Senate
7 April 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1105

PETITIONS

Overseas Aid

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 23 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 Aid

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 16 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 Aid

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 25 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.

Conservation and Public Austerity

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-I present the following petition from 36 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:

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Governments program of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Housing Loans

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present 2 petitions similar in wording from 8 and 16 citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectively:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That the failure of the Government to honour its 1975 election promise that the ‘existing Commissioner for Housing loans scheme would continue’ will cause widespread hardship among citizens of the Australian Capital Territory because:

1 ) It will cause financial difficulties for those who, in good faith, and believing the Government would keep its promise, have entered into contractual arrangements,

2 ) It will exacerbate the accommodation shortage in the Territory; and

It will exacerbate unemployment in the building and dependent industries.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should therefore impress upon the Government the need for:

election promises to be adhered to, particularly where contractual arrangements and purchases have been made by private citizens as a result of such promises; and

the need for the continuance of Commissioner for Housing loans on the same basis as before the December 1975 election.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and first petition read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Conservation and Public Austerity

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of community organisations respectfully showeth that:

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Government programme of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Greenwood.

Petition received.

National Employment and Training Scheme

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 1st 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 dependants 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 1st April, 1976, 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 Systems so that they are equivalent to the average adult male award wage.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Thomas and Durack.

Petitions received.

page 1106

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1106

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Social Security whether it is a fact that until February this year 70 per cent of citizens who were refused the unemployment benefit, for reasons of failing the work test, were successful in having the decision reversed on appeal. What is the reason for this high success rate on appeal? Does the Government anticipate that its new guidelines for the unemployment benefit will result in fewer successful appeals?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The Government is aware that a large proportion of the refusals of the unemployment benefit have been reversed on appeal, whether on appeal to the Department or to the Tribunal. I do not believe that the new guidelines necessarily will result in any lesser percentage of successful appeals. The guidelines will be administered by the officers of my Department. If any person who is refused a benefit wishes to appeal, he has access either to the Department or to the Tribunal. It will be of interest to see what the result is. It does not necessarily follow that the new guidelines will produce a situation different from that of the past.

Senator GRIMES:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I asked the Minister whether she could give any reason for the high success rate on appeal up to now.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It would need an examination of the number of appeals out of the number of unemployment benefits which were paid for us to see any relativity in the 70 per cent of appeals which were made. If we are talking about 70 per cent of one per cent of the total number of benefits or if we are talking about 70 per cent of 10 per cent, then we are talking about two entirely different things. I shall examine the figures to see exactly what 70 per cent of the appeals represent before I can comment further on the reason.

page 1107

QUESTION

BLINDNESS

Senator BONNER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is today being celebrated as World Health Day, the theme being ‘Foresight Prevents Blindness’? What is the Government doing to help overcome blindness and trachoma among the Aboriginal people who are perhaps some of the greatest sufferers from blindness in Australia? Further, will the Government consider using the services of Dr Archie Kalokerinos in any program to counter blindness in the Aboriginal community?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It will be recognised that in answer to a previous question- I believe the question was asked by Senator Baume- I mentioned World Health Day. The Government has many programs which would be directed towards the health of Aboriginals in general. I shall seek further information from the Minister for Health with regard to any specific programs which may be connected with trachoma. I am sure the Minister will be interested to use the services of the specialist who has been named, if his services are available to the Government.

page 1107

QUESTION

SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRE, ST MARYS

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Under the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969-1973 the Government promised to pay a large proportion of the cost of a senior citizens centre at St Marys, New South Wales, as well as paying two-thirds of the salary of a welfare officer employed in conjunction with such a centre. The Penrith City Council and the St Marys Combined Pensioners Association are very worried about the long delay in this matter. Is the Government proceeding with the project? If so, when will it commence?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I need to examine the project which has been mentioned by the honourable senator to be specific in my answer. I shall obtain the information for him without delay.

page 1107

QUESTION

INCOME TAX: FEDERALISM POLICY

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Is the Minister aware that Sydney afternoon newspapers carry a story stating that Premiers will be told at the forthcoming Premiers Conference that they can introduce their own income tax this year but will not receive any benefits until 1 July 1977? Is this double taxation a significant departure from the original scheme insofar as the 5 per cent ceiling would be removed?

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

– I have not seen the Sydney afternoon newspapers to which the honourable senator refers. If they contain statements such as he asserts- I accept his assertionthose statements have not an atom of truth in them. The situation is that a Premiers Conference will be held this Friday here in Canberra. It will be the second in a series of working conferences. The first conference took place on 4 and 5 February this year. It set up some working committees of State and Commonwealth officials. Those working committees are meeting now. One of the interesting and encouraging things has been the great degree of unanimity of viewpoint that has been achieved so far. The working committees are meeting progressively to deal with a number of matters.

Let me make this quite clear: It is the policy of the Federal Government to introduce 3 main programs of federalism as from 1 July this year. The first program is stage 1 of revenue sharing. Stage 1 of revenue sharing does not, of itself, envisage that the States would have the capacity or the right to vary income tax. It gives to the States, as of right, a fixed percentage of personal income tax so that, for the first time, their revenue will grow at the same rate as the national revenue. As the years go by and as national wealth is produced, the States will have more money to meet their needs. Above all, they will have more money so that they can reduce and wipe out a great number of the indirect taxes and charges that they have been forced to impose by the squeeze of the previous government.

It is imperative to point out that this Government’s federalism policies will result in reduced taxation. As an earnest of this, the Premier of New South Wales has abolished petrol tax already because of the foreshadowing of what New South Wales, in common with the other States, is likely to receive next year. The Premier of New South Wales also has foreshadowed a certain abatement of other taxes. The talk of double taxation was invented by the Opposition which invented double and treble taxation. The Labor Government holds the world record in this regard. In 3 years in government it managed to double the total amount taken from the people of Australia by way of personal income tax; to double the amount of sales tax taken from the people of Australia; to double the amount of customs and excise tax taken from the people of Australia; to force the States to impose a huge array of indirect taxes and charges; and to force local government authorities to impose the highest rates that have been imposed in their history. So the story is exactly the reverse. The former Government brought about gross increases in taxation. The present Government is taking steps to abate taxation.

page 1108

QUESTION

MIGRANT COMMUNITY SERVICES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. By way of preface, I refer to her answer yesterday in which she was quite adamant that migrant community services should remain within the ambit of her portfolio. I put a twofold question to the Minister: How does she reconcile Liberal Party election statements that used such words as ‘unequivocal’ and ‘specific’ in stating that this service that the Minister administers would come under the umbrella of the portfolio of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? I further ask the Minister: In her experience in the portfolio of Social Security, does she believe the innovation of the previous Government was justified in view of the way it is operating under her stewardship?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The answer that was given to the question asked yesterday was not that I was adamant that the migrant community service should remain within my portfolio but I stressed that the administrative arrangements had indicated that it would remain in my Department. I mentioned also the fact that an administrative review is being undertaken by Sir Henry Bland at the present time and that any other arrangements that might flow from that review would be a matter for future decision. In answer to the questions that were raised with regard to my concept of whether the service should remain in my Department, I do believe that if one is administering a department of social security for Australians it would be very difficult to segregate one section of the community from that service. As far as I am concerned, social security is applied to all people who live within Australia and I do not see the need to segregate a particular section of the community from that service. Our party policy with regard to a separate department for immigration and ethnic affairs contains the concept that services for migrants would be embraced within that department also. I believe that in the administration of social security all people in this country should have equal access to the services through my Department. For that reason I am very happy that what was an establishment of the former Government in terms of migrant services is contained within my Department and is being pursued actively by the officers of my Department.

page 1108

QUESTION

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT-WIDOW’S CLAIM

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: Is she aware that a widow of a seaman who was lost in the tragic Hobart Bridge disaster last year is still waiting for her claim for compensation to be heard under the Seamen’s Compensation Act and is still waiting also for a claim of damages for neglect to be heard? Is the Minister aware also that this widow, now living in Adelaide and having no family in Australia, as she was a citizen of Singapore prior to her marriage to the Australian seaman, has been living on unemployment benefit as her only means of financial support? As the Hoban Bridge disaster occurred on 5 January 1975, some 15 months ago, will the Minister initiate inquiries into the reason for this extremely long delay in the commencement of proceedings, in an endeavour to have this unfortunate matter resolved as soon as possible?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I believe it should be understood that as Minister for Social Security I am responsible for the Seamen’s Compensation Act but have no authority to intervene in the determination of the claims that are made under that Act. The Act does provide for matters in dispute between a claimant and the employer to be settled by arbitration or by proceedings in a county court. In the particular case which has been mentioned by Senator Young the employer or the shipowner is the Australian National Line. As I understand it, the solicitors for the widow made a formal claim for compensation under the Act in August 1975 and the solicitors for the Australian National Line wrote to the widow’s solicitors on 25 August 1975 seeking further information. I understand that to this date no reply has been received and the matter currently rests with the solicitors of the widow. The solicitors of the widow are a Melbourne firm called Holding Ryan and Redlich. I can only suggest that if the honourable senator has an interest in this particular case he could direct an inquiry to the solicitors of the widow and ask them to send the requested information so that the compensation claim may be facilitated.

page 1109

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF RIGHTS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the Minister for Science seen today a copy of the weekly publication, the Bulletin? In particular, has he read an article written by one Peter Samuel and titled ‘The Rabid Right Reemerges’? If so, has he noticed that the article contains an allegation that a newsletter published by the League of Rights advertised the Minister as guest speaker at a dinner of the League of Rights in March 1974? Is the Minister aware that the League of Rights has been denounced for its reactionary, racist policies by, among others, Mr Anthony, Mr Sinclair and Mr Hunt? Did the Minister attend as guest speaker a dinner of the League of Rights in March 1974 or at any other time?

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

– The questions raised by honourable senators are interesting. I suppose that if I were to ask the honourable senator who asked this question about some of the meetings he attended whilst he was a Minister there would have been a furore. I well remember several occasions in this place when the honourable senator, as Minister, walked out because he did not want to answer some questions that had been put to him. I noted the article in the Bulletin and I was pleased to read it today. I noticed that Peter Samuel commented on the re-emergence of the extreme right and that 3 photographs were printed, of two senior members of the National Country Party and of me. That is typical of that type of writer. I have never attended a dinner of the League of Rights in my life so far as I am aware, but I have attended meetings of a variety of organisations and I have no apology for attending some of them.

I have attended union meetings before today. In my early life, as a member of the Australian Timber Workers’ Union I had to attend left wing union meetings quite often. When I was a tally clerk as a member of the Waterside Workers Federation in Victoria I had to mix with all sorts of people in that particular area. I remember that recently by bad luck I had to share a platform at a university with a leading member of the Communist Party, Mr Halfpenny. As a member of the Senate I do not take objection to this. The individuals who belong to these various organisations have a right to be members of them. Indeed I know members of the League of Rights who I think are very respectable people. I have met people belonging to the left wing of the Australian Labor Party who I also think are respectable people, but that has been a matter for debate previously. I recall that members of the particular organisation to which the honourable senator refers have taken very harsh action against members of my political party, organising against them during election campaigns and at other times. I have been very critical of their actions. The League of Rights in some instances appears to be an extreme organisation, as do the organisations to which the honourable senator who asked the question also belongs.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister tell us whether or not he went to the dinner?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I suppose that if I were to ask the honourable senator where he was on 1 5 May 1974 he may have some recollection. He may have been discussing overseas loans or other matters which he has not disclosed to the Senate. I do not know where I was on that particular date.

page 1109

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF FOKKER F28 AIRCRAFT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I preface the question by saying that any reduction of the costs of operation of the civil aviation section of the Department of Transport helps directly to keep down the cost of airline fares, which is so important to Tasmania. I ask: Does the Government still intend to purchase, at a cost of many millions of dollars, 3 small jet aircraft- Fokker F28s- for use mainly in checking the navigational aids around Australia? What will be the cost of operating these aircraft and is the Minister convinced that their purchase is entirely necessary?

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

-The Department of Transport, which has taken over the civil aviation function, has 3 F27 aircraft which are used for checking the whole of the navigational aids system around Australia and also for simulating flights where people have reported malfunctions and troubles of that kind. Some time ago it was proposed to replace these aircraft, which are getting rather old, with the F28 aircraft which is a modern jet version of the same aircraft. I cannot tell the honourable senator at what stage that proposition is at, except that it would involve quite a lot of money if it were done. I would need to put the question to the Minister to obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 1110

QUESTION

SOCIAL WORKERS: ETHNIC WELFARE AGENCIES

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. Is it not a fact that there is a serious shortage of social workers with qualifications or backgrounds suitable for work with ethnic welfare agencies? Has the Government received suggestions and submissions from ethnic welfare agencies to overcome the problem? Does the Government intend to take any action to relieve the present serious situation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is claimed in general that there is a shortage of social workers not only amongst ethnic communities but also for the general social welfare work which needs to be undertaken. I cannot answer specifically with regard to representations from ethnic welfare agencies with specific requests. But I am aware of the shortage and I am aware also of the shortage of numbers in training for social welfare work which we would like to see undertaken. I shall have some inquiries made regarding whether there are specific requests and whether anything is able to be done to assist ethnic groups in particular. I do believe that if they are to have the advantage of the services that my Department has available for them, very often this is achieved only by having an active social worker amongst their community groups, who is able to advise them of the facilities of my Department.

page 1110

QUESTION

OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. Does the Government recognise that a greatly expanded program of exploration for oil and gas throughout Australia is urgently necessary? Has the Government’s attention been drawn to the statement of Mr Dave McGarry, the President of the Australian Petroleum Explorers’ Association, that less than 20 per cent of the funds required for such exploration has been available in Australia up to date? In these circumstances, will the Government encourage foreign interests to take an even more active role in the exploration for these vital resources? If not, is the Government considering other and immediate steps to expand such exploration?

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

– The Government is very much aware of the urgent need to step up the search for new deposits of oil and gas in Australia. Our self-sufficiency in oil, to the extent of about 70 per cent of our needs, has so far shielded us from most of the damaging effects which the oil crisis has had on so many other nations. But in the absence of substantial new deposits being found in Australia, we will inevitably become more dependent on high priced imported oil. I note that in an address to the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association on Monday, my colleague the Minister for National Resources mentioned that we will pay $600m this financial year to import petroleum products. It should be obvious to all honourable senators that if we do not find more oil our self-sufficiency will rapidly drop and our oil import bill will rapidly grow until it becomes a major economic burden for the nation.

Specifically in answer to Senator Durack, I say that the Government is aware of the views expressed by Mr McGarry about the shortage of Australian money for the very risky and costly business of exploration. It should be noted that both the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, and the Minister for National Resources, Mr Anthony, have said that the Government’s foreign investment guidelines will not be applied in a way that prevents worthwhile projects which are in Australia’s national interest from getting off the ground. In the speech that I mentioned a moment ago Mr Anthony said that if a reasonable opportunity was given to Australian investors to participate in a venture and they were reluctant to do so, a higher level of foreign ownership could be considered. Mr Anthony added that the Government did not want to see exploration and development stifled by inflexible rules. As much as the Government might like to take immediate and tangible steps to stimulate the search for oil, the economic mess that we have inherited from our predecessors makes it very difficult for us to do so immediately.

page 1110

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT FEDERALISM PLAN

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to Senator Carrick, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. In view of the Minister’s answer to Senator Lajovic that the New South Wales Government will be able to reduce State taxes and charges in anticipation of the introduction of stage 1 of the Commonwealth Government’s new federalism plan, can he give an assurance that the implementation of the Commonwealth Government’s Federalism policy will result in all States, including the smaller States, being able to reduce taxes and charges whilst maintaining services at Grants Commission levels?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I want to give a total assurance to the Senate and to Senator Harradine in particular that the effect of the federalism policies and of stage 1 of those policies will be, first of all, to give to every State access to a fixed percentage of growth revenue which will grow with the nation and therefore will grow faster than the revenue that they received before under the uniform taxation general reimbursement. So in the years ahead their revenue will be growing faster and therefore they will have more flexibility both as to their own revenue raising and their expenditure. Particularly because Senator Harradine is a Tasmanian, I want to give an unqualified undertaking that under the federalism policies the equalisation formulae which are traditional and which have evolved traditionally will be wholly maintained and that the less populous States will perpetuate the advantages in terms of their equalisation benefits that they have now compared with the States of Victoria and New South Wales.

I want also to give a clear undertaking that the less populous States or, indeed, any States will be able to go to the Grants Commission and seek special grants if they feel that their fiscal capacity or their needs are such that they are suffering in terms of the position of any other States.

Senator Walsh:

– What is the position in regard to -

Senator CARRICK:

– It ill becomes a member of the Whitlam Labor Party which sought to destroy the States - (Opposition senators interjecting)

Senator CARRICK:

-Listen to the roar. Do Opposition senators now deny their nominal Leader, Mr E. G. Whitlam, who in his writings had pledged to abolish the Senate, to abolish the 6 State parliaments and to amalgamate the 930 municipalities and shires into regions? I ask through you, Mr President, specifically whether Senator Walsh denies his Leader that. That was a device for perpetuating carrying the begging bowl to Canberra.

Senator Walsh:

– The Whitlam Government gave local government more money than it ever had.

Senator CARRICK:

– Since there has been an interjection on this matter, let me remind the Senate of this fact: When the McMahon Liberal Government left office in 1972-Senator Harradine will be interested in this- specific purpose grants, that is, grants with strings attached to them, totalled 32 per cent of all money from the Commonwealth to the States. In other words, the general purpose grants without strings attached totalled 68 per cent of the money. In 3 years under the Labor Government specific purpose grants had increased from 32 per cent to 52 per cent and were rising. The Whitlam Government was rapidly putting its tentacles on all aspects of State expenditure. It was putting its trammels around the States so that they had no freedom of movement. Under the federalism policy of the Liberal Government, the begging bowl will go. Under federalism for the first time States like Tasmania will be able to have in the years ahead, leaving aside the immediate stringencies, more sovereignty and more right to make local decisions. It will have more right for the wardens of Penguin and Burnie to make decisions.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Perhaps this point of order should have been raised yesterday; but perhaps I was the person responsible for the interjection. Surely it is not in accordance with the Standing Orders for a Minister when responding to a question to respond to interjections. Surely he should be directing his answer to the question that has been asked. He also should be directing his remarks to the Chair.

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, may I speak to the point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance in the point of order. I ask the Minister to continue with his reply.

Senator CARRICK:

– The remarks that I was making were absolutely pertinent to the question asked by Senator Harradine who, naturally, as a Tasmanian, sought assurances that Tasmania as a sovereign State would be able in the future to have sovereign government at the State and local government levels and that Tasmania ‘a finances would be so protected that it could expand in its attitudes. I am happy to say to the honourable senator that, unlike what happened under the former Government, federalism under the Fraser Government will give a completely new deal to Tasmania and other States and it will give Tasmania an absolute guarantee, within the Grants Commision and the equalisation grants, of the preservation of Tasmania’s present and traditional advantages.

page 1111

QUESTION

ABORTION STATISTICS

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the Press report in the Melbourne Herald of Saturday last in which it is stated that there is an annual rate of upwards of 1000 school girls in Victoria between the ages of 12 years and 17 years undergoing abortion operations? The article goes on to say that many doctors and social workers are concerned at the lack of statistics and they urge that abortion should be made notifiable to enable the extent of the problem to be realised and to enable legislators to act. The article further mentions that the Federal Department of Health has no statistics which indicate how many abortions are being charged to Medibank, because the abortion figures cannot easily be separated from gynaecology operations covered by the benefits schedule. The author of the article further states that, for an expenditure of $5,000 on a further special print of the Medibank computer, the necessary statistics could be obtained. I ask: In view of the disquieting situation disclosed by this newspaper article, and assuming that the matters stated in it are correct, will the Minister consider the installation of the necessary addition to the computer to enable it to give separate figures in relation to abortion so that both State and Federal governments can look at the various programs, educational and otherwise, which can be undertaken to rectify this alarming situation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did read the article to which the honourable senator has referred, but I have no verification of any of the matters mentioned in it. I do not know whether the expenditure of $5,000 would provide a further computer service which would segregate the facts requested by the honourable senator. I will refer his question to the Minister for Health, who no doubt will act upon it if he deems it desirable to do so.

page 1112

QUESTION

SPEECH THERAPISTS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator RYAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to her undertaking that there would be no reduction by the Government in the services available to the handicapped. Is the Minister aware that there has been a serious reduction in the availability of speech therapists in the Australian Capital Territory? Is she aware specifically that hospitals, health centres, special schools for the deaf and other handicapped children and special classes for the deaf in regular schools are unable at this stage to offer an effective number of hours of speech therapy for those in need of it? Can the Minister explain why in November 1975 there were apparently 4 full-time establishment positions for speech therapists for the Australian Capital Territory, as well as several part-time positions, and in April 1976 there are only 2 fulltime therapists and one part-time therapist available?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The honourable senator has raised a number of questions. She appears to have so much information that she may even have the answers to those questions. If she does not have the answers, I will obtain them for her.

page 1112

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Medibank officials have taken it upon themselves to notify their claimants whenever Medibank rebates fall below 85 per cent of the schedule fee- a fee which is not recognised by most practising doctors and which does not appear to be related to any practical consideration. As both Medibank and the private funds gap benefits are related to this schedule, why has Medibank assumed this mischievous obligation when the private funds have not?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will refer the matters raised by the honourable senator to the Minister for Health and obtain whatever information he is able to provide.

page 1112

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT FEDERALISM PLAN

Senator WALSH:

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs and it refers to the assurance given by the Prime Minister again today and also by Senator Carrick- the absolute guarantee, as they call it- that the smaller States will not be disadvantaged relative to the larger States under the new federalism arrangements. Can the Minister reconcile those statements with the New South Wales Premier’s expectation, expressed in the Financial Review of 13 February, that New South Wales would receive a relatively larger proportion of taxation paid, which would allow New South Wales to drop its State petrol tax? Has Sir Eric Willis abolished the tax in the false expectation that New South Wales will receive a relatively larger share of federal taxation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I repeat the unqualified assurance given by the Prime Minister and also by me in this Senate on behalf of the Government that the four less populous States which have traditionally achieved equalisation benefits under the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which was set up in 1933 by a Liberal Government, will have their rights preserved in their entirety. The Commonwealth Grants Commission will continue in its role of studying references to it by any State. I am not aware of what Sir Eric Willis said. I know that Sir Eric Willis has argued- and I think Victoria has similarly argued- that his State is disadvantaged because its taxpayers are considerably more heavily taxed than are taxpayers in other States. It will be competent to put those arguments in the cyclical reviews of the Grants Commission, as it has been competent to do since 1933.

I must remind the Senate that the Grants Commission was established in 1933 to do precisely what will be asked of it now. In 1933 there was State income tax and Federal income tax and the Commonwealth Grants Commission was set up to ensure that equalisation between the States would occur. This is nothing new. I suppose that there is not a statutory corporation in Australia which has the prestige and the absolute objectivity of the Grants Commission. And I assure the honourable senator and Western Australians that their equalisation benefits will be absolutely preserved. I add just one comment. I hope that States like Western Australia and Queensland will, by the rapidity of their development under Liberal Governments, so increase their revenue and wealth that they will not need to be claimant States, as Queensland is today. I look forward to when that will be so. Queensland, under the beneficial government which it has, is making very rapid development.

Senator WALSH:

– I ask a supplementary question. Is Sir Eric Willis wrong in expecting that New South Wales will receive a relatively greater share of taxation revenue?

Senator CARRICK:

-I have pointed out that I have not seen Sir Eric Willis’ remarks so it would require conjecture on my part to answer a question about them. Sir Eric Willis, on behalf of New South Wales, will receive the proportion of income tax revenue to which his State is entitled, and the relativity between all States will be preserved. Also Sir Eric Willis is entitled, if he so desires, to look with optimism to the future under a Federal Liberal Government and to proceed to ease his taxation policies in the light of the certain knowledge that under federalism there will be less taxation all told than under uniform taxation. I remind the Senate that my own Government is pledged to tax indexation, which means tax reduction. So overall my own Government is pledged to proceed as from the next Budget with tax indexation as was part of its election policy. I presume that all honourable senators opposite support that because the trade union movement is, as I understand it, arguing for tax indexation.

page 1113

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORT DRIVERS

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Administrative Services aware that drivers in the

Brisbane transport pool are afraid that since they are not permanent employees they may soon be stood down as a result of the Government’s program to reduce the size of the Public Service? Can the Minister give an assurance that this is not the Government’s intention? Is the Minister further aware that there is some apprehension that the Government may be considering doing away with the Commonwealth car pool altogether? Can the Minister indicate whether this is so and give an assurance that in any such consideration the opinions of the consumers of the service will be sought? Will the Minister agree that some of the misgivings of the pool car drivers spring from the fact that they do not have permanent employee status? Would it be possible for the Government to investigate a proposal that at least a core of drivers be placed on a permanent basis of employment as a matter of simple industrial justice?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Yesterday I answered a similar question from Senator Bishop of South Australia regarding the drivers in the car pool in Adelaide. What I said in reply to Senator Bishop applies to all the car pools in Australia. For Senator Martin’s information I refer her to my reply on page 1037 of yesterday’s Senate Hansard. As far as I am aware there is no intention to retrench any car driver in Australia. I am prepared to have a look at whether or not they ought to be given permanent employee status. I think it is fair to say that I am having a look at the whole of the car transport system. There is more than one car transport system. It is an area where there could be some rationalisation and saving of funds without any diminution of service. I will be making no moves on this matter until there has been reasonable consultation.

page 1113

QUESTION

ABORTION STATISTICS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health follows from that asked by Senator Tehan regarding a revelation in a Melbourne newspaper on Saturday last that at least 1000 schoolgirls between the ages of 12 years and 17 years are aborted in Victoria in any one year and that the likely total number of abortions in Victoria in any one year is in the vicinity of 20 000. Taking that into account, will the Minister urge her Government to reconsider its decision to refuse to fund the centre that is ready to open in the heart of Melbourne to give young people contraceptive advice and sex counselling?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I believe the centre in Melbourne has been the subject of some comment in particular by the Government of Victoria because of its interest in a centre of this nature and because of its program in family planning and contraceptive advice. However, I shall refer this specific question to the Minister for Health to see what decision can be taken.

page 1114

QUESTION

BALTIC STATES

Senator KNIGHT:

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a report of a statement by a prominent scholar and writer on Soviet affairs from the London School of Economics, Mr Peter Reddaway, in the Canberra Times of 30 March, in which Mr Reddaway is reported to have referred to the de jure recognition by the previous Australian Government of Soviet control over the Baltic States as an extraordinarily grotesque act of appeasement? Has the Minister noted that Mr Reddaway is reported to have said also: ‘You can’t repair all the damage done by that sort of thing’? What action has been taken to reverse the decision of the previous Labor Government by which Soviet control of the three Baltic States was given international legal sanction?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Commonwealth Government implemented its decision to withdraw de jure recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union soon after its assumption of office in December 1 975. On 1 7 December 1975 the Government instructed the Australian ambassador in Moscow that he and members of his staff should not in future make official visits to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Mr R. G. McComas, who was the honorary consul for Latvia before the previous Government’s decision in July 1974 to give de jure recognition, has been informed that he may resume his functions as honorary consul. It should be observed that the question of recognition in this connection is not one of the recognition of statehood or of a government, but simply one of title to territory. This Government is thus saying no more than that it does not accept the legality of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States. Whatever may have been said on this subject in the past cannot prevent this Government from making known its own view of the matter.

page 1114

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYED IN DARWIN

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, relates to the critical unemployment situation in Darwin at the present time and the problems encountered by people wishing to receive the unemployment benefit. The Minister will be aware that at the end of February, the period for which the latest figures are available, 1116 people were registered as unemployed in Darwin. The figure would be much higher now. In 1975 there was an average of 60 claims a week with a waiting time of 2 weeks for processing. The figure is now 250 a week with a waiting time of 6 weeks. My question is twofold. Will the Minister make some arrangements for additional staff to be sent to Darwin to assist with the processing of claims? Will the Minister give some consideration to the plight of those people who are ineligible to claim unemployment benefit as they have no residential address and are forced to camp out or squat in vacant buildings? The matter is urgent as doubtless the number of unemployed will rise with the onset of the dry season. Many of the older residents in Darwin see a situation developing which is analogous to that of the period just prior to the war when there was massive unemployment and when clashes occurred between the police and the unemployed.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The fact as stated that there is a waiting period of 6 weeks for the processing of unemployment benefit claims disturbs me. I shall treat it as a matter of urgency and take whatever steps need to be taken to ensure that the delay is decreased. The matter of massive unemployment is one of serious consideration by the Government. This relates to the situation not only in the Northern Territory but in every State. I shall treat as a matter of urgency those matters which the honourable senator has raised.

Senator ROBERTSON:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister give some answer to my question about considering the plight of those people who are ineligible to claim the unemployment benefit as they have no residential address? This is a particular problem in the Northern Territory.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I include that aspect in my answer with regard to treating the matter urgently. I am aware of the different circumstances with regard to permanent residence, not only as a result of the tragedy which occurred in Darwin but also as a mode of living. I shall certainly look at the problem which has been mentioned and treat it as one of urgent consideration.

page 1114

QUESTION

POISONOUS EUROPEAN NEWTS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development aware that poisonous European newts have been sold in Adelaide? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 2 April describing this animal as an amphibian, similar to the slenderbodied skink in appearance? Has the Minister noted that Professor Williams, of the Zoology Department of the University of Adelaide has warned that newts found in slow moving streams and ditches could have an adverse effect on the environment? As this animal is a prohibited import, can the Minister say how it was introduced to Australia? What action has been taken to locate people who have purchased these creatures in order to see that the newts are recovered and eradicated and do not become a threat to the South Australian environment? I doubt that this species would lend itself to smoking as a suggested control measure, as does the European carp. I believe it is a matter of urgency that the Government examine this matter.

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

-The honourable senator can be assured of my concern about this alarming appearance in Adelaide. Unfortunately, he has asked his question before the investigations which I have set in motion have been completed. I think it is a matter for concern because of the reports which have appeared. It is appropriate that there be an investigation of what is alleged and that the concern not only of South Australians but also of others be allayed. I will give the honourable senator the fullest possible information on the subject of newts as soon as I can.

page 1115

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is in a more serious vein than, but is almost as long as, that asked by Senator Jessop. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources: Is he aware that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources misled the Australian people and the Australian Parliament when he announced recently that other countries would take, by force, the uranium they required from north Australian deposits unless Australia negotiated contracts to sell massive quantities of uranium to Japan? Is the Minister aware that Japan has revised its projected nuclear energy requirements for 1985 from the 1972 prediction of 60 million kilowatts to the 1975 prediction of 49 million kilowatts? Is he also aware that Japan is unlikely to achieve a 25 million kilowatt requirement by 1985; that it has achieved only a 47 per cent capacity factornot the predicted 80 per cent- for its nuclear reactors; and that, in any case, Japan requires only 99 000 tonnes of uranium to produce the predicted energy requirement of 60 million kilowatts- of which 88 200 tonnes has already been covered by existing contracts from the following sources: France, 8800 tonnes, Australia 5600 tonnes, South Africa 38 200 tonnes, and Canada 35 600 tonnes?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question?

Senator KEEFFE:

-The question, Mr President, is contained in the final paragraph: What additional information does the Minister have which would vindicate recent statements that Japan desperately requires large quantities of Australian uranium? If there is no additional information of substance, does the Minister not agree that the Deputy Prime Minister has misled Australia and the Parliament and that he should resign forthwith?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think the honourable senator’s question is out of order for a number of reasons. He accused a member of the other House of misleading the Parliament and I think he ought to apologise as a matter of normal courtesy. The Deputy Prime Minister has misled neither the people nor the Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you taking a point of order, Senator Withers?

Senator WITHERS:

-No, I would not take a point of order against Senator Keeffe. If he has not the normal parliamentary decency to withdraw those remarks voluntarily, I will not ask him to withdraw them. If the honourable senator requires answers to the sort of questions he put to me, I ask him to put them on the notice paper. In a representative capacity, I do not intend to deal with technical or statistical information.

page 1115

QUESTION

FAMILY LAW ACT: MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to an article appearing in the Australian Financial Review of 6 April which claims that the Department of Social Security is seeking to remove the maintenance provisions in the Family Law Act that require the court to take into account the entitlement of an applicant to a pension from the Department of Social Security in making maintenance orders. Is this claim correct? If so, is the Department aware of the salient arguments, based on principle and reduction of expense to the Government, which were advanced in favour of this provision by members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and other speakers in debate on the Family Law Bill and which are written into the Family Law Act? On what basis is the Department endeavouring to reverse this provision of non-party political legislation adopted by the Twenty-ninth Parliament?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I read the article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review yesterday. It was a somewhat curious blend of fact and imagination. The inescapable fact is that I am not so much interested in the Family Law Act as I am in the Social Services Act, for which I am responsible. With regard to the maintenance provisions of the Social Services Act I think it is appropriate to quote section 62 (3), which states:

A pension shall not be granted to a widow, being a deserted wife or a woman whose marriage has been dissolved and who has not remarried, unless she has taken such action as the Director-General considers reasonable to obtain maintenance from her husband or former husband.

Further, section 83AAD of the Social Services Act states:

A benefit shall not be granted to a supporting mother unless she has taken such action as the Director-General considers reasonable to obtain maintenance from the father or fathers of the child or children in relation to whom she is a supporting mother.

I believe that the honourable senator will recognise that those 2 maintenance provisions of the Social Services Act are in conflict with section 75 (2) of the Family Law Act. The matter which was the substance of the honourable senator’s question with regard to my seeking to amend the Family Law Act is not a matter on which I shall comment. The article in the Australian Financial Review pursued this subject without referring the matter to me. But I do take the opportunity to point out those 2 provisions of the Social Services Act and to point to the inconsistency that does arise between them and the Family Law Act.

Senator MISSEN:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Has the Minister considered the amendment of those provisions of the Social Services Act, which she administers, which was so strongly argued for in the debate on the Family Law Bill because of the emotional effect of those provisions resulting in disharmony among families and among parties to a marriage?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I have nothing to add to the answer that I have given already. I stated the provisions of the Social Services Act and pointed to the matters that arise from them with regard to maintenance. As far as having given consideration to the Family Law Bill is concerned, I sat in the Senate throughout the debate on that Bill and I am very well aware of the matters that were raised during that debate. But my administration of the Social Services Act needs to take into account the provisions that I have just cited.

page 1116

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask Senator Carrick the following question in view of the fact that we appear to be moving into a dreamtime type of situation between the Commonwealth and the States and I should like to have his assurance on a very important aspect. I ask him whether he is aware that in the federalism policy of the Government the following paragraph appears:

In exercising their revenue raising powers the States will be expected to accept responsibility to work in parallel with and not in negation of the overall economic management policies of the Commonwealth.

I ask the Minister. In a case where a State government, because of policy decisions made of its own volition, decides to adopt a policy which is contrary, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Government, to the Commonwealth Government’s overall economic management policies, will the Minister give the Parliament an assurance that no instruction would be issued to a State government, which had been given the right to determine its own policy directions by a Federal Government under its federalism policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– At the outset I must commend the Leader of the Opposition for asserting for the first time on behalf of the Labor Party a belief in State rights. I take it that that is the whole purpose of his saying that he wants me to give him an assurance of the assertion of State rights. 1 acknowledge that and shall now direct myself to the question. The answer is yes, indeed, I am aware of the paragraph referred to by the honourable senator. In fact, I wrote the paragraph so I am very well aware of it. I direct the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to various publications put out by Professor Russell Mathews’ Research Institute on Federalism at the Australian National University regarding the effects on the economy of States either increasing or decreasing their taxation. I am happy to tell the honourable senator that the overwhelming opinion of the authoritative economists in Australia is that if there is variation between the States in their taxation the capacity of the Commonwealth for full economic management will still be maintained. Specifically I say this: The Commonwealth will, under federalism, of course seek to get the co-operation of the States. We believe we will get that co-operation. Already for the first time there are signs of very real cooperation by the States. In specific answer to the question, if a State decided to impose a surcharge or to allow a rebate it would, in essence, be free to do so.

page 1117

QUESTION

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

- Mr President, my question is addressed to you. By way of brief introduction I refer to a letter signed by a senior Minister of the present Government, Mr Nixon, dated 23 December 1975, addressed as follows:

Prince Leonard,

Sovereign,

Hutt River Province.

It commences: ‘My Dear Prince Leonard’. In the body of the letter it says, inter alia:

Your efforts in the field of public relations are to be commended.

It also says:

I hope that your endeavours in this field continue to meet with the same success.

I ask you, Mr President, whether in the light of the Government’s determination to take all possible steps to curtail expenditure and in particular to curtail overseas trips and in the light of the importance of the contacts and understanding obtained by members of this Parliament by the annual parliamentary delegation to other countries, will you discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of arranging a parliamentary delegation to the Hutt River Province, thereby satisfying both the interests of economy and international goodwill?

The PRESIDENT:

– In reply to the honourable senator’s question I must advise him that I will not have the discussions with the Prime Minister which he requests.

Senator Withers:

- Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

page 1117

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I wish to provide further information in response to a question asked yesterday by Senator Grimes relating to unemployment benefit procedures. I believe that it is important that the matter be clarified and I seek to give this information now to the honourable senator.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Yesterday when referring to the Government’s decision that people who become voluntarily unemployed will have their payment of benefit deferred for 6 weeks Senator Grimes asked me whether this period of 6 weeks would run from the time the person becomes voluntarily unemployed or from the time he registers for work with the Commonwealth Employment Service. I wish to state that on 23 March 1976 the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, announced that the Government had decided that people who give up their jobs voluntarily will be required to wait 6 weeks before being granted unemployment benefits. I want to make it clear now that the starting date of the 6-weeks period is the date on which the person registers for work with the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Senator Withers:

- Mr President, I chopped off question time after it had run for well over an hour. I noticed Senator Georges rise and I would be prepared to give him leave to ask his question because I know that, as the Opposition Whip, he has to stay in the chamber all the time to catch your eye. I think it is reasonable that a Whip should be given some privilege in this matter.

page 1117

QUESTION

SUBMISSIONS TO REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Senator GEORGES:

– I do not completely accept that explanation for giving me the privilege of asking a question. I intended to raise the question in another way because it may involve privilege, depending upon the answer which Senator Withers is prepared to give. I refer to the Remuneration Tribunal and to the investigation which it is now conducting into facilities for members of Parliament. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: How is it that submissions made by members of Parliament to the Tribunal are now being publicised and, in some cases, in a derogatory fashion? Does he not accept that those submissions would be confidential until such time as the Tribunal has brought down its report and that continual publication of such submissions can prejudice the Tribunal’s findings?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– For once my attention has been drawn to some newspaper reports. Let me say specifically in answer to the question that the honourable senator should first look at section 1 1 ( 1 ) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act which says:

The Tribunal may inform itself in such manner as it thinks fit.

I understand that that is what the Tribunal has been doing. I understand further that the advertisements inserted by the Tribunal and the letters which were written to honourable senators and members asking whether they wished to make submissions included the following sentence:

Submissions will be available to the public, unless, in special circumstances, the Tribunal determines otherwise.

Submissions have been received from a number of members of Parliament. It is normal for the Tribunal to make such submissions available unless there is a request for them to be kept confidential and the Tribunal agrees. For that reason, I do not think that the Tribunal has done anything wrong. If the honourable senator thinks that there is a matter of privilege, I suggest that he raise it.

Senator Georges:

– I do not now, on the basis of what you have said.

Senator WITHERS:

– Let me say in conclusion that I was delighted that somebody did draw my attention to those 2 articles. I must say that I had noticed that members of this Parliament appeared to be less than normally well dressed, that they were living on bread and water in the dining room and that the bars were deserted. I did not realise that this was because of their submissions to the Remuneration Tribunal. I thought that it was a Lenten sacrifice.

page 1118

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-Mr President, pursuant to standing order 408 I seek the indulgence of the Senate to make a personal explanation concerning a newspaper report which misrepresented my statements in the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator HARRADINE:

-In its edition of 3 April, the Canberra Times falsely reported that I had used a debate in the Senate last week to speak at length about a presently proceeding court case. The newspaper report no doubt was based on a claim made by Senator Cavanagh that the subject matter of that debate was sub judice. I accept that the Canberra Times report and Senator Cavanagh ‘s statement were not made maliciously, but were due to ignorance of the Industrial Court and High Court proceedings. I have the actual court documents in my possession. A summary of them has been made which cites the High Court number, the Industrial Court numbers, the parties, the orders sought, what has occurred and the present state of the applications. From this summary, the Senate will be able to see what orders were sought and that there was no relationship whatsoever between the subject matters of the debate last Wednesday and the matters that are before the courts. I seek leave to table this paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator HARRADINE:

– I table the paper.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-I ask for leave to make a statement on the same matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Maunsell:

– Do not start a controversy.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, I do not want to enter into a controversy. Having heard the speech by Senator Harradine and having studied the history of this matter, I point out that there is a long series of court cases, some of which have been decided and some of which are still in the process of being decided. With some knowledge of industrial court actions and the specific clauses of the industrial code, I am still of the belief that sufficient connection existed between the present activities in the Industrial Court and those who were maligned last week to claim that prima facie it was not in the best interests to have those matters discussed in the open forum of this Parliament. If we can ever get this Government to be generous enough, when an attack is made on parties or individuals, at least to give an opportunity for someone to reply without the Government’s taking up the whole of the time available by using its numbers and thus showing that there is a lack of democracy in the Senate and an inability for an Opposition to present its case, I look forward to an opportunity to reply and show the association between the court activity and the words of Senator Harradine.

page 1118

BRISBANE AIRPORT

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled: Brisbane Airport: Economic Evaluation of Alternative Development Strategies. Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Senate Journals, Records and Bills Office and the Parliamentary Library.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement on the report just presented.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COLSTON:

– I and a number of people in the Brisbane area and beyond will read this report on the Brisbane airport with great interest. The title of the report is: Economic Evaluation of Alternative Development Strategies. Indeed, there is need for new development at the Brisbane airport. I would like to mention just a few aspects of why there is need for such development. The airport terminals, as most honourable senators would know, are in temporary accommodation or they are based upon temporary accommodation. It is igloo type accommodation. Unfortunately, much of that temporary accommodation is being made semipermanent because of the large building constructions based upon it.

With regard to the international airport which has been constructed recently, a number of complaints have been received from the public because of the facilities for visitors. Apparently during fine weather the facilities are adequate but there are no covered facilities for visitors who have to stand, sometimes for many hours, in weather which is not kind. There are suggestions that the runway at the Brisbane airport is not suitable for some aircraft which are soon to come into operation for Brisbane services. This matter will have to be looked at very soon in relation to Brisbane airport. Finally, I mention that many residents of Brisbane probably would like to have a look at this report because although they may not be air travellers, they find themselves acutely aware of the airport through the noise pollution to which they have been subjected. I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1119

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The PRESIDENT:

-Is notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Jessop and relating to the reference of a matter to a Standing Committee formal or not formal?

Senator Jessop:

– Formal.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before Senator Jessop moves the appropriate motion, I inform the Senate that an error has been made on the notice paper. I invite Senator Jessop to indicate the form in which the notice is proposed to be moved.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

- Mr President, as you have said, the wording on the notice paper of the motion standing in my name is not in accord with the text that I put down in the Senate yesterday. For the benefit of honourable senators I will indicate where it varies. I move:

Those are the words that are missed out- the following matter:

  1. The continuing oversight of Australian science policy and the physical, social and life sciences; and
  2. The direction, priorities, efficacy, and ultimate application of Australian research and development efforts in the above scientific fields, with particular reference to:

    1. comparison with other countries of recent trends and expenditures in Australia;
    2. examination of Federal assistance granted to -

This is where it varies again-

Australian research and development activities; and

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1119

ABORIGINAL LAND (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

Bill presented by Senator Keeffe, and read a first time.

page 1119

ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS BILL 1976

Bill presented by Senator Keeffe, and read a first time.

page 1119

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · LP

– I move:

This Bill represents the first step in honouring the Government’s undertaking to increase social service pension and benefit rates each 6 months in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. The main provisions of the Bill are as follows:

  1. The standard rate of pension for aged persons, invalids, widows and supporting mothers is to be increased by $2.50 a week to $4 1 .2 5 a week.
  2. The married rate of pension is to be increased by $2 a week to $34.25 a week-that is by $4 a week to $68.50 a week for a pensioner couple.
  3. Unemployment and sickness benefits payable to unmarried persons aged 18 years or more are to be increased by $2.50 a week to $4 1 .25 a week.
  4. Unemployment and sickness benefits payable to married persons are to be increased by $2 a week to $34.25 a week.
  5. Additional unemployment and sickness benefits payable in respect of dependent spouses are to be increased by $2 a week to $34.25 a week.

The proposed pension increases will flow on to recipients of sheltered employment allowances. Pensions and unemployment and sickness benefits were last increased in November 1975 when the Labor Government granted an increase based on the percentage increase in the consumer price index between the December quarter 1974 and the June quarter 1975. Labor then foreshadowed a further increase in the autumn of 1976 based on the increase in the CPI between the June and December quarters of 1975. The increases now proposed honour the Liberal and National Country Party Government’s undertaking to maintain the real value of pensions by incorporating the full rise of 6.4 per cent in the CPI for the 6 months ended 31 December 1975. Contrary to some reports in the Press, pensioners will therefore receive the same percentage increase in their pensions as was recently granted to wage and salary earners.

The proposed increases will be paid 6 months after the increases last granted by the Labor Government, that is on 13 May for age, invalid and wife’s pension, widow’s pension and supporting mother’s benefit. Increases in the rates of unemployment and sickness benefits will operate in respect of payments due on and after 1 May. While the figure for average weekly earnings for the December quarter 1975 is only an estimate, the indications are that seasonally adjusted for the June to December quarters it will increase by 6.2 per cent. The proposed pension and benefit increases are therefore keeping pace with movements in both the CPI and average weekly earnings.

Honourable senators will recall that the Governor General in his Speech on 17 February said it is the Government’s immediate objective to bring inflation under control so that there can again be jobs for all who want to work. Unless inflation is brought under control there can be no genuine return to prosperity and no sound base for the Government to provide better and more effective assistance to the disadvantaged. In the meantime the Government is proceeding with a review of the income security system as a whole including effectiveness of guaranteed minimum income proposals in overcoming poverty. In the course of this review a study will be made of all aspects of our pension and benefit programs with a view to ensuring that the amounts of pensions and benefits are determined and up-dated on a just and equitable basis.

I will now give examples of some of the effects of the pension increases proposed in the Bill. The limits of income and property at which pensions cease to be payable will rise substantially. This will enable persons who are now excluded from pension entitlement to qualify for some payment for the first time. The limit of income which just precludes payment of a pension to a single person without children, and with no property affecting his pension, will be increased by twice the amount of the pension increase to $ 102.50 a week. If there is no other income, entitlement to some pension will remain until the value of that person’s assessable property for means test purposes reaches $53,700. For a married couple without children the equivalent limits of income and property will be $171.50 a week and $90,000 respectively.

A widow or supporting mother with one child and no property affecting her entitlement will qualify for some payment until her other income reaches $131.50 a week. Should her child be under 6 years of age or an invalid child requiring full time care the disqualifying limit will be $ 1 35.50 a week. Where there is no income affecting, a widow or supporting mother with one child may have property to the value of $59,460. If her child is under six or an invalid child requiring full time care she may have property to the value of $61,540 before entitlement is extinguished. There are various combinations of income and property between the figures I have quoted which will permit the payment of a full or part pension. It is anticipated that over 1.7 million social services pensioners and beneficiaries will benefit from the provisions in this Bill. The estimated cost of the proposals is $33m in 1 975-76 and $2 1 7m in 1 976-77. Increases in service pensions will involve an additional $2. 3m for 1975-76 and $ 15.7m in 1976-77.

I now turn to the other provisions of this Bill. Honourable senators will know that early this year the Government undertook a review of its spending programs in an endeavour to reduce administrative costs and Government expenditure. A number of programs and items were reduced, deferred or abolished. One of the decisions taken by the Government was to abolish the funeral benefits scheme for pensioners; this will apply from the date of royal assent and involve a saving of $ 1.7m a year. Funeral benefits are payable at two rates-$20 and $40. The $20 benefit is payable to any person liable for the funeral cost of an age or invalid pensioner. The higher $40 benefit is payable to an age, invalid or widow pensioner, including a woman in receipt of supporting mother’s benefit, liable for the funeral costs of a spouse, a child or another pensioner.

For these benefits the term ‘pensioner’ means a person who is, or was, entitled to Commonwealth Government pensioner fringe benefits; that is, a person whose weekly income or means as assessed equivalent apart from his pension is less than $33 a week if single, or $57.50 if married. The number of funeral benefits granted during 1974-75 was 55 453. Of these 27 351 were at $20 and 28 102 at $40. The Government has decided that although the funeral benefit is to be abolished, the ‘double pension’ provisions will continue. The provisions enable the sum of the 2 pensions formerly payable to a married couple to be paid to the widow or widower for 12 weeks following the death of the pensioner spouse. This benefit was introduced in 1968. The purpose was to relieve the difficulty experienced by a surviving spouse in reducing household commitments and making the necessary readjustments following the loss of what could be nearly half the income previously coming into the home.

In taking the decision on funeral benefit the Government was influenced by the fact that under the double pension provisions a surviving spouse may at present receive up to $25.75 a week over and above the pension ordinarily available to a widow or widower. This is the difference between the existing combined married rate of $64.50 and the single rate of $38.75 a week. Over a period of 12 weeks this extra payment amounts to $309. It might also be mentioned that the figure of $309 will rise to $327 when the increases proposed in the Bill come into operation. I might also point out that some 25 per cent of age pensioners are single and own their own homes. On the death of such pensioners, their estates would generally be sufficient to cover the funeral costs. In addition the $20 funeral benefit is often paid to people who are not pensioners and who may not be in need of this assistance.

The Bill contains 2 other provisions which I should mention. The Government is concerned that a few people, apparently encouraged by the administrative difficulties created for my Department by the high level of unemployment, are attempting to defraud the Department by making multiple claims for unemployment benefit or drawing benefit while working. To discourage these practices the Bill proposes to increase the maximum pecuniary penalty for offences against the Social Services Act from a fine of $100 to a fine of $500. The final provision of the Bill follows from the Government’s decision to reorganise the National Employment and Training scheme. It is proposed to exclude as income for pension and unemployment and sickness benefit assessment purposes the training component of $23.40 a week and the living-away-from-home allowance payable to full-time trainees under that system. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1121

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Bill amends the Repatriation Act and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act. It gives effect to the Government’s proposals to update certain repatriation benefits in line with movements in the consumer price index. For some years, the main repatriation pension rates have been increased twice a year and the policy of the Government to increase pensions twice a year in line with the consumer price index changes will ensure that repatriation pensioners are adequately compensated.

I shall now outline the specific increases proposed in the Bill. The rates of payment of the various pensions referred to are weekly amounts. The special or TPI rate is payable to those veterans who, because of Service-related incapacity, are totally and permanently incapacitated to such an extent as to be precluded from earning other than a negligible percentage of a living wage. This rate is also payable to the Service blinded, to certain double amputees, to certain sufferers of pulmonary tuberculosis and to those temporarily totally incapacitated because of Service-related incapacity.

About 1 7 600 veterans at present receive the special or TPI rate pension and will benefit from the Government’s proposal to increase it by $4.75 to $78.85, at an estimated cost of $627,000 for the remainder of this financial year and $4.076m for a full financial year.

The intermediate rate is at present paid to about 1850 veterans who, because of servicerelated incapacity, are able to work only parttime or intermittently. The Bill provides for this rate to be increased by $3.25 to $54.30. The cost of the proposal is estimated at $48,000 for the remainder of this financial year and $3 1 3,000 for a full financial year.

About 180 000 veterans receive a general rate pension and will benefit from the proposal to increase this pension by $1.80 to $29.80. There will be proportionate increases for rates lower than 100 per cent. The cost of this proposal will be about $ 1.082m for the remainder of this financial year and $7.033m for a full year. These veterans, who have not received an increase since May 1975, are not necessarily prevented from engaging in employment, but their Servicerelated incapacities can, and in many cases do, restrict their earning capacity, as well as their full enjoyment of life. The war and defence widow’s pension rate is payable where a veteran’s death is related to his service or where he was, at the time of his death, receiving or would have been entitled to receive the special or TPI rate disability pension. There are about 50 000 widows at present receiving this pension. The Bill proposes an increase of $2.50 to $41.25 in this rate of pension. The cost of this proposal is estimated at $ 1.003m for the remainder of this financial year and $6.520m for a full year.

Other repatriation pensioners who are to receive an increase are Service pensioners who will receive the same increases as have been announced for age and invalid pensioners under the Social Services Act- $2.50 a week for the single service pensioner and $2.00 a week for each of a married couple. This will benefit 89 000 veterans and 40 000 wives of veterans. It is proposed that the increased rates will apply from 6 May 1976.

This Bill is the first legislative initiative by this Government in the repatriation field. I can assure honourable senators that it is the first of many. The Government now has before it for consideration the report of the independent inquiry into the repatriation system by Mr Justice Toose. It has requested the views of major ex-service organisations on the recommendations in that report and will be taking those views into account in arriving at its final decision on those matters. The repatriation system has been endorsed consistently since World War I by successive governments of many shades of political opinion and has been progressively developed to the stage at which we see it today. This Bill reflects this Government’s endorsement of the system and reflects the Government’s belief that the main pensions and allowances should be kept under review to ensure that they do not fall by the wayside as a result of inflation. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. ( Quorum formed)

page 1122

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

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

– This Bill is being delivered in the Senate on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the new superannuation scheme for Commonwealth Government employees, which the Minister assisting the Treasurer, Mr Eric Robinson, announced on 12 February 1976 would come into operation on 1 July 1976. It is accompanied by the Superannuation Amendment Bill 1976 and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment Bill 1976, which I will introduce shortly.

Background

There is a long history to the development of the new scheme. In October 1971, when a Liberal-Country Party Government was in power, the Treasury established a departmental committee to undertake a full investigation of the existing superannuation arrangements. The committee’s report, which was tabled in the Senate on 8 May 1973, canvassed in considerable detail the problems being experienced with the existing arrangements and, after examining various possibilities, recommended the introduction of a new scheme.

In June last year, the Superannuation Bill 1975 was introduced into the Senate providing for a new scheme on the lines of, but somewhat more generous than, the scheme recommended by the Treasury committee, We, then in Opposition, recognised the urgent need for a new superannuation scheme but considered that the scheme provided by the 1975 Bill was plainly over-generous in the existing economic conditions. Our criticism was directed to three main areas. Firstly, we considered that the retiring age for a full government-financed pension of 50 per cent of final salary pension after 30 years contributory service should be 65 and that retirement before that age should attract some reduction in pension. Secondly, we regarded as excessive the additional 0.5 per cent of salary government-financed pension for each year of contributory service before age 60 over 30 years but not exceeding 40 years. Thirdly, we considered that in the new scheme, in which members would be able to choose between additional pension purchased by their accumulated contributions or their accumulated contributions in a lump sum, there was no justification for updating annually that additional pension in accordance with consumer price index increases.

Subsequently, the Bill was amended in the Senate but the amendments were not accepted by the House of Representatives and the Bill was laid aside by that house on 19 August 1975. On 30 October 1975, following representations by a number of contributors and some Public Service unions, my colleague, Mr Garland, on behalf of the then Opposition announced a compromise solution involving three major changes in the Superannuation Bill 1975. This compromise solution provided the basis of the election commitment subsequently given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association. The changes to the scheme that the Minister assisting the Treasurer announced on 12 and 25 February last have been developed from that compromise solution and are incorporated in the new superannuation arrangements provided for in the legislation now being introduced.

The Changes in the Scheme

I do not propose to spell out in detail the changes that the Government has made to the scheme as put forward by the previous Government last year. Some changes such as those providing that only the government financed element of new pensions will be updated, making the full age retirement pension payable only on retirement at or after age 65, and reducing the additional pension for long contributory service from 0.5 per cent to 0.25 per cent of salary for each year of such service beyond 30 years up to 40 years, have significantly reduced the cost of the new scheme. Special attention has been given to the position of women in the scheme.

Some aspects of the scheme have been simplified and worthwhile administrative savings will be achieved as a result. A case in point is limiting to one, the options that were previously to be made available in respect of the additional pension financed by members’ contributions. Other changes will achieve a more consistent and better balanced scheme.

The Provisions of the Bill

The construction of the Bill and the 2 accompanying Bills, and their main provisions, are explained in some detail in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators. The memorandum also includes brief explanations and comparisons of the present superannuation arrangements and the new scheme, and information on costs.

The New Scheme -Contributions

The contribution arrangements for the new scheme have not been changed from those provided in the 1975 Bill. A new contributor and contributors transferred from the present Provident Account will be required to make a basic contribution of 5 per cent of salary and will have the option of contributing up to a further 5 per cent in supplementary contributions on a voluntary basis. Special arrangements will operate for contributors transferred from the present pension scheme. Those whose present contributions amount to more than 5 per cent of salary will have the option of paying, in addition to their basic contributions of 5 per cent, supplementary contributions not exceeding their present contributions expressed as a percentage of salary.

For younger contributors whose present contributions amount to less than 4 per cent of their salary in contributions, the move to the 5 per cent basic contribution rate will be in stages. The change in the contribution basis will mean an immediate increase in the contributions presently being paid by more than half the contributors to the existing pension scheme.

Benefits

For new contributors the scheme will provide a Government financed pension of 50 per cent of final salary on retirement at age 65 after 30 years of contributory service. Each year of contributory service beyond 30 will attract additional pension of 0.25 per cent subject to a maximum pension of 52.5 per cent of final salary on retirement at age 65 after 40 or more years of contributory service. Contributory service of less than 30 years will attract a lower pension. For retirement after age 60 and before 65 the pension will be reduced by 2 per cent of the pension for each year or part year that retirement occurs before that age. This will provide a Government financed pension on retirement at age 60 of 45 per cent of final salary after 30 years contributory service and 47 lA per cent after 40 years contributory service.

Contributors to the present pension scheme and the Provident Account will not be required to complete 30 years contributory service to qualify for the 50 per cent Government financed pension on retirement at age 65. Pension scheme contributors will continue to be subject to the more beneficial service provisions of their present scheme, that is, 20 years contributory service for entrants on or after 14 December 1959 and no qualifying period for entrants before that date. The qualifying period for the 50 per cent pension at age 65 for Provident Account contributors will be 20 years.

If the age 60 units held by a present pension scheme contributor would have provided a better Government financed pension than will be available under the new scheme on retirement before age 65, a pension supplement in respect of those units will be added to the Government financed pension payable at retirement. Provident Account contributors will be able to elect, on retirement, to receive, in lieu of the new scheme benefits, the lump sum benefit that would have been payable had the Provident Account arrangements continued to apply.

At retirement, a member will also be entitled to additional pension not exceeding 20 per cent of final salary, based on the member’s accumulated basic and supplementary contributions. If the accumulated contributions are more than sufficient to provide a 20 per cent additional pension the excess accumulated contributions will be paid to the member. The additional pension will carry with it reversionary pension entitlement for a spouse. The member will have a once only option, exercisable within 3 months of retirement, to convert the whole of the additional pension and reversionary entitlement into the equivalent lump sum.

Like the present pension scheme, the new scheme will provide comprehensive cover against the invalidity, retirement or death of a contributor before age 65. The benefit will be determined on the basis of prospective contributory service to age 65 and will be in the form of a Government financed pension together with additional pension that can be exchanged for the member’s accumulated basic contributions if the member or the beneficiary so desires. Provision is made for a partial invalidity pension to be paid when an invalidity pensioner is re-employed on a lower salary or when a contributor’s status and salary are reduced on medical grounds.

Spouses’ benefits will be available to a wider range of persons including, under certain conditions, de factor spouses and the spouse of a marriage after retirement. The standard benefit for a spouse will be 67 per cent of the member’s pension and the pension will not cease on remarriage. Children’s and orphans’ pensions will also be related to the level of the member’s pension.

Persons of lower medical standard on entry who, under the present arrangements, would be required to join the Provident Account, will come under the new scheme as will those members at present contributing to the Provident Account. There may be some reduction in their new scheme benefits on medical grounds if they retire on invalidity or die before completing 20 years of contributory service.

The scheme has been designed to provide appropriate benefits if a contributor’s conditions of service, either now or in the future, permit early retirement before age 60. Such early retirement pension is the age 60 retirement pension according to actual contributory service reduced by 4 per cent of that pension for each year or part year that retirement occurs before age 60. Provision has also been made so that, as and when appropriate, membership of the scheme can be extended to part-time employees.

Preservation of Superannuation Rights

In the new scheme the qualifying period for preservation of benefits will be 5 years instead of the 20 years qualifying period provided in the present legislation. This significant reduction in the qualifying period will be of particular assistance to women who interrupt their careers for reasons such as child rearing.

Updating of Pensions

The Government financed element of pensions that become payable under the new scheme will be adjusted in July each year by the formula one times the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index in the preceding 12 months, March quarter to March quarter. Existing pensions that will continue to be paid under the present Superannuation Act will be adjusted by the same formula applied to the full pension.

Administration

Administration of the new scheme, other than investment and management of the Superannuation Fund, will be the responsibility of a Commissioner for Superannuation to be appointed by the Governor-General. Investment and management of the fund will be the responsibility of an Investment Trust whose members will be appointed by the Governor-General. The Trust will be comprised of a full-time chairman and 2 part-time members, with appropriate experience in the investment or management of moneys. One of the part time members will be a contributor or pensioner selected after consultation with contributor and pensioner organisations. The investment powers relating to the fund are wide and include investments such as shares and real property.

Provision is made for the reconsideration of decisions by the Commissioner for Superannuation where sought by a person affected by a decision and for application by the person to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision confirmed or varied by the Commissioner. For this purpose one of the nonpresidential members of the Tribunal is to be a contributor or a pensioner.

Introduction of the New Scheme

Introduction of the new scheme will require a division of the assets of the Superannuation Fund as at 30 June 1976 between pensioners and contributors. This is covered in general terms only in the Bill and will be dealt with in more detail in regulations.

The complex nature of the present superannuation arrangements has caused many administrative problems and in February, when contributions to the pension scheme and Provident Account were frozen pending the introduction of the new scheme, the work of the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office was very much in arrears. These arrears are now being overtaken but it will be some time before the division and allocation of the fund as at 30 June 1976 can be completed. Suitable provision will be made in the regulations for interim arrangements that will apply to persons retiring during the period of transition.

Costs

Turning now to costs, on the basis of contributor and pensioner data as at 30 June 1974 and using the assumptions adopted by Mr G. L. Melville and Professor A. H. Pollard in their 1974 report, a comparison of capital values of benefits under the present pension scheme and Provident Account with capital values of benefits under the new scheme shows an overall increase of one per cent. The comparison illustrates the marked improvement under the new scheme in the position of those existing contributors who, for medical reasons, have been required to be members of the Provident Account. On the other hand, there is some decline in the capital values for existing pensioners and existing pension scheme contributors. This decline reflects the long term effect of the change in the updating formulae.

It is estimated that, if the Government were to fund its liability by making contributions at the same time as employees, the Government contribution for new contributors entering the new scheme after 1 July 1976 would be 18.8 per cent of the salaries of these contributors. The corresponding figure for the present pension scheme and Provident Account combined is 19.5 per cent. On the latest estimates net expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1976-77 on account of the new scheme is expected to be about $5m less than if the present pension scheme and Provident Account were to continue.

The comparison of capital values and other costing information are contained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators.

Other Bills

The Superannuation Amendment Bill 1976 amends the Superannuation Act 1922-1974, which will be kept in force in part to provide continuing authority for the payment of existing pensions. It extends to spouses’ and children’s pensions that are payable or may become payable in the future under that Act the higher reversionary benefit percentages provided in the new scheme and applies also the wider eligibility provisions of that scheme. Provision is also made for the freezing of contributions to the present schemes as at 4 February 1976 and the suspension of certain options in the present legislation from 13 February 1976, pending introduction of the new scheme. These measures were announced by the Government in February this year. The Superannuation Amendment Bill also provides special superannuation arrangements for persons who transferred from State and private employment as a result of the Commonwealth Government’s assuming additional responsibilities.

The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment Bill 1976 makes a number of essential machinery amendments to the principal Act to take account of changes being effected by the Superannuation Bill and to ensure that arrangements already in existence continue in force. They deal with persons whose contributions to the superannuation scheme have been deferred on their becoming eligible members of the DFRDB scheme, the preservation of rights provisions as they relate to persons transferring from one scheme to the other and, in accordance with past practice, the ex-officio appointment of the Commissioner for Superannuation, in lieu of the President of the Superannuation Board, as Chairman of the DFRDB Authority and the DFRB Board. The opportunity has been taken also to include in the Bill some formal and miscellaneous amendments, including provision to allow applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the review of decisions made by the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority.

Conclusion

The introduction of this Bill and the accompanying measures honours a commitment made by the Government to its employees late last year. The Australian Government Employees Combined Superannuation Co-ordinating Committee, which is representative of both contributors and pensioners, has asked the Government to proceed with the scheme. It has been no easy task to mould the new scheme into the form in which it is now presented. In this connection I, like the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, pay tribute to the tremendous contribution that our colleague, Mr Garland, made to the development of the final scheme. Superannuation is a complex issue. Mr Garland was untiring in his efforts in getting to understand the present scheme and its problems and in seeking to find a solution that might reasonably satisfy the aspirations of the Government’s own employees while still giving proper weight to the interests of the nation as a whole.

The covering legislation is extensive and complex and has been produced under considerable pressure. Should any shortcomings emerge as the new scheme gets into operation, the Government will, if it is appropriate, take action to remedy them. The new scheme will apply immediately to around 240 000 existing contributors, and perhaps another 60 000 Commonwealth Government employees, not at present in a superannuation scheme, will be eligible to join. There are, however, around 20 other superannuation schemes applying to civilian employees within the Commonwealth Government sector. In the interests of mobility, even-handed treatment of employees and greater efficiency in the area of superannuation, the Government intends in due course to move in the direction of bringing into the new scheme civilian employees at present covered by other Government schemes. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1126

SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

As foreshadowed in my second reading speech on the Superannuation Bill 1976, I now introduce the Superannuation Amendment Bill 1976 that makes certain necessary changes to the Superannuation Act 1922-1974 consequent upon the introduction of the new superannuation scheme for Commonwealth Government employees, and some other changes. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1126

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

As foreshadowed in my second reading speech on the Superannuation Bill 1976, I now introduce the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment Bill 1 976 that makes certain necessary changes to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-1975 consequent upon the introduction of the new superannuation scheme for Commonwealth Government employees, and some other changes. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1127

PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 April on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Gietzelt had moved by way of amendment:

At the 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 twelve months period and a list showing the amount of benefit accruing to such companies and individuals’

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-Last night I was explaining to Senator McLaren why the Government opposed the incorporation of certain papers in Hansard. As the honourable senator knows, the list of names he sought to incorporate in Hansard has been tabled already and is a public document for anyone to read. Senator McLaren was just wasting the time of the Senate. I then pointed out to honourable senators opposite that if they considered the Bill a little more deeply, instead of indulging in a hate campaign against the farmers, they might realise that the wage earners also have been hit by the abolition of this bounty. At that time Senator Walsh queried what I said. I am sorry that he is not in the chamber now; if he were, perhaps I could explain the situation to him. (Quorum formed) People listening to this debate might be interested to know that when the quorum was called only one Labor senator was present. There were 10 Liberal and National Country Party senators in the chamber, but only one Labor Party senator. That may indicate to those who are listening to this debate the interest that members of the Australian Labor Party have in the farmers of this country.

Senator Young:

– There is still only one Labor senator in the chamber.

Senator WALTERS:

-There is still only one Labor senator in the chamber, even though we now have a quorum. My comments might bring a few Labor senators out of their holes in the House. I ask Labor senators to look a little more deeply into this Bill as I am sure that there are a number of aspects that have not yet been investigated fully. Come on in, Senator Georges, and join the only other Labor senator.

Senator Georges:

– I come in to raise a point of order, Mr President.

Senator WALTERS:

– I am glad you were listening.

Senator Georges:

– I think it is contrary to the concept of the standing orders to reflect upon those in attendance in this chamber. I take great offence at what Senator Walters has done in speaking to me across the chamber. I have certain duties to perform here as Whip which bring me in and take me out of the chamber. My point of order is this -

Senator Withers:

– What standing order?

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, if I do not refer to a particular standing order, let us refer to a precedent of which you will be aware. It is quite against the spirit of the Standing Orders for a senator to mention the absence or otherwise of a senator in this place. I ask you, Mr President, to refer to that precedent and to indicate to the senator concerned that what she has done is not in the best taste.

Senator Withers:

– On the point of order, Mr President, I submit that there is no point of order. It is some time since the quorum bells rang and still only 2 Labor senators are within the chamber. I might ask where they are. I thought that people were elected to the Senate to serve in the Senate and not to wander around this place during the sitting hours of the Parliament. My only regret is that the members of the Remuneration Tribunal are not sitting in the presidential gallery today as they were last week, to look at the work that the taxpayers get from the Labor Opposition.

Senator Georges:

– Still speaking to the point of order, Mr President, I believe that the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) are offensive. They are personally offensive to me. I ask that his remarks be withdrawn. He has no right whatsoever to take sideswipes at the Opposition. One of the reasons that few Labor senators are in this place now is that to this point the Government has not been prepared to keep the House. It is the Government’s responsibility and the Government knows that it is its responsibility. I think the Opposition is right in making certain that the Government and not the Opposition maintains the House.

Senator Martin:

– On the original point of order, Mr President, I draw your attention to standing order 424, which states:

Every such objection must be taken at the time when such words are used, and will not be afterwards entertained.

Senator Georges, by his own admission, was absent from the chamber at the time that Senator Walters raised this matter. I suggest, therefore, that Senator George’s point of order should not be entertained.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not sustained. Senator Walters, continue your speech, please.

Senator WALTERS:

-Thank you, Mr President. As I said, I should like honourable senators opposite to look a little more deeply into this Bill. I am sure a number of aspects have not yet been investigated fully. In just 12 months, the period since the previous Government abolished the superphosphate bounty, aerial and ground spreading of this fertiliser has dropped by 90 per cent. This drop of 90 per cent certainly impresses me. It should impress honourable senators opposite and it should impress every Australian. If this situation is allowed to continue it will affect every Australian citizen. After all, the maintenance of life on this planet relies on the top 9 inches of soil. Australian farmers are efficient farmers. Senator Grimes may not agree with me, but the Australian farmer is a very efficient farmer and his soils are not as fertile as those in other countries.

Senator Scott has said that whilst phosphate is only one of the deficiencies, it is perhaps the greatest deficiency in Australian soils. Senator Walsh said that to plough fertilisers back into the soil was not the way to correct deficiencies. But Senator Walsh is never very logical in his arguments. To keep up the fertility of our continent it is essential to use superphosphate regularly. If we fail to replace this element the long term result to 90 per cent of our agricultural lands will be disastrous. Millions of acres will be uneconomical in which to cultivate any crop of any kind and they will be left to revert to wastelands. Before the abolition of the superphosphate bounty by the Labor Government the farming community was able to topdress all its arable land that required this element. In many cases the farming community was able to upgrade areas of second and third grade land to make it productive.

Senator Georges:

– To our great cost.

Senator WALTERS:

-Since the abolition of the superphosphate bounty practically no development of this type of land has taken place. Senator Georges may be interested to know that it is scientifically recommended that on a well run property it is necessary to spread one ton of superphosphate per bale of wool produced.

Senator Georges:

– Who is the reference?

Senator WALTERS:

-I got that information from the scientific section of the library, Senator Georges. I should like to point out that many farmers who over the past years have been used to spreading this fertiliser regularly on their properties have not yet noticed the downturn in their properties and probably will not notice it for another couple of years. This is because the application of superphosphate does not show immediate results as other fertilisers do but the benefits from the application of superphosphate builds up over a period of 2 or 3 years. If a farmer waits until he actually sees the downturn before he starts spreading superphosphate again he will not reap the benefit of the spreading for yet another 2 or 3 years.

I stress the point that since the present Government has reintroduced this subsidy there has been an increase in the use of superphosphate of only about 10 per cent to 15 per cent. This is a matter of great concern. Perhaps the reason for this is well explained by the following figures: In 1973-74 superphosphate cost the Australian farmer an average of $15.36 a ton. At that time he was getting 45 cents per pound for his beef and the dairyman was getting 67 cents to 70 cents per pound for his butterfat. Superphosphate now costs a farmer $48 a ton and he is getting only 20 cents per pound for his beef and 47 cents per pound for his butterfat. It can be seen that with this increased cost of the fertiliser, plus the farmers’ lower return in this area alone, farmers are unable to pay for this essential element.

As Senator Gietzelt said, the cost of fertiliser has risen sharply and the bounty is still the same. In 1973 the bounty represented 42.7 per cent of the total cost of superphosphate whilst now it represents only 19.5 per cent of the total cost. The New Zealand farmer is treated far better by his Government. He has a guaranteed maximum price prior to delivery of $23 a ton, plus an incentive grant of $5 a ton for speading. This is an example which we could well follow so that the farmer would have meaningful assistance and would be encouraged in keeping stable the fertility of this country. However, this matter could be looked at in terms of long term assistance and not in the terms of the Bill which we are discussing. In other words, let us treat the superphosphate bounty as a necessary form of assistance, not so much for the good of the farmer as for the good of Australia. We offer this type of assistance in the form of tariffs, when considered essential, to many other industries. If Senator McLaren and other honourable senators opposite do not like the word ‘subsidy’, then let them think of it in terms of tariff protection for Australia. This was about the only reasonable statement Senator Walsh made.

This Bill has been debated many times in both this chamber and the other place. I am aware that many of these arguments have been repeated over and over. However, one area that has not yet been investigated fully is the damage that has been done in just 12 months to the servicing agencies of superphosphate in Australia. If Senator Walsh would like to listen he might learn that the wage earner in Australia has been hit by the Labor Government’s action. Let us take the case of the commercial spreaders. In just 12 months more than half of the spreaders in my State have gone out of business. As a result, many people have lost their jobs both from these companies and from the larger companies that have been forced to sack staff to remain viable. Expertise has been permanently lost to the industry in the form of both experienced pilots expert in aerial spraying and ground spreaders who must also have specialised skills. The machinery and aircraft which these men use have either been dispensed with or put into mothballs. How then can we hope to reinstate these companies as the need arises? It will obviously be a costly and difficult exercise for, in the future, as I pointed out, we must again use the quantities previously used in our agriculture to maintain our fertility.

I would like to mention another area that has suffered at the hands of the Labor Government. I refer to the transport of superphosphate. In Tasmania 40 per cent of the superphosphate sold in 1973- 74 was carried by rail and 60 per cent by road. Freight returns on superphosphate comprised nearly 13 per cent of the total revenue, it being the third highest revenueearner carried by the Tasmanian Railways. In 1974- 75 when the subsidy on this fertiliser had been discontinued for only 6 months, this revenue had fallen from 13 per cent to 71/2 per cent of the total rail revenue. The loss to the Tasmanian Government Railways was $333,049. Perhaps it is not a very large figure but then Tasmanian Railways is not a very large concern. I was unable to find figures-

Senator Button:

– Are you advocating permanent superphosphate bounties as a solution to this problem?

Senator WALTERS:

– It certainly gave people employment, Senator Button. I was unable to find figures showing the effect on road hauliers but I know that 12 drivers working for one of the largest companies in Tasmania have been made redundant. Perhaps Senator Button does not worry about those 12 drivers. The company also lost $120,000 just on the carriage of superphosphate. In Victoria the figures are similar. Superphosphate comprised 6.2 per cent of the total rail revenue in 1973-74 and nearly half that in the 6 months following, making a loss to Victorian Railways of $1,742,208. One wonders what it has done to the road transport industry in Victoria. The downturn in these figures must be repeated in every other State, with the exception perhaps of Queensland. I would be most interested in the Western Australian figures but I was unable to obtain them. Of course there are other Government losses apart from the losses from rail charges. I refer to the loss in revenue from air navigation charges paid for the spreading aircraft and a total loss of road taxes from the hauliers. One could go on indefinitely talking about these losses. I cite the case of a large producer in Tasmania who in December 1974 employed 70 men- 70 men, Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

– What have I done?

Senator WALTERS:

– Six months later he was employing only 18 men. He is now employing 46 men. Perhaps honourable senators opposite are not interested in these men who have been made redundant but they are all affected by the superphosphate bounty. I have raised these points just to show once again how the judgment of honourable senators opposite flies out the window when they start their rantings on the subsidy paid to the wealthy farmer. When Senator Walsh started citing his figures he failed to mention the farmhands, the producers, the spreaders, the transport workers and even the State and Federal governments. They all benefit from the subsidy. If he could only forget his phoebia about the big man for a while and think of the little man he might achieve something in this debate.

Finally, as has no doubt been said before, income benefits accruing from this subsidy to the big farmer are taxed by the Government and a large percentage is returned to the Government coffers. Let the Senate be done with the inane, superficial comments of the Opposition that the superphosphate bounty is aiding certain Cabinet Ministers and Government members because they happen to be farmers. Such comments are deliberate and calculated efforts to create friction between Australian citizens. Hatred is a terrible thing. Why do honourable senators opposite not realise that Jack needs his master just as his master needs Jack? If we want to get our country moving again the key to it is the realisation that we must depend on each other and that no man is an island. It is with great pleasure that I support the Bill.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I listened with some interest to the argument put by the previous speaker, Senator Walters. It seems to me that in the main she was arguing for the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty in order to employ, as one would gather from her speech, hundreds of thousands of people. Anyone who has any interest in rural areas or in superphosphate would be able to tell the honourable senator that in the main the spreading and carrying of superphosphate is conducted over 3 or 4 months of the year and that for the person so employed it is a part-time job only. With the mechanical means available in this modern age the number of persons employed, particularly in spreading and carting superphosphate, has dropped off very drastically over the last decade or 15 years.

Whilst Senator Walters raised this point she did not think to mention that perhaps what is lost in one area is picked up in another. The fact that superphosphate is not carried and spread around rural Australia as much in recent times is a great saving to our rural roads because superphosphate is one commodity which has an effect on minor rural roads which are not constructed for this type of heavy traffic.

Senator Archer:

– Now I have heard it all.

Senator PRIMMER:

-Of course, those honourable senators who laugh at the idea do not live in rural areas and know nothing of rural roads.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What about the milk wagon? That carries as much weight as superphosphate.

Senator PRIMMER:

-Milk tankers are basically used on roads that have been upgraded to carry them. Superphosphate tends to be carried down country lanes which were not designed to carry heavy traffic. If Senator Walters’ argument were to be carried to its logical conclusion we would be spreading superphosphate ad infinitum. I wonder where her philosophy would lead us with regard to the increased production we could expect to achieve. At this stage the Australian farming community has dairy products, wool and beef- they are the 3 major users of superphosphate- running out of its ears. It seems to me that they will be running out of the ears of the industry for some time due to the curtailment of overseas markets, particularly following Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, and the increased production of some of these commodities around the world.

As my colleague Senator McLaren pointed out last night, the bounty has a long and somewhat political history. It was first introduced in 1913 and carried forward in various stages. It was reintroduced in 1942 or 1943 by the Chifley Labor Government, removed in 1951 by the

Liberal Government under Mr Menzies, reintroduced, interestingly enough- this is why I referred to superphosphate having a somewhat political history- in 1963 when the then Menzies Government was in a situation of having a majority of only one in the other place. That subsidy was allowed to expire in 1974 by the Labor Government and is being re-introduced at this time because of an election pledge by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Unfortunately, as I see it, the people who have clamoured for the reintroduction and continuation of this bounty over the years have never looked beyond the political aspect or the more immediate future. No one has bothered to look at the long term effects of the application of superphosphate and to have regard to the various industries which benefit by its application. No one has bothered to look at the long term prospects of the beef industry, the dairying industry or the wool industry or to determine where those industries go from here. As I said a moment ago, those are 3 industries which patently at the moment do not require the assistance of a superphosphate bounty. I am sure that when rural people rationalise the events of the last two or three years and the next two or three years they will see that all that the present Government is doing is trying to make superphosphate a panacea for the current evils or problems of their industries. The Government is trying to cloud the issue for the farming community by reintroducing the superphosphate bounty. By this means the Government hopes to shut the minds of those in that community to investigating or probing any further into what might be wrong with their industries.

It is rather significant, I think, that some rural organisations have opposed the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty. In August last year, cattlemen appealed to the then Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, not to restore the bounty but rather to allocate funds in other directions. They believed that there was much that could be done to greater benefit by such an allocation of funds. In January of this year, the Australian Cattlemen’s Association appealed to the present Government not to reintroduce the bounty -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Why?

Senator PRIMMER:

– . . . pointing out that producers who most need government assistance could not afford to purchase superphosphate in the first place. As Senator Sir Magnus Cormack would well know, there are hundreds of farmers in his area in south-western

Victoria who at present will not be able to afford to buy superphosphate, bounty or no bounty. The Labor Government came in for a great deal of criticism not only in this Parliament but also outside the Parliament because of its disinclination to continue with that bounty. Unfortunately, at the time when that opposition came, world prices for phosphate rock increased dramatically. There was an increase of up to 350 per cent in the price of phosphate rock from Morocco, Florida and other countries where that resource is freely available.

However, despite the criticism that was levelled at the Labor Government by many people, I was rather interested to have the views of one primary producer at least who rationalised the position rather differently and who expressed the opinion that he was much better off under the Labor Government without the superphosphate bounty than he had been under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government when the superphosphate bounty was available. He rationalised in this way: He used around 20 tons of superphosphate per annum and prior to the country going metric, the bounty that applied to that 20 tons of superphosphate was worth $240 per annum to him. He rationalised that whilst the Whitlam Labor Government had taken that bounty away it had replaced it in the first instance by introducing Medibank which was worth $140 per annum to him. The same Government gave grants to local government. In the case of this farmer, the grant from the Grants Commission to local government was equal to 1.5c in the dollar on rateable property. In this case that was the equivalent of 6 tons of superphosphate bounty.

He also rationalised that the 4-fold increase in education expenditure under Labor had made a dramatic improvement in the education facilities at many country schools, his own included. Finally he said that the Labor Government had taken the bit in its teeth and introduced a floor price plan for wool to the total of a guarantee of $356m which was the equivalent of 9 years’ superphosphate bounty right across Australia. So all in all, as he said, he was much better off without the superphosphate bounty and with a Labor Government.

It is interesting to read part of the dissenting report of an Associate Commissioner of the Industries Assistance Commission, Mr Robinson. As my colleague, Senator McLaren said in this place yesterday, had certain pressure or certain epithets not been used in regard to another person- Mrs Hylda Rolfe- perhaps the decision of the IAC would have gone the way of the minority report. On page 8 of the report, Mr Robinson says in part:

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

Mr Robinson believes that a short term interim bounty will assist few users of phosphatic fertilisers 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 fertiliser usage and its impact on the balance of Australian agriculture, the interim bounty and its retrospectivity will thus tend to cloud the issue 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 or urgent inquiries into the problems of specific farm sectors which are not already under inquiry.

Of course as I said previously, what the Government hopes will happen is that the farming community will see this as a panacea for all problems, so that they will no longer seek government assistance. I ask honourable senators opposite: Of what import will the reintroduction of a superphosphate bounty at the rate of $ 1 1 .8 1 per tonne be to the 450 dairy farmers who met in the open air at Echuca last night? Not one of them will be in a position to apply superphosphate, bounty or no bounty. Unless something further than a superphosphate bounty is given by way of aid or unless some rationalisation or rational approach to the industry can be thought out, then the $11.81 per tonne to these farmers is as nothing.

Of course I am one who has long held the opinion that it is the price that a farmer receives for his commodity- the farm gate price- that affects his mind as to whether he applies superphosphate or not, and whether he applies superphosphate lightly or heavily. I know from my own experience in the rural community that in a good year when prices are high, farmers tend to spread a little extra superphosphate whereas when times are hard, the soil goes without or the farmers apply only half a bag of superphosphate to the acre. When times are good and continue to stay good for a year or two, the rate of application of superphosphate climbs up to a bag, a bag and a half or even 2 bags an acre. That situation prevails whether or not the superphosphate bounty is payable. It is the end price that the farmers receive in their kick that motivates them to spread superphosphate. It is not the presence of the bounty.

As I said previously, in my district at present when butter fat prices are down to 50c a lb- a price which will not permit any dairy farmer to continue in operations- when good vealers are selling for anything from $4 to $ 1 5 a head, when bobby calves are selling at about 75c to 96c a head and when sheep currently are being given away for dog and pig food, who will apply superphosphate because this bounty has been reintroduced? The application of superphosphate will take place only when the prices for these commodities are increased and farmers have a shilling in their pockets. Because of the reasons I have advanced, I am opposed to the reintroduction of this bounty and support the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (5. 13)- I listened last night to the speeches made by Senator Walsh and Senator McLaren in this debate. I listened to Senator Primmer this afternoon, I found myself totally and absolutely in an intellectual and mental maze when listening to the 3 honourable senators as I tried to follow them down the various paths they had marked out to support their arguments. I must deal with Senator Walsh first. I recalled to my mind what he was saying last night by noting down various comments that he made at that time and then making the effort this morning to read the Hansard report of what he said. I ended up in a far more confused situation than I was after listening to him speak last night. I remind Senator Walsh- there are technical and scientific grounds for the statement I am about to makethat the human ear can take in only 40 per cent of the words that are spoken and the brain understands only 10 per cent of that. That is the position of a normal human being. The human ear would not absorb even 40 per cent of what Senator Walsh was saying. So I wrote down on a piece of paper last night the significant phrases in the honourable senator’s speech. I ended up with 2 such phrases and when I examined them again this morning, I came to the conclusion that they as well were meaningless.

Senator Walsh has an interesting background as a wheat farmer in Western Australia, as was his father and, I assume, his grandfather before him. As Senator Walters pointed out early this afternoon, we use phosphatic acid in the soils of Australia today because our soils are leached. Australia is an old continent and the leaching process has gone on for half a million years. So the amount of inherent fertility in the soils is minimal. In South Australia so much of the early agricultural practice was developed and worked out at the Roseworthy Agricultural College where the practice of introducing ground rock phosphate into the soil was begun in an attempt to increase the yields of South Australian wheat farms. Finally a soluble form of phosphate known as superphosphate was discovered. There is one interesting thing to bear in mind, Mr Deputy President, as you would well know as a man of the country, as were many dozens of your forebears. I shall speak about South Australia, a State I know very well.

Senator McLaren:

– No way.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Senator McLaren is only a recent migrant to South Australia. He does not know very much about it.

Senator McLaren:

– I have lived there a lot longer than you have.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I bet you have not. In South Australia the average yield on a wheat farm in a good year used to be five or six bushels to the acre. When Senator Walsh addressed himself to the question of productivity last night he claimed that he was the only person who knew the difference between production and productivity. Roseworthy Agricultural School investigated increasing the level of productivity. The secret was found in the use of superphosphate. I do not know what average yields in South Australia are at present, but I imagine they are 500 per cent or 600 per cent greater than they were before the introduction of superphosphate.

Senator Georges:

– For that reason only?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-That is one reason. I will not be like Senator Walsh and give a lecture in husbandry. The next matter to look at is Senator Walsh’s interesting conversion from being a farmer to a pseudo-intellectual. He comes from an area where I doubt that he, his father, his brother or his grandfather would be able to scratch a living if it were not for superphosphate. Senator Walsh will not mind if I cause honourable senators to recollect that he comes from a wheat farming family in Western Australia, and it is the use of superphosphate that enables farmers over most of the area of Western Australia to have production and productivity and therefore add to the gross national product of Australia. The interesting thing about the wheat farmer is that the domestic price of wheat has built into it the cost of superphosphate. So the people who grow wheat, for example, need not be ashamed of admitting that they are in receipt of a subsidy made by the Australian tax payer on the domestic price of wheat.

I shall deal not only with the price of wheat and the use of superphosphate in the wheat industry. I move on to the other area that seems to have attracted the attention of honourable senators opposite. They complain about phosphate being spread on pastures. Last night Senator Walsh observed that all this does is produce food which the poor of the world cannot consume. I shall deal with that in a moment. No honourable senator opposite referred to the objectives of the Phosphate Fertiliser Bounty Act 1963, Act No. 78. The Industries Assistance Commission interim report on superphosphate states:

The objectives in that Act may be inferred from statements during the Second Reading Debate: ‘A Superphosphate bounty . . . will encourage the most economic use of our agricultural resources and in particular, will act as a stimulus for further expansion in pasture improvement’;

It also states:

Not only will the subsidy reduce farmers’ costs and assist to increase their production but it will also increase the volume of production that Australia has for export and thus enable us to earn more overseas funds’; ‘restore the balance of profitability between the primary industries and the secondary and tertiary industries ;

That last sentence is the important one, because by the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s the massive rise in cost inflation was overtaking primary producers at all levels in the wheat industry, the meat protein industry, the wool protein industry or whatever other industries. Costs were high, but it was not a matter of price at the gate, as Senator Primmer said. In fact prices had reached such an extraordinary dimension as to make the farmer, the grazier or the primary producer at all levels no longer able to absorb the costs that were being erected in Australia as a result of pressure from the urban and metropolitan mass. Unless I am provoked, I will not put it in any weaker or stronger terms than that.

Senator McLaren:

– Are you inviting it?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-No. I said ‘the urban metropolitan mass’. What is the demand of the urban metropolitan mass? The demand of the urban metropolitan masswhether it is in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in the People’s Republic of China or even in Australia- is for cheap food. In a command economy, such as in Russia and China, cheap food is obtained by another system altogether. In a command economy the living standards of the peasantry are depressed in order to obtain cheap food for the metropolitan mass. Is that the sort of system that we want in Australia? I say quite simply that that is what has been happening in Australia. Over the last 15 years the standard of living of primary producers in Australia, in curve terms, has been descending at a much faster rate than the standard of living of the rest of the community. Finally, the curve has crossed the point where the primary sector no longer is able to sustain itself against the pressures of the urbanised mass represented, of course -

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about the Chinese system where the academics go back to the farm?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I am sorry that Senator Mulvihill is going to the West Indies. The time has arrived when only one man is left on my property and the work is mounting; so I would give Senator Mulvihill a Chinese academic’s wage to come and work for a month on Lower Crawford. But he would not come. I am perfectly aware of what would happen if Senator Mulvihill accepted my invitation: He would be looking up to the sky at birds or down in the valley at kangaroos. That is about all he would be doing. The situation has reached an order, nature and dimension where the real poverty in Australia is in the primary sector. There is not poverty only in the country towns, as the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty reported. Actual poverty is on the land; amongst the people who work on the land and the people who own the land. If honourable senators require any proof of this, they can read in the newspapers today about people in Victoria who are slaughtering sheep and cattle and digging pits and burying them or burning them.

Senator Primmer referred to the price that is being paid for poddy calves at the gate on his dairy farm in that fertile area of Warrnambool, where probably superphosphate is not required because I should imagine that it is the richest province in Australia. But that is not the point. The point is that, notwithstanding the vast surpluses of meat in Australia, there is no reflection of this in the butcher shops when housewives go to buy their weekend meat. The reason for that is quite simple. For example, any man who lives on the land and hires a truck to take his cattle to market knows that during the last 4 years the cost of transporting cattle by road has risen by about 30 per cent to 40 per cent. If he transports his cattle by rail he knows that about 20 per cent of the cattle are dead when they get to the other end. He also knows that when cattle get into the hands of Mr Cullen of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union- a union well known to Senator McLaren- it is almost impossible to get the meat out at the other end of the chain system because it becomes so expensive. After the Meat Industry Employees Union has taken its whack, the meat, when it lands in the butcher shop, is very expensive. The producer does not receive the benefit of the high prices that are paid for meat in the butcher shop.

Senator Mulvihill:

-What do the master butchers get out of it?

Senator McLaren:

– Have a look at their balance sheets.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKSomeone from Western Australia can remind me of how much that meat works at Albany lost last year. I think it was $500,000. 1 have been looking at balance sheets, too. In mediaeval times when produce of one sort or another reached Europe it was terribly expensive because it had been mulcted all the way along the transportation line by pirates, governments and the equivalent of guilds of one sort or another. Things have not changed one bit in 500 years. There is a new group of robbers organised by statute in this country.

Senator McLaren:

– Who are they?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-You know. Honourable senators opposite who have been addressing themselves to this question have narrowed it to the area from which they spring. Senator McLaren would readily understand the problems in regard to what could be produced on the land around Monarto near Murray Bridge where he lived before he migrated to Canberra. I guarantee that one would not get fowl feed off that country unless one used superphosphate. That is where Mr Dunstan had intended to build his satellite city.

Let me return to the use of phosphoric acid in the soil and indicate how important it is that it be used in Australia. In the immediate post-war years under the Australian Labor Party Government there was acquisition of large properties in western Victoria, as would be known by Senator Primmer. On those large properties were put a large number of returned servicemen in order that they might be settlers on small properties. The reason that these large areas were resumed compulsorily was that the science of pastures had reached the stage at which, using the quantitive term, the ratio of one dry sheep to 2 acres could, by the use of legumes, be transferred to something like 3 sheep to one acre. To enable that pasture change to take place it was necessary to apply phosphoric acid to the depleted soils of Australia. There are hundreds and thousands of these soldier settlers not only in Victoria but in other States of Australia, including Western Australia. There are also settlers who were privately settled and who were encouraged, to use the words of the Industries Assistance Commission, to go on that land to increase production and to increase productivity. The moment one deprives those lands of soluble phosphoric acid in the form of superphosphate they tend to become deserts. I could take honourable senators over large areas of Australia at present where, simply because of the abandonment of this system by which there was underwritten into the Australian primary industry a means of maintaining production and productivity, there is a regression to minimal returns, in quantitative terms and qualitative terms. The word ‘regression’ was a favourite of Senator Walsh last night.

The matter has reached the stage it has simply because of a rancorous personal vendetta which was first injected in the Senate to attack the present Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It has been enlarged and broadened, in the same way as the industrial dispute concerning the Federated Storemen and Packers Union in Australia has broadened. The matter was a simple one. The Union is holding up all wool in Australia today because of what was a simple demand for an extra $6 a day or $6 a week. It has been broadened into a whole industrial dispute. I use that analogy in relation to the superphosphate bounty in this debate. Different claims about this, that and the other are constantly being expounded, until the electorate, I imagine, is totally confused. One part of this country that is not confused is the people who are meeting the test of what is in front of them and what is occurring to them.

Senator Walters referred to unemployment. It is in quite massive proportions in the country. It is in massive proportions in the service industries which are there to support the primary sector. For example, the honourable senator mentioned that in Tasmania, which is within her personal knowledge, elements of that tertiary servicetruck owners, truck operators, truck transporters and garages who have to rely on their ability to maintain equipment of one sort or another- are out of work. So it is not simply a question of the amount of superphosphate that is being used, whether it should be used or whether it is being used improperly or properly. The fundamental fact is that it is precipitating a revolution and honourable senators opposite have not addressed themselves to the solution of this problem.

I am willing to admit that there is an element of truth in the observation that has been made that when times are good there is a good deal of phosphate used but wrongly used. I have heard scientists refer to farmers or primary producers using it cosmetically. That is quite true. When times are good it has been used rather lavishly and primary producers have been encouraged to use it lavishly. However, oddly enough- and Senator Primmer did not address himself to this point- it is a curious inverted form of saving money, because when phosphoric acid is applied to the soil it is not all used as plant food in the year of its application. It appears to have a residual capacity of something like 12 per cent a year so that if it is applied for 5 years there is something like 60 per cent of residual phosphate in the soil. The farmer understands this perfectly well; he is not a fool. Members of the Australian Labor Party regard him not only as a fool but also as a hewer of wood and a drawer of water who is there to produce the underwrite the basic area of the economy as cheaply as possible.

I have seen Mr Cullen. I have been at meetings in the country at which the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union has been represented. All Mr Cullen has offered to the farmers is the assistance of his Union to solve the problem of the disposal of meat. I do not know what the devil that means and I do not think farmers know either. Senator Gietzelt referred to the trade unions sending a mission to Russia to engage in trade negotiations. Russia has never bought any commodity in the world unless it has been at lower than world parity price. Russia lives on the surpluses of the western world and even if it wants meat from Australia it will not buy it unless it can get it at a lesser rate than the going rate anywhere else in the world.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You would not spurn the market, would you, Senator?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-We do not spurn the market now. I had dinner with the Chairman of the Australian Meat Board on Friday night and we were discussing how much meat Russia could take. Russia is short of resources at the moment. She has made massive purchases of American spring wheat to feed her people because she cannot produce enough. As usual, China is in the market for Australian wheat. As planners, China prefers protein in the form of grain. Ask the Russian if he wants porridge or a steak for breakfast and he will opt for the steak, but the Government in the command economy will let him have only enough money to eat porridge.

Senator Georges:

– That is rubbish and you know it, Senator.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I would say that the nutritional standard of Russia would be about 20 per cent lower than that in Senator Georges’ homeland. We have listened for hours over the last session and the beginning of this session of Parliament to a torrent of words which have sought to defend an indefensible policy adopted in the first pan by Mr Whitlam who adopted that policy for one simple reason: He wished to transfer resources from the primary area to the services area of the metropolitan mass so that there would be better scales for dancers, singers, viola players, violinists and trumpeters in the cities. For example, $100,000 went to Adelaide the other day to enable Mr Dunstan to recite Ogden Nash to the monkeys in the zoo. That is the sort of transfer of money that is taking place. I earnestly hope -

Senator Harradine:

– No one is going to vote against this Bill.

Senator SIR MAGNUS CORMACK:

-No? They are going to vote against it.

Senator Harradine:

– No, all we want to know is who is going to benefit from it.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-No one.

Senator Harradine:

– My understanding is that all that is wanted is a reference in Hansard to who will be the major beneficiaries of it and that no one is going to vote against it.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Senator Primmer wants to get his superphosphate at a concessional rate but not the Prime Minister.

Senator McLaren:

– The Prime Minister wants it all right.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-No. Senator Primmer wants the concession- the bounty- but not the Prime Minister. That is what it all amounts to. I reject any suggestion that this amendment should be carried in the Senate and I support the Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-Mr Acting Deputy President, under standing order 408 I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Cormack.

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

Senator McLAREN:

– During the course of his remarks Senator Cormack referred to ‘the area near Monarto where Senator McLaren used to live before he came to settle in Canberra’. I point out to the Senate, as I have had to do on numerous occasions because of statements by Senator Webster, that during the 1970 election campaign I gave an undertaking to the electors of South Australia that if I were elected to the Senate I would open an electorate office in Murray Bridge and continue to live in Murray Bridge. I have carried out that undertaking faithfully. I claim that I could be done untold electoral damage by the broadcast today of that statement by Senator Cormack that I have come to reside in Canberra. The only time that I am in Canberra is when the Parliament is sitting. I spend the rest of my time carrying out my duties as a parliamentarian in the electorate of South Australia and have my home in Murray Bridge. Unlike Senator Cormack, who divulged here today that he has a farm and a person working for him, as well as being a member of Parliament, my sole source of income is the salary I get as a member of Parliament. I have continued to live in Murray Bridge and I have an electorate office there. I feel that Senator Cormack has done me a grave injustice by saying to the people at large that I reside in Canberra.

Senator Young:

– Does your son have your poultry farm?

Senator McLAREN:

– The poultry farm has not been operating since I have been a member of this place.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I admire Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s resilience in that having been a member of the Senate for some time and having occupied the most important position in this chamber- that of President- he has now been able to come back and enter into a debate on superphosphate of all things. In fact, I am a little astounded that I am on my feet on the same subject; but there are certain matters which I wish to raise and which are pertinent to the debate. Before commencing to do so I would like to say to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack that he really cannot excuse his own economic illiteracy by blaming Senator Walsh. I think Senator Walsh is a man who is quite well armed with economic knowledge, especially in relation to rural matters. I take it that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and other honourable senators opposite are not pleased with what he says because every time he has risen to his feet in the past to speak they have moved out of the chamber because they cannot bear the lash of his tongue.

Senator Walters:

– The viciousness?

Senator GEORGES:

-It is not a matter of viciousness; it is a matter of putting a point of view effectively with considerable acumen. He may do it with considerable sharpness, but I think that Senator Walters will get used to that, as we will get used to some of the comments that she makes- like those she just made while she was on her feet. But, be that as it may, I think that we are prepared to speak as firmly as we think necessary in these debates and we expect honourable senators opposite to respond in a similar way without any acrimony.

I have risen to speak in this debate to put a case that the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty presents considerable dangers. I think that some of the Government speakers have hinted that there are some dangers inherent in its reintroduction. The superphosphate bounty has become a political weapon. It is a weapon which is used by parties to encourage support in rural areas. It was a device which the National Country Party in particular used during the recent campaign to set the countryside against the cities, to set the rural worker against the city worker and to set the rural workers against the Labor Party. Its reintroduction without waiting for the Commission’s report to my mind makes it again a political weapon. No matter what decision the Commission makes it will be very difficult to phase out the superphosphate bounty. To do so would be not politically acceptable to the supporters of the National Country Party and for that reason the National Country Party will use its parliamentary muscle, as it has done in the past, to prevent the Liberal Party from phasing out this bounty.

I say to the National Country Party that it does the country, the farmer and the rural community a great disservice. The price of superphosphate, no matter what bounty is paid, will rise. The superphosphate price is supported in 2 ways. It is supported not only by the bounty which the Government proposes in this Bill- it is an open ended and increasing commitment which the Government is making- but also by the low cost production of superphosphate on Christmas Island. No honourable senator should move away from this debate without considering at what cost to the people of Christmas Island do we subsidise the Australian farmer.

Senator Webster:

– What decision did you come to on that issue when you were in office?

Senator GEORGES:

-Let me say this to the honourable senator: This responsibility which I am raising now is a responsibility which has been ignored by successive governments and is at present being ignored by this Government. However, during our term in government we managed to improve the conditions of production of superphosphate. An important part of the superphosphate question is that concerning Australia’s source of the product. However undesirable the economic implications of this Bill they become more undesirable when we consider the exploitive methods employed by the Australian and New Zealand Governments to obtain the phosphate ore.

Of particular interest is Christmas Island which on average produces about 44 per cent of the rock phosphate used by Australia. Let me give a bit of background on this. On 1 October 1958 under the Christmas Island Agreement Act the Island was made an Australian Territory and Australia secured exclusive rights to extract all phosphates and other minerals and to cut timber in, on and from Christmas Island. Under the Act no provision was made for the welfare of the inhabitants of the Island during the period of the rock phosphate mining. I am trying to inject here a human consideration for those people who are employed on Christmas Island on an indentured basis and who come from both Singapore and Malaysia. The result is that superphosphate at Christmas Island is $8.40 per ton free on board. Of course, there is freight on top of that. This means that superphosphate from Christmas Island is considerably cheaper than the superphosphate that is produced in this country by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and certainly cheaper than superphosphate that is supplied from Nauru. This is made possible, of course, by the low wages which are paid to those Asian workers whom we bring in to one of our own territories and employ at an exceptionally low rate. Since the establishment of what I believe was called the union of Christmas Island workers, the rate paid by agreement with the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission to the lowest paid worker has been and is still, as of January 1 976, a monthly salary of $ 1 10.

Senator Primmer:

– Would you call it exploited labour?

Senator GEORGES:

-That exploitation of the Christmas Island people, among other things, enables Australia to purchase rock phosphate at $8.50 per tonne compared with that obtained from local sources, such as Broken Hill South Ltd, at $33 per tonne and from Nauru and Ocean Island at $54 per tonne. We have a considerable stockpile in Australia at the present time, but 1 600 000 tonnes of rock phosphate included in Australia’s stockpile at January 1976 was purchased from Christmas Island for$8.5m, whereas the remaining 1 338 341 tonnes purchased from Nauru and Ocean Island cost $72m. The point I am trying to emphasise first is that the continuing exploitation of Christmas Island workers should cease. I make the further point that eventually the exploitation of those workers will cease. So we no longer depend upon a low price for phosphate rock from Christmas Island. Like the Nauruan people, the Christmas Island workers will receive some justice.

It is my view that sooner or later this Parliament will have to set up an inquiry into the operation on Christmas Island, and in particular the activities of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and its relationship with the British Phosphate Commission, to see to what extent the people of Christmas Island are deprived and to what extent the British Phosphate Commission and the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission benefit. It is most necessary that this should be done; otherwise we are just like a bunch of sheep- just exposing our rumps to the wind and not facing the problem. We should be looking at the problem and seeing what is going to be the price of phosphate when the correct price is paid for phosphate, especially that from Christmas Island. We will see then that the use of superphosphate in Australia is quite uneconomical. It will continue to be uneconomical and we should be devising other methods.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Is that why the farmers want it- because it is uneconomical?

Senator GEORGES:

-I would say that that is what the farmers want, to answer the interjection from Senator Tehan. I think the farmers want this and I think the Government has done them a disservice by reintroducing the superphosphate bounty. Means of support other than the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty will be given to the rural industry.

Senator Webster:

– Tell us about it.

Senator GEORGES:

– The other means of supporting rural industry, of course, is to see that the farmer gets markets for his produce. It seems to me that sufficient emphasis has not been placed on the diversification of markets, although the previous Government did make considerable attempts to diversify markets. If the quantity of our produce is going to grow we should diversify our markets, and the first priority is to obtain the market and to satisfy that market with high quality goods. There is no doubt that the rural community in Australia can produce high quality goods. It seems to be a failure on the part of the distribution community and on the part of the governments in this country to find markets which will absorb the goods. No matter what we are producing, whether it happens to be apples and pears, whether it happens to be wine, whether it happens to be meat, or whether it happens to be wool, we can produce the quality and we can produce the quantity, but we fail to find the markets.

In any case, having found the markets- I am talking about how the rural community can be assisted- it is then up to government to see that a fair price is received by the producer for his goods. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack touched on that point. He was not prepared to say who the robbers were. He hinted that there was robbery between the production and the consumption of the goods.

Senator Baume:

– How about your beef export levy?

Senator GEORGES:

-The beef export levy has been removed at the present time. The levy which will be imposed on the slaughter of cattle and of other beasts in Australia is a necessary impost. I trust that the Government will impose it. I hope it does not back away from the levy. The producer of beef will benefit because the levy will lead to in-depth research which is required to protect our herds from exotic diseases. It will not only protect our herds but also will eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis. I have another word of warning. Unless brucellosis is eradicated from our herds before it is eradicated from herds in the United States we will find that the United States will close its markets to our meat. This is a very wide and complex question. It needs to be considered carefully by all who are interested in the problem of our rural economy, which is tied in with the whole economy.

I was asked how the farmer could be assisted. I say that he can be assisted in these directions: Markets, fair price and protection of the industry against the sudden closure of the markets. He cannot be helped by the imposition of the superphosphate bounty. I say that the bounty was withdrawn too sharply and that it should have been phased out. But that is no argument for its reintroduction. It should have been phased out. The bounty on superphosphate should have been directed in such a way that the small farmer who needed it or the farmer of new land who needed it was able to receive assistance. But this assistance should not have been by way of bounty because investigation will show that the companies which produce the phosphate seem to benefit mostly from the bounty. The direction of support for superphosphate should have been by way of taxation allowance up to a certain quantity. This would have assisted farmers up to a certain level but not beyond. Our greatest objection to the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty is that the big users, the big graziers and pastoral companies, are the ones who benefit.

Senator McLaren:

– They get richer.

Senator GEORGES:

-Apparently, in the face of the superphosphate bounty, they are supposed to be equal. They are not equal. The small farmer and the farmer on new land need more assistance than the man at the top. The imposition of the superphosphate bounty is merely a political act on the part of the Government to satisfy a promise which it made and which gave it added support in the rural areas. This added support led to the extravagant result of 13 December.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Why did you refer it to the Industries Assitance Commission?

Senator GEORGES:

– At the present time it is in the hands of the Industries Assistance Commission. I am saying that the superphosphate bounty should not have been reintroduced until the report was completed. All sorts of complications have arisen with this bounty. I put it to honourable senators that one cannot use against the proper imposition of a bounty or subsidy the argument of any minor abuse. But in the case of the superphosphate bounty the norm is overuse and abuse rather than proper use. In Queensland they say that not much superphosphate is used and not much bounty attracted.

Senator Webster:

-Why not?

Senator GEORGES:

– It is a different economy. There is a greater use of nitrogenous fertilisers. We will debate that matter later. There does not seem to be a need for the superphosphate except on the part of the big land developers and subdividers. During the last election campaign I made an investigation of who used superphosphate in the large electorate of Fisher, a rural electorate. I found that Alfred Grant Pty Ltd was the greatest user of superphosphate- in fact, perhaps the only user of superphosphate. What was the purpose of the use of superphosphate by Alfred Grant on a property called Sippy Downs? It was to improve country that should not have been improved and which having undergone tests by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, was found to be deficient or country that could not economically be developed. It was poor country. But Alfred Grant, in an attempt to subdivide this land and to make a quick profit on the subdivision, used huge quantities of superphosphate on this 5 000 acre property for no other purpose that to improve the look of the land for the purpose of subdivision and sale.

The only part of this land that has been employed is a subdivision for residential purposes and for no other use. If one looks down the list of superphosphate users- leaving the Frasers and the others out of it- one will see that the major users of superphosphate are development companies. Some of these development companies are not rural development companies. They are in business to make a quick quid out of some person in the city who has earned substantial income from a profession and is looking for a tax evasion gimmick by buying land 100, 150 or 250 miles, say, from the city of Brisbane.

Senator Archer:

– Is Alfred Grant doing well?

Senator GEORGES:

-He is just on his way out.

Senator Archer:

– Oh, bad luck.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, bad luck. I will tell the honourable senator why.

Senator Archer:

– I thought you said he was making a fortune.

Senator GEORGES:

– He is not making a fortune. All I am saying is that there was a misuse of the superphosphate bounty to improve this wallum country which was not worth improving to encourage, shall we say, city suckers to enter the rural industry. Certainly the project came unstuck but in the meantime a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money was used to improve this land which was not worth improving. There was abuse after abuse after abuse of a bounty which I believe was well intentioned but which I believe was not properly researched. There are many who say- one unfortunate person was a member of a commission and unwisely made some statements in public before the commission came out -

Senator McLaren:

– Only in answer to questions.

Senator GEORGES:

– But one has to be careful what questions one answers. In this particular case the question required an answer which indicated an opinion or a state of mind. Let us make it clear that that person’s qualifications and that person’s opinion were valid. There are some dangers in the over use of superphosphate. I have said that there is one danger- that the price of superphosphate will become so great that an open-ended commitment will be undertaken by the Government to provide further moneys. Millions of dollars will follow millions of dollars in support of this bounty because it is now a political consideration, not an economic consideration. One will see that when it comes close to election time, when it comes to making policy statements, when it comes to outlining the platform of the Liberal and National Country parties we will find that the superphosphate bounty will be promised again. I feel this is to the disadvantage of those who use superphosphate now to be sucked into the continual use of superphosphate by increased bounty. I should like to go back to the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. I go back to that because of a question asked by Senator Douglas McClelland, which I believe should have been answered.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GEORGES:

– I suppose I would have the hide to call a quorum on myself, but I will not do so. During the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I reflected that in this debate on the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill so much dust has been scattered in this chamber over the last day or so that we could accelerate organic farming and do away with the need for superphosphate. That is good advice to the farming community of Australia. The point I was making earlier was that there should be a realisation on the part of members of the farming community that they cannot depend on superphosphate additives for much longer because of the rising cost of such additives. They should look to more efficient means of farming in this country. It is quite extraordinary, both economically and otherwise, to use superphosphate to improve lands which are not worthy of improvement, especially when we are producing to such glut proportions. We should not be encouraging the overuse of these lands. We should not be encouraging over production on these lands by the use of superphosphate. The damage, I believe, can be considerable. For that reason, I again say that the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty is not in the best interests of the rural community. There should be other means of support for the rural community. No one denies- I do not deny- that such support should be given to the rural community.

I should like now to refer again to the point I was making earlier about the production of superphosphate from Christmas Island. I think I made the point- I make it again- that Australian rural industry is benefiting from a further $45 m in the way of indirect subsidy on the production of superphosphate from Christmas Island- a production which is based upon the exploitation of labour from Singapore and Malaysia. It would be interesting to have an investigation of this production, for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons would be to anticipate any shock which the rural community may suffer as a result of the increase in the price of superphosphate from this area because of, say, improvements in the conditions of the workers producing the superphosphate or some other reason.

What tempts me to suggest that there ought to be an investigation by this Parliament, by means of a special committee, of the production of phosphate by the British Phosphate Commissioners and the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission is that under the Christmas Island Agreement Act a special fund was set up for the purpose of accumulating moneys to meet obligations to the inhabitants of the Island as a consequence of the cessation of the phosphate industry which is estimated- if there is no increase in the rate of production on the Island- to take place in about 20 years time. It could take place even sooner. The Christmas Island Phosphate Commission is expected to transfer to this fund annually an amount per ton of phosphate exported. This amount is to be determined by the Australian and New Zealand Governments. It would be interesting to know the present financial standing of the fund. Perhaps the appropriate Minister can help in this regard. Perhaps the extraordinarily low price paid for the Christmas Island phosphate, which is purchased effectively at cost, and the resulting low profits for the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission have been and will be used to justify the lower wages paid to the miners and the comparatively low levels of the fund.

Again I voice my opposition to that aspect of Christmas Island phosphate mining. In 1973 a survey revealed that 928 of some 3000 inhabitants of Christmas Island were on 3-year contracts. Those were not normal contracts. They were indentured contracts. I find that abhorrent. I have found it abhorrent for some time. I have expressed that view before and I express it again. These inhabitants included 714 Chinese people from Malaysia and Singapore, 400 Malays and 1 1 5 Indonesians. I reject the importation of cheap labour from overseas as far as Australia proper is concerned; so do we all. Why, then, do we allow this to happen on Christmas Island? That is the question I raise. It should be raised again and again. If we are to press the question and if we are to give wage justice to these people, then the price of superphosphate most certainly will rise. That will mean, if the Government makes an open-ended commitment on this bounty, an increase in the bounty to maintain a lower price for superphosphate in Australia. In summing up -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

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

– The Senate has been debating for almost 2 days now a Bill which has a simple purpose. Its purpose is to restore the bounty which is payable to the people who sell or provide superphosphate. The debate has ranged far and wide. I think there have been 4 speakers on behalf of the Opposition and there have been 4 speakers who have supported the proposition which the Government has introduced. At the outset, let me say that what the Bill does, very simply, is to restore a bounty which the Labor Government removed. It restores that bounty until 30 June 1977. This is not a restoration of the bounty permanently. It is a restoration of it for an interim period and it accords with the finding of the Industries Assistance Commission which investigated the matter upon a reference given to it by the Whitlam Government. I think it is incredible that, in the light of that reference, in the light of the implicit need for inquiry that is to be found in the fact that the Whitlam Government referred the matter to the commission and in light of the Commission’s recommendations, we should have such strongly expressed opposition to what the Government is doing.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We do not agree with the recommendations.

Senator O’Byrne:

– We do not like votes being bought.

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-I heard what Senator Cavanagh said, I heard Senator O ‘Byrne’s interjection and I listened with interest to what Senator Georges said. I do not think the arguments advanced by the Opposition in relation to its objections to the recommendations of the Commission are valid. I do not read out the recommendations of the Commission. Senator Thomas read them into the Hansard record. 1 intend to read other extracts from the Commission’s report. I think they are relevant for the purposes of this debate. The majority of the Commission said:

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 its 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. 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.

Again the Commission said:

Whilst essentially a makeshift restoration of the bounty at the previous level and conditions would largely avoid a deterioration in user situations being aggravated by government action before the question of assistance was fully examined the Commission acknowledges that the bounty that operated until the end of 1974 would now represent a much smaller proportion of fertiliser costs than it did in previous years.

Finally, the Commission stated:

Having regard to the recent developments in price relativities the uncertainties to which they give rise and their destabilising effects on incomes in several rural industries, including some which are relatively low cost, the Commission will recommend restoration of the bounty which lapsed at the end of 1 974 as a short term measure.

The Government is giving effect to that recommendation of an independent commission which was charged by the previous Government to investigate the whole question. Why, therefore, unless it be in terms of doctrinaire rigidity and adherence to ideological concepts, is the Opposition opposing what we are doing? I listened to what was said by the various honourable senators who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. Senator Gietzelt, I suppose in a newly imposed role of spokesman on agricultural interests in this country, first addressed himself on behalf of the Opposition to this measure. I do not think he would object to my describing what he said as a political exercise. He attempted to justify the Whitlam Government’s highly controversial action in repealing the superphosphate bounty in 1 974 by saying that the action was based upon a concept that some people benefited who did not desire to benefit and other people were not receiving any benefit. It was typical of the Marxistoriented political shibboleths which dominate the Labor Party’s thinking today.

I take up the Labor Party’s argument- of course large consumers will receive larger benefits than small consumers. Of course large property owners will apply larger quantities of superphosphate, otherwise there is no point in using superphosphate. Accordingly, the benefit which they receive will be the greater. But when Senator Gietzelt makes statements such as: There is no relationship to need’ and: ‘There is no relationship to production’, I think he is disclosing a lack of appreciation of the purposes for which superphosphate is purchased and applied. People do not buy superphosphate simply to secure a bounty. People do not buy superphosphate because they are going to put into their pockets some money which the Government gives them. Yet this is the sort of argument that the Labor Party has used for 2 days in this place. There is no receipt of money from the Government by people who use superphosphate, but one would scarcely believe that on listening to what honourable senators from the Labor Party have said.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It starts off as bird droppings.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not know whether Senator O’Byrne meant his interjection to be in any way a contribution to the debate or an examination of what is being said. I should not think so. The fact I am referring to is that purchasers of superphosphate purchase the superphosphate because they believe they will improve their soil’s fertility, that they will increase production, that they will promote greater profitability in their own enterprise and that they therefore will be better farmers because of what they are doing.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Senator, there is a reduction in the cost to them.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Of course there is. The facts as I understand them are that if a person puts in an order for superphosphate from one of the few suppliers in this country he will pay less than would be the normal price to him of the superphosphate because of the existence of the bounty. I am happy to have Senator Cavanagh ‘s acceptance of that proposition but I must say that its acceptance is vastly removed from the impression which the Opposition has sought to convey, that is, that in some way people put money into their pockets because of this bounty. They do not. Furthermore, people are out of pocket when they purchase superphosphate. If a man buys several hundred tons of superphosphate he has to pay for it. All that the bounty means is that he pays less to the supplier of the superphosphate than he otherwise would pay. But the fact is that he is out of pocket because he has to pay 80 per cent of the price of the superphosphate. He gets only a 20 per cent benefit at the present time. The Government is saying: ‘Let this be the position until 30 June 1977 when we can reconsider the matter in the light of the full report of the Industries Assistance Commission’.

Senator Gietzelt suggested that in some way a means test ought to be imposed on the person buying the superphosphate to determine whether superphosphate is to be purchased with the bounty applied. If we were to adopt a concept of that character there would be no point in having any bounty. Superphosphate is not related to the means of the person who is buying it. Surely it is related to the quality of the soil onto which it is to be applied. Superphosphate is related to the productivity of pastures and not to people’s incomes. Nor is it related to the value of their properties. If tests were to be applied based on the quality of the soil, based on the cadmium concentrates, based on the proximity of the soil on which the superphosphate was to be spread to the catchment areas of town water supplies, or if some regard were to be given to the effect of superphosphate on natural eco-systems which ought to be preserved, these would be standards which would have some relevance. I suspect that those are the considerations which will be investigated by the Industries Assistance Commission.

I think it is important to recognise that amongst the honourable senators who have spoken for the Government, scarcely one- if any- has not acknowledged that whether superphosphate should be available indiscriminately across the board is a matter of judgment. There are questions which have to be answered and an objective inquiry is the best way of answering questions such as whether a bounty on the purchase of superphosphate should be applied to every purchaser, irrespective of the soil or property on which the superphosphate is to be spread.

We have heard some curious arguments. Senator Walsh advanced an argument which I thought Senator Cormack dealt with very clearly. Senator Walsh spoke for almost an hour but I doubt if the points he was endeavouring to make impacted upon those who listened. I listened for the full hour. He said something which I think reflects the muddled thinking in which he was involved. He put forward an argument concerning the productive quality of the soil and asked: ‘What does productivity of the soil really matter?’ I wonder what farmers would think about an argument which advanced that concept. He expressed the view that it was a pity that the forests had disappeared. I would not have thought that that was a farmer’s argument. It may be a conservationist’s argument. Would Australia be the country it is today if our ancestors had decided to leave the forests where they were and not to engage in the agrarian pursuits which made Australia the nation it is? We had a most curious argument from Senator Primmer. I am just taking aspects of the arguments of Labor Party senators. Senator Primmer advanced the argument, as I understood it, that really we should not be granting this superphosphate bounty because after all its carriage has a great impact on the local country roads.

Senator Young:

-In other words he wants to fly the superphosphate in.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Senator Primmer did not suggest that it should be flown in. He was concerned about its carriage and the effect it had on the country roads. To me it was the impression of a man who was searching for some sort of argument with which to justify his opposition. In the case of Senator Primmer I can imagine why he would search for such an argument, because he is a farmer and, if I believe what has been interjected across this chamber, a person who uses superphosphate.

Senator Button:

– Do you think it is a solution to the unemployment problem?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Senator Button used this argument of unemployment by way of interjection when Senator Walters was speaking. I thought that he was neatly trounced by Senator Walters when she responded to his interjection because she was able to demonstrate from experience in Tasmania how a certain firm was employing a number of people, the superphosphate bounty disappeared and the numbers dropped away until they were a fraction of the number previously employed. She demonstrated how since the announcement has been made that the superphosphate bounty is to be restored employment has risen again. If Senator Button is prepared to interject to answer that particular contention I will pause to allow him to answer by interjection.

Senator Button:

– Thank you, senator. I want to know whether you see the superphosphate bounty and more superphosphate as a solution to the unemployment problem in Australia. That was the argument which was being advanced.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– In those areas where the superphosphate is being produced and used, where suppliers have it available to supply, employment is certainly helped by the fact that the bounty is restored because people will purchase in greater quantities. That seems to me to be the obvious fact with merit which escaped the Labor Party and still escapes some Labor Party senators. The final speaker on the Opposition side was Senator Georges. I pay credit to Senator Georges in that he addressed himself to the issues which I think are involved in this Bill. He had a difficult argument in trying to sustain the proposition that, having restored this bounty it might be difficult to withdraw it if at a later stage the Industries Assistance Commission says that it should not be imposed.

Senator Wright:

– He should stick to turtle farming.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-We are not talking about turtles tonight. The tragedy of Senator Georges’ venture into turtles was that he did not have sufficient regard to superphosphate. But I want to address myself to other arguments which Senator Georges raised, such as whether or not the bounty being paid on superphosphate is in some way an exploitation of people on Christmas Island. I think that he has missed the point. If the Labor Party wants to object to a Bill of this character on the basis that Senator Georges argued then let the Party address itself on that basis. No one else has done so. I think that it is completely unreal to use arguments as to what may or may not be wage relativities on Christmas Island as an argument as to whether or not the superphosphate bounty in this country ought to be restored.

On the other hand I am fully conscious of the arguments which were raised by the speakers who supported the Government case. Senator Scott, in what I think was a wholly reasonable appraisal of the issue, drew attention to the fact that it was an Industries Assistance Commission report which was being implemented by this decision. He pointed to the fact, which I think ought not be forgotten, that in recent years the real farm income of rural industries has dropped from some $ 1,370m in 1972-73 to approximately $850m, estimated, in this current financial year. That is the situation of our rural industries in this country at the present time. If there is a measure which is going to help productivity, which is going to aid profitability and therefore offer a prospect of augmenting farm incomes we ought to be prepared to welcome a measure of that category. We believe that the restoration of this bounty is a measure which, not wholly but as a contributing factor, will help productivity and therefore help profitability. Senator Scott pointed to the fact that over the years there has been an increase in the price of superphosphate. It was $35 a tonne 3 years ago. It is now $60 a tonne. The bounty 3 years ago represented 42 per cent of the cost. Now it represents approximately 20 per cent of the cost. Australia is a country which is deficient in the phosphate quality of its soil. If we can ensure that deficiency is made up by offering an encouragement such as this bounty, obviously we are improving our production ability.

Senator O’Byrne:

– We have plenty of phosphate here and the vultures are waiting to exploit it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-We will come to Senator O ‘Byrne’s remark in a moment. Senator Thomas, Senator Walters and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack all referred to aspects of the restoration of the bounty which indicate that it is designed, consistently with what the Industries Assistance Commission indicated, to benefit those people who are dependent upon our rural industries. The major point to which Senator Gietzelt and, I think, every other speaker on the Opposition side directed their attention was the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition. The case for this amendment is exceedingly weak. It is an amendment which seeks to have the Senate express the view ‘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 exceeds 400 tonnes in a 12-months period, and a list showing the amount of benefit accruing to such companies and individuals. ‘

The case which was put for this amendment was exceedingly weak. Why should there be tabled in a House of Parliament the names of the persons who receive the particular benefit which goes to those who purchase superphosphate? If those names are to be published why do we say that it is only those who purchased 400 tonnes? Why should the names of those who purchased 300 tonnes, 200 tonnes or 50 tonnes not also be published? Why is the Opposition so concerned to have some people’s names published? We are not given that sort of answer. The best one can look for by way of justification is something which the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, said when he was Minister for Agriculture when he first adopted this practice in September of last year. He simply said that the Government was entitled to know and to have the information before it as evidence of the inequitable nature of the distribution of the superphosphate bounty.

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– And he was quite right.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Senator McLaren says that he was quite right. What is inequitable about the distribution of a bounty if people with, large properties wanting to apply the superphosphate evenly over their properties must purchase it in large quantities in order to achieve that end? Is that in some way inequitable? It appears to me that all that the Labor Party is doing is adopting an approach which is typical of its approach to government. There was never a more divisive government in the history of this country than the Labor Government which attempted to rule between 1972 and 1975. It claimed in true Goebbels-like misrepresentation to unite the people of Australia but in fact it divided the people. It sowed the seeds of division as no other government in my lifetime has ever done. It set Australian Labor Party member against Australian Labor Party member. In the area of education, it set public school student against private school student. It set migrant against migrant.

Senator Georges:

– I am rising to a point of order.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It set country against city. It set rich against poor. It set ALP supporters against everybody else.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Georges:

– At least in spite of the general irrelevancy in my speech, I mentioned the superphosphate bounty from time to time. The honourable senator is just not referring to the Bill at all. He is engaging in a tirade -

Senator Young:

– To what standing order are you speaking?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Georges:

– If you are going to start calling for the relevant standing order, I will take a little while longer. If I may take the time to look up the relevant standing order- Mr President, I do not doubt that you know the standing order -

The PRESIDENT:

– You may continue, Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, you know the standing order to which I refer. The honourable senator is not being relevant. He is being provocative. We will suddenly find ourselves in, shall we say, a debate at the Committee stage that neither side of this House needs tonight. I suggest that the honourable senator be relevant.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, as I listened to Senator Greenwood he was extending a point- briefly, I believe. Now, I would like Senator Greenwood not to pursue that line beyond the point to which he has gone so far.

Senator Young:

– If I may speak on the point of order -

Senator McLaren:

– The President has ruled on it.

Senator Young:

-In the previous debate, from the other side of the chamber -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Young, I have ruled on the point of order.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I certainly would not develop a point unrelated to the Bill. The amendment which has been moved to the motion is designed to have some people’s names published in this Parliament. I have questioned why the Labor Party is seeking to do that. I categorise it as typical of the divisive attitudes and divisive approaches which the Labor Party demonstrated in government and which are part of the Labor Party’s whole attitude to society. If we are to publish these particular names as the Labor Party wants them to be published, is there not a precedent being created which could be applied in other cases? Will not the Labor Party want to know who are the people who have been granted legal aid and how much they were granted? Will it not wish to know who are the medical practitioners who have received payment and what sums they have received from the Government as a result of their treatment of patients, for which they receive a Government handout? Will it not want to know the names of pharmaceutical chemists who receive payments from the Government?

Senator Georges:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Senator Georges asks: ‘What is wrong with that?’

Senator Georges:

– What is wrong with revealing those details?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– In other words, says Senator Georges, let us publish in this Parliament under privilege the name of everybody who receives a penny, a cent or a dollar from the Government- every amount of it. I suppose that his next step will be to want to know who are the people who pay more than $100,000 in tax, who pay more than $10,000 in tax, who pay more than $1,000 in tax? Or would the Australian Labor Party regard it as in some way political if the Government were to say: ‘Well, let us put on the table of the Parliament the amounts of money which the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, other office bearers of the Australian Labor Party and office bearers in the trade union movement received by way of emoluments from this Government in the time when it was in power’? That action would be regarded as quite improper. It would be regarded as probing unnecessarily into people’s privacy, if that sort of request were to be made. I think that these points need to be made to highlight the iniquity of what the Labor Party is seeking to do in having some people’s names published in the Parliament under privilege on the basis that they receive the benefit of a bounty.

We know that when either Senator Wriedt or Senator Cavanagh- I forget who it was- tabled such a statement for the first time in 1975 that statement had to be corrected within a month because it was inaccurate. Risks of that type are always present when one embarks on an exercise of that type. The point that I make is that there is no occasion or justification for engaging in this sort of tactic. How different the Labor Party is when it is in Opposition after its pretensions to government have been exposed in the light of all the promises it once made. I sat in this chamber for years and I heard what Senator Murphy and Senator Wriedt said, and I read what Mr Hayden had said, about the Labor Party’s claimed desire to protect the privacy of individuals. I have read what the Labor Party’s platform says. I have read what its Press statements said. Mr Hayden said in September 1973:

The absence of any legal redress or control by individuals in the field of personal medical privacy in general is totally unsatisfactory.

In appointing a committee, he said:

Its first task will be to make recommendations on the manner in which unwarranted invasions of privacy which at present exist and for which there is potential on large-scale administrative operations such as health insurance may be guarded against.

The concern there- and I applaud that concernwas to protect individual privacy. I am equally concerned to protect the privacy of those people who decide that they want to apply a superphosphate to their properties. Why should their privacy be invaded any more than the privacy of the medical practitioners, the chemists and the patients under the medical health schemes who receive benefits?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

BUI read a second time.

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole?

Senator McLaren:

– No. I have some questions that I wish to ask on clause 3.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable senator may do that if the Bill is taken as a whole.

Senator McLaren:

– Well, Mr Chairman, let me -

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! Senator McLaren, I will put the request again. Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole? There being no objection, I so order. I call Senator McLaren.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, I have some questions that I wish to ask on clause 3 of the Bill. This deals with some of the statements made by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Senator Greenwood) in his summing up of the second reading debate. It is regrettable that the Standing Orders relating to debate at the Committee stage prevent me from rebutting many of the statements made by the Minister in that summing up. I refer particularly to the suggestion that he made when he asked why our amendment was not couched in terms dealing with ‘300 tonnes ‘instead of 400 tonnes’. I think that the shadow Minister, Senator Gietzelt, interjected that we would be quite happy for our amendment to be amended by the Minister to insert ‘300 tonnes’ instead of ‘400 tonnes’. We would accept that amendment quite willingly.

Senator Greenwood dealt at length with reasons why the names of the recipients of the bounty should not be made public property. This is what brings me to clause 3 of the Bill which provides:

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsections:

Subject to this Act, bounty is also payable in respect of superphosphate and ammonium phosphate produced at registered premises-

This leads me to refer to section 14 of the principal Act with which I dealt in my second reading speech last night. Subsection ( 1 ) of section 1 4 provides that a producer of bountiable products is not entitled to bounty unless he keeps certain records. The Minister has the power under clause 14 of the parent Act to call for the names of persons in receipt of the superphosphate bounty. That is the crux of the argument put forward by the Opposition during the second reading debate and contained in our amendment. We feel that in all justice to the taxpayers, they ought to be in a position to ascertain at their will if they wish the names of the people in receipt of the bounty. I explored this matter fully last night. To save further time and argument, I again ask for leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard a document which was tabled in the Parliament and which contains the names of all of those people in receipt of the bounty who purchased 400 tons of superphosphate in the year 1973. I seek leave to have those names incorporated in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted?

Senator Greenwood:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr Chairman, under the Standing Orders we have only 1 5 minutes in which to speak at any one time at the Committee stage of the Bill. As there are quite a few names on the list, I could not in the time allowed to me go right through them. Apparently the Committee is not of the opinion that we should incorporate these names into Hansard. I think that Senator Walters in her speech earlier today said that we were wasting the time of the Senate by incorporating the names in Hansard. I say that if we are to waste the time of the Senate, the responsibility rests wholly with the Government because it will take some considerable time under the Standing Orders to read all these names into the record. I will take what time is allowed to me to read certain of them.

My colleagues, again under the Standing Orders, each have15 minutes to read the remainder of this list into the Hansard record. In view of the accusations that have been made by Senator Walters in regard to seeking leave to incorporate these names, and to save the time of the Senate, I again ask, as a last plea, for leave of the Committee to incorporate them. If leave is not given, we will have to adopt the tactics which I have just outlined. I again seek leave of the Committee, to save the time of the Committee and to enable us to get on with the business of government, to incorporate these names in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator McLaren, I was in the Chair the first time you attempted to take this action. I object to the sort of action you are taking, but I will again put the matter to the Committee. Is leave granted to incorporate the list?

Senator Greenwood:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator McLAREN:

-I am left with no alternative. I will commence by quoting from the explanatory notes which were attached to the list of names when it was first tabled in the Senate on 9 September 1975. The document is headed Survey of Fertiliser Sales- Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act, 1963-1971- Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1 966- 1 973 ‘ and reads:

This survey was undertaken in 1 974 to inform the Minister of the extent to which users of fertilisers, both phosphatic and nitrogenous, benefited by $5,000 or more from the bounty and subsidy in 1 973.

The information was obtained under the provisions of Section 14 of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act and Section 1 7 of the NitrogenousFertilizers Subsidy Act.

The rates of bounty and subsidy payable at the time of the survey were as follows:

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty- $12 per ton of single superphosphate (19.5 percent to 20.5 per cent P2O5) otherwise $60 per ton of contained P2O5

Nitrogen Subsidy $78.74 per tonne of contained nitrogen

Fertilisers are sold containing varying mixtures of phosphate and/or nitrogen. Moreover, some sales include costs associated with such services as delivery and spreading. To minimise the research required, manufacturers supplied the names of those companies or individuals who purchased more than 400 tons of fertiliser that attracted bounty or subsidy.

Of course, that gives the answer to the question posed by Senator Greenwood as to why the Opposition set a figure of 400 tons in our amendment. In a further document tabled in the Senate on 30 September 1975 by the then Minister for Customs and Excise, Senator Cavanagh, headed Survey of Fertiliser Sales- Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act- Nitrogenous Fertilizers Bounty Act’, the following statement was made:

The attached list contains the names of all firms and individuals who are known to have purchased in 1973 more than 400 tons of fertilisers, both phosphatic and nitrogenous, that attracted bounty or subsidy.

This list includes all names supplied by the various producers and distributors. It also includes certain names subsequently identified by officers of the Department, as having been supplied by resellers and not included in the original list supplied by producers and distributors.

The names of purchasers marked with one asterisk were not included in lists tabled in the Senate on 9 September 1975 because:

they had been identified as not direct beneficiaries in that they were resellers or agents; and

one purchaser which further inquiries revealed did not, in fact, purchase 400 tons during the period involved.

Two purchasers marked with 2 asterisks were also not included in the lists already tabled in the Senate, because a producer has included them in that portion of the list covering resellers. Subsequent inquiries revealed that these purchasers were users i.e. direct beneficiaries.

The document continues as follows:

Survey of Fertiliser Sales

N.S.W.: List of beneficiaries and agents/resellers supplied by Australian Fertilizers Ltd. An asterisk (*) indicates agent/reseller.

Anderson T. H. and B. K., Armidale

Andrews Carl, Singleton

Auscott Pty Ltd, Warren

Auscott Pty Ltd, Narrabri

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to take a point of order. The honourable senator is not debating the Bill in Committee. I appreciate that by decision of the Committee the Bill is being taken as a whole. I appreciate also that Senator McLaren rose and said that he was addressing himself to clause 3 in particular. I say that there is nothing in what Senator McLaren is saying now; indeed, I venture the thought that there is nothing in what he has been saying since he rose to speak which is relevant to clause 3 of this Bill. What he is now attempting to do is to refer to a statement which was produced in 1 975. It purports to give the names of persons who purchased superphosphate some years ago. He seeks to bring that list of names into this debate as being in some way relevant.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to order. Senator Greenwood rose on a point of order to draw attention to -

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! I will take a point of order now. I ask honourable senators to sit down. I now call Senator O ‘Byrne.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Senator Greenwood rose on a point of order virtually to interrupt the speech of Senator McLaren who had appealed to the Senate and asked to have -

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! I am not upholding that point of order, Senator O’Byrne.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The point I am making is -

The CHAIRMAN:
Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr Chairman, you have not heard my point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have heard enough to make up my mind and I am allowed to do that.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr Chairman, I do not think that you should make up your mind before I make my point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Senator O’Byrne, sit down, please.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr Chairman, I will sit down on your orders; but you have not heard my point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Senator O’Byrne, if you read Standing Orders you will see that the Chairman of Committees may hear only sufficient to enable him to make up his mind. I had made up my mind. I will let Senator Greenwood proceed and I will then give my ruling.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You sit me down and allow him to proceed.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! If you are going to imply that I am not conducting this Committee meeting properly, I will have to take other action.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to take a point of order which is in regard to your last statement. When Senator Greenwood has made his point of order, which I think he has a right to do, I will seek leave to speak on that point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That will depend.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Not on your decision before I have an opportunity -

The CHAIRMAN:

– It will depend on my decision.

Senator O’Byrne:

– A numbers man.

Senator Greenwood:

– I was indicating that what -

Senator Young:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to order. I heard Senator O’Byrne say, ‘a numbers man’. As a senator, I take exception to that being said in this chamber because to me that is a reflection upon the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! I did not hear that interjection. If I had heard it, I would have taken action.

Senator Young:

– Am I within my rights to ask for a withdrawal?

Senator Greenwood:

– I was indicating that the course which Senator McLaren is now taking is, in my submission, contrary to the Standing Orders. The particular standing orders to which I refer are standing orders 203 and 268. 1 will refer to them expressly in a moment. I am seeking to establish what Senator McLaren is attempting to do. He is referring to a list of purchasers of superphosphate- I forget in which year it was, but it was some years ago- and he is seeking to have that list read into the record of the Parliament. The Committee has denied him leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard without reading it. He now seeks to read the list in full. My submission is that he can do that only if he is in accordance with the Standing Orders. Standing order 203 states:

The discussion shall be confined to the Clause or Amendment before the Committee.

Standing order 268 states:

In Committee Senators may speak more than once to the same Question, and, when a Question has been proposed from the Chair, shall confine themselves to such Question.

Standing order 268 requires that the discussion be confined to the particular question, and standing order 203 requires that the discussion be confined to the clause or amendment before the Committee. This means that discussion must be confined to clauses before the Committee. As I understand it, the question before the Committee is that the Bill stand as it is printed. Mr Chairman, I draw your attention not only to clause 3 but to every clause in this Bill. There is no clause which relates to the persons who have received superphosphate at any time in the past, and there is no clause which relates to the persons who may receive superphosphate in the future. The bounty is not payable to the purchasers. It is payable to the producer who sells the superphosphate. That is what this Bill is concerned with. My submission is that the subterfuge- I think that I so classify Senator McLaren’s actions quite fairlywhich he is adopting is contrary to the Standing Orders. In the debate at the second reading stage yesterday, when it may have been appropriate to do so, Senator McLaren sought to have this list incorporated in Hansard. On at least 2 occasions the Senate denied him that leave. My submission is that Senator McLaren cannot now, by way of subterfuge at the Committee stage and contrary to the Standing Orders, have the list incorporated in Hansard. I submit that it is out of order for him to read this list into the record.

Senator Wriedt:

-Mr Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order. I have listened to this very same debate over many years. I indicate initially that Senator McLaren’s action in seeking leave to have this material incorporated in Hansard is not unique in this chamber. On how many occasions have we heard honourable senators on both sides of the chamber seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard material which they believed was pertinent to the debate that was taking place in the chamber? Unfortunately, every now and again, because of some particular emotional aspect of the legislation which is being debated, exception is taken to material being incorporated in Hansard. Only one person needs to say no, only one person needs to refuse leave to have that material incorporated in Hansard, and we have the sort of shemozzle which we see at the moment.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Senator Greenwood did it.

Senator Wriedt:

-I do not think it is necessary to name anybody at the moment. The fact is that leave was refused. We have seen it happen before. I can remember an instance some years ago when a senator was refused leave to have incorporated in Hansard a list of the names of all the members of the Australian armed forces who were killed or wounded in Vietnam. Because leave was refused, the complete list had to be read out to enable it eventually to be included in Hansard. Again, as a chamber, we fall for this trap.

I come to the substance of the point of order raised by Senator Greenwood. The basis of his argument is that we are not concerned with the purchaser of the superphosphate. Clause 3 of the bill, the clause to which Senator McLaren specifically referred when he rose to speak, does, in fact, refer to the purchaser as well as to the producer. I ask you, Mr Chairman, to bear that fact in mind. Senator McLaren’s comments are not irrelevant to clause 3 of this legislation. I concede -

Senator Greenwood:

– You read out -

Senator Wriedt:

– I listened to the Minister in silence. He should listen to me. He likes to hand it out when it suits him. He can just sit there and listen to what I have to say. Clause 3 refers specifically in 2 places to the purchaser of superphosphate. To that extent I suggest that Senator Greenwood’s argument is not valid, and that Senator McLaren in fact is referring to clause 3, which is the clause to which he originally intended to refer when he rose to speak.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Chair has to listen to argument from both sides of the chamber only until it has made up its mind. I told Senator O’Byrne that I had heard enough of the argument. I remind the Committee that Senator McLaren asked me to take the Bill clause by clause. I suggested to Senator McLaren that we take the Bill as a whole because I thought that he wished to speak only to clause 3. Perhaps I, as Chairman, misled Senator McLaren. I uphold Senator McLaren.

Senator McLAREN:

– Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed:

That the question be now put. (Opposition senators interjecting)-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The question has been proposed: That the question be now put. There is no argument on it. I remind the Committee that there are other stages of this Bill. The question is: That the question be now put.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) The question now is that I report the Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I think it is a travesty of justice that the last motion was dealt with as it was, thus depriving honourable senators of the opportunity to express their views in the Committee stage. As I said when I tried to have certain names incorporated in Hansard, it was claimed earlier in this debate that I particularly was delaying the business of the Senate. If the incorporation of those names had been agreed to there would have been no delay and the Bill would have been passed shortly after 8 o’clock. So again, and in order not to hold up the business of the House, I seek leave to have the names to which I previously referred incorporated in Hansard for the benefit of the taxpayers of this country who in the main, are called upon to pay out large sums of money for the benefit of a few individuals in the community.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) I point out to the honourable senator that debate now must be relevant to the question that I report the Bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-Before this Bill is reported I would like to direct the attention of the Committee to some of the more germane parts of the argument that Senator McLaren wished to place before the Committee. In a survey conducted last year by the Department of Customs and Excise it was found that 472 users of superphosphate benefited by at least $5,000 from the superphosphate bounty during 1974. The average saving to them was $7,500. Senator McLaren wanted these figures placed before the Committee but Senator Greenwood, acting as spokesman for the majority in this Senate, the so-called States House, where numbers count, refused permission to Senator McLaren to have those figures incorporated in Hansard. Among the users who fell into the category I have mentioned were the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, David Rockefeller, the Chase Manhattan Bank, the American entertainer Art Linkletter -

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to order. Quite apart from the misrepresentation in respect of figures- the request was never for figures to be incorporated, it was only for names to be incorporatedmy submission is that this speech by Senator O’Byrne is not relevant to whether or not the report of the Committee should be adopted. The Senate accepted without debate the motion that the Bill stand as printed. There was general agreement with that motion. I suggest that it is not pertinent on this Bill to refer to a list of names of persons who may or may not have purchased superphosphate in the past, whether it be 10 years ago, or 50 years when it was first introduced, or whether it be even last year. This is a Bill for the restoration of the superphosphate bounty in the future. I submit that it is outside the confines of standing order 203 and standing order 268 to address oneself to who may or may not have received superphosphate in the past.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I speak to the point of order. The question is that the Bill be reported, and Senator O’Byrne is addressing himself to why the Bill should not be reported. He is opposing the reporting of the Bill. By the application of Senate Standing Orders -

Senator Withers:

– He has never said that.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I can assure Senator Withers that he will when he rises again. Senator O’Byrne is saying that there has not been permitted sufficient discussion to enable the Senate to make a final decision on whether the Bill should be reported to the President. He pointed out pertinently that Senator McLaren, in accordance with your ruling, Mr Chairman, sought to discuss clause 3 of the Bill because clause 3 deals with the bounty. For the purpose of enabling him to determine how he should vote finally on the Bill, Senator McLaren is seeking information on when we will be supplied with the names of those who have received superphosphate benefits. Senator McLaren wants to demonstrate to the public what happened some years ago when the Linkletters, the Peters ice cream company and the Heinz baby food company benefited by more than $5,000. That is the matter he wants to raise now and should have a right to raise. The Government has exercised its right and has said: ‘Well, you will not get easy entry of it into Hansard. You will not let the public know by our acquiescence to the incorporation. You will have to read the names out’. An attempt was made to read them out and the Opposition has been forced to waste all its broadcasting time tonight when the problem could have been overcome in a minute.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government.

Senator Withers:

– He was right the first time, Senator.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Government has the numbers; we admit that. But before this session is over the names will go into Hansard. This is only one debate on this Bill. I submit that this is relevant to whether the Bill should be reported to the President. The Opposition says that we should not report the Bill because we have had insufficient time, through the application of the gag, to make a decision on the question. Therefore we are in our rights in opposing the reporting of the Bill and in our rights for giving the reason for so doing. The reason is that we have not had sufficient discussion on clause 3. To have sufficient discussion we should look at the whole ambit of clause 3 and look at how we should vote on the question. We should be able to raise the point that we want publication in the future because of what happened in the past.

Senator Withers:

– On the point of order, Mr Chairman -

Senator O’Byrne:

– The lights are going out.

Senator Withers:

– That is all right; we have turned them on again. If ever there was a piece of nonsense talked it was the argument just put by Senator Cavanagh. It is fair enough that the Opposition should vote against the motion for the gag. The Chairman then put the question that the Bill stand as printed and it was carried on the voices. So the Opposition must have been satisfied that sufficient debate had been allowed in the Committee stage. Why did not the Opposition call for a division at that stage?

Senator Wriedt:

– We are not allowed to.

Senator Withers:

– You could have called for a division at that stage. Opposition senators either did not call for a division at that stage because its members supported the Bill as printed or they are so ruddy incompetent they did not know how to do so. They can work out for themselves which it was.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You are showing yourself up more and more every day.

Senator Withers:

– We now understand why you are the ex-President. We understand why you were elected President by quite a peculiar incident some 18 months ago. We now understand why you are back where you are.

Senator O’Byrne:

– By a marinated red plum with a yoghurt on his head.

Senator Withers:

– If you want to trade insults you start them.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I can start them with you, too, and finish them.

Senator Withers:

– Do not start threatening me either. You have been a bully boy around this place for long enough. Do not try it. We put up with you and you were treated with a great deal of courtesy in your time. You ought to return a bit of courtesy occasionally for others.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why don’t you grow up?

Senator Withers:

- Senator Cavanagh, of course, is back in his accustomed role in Opposition. He is very good at it. He will be there for a long time yet judging by the way he acts. The simple question is this: Senator Cavanagh is saying -

Senator Cavanagh:

-Why don’t you grow up.

Senator Webster:

– That was a good comment, was it not?

Senator Withers:

– That was really smart. I think he ought to say it again so we will know what it is. Senator Cavanagh has attempted to build a reputation in this place as a latter day Clarence Darrow and it has not quite worked. He gets up on all sorts of points of orders and most times he exposes his lack of knowledge.

Senator Gietzelt:

-He is a good second to Senator Greenwood.

Senator Withers:

-Here we go again; here come the yappers. Senator Cavanagh cannot have it both ways. If Opposition senators felt that they did not have a fair go in the Committee stage they should have voted against the motion that the Bill stand as printed. Not one of them called ‘no’. Not one of them thought that they had not had a fair go in the Committee stage. Not one person has attempted to move that the Bill be recommitted. They are using a delaying device; that is all it is. It is purely a delaying tactic. They really have no wish to defeat any part of the Bill. All they are trying to do is to read something into Hansard for which leave to incorporate has been refused.

Senator McLaren:

– We sought leave to incorporate it.

Senator Withers:

– That is right. They sought leave to incorporate it.

Senator McLaren:

– You forced us to read it.

Senator Withers:

– Now you are all sulking because you did not get leave. All you are doing is messing around and mucking around. I support the point of order taken by Senator Greenwood that the debate ought to be confined to whether or not this Bill ought to be reported. Mr Chairman, you ought, with respect, to rule out of order any attempt to rehash the debate which occurred either in the Committee stage or at the second reading stage. I put to you with the greatest of respect that the matters debated at length in the second reading stage and the Committee stage ought not to be able to be raised at this stage. Remarks ought to be confined to whether or not the Bill ought to be reported.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) I think it is time that the Chair intervened in this matter otherwise it could go on all night. In regard to Senator Greenwood’s point of order, I make the point that once the question was put the Standing Orders required that there be no further debate on the matter. The question now is that the Bill be reported. Any debate must be confined to that question.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I wish to oppose the motion that the Bill be reported. I said that previously and I wish to continue my remarks -

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable senator must confine his remarks to the motion.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I will confine my remarks to that area. The debate has been gagged and there has not been a proper opportunity for individual States to put forward their points of view because of the limited time that has been allocated by the Government which has the numbers. Senator McLaren in particular has been made the victim of the concerted efforts of Government supporters to deprive him of his right to state his view as a South Australian senator. I want to place on record something that Senator McLaren was deprived of stating, namely, the figures from the South Australian Department of Agriculture. It found that 2500 farmers there out of 25 000 farmers -

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable senator must confine his remarks to the question that the Bill be now reported.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. I am stating the reason why the Bill should not be reported. I am opposing the motion before the Committee that the Bill be reported. There must be a vote in this chamber to prevent me from speaking against the motion before the Committee. If I am to be prevented from speaking within the time limit that is available to me without a vote of the Senate my rights must be upheld.

Let me continue with my reasons for opposing the motion. As Senator McLaren tried to point out, 18 500 South Australian farmers received an average of less than $150 in superphosphate bounty; 5000 farmers received $700; 1000 averaged $1,800; 500 farmers averaged $3,500; 40 farmers averaged $8,800; 10 farmers averaged $17,000 to $18,000; and 2 farmers averaged $29,000. That is what Senator McLaren wanted to put before the Committee. Senator McLaren has been prevented from giving the details. This is why I am opposing the motion that the Bill be reported. These details should be available to the Committee and Senator McLaren should have been allowed to present them. He was prevented from incorporating names. He did not have the time to give a broad picture of these figures. Of the 25 000 farmers in Senator McLaren’s State, 3000 are dairy farmers who do not use superphosphate. About half of them are involved in milk processed for sale on an unprofitable export market. These were the details that were not presented during the Committee stage. Clause 3, on which debate was gagged, states:

  1. Subject to this Act, bounty is also payable in respect of superphosphate and ammonium phosphate produced at registered premises and used after 31 December 1974 and before 1 1 February 1976 by the producer in the production in Australia of a fertiliser mixture for use in Australia, being a fertiliser mixture:

    1. that was not sold by the producer before 1 1 February 1976; or
    2. that:
    1. was sold by the producer before 1 1 February 1976;
    2. immediately before 1 1 February 1976, was held by, or for, a person other than the producer for sale by that person for use in Australia . . .

On Senator McLaren’s list the people whose names are marked by an asterisk are those who are getting this bounty- the middle men. The farmers are not getting it at all.

Senator Walters:

– Here we go again.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– This is the whole point. This is a payola for the vote of the people of the National Country Party.

Senator Walters:

– Come on!

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It is a wonder that the honourable senator who is newly arrived from Tasmania and who is Alice in Wonderland -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! Senator O’Byrne, I ask you to come back to the question which is before the Committee.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It is a wonder that the honourable senator does not realise the amount which the Liberal Party is paying in payola to the National Country Party in virtual blackmail.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator O’Byrne, I ask you to come back to the relevant question.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The motion before the Chair is that the Bill be reported. Senator Withers said that we did not oppose the original motion, that we did not divide. We know enough about how the Committee works to know that it is impossible to win without the numbers even though we might have the logic. We will have to allow this question to proceed to a vote.

Motion (by Senator Chaney) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 32

NOES: 25

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 33

NOES: 24

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported.

Adoption of Report

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

– I move:

And I move:

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question is: That the question be now put’.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I wish to raise a point of procedure in respect of a matter which occurred during the Committee stage of the debate; but I will raise it later.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question is That the question be now put’, and it requires immediate determination.

Question put.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 32

NOES: 25

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

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

– I move:

And I move:

Question put.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 33

NOES: 25

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1153

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINES AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) requesting the discharge of Senator Davidson from service on the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and nominating Senator Rae to fill the vacancy.

Motion (by Senator Greenwood)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Davidson be discharged from service on the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and that Senator Rae be appointed to fill the vacancy.

page 1154

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY 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 Opposition supports this Bill as it considers that there is a distinction between this Bill and the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill. Both are based on tonnages but the disparity in acreages spread with superphosphate is greater than that for nitrogen. Generally the farms that use nitrogenous fertilisers are more uniform in size; for example, sugar, rice and horticultural farms. It can be argued that the average spread per farm of nitrogenous fertiliser is nearer the spread of nitrogenous fertiliser on the majority of farms than is the spread of superphosphate and therefore the bounty on nitrogenous fertiliser is more equitable than the bounty applying to super- phosphate, because farmers on small and medium-sized farms will benefit largely by the passage of this legislation. The total cost to the taxpayer of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy will be $12m per annum, which contrasts markedly with the cost of the superphosphate bounty.

One would hope, in the light of the support that the Opposition will give to the Bill, that in the debate we shall not be subjected to the harassment that we were subjected to in debating the previous legislation dealing with superphosphate; that we shall not be subjected to the bullyboy tactics that we have seen applied for the second Wednesday night in succession; that we shall not have, a continuation of arrangements that are made by Senator Greenwood- as they were last Wednesday evening- Senator Harradine and Senator Chaney, and the arrangements that were obviously carried out in respect of the Bill dealing with superphosphate which the Senate has just considered; and that we shall not be subjected to the gagging of the debate, but in fact that we shall be -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator, will you please confine your remarks to the Bill currently before the Senate?

Senator GIETZELT:

-I hope, therefore, that in the consideration of this Bill the debate will not be gagged but that we shall have an opportunity to present the viewpoint of the Opposition and to bring it to the attention of the Senate as well as to the attention of the people generally. In view of the harassment that seems to take place every week now on broadcast day, it ought to be stressed far and wide that before the dismissal of the Labor Government last year its principal spokesman on agricultural matters, Dr Patterson, had a submission before the Labor Cabinet recommending the extension of the subsidy involved in the Bill now before the Senate. This indicates clearly that the Labor Party is not against all forms of assistance to the rural community.

I imagine that I would be in order in drawing the attention of the Senate to the unfair remarks and criticism that was levelled at the Opposition by Senator Greenwood during the debate on the previous Bill. In point of fact, the policy of the Opposition is to bring about a more equitable distribution of subsidies and bounties based on the need concept which, as I indicated, is the principle upon which the Opposition develops its agricultural policies. We are trying to bring about some equalisation of incomes so far as the rural community is concerned. It is on the basis of that premise that the Opposition takes a different view in respect of nitrogenous fertilisers from the view that it takes in respect of superphosphate. In the case of superphosphate the bounty was based on the use of the fertiliser rather than on the need for the fertiliser. I draw the Senate’s attention again to the fact that the Opposition believes in the need for restructuring many of our rural industries. I draw attention also to the fact that the coalition parties, which have ruled this country for about 80 per cent of the time since Federation, have had ample opportunity to bring about the essential reforms that are needed in our rural community.

The Labor Party supports this subsidy because of the necessity to maintain a nitrogenous substance industry for the continued growth of the sugar and other horticultural industries, and, more importantly, in order to gain independence from the fluctuation of supplies from major nitrogenous substance exporting countries such as Japan and the United States of America. Since 1966, when this Bill was first introduced, the local industry, with the assistance of the subsidy, has reached the stage where it is now able to supply most of the domestic requirements, contrary to the position which existed in 1966 and 1967 when the major share of the domestic market had to be met from imports of this particular fertiliser. It can be argued that if the local nitrogenous substance industry were eliminated those industries dependent on a supply of the fertiliser would have to rely totally on overseas markets.

Whilst there are clear reasons for supporting the Bill, the Bill in itself is not coming to grips with the problems with which most rural industries are confronted. Subsidies without complementary action, whether of a restructuring type or otherwise, can hinder the development of viable primary industries. I re-emphasise what I said in the debate on the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill, that the Opposition is prepared to consider any viable propositions that will bring about more stability in the rural industries.

This subsidy is to continue for 12 months. It is only a stop-gap measure. By formulating this piece of legislation the Government has accepted that there is a need to look at it as a stop-gap measure. It is necessary, therefore, for a rural policy to emerge from the Government benches within 12 months as the Australian economy cannot afford the luxury of these ad hoc measures and an empirical approach to the economy, which seems to be the basis on which the Government is acting in the totality of its economic management policies.

In one significant way the application of this subsidy is different from the way in which the superphosphate bounty operates. It has a built-in incentive to keep the costs of production down, for if costs can be kept below a certain level the subsidy applies, but if not then the imports are likely to come into the country and balance the supply-demand factor. I want to refer to the criticism that was made in the previous debate by Senator Scott who tried to suggest that the Opposition was being somewhat inconsistent in its attitude here. I have done some more research in this matter and have sought advice because the Opposition does not believe that it has all the answers to the problems facing the rural community. I am satisfied that the Government is incorrect in endeavouring to suggest that we have an inconsistent attitude in supporting this Bill and opposing the previous legislation which has just been passed by the Senate.

This measure offers only relatively small relief for some sectors of the rural industries. In many instances this relief may well be crucial. However, it must not be considered as an end in itself but only as one method of providing a suitable standard of living for the rural community, a standard which can be obtained only by adopting a policy which takes into consideration the full question of resource allocation in Australia. It is on this ground that the Opposition challenges the general line by which the Government parties have been endeavouring to bring about some stimulation of the Australian economy. We believe that this legislation should be supported for the very reasons that we opposed the adoption of the superphosphate bounty legislation. We hope that there will be a little more tolerance allowed in the debate on these matters without the constant use of the gag, which does not show the Government up in a good light and in fact is an indication that the Government is not prepared to allow full and frank debate in the Senate.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

- Senator Gietzelt, in his remarks in this debate tonight, made a great issue of the contention that the Opposition had been badly treated in the debate on the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill. I point out that the Opposition put up 5 speakers. Those 5 speakers were allowed to speak and indeed the debate took 2 days of the Senate’s time. It was only when the Bill reached the machinery stage that numbers were used to hurry the Bill through.

Senator McLaren:

– No, to prevent the names of certain people being divulged.

Senator COLLARD:

– The idea of any subsidy is mainly to help an industry, not to help an individual. If we are to bring in names of individuals I suppose that we should do the same with people receiving social welfare benefits or any kind of subsidy or tariff assistance. To my way of thinking a subsidy is used to keep down production costs and thus lower the price to the consumer. It stands to reason that if a producer is a big producer he would have a big effect on the ultimate price to the consumer. Therefore any method used to bring down his production costs would be of ultimate benefit to the consumer. I support this Bill. I draw attention to the first paragraph of the Industries Assistance Commission report published on 5 September 1975. The report, which recommended the continuation of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy for 1 976 at the existing rate, said:

When the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy was introduced in 1966 its stated aims were, in brief, to reduce costs to major user industries, to assist users to compete in export markets, and to encourage use of nitrogenous fertilisers in newer applications where cost considerations might be a deterrent.

Nitrogenous fertiliser is needed across a wide range of Australian soils. This stems from their geomorphology, the substances from which the soils are made. The soils of Australia are prone to leaching, and nitrogen is one of the most leachable elements in the Australian soil profile. The nitrogenous deficiency in Australian soils has been overcome to a large extent by the pasture revolution of the 1950s in which leguminous crops and pasture species were seen to restore the nitrogen balance of soils following years of cropping and/or grazing. In our more intensive agricultural industries the opportunity to replace nitrogen through the use of legumes and crop rotation is not always commercially feasible. That is why there has been a movement for these industriesnamely, the wheat industry, the sugar industry and the horticultural industry- to add nitrogen through the use of artificial fertilisers.

This method of soil amelioration is most advantageous with regard to the sugar industry. I believe that the recommendation of the IAC that the present subsidy of $78.74 a tonne of contained nitrogen in fertiliser will encourage wider usage of fertiliser in the sugar industry. The sugar industry, like any other industry, has been subject to increasing production costs but especially in relation to fertiliser prices. For example, let me refer to fertiliser prices ex works Brisbane per tonne in February 1974 compared to February 1976. The rise for superphosphate was 142 per cent, for potassium chloride 77 per cent, for ammonium sulphate 123 per cent, for ammonia 8 1 per cent; and for urea 6 1 per cent. These price increases include payment of the Commonwealth bounty or subsidy where applicable. Thus it can be seen that if the subsidy or bounty had not been paid the fertiliser costs would have been considerably higher.

Despite the large rise in fertiliser prices, it is interesting to look at other cost inflationary pressures facing the sugar industry. The Bureau of Statistics has estimated that between December 1973 and December 1975, the overall price rise for materials used in buildings, other than houses, was 46 per cent, Also within the sugar industry, again in common with other industries, wage costs have risen substantially. Between 26 May last and 16 February this year, the wage rise for different classifications in the industry has been quite substantial. On a weekly basis the increase for field workers has been $15.77; general mill workers, $16.42; tramline construction and maintenance workers, $16.54; mechanical harvester drivers, $17.36; first-class engine drivers, $19.81; sugar boilers, $19.11; and fitters, $19.89.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I have no quarrel with these increases as workers in this industry are subject to the same cost pressures as is anybody else in the work force. However, it must be understood that in the sugar industry and indeed in all primary industries the price received for the product does not normally bear any relation to the cost of producing that product. Rises such as those indicated naturally erode the profitability of the sugar industry. It would be pertinent at this time to note that the industry is presently seeking an increase in the domestic wholesale price of sugar. There appears to me to be some validity in seeking that increase. However, it must be borne in mind that an unreasonable increase could erode large scale commercial markets for the industry through the switching to substitutes and synthetic sweeteners.

I would point out that in a very short time the manufacture of high fructose corn syrups could pose serious problems. The technology now exists for providing a large proportion of our sweetening needs from such crops as sorghum, maize and wheat. I am led to believe that present indications are that, by the end of the decade, one-quarter of the sweetening used in the soft drink industry in the United States of America could be from this source.

Let us look briefly at some of the finances involved. In 1967, the return to the industry from the home consumption market was a declared price of $140.55 per tonne. In 1975, the return to the industry from the home consumption market was a declared price of $ 129.90 per tonne for the same quality. In February 1976 the average retail price for sugar in Australian capital cities was 25c per kilogram. Overseas prices for sugar per kilogram by comparison are: Britain 39c, Norway 93c, Canada 47c, United States 40c and Japan 68c. As can be seen from these figures, the Australian sugar producer is subsidising the Australian domestic sugar consumer. For 1975, it is estimated that sugar growers will receive $128 per tonne for No. 1 Pool sugar sold for home consumption while No. 2 Pool sugar will yield between $220 and $275 per tonne.

Recently, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Ian Sinclair) spoke of the position of the sugar industry and he said that there was a strong argument in favour of not rapidly increasing the price for domestic sugar. His arguments are quite valid when one recognises the threat that synthetic sweeteners or substitutes could represent on the domestic market if the wholesale domestic sugar price were raised too much. I believe that the argument that he has put forward is quite legitimate. But I also believe that recognition needs to be given to the fact that the Australian sugar industry or, more importantly, the Australian sugar grower is subsidising the Australian sugar consumer.

When looking at the question of help for the sugar industry one must consider also its long term future. One of the problems bequeathed to this industry by the previous Administration was that Administration’s inability to conclude the International Sugar Agreement. It is only the fact that the Australian Sugar Board was able to secure suitable contracts that has enabled the industry to enjoy a measure of affluence at this time. However, this present affluence must not be allowed to blind us to the reality of the situation. That is because of, among other things, increasing production costs, low domestic price and long term insecurity, the future of the industry is more precarious than would otherwise seem at first sight. ( Quorum formed)

The Bill now before the Senate seeks to provide a subsidy for nitrogenous fertilisers. I would point out that the subsidy that the Australian consumer gains as a result of the price differential between domestic and export sugar is greater than the cost of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy in total applying across the whole spectrum of Australian agriculture- the wheat and horticultural industries, to mention two, as well as the sugar industry. I believe that in looking at the legislation we should not consider it solely as a subsidy measure, lt should be looked upon also as a means of protecting our most vital natural resource. That important natural resource is the soil fertility of this nation.

The subsidy should be viewed among other things as a means of encouraging better farm practice through the encouragement of fertiliser usage. As well, it should be considered as a means of easing cost burdens on an industry which has to depend largely on the international market and where there is no protection from the pressures of domestic inflation caused in large part by the policies of the previous Administration. Madam Acting Deputy President, I take great pleasure in supporting the Bill which is now before the Senate.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– As my colleague Senator Gietzelt has already stated, the Opposition is not opposing this legislation. We have been accused by a number of members of the Government of displaying inconsistency in opposing the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill 1976 and not opposing the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Bill 1976. The Government in fact could well be accused of inconsistency in its attitude towards adopting or not adopting reports of the Industries Assistance Commission. The Government in one instance has explicitly claimed and in the other instance attempted to put forward the idea that it is adopting the recommendations of the IAC in respect of both of these measures. In neither case is the claim true. The recommendation of the IAC on the superphosphate bounty- it was a majority recommendation, split two to one, not a unanimous recommendationwas to pay a bounty on superphosphate from 1 January 1975 to the end of December 1975. Of course, what the Government in fact has legislated for is the payment of the bounty from 11 February 1976 to 30 June 1977. So in that instance, it did not implement the majority recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission to the letter. Neither, of course, did it implement to the letter its pre-election promise which was to implement the majority recommendation of the IAC.

In the case of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy, the IAC recommended a phase-out over a 3-year period. The Government has rejected for the time being that recommendation of the IAC and is legislating for the extension of the bounty for a further 12 months. Since we have some sympathy for the Government in its dilemma as to what to do about this matter- we can understand the Government’s reluctance to acknowledge that it is flatly rejecting one clear and unanimous recommendation of the IAC at the same time as it claims to be implementing another- we can understand the Government’s sensitivity on this issue and we are prepared to give it a period of 12 months in order to make up its mind on this subject. Of course, there are a number of other important differences between these 2 pieces of legislation. Some of the differences have been touched upon by Senator Gietzelt. I will list four of them. Firstly, there is a simple difference in cost. The cost of implementing the recommendation of the IAC is $4m. The cost of restoring the superphosphate bounty for the period which the legislation provided for is in the vicinity of $50m. So there is a difference in cost of $4m and $50m.

The second difference is in the question of continuity. Since the superphosphate bounty has not been paid for more than a year, whereas the nitrogenous bounty was paid right up until the end of December, in continuing the subsidy on nitrogenous fertiliser a pre-existing policy is simply being extended for 12 months. But in the case of the superphosphate bounty, the Government has reversed the pre-existing condition. No bounty had been paid for 1 3 months. The Government has now legislated for the restoration of the bounty. Assistant Commissioner Robinson, in his dissenting opinion contained in the interim report on superphosphate fertilisers, drew attention to the dangers of this discontinuity of government policy and the very grave dangers, which even one or two members of the Government have acknowledged in debate, that the temporary restoration of the superphosphate bounty would induce false hopes among producers that it would be restored on a permanent basis. Assistant Commissioner Robinson said:

Despite the Commission’s clear warnings, an interim bounty -

This was in relation to superphosphate- may raise unwarranted expectations among users that is will be continues. Where such expectations are not held, and financial resources are available, the interim bounty may stimulate the stockpiling of bountiable fertiliser.

So we have the difference in cost and the consistent application by the Opposition of the principle of continuity.

Thirdly, we have a question of saleability. There is a highly significant difference in the usage pattern of superphosphate and nitrogenous fertilisers. Some 70 per cent of superphosphate is applied to pastures upon which animals are grazed and from which ultimately goods like skimmed milk powder, of which we have a stockpile currently in excess of 100 000 tonnes, wool of which we have a stockpile in excess of 1 500 000 bales and beef which has been grossly overproduced during the last 2 years, are produced. That superphosphate ends up as a final product in these commodities which are at the margins unsaleable. The position with nitrogenous fertilisers is totally reversed. Thirty per cent of the nitrogenous fertilisers- I cite that figure from page 10 of the IAC report- used in Australia is used for sugar production, 17 per cent is used for wheat production and 2 1 per cent is used for other cereal production. All of those products are readily saleable. Since the legislation provides for the extension of the bounty for only one year, it can be assumed fairly safely that all of those products will remain readily saleable throughout the duration of the operation of the bounty.

There is, moreover, another point upon which Senator Collard has touched peripherally in citing the current differential between the domestic price of sugar and the export price of sugar. It is a rather recent phenomenon. If we like to go back about 7 years we find that the reverse was the position and that in fact the difference between the then higher domestic price of sugar and the average return from exports constituted an indirect subsidy of $5,000 for each producer of sugar. Nevertheless, that is history and the current position is as Senator Collard stated it to be. It is reasonable to assume that that position will be maintained for another year, anyway. Therefore the more sugar that is produced, the higher the average value of sugar becomes because at the margin the price is higher than it is on average. The same is true also in regard to wheat and also for other cereal grains. At least there is no rapidly declining price for marginal production as, of course, there is with those other products of the grazing industry for which superphosphate is used.

The fourth point, which my colleague Senator Gietzelt, dealt with, is that although there are no completely reliable statistics on this matter, it seems probable that the distribution of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty is less inequitable than the distribution of the superphosphate bounty mainly because the level of production between individual producers in the major consuming industry- that is the sugar industry- does not cover such a wide difference in levels of output as is the case in the grazing industries. It was stated by several members of the Government that they were unable to understand the remarks which I made in the debate on the previous legislation. I am sorry if they failed to grasp the crucial elements. But I suppose that one ought to have realised that people who purport to hold the free enterprise system, the capitalist system or the market economy- whatever they call itnearest and dearest seem to be chronically unable to grasp its fundamental principles. The fundamental principle as it applies to the discussion of this Bill and the previous Bill is that any sensible farmer will continue to use fertiliser as long as the cost of the last tonne of fertiliser he has used is offset or more than offset by the extra production gained from the use of that last tonne of fertiliser. It is what economists call equalising marginal cost and marginal revenue. It was suggested by many supporters of the Government that unless the cost of a fertiliser is subsidised farmers will not use it and the inevitable consequence of that will be disastrous. That is sheer nonsense. Any sensible farmer will continue to use fertiliser as long as it is profitable for him to do so. The test of profitability, of course, is the value of the extra production which the extra fertiliser will provide.

I am sorry if members of the Government have not grasped that very fundamental principle of the free enterprise economy or market economy which they purport to believe in. I can assure them that there are many thousands of farmers throughout Australia who have grasped it. In fact, I personally have known farmers hardly able te write their names who have grasped it. I think that it is a very sad proposition if the Government senators are not able to grasp it.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Senator Baume is cut to the quick.

Senator WALSH:

-Does Senator Mulvihill think that Senator Baume understands it? I tried to speak slowly and in monosyllables. I hope that honourable senators opposite understood it.

Senator Webster:

– Have you ever heard such an idiot talking?

Senator McLaren:

– Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I distinctly heard the Minister for Science, Senator Webster, use the words ‘to hear such a idiot talking’. He was referring to Senator Walsh. Those words are offensive to me and I ask you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to call on Senator Webster to withdraw those words and to apologise.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Coleman)- I call Senator Webster.

Senator Webster:

– Madam Acting Deputy President, it is usually a question of whether the Chair hears the words. If there is anything offensive to Senator McLaren in the use of the word idiot’, I certainly apologise to him. He must hear such words on many occasions.

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a further point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I requested that Senator Webster withdraw those offensive words which he used with reference to Senator Walsh. He has not yet done so. I again request that he be called upon to withdraw those offensive remarks.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I did not hear the use of the word ‘idiot’ about which the original complaint was made, but I did hear the second reference which was made and which related to Senator McLaren. Under the circumstances I think I should ask Senator Webster to withdraw both remarks.

Senator Webster:

– Madam Acting Deputy President, when I last rose to speak I said that if the word was offensive to Senator McLaren- he made the only request; the words are not offensive to Senator Walsh- I withdrew it.

Senator WALSH:

– Like you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I did not hear Senator Webster’s remarks; so I am not in a position to comment on them. I repeat that it is terribly important that Government senators understand this fundamental, basic, primary lesson in the operation of their free enterprise economy: Sensible farmers will continue to use superphosphate or any other fertiliser as long as the monetary return that they get from the use of that fertiliser covers the cost of the fertiliser. It is vital that Government senators understand that. I do not mind being called an idiot by Senator Webster as long as finally he has managed to grasp that very elementary lesson.

Senator Webster:

– Could you repeat it again?

Senator WALSH:

– I will do so slowly and in monosyllables. Any sensible farmer will continue to use fertiliser- whether it be superphosphate or nitrogenous fertiliser- so long as the value of the increased production arising from the use of that fertiliser compensates the farmer for the cost of that fertiliser.

Senator Webster:

– Good heavens; that is really brilliant!

Senator WALSH:

– I am very pleased to know that Government senators finally have grasped it. Since at least Senator Webster finally has grasped it, I look forward eagerly to the day when Government senators will stop sprouting the sort of nonsense that has been sprouted in this chamber over the last 2 days, in suggesting that we have to subsidise a particular fertiliser because if we do not do so farmers will not use it and therefore production will cease. It is a great pity that Government senators who purport to represent farmers in this chamber do not seem to understand what the overwhelming majority of practising farmers in Australia understand. It also has been suggested in debate on these measures that it is essential to maintain the usage of a fertiliser at a particular level. Indeed, poor Senator Walters, whose comprehension of these matters appears to be marginally lower than Senator Webster’s comprehension of them -

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, I ask for the retraction of those words. They are offensive to me.

Senator WALSH:

-If Senator Webster objects, I am quite happy to retract. I do not know why he should object to my suggestion that Senator -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Walsh, are you retracting?

Senator WALSH:

-Yes. I stated that initially, Mr President. I do not know why Senator Webster should object to my suggesting that his comprehension of these matters is somewhat better than Senator Walters’ comprehension of them. That is what I did suggest.

Senator Webster:

– It was your offence to Senator Walters that disturbed me.

Senator WALSH:

– That is not the way in which Senator Webster put it. Poor Senator Walters stated: ‘We must again use the previous quantities of fertiliser’. She stated that this afternoon. She stated within this context that the true market price of the fertiliser in question had increased from $27 a tonne to $60 a tonne. Notwithstanding a change in cost of that magnitude, Senator Walters can assert quite dogmatically that we must continue to use the previous quantities of fertiliser. That is not a rational response. It is not typical of the response of rational farmers or indeed of farmers generally; nor is it the response of any person who has the faintest comprehension of the operations of a market economy. Those who say that governments must intervene in the market place in order to insulate producers from changes in the cost of any particular input are establishing, whether they recognise it or not, a case for central government control of the economy.

I wish to raise 2 more points. It has been suggested very deceitfully that the purpose of paying subsidies on fertilisers is to minimise the cost of food. There are 2 errors here. Firstly, there is this gross and rather obvious error: If the objective of the policy is to keep down the cost of food by the payment of a subsidy, why not subsidise the food item instead of some input which may be used in producing that food item? Of course, the second fallacy is that the increased production which may accrue from paying a subsidy on fertiliser and thereby increasing its usage does not necessarily reduce the price of food to the consumer. It ought to reduce the price of food to the consumer in a competitive market, but many agricultural commodities are not sold on competitive markets in Australia.

The second point refers to the very dishonest analogy between the disclosure of the names of the major beneficiaries of a subsidy of this fertiliser or on some other fertiliser and the disclosure of the names of beneficiaries under a scheme such as Medibank. The great weakness, the great fallacy, the great dishonesty in this analogy is that everyone is entitled to receive the benefit of Medibank, and everyone probably does; but when we are dealing with a highly selective subsidy, such as a fertiliser subsidy, only a small minority receives the benefit of that subsidy. Although many of the objections which the Opposition raised in relation to the phosphate fertiliser subsidy- as to whether the economy will operate as a market economy or whether governments will continue to intervene and we will have strong and heavy-handed central government intervention and direction of resources into particular sections of the economy by means of central government and bureaucratic decision-are applicable to both of these pieces of legislation, the Opposition has decided not to oppose the nitrogenous fertiliser legislation. We take this attitude because the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy will operate for only 12 months, because the amount of public expenditure involved is very much less than that involved in the superphosphate bounty, because the principle of continuity is being applied consistently by the Opposition, although not by the Government, and because the extra production which the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty is likely to bring forth within the next 12 months will relate overwhelmingly to commodities which are readily saleable.

The complete reverse is true in regard to the superphosphate bounty. If any one of the 9 Government senators who are presently in the chamber believes that it is a sound national policy to increase the production of skim milk powder, I wish that he would stand up and speak. If anyone believes it is a sound policy to stimulate artificially the production of wool when we have a stockpile of 1 lA million bales I wish he would stand up and speak. If anyone believes it is a good idea to stimulate artificially the production of beef which has been seriously overproduced for 2 years with consequential disastrous prices to producers, I wish he would stand up and speak.

Senator Mulvihill:

– There are no takers for you, senator.

Senator WALSH:

– There are no takers. There is no response to any of those challenges. Yet honourable senators on the Government side this day will enact a piece of legislation which will provide $50m of taxpayers’ funds to be used overwhelmingly to stimulate artificially the production of those commodities.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak in support of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill and to say how nauseated I am with the tripe to which I have just had to listen. The subsidy arose from the passing of legislation in 1966, legislation which was reintroduced in 1969 and again in 1972. Honourable senators opposite say that they support this legislation. It appears that they do support it to some extent but I am not sure how much because they seem to have spoken mostly against it. They have been trapped into it a bit by former Senator Wilkinson and Dr Patterson, neither of whom I recognise as being members of the Parliament now, who spoke in favour of the subsidy in 1 972. The basis of the Opposition’s argument surprises me somewhat. The premise on which the Opposition says that it supports the subsidy is completely at error. As I understand it, nitrogenous fertilisers are used by the people who already use superphosphate or phosphatic fertilisers. It is an additional fertiliser, so that if producers already get one bonus they will get an extra bonus. It is not a case of producers who do not get the superphosphate bounty getting the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty because the reverse is the fact. I find that if farmers of any consequence are doing well they may use both, if they are struggling they will use superphosphate, but if they are really down and out they will use neither. So the premise that the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy is helping the person who is not being helped by a superphosphate bounty is absolute rubbish.

Senator WALSH:

– What about the sugar cane growers?

Senator ARCHER:

– The sugar cane growers use both. Vegetable growers use both and people who irrigate grass use both. Contrary to the argument that has been put, the bounty will go to the better industries where, if anything, the use of these fertilisers can be afforded anyway. This is the complete reverse of the argument that has been put forward by the Opposition. I thought that the wording of the second paragraph on page5 of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission summed up the situation fairly well. A former Prime Minister on 7 June 1974 was responsible for referring to the Commission the question whether the Australian Government should pay a subsidy on manufactured nitrogenous substances used as a fertiliser and, if so, what should be the amount and duration of the subsidy, what should be the consequences of any assistance provided on the bases of maximum tonnage of fertiliser and what the tonnage should be. That is the basis of this legislation. These fertilisers are used by people who want them and need them but do not let us get confused by any fancy and hypothetical arguments about it. There is no abuse in the use of a highly priced commodity. Users will not waste it any more than they will waste fertiliser.

The Opposition’s argument about profitability and prices is quite invalid. If farmers are successful they will add more fertiliser; if they add more fertiliser they will probably employ more labour in their fields. They may even make more money, and if they make more money they will pay more tax and the profitability of many crops with or without fertilisers is such that the amount of tax users will pay into the coffers will be considerably greater than the pittance represented by the fertiliser subsidy. So the amount of money spent on the subsidy is of little consequence. The way in which the subsidy is used to help people who really need it was well summed up the day the superphosphate bounty was reintroduced in a poem which appeared in the King Island News. It summed up the general feeling. The poem was headed ‘The Superphosphate Bounty’s Coming Back’. And read as follows:

The superphosphate bounty’s been returned!

I heard it on the ABC- confirmed.

As was promised pre-election,

That pampered farmer section,

Will get the super bounty all returned.

If you ‘ve borrowed to the maximum to live,

And your funds have run like water through a sieve,

Now’s the time to give a cheer,

And celebrate- Hear! Hear!

For the great relief the bounty’s going to give.

With the use of superphosphate profits soar;

Everybody is aware of this, what’s more:

What used to be a hundred mate,

Is now reduced to eighty-eight.

Oh you must rush off and order lots, lots more!

Forget the mortgage millstones round your neck,

Fill in another overdrafted check;

More super on the ground-

Keep going round and round,

For we have to salvage something from the wreck.

The IAC and all the back-room boys,

Away from all the politics and noise,

Have issued a report-

In essence quite, quite short:

It’s the lack of superphosphate which annoys.

And the CSIRO and all their folk,

Have stated that the farmers won’t go broke,

As long as they apply it,

They must, must not deny it-

Peter Cundall thinks it all a joke !

The thing the farmer really has to do,

Is work it out on paper, two plus two.

A simple sum,

Howmuch’saton?

And cost and freight and fuel- that’s minus two!

And after that the odds are five to three,

And five is what production costs, and three

Is what you get after

The agents laughter-

I think somehow you ‘re down the drain, dear me!

But wait! The superphosphate bounty’s there;

Its been discussed at length upon the air.

So the simple thing to do,

Is don ‘t add two and two-

Just spread your super madly- everywhere!

Oh I’m really looking forward to the day,

When I can make my superphosphate pay,

An then I can enjoy,

The bounty, boy, oh boy!

And fill my barns all busting out with hay!

Oh, I ‘m glad the bounty ‘son again, not off;

It’s saved us from the grim financial trough,

And I ‘d like to thank you, Mal,

You’re the family farmer’s pal,

And you understand us just as well as Gough.

Mention was made of organic farming and I must say that I support much of the theory behind it and its practice. It is something that should be encouraged although at this stage there is no way in which organic farming will take over from the use of either phosphatic or nitrogenous fertilisers for many years to come. However, we certainly need to keep an eye on it. I have also noticed that in 1972 Senator Primmer cautioned against the raising of nitrate levels in drinking water. I have checked on this and am pleased to say that nowhere in Australia does there appear to have been dangerous contamination of drinking water that can be traced back to nitrogenous fertilisers. I support the Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– We are debating the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1976. After having listened to Senator Archer one must assume that the Bill ranges far and wide. It seems that we have now got back to the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill. Apart from the poem that Senator Archer read into *Hansard- * do not think he said who the author was- most of his speech was taken up with being very critical of Senator Walsh, who is a practical farmer and who has no doubt had much more personal experience in the use of both superphosphate and nitrogenous fertilisers than has Senator Archer. He did not talk for very long on this Bill apart from saying that he supported it, as does the Opposition as was pointed out by Senator Gietzelt.

That is about the only reference he made to the Bill. He spent most of his time discussing the superphosphate bounty and reciting a poem which I do not think captured the interest of many people, except perhaps the line at the end which said that Mai was a great pal. To draw the logical conclusion from that poem the line should have read ‘Mai was a great pal to himself and his wealthy farmer friends’, because we know from figures that are available that Mai, the person mentioned in the poem, has been the recipient of at least $5,000 in superphosphate subsidy. I pointed out here yesterday that that amounts to 125 funeral benefits of which pensioners have been deprived to help pay for the bounty. Senator Archer, in his wisdom would not want to tell the people about that. All he wants to tell the people in the poem he read out is that Mai was a great bloke and a good pal because he has reinstated the bounty. Of course there has been a lot of argument on that.

Senator Archer went on to cite some figures, in answer to my interjection, about the use of nitrogenous fertiliser in the sugar industry. He said that that industry uses a lot of superphosphate, too. The figures show that the sugar industry uses 30 per cent of the nitrogenous fertiliser used in Australia; that the wheat industry uses 17 per cent, and 2 1 per cent is used in the production of other cereals. Anyone who has had anything to do with cereal growing knows that most of the nitrogenous fertiliser is used on sand hills so that a quick rye crop is obtained and sand drift stopped. It is not used to grow a good crop of wheat unless it is very poor land for cultivation. I think that knocks on the head the argument that was used by Senator Archer that quite a large proportion of superphosphate used in this country is used in the cereal growing areas. The figures clearly show that that is not the case.

As the shadow Minister for agriculture, Senator Gietzelt, who led the debate, pointed out the Opposition supports the Bill which provides an amount of $12m per annum as against approximately $50m provided for in the superphosphate Bill that was debated earlier today. It is therefore important to demonstrate the vast difference in monetary assistance accruing to the large and wealthy producers who use this product as against the small amount received by the big majority of farmers who are in the main small farmers. That has been clearly illustrated.

Senator Baume:

– Which product, senator?

Senator McLAREN:

– I am speaking about the superphosphate bounty. I would have thought that I was quite in order in referring to that because Senator Archer was allowed to base all of his speech- if one can call it a speech- on a poem on the superphosphate bounty. Surely Senator Baume will not object to my referring to the superphosphate Bill when he did not object to his colleague’s basing all of his speech on that Bill.

Most of my remarks up to this point have been on the nitrogenous Bill. I have sought to have incorporated into Hansard yesterday and again today without success a list of the names of people who have been recipients of an amount of money calculated on 400 tons of superphosphate or more which they have received. Many of the persons and the companies named on the list which I have here are users of nitrogenous fertilisers. That is borne out by the document which was tabled in the Senate on 2 occasions. Although I have quoted from it once tonight I think it bears quoting again. Nitrogenous fertilisers are mentioned quite frequently in that document. The document, which was tabled on 9 September, relates to a survey of fertiliser sales under the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1963-1971 and the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1966-1973. It states:

This survey was undertaken in 1974 to inform the Minister of the extent to which users of fertiliser; both phosphatic and nitrogenous, benefited by $5,000 or more from the bounty and the subsidy in 1973.

We realise that those figures are the only ones that are available. Under the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act there is no way that the Minister can get the figures. He cannot say to the persons whom he asks to provide him with the figures that if they do not provide them they will not be recipients of the bounty next year. When I sought in this Parliament to get the figures and names of the persons who used superphosphate in 1974- the last year when the bounty was applied- Senator Cavanagh, the Minister for Customs and Excise, told me that there was no way that one could require the producers of superphosphate to provide the names because no bounty was applicable in 1975. That is the reason why we never got those figures. The bounty is now being re-applied. Section 1 4 of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act and section 17 of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act -

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to a point of order once more. Senator McLaren is persisting in the face of rulings by the Senate and the Committee of the Whole and in the face of Senate decisions. We are now debating the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill and not the phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill. An opportunity was given to the Oppostion before this debate started yesterday to have a cognate debate. The Opposition did not want a cognate debate. It wanted the Bills to be debated separately. We have debated the superphosphate Billl for 2 days. I submit that this continuous, tedious, repetitive reference to the superphosphate Bill is out of order.

Senator Wriedt:

– May I speak on the point of order? Senator McLaren has made it quite apparent that he is referring to the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill and it is inevitable that on occasions the 2 Bills will overlap. Many times we have had debates when it has been doubtful whether Bills should be debated cognately or separately. While I have been listening to Senator McLaren he has been referring to the nitrogenous Bill. There are times when he has referred to the superphosphate question; I accept that, but they are only on occasions when it is relevant to the point that he is making in respect of the nitrogenous fertilizer bounty. I might add that previously Senator Archer also- I think quite properly in the context of what he wanted to say- referred to superphosphate. No point of order was taken. I submit that if it was fair enough for Senator Archer it is fair enough for Senator McLaren.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Senator McLaren will be in order if he links his remarks to the Bill.

Senator McLAREN:

– I thought that during the course of my remarks I had been repeatedly referring to and using the words ‘nitrogenous fertilisers’. As Senator Greenwood rose I was going on to refer to section 1 7 of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act which contains similar wording to section 14 of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act. Certain powers are given to the Minister. I had told the Senate why those powers could not be used as was pointed out by Senator Cavanagh when he was Minister for Customs and Excise. No bounty was applicable in 1975. The document from which I was quoting and which was tabled in this place continually mentions the words ‘nitrogenous fertiliser’. Clause 2 of that document reads:

The information was obtained under the provisions of Section 14 of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act and Section 17 of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act.

So the power is in the Bill that we are now debating for the Minister to ask the producers of this commodity to supply him with the names of the users. This is the argument I have been putting forward now for 2 days. I hope that the Minister will do this in the future. This was the crux of our amendment in relation to the other Bill. Already we have figures which have been tabled in the Parliament and which are relevant to the Bill we are debating now. We want to point out to the public at large the people who have been in receipt of this large bounty. As has been pointed out, quite a few of the people named in the document have been users of both phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers. I cannot see why Senator Greenwood should object to what I have been saying and yet raise no objection to what Senator Archer said. I pointed out in my opening remarks that Senator Archer based his argument entirely on a poem which somebody had written about Mai being a pal. Clause 3 of the document which was tabled in the Senate states:

  1. The rates of bounty and subsidy payable at the time of the survey were as follows . . .

Nitrogen Subsidy $78.74 per tonne of contained nitrogen.

Clause 4 again mentions nitrogen. It states:

Fertilisers are sold containing varying mixtures of phosphate and/or nitrogen.

The remarks of Senator Archer tonight when he got back to the Bill support what I have been trying to say. We should explain to people the amount of money which people who use both superphosphate and nitrogenous fertilisers are receiving. Senator Archer has borne out what I have been trying to show by saying that farmers who use phosphate also use nitrogenous fertiliser. Of course, I am very pleased to have the support of the honourable senator in that area. It is something I did not think would be forthcoming from the Government side of the Senate.

We turn to the accompanying document which was tabled in the Parliament on 30 September 1975. Again we find mentioned in that document both phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers which attract a bounty or subsidy. It is now my intention to read into Hansard the names of some of the people who were in receipt of the bounty. It covers both superphosphate and nitrogenous fertilisers. It is hopeless for me to ask leave to have the names incorporated in Hansard. If that had been done yesterday both these Bills would have been passed through the Senate by 8 o’clock tonight. Because of the action taken by the Government in its endeavour to cover over or bury the names of the people in receipt of this money- these very wealthy people in the community- I am forced to adopt this attitude. I do not like doing it because I do not want to waste the time of the Senate. Again I shall attempt to read into Hansard the names of the people. No doubt I shall be able to read until 1 1 o’clock and then I shall have to take an opportunity at some other time in order to complete the exercise. The names of the people in receipt of the money and which are disclosed in the document -

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I seek from you a ruling. If Senator McLaren wishes to read material into the record I have no objection, if it is in accordance with the Standing Orders. In the course of the debate on the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill Senator McLaren sought to read these names into the record on numerous occasions, or he sought to have them incorporated in Hansard. On each occasion his request was denied and the names were not incorporated. They were part of the debate on that Bill. Now the honourable senator comes to another Bill which, at the insistence of the Opposition, is maintained as a separate debate and he seeks to raise the same question.

My submission is that, on the face of it, the complaint of the Opposition was directed to the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill. That is a Bill in which some $50m in bounty allegedly had to be paid. I think that was the figure Senator Walsh used. The names of the people which Senator McLaren now wishes to have read into the record are said to belong to people who are wrongfully benefiting by receiving large sums of money. That was the argument put under the phosphate legislation. In this Bill, which is the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy

Amendment Bill, a much smaller amount of $4m is involved. The Opposition says that, therefore, it is not opposing this Bill. The attitude expressed by Opposition speakers up to now has been that because a different amount is involved a different attitude is adopted by the Opposition.

It seems very hard to understand, how, in those circumstances, Senator McLaren can claim that these names are relevant to the debate on this Bill. I raise this matter because I think it is clear to the Senate that my initial objection to the whole tactic was on the basis of the invasion of privacy which this information disclosed. Parliament and the privilege of Parliament ought not to be used simply to name people and to allow those who name them to use the epithets which they think are applicable to denigrate their reputation and character. If honourable senators want to do that I suggest that they do it outside the chamber. I hope that that practice will be limited only to the strict extent permitted by Standing Orders. If the Standing Orders permit it, Senator McLaren can go on his way, as he wants to go. I hope the Standing Orders do not permit it.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, may I clarify the position? Senator Greenwood has claimed that his opposition under the previous Bill was on the basis of protecting the privacy of people. It is true that in his reply to the second reading debate on the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill he referred to that matter. But when the Minister took his point of order during the Committee stage he objected on the ground that the matter which was being raised at the time by Senator McLaren was not pertinent to the Bill. Subsequently, and I notice again now, he conceded that it was pertinent to the Bill after the Chairman ruled in that way. I suggest that exactly the same position applies now. If the matter were pertinent then, with great respect I ask you, Mr President, to rule that it is relevant now.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McLaren, you must ensure that relevancy in your remarks prevails.

Senator McLAREN:

– I thought I had pointed out the relevancy quite clearly and distinctly to Senator Greenwood before I attempted to read the names. I read the covering document which was associated with the names and which was tabled in the Parliament. If I have to do that again for the information of Senator Greenwood I shall do it. Nitrogenous fertilisers are mentioned in the associated document. I shall read from it again for Senator Greenwood. This is the document which was tabled on 9 September 1975. It is headed:

Survey of Fertiliser Sales

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1 963- 1 97 1

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1 966- 1 97 3

It is on this basis that I link up my remarks. The document goes on to state:

This survey was undertaken in 1 974 to inform the Minister of the extent to which users of fertilisers, both phosphatic and nitrogenous -

Is that not clear enough, Senator Greenwood? You have used every possible tactic in this place for 2 days to protect the people who have been in receipt of a large amount of bounty. My colleague and Leader, Senator Wriedt, pointed out previously when he spoke to the point of order that you have completely contradicted yourself on this point of order when compared with the attitude you adopted on the previous occasion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McLaren, please address the Chair.

Senator McLAREN:

– My apologies, Mr President. I say through you to Senator Greenwood that, as Senator Wriedt has pointed out, the Minister has adopted a completely contrary attitude to me on this occasion when compared with the attitude which he adopted on the previous occasion when he successfully prevented me from divulging to the taxpayers the names of the people in receipt of a large amount of bounty. Why is the Government doing this? Senator Greenwood claims that we are breaching a privilege and that we are breaching someone’s privacy. How are we breaching anyone’s privacy when this document as has been claimed, I think by Senator Walters in her speech earlier today, is a public document? If it is a public document, whose privacy am I or any other member of the Opposition invading? All we want to do is to have the names incorporated in Hansard. The document is already a public document.

Senator Walters:

– It is intimidation, Senator.

Senator McLAREN:

– It is not intimidation at all.

Senator Walters:

– Of course it is, of course it is.

Senator McLAREN:

-Senator Walters is afraid to have known the names of the recipients. I know this is a very contentious matter when her own Leader cannot explain -

Debate interrupted.

page 1165

ADJOURNMENT

Amnesty International- Timor

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally propose the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I rise tonight to advise the Senate of an all-party petition which has been sponsored by the parliamentary group of Amnesty International and which is being forwarded to the leadership of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. It expresses the concern of a large number of parliamentarians about the fate of the members of the Amnesty International group in Moscow. This Parliament has its own group of Amnesty International. Its membership includes a large number of senators from both sides of the chamber, a large number of members of the House of Representatives from both sides of that chamber and members of the parliamentary staff. It is a unique group in the world. This is the only parliament which has its own Amnesty International group. The office bearers and executive represent all party interests. It is parliamentary bipartisanship in action in what it seeks to do. This group concerns itself with issues of human rights.

I remind the Senate of the functions which Amnesty International seeks to serve. It works for the release of prisoners of conscience- men and women detained anywhere for their beliefs, colour, ethnic origin, religion or languagealways provided that they have neither used nor advocated violence. Amnesty International opposes torture and capital punishment in all cases, without reservation. It advocates fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners. It is independent of all governments, even though members of this Parliament in their individual capacities support the movement. Amnesty Internationa] undertakes a large number of activities in support of human rights. If I may disgress for one moment, I simply remind the Senate that a year ago an Australian Amnesty International mission went to Indonesia, in respect of which concern had been expressed about the rights of prisoners. I had the honour then to be a member of that Amnesty International mission to Indonesia, together with Mr McGarvie who was the President of the Victorian Bar Council- an eminent counsel from Victoria- and the Rev. Neil Gilmore, President of the Australian Council of Churches. We went to Indonesia on behalf of Amnesty International to do what we could to advance the cause of human rights. We went with Mrs Leonore Ryan, who is the organising secretary of Amnesty International, and one of the members of the secretariat.

This parliamentary group is not a normal Amnesty International group. It does not carry out the usual activity of Amnesty International, which is to adopt one, two or three prisoners and to work for their release. It concerns itself in a different way with particular issues. It has taken a special interest in political prisoners who fall within certain categories. These include judges, parliamentarians and journalists. These people are looked upon as being people who have a special responsibility for upholding laws and personal freedoms. The special interest that we take in persons within these categories decides much of the action we take when trying to solve particular problems. We have addressed ourselves to several issues of importance in the last year. I should like to remind the Senate of some of them. We are particularly concerned about parliamentarians who are in prison. I remind the Senate that at the present time we are aware of 1 12 parliamentarians in prison around the world as prisoners of conscience because of their beliefs, for whom we would work. They are our colleagues in other countries, and some of them have been in prison for 1 1 years without trial. They fall within the ambit of activities of Amnesty International. We are not particularly interested in whether the parties they represent or the system they represent are ones which agree with our own philosophy. Thomas Paine, the great American democrat, said:

He who would guard his own liberty must guard even his enemy from oppression.

What has this parliamentary group done in the last year? Firstly, more than 90 members of the 29th Parliament signed a petition last year, and those members included members of the Senate and members of the House of Representatives. That particular petition was concerned with a senator from Chile and members of his family who had been arrested and who had not been brought to trial. We had received reports of the arrest, imprisonment and torture of that man. Ninety members of this Parliament signed and forwarded that petition to the President of Chile- an appropriate activity- seeking the release of that senator, Senator George Montes.

We have concerned ourselves since then particularly with activities and events inside Russia, because they also form part of our amnesty concern. We have known for some time about problems with civil liberties inside the Soviet Union. One can read The Gulag Archipelago, Cancer Ward, One day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, or one can read some of the official Amnesty publications, particularly A Chronicle of Current Events, which is one of the publications of the underground. Those documents have been brought out and published by Amnesty International, and they set out in detail facts about a number of the prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union. They are named and their situation is given. We are concerned about human rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and last year 90 members of the Parliament forwarded a petition to Mr Kosygin, who was Chairman of the Council of Ministers in Moscow.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What about all the Watergate political prisoners?

Senator BAUME:

– I hear an interjection from Senator O’Byrne. I assure Senator O’Byrne that wherever in the world -

Senator O’Byrne:

– What about the political prisoners in Indonesia?

Senator BAUME:

– I have already mentioned Indonesia. Wherever in the world there is a threat to personal liberties Amnesty International will be active, whether it is in Chile, in Indonesia, or anywhere else. Our concern with the situation in Russia has nothing to do with the political system in that country; it has only to do with the people who are under threat. The petition which we sent last year concerned the members of the Amnesty group in Moscow. I ask the Senate to consider what it means to form an Amnesty International group in Moscow in the situation which exists there, to make it known that an Amnesty International group is in existence, and to work for Amnesty International.

At the time we sent that petition last June we had become aware that 2 members of the Russian Chapter of Amnesty International had been arrested in the previous April. They were Dr Andrei Tverdokhlebov, and Dr Sergei Kovalev. At the time we sent that petition to Mr Kosygin neither of those men had been charged, neither had been brought to trial. We could not find out what had happened to them. We asked the Soviet authorities to decide what crimes they had committed, to bring them to trial, or to release them.

We have subsequently discovered that Dr Kovalev was brought to trial in December. We are led to believe from sources which we understand to be reliable that the trial was conducted not completely in accordance with the established legal code of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For his activities in working for Amnesty International he has been sentenced to 10 years gaol. We understand also that Dr

Tverdokhlebov is soon to be tried. The members of the Amnesty International group pay tribute to the courage of these men, for what they have done, for the work that they are doing on behalf of political prisoners in their own country and in other countries, and for the fact that like other Amnesty International groups, they have taken an interest in political prisoners around the world.

We are concerned that they should not now be oppressed for their beliefs in this area. Accordingly, we have produced a petition, which has been circulated in this Parliament, to be forwarded on to Mr Brenzhnev. Already 122 members of the Thirtieth Parliament- more than twothirds of all the members of the Australian Parliament- have signed this petition. More members have indicated that they wish to sign the petition. It is an expression of bi-partisan support for the principle of human rights and for the desire that these men should get a fair trial. I shall read the petition which is to be forwarded on to Mr Brezhnev. It reads as follows:

To: His Excellency, Mr L. I. Brezhnev

The Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International last year expressed concern at the arrest of two members of the Soviet Group of Amnesty International, Dr Andrei Tverdokhlebov the secretary, and Dr Sergei Kovalev.

We were deeply disturbed that Dr Kovalev was sentenced last December to ten years imprisonment. From reports we have received the sentence was passed at a trial where many correct procedures were violated.

We, being members of the Australian Parliament, call on you now to ensure that Dr Tverdokhlebov’s imminent trial is conducted openly and fairly. We ask also that permission be given for the observer from Amnesty International to attend the trial.

We urge you also to cease the present harassment of the Chairman of the Soviet Group of Amnesty International, Dr Valentin Turchin, and its new secretary, Mr Vladimir Albrekht.

As I have said, already 122 members of this Parliament have signed the petition. We intend to send this petition on. Our last petition was noted around the world. It was reported on the front page of the New York newspapers that members of the Australian Parliament thought the matter important enough to make their views known. I believe that our concern is a worthy one and that the cause of Amnesty International is worthy. I believe that our support for officers of the Soviet Group of Amnesty International in Moscow is necessary and that it is a proper expression of a world-wide human rights movement and concern for human rights.

We shall forward this petition now to Mr Brezhnev and we hope that he and his officials will take notice of it. We hope that this expression of protest will be heeded and understood as being serious and considered. We hope that it will be understood that the petition is sent reluctantly. We shall watch with great care the imminent Moscow trial of Dr Tverdokhlebov. I remind the Senate that our view of any society, whether it be Indonesia, Chile or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is based to some extent on the impartiality of its justice and of its legal system and by the liberality of its laws and practice. I thank the Senate for the courtesy of hearing this petition. I urge any honourable senators who have not signed it to consider whether the petition warrants their support.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I think it is fitting that I should have something to say in respect of the debate which has been initiated by Senator Baume this evening- not to deal with the matter in any more detail insofar as the specific activity of Amnesty International, of the Australian Parliamentary Group of which many of us are members, but rather to extend the debate to the events that are taking place in Timor and to express the hope that the publication of what I have to say might also lend whatever weight is necessary to bring about a peaceful solution to the problems that beset that smali but important country to the north of Australia.

Today, as President of a parliamentary group known as the Friends of Timor, I caused to be sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations a cable for which we were able to get the support of some 55 members of the national Parliament. As Senator Baume indicated, we have been able to get the support of members of all the political parties that comprise the national Parliament. To date some 55 members have placed their signatures on this statement which takes the form of a petitition urging the immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 384 which calls upon the Government of Indonesia to withdraw all its forces from the territory of East Timor without delay. I think the significance of this is that whilst there are 43 members of the Parliamentary Labor Party who have signed the petition, 12 members of the Government parties saw fit to be associated with this statement which has been cabled to the Secretary-General.

We called not only for the withdrawal of Indonesian troops and the satellite Provisional Government that exists there but also for the establishment of a United Nations presence in East Timor so that there can be a free and proper vote on self-determination by the indigenous people of that territory. In addition, we asked for the establishment of relief agencies and for International Red Cross to carry out its humanitarian work in the former Portuguese colony of Portuguese Timor. Mr President, it may be convenient, if the Senate gives me leave, to have incorporated in Hansard the statement and the signatures so that it becomes a document of the Senate. I think that when issues enjoy the support of all political trends in the national Parliament it is a matter of some significance.

The PRESIDENT:

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

THE SECURITY COUNCIL UNITED NATIONS

As members of the Australian Federal Parliament we urge the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations to the serious situation in Portuguese Timor and we call on the Council to press for the immediate implementation of Security Council Resolution 384, in particular the call upon the Government of Indonesia to withdraw all its forces from the territory without delay, and we call for the extension to the people of East Timor of an opportunity to exercise freely their right to self-determination.

In order that this right be extended freely, we urge that a United Nations presence be established in Portuguese Timor without delay. We also urge that access to Portuguese Timor be provided at once for teams of the International Red Cross and other humanitarian relief agencies in an effort to alleviate the suffering of the victims of this tragic situation.

Bryant, M.P. for Wills, Vic; R. Jacobi, M.P. for Hawker, S.A.; K. Fry, M.P. for Fraser, A.C.T.; K. Sibraa, Senator for N.S.W.; P. Morris, M.P. for Shortland, Vic; J. L. Armitage, M.P. for Chifley, N.S.W.; L. G. Wallis, M.P. for Grey, S.A.; I. Macphee, M.P. for Balaclava, Vic; D. Chipp, M.P. for Hotham, Vic; M. H. Bungey, M.P. for Canning, W.A.; A. Missen, Senator for Vic; M. H. Cass, M.P. for Maribyrnong, Vic; N. Bonner, Senator for Qld; G. Davidson, Senator for S.A.; F. M. Chaney, Senator for W.A.; K. Martin, Senator for Qld; B. Kilgariff, Senator for N.T.; L. Johnson, M.P. for Hughes, N.S.W.; F. Stewart, M.P. for Lang, N.S.W.; J. L. McMahon, M.P. for Sydney; J. M. Wheeldon, Senator for W.A.; F. Crean, M.P. for Melbourne Ports, Vic; A. T. Gietzelt, Senator for N.S.W.; G. Georges, Senator for Qld; G. Mcintosh, Senator for W.A.; S. Ryan, Senator for A.C.T.; P. Walsh, Senator for W.A.; J. Keene, Senator for Qld; G. McLaren, Senator for S.A.; W. Brown, Senator for Vic; J. Melzer, Senator for Vic; J. Button, Senator for Vic; D. Cameron, Senator for S.A.; D. J. Grimes, Senator for Tas,; R. Bishop, Senator for S.A.; D. McClelland, Senator for N.S.W.; E. A. Robertson, Senator for N.T.; D. Devitt, Senator for Tas.; R. Coleman, Senator for W.A.; C. G. Primmer, Senator for Vic; K. Beazley, M.P. for Fremantle, W.A.; H. A. Jenkins, M.P. for Scullin, Vic; C. Hurford, M.P. for Adelaide, S.A.; C. K. Jones, M.P. for Newcastle, N.S.W.; G. Scholes, M.P. for Corio, Vic; M. J. Young, M.P. for Port Adelaide, S.A.; A. Whitlam, M.P. for Grayndler, N.S.W; K. S. Wriedt, Senator for Tas.; J. L. Cavanagh, Senator for S.A.; J. F. Cairns, M.H.R. for Lalor, Vic; D. S. Jessop, Senator for S.A.; P. Rae, Senator for Tas.; B. King, M.P. for Wimmera, Vic; T. Uren, M.P. for Reid, N.S.W.; J. O’Byrne, Senator for Tas.; R. E. McAuliffe, Senator for Qld; J. Mulvihill, Senator for N.S.W.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I thank honourable senators. What prompted me to speak in this debate this evening- I am grateful to Senator Baume for informing me that he intended to raise the matter of civil liberties and the rights of people in the adjournment debate this eveningwas the receipt on the table in my Senate room today of a document with the compliments of the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia. It is an expensive publication titled Massacre in East Timor. It is interesting that whilst it is claimed to be issued by the Provisional Government it has no printer’s imprint on it. Anybody who has had the opportunity to go to East Timor would appreciate that it is beyond the capacity and resources of the people of that former colony to print such a publication as this. Clearly it has been printed in either Australia or Indonesia. I am sure that it is more likely to be the latter than the former. It is interesting that the publication begins by showing on the main internal page a photo of a gentleman described as Arnaldo dos Reis Araujo, the Chairman of the Provisional Government. He seeks to express the Provisional Government’s point of view about the events that have taken place in Timor over the last year or so.

Honourable senators may be aware that in the middle of March last year five of my parliamentary colleagues from the Australian Labor Party and I went on the trip to the colony of Portuguese Timor, as it was then under the control of the Portuguese administration. We went there to evaluate for ourselves the circumstances that were leading to the tensions within the former colony. We became the guests of the Portuguese authorities who had begun the process of decolonisation, preparing the people for the act of self-determination and for independence. We went there without preconceived ideas. We went there to satisfy ourselves about the developments and to speak to all the main political groups that existed in Portuguese Timor.

We were able to speak to the Acting Governorthe Governor arrived there only the day before we left- to the officers of the Armed Forces Movement, the Catholic Biship in Dili and to the leaders of the Chinese community. We spoke to the Central Committee of the Fretilin organisation and to the Central Committee of the UDT, which I suppose could be described as a sort of middle class party. We also spoke to the leaders of the Apodeti party, which is the party that favours integration of Timor with Indonesia. Each of those 3 political parties to which we spoke gave us the documents freely. We brought them back to this country and they are in our files. Unfortunately my copies happen to be in Sydney but I have borrowed a copy from the honourable member for Fraser, Mr Fry, who was one of the members of that delegation. One of the documents made freely available to us by the political groups in Timor is the manifesto and preamble of the aims and objectives of the Apodeti party, the pro-Indonesian party. It contains a short biography of the Chairman of the Timorese Popular Democratic Association, Arnaldo Des Reis Aranjo, and has this to say:

After the 2nd World War, he was captured by the Portugese authorities, accused of having collaborated with the Japanese administration. He was placed under arrest -

As it turned out the words there should have been ‘house arrest’- for 29 years, after his release from prison-

That is the gentleman who has published this document which has been circulated to all members of Parliament today. I think that anyone who knows anything about politics at all would appreciate that the Portugese have not been renowned for their democratic tendencies. In fact they were the oldest fascist government in the world, having survived for something like 49 years.

The colonial Administration, which was rather repressive in its behaviour, at the end of World War II saw fit to sentence thisgentleman to gaol or to place him under house arrest for 29 years. I am sure that those associated with Amnesty International would regard that as a pretty harsh penalty. Nevertheless this is thegentleman who now has the gall to circulate to members of the national Parliament of Australia documents which seek to convey the impression that the socalled atrocities that they claim to have taken place in East Timor have been carried out solely by the Fretilin movement. The facts are that when we went there in March of last year the administration was in the hands of the Portuguese authorities. It will be remembered that in July the UDT, which previously was in unity with the Fretilin forces for the purpose of the transference of political power for the act of selfdetermination and independence, broke with the Fretilin movement following a visit by leaders of that movement to Australia and Indonesia. They attempted a coup which for several weeks placed them in command of the territory of East Timor. Subsequently the coup was broken and defeated by the Fretilin forces, with the assistance of soldiers who formerly were part of and under the command of the Portuguese administration.

I want to leave that point and to talk about some of the experiences that we had when we were in Timor in March last year because also in this document which has been circulated is a statement to which some prominence was given and which was made by an Australian who has received some notoriety in Australia. This person has been headlined throughout the world because of his allegations about atrocities and repression in Timor. I refer to none other than Rex Syddell. One of the advantages of having a somewhat untidy filing system is that some interesting items are not thrown away. It happens that on the occasion of our visit the Portuguese authorities decided to split the Australian party of six into two. Three of us went on a trip to one part of the island by helicopter- I stress that we went by helicopter because there is no road system capable of transporting people from one section of the island to the other- and three of us went to the other end of the island. We arrived by helicopter at a place called Tutuala which is on the eastern perimeter of the island. The moment we alighted from the helicopter a young Timorese person approached me, I think principally because I was the first person off the helicopter, and handed me this note which is headed:

Rex Reckerby Kerridge Martin Syddell Tutuala- Timor Portuguese

That is the heading of the letter. It is part of the letterhead and the letter is dated 19 March 1975.

This is what he said in the letter:

Gentlemen,

As an Australian now retired here in Tutuala I apologise for any discourtesy on not being present at your arrival today due to my Cardiac condition and at the moment on medical advice being prohibited from walking more than 50 paces a day.

If you can spare a little time you are cordially invited to visit my wife andI just behind the church as 1 may be able to add some additional information in your factfinding tour not available to you currently.

Your visit to Timor is indeed a much needed tonic for the people as endorsed last night on the local Dili Radio.

If you cannot make it please leave me the Member, Title and address of your ‘Mission’ that I can write to you back home in Canberra.

Being Australians and receiving a note stating that an Australian wished to see us we naturally accorded him our first few minutes in that part of the island. We went up and had tea and coffee with him and enjoyed his hospitality for a short time during which he plied us with questions and gave us some information. The interesting thing is that he made some rather alarming statements to us. He told us, for example, that he had information from Central Intelligence Agency agents. I want to assure the Senate that I checked out my recollection of this matter with Senator Mcintosh and Dr Richard Gun. My recollection of the discussion can be confirmed by discussions with those two gentlemen. He said that the CIA agents had informed him about Indonesian troop movements along the border and gave us the impression that Indonesians were prepared to invade East Timor. He said he had been in touch, by correspondence, with prominent people in Australia about this matter. The interesting thing is that this gentleman, Mr Syddell, who made these wild allegations several weeks ago claimed that in Jakarta he had certain documentary evidence in respect of the events in Timor. He said that it was buried in graves in Timor- he made the statements from Jakartaand that he wished to present evidence to show that the Fretilin forces were those responsible for the atrocities which obviously have not been published in this document.

I find this very interesting because, when we were there, Mr Syddell indicated to us that he had contacts in Australia with people in high places. He indicated to us that he was sympathetic to the independence movement, that he had no time for Indonesia and that we should use every endeavour possible when we returned to Australia to alert the Australian people to the possibilities of an invasion by Indonesia. The next time we heard about him, he was in Jakarta where he was making these claims about Fretilin forces and was making statements which are now published in this document.

Senator Walters:

– Perhaps he learnt something.

Senator GIETZELT:

– It would be interesting, senator, if you would listen and not have a closed mind as obviously you have. It is interesting that on the second occasion when we went to Timor in September Mr Syddell had sent several cables from Tutuala. He had certain radio links. He was able to tell us some of the events which had taken place in Australia in the week that we had been up in Timor. He was a very well-informed person. One interesting fact about Mr Syddell is that he sent cables to an Australian journalist living in Dili, during the period when we were there in September- she was there until November of last year- in which he asked her for her help because his pension cheques had not arrived from Australia. He asked her to do what she could to try to chase up the Australian authorities as he did not have much ready cash and his pension cheques had not arrived. In these several cables that he sent to this Australian journalist, he made no mention about duress or any allegations about atrocities. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that on the second occasion when we were back in Timor in September the Fretilin forces had been in control of Timor some several months.

Mr Syddell made the statement that he was a very sick man and he was not able to do very much to help himself. That appeared in his request for assistance to the Australian journalist. Before we know very much more, this gentleman is in Jakarta. He then flies to Australia, has a Press conference in Sydney, comes to Canberra and talks to officers of the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Then this person, lo and behold, catches a plane to the United Nations for the purpose of presenting a point of view opposite to that of the legitimate government, the Fretilin government, which proclaimed its independence in October of last year. This is the gentleman who could not walk 50 paces to meet us at the helicopter. This is the gentleman who is relying on pension cheques to keep him alive. He suddenly finds the funds to go to Jakarta, Australia and the United Nations. He is the one who tells these wild stories of socalled actrocities and repression under the Fretilin administration.

I have tried to establish what I could about Mr Syddell as I was disturbed to read what he had to say. It is interesting that, when he was a resident of Darwin several years ago, he claimed to be working for an Australian intelligence organisation.

Senator Mulvihill:

-He is a Walter Mitty.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I do not know what sort of a ‘nitty-gritty’ or a Walter Mitty he might be. But he is a very peculiar sort of individual who is so sick that he cannot travel and then can travel half way round the world, who has no money but suddenly finds money, and who tells us- the 3 members of our party can confirm this to any inquiry that might be held- that the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in the activities of the Indonesian invasion. He then lends himself to a story about atrocities and seeks to convince the Australian people that the provisional government which now has temporary control of Indonesia ought to be supported.

I believe that when the Australian Government made its declaration about Timor in November last year it ordered all Australians to leave Timor. It refused to guarantee the safety of any Australian. Honourable senators might recall that only one Australian that we knew of at that particular time, Roger East, a journalist from Darwin, stayed in Dili and he was probably shot by invading forces from Indonesia on the day on which they marched into Dili or paratroopers were landed in Dili and troops came ashore from the naval base. It is interesting that Mr Syddell was not brought out of Dili. All of the medical and humanitarian aid groups with which Senator Baume had been associated and the various relief agencies which Australian aid organisations had provided had withdrawn from Dili virtually under instructions from the Australian Government, but Mr Syddell stayed there.

I have no doubt at all that Mr Syddell had some intelligence gathering mission in Portguese Timor- in East Timor. I have no doubt at all, based on what I recollect of the discussions that I had with that gentleman and in the subsequent statements that he made, that that gentleman has had some association with intelligence gathering in this country. I am told for example, and I am concerned about this, that when there was some doubt about the validity of the Fretilin claim about Indonesian planes, troops and warships appearing off their territory which of course borders on to East Timor- we remember what happened to the 5 Australian journalists or newsmenat our naval headquarters at Shoalhaven in New South Wales over our naval radio, which was daily monitoring the troop movements taking place in East Timor, the Indonesian order to shoot the Australian newsmen was actually heard. Yet no government has been preparedthe past Government or this Government- to tell us what has happened.

Five Australian journalists were shot down in cold blood. I have been told on reliable information that that information was heard on Australian radio at Shoalhaven. The order went out to kill the Australians because Australia was taking up the issues about the rights of people. I pay tribute to Senator Bonner and Ken Fry who came with me to Timor on the second occasion. Even if it were left to the personal initiative of individual members in this Parliament we were still keeping the Australian flag flying in respect of our desire for the rights of people to be upheld. Yet there has never been a satisfactory answer given to the Australian people or to this Parliament, by either the last Government or this Government, about what happened to those Australians. The only voice that has been raised has been that of the Australian Journalists Association and it is to our everlasting shame that such a situation should be allowed to continue and that we have never demanded the return of those bodies, that we have never demanded an explanation of how these people were shot in the back and buried in a common grave in that part of East Timor.

What has happened? I put Mr Woolcott, our Ambassador in Jakarta, in the category of being one of the guilty men. There are people who have blood on their hands in this issue. He sent a cable to Mr Peacock suggesting that the Australian Government should lay low in respect to the issue of East Timor. To the everlasting credit of some individual, that cable was leaked so that we knew what the Department of Foreign Affairs was endeavouring to do. It was also endeavouring to influence the attitude of the Labor Prime Minister and the Labor Government prior to the dissolution of the Parliament on 1 1 November last year. This document I have before me states that all the people shown on itthey were Apodeti members- were detained in Dili, that they had been taken away by the Fretilin’s gang. The second name there is Jose Fernando Osorio Soares. I am not able to pronounce the name properly because I am not a linguist. However, that gentleman is the secretary-general of the Apodeti party. Mr Fry, Senator Bonner and I were in Dili in September of last year. I cannot be sure whether Senator Bonner was with us at the time when we were sitting in the Hotel Dili talking to the doctors who are friends of Senator Baume. Sitting at the next table having a cold beer, as Australians normally would do, was this gentleman, the secretarygeneral of the Apodeti movement. He was alive and well and freely able to move about under the administration of the Fretilin party. This document is a tissue of lies. The Indonesian Government ought to hang its head in shame over it. It is a document that perpetuates the lies that have been poured out on Indonesian radio over the last year or so.

For example, in September when Mr Fry and I asked to go as far forward as we possibly could to look at the areas which we had read in the Australian newspapers were in the hands of the Apodeti, pro-Indonesian forces, we went to a town called Suwai. We flew over the mountains into this town in a small 3-seater aeroplane from Dili. We walked from the airport to meet the people at the Catholic mission and hospital that is operating there. According to the Indonesian propaganda, it was in the hands of the people favouring the Apodeti movement. They said that it had been taken away from the Fretilin government.

We spoke to a dear old aged nun who must have been in her late 80s or early 90s. She spoke just a little English. We spoke to some of the teaching brothers. We spoke to the priest in charge of the hospital and the mission. We had cups of coffee. They even opened a can of beer for me and Ken Fry had a whisky. We enjoyed their hospitality for several hours because whilst we were there a lady, a Timorese person, was in the hospital with very serious complications following a birth. We were told that unless she was got back to the Dili hospital that evening she would not live more than 24 hours. So we surrendered our aeroplane for her to be flown back to Dili. We stayed to talk to the people in that village, in the hospital and the church. I can only repeat what was an experience. Honourable senators can take it or leave it. We asked them questions in English and they replied to us in English. They had not even heard a shot fired. They had not seen anything of the war. They had very little knowledge of the events that had taken place, even though one of the priests seemed to indicate a certain affinity with the Fretilin movement in a personal capacity. I want the Senate to realise what propaganda can do, what distortion of the facts can do and what withholding of the facts can do in creating a climate of opinion in respect of the aspirations of people.

I know that honourable senators are weary- it has been a hard day- but I should like to conclude by referring to a statement that was made by another one of the Leaders of the Apodeti movement, Mr Lopez da Cruz, the deputy leader of the pro-Indonesian provisional Government of East Timor. He was quoted as having told a Press conference in Jakarta that there had been some 50 000 to 60 000 victims of the fighting in East Timor. I remember that last year, when I was asking a question of Senator Willesee in this place, Senator Carrick made some disparaging remarks about the 40 000 refugees who were alleged to be inside the border of Indonesia. They represented, he said, a very large proportion of the population of 600 000 in that area. Of course they represent a very large proportion of the population. But Mr Lopez da Cruz, who has been in Indonesia and who is now a member of the provisional Government, said at a Press conference in Jakarta that there had been some 50 000 to 60 000 victims of the fighting in East Timor and that many of them were women and children. He was quoted by Mr Hamish MacDonald- I think he is a reporter with one of the Sydney newspapers- as having said:

Excesses often occur now as a revenge for Fretilin’s cruelty when it was in power.

My colleague Senator Primmer recently asked, through Senator Withers, a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). In his reply, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said:

In response to its inquiries in Jakarta, the Government - that is the Australian 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 197S, and that the figures included the 40 000 refugees who fled to Indonesian Timor in August and September, as well as others displaced from their homes as a result of the fighting. Mention was also made of mass graves discovered at Aileu and Bobonaro after their capture by PGET forces from Fretilin.

What sort of information is the Government getting from its sources of information in Indonesia or, for that matter, from any other intelligence gathering source? Less than a fortnight ago the same gentleman- he was one of the gentlemen from Apodeti who handed us this booklet- was quoted again as saying that he had told the Press in Jakarta that some 50 000 to 60 000 people had been massacred. It is interesting to note that he does not acknowledge that those figures included the 40 000 people who the Australian Government said were part of the total number of people who had been affected by the war. I think there is something to be said for the Senate knowing something of the circumstances of the events in Timor and of the silence of the Australian Government about the invasion -

Senator Missen:

– And the Whitlam Government.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Both governments-the previous Government and this Government. I am not prepared to defend indefensible positions.

Senator Coleman:

– The Australian Government.

Senator GIETZELT:

– The Australian Government- period- has been inactive.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Shame on the Australian Government.

Senator GIETZELT:

– It ought to be ashamed of itself for its failure to take a principal position. I know it can be argued, and it has been argued, that we had no particular interest in that area because it was a colonial possession, but if Australia holds to that argument how much more does it apply to the actions of the Indonesian Government? If we take a position of principle that we do not interfere because it is none of our concern, how much more correct are we in demanding that the Indonesians have the same standards in respect of the rights and aspirations of the people of Timor?

I think there is need for an explanation by the Government about our intelligence gathering in Timor over the last year, about the reports that have been given to the Australian Government. I believe that they were doctored reports. I found that I could not make much headway against Mr

Whitlam ‘s understanding of the problem because those reports were doctored. I am prepared to believe that Mr Syddell if he is not a member of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, has some connection with that secretive organisation called ASIS- Australian Security Intelligence Service- which is part of an organisation that has been set up for intelligence gathering within the Department of Foreign Affairs. I trunk this Parliament is entitled to know where the Australian Government is getting its information, particularly when we are concernedSenator Baume was correct when he said we are concerned- about political persecution, about oppression, about the rights of people. How can we be indifferent to the 600 000 people who are in a certain stage of their development -

Senator O’Byrne:

– Next door neighbours too.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Next door neighbours too. These people are part of our responsibility in our region. They only want the right to determine their affairs, a right which we have fought for and won and hope to hold in our own country. How can a government remain indifferent to the very important principle upon which the United Nations is founded? I want to leave that thought with the Senate and I want to encourage honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives to take their own personal initiatives on matters of foreign affairs. Do not leave it to the bureaucrats and the intelligence gatherers and those who make decisions which affect the rights of others in secretive sorts of ways, where the Parliament and the people of Australia are denied legitimate access to information on the course of events that are taking place.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

- Mr President, I was not aware that my colleague on the other side of the chamber was going to bring this matter before the Senate tonight. Consequently I have been caught flatfooted. I had the opportunity of visiting East Timor last year with Senator Gietzelt and Mr Fry. I believe Australia has been found wanting in relation to the problems that face the people of East Timor. When I visited that place I spoke with many people and I came away with a very saddened heart at the part Australia had played, or had not played, during the turmoil that was taking place at that time. I had a distinct feeling during my visit that many of the people there identified more with me than they identified with my colleagues. Perhaps that was because of pigmentation of skin. They confided in me many things; they confided in me many of their problems. They asked me to come back to Australia and tell the Australian people of their feelings and what they expected Australia to do in relation to the problems that they were facing at that time. On my return to Australia I endeavoured to communicate with the then Prime Minister to convey to him the feelings of the people of East Timor and to inform him what they were seeking from the Australian people. What they were seeking was simple and perhaps could have averted a lot of the bloodshed that has occurred since the visit of the 3 members of the Australian Parliament, namely, Senator Gietzelt, Mr Ken Fry and me. Unfortunately, my endeavours to meet with the Prime Minister at that time met with rebuff. Whether that was warranted by the then Prime Minister I am not prepared to canvass at this time. I also endeavoured to convince the then shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs but he likewise, I feel, rebuffed my efforts to convey to him the true situation in East Timor.

I believe that both the then Government and perhaps the present Government should equally share the blame for what has happened in East Timor. Had Australia acted then and acceded to the requests that were transmitted through the 3 Australians who visited East Timor, I believe that a lot of the problems that the East Timorese people are facing now could well have been averted. What was put to me by both the then President, or the man who claimed to be President, and what in our way of speaking might be termed his executive was that they had a feeling very deep towards Australia, and that there was a need for humanitarian aid in the form of food, medical supplies, mechanical equipment and such things. I became separated from my 2 colleagues, as Senator Gietzelt could tell the Senate, and I spoke with these people for some time. I believe that they identified with me because of my pigmentation of skin. I was a coloured man and came from Australia. They were, perhaps, more prepared to spell out their true feelings to me as they were not to members of the delegation who were not of the same colour as they.

They said to me: ‘We would ask you, Neville, to go back to Australia and tell the Australian people of the turmoil that is going on in East Timor. And we would ask you to tell the Australian people that we need this kind of assistance.’ At that time East Timor was in turmoil. There was fighting and killing and a kind of a war going on. I said: ‘Well, look, if I could go back to Australia and convince the Australian people that you needed this kind of assistance and the Australian people agreed and were prepared to give this kind of assistance, how can we, as Australians, be convinced that you will give this kind of aid to all the people of East Timor?’ Now the members of the Fretilin movement to whom I was talking- Jose Horta and the President and the various members of the executive council as it were- said to me: ‘Well, look, Senator Bonner -

Senator Sheil:
Senator BONNER:

-‘Well look, Neville, we are not asking you to send this to East Timor and give to us as a Fretilin movement. You send it up and send Australian people here whether they be Red Cross or some non-political organisation and come and distribute this humanitarian aid yourselves. We do not want the responsibility because we may be inclined to give it to those who support us. But you send Australian people and distribute the humanitarian aid impartially throughout East Timor. ‘

To me, that seemed a reasonable kind of a request. They said: ‘Look, Neville, on top of that, send a team of Australian people. We do not care whether they are members of Parliament, whether they are members of a church organisation, whether they are members of a charitable organisation or whoever they might be; send them up here to look at the whole thing themselves and ascertain the situation for the peace of mind or whatever of the Australian people so that there will be impartial observation of what is happening in East Timor.’ I do not think that we could ask for anything fairer than that. They wanted Australia to send this aid to be distributed by Australians impartially throughout the whole of East Timor. They wanted Australian people to go to East Timor, to observe and to talk to all the East Timorese people to ascertain for Australia the true situation in East Timor.

I came back with that kind of information and I am sure that Arthur Gietzelt and Ken Fry came back with the same kind of information. But we could not stir the Australian people, the Australian Government or the Australian Opposition into listening to us. We know what transpired.

Senator Gietzelt:

– We failed.

Senator BONNER:

– We have failed the East Timorese people. We have failed as Australians. One of the saddest things that I have ever witnessed in my whole life and which I will never forget happened during this time that I was in East Timor when young Jose took me around on my own as an Australian- as a member of Parliament. I think most of all, I was able to identify with the people. I was able to meet a lot of East Timorese people and in particular old men of 60 to 70 years of age. I could not understand their langauge- more is the pity- but when young Jose told them who I was and where I came from they embraced me. These elderly men said: ‘You from Australia. We glad you come. Our problems are all over. Australia will come and help us. We remember that we fought alongside Australians during the war against Japan. We, the members of this community, gave our lives to ensure that Australians were able to return to Australian shores and fight again.’ The East Timorese sacrificed lives to ensure that Australians came back to the Australian shores to fight and to preserve the things that we want to preserve. In their hour of need where were we Australians? The East Timorese were prepared to sacrifice their lives, the most precious thing that any human being can have, so that the Australians could return to Australia and fight and preserve those things that we as Australians enjoy today.

I believe that we as Australians have failed the East Timorese people dismally. From here on I do not know what the answer is. I would be a fool to be so presumptious as to try to say what I believe is the answer in East Timor. I do know this, and I say it with great humility: We as Australians have failed those who were our allies during our greatest crisis. I believe that all of us, both the previous Government and those who were then in Opposition and who have since become the Government, should hang our heads in shame.

Thursday, 8 April 1976

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

– It is now early in the morning and I have listened with the greatest of attention from the beginning of this debate until the last speaker sat down. Those of us who are here have given the debate a lot of time and a lot of attention. It was begun by Senator Baume in the general area of Amnesty which I quite agree is a most worthy undertaking and in the bi-partisan characteristic of it is an admirable thing for the Parliament to be involved in, with the officers of the Parliament. Senator Gietzelt took the opportunity to develop a much larger debate on East Timor, to which I also listened with a great deal of attention, as I did to the observations of Senator Bonner. They have both been to East Timor and they made their comments. They both expressed concern about the whole problem. All I wish to say is that this is really their version of the facts and the events on which they have produced evidence for us and as they best can support it.

I listened carefully enough to the discussion- it was a discussion rather than a debate- and I thought to myself: ‘This is one occasion on which I would wish the whole record of the discussion to be communicated to officials in the current government, and perhaps those in the previous government who were very heavily involved might care to read it also’. I think it should be directed to the Department of Foreign Affairs, because certain of its officers have been fairly heavily criticised and they of course are entitled to defend themselves with their version of the events, as everybody always is when a matter like this is under review. It is, as presented to us, a serious matter. I take it seriously; I do not take it lightly. In all these things I want to see the total version of the facts to make my own judgment on the matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.11 a.m. (Thursday)

page 1176

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Sydney Athletic Field (Question No. 4)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. When did the Australian Governent offer the New South Wales Government funds to modernise the Sydney Athletic Field.
  2. ) What were the conditions associated with the offer and what was the response of the New South Wales Government.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Government has not offered funds to the New South Wales Government to modernise the Sydney Athletic Field, However, a grant of $250,000 has been offered to the City of Sydney for the development of the E. S. Marks Field to provide an international standard facility (including synthetic athletic track) to cater for a variety of sporting activities.

This grant was approved by Senator Withers, as caretaker Minister for Tourism and Recreation on the advice of the then Department of Tourism and Recreation that the grants were in accordance with existing policies and that similar programs were continuing in other Departments.

Under existing arrangements, this grant would be paid to the City of Sydney through the Sport and Recreation Service of New South Wales.

  1. As well as the usual administrative conditions, the following specific conditions were associated with the offer:

    1. The project should meet acceptable environmental standards.
    2. b) The grant was to be matched by the State $ for $.
    3. Funds were unlikely to be available this financial years; funds would be sought from the 1976-77 Federal Budget.

The City Council has not yet responded as to the present position of its negotiations with the New South Wales Government.

Ill Health and Child Abuse (Question No. 48)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

To what extent are the factors listed in the article on page 3 17 of the Lancet of 16 August 1975, on ill health and child abuse, a true reflection of the factors operating in cases of this problem coming to the attention of the authorities in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The number of cases of this problem coming to the attention of the authorities in the Australian Capital Territory is very small. With a minimal sample it has not been possible to clarify highly significant and over-represented factors as has been done in the British survey referred to.

Agencies involved in dealing with this group of families in the Australian Capital Territory are now meeting regularly and looking at both factors involved and treatment programmes.

The Department of Health has advised that no surveys have been conducted in the Northern Territory on the subpect of child abuse but the general view is that the overall situation is about the same as applies in southern states except so far as the Aboriginal population is concerned where the problem does not exist.

A review of the incidence of cases over the last twelve months shows that three authenticated cases may have come to the attention of the Department of the Northern Territory.

Karumba Progress Association Clinic (Question No. 78)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Will the clinic operated by the Karumba Progress Association at Karumba in North Queensland be forced to close within the next few months because the building in which it operates is required by the owners, Messrs Craig Mostyn and Co., for expansion purposes.
  2. Has the Minister received a submission from the Karumba Progress Association requesting funds totalling $9,000, this amount being 75 per cent of the total cost of the construction of a new clinic; if so, will the Minister undertake to give priority to this submission so that the Aboriginal community of Karumba will not be without a clinic should they lose the use of their present premises.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I understand that the Karumba Progress Association has been advised by Messrs Craig Mostyn and Co., that the building in which the clinic is now operating will be required for Company use by 30 June 1977 and possibly as early as November 1976.

  1. The Association is already receiving support under the Community Health Program for the conduct of a nursing clinic at Karumba. The Commonwealth allocation for this purpose in the 1 975-76 financial year is $ 1 5,028. The Hospitals and Health Services Commission is currently examining a request from the Association for a further $9,000, being 75 per cent of the sum needed to build a small clinic. This request is being accorded an appropriately high priority.

Education: Reading Ability (Question No. 110)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the previous Minister for Education say on the television program ‘Federal File’, on Sunday, 31 August 1975, ‘I am assured in certain high schools . . . that children can go through the primary school reaching high school and they are not able to read. We are talking about normal children, not mentally defective children or migrant children who might have a language problem.’
  2. Was the former Minister’s answer to Senate Question No. 834 on 29 October 1975 a contradiction in that he said he was assured some high school children were unable to read and write and then went on to say that statistics were not available to him.
  3. Will the Minister ascertain from whatever sources he can, for each of the past 25 years, with a breakdown by State and Territory, how many students were known to reach secondary school without being able to read and write.
  4. If the Minister is unable to provide data for each of the last 25 years, will he provide the information sought in as much detail, and as far back, as possible.
  5. What have been the causes for high school students not being able to read and write.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I have no comment to make on the previous Minister’s answer.
  2. and (4) Systematic statistics of the kind requested are not available to me from any source. For general observations on the problem of literacy, I would again refer the honourable senator to ‘Education News’ (Volume 1 5, Nos 2 and 3, 1975), as did the former Minister in his reply of 29 October 1 975 to Senate Question No. 834.

The Australian Council for Educational Research is currently undertaking a national survey of the levels of literacy and numeracy among the 10 and 14 year old age groups. This survey will produce reliable national data for the first time, and will provide a benchmark for measuring changes in standards over time. The survey was commissioned in 1975 by the Education Research and Development Committee in response to a request from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties; this Committee of course lapsed when Parliament was prorogued in November 1975. On 17 March 1976, the House of Representatives on the motion of the Government, resolved to reconstitute this Committee. The full report of the survey is scheduled to be completed by the end of this year, but interim findings will be presented to the reconstituted Committee as they become available.

  1. Various hypotheses have been advanced, but precise evidence is lacking about the extent to which each of several possible causes contributes to the problem. Illiteracy is attributed to factors such as teaching methods, intellectual deficiency, neurological dysfunction, emotional instability and cultural deprivation. Clearly, no single factor is adequate to account for all cases of reading difficulty, and further research is necessary to elucidate the contribution of each factor and to develop appropriate remedial programs. The Education Research and Development Committee is currently supporting a number of research projects in this area.

Air and Rail Travel: Manner of Payment (Question No. 116)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1 ) Has it been the practice that passengers can pay for Trans-Australian Airlines and National Railways Tickets with personal cheques over the counter at all passenger terminals.
  2. Can passengers pay for Trans-Australian Airlines and National Railways Tickets with personal ‘bankcards’ over the counter at all passenger terminals in the States where bankcards are in use; if not, why not.
  3. If not, will the Minister request Trans-Australia Airlines and National Railways to treat bankcards the same way as personal cheques for the convenience of passengers.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The following information has been provided by the Minister for Transport in answer to the senator’s question:

  1. Yes, both TAA and ANR accept personal cheques over the counter for immediate issue of tickets, subject to normal credit restrictions.
  2. No. Neither TAA nor ANR accept personal bankcards for payment for tickets.

TAA are not in favour of introducing bankcards due to the cost penalty which accrues from their use and which adds to operating costs. Their introduction by ANR is dependent upon the results of a trial being undertaken by Victorian Railways on behalf of the other systems. If this trial proves satisfactory, ANR would favour their introduction.

  1. No. The Minister for Transport would not wish to impose a cost penalty on these Authorities if the Authorities do not consider that their introduction is warranted.

Family Planning Action Centres (Question No. 119)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. 1 ) With regard to the previous Government’s announced intention to create Family Planning ‘Action Centres’ in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, were these centres established; if so, where and when, and are they still operating.
  2. Is a report available on the value of such centres.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Action Centres proposed by the previous Government have not been established because of financial restrictions.
  2. No Australian report has been compiled because such centres have not been established in this country.

However, in the United Kingdom three services on these lines have been established. The Services are:

  1. The Brook Centres, established by the Family Planning Association, which now number nineteen.
  2. The London Youth Advisory Centres.
  3. ‘Grapevine’, an educational service for young people, also established by the Family Planning Association. and I understand that annual reports are issued by all three organisations.

Aboriginals: Employment (Question No. 163)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Will the Minister indicate what action he intends to take in the matter of Aboriginal employees working on communities in Central Australia being dismissed following a directive from the Alice Springs Regional Office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, in view of express pre-election promises that there would be no cuts in Aboriginal Affairs spending or in Aboriginal Affairs programs.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

I have already inquired into the circumstances surrounding the matters raised by the honourable senator. The employees who were retrenched were retrenched as a part of a continuing program of rationalisation of services at various settlements in the Territory.

Education: Expenditure (Question No. 202)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Department of Education for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Expenditure by my Department is recorded under functional headings as set out in the Appropriation Acts. This is a practice followed by successive governments over many years and I am not prepared to authorise the time and expenditure that would be involved in dissecting all departmental expenditure on the basis requested.

However, I draw to the honourable Senator’s attention the fact that Budget Paper No. 7, presented with the 1975-76 Budget, sets out information on expenditure in each State on the programs of the education Commissions, grants made to States for child migrant education and recurrent expenditure under the Education Research Act 1 970.

I also draw the honourable senator’s attention to the fact that there are separate divisions in the Appropriation Acts which cover most of the expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. They do not, however, include expenditure which is provided under a central appropriation such as Student Assistance Programs or Migrant Education Services.

If the honourable senator seeks information related to a particular government program or area of expenditure I shall be pleased to provide him with whatever figures are reasonably available.

Department of Science: Expenditure (Question No. 216)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

What was the expenditure by the Department of Science for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question on Notice No. 192 (Hansard, 30 March 1976, page 892).

Aboriginal Children: Education (Question No. 230)

Senator Kilgariff:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Has there been a considerable down-turn in school attendance by Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory; if so, what has caused this trend, and what action is envisaged to improve attendance at schools.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

A total of 5937 Aboriginal children were enrolled at schools in predominantly Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory on 30 June 1975. On that day 4377 (or 74 per cent) attended school. These figures compare with enrolment/attendance rates of 5802/4468 (77 per cent) on 30 June 1974, 5691/4782 (84 per cent) on 30 June 1973. 5978/5201 (87 per cent) on 30 June 1972 and 5720/5058 ( 88 per cent) on 30 June 1971.

The reasons for the lowered attendance are many and varied and complex. They include the fact that some decentralisation of Aboriginal populations has occurred with Aboriginals moving from larger centres to tribal lands some distance from established schools. The relevance of European education to Aboriginals who wish to live in the culturally satisfying environment of their own traditional country is questioned by some tribal elders. The opportunities for European style employment in areas other than the major centres of the Northern Territory or other pans of Australia destroys some of the motivation of Aboriginal students. The consumption of alcohol amongst adults certainly has an effect on attendances at schools both in closely settled and in remote areas.

Efforts are being made to increase the number of Aboriginal teachers who are able to relate well to Aboriginal students and who will be able to place more emphasis on their cultural background. A program of adult education has also begun which has an emphasis on vocational training as well as basic skills such as literacy. Planning is being undertaken to increase the vocational content of courses for Aboriginal children to make the education they receive as relevant to their likely future lives as possible. In addition my Department has taken significant steps towards providing educational facilities for Aborigines who have moved to their tribal lands from established settlements.

Fraser Island (Question No. 244)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. Did the President of the Fraser Island Defence Organisation, Mr Sinclair, allege that D.M. Minerals has breached the conditions of the lease under which the Company is mining on Fraser Island.
  2. Is one of the terms of the lease that a maximum area of 8 hectares is permitted to be kept unrehabilitated for each section dredge.
  3. Do photographs taken of the lease workings from an aircraft on 29 February 1976 show that more than 24 hectares has not been rehabilitated; if so, will the Minister cancel export licences granted by the Federal Government, on the grounds that environmental safeguards have not been strictly observed.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No. It is not possible to determine accurately from these photographs, the extent and nature of the rehabilitation work already carried out Aerial photographs to bc suitable for this purpose must be taken with special equipment and under controlled conditions.

However, as I have advised Mr Sinclair, I am making arrangements to have his allegations investigated by officers of my Department in association with officers of the Department of National Resources. When the results of that inspection are to hand, I will consult with my colleague, the Minister for National Resources, on the necessity for any action to be taken in respect of D.M. Minerals’ export licences.

National Estate (Question No. 254)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was the restoration of the old Bellevue Hotel omitted from the Government’s recently announced National Estate program for Queensland.
  2. Does the National Trust believe that the Bellevue Hotel is the most important urban conservation issue in Queensland.
  3. Did the State of Queensland make an application for funds to preserve the site.
  4. Will the Minister review this as a special case, and ensure that a beautiful historic Queensland building is not destroyed by neglect.
Senator Greenwood:
LP

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

  1. and (3) The Bellevue Hotel is owned by the Queensland Government. As no application was made by the Queensland Government under the 1975-76 National Estate program for assistance with restoration, no funds were allocated in the program. (2)I understand that the Bellevue Hotel is regarded as one of the most important urban conservation issues in Queensland by the National Trust, but of course I cannot speak with authority for the Trust, which is an independent body.
  2. The matter is essentially one between the State Government and the National Trust but if either make any approach it shall be considered as part of the future National Estate program.

Health Insurance (Question No. 284)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Were comments made in New Zealand last week, and reported in the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 13 March 1976, by the General Manager of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia, Mr John Cade, that in future health insurance funds in Australia will handle more Government business at a greatly reduced administrative cost to the nation.
  2. Does this mean that the Government intends handing over some of the functions of Medibank to the private health insurance funds.
  3. What undertaking has Mr Cade been given in this regard, even before the Medibank Review Committee has reported to the Government.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government has established the Medibank Review Committee to examine and report on 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 on Mr Cade’s suggestion.
  3. None.

Omega Station (Question No. 287)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Has the Toowoomba Development Board made official representations supporting the establishment of an Omega Navigation Station on the Darling Downs.
  2. Is this proposal being seriously considered.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Following the Government’s recent decision to proceed with the establishment of an Omega station in Australia the technical investigations of the best siting for the station will be recommended shortly. The final site selection will be made after a series of exhaustive investigations which will only be done following consultation with State and municipal authorities concerned. All siting options, including the Darling Downs area, will be given full consideration in these investigations.

Canberra: Pre-schools (Question No. 295)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister list the pre-schools which currently operate in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. ) What is the average daily capacity of each pre-school.
  3. What has been the average daily usage, based on the days that the pre-school operated, over the past year, or period of operation if less than a year, of each pre-school.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. There are 66 pre-schools in the Australian Capital Territory:

Baker Gardens, Ainslie

Rutherford Crescent, Ainslie

Gingana Street, Aranda

Savige Street, Campbell

The Causeway

Perry Drive, Chapman

Bettington Circuit, Charnwood

MacLaurin Crescent, Chifley

Rowan Street, Cook

Ayers Street, Curtin

Carruthers Street, Curtin

Hopetoun Circuit, Deakin

Strickland Crescent, Deakin

Stockdale Street, Dickson

Cotton Street, Downer

Duffield Place, Downer

Burrinjuck Crescent, Duffy

Duntroon

Heydon Crescent, Evatt

RAAF Fairbairn

Longerenong Street, Farrer

Araluen Street, Fisher

Hedland Circuit, Flynn

Robson Street, Garran

Bannister Gardens, Griffith

Stokes Street, Griffith

Thorsby Crescent, Griffith

Mills Street, Hackett

Kulgera Street, Hawker

Fullagar Crescent, Higgins

Stapylton Street, Holder

Beaurepaire Crescent, Holt

Kent Street, Hughes

Jervis Bay

Ashburton Circuit, Kaleen

Wanless Street, Latham

Garling Street, Lyneham

Ulverstone Street, Lyons

Clode Crescent, Macgregot

Bennelong Crescent, Macquarie

Enderby Street, Mawson

Grainger Circuit, Melba

Mobile Unit

Boddington Crescent, Kambah

Johnston Street, Narrabundah

Kootara Crescent, Narrabundah

Clianthus Street, O’Connor

MacPherson Street, O’Connor

Macadam Street, Page

Pendred Street, Pearce

Quiros Street, Red Hill

Dirrawan Gardens, Reid

Nealie Place, Rivett

Gatty Street, Scullin

Parsons Street, Torrens

Haig Park, Turner

Snodgrass Crescent, Kambah

Summerland Circuit, Kambah

Nemerang Crescent, Waramanga

Irvine Street, Watson

Knox Street, Watson

Southwell Street, Weetangera

Minns Place, Weston

Hill Corner, Yarralumla

MacGillivray Street, Yarralumla

Auditory Training Centre, Mawson

  1. Pre-schools of the following kinds operate:

    1. Single units with a total enrolment of either 50 or 70 children, staffed by a teacher and a pre-school assistant.
    2. Two-teacher single units with a total enrolment of 90 children staffed by two teachers and one pre-school assistance.
    3. Double units enrolling 1 20 children under the care of two teachers and two pre-school assistants.
    4. Triple units with a total enrolment of 180 children under three teachers and three pre-school assistants.

Pre-schools operate for eight sessions a week, each session being of a half-day duration. All types of pre-schools operate a two-session day, except for Monday and Friday at which times they operate during the morning. The capacity therefore would be:

Single units- A maximum of 25 children per session Two-teacher single units- A maximum of 30 children per session

Double units- A maximum of 40 children per session Triple units- A maximum of 60 children per session

  1. The average daily usage of all pre-schools in 1975 was at full capacity except for Monday a.m. and Friday p.m. At these times pre-schools are now available for community use, a provision operating for the first time in 1 976.

Department of Science (Question No. 324)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have senior officials of the Department of Science been asked by the Bland Committee whether their work is really necessary, as was claimed in a report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 16 March 1976.
  2. Is the Minister aware of any moves to abolish his Department, or any sections of his Department, or any statutory bodies under his control; if so, what sections or statutory bodies are involved.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Members of the Administrative Review Committee met with the Acting Secretary of the Department of Science on 1 1 March 1976.I am not aware of any other contact with any other officers of the Department or of Statutory Bodies in my Portfolio.

The talks with the Acting Secretary were supplementary to written submissions made by the Department in response to requests from the Committee. To the best of my knowledge the Department of Science had not been treated differently in that respect from any other Department.

The Acting Secretary has advised me that the questions asked of him were based on the premise that the Department’s raison d’etre needed to be considered. He did not see the questions asked of him as representing anything more than an indication by the Committee that it was not starting from any assumption as to whether or not there should be a Department of Science. The Acting Secretary assumed that the Committee would be taking a similar position in its talks with other Departments in relation to their own activities.

My understanding is that the Committee is looking closely into the activities of Departments, the efficiency with which those activities are pursued, and the need for them. I am advised by my Department that it is co-operating wholeheartedly with the Committee in its work and, in the process, is looking critically at the functions for which it is responsible.

  1. The only suggestion which has come to my notice to abolish my Department is that conveyed to the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration by its Science Task Force. My Department and, I understand, others have advanced serious criticisms of the Task Force report which challenge the credibility of their investigations. I am not aware of any other moves to abolish elements of my Portfolio.

It is appropriate for me to rebut denigratory comment which I have seen in the Canberra Times (25 February and 5 March) to the effect that the Department is involved in a fight for its life. That this is completely contrary to the truth will be evident from the following extracts from a departmental submission to the Administrative Review Committee:

The Antarctic Division, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Space Projects Branch, the Ionospheric Prediction Service Branch and the Analytical Services Branch are each discrete operational units which could in principle be located elsewhere within the Commonwealth system . . . whether alternative arrangements of that kind would improve the effectiveness or efficiency of government administration is not a matter on which I would pass judgment, or indeed, unless asked to do so, argue a case . . . However, should there be any thought of moving any of these elements I would strongly counsel careful consideration before a decision were taken . . . Should they all be transferred elsewhere the issue (i.e. the need for the Depanment of Science) would become important and, I believe, its determination would rest on the Government’s desire or otherwise to continue to have a Minister specifically designated ‘Minister for Science’ . . .’

Television: Leigh Creek

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 2 March 1976 and again on 1 April 1976, Senator McLaren has asked, without notice, for information concerning the installation of a television service at Leigh Creek in South Australia. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Planning for the proposed repeater station at Leigh Creek is well advanced. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has supplied final technical operating requirements to Telecom Australia which is now finalising its cost estimates based on those conditions.
  2. It is expected that funds will be requested in the estimates for the financial year 1976-77.
  3. If funds are made available Telecom Australia would expect to complete the installation of the transmitter by the end of the financial year.

Pre-school Centres

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 17 March (Hansard page 536), Senator Melzer asked me, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Child Care Matters, a question without notice concerning Commonwealth support for pre-school centres under the Childhood Services Program. I answered the honourable senator’s question in part and undertook to provide information on the number of new pre-school centres funded in this financial year and the number of pre-school centres now eligible for support at 75 per cent of agreed staff salaries. The Office of the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission has now provided the following information:

Capital grants have been approved for thirteen new preschools this financial year.

Approximately 2720 pre-school centres are receiving recurrent support based on 75 per cent of the salary costs of agreed staff provided that they extend and integrate the services they offer. Most have responded in a positive way and have advised of additional activities which will significantly increase the range of availability of services for young children and their parents.

Tasmania: Education

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 24 March 1976, Senator Wriedt asked me the following question, without notice:

I direct my question to the Minister for Education. Again I refer to the report of the Karmel Committee on postsecondary education in Tasmania. If the report is implemented, will the Government give an assurance that funds will be made available to the Government of Tasmania to continue the employment of those members of the staff of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education who will be affected as the result of the adoption of the Committee ‘s recommendations?

I provided some information to the honourable senator and undertook to provide further information. I am now able to advise that the Premier of Tasmania has announced the appointment of Mr Henry Cosgrove, Q.C., as Chairman of a committee which will develop detailed proposals for changes in the existing patterns of tertiary education in Tasmania. The Committee will be working under the general instruction from the Tasmanian Government that it accepts the Report in principle but I understand that in other respects it will have broad terms of reference. The matter of the transfer of students and staff from one institution to another will, I understand, be one of the Committee ‘s concerns. Naturally the Committee will wish to discuss with the Commonwealth Education Commissions the implications, particularly the financial implications, of its proposals. However the initiative at this stage lies with the Tasmanian Government and the Committee which it has appointed.

Tertiary Education Student Numbers (Question No. 129)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) external students have enrolled for courses at each University and College of Advanced Education in Australia this year.
  2. What were the corresponding figures in 1975.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answer to the honourable Senator is as follows: (l)and(2)-

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 April 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760407_senate_30_s67/>.