete on world markets. I fully support our Government’s genuine attack on inflation. There are many other important initiatives that we will take to improve the situation, including the establishment of a rural bank to provide long term finance, income equalisation deposits to reduce the problems of violent fluctuations in income, an increase in the present tax averaging limit of $16,000 and a reduction in the general level of taxation, to mention some. But the matter that I consider second in importance only to inflation as an area that will have a great effect on the security and prosperity of a large number of Australians is the area of tariff reform. I include in this group manufacturing, mining and many, many rural areas of production. If the amounts of tariff protection given to some industries in Australia were shown annually in the Budget as a bounty or subsidy instead of being hidden away, there would be a tremendous howl of protest from all over the country.

I reject completely the hamfisted tariff reduction of 25 per cent across the board that was perpetrated by the previous Government. But I do support gradual selective reductions starting with those industries most highly protected. This would direct the resources of finance and labor into our most efficient areas of production. These are areas that can and do compete on world markets. We have the ridiculous situation now in some industries that, if every employee in those industries was paid his or her normal wage to do nothing and we imported the products that they now produce, we would be a richer country.

I read with interest, as obviously did Senator Walsh, the contribution made by the honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Wentworth, in the debate on this Bill in the other place. He advocated the more rapid development of the phosphate rock deposits in Queensland. While I agree in general terms, I would counsel the Government to a degree of caution in this matter. My understanding is that some 10 000 tonnes will soon be provided to each of the manufacturers in the Commonwealth for exhaustive testing and that, until the results of these tests are known, we should not assume that the Queensland deposits will necessarily produce cheaper phosphate for Australian farmers. I firmly commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Bill that the Senate is debating seeks to amend the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act. That means the reintroduction of” the superphosphate bounty. As the shadow Minister for Agriculture in the Labor Party, Senator Gietzelt, has so ably pointed out, Opposition senators will oppose the legislation. In the course of my remarks, I will give some reasons why I am quite happy to join with my Party in opposition to this legislation. I congratulate Senator Gietzelt on the way in which he opened the Opposition contribution to this debate. I think that he has a good grip on the job that lies ahead of him which I am certain he will carry out in a most able and capable manner.

It was most interesting not only for me but also for those senators on the Government side who have had no association in practical terms with primary industry, to hear the speech delivered by Senator Walsh. He is a practical farmer who knows the pitfalls of primary industry. He is aware also of the remedies which ought to be taken to help farmers over a stile. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation simply for the sake of opposing. We are opposing it because the legislation proposes to give the biggest portion of the money that the Bill seeks to appropriate to those members of the community who do not need it and neglects entirely the small farmer who is in need of some assistance and who has the utmost sympathy of members of the Opposition. In the course of my remarks I will relate to the Senate some figures which prove beyond doubt that the person on the land who needs a superphosphate subsidy is not getting the benefit of this bounty and that the person who does not need it, like the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), is in fact receiving a large amount of money in the form of bounty. Those figures have been tabled in the Parliament and I will refer to them later.

I want to dwell for a moment or two on the history of Government assistance to primary industry in the form of monetary help to farmers who use superphosphate to encourage them to use it. This issue first became controversial in 1974 when the Government of the day, of which I was proud to be a member, decided that it would not continue the bounty or re-enact the legislation at the end of 1974. 1 had the Parliamentary Library take out some figures which I am sure will be of interest to a number of people, as will the history of the bounty which goes back to 1912. The document from the Parliamentary Library states:

The Australian Government first provided assistance to the users of phosphate fertilisers in 1912. The Wood Pulp and Rock Phosphate Bounties Act of 1912 provided for a bounty on the manufacture of wood pulp and rock phosphate and for rewards for the discovery of rock phosphate deposits. This bounty extended over a period of 5 years commencing on 1 January 1913.

Senator Greenwood:

– Was that a Labor Government in 1912?

Senator McLAREN:

– I was not born then, Senator.

Senator Keeffe:

– He was around though.

Senator McLAREN:

– I was not far away. I do not think Senator Greenwood was either. That does not matter. I am relating the history of the bounty, how it came about and its purpose. This document continues:

The bounty was at a rate of 10 per cent on the Australian market value of the phosphatic rock mined in Australia and locally manufactured into marketable mineral phosphate. The Wood Pulp and Rock Phosphate Bounty Act of 1 9 1 7 extended the provision of the previous legislation for a further 5 years.

In 1 932, a Financial Relief Act was introduced which contained numerous forms of assistance. Among them was a: . . grant of $500,000 to assist primary producers, other than the wheat growers, in the purchase of artificial fertilisers. This assistance was in the form of SI. 50 per ton of fertiliser used between 1 December 1932 and 30 November 1 933. The upper limit on payments was set at $500,000. The Financial Relief Act 1934 continued the provision of the Financial Relief Act 1932 in respect of fertiliser subsidies for 1934-35.

The Primary Producers Relief Act 1935 provided similar assistance for fertiliser users other than wheat growers except that the budget provision of 1935-36 was increased by $50,000 to $550,000. This upper limit was further increased by the Financial Relief Act of 1935 to $650,000 and then removed by the Financial Relief Act of 1936 (No. 1 ).

The Financial Relief Act 1936 (No. 2) reduced the rate of subsidy on fertiliser usage to $ 1 per ton other than wheat production and removed the upper limits on payments for 1936-37. The States Grants (Fertiliser) Act 1937 maintained the rate of subsidy at $ 1 a ton other than wheat but put an upper limit of 20 tons per farmer . . .

This is the crux of the Opposition’s argument, that there should be a limit on the number of tonnes used by farmers. In other words, it should be paid to people who need the subsidy and not to the very wealthy producers who can well afford to pay for the superphosphate whether they get a bounty or not. The document continues: on the quantity that would attract the subsidy. For the purpose of this legislation, a partnership or a group of persons operating under a share farming agreement was regarded as one primary producer. The States Grants (Fertiliser) Act 1938 reduced the quantity on which the subsidy was payable to 10 tons per farmer in 1938-39.

It is interesting to note here that the Minister for Finance in the New Zealand Government, Mr Bowling, announced on 14 June 1973 that the price subsidy on all fertilisers of approved types which was at $7.50 per ton would in the future apply only on the first 30 tons a year bought by each farmer. There again we have a Labor Government in New Zealand seeing fit to apply the bounty only to people who are in real need. The Superphosphate Bounty Act which we are discussing tonight was first introduced in 1 94 1 by the then Minister for Commerce, Mr W. J. Scully who, for Senator Greenwood’s information, was a member of the then Labor Government. It was introduced to provide for the payment of a bounty of $2.50 per ton on superphosphate produced in Australia and sold by manufacturers on or after 1 July 1941. The document continues:

The objective of this legislation was to offset increasing the cost of rock phosphate caused by the outbreak of war. This bounty was distributed in the form of a reduction in the list price of superphosphate, manufacturers being directed to invoice the superphosphate at the list price determined by a Prices Commissioner, less the subsidy at the rate of $2.50 per ton.

We come now to the very interesting part in the history of this bounty. The document continues:

The Superphosphate Bounty Repeal Act 1950 was introduced in November 1950 by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Hon. J. McEwen).

Of course, he belonged to the Country Party-

  1. . to cease superphosphate subsidy payments as from 30 June 1950. As justification for the legislation, the Minister stated:

Today, it is generally acknowledged that there is no longer any need for the bounty for educational purposes because the value of superphosphate is now widely recognised. Nor does any need now exist for the payment of a bounty to encourage the use of superphosphate because at present it is in short supply and is rationed in most of the States’.

The words of the then Mr McEwen are recorded in the 1950 House of Representatives Hansard at page 3312.1 will not quote them all because they are in the document which was provided to me by the Parliamentary Library. It is very interesting to note that Mr Pollard who was a Victorian member of the House of Representatives at the time, when speaking about the repeal of the bounty- Mr Pollard in that debate was not agreeing with Mr McEwen- went on to say that during the election campaign the Liberal and Country Parties did not mention that they were going to remove the bounty. His remarks are recorded at page 355 1 of Hansard. The previous Labor Government under the leadership of Mr Whitlam gave producers 10 months notice that it intended removing the bounty. In that time we fought an election, the 1974 double dissolution election. It has been said tonight, in reference to the 1975 election only, of course, that the superphosphate bounty was a big issue in country areas and was the reason that the Labor Government went out of office. However, we gave an indication in early 1974 that we were not going to continue the superphosphate bounty, and we were returned to government subsequently. As a matter of fact, we went very close to having the numbers in both Houses. If we had received another 200 or 300 votes we would have had equal numbers in the Senate and honourable senators would have seen a different set-up here today. Because of the chain of events that occurred, we were forced to the people last year.

It is interesting to note that the Liberal Government of 1950, although it was not called the Liberal Party then, gave no indication to the primary producers that it was going to take off the bounty. It was another case of having something in mind but not telling the people about it until it became the government. This occurred last year in respect of a lot of the things which the present Government is doing now and which were never intimated to the people. Mr Fairbairn, the former honourable member for Farrer- I guess he is the Mr Fairbairn who left the Parliament at the last election- said when talking on the Superphosphate Bounty Repeal Bill:

Therefore, I cannot see how the removal of the bounty can affect the amount of superphosphate used.

His remarks are recorded at page 3552 of Hansard. Mr Fairbairn was a very big grazier in the Holbrook area. Senator Walsh pointed out tonight that in evidence given to the Industries Assistance Commission it was said that the price of superphosphate has no great bearing on the amount of superphosphate used because an efficient farmer, whether growing potatoes, pasture, wheat or barley, makes best use of the superphosphate available and can weigh up the extra money he will make by applying superphosphate against the loss he would make if he did not apply it. It is only right that any efficient farmer should adopt those tactics. I shall quote further from this document which I received from the Library. It states:

Superphosphate bounty payments were reintroduced via the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounties Act 1963. This payment was at the rate of $6 per ton on phosphate manufactured in Australia and sold for use in Australia on and after 14 August 1963. The fertiliser value of superphosphate is measured by its soluble P2O5 content.

That is the analysis to which Senator Walsh was referring. The Victorian Department of Agriculture said that some steps ought to be taken to provide some guarantee that when a farmer buys superphosphate he gets the proper quality. The document continues:

It is on this P2O5 content that the payment of bounty was based. To qualify for the full bounty of $6 per ton, the soluble P2O5 content of standard superphosphate had to be 20 per cent plus or minus 0.5 per cent. ‘Double ‘ superphosphate (40 per cent P2O5) attracted a bounty of $12 per ton and ‘triple’ superphosphate (50 percent P2O5) a bounty of $15 per ton. The Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1966 extended the previous legislation for another three years at the same bounty payment rate.

The Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act was amended in 1968 to increase the bounty on standard superphosphate to $8 per ton with corresponding increases in the rate of bounty payable on the phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) content of other phosphatic fertilisers. The bounty was also extended to 3 1 October 1971. The Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1 969 further increased the bounty rate on standard superphosphate by $4 per ton bringing the total bounty to $12 per ton.

The Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1971 extended the bounty payments till 31 December 1974 and maintained the bounty at $ 1 2 per ton for ordinary strength superphosphate.

This is where the Whitlam Government came into the picture. It was vilified by members of the National Country Party, so much so that they were able to con people living in country areas into believing that the be-all and end-all of assistance to people living in the country was the superphosphate bounty. We know very well that it was not and people in country areas will fast realise in the next 2>A years that that was not the case. I have figures dealing with payments on the superphosphate bounty and these figures will be interesting to people who know what the taxpayers have paid out in years gone by in the way of subsidy between 1963-64 to 1973-74. In 1963- 64 the amount provided was $ 18.807m; in 1964- 65 it was $22.88 lm; in 1965-66 it was $24.983m; in 1966-67 it was $26.3 19m; in 1967-68, $23.564m; in 1968-69, $3 1.665m; in 1969-70, $48.820m; in 1970-71, $40,8 15m; in 1971-72, $49.795m; in 1972-73, $56.568m; and in 1973-74, $50m. This made a total of $387,217,000. Over the years massive amounts of money have been paid from general revenue to subsidise primary producers by way of fertiliser bounties.

I shall refer to some of the remarks which were made by Mr Whitlam when he spoke on this legislation in the other place. I will not quote them all, but I will quote the pertinent points. He said:

The Government has ignored the views of an assistant commissioner, Mr P. D. 3. Robinson, and done its best to discredit the opinions and motives of the first and the only woman member of the Commission, Mrs Hylda Rolfe, who withdrew from the original inquiry on conscientious grounds. Mrs Rolfe held strong views on the effect of superphosphates on Australian soils. She took the proper and honest course of standing down from the hearings. For expressing her views publicly she was attacked in Parliament by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony), who cast offensive aspersions on her objectivity.

I think that should answer a question raised by way of interjection by Senator Greenwood tonight. Senator Greenwood asked why she resigned from the Commission. Quite a few of us who have served on Senate committees from time to time have got to know Mrs Hylda Rolfe well and have recognised her ability as an advocate for primary producers’ interests. I think she was engaged for quite a number of years by primary producing interests as their advocate to put forward a case for a better deal from governments of the day and in the market place for things that primary producers produced and had to sell to make a living. Mrs Hylda Rolfe was an expert in her own field. Mr Anthony had little to do in the way that he criticised her ability and denounced her. On an Australian Broadcasting Commission program Mrs Hylda Rolfe, in answering a question did not deliberately set out to say what was in her mind as far as the IAC report was concerned but probably intimated that she was not in favour of continuing the superphosphate bounty. I will come to that later when I refer to the IAC report. It is very interesting that the Government speakers place great emphasis on the IAC report in introducing this legislation.

Senator Walsh referred quite often to some of the statements made in the other place. He was criticised by Senator Thomas for quoting from a House of Representatives Hansard. I noticed that he too quoted from the House of Representatives Hansard of25 March. He, too, had to turn to that journal for some of his contribution. A very interesting statement was made by Mr Lusher, the honourable member for Hume, which I think points up the inability of some of the National Country Party members to comprehend the real problems facing primary producers and points up their lack of knowledge. At page 1032 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 25 March 1976 Mr Lusher said:

By and large, 100000 wool producers, a significant number of cattle producers, the fruit producers and the rice producers in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) are about to go out of business.

He was basing that statement on the fact that the Whitlam Government saw fit not to recognise the superphosphate bounty.

Just ponder it for a moment- one hundred thousand wool producers in the Federal division of Riverina. How stupid can any member of Parliament get? There are not 100000 wool producers in that area. Anybody who has been engaged in the pastoral industry would know that. When I was a young fellow I used to earn my living in the Riverina for many years as a shearer. I would say there are nowhere near 100 000 wool producers in the electorate of Riverina; yet we find Mr Lusher, one of the chief spokesmen for the National Country Party, getting up in the Parliament and making a statement such as that.

Let me get back to what the newspapers had to say when the Labor Government decided that it should not renegotiate the superphosphate bounty. I will quote from an editorial in the Age of 1 9 February 1 974. It is headed ‘ Super, Gough, you’re right’, and reads:

Subsidies are easier to introduce than to end, even when they have served their ostensible purpose and no longer justify their expense. So it is with the superphosphate bounty which the Federal Government- with rare political courage but nice judgment of economic and social priority- would like to abandon. At $60m a year it has been the most extravagant of the manifold rural subsidies which the Government is progressively subjecting to critical scrutiny and review.

The Sydney Morning Herald of the next day had this to say:

While withdrawal of the superphosphate bounty by the Federal Government has aroused the expected angry protest from farm organisations, it is unlikely to have any disastrous effect on the average farmer.

Members of the Opposition agree that the withdrawal of the superphosphate bounty is unlikely to have any disastrous effect on the average farmer because he gets very little of the superphosphate bounty. The Sydney Morning Herald further states:

Big farming interests, which use considerably more fertiliser will lose much more.

And figures which I will quote shortly will prove that statement in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Let us now look at the Australian of 21 September 1973. It is well recognised I think throughout the length and breadth of Australia that the Australian was no friend of the Whitlam Labor Government at the time and still is not a friend of the Whitlam Labor Opposition. The Australian headed its leading article with the heading ‘Whitlam is right on the bounty’. The article reads:

We said in this column on Monday that the Government’s decision was justifiable It must now be said, in addition, that farmers had better wake up to the fact that their special interests must be absorbed into the community’s general interests. The superphosphate bounty is a luxury … Mr Whitlam has, on the contrary, chosen to be honest. And in being honest he is not only being fair to the urban taxpayer but to the farmer.

That was published in the Australian which, as I said, is no friend of the Labor Party.

It is quite evident that the Government and the farmers’ organisations are placing great emphasis on the interim report of the IAC on superphosphate of 31 July. We have spoken about Mrs Hylda Rolfe who was one of the commissioners and the reasons why she saw fit to resign from the inquiry. She was replaced by Mr D. J. Pekin on 20 May. Page 1 of the report states:

The Commission received some evidence on these matters-

This is the phosphatic fertilisers- at an inquiry held in May 1 975.

Clause 2.2, at page 1 1, deals with public inquiry and evidence and states:

The public inquiry on the matters covered by the report was held at Canberra from 5 to 8 May 1 975.

The report states that Mr Pekin did not come on to the inquiry until 20 May. It is quite evident that Mr Pekin never heard any of the public evidence given to the Commission and probably did not even know when the evidence was being taken that he would even be called upon to sit on the Commission. Unless he had done a massive amount of reading from 20 May until the report went to the printer he would have had no idea of the problems facing the industry and the evidence given before the inquiry. Yet it was his vote that enabled the Commission to report that the bounty should be maintained for an interim period of 12 months.

As I think Senator Walsh pointed out earlier tonight, had Mrs Hylda Rolfe remained on the inquiry it would have reported differently. On page 4 the Commission reports:

The Commission proposes restoration in the belief that, on balance, it would be reasonable to give using industries the benefit of the doubt pending completion of this inquiry and government consideration of its full report. It does this notwithstanding its view that, at this stage of the inquiry, the weight of argument suggests that the various proposed objectives of such assistance could be achieved at lower cost through more direct measures.

This is what we on this side of the chamber believe. There are other ways of assisting primary producers in need than giving an across the board bounty so that the wealthy farmers hog the lot and the people who need it get nothing at all. The report further states:

Many of the arguments for and against assistance on the grounds of improved efficiency in the use of resources are, of course, not dependent upon the degree of prosperity within particular industries.

I think it is worth while for people who may read the Hansard and who may not have had an opportunity to read the report of the Industries Assistance Commission for me to read into Hansard the dissenting opinion of Mr Robinson. The report states:

Mr Robinson does not endorse the Commission’s recommendation for an interim reinstatement of the phosphate fertiliser bounty of $ 1 1 .8 1 per tonne.

He believes that, in the present economic circumstances, such a bounty is inequitable and an ineffective means of tackling the urgent and varied problems faced by many rural producers:

At the present on-farm cost of phosphatic fertilisers, a restoration of the bounty at the old level (unchanged since 1969) is little more than token assistance to most individual recipients. The total charge on Treasury, at a time of Budgetary restraint, will nevertheless be substantial. As an assistance measure, it therefore seems to embody the worst of two worlds.

An interim bounty would have only limited coverage. Users who could not afford the new bounty-paid onfarm cost of $55-$60 per tonne for single superphosphate (and the corresponding prices for other phosphatic fertilisers) would receive no benefit. Thus, the benefit would not accrue to all farmers who were formerly users of superphosphate and would be denied to those in the neediest financial circumstances.

This is what we have been saying both in this place and in the other place. The report continues:

Since the injection of funds into the rural community by way of an interim bounty is inextricably dependent on the investment of very much larger sums by individual farmers it could have significant implications for the rural credit system at a time of tightening liquidity.

If the use of superphosphate- or other inputs- were unduly limited by restrictions on credit it may be more appropriate to correct any imperfection in the credit market directly rather than through a phosphatic fertiliser bounty.

A decision to make payment of the interim bounty retrospective to 1 January, as recommended, would reinforce the incidence with which its benefits fall to the better-off farmers. Those who could afford to buy superphosphate at the new prices for normal late summerautumn spreading will benefit; those who could not afford the new prices will miss out.

Users who believe it desirable to apply superphosphate to pastures and crops in the optimal late summer-autumn months and who deferred their application for the 1975 season will receive no immediate assistance. To the extent that the interim bounty encourages such farmers to switch to spring application of fertiliser it will distort their normal farm practices.

Despite the Commission’s clear warnings, an interim bounty may raise unwarranted expectations among users that it will be continued. Where such expectations are not held, and financial resources are available, the interim bounty may stimulate the stockpiling of bountiable fertiliser.

Of course, this is just what happened.

To the extent that it is temporary and that it raises the necessity to choose between conflicting strategies, an interim bounty adds to the uncertainties which already afflict the rural sector. In this sense, it runs counter to the need for improved farm management.

Interim assistance through a bounty may also be perceived as a precedent for future Government subventions to counteract sharp price increases in farm inputs.

Farm management adjustment already begun in response to price increases and the termination of the bounty at the end of 1974-7 months ago- may well be retarded by the effect of the interim bounty in obscuring the real farm input price structure and the real returns from various levels of fertiliser usage.

The distribution of the interim bounty would be random in that it would not accrue to identifiable industries, or regions, or explicit categories of need or efficiency. Thus, assistance by interim bounty (and particularly a retrospective one) is imprecisely targeted.

Since the generalised nature of the bounty obscures the pattern of recipients it will also tend to obscure the legitimate claims of many farm sectors for immediate and effective assistance. It could pre-empt recognition of the need for specific assistance.

The relationship of world market conditions to the prosperity of many Australian rural industries makes it difficult to assess the impact of an interim bounty on production and prices. But it is at least a possibility that by stimulating or maintaining production of commodities at present in over-supply -

This is what Senator Walsh spoke about at length- the bounty could encourage the continuation of depressed market conditions.

The immediate problems facing some consumers of phosphatic fertilizers involve a reassessment of how profitable it is to use phosphatic fertilizers at current prices if there is no change in previously accepted application rates or established land uses. To the extent that unprofitability is related to returns received on products, Mr Robinson believes that the present Commission inquiries concerned with beef cattle, dairy, apple and pear, dried vine fruits and potato industries are sufficiently broadly based to consider the relevant factors in those industries. Any other industry in difficulty can be referred for urgent inquiry regarding specific assistance.

To the extent that profitability is related to farm business organisation and financial management, Mr Robinson draws attention to the existing rural reconstruction scheme and notes that the Commission is presently inquiring into that scheme and is expected to report by 3 1 December, 1 975.

Persistence of consumption of phosphatic fertilizers at levels which are not immediately profitable and cessation of consumption, at least temporarily, by some users could both result from an inadequate understanding among some farmers of the optimum economic response to various levels of phosphatic fertilizer use.

Whilst it appears that a substantial volume of technical knowledge exists, Mr Robinson thinks that the availability of cheap fertilizer over many years, far from educating farmers in its economic use, may have militated against an adequate understanding of fertilizer responses- particularly at lower levels of application.

A selective intensification of agricultural extension activity in this area may be of more real assistance to a wider group of farmers than would be a bounty based solely on fertilizer consumption.

Mr Robinson believes that a short term interim bounty will assist few users of phosphatic fertilizers substantially, most present users only marginally and some former users not at all. Far from laying the groundwork for a full report which would consider fundamental, long-term issues relating to fertilizer usage and its impact on the balance of Australian agriculture, the interim bounty and its retrospectivity will thus tend to cloud the issues and distort the emphasis of the future course of the inquiry.

He does not consider that the present circumstances justify an interim bounty. They may, however, justify a series of urgent inquiries into the problems of specific farm sectors which are not already under inquiry.

Senator Greenwood:

– That was the minority, dissenting viewpoint, was it not?

Senator McLAREN:

– As I pointed out there was a dissenting viewpoint because Mr Anthony vilified Mrs Hilda Rolfe to the extent that she had to resign from the Commission. Had she remained on the Commission there would have been a two to one opinion along the lines suggested by Mr Robinson.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is pure conjecture.

Senator McLAREN:

– It might be, but why did Mr Anthony vilify Mrs Hilda Rolfe? I think we have proved our point. The very reason that the Opposition is opposed to the reintroduction of the bounty is outlined very clearly in the minority or dissenting opinion from Mr Robinson. I think he has spelt it out in clear terms that we ought to adopt other means of assisting farmers in need.

At the outset of my remarks I said that the coalition parties and farmer organisations used not only the IAC report but also other methods during the 2 Federal election campaigns to hoodwink people living in country areas into believing that the Whitlam Government did them in the eye, as the saying is. Of course, it did not. We find in today’s Adelaide Advertiser an advertisement which, it states, is placed in the public interest by the United Farmers and Graziers Inc. of 124-130 South Terrace, Adelaide. The advertisement reads:

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The decision … to restore the superphosphate bounty . . . will only restore the old image of farmers as a feather bedded sector living on Government handouts’. Hon. B. A. Chatterton, Minister of Agriculture, 12 February 1976.

This is a complete misrepresentation of what the South Australian Minister of Agriculture had to say. I have a copy of the South Australian Hansard for 10, 11 and 12 February 1976. 1 should like to read to the Senate what Mr Chatterton really said. Mr Chatterton was answering a question asked by a member who was well respected in this Parliament some years ago and who is now a member of the Legislative Council in South Australia, Mr Norman Foster. In answer to that question he said:

I have opposed the superphosphate bounty in the past, and I still oppose it. I believe it merely restores in the eyes of the community the image of farmers as being featherbedded and dependent on Government handouts, an image the farmers do not want to have.

That is the statement that was used in this advertisement. The people who placed that advertisement completely ignored a further answer and a statement given by Mr Chatterton the next day in the Legislative Council. The Leader of the Liberal Party in the Upper House, Mr DeGaris, said:

I was surprised yesterday to hear the Minister of Agriculture, when answering a question asked by the Hon. Mr Foster, in what was obviously a previously prepared reply, use the term ‘feather-bedded section of the community living on Government hand-outs’.

After several interjections, Mr DeGaris stated further:

The term ‘feather-bedded section of the community living on Government hand-outs’ was used in relation to the rural community. I think it was a regrettable statement.

He then listed a number of questions to the Minister and said:

My questions to the Minister are: Does he agree . . . fourthly, that increased production will stem from the payment of the bounty . . .

In reply, Mr Chatterton said:

I think the Leader has deliberately misinterpreted what I said in reply to the question yesterday. I did not say that farmers were a feather-bedded section of the community. I said that the rest of the community would get the impression that it was a feather-bedded section of the community depending on hand-outs. That is an unfortunate image for farmers to have.

Mr DeGaris interjected:

Do you agree with that?

Mr Chatterton replied:

I do not. It is a very unfortunate type of image, and it inevitably arises from the decision.

During the next day’s proceedings of the Legislative Council of South Australia Mr Chatterton pointed out that Mr DeGaris deliberately misrepresented him, yet we find in today’s Adelaide Advertiser an advertisement headed In the Public Interest, inserted by the United Farmers and Graziers Incorporated. It deliberately misrepresented Mr Chatterton, the South Australian Minister for Agriculture. These are the tactics that supporters of the Government, members of the National Country Party and other organisations, such as the United Farmers and Graziers Incorporated are adopting. I know that Mr Chatterton is highly respected by the farming community in South Australia. He is a farmer himself. He has done very well for himself because he is efficient and he is practical. To see advertisements such as this being published to try to sway people’s opinions and to turn them away from a Minister of the Crown by deliberately misrepresenting them shows the shallowness of the arguments of the Government and, in particular, of the spokesmen for the United Farmers and Graziers Incorporated. What upset the United Farmers and Graziers Incorporated in South Australia and Mr DeGaris was an answer to a question additional to that asked by Mr Foster on 11 February. Mr Chatterton then revealed to the public at large who were the recipients of the superphosphate bounty. He also revealed the tonnage they were using and the amount of money they were getting. This brings me back to our whole argument of why we are opposed to the re-introduction of the superphosphate bounty and why the Government and the farmers’ associations are so strongly supporting it. They want to look after the wealthy section of the community.

Let us examine the figures revealed by Mr Chatterton. In South Australia in 1973-74 25 052 farmers used superphosphate. Of those, 18 500 farmers used an average of 12 tonnes of superphosphate. If we multiply the number of farmers by 12, it is not very much. Five thousand used an average of 60 tonnes of superphosphate; 1000 farmers used an average of 1 50 tonnes; 500 farmers used an average of 300 tonnes; 40 farmers used an average of 750 tonnes; 10 farmers used an average of 1500 tonnes; and 2 farmers used an average of 5000 tonnes. If we relate this to money values, we find that of the total of 25 052 users, 18 400 of the 18 500 farmers who had an average usage of 12 tonnes received the magnificent sum of $141.72 per head in subsidy; 40 farmers received $8,857.50 per head in subsidy; 10 received $17,715; and 2 received $59,050. From those figures given to the

Minister of Agriculture in South Australia by the Department of Agriculture we find that the people who are getting the real benefit of this subsidy are wealthy farmers. Yet, the very farmers who honourable senators opposite say they are trying to help are getting practically nil. Will the amount of $141.72 per head in subsidy to 18 400 farmers help them overcome their problems? Of course it will not. There is no way in the world such a subsidy will help them. I am sure that the subsidy of $8,857.50 to 40 farmers will help them, and the subsidy of $17,715 to 10 farmers will be of magnificent help to them. But what a wonderful gift to a wealthy section of the community is the subsidy of $59,050 given to 2 farmers.

Honourable senators opposite have criticised Opposition members because we are opposing this legislation. We want to see that direct aid is given to the primary producers of this country who need it and that aid is not given to the people who do not even live on their farms. Many wealthy farmers do not live on their farms. I would venture to say that most of the wealthy farmers in South Australia who received this massive subsidy are living in the illustrious suburb of Burnside and they have managers to run their properties.

I raise the question of who will benefit from this subsidy when it is introduced. This relates back to the question I raised earlier of where the Government will find money to fund the bounty. What is the superphosphate bounty on Mr Fraser’s farm worth? It is worth 125 funeral benefits. We know from figures tabled in the Senate on 9 April- I will refer to those later- and again on 30 September 1975 that Mr Fraser uses a lot of superphosphate on his large property, Nareen, in Victoria. The very least by which he benefits from the bounty is $5,000 per annum; and it is probably more. I refer honourable senators to an answer given by Senator Wriedt, when he was Minister for Agriculture, to a question asked by Senator Walsh. I am not using any facts that are untrue, Senator Wright. I am using facts and figures. In the course of Senator Wriedt’s reply to Senator Walsh, former Senator Marriott, who was with us then but who through some unfortunate circumstances because of statements he made last year, is no longer with us, interjected. Senator Wriedt was talking about the bounty received by some people and said:

  1. . these are the people who received a personal bounty or a bounty in their names in excess of $5,000 in 1973- we do find one name prominently featured, the name John Malcolm Fraser, of Nareen in Victoria. I am not able to vouch for the identity of the John Malcolm Fraser referred to, but if it is the person I think it is, I would believe it fair to assume also that since the re-introduction of the bounty in 1963-

Senator Marriott interjected and said:

Tip the bucket.

Senator Wriedt replied:

Yes, and he is one of the best bucket-tippers in the whole business.

We are all aware of that. Senator Wriedt continued:

It is about time someone disclosed some of the truths about him. Since the re-introduction of the superphosphate bounty in 1963 it is fair to assume that the same person has received payments from the taxpayers in superphosphate bounties totalling possibly as much as $50,000 to spend over his $2 m property.

Of course, it is easy to assess what the total bounty could be because when Senator Wriedt gave that answer he was talking about a period of 10 years. When farms or grazing properties are of the size of Mr Fraser’s property, one knows that if 400 tonnes of superphosphatewhich is equal to a subsidy of $5,000- are used in one year that quantity would be used in other years. That is the minimum amount Mr Fraser would have used. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment is to prevent the bounty being paid to such a person. As I stated earlier, when we give a subsidy of $5,000 to one person, 125 pensioner funeral benefits go out the window. What is Mr Fraser doing now? The Prime Minister is abolishing funeral benefits in the Bill which is now before another place and he is reintroducing the superphosphate bounty in the Bill which we are debating here tonight. As has been said, Labor let the bounty lapse in December 1974 and here we have Mr Fraser bringing it back at a cost of about $60m per year. As Mr Whitlam said the other day, the Prime Minister has poured scorn on the Labor handout mentality but there will be no shortage of hand-outs under the Liberals. Of course, we have been talking about who the recipients of the hand-outs are. It is just that the handouts go to the rich. In South Australia 10 farmers received the amount of money which I quoted from a document. Of course we know that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics states that farmers use the same amount of superphosphate, whether or not there is a bounty. I think that Senator Walsh pointed that out clearly.

In fact, all that the bounty does is to put more money into the pockets of the rich farmers. The pension benefits which the Prime Minister is abolishing are small enough. As I said in this Parliament during a debate some weeks ago, the pensioner benefits ought to be increased instead of abolished. But at least $40 is something. It is something to a surviving spouse of a pensioner when she has to go through the trauma of parting with her loved one. Mr Fraser saved $1.7m by abolishing funeral benefits. That is the overall saving. How does that compare with the money he is spending on himself and other rich farmers? Not a thought has been given to the pensioners but a great thought has been given to honouring some promise that he made to that very wealthy section of the community. In the short time left to me I shall deal with the amendment which was moved by Senator Gietzelt and which I had the privilege of seconding. It reads as follows:

At end of motion add-‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Minister should cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament a list showing the names and addresses of all companies and individuals whose purchases of superphosphate and ammonium phosphate exceed 400 tons in a 12 months period and a list showing the amount of benefit accruing to such companies and individuals. ‘

Of course we had some interjections from the other side of the chamber when Senator Gietzelt moved that amendment and when Senator Walsh referred to it. The interjections were to the effect that in moving this amendment we were invading somebody’s privacy. Why should not the public at large know who are the recipients of this large amount of money? Why be secretive about it? If the Government is prepared to give the benefit to people, why is it not prepared to accept our amendment and publicise the recipients of the benefit? Senator Wright who is trying to interject has often said in this Parliament that we should not sit on anything and that Parliament should be open; that all the moneys that are spent should be an open book for the public at large and for the taxpayers to peruse whenever they wish. So why should that amendment not be accepted? Nothing sinister is contained in it. All we are asking is that the recipients of the money that is taken out of general revenue to fund the rich farmers of this country should be made public knowledge. I have a document which was tabled in the Parliament by Senator Cavanagh and which sets out in detail the names of all the recipients of the bounty who used in excess of 400 tons of superphosphate. I have consulted the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and he has assured me that no problem is involved in incorporating these names in Hansard. I seek leave, Mr President, to incorporate in Hansard a document which was tabled in this Parliament last year and which contains the names of people who were recipients of the bounty in respect of over 400 tons of superphosphate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I attract your attention to the state of the House. If the Government is not prepared to co-operate -

Senator Chaney:

– After this speech it is not surprising.

Senator Georges:

– Nevertheless, the Government is supposed to maintain a quorum in the House and is supposed to be somewhat cooperative. It has not been co-operative. I attract your attention, Mr President, to the state of the House. (Quorum formed)

Senator McLAREN:

– The refusal of Government senators to permit the incorporation of this document bears out what I was saying prior to my seeking leave to incorporate those names in Hansard. It bears out quite glaringly that the Government is not going to accept our amendment and that it is now afraid to have the names of these people incorporated in Hansard as a public record to let the taxpayers of this country know who are the recipients of the magnificent sums of the superphosphate bounty. I think it ill behoves the senators opposite -

Senator Chaney:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. The honourable senator is misrepresenting the objection which has been made to the incorporation of this document. The fact is that the document is already a matter of public record, as the honourable senator’s speech has indicated.

The PRESIDENT:

– A misrepresentation may be answered at the end of the speech. There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator Sim:

– He is an idiot.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, the document is a matter of public record only insofar as -

Senator Walsh:

- Mr President, Senator Sim clearly implied that Senator McLaren was an idiot. I respectfully suggest that that is an unparliamentary remark. It is also untrue.

Senator Sim:

– I withdraw it, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you, Senator Sim.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Chaney stated in his point of order that the document is already on public record. It is on public record only insofar as it is a document which was tabled in the Parliament. But who of the general public has access to that document? Unless I go down and ask for a million copies to be photostated so that I can send them out to people who may be interested, it is not a public document. It is quite evident that Senator Chaney is trying again to prevent the people at large -

Senator Sim:

– You are an idiot.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I again heard Senator Sim call me an idiot. I ask him to withdraw that remark.

Senator Sim:

– I think he is still an idiot but I withdraw it, Mr President.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, that is not a withdrawal, is it? The honourable senator said: ‘I think you are still an idiot but I withdraw it’. That is not the way to withdraw a statement.

Senator Sim:

– I withdraw it, Mr President.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Let us get this clear. The original objection was taken by Senator Walsh, who said that Senator Sim had inferred that Senator McLaren was an idiot. The suggestion was made that Senator Sim withdraw the inference. It was on that lead that Senator Sim was activated or persuaded to reduce his remarks to the simple terms of ‘idiot’. I hardly think that is a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance in the objection. I call Senator McLaren.

Senator McLAREN:

– I could pursue that matter but, of course, the reason for Senator Sim making the statement that I am an idiot is that I want the public at large to know who are the recipients of this large amount of superphosphate bounty which is going to be paid out of general revenue. It is only right and proper that I, as an elected senator from South Australia, should come into this place on behalf of many of the taxpayers in that State and do my utmost to see that those people are informed fully of the recipients of this amount of money.

Why does the Government want to keep this information secret? It is quite obvious that it does not want the public at large to know, in the first place, that their leader, Mr Fraser, is in receipt of at least $5,000. As Senator Wriedt pointed out in this chamber last year in answer to a question asked by Senator Walsh, the amount could possibly be $50,000 over 10 years if one multiplies the last figure that we have by the number of years for which the legislation was in force. That is one of the reasons. Another reason, of course, is that the Government does not want the small farmers in this country to know how they are being hoodwinked by this legislation. The Government does not want the small farmers to know that in fact they are getting nil out of this legislation but the wealthy section of the community is benefiting- those people who live in Burnside in South Australia, in Toorak where Senator Cormack comes from in Melbourne, and on the North Shore of Sydney. Those people hardly ever visit their property except on vacation. They have managers and jackeroos working for them. They are the people who are the major recipients of this bounty. Why on earth should honourable senators opposite not allow this document to be incorporated in Hansard for the information of the people who have to pay for the bounty?

Senator Walsh:

– Read it.

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not have time. This Government already is legislating to take away from the pensioners $40 in order to find $ 1 .7m of this $60m which it wants to pay to the wealthy section of the community. The Government does not want the pensioners to know who are the recipients of this money. I hope that after hearing my remarks honourable senators opposite will have changed their minds and may now like the people to be aware of these facts. I again seek leave to incorporate this document in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Government senators- No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator McLAREN:

– Let me state that at the first opportunity I will read these names into Hansard, and it will take some considerable time. I am sure that I will be able to do it under the Standing Orders. When I do so I will preface the reading of the names with the remark that I was prevented from so doing because honourable senators opposite did not want the public at large to know who were the recipients of the superphosphate bounty on quantities in excess of 400 tons for the year 1973, although it clearly states in the Act that the Minister may call for the names.

Senator Chaney:

– Nonsense.

Senator McLAREN:

– It is not nonsense at all. For Senator Chaney’s benefit I shall read section 14 of the Act. It is quite evident that Senator Chaney has never read it. It reads as follows: 1 4.- ( 1 ) A producer of bountiable products is not entitled to bounty unless he keeps, to the satisfaction of the Minister, accounts, books and documents showing, from time to time, the production and sale of bountiable products and fertiliser mixtures, the selling prices and receipts from sales of bountiable products and fertiliser mixtures and such other information in relation to the bountiable products and fertiliser mixtures as the Minister requires.

That is the section which Senator Murphy used to get the information for the general public of this nation. Sub-section (2.) of section 14 reads: (2.) A producer of bountiable products is not entitled to bounty unless he furnishes to the Comptroller-General, in respect of each financial year in which bounty is payable-

  1. a manufacturing account and trading account and such other information in relation to the bountiable products and fertiliser mixtures as the Minister requires;

That is clearly set out in the Act. It is quite evident that honourable senators opposite who are refusing me leave to incorporate those names in Hansard have no intention in the future when this Bill is passed, as it will be, to invoke section 14 and to call upon the companies to provide them with the names of the people who receive the bounty. They have no intention at all of invoking the Act and making available to the public at large the names of the people who are in receipt of the bounty. That is the whole purpose of the Opposition’s amendment. The names ought to be made available. Likewise the amount of money paid to each individual also ought to be made available. Why does the Government want to keep the people of Australia in the dark? It is quite evident that there is something sinister in this bounty legislation which we are now discussing. Otherwise honourable senators opposite would not have adopted the attitude of refusing to have incorporated in Hansard the names of those people so that millions of people in this country can have access at their leisure to the names of those who are receiving the superphosphate bounty. In lots of cases they may be their neighbours or their employers.

Imagine what one of these people in South Australia in receipt of $59,000 would say to a farm hand who wanted a decent mattress in his hut on which to sleep. He could not plead poverty because if the farm hand knew that he was in receipt of that bounty he could say: ‘You are using $59,000 of the taxpayers’ money yet you are using the argument that you cannot provide me with decent living accommodation or with a decent wage and all the things that go with it’. That is one of the reasons why honourable senators opposite do not want people to know the names of those who are in receipt of this money and the amount of money they receive. As I have said, I will take the first opportunity to read those names into Hansard and then I will distribute copies far and wide so that people are aware of that information. I will make sure that I send copies to all the pensioner organisations so that they know where the money is going which the Government is illegally taking away from them, depriving them of the extra $40 with which to bury a cherished one who has passed on.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– We have just been subjected to a terrific tirade from Senator McLaren. He has gone over and over the matter and has repeated it three times. He has asked permission to incorporate those names, as he calls them, in Hansard knowing full well that they are already incorporated in Hansard and are already a public document.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where?

Senator WALTERS:

-They have been tabled already and they are as a result a public document. The Opposition’s amendment is an indication of the type of Opposition we have in Australia. Ever since I have been interested in politics honourable senators opposite have tried to indulge in an organised campaign of hatred. As a matter of fact I have become increasingly aware that the Australian Labor Party as a whole has repeatedly indulged in this organised hate campaign against certain sections of our community. They have attempted to engender a real class hatred, something which Australians are not used to and something which Australians will not tolerate. We have always felt that Jack is as good as his master, and we have good reason to feel that way. If honourable senators opposite ask any migrant what he likes best about the Australian way of life he will probably say that it is the lack of class distinction as compared to the situation in his own country.

Senator Georges:

- Senator, please do not stir us.

Senator WALTERS:

– I say to Senator Georges that it was not until I came to this chamber that I realised that honourable senators opposite particularly are the offenders in this regard. It appears that they would like to underline that description of themselves in their attempt to move this amendment. What on earth are they trying to do? Are they trying to intimidate this Parliament. Why does Senator Walsh refer to 400 tons? Does he receive only 390 tons? I would like to read the amendment and to point out to the Australian people through Hansard just what sort of an Opposition we have. The amendment states: but the Senate is of the opinion that the Minister should cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament a list showing the names and addresses of all companies and individuals whose purchases of superphosphate and ammonium superphosphate exceed 400 tons in a twelve months period and a list showing the amount of benefit accruing to such companies and individuals. ‘

The amendment points to one section of the community. Is the Opposition wanting to list all those wage earners who are affected by the tariffs which this Government has rightly imposed on every industry or is it once again just seeking to hit one section of the community and stir up the whole of the Australian population? What is wrong with honourable senators opposite? I would like to suggest that they should look a little more deeply into the subject and then they too may be able to support the Bill and do a service to all Australians including the wage earners who have been hit by the abolition of this bounty.

Senator Walsh:

– What nonsense.

Senator WALTERS:

– If Senator Walsh will listen I will explain to him because he is obviously not capable of understanding that the wage earners have been affected.

Debate interrupted.

page 1082

ADJOURNMENT

Ethnic affairs

The PRESIDENT:

– 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 MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I am admiring a few senators’ nice backs and bums. I want to raise 3 ethnic matters tonight. I have alerted Senator Guilfoyle that I intend to ventilate them. The first is a relatively simple one. When we were confronted with the turmoil in Cyprus, the former Minister for Immigration, the Honourable Clyde Cameron, faced up to a situation in Australia in which a number of Cypriots on holiday here, whose land in Cyprus had been overrun by Turkish invaders, found themselves in a very parlous position. With his usual sympathetic attitude, those people were given an indefinite- ( Quorum formed).

Mr President, I will briefly recapitulate for the benefit of the Minister for Social Security. I was saying that I had received a request from the Portuguese community in Sydney on behalf of a number of Portuguese who were on tourist visas in Sydney and possibly in Melbourne and who had previously -

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order. Is it in order for honourable senators to move into the chamber, to provide a quorum and then immediately move out of the chamber?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is quite in order for honourable senators to depart from the Senate chamber, a quorum having been formed.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– As I was saying, tonight I am making a request on behalf of the Sydney Portuguese community. A number of Portuguese nationals who previously were living in Mozambique and Angola and who are on tourist visas in Sydney and in Melbourne wish to be treated in the same way as the former Minister for Immigration, Clyde Cameron, treated certain Cypriots when their country was in turmoil. I know that some semi-official statements have been made about this matter. I can say to the Minister that the number of people involved here is infinitely smaller than the number involved in the Cypriot episode. I should like early consideration to be given to this matter. From discussions that I had with members of the Portuguese community on Sunday, I doubt whether more than a dozen people are involved. I cannot speak for Portuguese nationals in the other States but, as I have said, the number of people involved here is smaller than the number involved in the Cypriot situation.

The second matter relates to the answer to question No. 5 on the notice paper that I received today. I asked how many migrants had come to Australia from Chile between 1 November 1975 and 31 January 1976. There is difficulty in getting specific information about the number of people who may be defined in the jargon of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs as being under political duress. I am not completely blaming the Department here. The Department of Foreign Affairs accepts the reports of the United Nations Refugee Commission on political refugees. But in this half-way house situation, the information that I get from the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union and from other unions which have been interested in this matter is that from time to time people are being released in Chile after being imprisoned for their political activities. Australia, together with a number of other countries, is pledged to accept a number of refugees who want to make a fresh start. I will admit that a majority of these people prefer to remain in the Latin American continent.

All I am doing tonight, as the Minister will appreciate, is saying that I believe the answer to question No. 5 on the notice paper is not an answer in depth as far as the people who were classified by the United Nations Refugee Commission are concerned. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard question No. 5 on the notice paper and the answer, together with a letter from the Committee for Solidarity with the Chilean People dealing with a particular case.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the following question:

  1. How many migrants have entered Australia from Chile since November 1975.
  2. Have any of those persons recently been released from Chilean gaols where they had been imprisoned for political activities.
Senator Guilfoyle:

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) 20 1 migrants from Chile arrived in Australia between 1 November 1975 and 31 January 1976.
  2. According to the records of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, none of these persons had been released from prison recently for political activities.

SOLIDARIDAD CON CHILE!

Commite for Solidarity with the Chilean people

C/o P.O. Box C327, Clarence Street, Syney, N.S.W. 2000. 19th March, 1976

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

Enclosed is a copy of a letter I sent to the Minister today. I understand Lucho and Lucia Abarca have discussed the case with you before.

The matter is rather urgent, not only because the family can’t find work in the present situation in Chile but because the son is due to be called into the army.

What would be the likely outcome if he came here on a tourist visa and then sought permanent residence?

Any advice or assistance you could give would be most welcome.

Sincerely, MAVIS ROBERTSON 4, Parkview I.B.Innes Road Greenwich 19th March, 1976

The Minister for Immigration Parliament House CANBERRA

Dear Sir,

I am writing to make representations for several Chileans who wish to be granted permanent residence in Australia.

These people are the parents and brother of Mr L. Abarca and his sister who have already migrated to Australia.

Neither the parents or the brother, Christian Abarca, have any permanent employment in Chile at present. Indeed their situation is such that money has been sent to them so that they may travel to Brazil to seek work.

The father is a shoe repairer and his son, aged 18, has completed a technical course as a motor mechanic.

An application was made by Mr L. Abarca to sponsor both his parents and his brother. Mr L. Abarca has found accommodation for them and has a job as a motor mechanic arranged for his brother.

Despite these arrangements, and an offer by Mr Abarca to limit the application to his brother (although he obviously wants his parents to join him too), he has been informed that when Christian Abarca was interviewed at the Australian Embassy in Chile it was said that he would not be able to migrate here before 1977 at the earliest. Mr L. Abarca is in regular employment in a factory, his sister is a laboratory technician at the University of N.S.W. Together they are able to pay all fares for their brother and parents.

Is there any way that these applications, particularly the application of Christian Abarca, can be processed more quickly? I realise that the present migration program is limited but as there is a job and accommodation for this young man and his relatives are able to pay his fares I request you to consider the matter favourably even if this means that only the brother is given permission to reside in Australia in the near future.

Yours faithfully, MAVIS ROBERTSON

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Last but certainly not least, as I am sure Senator Lajovic will appreciate, earlier this year I wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) about a matter. Senator Lajovic would not be aware of this, but he will understand that there was no need to brief him about it because I was merely giving the Department a gentle push to stir it up. Earlier this year members of the Sydney Slovene community- people who would be well known to Senator Lajovic, I am surecomplained about the position of people coming from Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, to our Embassy in Belgrade. It is a lengthy train journey, as Senator Lajovic will agree. These people have found that they are asked to be in Belgrade on a certain day, but our Embassy does not say to them: ‘Be there at 9 a.m.’. In fact, people might front up at the Embassy at 9 a.m. and still be there at 4.30 p.m.

In a letter to the Minister early in January I made more detailed allegations about whether the staff of the Embassy was anti-Slovene. It could well be that they were. But I believed that even if they were these people coming to the Embassy could be treated in the same way as outpatients at hospitals are treated. It is not difficult to devise a system which provides a time slot for people. In fairness to the Minister, early in March I sent him a telegram, and I was assured that I was on the verge of getting a reply. Honourable senators who receive correspondence from eastern Europe would know that with modern communications that part of the world is not so far away. The members of the Sydney Slovene community believe that people who have to travel this distance to Belgrade should be given an appointment and that that appointment should be kept. I will conclude on that note. I could say a lot more, but question No. 7 on the notice paper remains unanswered. At a later stage I might ask why people in eastern Europe are subjected to these interviews when people in other countries are not. I will pursue that matter on another occasion when I have received an answer to the other question. I leave the 3 matters in the hands of the Minister.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I will make some brief comments on the 3 matters that have been raised. As I understand it, Senator Mulvihill asked whether people who have come from Angola and Mozambique on visitors’ visas could have those visas extended using, as a precedent, what happened in the Cypriot situation. The information I have received from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) is that a general waiver or postponement of return home obligations for visitors from Angola and Mozambique is not contemplated. However, applications for extension of stay or change of status will be examined individually on their merits. That is to say, persons from those 2 countries who are in Australia may apply and the application will be considered on the merits of the individual case.

With regard to the Portuguese people, the information which I have from the Minister is that a submission on the size and composition of the immigration program for 1976-77 is presently being prepared and will shortly be considered by the Government. Until the Government takes a decision I cannot speculate on the size of that program. But on Monday, 12 April, the Minister will meet with the Immigration Ministers from the States. That meeting will provide an opportunity for the States to set out their own requirement which will be seriously considered by the Commonwealth Government before determining the immigration program for 1976-77. The matter of the Portuguese people could be raised in that context.

The other matter was in regard to Chile. The question was whether it was correct that we did not accept for migration anyone who had been in prison or whether exceptions were made for political prisoners or people who are imprisoned because of trade union activity or because of United Nations refugee activities. The information I have is that a record of imprisonment need not debar a person from entering Australia. Cases in this situation are considered individually on their merits. I am sure the Minister will be interested in the honourable senator’s comments with regard to people from Chile in that context. I note what the honourable senator has said with regard to question No. 7 on the Notice Paper. I will draw the Minister’s attention to that matter and also the other matter that he raised with regard to the attitude of departmental staff. If there is further information which I can obtain for the honourable senator, I will be pleased to do so.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– In courtesy to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) I state that I did not raise the point that I would be speaking. But since it is necessary in some way to indicate that co-operation is expected on this side from the Government when incorporations in Hansard are sought from time to time, I would like to attract your attention, Mr President, to the state of the House. If my action appears to be a lack of co-operation on my part, I state that it is in retaliation for a lack of co-operation on the part of the Government. Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed)

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.43 p.m.

page 1085

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Commonwealth Buildings: Cleaning Contracts (Question No. 2)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of the various contract cleaning companies that operate in Commonwealth Buildings located in New South Wales.
  2. What are the locations of the various Commonwealth Offices in Sydney that are serviced by the firms referred to in (i)-
  3. Are cleaning staffs subject to a security check before being employed; if so, who conducts such screenings.
  4. Have there been any occasions when the requirements referred to in (iii) have not been fully adhered to.
  5. v) If the answer to (iii) is in the affirmative, what are the details of the breach of security committed and what punitive action was taken against those responsible.
  6. How long has the contract, of the company involved, to run before it expires.
  7. Does the Minister intend excluding that company from tendering for future contracts, as a punishment.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. to (vii) The preparation of a reply to the honourable senator’s question involves the collection of detailed information from various sources. To complete the work involved would require a major commitment of resources and I am not convinced that this would be warranted.

A number of departments engage cleaning contractors who in turn employ staff who are subject to security checks as appropriate.

If the honourable senator is referring to recent items in the Sydney press I can inform him that security inquiries have failed to confirm the press allegations and no breach of security was established.

If the honourable senator would like any further information and if he could be more specific about any matter in which he is particularly interested I would be pleased to make further inquiries for him.

Migrants from Chile (Question No. 5)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many migrants have entered Australia from Chile since November 1 975.
  2. Have any of those persons recently been released from Chilean gaols where they had been imprisoned for political activities.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer:

  1. 201 immigrants from Chile arrived in Australia between 1 November 1975 and 31 January 1976.
  2. According to the records of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, none of these persons had been released from prison recently for political activities.

Abortion (Question No. 29)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the booklet A Woman’s Guide to Abortion-Why, How and Where’ compiled and produced by the Women’s Abortion Action Campaign and the Women’s Abortion Action Coalition.
  2. Does the booklet recommend that paramedical staff should be encouraged to perform abortions.
  3. Does the booklet state that it opposes restrictions that abortions should only be performed by registered medical practitioners.
  4. Was this booklet produced with the support of any Federal Government grant; if so, what was the grant and what was the amount of subsidy.
  5. Has a similar grant been given to organisations wishing to express a contrary point of view; if not, is it intended that this should be done.
  6. Do the conclusions of the booklet express the views of the Government.
  7. Has the Government sponsored any studies into the effects, including detrimental effects, of therapeutic abortion; if not, will it do so.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The booklet states that under existing legislation only registered medical practitioners may perform abortions. My impression is that the authors of the booklet believe that this restriction should be lifted.
  3. On 6 June 1975 the former Prime Minister announced a grant to the Women’s Abortion Action Coalition (N.S.W. and Victoria) from International Women’s Year funds. The grant of $ 10,000 was to cover part of the costs of a conference ($2,500) and the reprinting of the booklet referred to ($7,500).
  4. While a grant has not been given, within the Health portfolio, to any organisation specifically wishing to express a contrary view, the Government provides assistance to both the Australian Federation of Family Planning Associations and the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission ($250,000 and $125,000 respectively in 1975-76) to assist with family planning and contraceptive programs.
  5. No.
  6. This Government has not sponsored any studies into the effects of therapeutic abortion. However, as a condition relating to the previous Government’s re-establishment grant to the Preterm Foundation, statistics on the effects of abortion are to be made available to the Commonwealth Department of Health.

Health: Disclosure of Patients’ Names (Question No. 39)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Did the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission discuss at a meeting held on, or about, IS October 197S, the circumstances in which the names and addresses of certain patients were disclosed to a research worker.
  2. What decisions and recommendations resulted from that meeting.
  3. Do they differ in any way from the statement released by the then Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation to Estimates Committee D in 1975 relating to the same improper release of information.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has been provided by his Department with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. That written consent must be obtained from patients or their guardians by clinical staff treating the patient before any approaches are made seeking to involve patients in research projects.
  3. No.

Haemophilia: Treatment (Question No. 52)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the loss of blood clotting activity in the preparation of freeze dried concentrates by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the order of 85 to 90 per cent.
  2. Is this, rather than technical capacity, the eventual limiting factor in the production of concentrates of antihaemophilic factor for the treatment of haemophilia.
  3. What research and development programmes are currently under way by Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to examine and overcome inefficiencies in the production of anti-haemophilic concentrates such as those referred to above.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The loss of blood clotting activity in the preparation of high purity anti-haemophilic factor by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is in the order of 80 per cent which compares favourably with best world yields.
  2. The major limiting factors in the production of A.H.F. are the intake of plasma and the capacity for processing at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The latter will increase with new equipment to be installed this year.
  3. No specific research and development programmes are currently being conducted by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories on this matter. However, the Laboratories maintain a continuous evaluation of all processes involved to ensure the maximum recovery of anti-haemophilic factor from the plasma as received.

Hypertension (Question No. S3)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Is hypertension a known factor predisposing to many forms of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.
  2. Is it known whether early detection and treatment of hypertension could alter costs to the community from cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease.
  3. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report of mass screenings for hypertension carried out in Copenhagen supermarkets.
  4. Did reports of this particular study carried out during Heart Week ‘in February 1975 by the Danish Hearth Foundation result in the referral of 23 per cent of members of the public to their general practitioners for further evaluation.
  5. Does it appear that mass screening in supermarkets might be one cheap and effective way of detecting hypertension; if so, what plans does the Commonwealth Government have to encourage such screening in the Territories or in the States.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. and (4) Yes.
  4. The question of mass screening as an early treatment of hypertension is being investigated in a major study in Australia, the National Hypertension Project. This is being co-sponsored by several bodies including the National Heart Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Life Insurance Medical Research Fund of Australia and New Zealand, the Ramaciotti Foundations, the Raine Medical Research Foundation and the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. The third year of the project has just been completed and it is expected to be continued for at least another 3 years before valid consequences can be drawn from the results.

The general objectives of the project are to obtain information on the effectiveness of different screening procedures and, more importantly, to obtain information on whether early treatment of mild degrees of hypertension does have an effect upon the subsequent development of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases.

The Commonwealth Government has, through the National Health and Medical Research Council, contributed $100,000 to this project during the 1973-75 triennium and will contribute $70,000 during the 1976 calender year. Through the Hospitals and Health Services Commission’s Planning and Research Program it contributed a further $28,548 in 1974-75.

Nursing Home Facilities (Question No. 107)

Senator Knight:

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

What plans are presently under consideration for the provision of nursing home facilities for the aged in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Capital Territory Health Commission operates 148 nursing beds at Allambee Nursing Home and 64 nursing beds in the Community Health Block at the Woden Valley Hospital. A private nursing home provides a further 7 1 beds. Towards the end of 1976 the Commission will open a 64-bed home at Narrabundah and this, primarily, will take patients currently accommodated at the Woden Valley Hospital. The Commission plans to open a 96-bed home in Bruce during 1980.

Public Servants: Air Travel (Question No. 136)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Do all Commonwealth Public Servants travel economy class on airlines when on official business.
  2. Do staff of statutory bodies travel economy class when on official business.
  3. Do Justices of the High Court travel economy class when on official business.
  4. Do all members of the Commonwealth Parliament travel economy class when on Parliamentary business.
  5. Are there any plans to review travel arrangements and procedures for any of these four categories in the foreseeable future.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

On 18 August 1975 the former Prime Minister announced the Government’s decision that as a special measure of expenditure restraint persons travelling at Government expense on internal domestic airlines would in future do so at economy class rates. This decision was to take effect from 1 September 1975. The Public Service Board conveyed this direction to all Departments on 19 August 1975. The former Prime Minister also advised Ministers that this directive should be applied to members of statutory bodies.

In order to answer all parts of the question it was necessary to seek the advice of the Public Service Board on parts 1 and 5, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on parts 2 and 5 and Attorney-General’s Department on Parts 3 and 5.

and (2) It was decided by the Government in December 1975 to maintain the decision of the previous Government that persons travelling at Government expense on internal domestic airlines should do so at economy class rates. The decision applies to all travel within Australia by Public Servants and staff of statutory bodies on official business, but not to overseas travel.

I have been informed that Justices of the High Court do not travel economy class when on official business.

Members of Parliament, including Ministers, are provided at Government expense with air fares at economy class rates, when travelling on Parliamentary business in Australia. Exceptions may occur in the case of holders of Life Gold Passes who are still in Parliament. One of the entitlements of a Life Gold Pass is that holders may travel first class.

In relation to Commonwealth Public Servants and staff of statutory bodies, the directive of 18 August 1975 by the former Prime Minister is still operative and I am not aware of any proposal to review the situation. However, I have been informed that the Public Service Board is currently reviewing the provisions relating to overseas air travel by Public Servants. No review is currently being made of travel arrangements for Justices of the High Court.

As far as Members of Parliament are concerned the matter of travel within Australia has been referred to the Remuneration Tribunal for review and determination as appropriate. I refer the honourable senator to my address of 4 March last (Hansard pages 430-43 1 ) in which I stated that I had written to the Chairman of the Remuneration Tribunal, Mr Justice W. B. Campbell, formally requesting him to make, inter alia, determinations on the provision of travel within Australia for Senators and Members on parliamentary and electorate business.

The Remuneration Tribunal will, except in exceptional circumstances, which will be made public at the time, determine matters relating to the entitlements of Senators and Members. The Parliament will still retain the right of disapproval of any determinations made by the Tribunal.

VIP Travel (Question No. 139)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

Have the guidelines for the use of VIP aircraft and VIP motor vehicles been varied since 11 November 1975; if so, what are the new guidelines.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Minister for Defence has advised me that there has been no change to the guidelines relating to the use of VIP aircraft since 1 1 November 1975.

The guidelines for the use of VIP motor vehicles are the responsibility of my Department. They have not been varied since 1 1 November 1975.

Social Services (Question No. 145)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the average waiting time between application for and receipt of (a) sickness benefit, (b) unemployment benefit, (c) age pension, (d) invalid pension, and (e) widows pension.
  2. What percentage of initial applications are found on investigation not to justify the receipt of benefit in each of the five categories.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. (a) For sickness benefit, the average time between lodgment of claim and payment is six days. There is a statutory waiting period of seven days from the commencement of the claimant’s incapacity, but usually this period has passed before the majority of claims are lodged and does not delay payment. More than half the applications for sickness benefit are paid within two to three days of lodgment. The delays in the processing of the remaining cases, which give rise to the higher average time, are usually brought about by claimants providing insufficient information on their claims.

    1. For unemployment benefit, the average time between lodgment of claim and payment is 13.5 days. Each claimant must serve a statutory waiting period of seven days from registration for work and, on the eighth day, is required to lodge a statement of income. Over 70 per cent of claims are paid within the two to three days following lodgment of the statement of income, i.e. by the tenth or eleventh day from registration for work. The delays in the processing of the remaining cases, which give rise to the higher average time. are mainly caused by the late lodgment of statements of income. (c), (d) and (e) In the case of age, invalid and widows’ pensions, the average time between lodgment of claim and payment of pension is 23 to 25 days. More than half the claims are paid within fourteen days of application. The delays in processing the remaining cases, which give rise to the higher average time, are usually brought about by claimants providing insufficient evidence in support of their claims.

  2. The estimated percentages of claims for unemployment and sickness benefit where payment is not justified are 8 per cent and 4 per cent respectively.

The percentages of initial claims for age, invalid and widows’ pensions which do not justify payment are 7.1 per cent, 43 per cent and 5.6 per cent respectively.

Industrial Accidents (Question No. 152)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide details of the latest statistics relating to industrial accidents in Australia.
  2. What action does the Minister propose to take to reduce the level of industrial accidents in this country.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The latest statistics relating to industrial accidents in Australia are contained in the following estimates which have been compiled by the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and State Departments of Labour in collaboration with the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

They are based on State statistics of claims finalised during 1971-72 under workers’ compensation insurance and on special extractions compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Because of differences in State compensation legislation and methods of statistical collection, national figures on industrial accidents can only be regarded as approximations.

It is estimated that for the year 1971-72- the latest available return- there were about 400 fatalities, 280 000 injuries resulting in the loss of one or more working days or shifts and 770 000 man weeks of working time lost by employees as a result of these injuries.

  1. To reduce the level of industrial accidents, the Government will be continuing to encourage greater consultation, participation and co-operation between employers, unions and employees with a view to formulating policies and programs with particular emphasis on occupational safety. Indeed, where firms have acted in co-operation with their employees and unions, there has been a substantial reduction in the level of industrial accidents and injuries. For its part, the Commonwealth Government is continuing the implementation of an occupational safety and health program developed by a Committee comprised of representatives from the Public Service Board, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (Chair), Department of Construction, Department of Industry and Commerce and the Australian Postal Commission, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and the Committee of Chief Inspectors of State Labor Departments. This program is specifically directed to reducing the incidence of industrial accidents and injuries incurred by its employees during the course of their employment.

Further, my Department, in co-operation with the State Departments of Labour under the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee arrangements, has given a high priority for the furthering of its research and development of standards for uniform safety and physical working conditions.

Naval Personnel: Accommodation (Question No. 160)

Senator Chaney:

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

  1. 1 ) What accommodation for Navy personnel involved on HMAS Stirling is being provided (a) on Garden Island and (b) in nearby suburbs.
  2. What is the maximum number of Navy personnel who will be (a) stationed at HMAS Stirling and (b) visiting HMAS Stirling from time to time, for whom accommodation should be provided by the Navy.
  3. Has the size of the hospital facility on HMAS Stirling been reduced during the planning stages and, if it has, (a) what was the size originally planned, (b) what is the size now planned, and (c) what is the comparative cost of the two hospitals.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. (a) Single accommodation for: 21 Officers; 42 Senior Sailors; 216 Junior Sailors, (b) 212 houses for married personnel.
  2. (a) Ashore- 397 personnel; In ships based on facility- 935 personnel, (b) 12.
  3. The planned size of the hospital facility has recently been reduced. It was originally planned for 20 beds at an approximate cost of $ 1.0m. It is now planned for 8 beds. The re-design is not yet complete but the cost is expected to be approximately $600,000.

Phosphate Rock (Question No. 173)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the total stockpile of phosphate rock in Australia at 3 1 January 1 976.
  2. How much of this has been brought from (a) Christmas Island, (b) Nauru, and (c) Ocean Island.
  3. What is the total amount owing in overdraft by the British Phosphate Commission and/or the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission.
  4. What is the differential price between phosphatic rock supplied to Australian farmers and the Florida price on the international market.
  5. What is the estimated total annual saving to Australian primary producers by the provision to them of Christmas Island, Nauruan and Ocean Island phosphate.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The total stockpile of phosphate rock in Australia at 3 1 January 1976 was 2 365 690 tonnes.
  2. Of the total stockpile of phosphate rock, the amounts brought from Christmas Island, Nauru and Ocean Island were: Christmas Island 1 001 600 tonnes; Nauru/Ocean Island 1 338 341 tonnes.

No distinction is maintained between phosphate rock brought from Nauru and that from Ocean Island. The remainder of the phosphate rock in the stockpile came from other sources.

  1. and (4) The financial basis of the dealings of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and the British Phosphate Commission with its sources of supply is confidential to the parties concerned and to the partner governments.

    1. An answer to this question is not available. In the past 12 months the fob prices of phosphate rock from Florida and Morocco, which are the major world suppliers, have been subject to over a 40 per cent price variation. In addition, any estimated savings would have to be based on a number of assumptions including the tonnages used from each source, possible price discounts, freight costs and a number of other commercial charges.

In general terms, although the price charged for Nauruan and Ocean Island phosphate rock is comparable with world prices, Australian and New Zealand primary producers have benefited from the lower costs of importing phosphate rock from Christmas Island. Producers have also benefited from the assured sources of supply of rock phosphate from the three Islands.

Hospital Pharmacies: Charges (Question No. 177)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Has the State of Victoria asked the Federal Government for permission to charge $2 for each prescription handled by hospital pharmacies.
  2. Have any other States made similar representations.
  3. Is the Federal Government examining the proposal; if so, when is an announcement on the Government’s decision likely to be made.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. The Commonwealth Government has established the Medibank Review Committee to carry out an overall review of the Medibank arrangements. The matter of the supply of pharmaceuticals within recognised hospitals could be one of the matters at present under consideration by the Committee.

The Medibank Review Committee is to report by the end of May 1 976. However, provision exists for the Committee to furnish interim reports before this date.

Military Aid to Indonesia (Question No. 217)

Senator Button:
VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) What is the amount of military aid appropriated for Indonesia in 1975-76.
  2. What equipment will be purchased in Australia with this aid appropriation.
  3. Is Indonesia permitted to purchase arms from other countries with funds provided from Australia.
  4. Has the Australian Government asked the Government of Indonesia if Australian provided arms and equipment have been used by Indonesian forces in East Timor.
  5. What conditions are imposed on the use of military aid supplied by Australia to Indonesia or purchased by Indonesia with Australian funds.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. $6,750,000 has been appropriated in 1975-76 for defence co-operation with Indonesia.
  2. Equipment is provided as an element in comprehensive co-operative projects in which the Australian contribution also includes training, advisory services and assistance with spares, maintenance and backup facilities. The main items of equipment being funded in 1 975-76 as part of such projects are four Nomad aircraft, six small patrol boats, and dental equipment.
  3. No.
  4. The Australian Ambassador in Jakarta has received firm assurances from the Indonesian authorities that no arms or equipment provided by Australia under defence cooperation have been or will be used in East Timor.
  5. All defence material supplied by Australia to other countries, including Indonesia, is subject to the condition that it shall not be transferred to third countries without the prior approval of the Australian Government.

Military Aid to Indonesia (Question No. 220)

Senator Button:

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

  1. What was the amount of Australian military aid to Indonesia in each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974- 75 and 1975-76.
  2. What items of military equipment were purchased with Australian funds in each year since and including 1971-72.
  3. How many Indonesian armed services personnel have received training in Australia in each year since and including 1971-72.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Equipment was provided as an element in comprehensive co-operative projects in which the Australian contribution also included training, advisory services and. assistance with spares, maintenance and back-up facilities. The main items of equipment funded as part of such projects are: 197 1- 72 -Nil. 1972- 73-16 ex- RAAF Sabre aircraft. 500 field radio transceivers. 1973- 74-One ex-RAN Attack Class patrol boat. Two exRAAF Dakota aircraft. Three Link instrument flying trainers. Three electronic target ranges. Personal and field equipment for Indonesian contingent to UN peacekeeping force in Middle East. 1974- 75-One ex-RAN Attack class patrol boat. Three electronic target ranges. 261 field radio transceivers. 1975- 76- Four Nomad aircraft. Six small patrol boats. Dental equipment.

Voluntary Health Insurance Association (Question No. 250)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia offered to pay out Medibank rebates at its members’ offices throughout Australia; if so, when was the proposal first put to the Government.
  2. Has the Minister discussed the offer with officers of the Association.
  3. 3 ) Will the proposal be accepted by the Government.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The proposal by the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia was made by way of a submission directly to the Medibank Review Committee which was established by the Government. The Committee will be examining closely the numerous submissions it has received from groups and individuals interested in the financing and delivery of health care in Australia. Until the Committee’s report has been considered by the Government, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on individual proposals.

Medibank (Question No. 275)

Senator Colston:

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

What funds have been transferred from the Commonwealth to each State Government for the hospital side of Medibank since the inception of the Scheme.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The following table indicates the amount of money that has been paid to each of the States under the Medibank Hospitals Agreements from the Health Insurance Fund for the period from the date of entry of each into the scheme until the end of February 1 976.

Pine Rivers Shire Council (Question No. 276)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has the Treasurer received a letter from the Shire Clerk of the Pine Rivers Shire Council dated 18 February 1 976, in connection with the Sewerage Backlog Programme.
  2. Has the Treasurer discussed with his officers the Shire Council’s request that the Council in future be given more notice regarding the allocation of funds; if so, what was the outcome of those discussions.
  3. Has approval been given for an extension of time in which the funds granted to the Council for 1975-76 may be expended; if so, what was the final decision, and when was it communicated to the Council.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. I also received representations in similar terms on behalf of the Pine Rivers Shire Council from members of both Houses.
  2. and (3) The responsibility for the administration and programming of funds within the National Sewerage Program rests with the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Accordingly, the representations to which you have referred were referred to the Minister for consideration and reply direct. I suggest that the honourable senator redirect this question to the Minister.

Taxation (Question No. 277)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is the Government considering the re-introduction of the old concessional taxation deduction system as a replacement for the easy-rebate system introduced in the Hayden Budget.
  2. Would the adoption of the old system mean an increase in pay as you earn contributions for most Australians.
  3. What effect would the re-introduction of the old system have on the adoption of tax indexation.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. This raises a matter of Government Policy. Information on such matters, by longstanding custom, is not divulged in response to questions.
  2. and (3) See reply to(l).

National Health Scheme (Question No. 279)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Is there likely to be considerable confusion among doctors about items which will not be on the National Health Scheme list after 1 April 1976.
  2. Is this a result of the Government’s refusal to reprint doctors’ drug manuals to delete drugs recently taken off the free list.
  3. If it is, will the Government reverse this decision in the light of claims by several chemists that doctors will continue to prescribe drugs no longer on the National Health Scheme list because of outdated drug manuals.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) There should not be confusion among doctors about the 1 April changes to the list of pharmaceutical benefits. Detailed amendment advices and summary of changes have been sent to doctors. The amendment booklet is of the same page size as the doctors’ Schedule of Benefits and the amendments are clearly set out to avoid any confusion.

The next Schedule of Benefits for doctors will be printed to take effect on 1 June 1976 and will include all amendments up to that date. The changes to the printing arrangements in 1976 for the Schedules of Benefits are part of the program the Government has found it necessary to follow in an effort to reduce Government expenditure in the current economic situation.

Prices Justification Tribunal (Question No. 283)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government considering lifting the limit for automatic notification of price moves to the Prices Justification Tribunal; if so, is the limit to be increased from $20m to $50m.
  2. Is it likely that this move will affect the rate of price rises.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1) The future of the Prices Justification Tribunal is under consideration by the Government. Before making a decision, the Government expects, in the near future, to discuss the role of the Tribunal with representatives of the union movement and employers. In this regard, the Government recently invited the public generally to present submissions on the Tribunal and the main points made in these submissions will be put to the parties at the forthcoming meeting.

Although a number of proposals for modification of the Tribunal have been made, the Government is not committed to any specific changes in the notification or other provisions of the Prices Justification Act.

  1. See (1) above.

Superphosphate (Question No. 292)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What increases, if any, have occurred in the price of superphosphate since the announcement of the reintroduction of bounty payments.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Enquiries of the Prices Justification Tribunal indicate that no increases have occurred in the price of superphosphate since the announcement on 10 February 1976 of the re-introduction of the bounty.

Migrants: Command of English Language (Question No. 322)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many persons have been admitted for residence in Australia in each year since 1966 who have, at the time of their arrival in Australia, had (a) no command of the English language, or(b) little command of the English language.
  2. What proportion of the total migrant intake is represented by the respective figures.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Statistics of settler arrivals do not differentiate according to English language abilities. It is not possible, therefore, to provide the information requested by the Honourable Senator.

A substantial proportion of the migrant intake is from predominantly non-English speaking countries.

In recognition of the importance of being able to speak English for many aspects of life in Australia, the Government provides pre-embarkation English language courses in some source countries as well as a wide range of such courses for migrants after arrival in Australia. The Honourable Senator may wish to consult the report to Parliament by the Minister for Education on Migrant Education Programme for the Financial Year 1974-75 which was tabled on 19 February 1976.

Mr Peter Clyne (Question No. 328)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Does the Minister still hold to his original view that he had no intention of interfering with the currency of the existing Australian passport held by Mr Peter Clyne, a former Sydney solicitor, despite the remarks of Judge Sarah Hughes, following the conviction of Mr Clyne for contravening the revenue laws of the United States of America.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer:

I do not propose for the time being to take any steps to deprive Mr Clyne of his Australian passport. Mr Clyne is at present in custody in the United States and it can be assumed that the local prison authorities, as is usual, are holding Mr Clyne ‘s passport along with his other personal possessions. Mr Clyne is due to come before a Judge for sentencing on 9 April. As soon as the terms of his sentence are known I shall consider Mr Clyne ‘s case further to see if action needs to be taken about his passport.

Beef Exports (Question No. 352)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has New Zealand recently ratified veterinary agreements that will make New Zealand beef acceptable to the European Economic Community.
  2. Does the Australian Government plan to similarly ratify the agreements so that Australia’s surplus beef will have a better chance of being sold to the Community this year.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. and (2) New Zealand and Australia have not yet received a reply to their submissions to the European Economic Community. New Zealand has not ratified any agreement with the European Economic Community. Australia does not propose to ratify any agreement with the European Economic Community until negotiations have been completed.

Electoral (Question No. 169)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What is the number of electors enrolled in each subdivision of each electoral division as at 28 February 1 976.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The number of electors enrolled in each subdivision of each electoral division as at 28 February 1 976 is set out in the following table compiled by the Australian Electoral Office.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 April 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760406_senate_30_s67/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant