Senate
19 May 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1715

PETITIONS

Family Planning

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 74 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 the Family Planning Association and similar organisations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and wellbeing of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, give urgent consideration to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisations to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Matters

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 36 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 distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Prices Index months after prices of goods and services have risen, and that medications which were formerly pharmaceutical benefits must now be paid for.

Additionally, that State housing authorities’ waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners grow ever longer, and the cost of funerals increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter or urgency to-

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically when the quarterly Consumer Prices Index is announced.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

Update the State Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act of 1 974, eroded by inflation, to increase grants to overcome the backlog.

Update Funeral Benefit to 60 per cent of reasonable cost of funeral. (This benefit was 200 shillings, 20 dollars, when introduced in 1943. lt was seven times the 1943 pension of 27 shillings a week).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Heritage Commission

Senator BAUME:

-I present the following petition from 24 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 independant 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 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.

Petition received and read.

Milk Substitutes

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 307 citizens of Australia:

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

That reduction of the age limit from six years to eighteen months for patients eligible to receive cows’ milk substitutes as a Pharmaceutical benefit under the schedules of the National Health Act will cause serious financial hardship to many families;

That the Government’s action is responsible for a severe increase in the cost of cows’ milk substitutes which penalise parents of children aged eighteen months and over who have a medical need for these substitutes.

That there is an urgent, humane need to restore cows’ milk substitutes to children up to six years of age to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that cows’ milk substitutes be restored to the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for children up to the age of six years as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Omega Station in Australia

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 38 citizens of Australia:

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

That Omega is the only worldwide navigation system, whose continuous Very Low Frequency signals can be used by submarines to determine their position, while remaining completely submerged.

That in particular the missile-firing submarines of the U.S.A. can improve their destructive potential by using Omega signals.

That it represents a major escalation of the arms race, and directly involves Australia even further in nuclear war strategies.

That therefore an Omega station built in Australia would be a prime nuclear target.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Australian Government will reconsider its decision and reject any proposal to build an Omega station on Australian soil.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Schools Commission

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 211 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 the Federal Government implement the June, 1975 Report of the Schools Commission so that:

1 ) The present level of Federal Government Education Expenditure is increased to the level recommended by the Schools Commission.

The role of the Schools Commission as an independent statutory authority free to make its own assessment of the needs of Australian Education is maintained.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the Schools Commission.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Cadet Corps

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 1352 electors of Queensland:

To the honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned electors of Queensland respectfully showeth:

That the three service cadet forces have great value in the development of the youth of Australia.

That the disbanding of the cadet forces will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will reinstate the cadet forces.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Overseas Development Assistance

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 1 8 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 Australian are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $21 million, 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 to Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNF, 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.

National Employment and Training Scheme

Senator GEORGES:

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

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

That whereas from 1 October, 1974 the National Employmem 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 1 April, 1 976, as this places these trainees at considerable financial disadvantage.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Planning

Senator GEORGES:

– I present the following petition from 25 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 the Family Planning Association and similar organisations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and well-being of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisations to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Heritage Commission

Senator MAGNUS CORMACK:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 22 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of Diamond Creek and District Environment Action Group, c/o 33 Deering Street, Diamond Creek 3089 Victoria, 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 organizations 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’ 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.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– The following petition from 18 citizens of Australia has been lodged for presentation.

Australian Heritage Commission

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 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 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 Button.

Petition received.

page 1717

NOTICES OF MOTION

Sittings of the Senate

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, on Thursday 20 May 1976-

1 ) The times of meeting of the Senate be as follows: 1 1 a.m. to 1 p.m. 2.15 p.m. to 6 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

The sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m.

Government Business take precedence over General Business after 3 p.m.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Cotton, from making a ministerial statement on Thursday 20 May 1976 at 8 p.m. and, when making the statement, from speaking without limitation of time.

page 1717

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE MOTOR SPIRIT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to the recommendations in the Collins report of an increase in the price of motor spirit in Australia. I ask: If the Government decides to implement these recommendations, bearing in mind the very likely drop in the use of private motor vehicles for daily commuting is the Minister able to state whether the Government would increase its payments to the States for upgrading and extending public transport.

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

-This is a policy matter. I shall refer it to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer.

page 1717

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: QUARANTINE OFFICER

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that no qualified quarantine officer is at present stationed in the north west of Western Australia? If, as claimed by the

Director of Health in Western Australia, the north-western Kimberley region is a low risk area- whatever that means- and no risk is involved, why was it considered advisable to post a senior quarantine officer at Port Hedland before October of last year where a dispute about the so-called medical condition of the officer formerly stationed at Port Hedland has occurred?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I have no information with regard to a qualified quarantine officer in the north-west of Western Australia. I shall obtain whatever information is available from the Minister for the honourable senator.

page 1718

QUESTION

GLADSTONE: INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I preface my question by drawing the Minister’s attention to the fact that 1200 hectares of land in the Gladstone area of Queensland have been set aside as an industrial estate for the development of noxious industries under the control of the Queensland Department of Industrial Development. Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Department of Industrial Development has refused 3 industries, namely, sawmilling, chrome plating and asphalt production, part of this industrial zoned land and that as a result at least one of these industries will have to leave the area if the land remains unavailable? As these industries offer job opportunities in a high unemployment area, I ask the Minister whether he will use his good offices to persuade the Queensland Government to make available the land for the industries listed.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the details as asserted by the honourable senator. I shall refer the matter to my colleague in another place and obtain an answer.

page 1718

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs seen reports of an assertion by the Acting Premier of South Australia that if tax indexation is introduced by the Federal Government its federalism policy will not generate sufficient funds for the use of the State Government and probably represents a gigantic fraud? Can the Minister say whether that is an accurate statement of the implications of the application of tax indexation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– What I have seen are 2 indications of a very clear and massive conflict of viewpoint between the Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, and the Acting Premier,

Mr Corcoran. Mr Dunstan, is on record as saying very clearly that the federalism policy is a genuine new deal. Let me make it perfectly clear that Senator Messner refers to Mr Corcoran ‘s statement. Nothing could show more clearly the massive ignorance and failure to understand the subject than the statement made by Mr Corcoran. I remind the Senate that the minimum guarantee given by the Prime Minister at the Premiers Conference was that for the next 3 years no State would fall below what the formula of the previous Government would yield. So in fact the guarantee means that they may well get more but they will not get less. It is an interesting situation therefore that Mr Corcoran is arguing that he would have to impose surcharges if he got what Mr Whitlam would have given him this year. To understand federalism is to understand that this will do the States, including South Australia, a good deal in 2 ways. In the first place, tax indexation, in abating inflation, will keep down the wages bill of every State and therefore cut the costs of every State. In the second place, indexation, by abating inflation, will help re-employment and every person reemployed this is apart from the humanity of reemployment will pay taxes. Out of every dollar paid in personal income tax the States will get their extra share. So there is a vested interest in every State for federalism to succeed. I do not intend in my other capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to regard this dispute as a demarcation dispute.

page 1718

QUESTION

SCIENCE RESEARCH

Senator GRIMES:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science. I preface my question by saying that I am sure the Minister will recall that the state of social science research in Australia was referred to in highly unfavourable terms in the 1974 report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and that the 1975 Liberal Party policy stated that the Australian Science and Technology Council should include social scientists. I ask: Why has the social science component of the Australian Science and Technology Council been withdrawn and the social scientists on the Council sacked? How will it be possible for the Council to assess the social implications of changing scientific technology without a contribution from social scientists?

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

– The honourable senator refers to the Australian Science and Technology Council. As he knows, the Prime Minister has made a statement that the Council is to be restructured. Those individuals who served on the Council have been notified and thanked, but their names have not yet been made public. Those individuals who are to be invited to serve on the Council have been approached. Because they have not yet given notice of their acceptance, public notification has not been made. The honourable senator suggests that no individuals of a social science discipline are on that Council. I am unable to give him an answer in regard to that matter. If he has information in that regard, he has more information than has been made public.

page 1719

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I recall answering a similar question a short time ago with regard to the availability of the influenza vaccine. At that time I referred to a statement that had been made by the Minister for Health, I think towards the end of April, in which he talked of the numbers of doses of the vaccine which were available and the fact that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories did not direct the way in which the quantities available were disseminated throughout Australia. I will obtain for the honourable senator any further information that is available at this stage.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I ask a supplementary question. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate to the Senate that some action will be taken to see that there is an equitable distribution of existing vaccines amongst those people who are most in need of them rather than have the present situation where the vaccines appear to be going out into industry through employers obtaining a major share for inoculation of their own employees in order to prevent dislocation in industry.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I give that assurance because the Minister for Health has asked that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories ensure that as the vaccine becomes available supplies are distributed equitably throughout the country. The Department of Health is watching the overseas situation and there is no indication that the virus will reach Australia this winter. I referred earlier to the demand and the lack of opportunity for the Serum Laboratories to determine the wholesale distribution of this vaccine. This makes it very difficult for me to give the commitment and assurance that the vaccine will be available in those places where it is most required. However, the Department of Health is watching the situation and every effort will be made to ensure that it is. If there is any further information which I can obtain from the Minister for Health I will see that the honourable senator receives it.

page 1719

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the recent interview granted by the Prime Minister to the American magazine Variety in which he gave a policy statement in relation to the Australian film industry. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to use American magazines as a forum for policy statements in relation to such a sensitive and important industry as the Australian film industry? Does the Prime Minister’s expressed opposition in this article to quotas for Australian films being imposed on exhibitors mean the rejection by this Government of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission which made it clear that the industry could not survive unless such quotas were imposed? Does the Prime Minister’s statement foreshadow a backing down on the Australian content on radio and television?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I am not an avid reader of Variety so I do not know what was contained in it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You read the Murray Bridge Times.

Senator WITHERS:

-No. The Border Watch is my favourite newspaper.

Senator Primmer:

– It is mine, too.

Senator WITHERS:

– I cannot see what is so terrible about the Prime Minister occasionally giving an interview to a foreign publication on a matter concerning even the Australian film industry. It is far better for him to give an interview in Australia to a foreign publication than to be like his predecessor and wander around the world at enormous expense to the taxpayer, spending most of his time hitting Australian journalists in the eye with a television camera. As to what is going to happen to the IAC report, I suggest to the honourable senator that he should wait with patience. The Government’s intentions on that report will be announced in due course. As to the matter of Australian content, I have no intention of attempting to say what the Government’s policy is at this moment. If the honourable senator likes to put a question on notice in relation to it, no doubt a reply will come forward.

page 1720

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS: OPERATIONS IN EAST TIMOR

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Because he probably has not read the newspaper report, I direct his attention to statements appearing today in the Melbourne Age and the Canberra Times to the effect that Australia has secured permission from Indonesia for International Red Cross to resume operations in East Timor. Can the Minister say whether those reports are accurate? If they are accurate, will he arrange for the relief being organised by various persons and organisations in Australia for those in need in East Timor to be channelled through International Red Cross?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator is quite correct; I have been engaged on other work this morning. I will seek information from the Acting Minister as to whether the reports in the Melbourne Age and Canberra Times are correct. If they are correct, I will certainly pass on the honourable senator’s suggestion.

page 1720

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING SERVICE

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Government Publishing Service, which is now a section of the Department of Administrative Services, has been asked to produce and print a number of booklets entitled More Help for Pensioners? Is the Minister aware that the Publishing Service is calling for tenders from private contractors to have this work carried out? Can the Minister tell the Senate what is involved in any additional help for pensioners that might be contained in the publications or are the booklets an example of the Government using public money to engage in propaganda warfare because there is concern in Government ranks that its message is not getting across to the ordinary man in the street?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As to the first part of the question, 1 am not able to give the honourable senator details of the tenders which have been called from private contractors. As to the second part of the question, I think it would be understood that my Department produces numerous pamphlets and leaflets giving information regarding benefits that are paid through the Department. This should be construed not as being propaganda warfare but rather as a source of information to enable as many people as possible to be fully aware of the benefits that are availabe to them. I will obtain information with regard to the tenders which the honourable senator claims have been called and give him the information when I have it.

page 1720

QUESTION

MISUSE OF SUBSCRIBERS’ TELEPHONE LINES

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Has the Minister seen an article in yesterday’s Daily Mirror headed PMG Men Accused of Swindle’ which contains allegations by a former Telecommunications Commission linesman that telephone subscribers are footing the bill for Australia-wide calls recorded on subscribers’ meters but made by Commission technicians with tapping devices, achieved by the technician either by clipping a portable automatic dialling device onto overhead lines and then attaching markers to cables to remind him when a householder is away, thereby allowing others to misuse the line as well, or by attaching a dialling device to a subscriber’s severed cable in a metal street terminal box? Is it a fact that regulations require that any such use of a subscriber’s telephone be reported to enable a credit to be made for that service? If so, is it possible for the Minister to inform the Senate what records are kept of such calls reported to and credited by the Commission? If records are kept, are details of the number of calls made available to any subscriber whose service has been used in this way? Is it true that a linesman who did not report that he had made a call on a subscriber’s line could be dismissed? If so, what attempts are made to detect this dishonesty and how many Commission employees have been dismissed for this reason?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-My attention was drawn to the article published in yesterday’s Daily Mirror, and in fact I have a copy of it. I was diverted to read that a former linesman had alleged that it was a common practice for linesmen to tap into subscribers’ telephones to place a bet, to find out what time of the day it was or to ring a friend. I was diverted also to read in the article that allegedly there was something of an honour system working whereby it would be legal provided that the linesman could report this fact so that credit could be established. I have set out to seek the information but have not as yet obtained it for Senator Martin. I will direct to my colleague the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in another place the various questions that she has posed and will let her have the information.

page 1721

QUESTION

BIRD SMUGGLING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs who has under his responsibility the issuing of passports. In view of the ever increasing number of bird smuggling offences committed by people in possession of Australian passports, will the Minister consider automatic forfeiture of possession of such passports for 5 years if a person is convicted of this type of offence?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Senator Mulvihill was good enough to advise me that he would be asking a question along these lines. I have obtained the following answer from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister has no power under the Passports Act to order the passports of persons convicted of bird smuggling or of any other offences to be forfeited automatically on conviction for a period of 5 years. Furthermore, it would not be just to withhold a passport from any person once that person had paid the penalty for his or her offence and had been released. Despite these considerations, the Minister appreciated the honourable senator’s concern to deal effectively with people who become involved in the business of smuggling of fauna out of Australia using cruel and unfeeling means.

page 1721

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Industry and Commerce is undoubtedly aware of the uncertainty that exists with respect to shipbuilding at Whyalla and the consequent apprehension of the unions concerned, the business community and the Whyalla City Council over the future of this industry. Can he say when he will be in a position to make a statement of Government policy in respect to shipbuilding in Australia?

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

– The Senate knows from answers I have given to previous questions that the matter of shipbuilding has been under study by a working party of officers of Government departments. The work is not yet concluded. It is very close to conclusion. I would hope to be in a more definite situation within the next fortnight. But I cannot promise when the report will be presented.

page 1721

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator GIETZELT:

– Will the Minister for Social Security inform the Senate of the number of doctors who have been investigated for possible malpractices relating to the Medibank scheme since its inception 10 months ago? Will she assure the Senate that every endeavour is being made to bring to justice any doctor who obtains an illegal private gain at the expense of the community and the reputation of the medical profession?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information from the Minister for Health with regard to the number of doctors who have been investigated or those who he claims should be brought to justice for illegal practices under the Medibank program. I am sure that if there is any information available on this matter, the Minister for Health will release it. I will see that the honourable senator is given the information.

page 1721

QUESTION

FRUIT SUBSIDY

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will not countenance the 1 977 subsidy of $1 a case for 2 million cases as recommended for the apple and pear industry by the Industries Assistance Commission but that the Government is committed to assisting this industry to regain its viability? I ask this question because of the concern in my State arising from rumours initiated by these recommendations?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Government has under active consideration the matter of the recommendation made by the Industries Assistance Commission. Equally, the Government has sought and is receiving the comments of the industry on the recommendation. Those comments and the views of those concerned with the problems of the States of Tasmania, Western Australia and Victoria which are principally affected will receive the most earnest consideration.

page 1721

QUESTION

HOUSING FOR THE AGED

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. As a result of the survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on housing conditions for aged people in Australia, what are the immediate plans of the Government to house suitably the aged persons who are at present living in the 1 1 per cent of houses that the Bureau found to be unsatisfactory?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is clearly a policy matter. The Government will be making a statement upon this matter, together with other major reforms for the poor, in the very near future.

page 1722

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to a Press report in the Australian Financial Review of 1 1 May 1976 which claims that the Government is facing difficulties in finding suitable additional commissioners for the Australian Law Reform Commission. In view of the number of references recently sent to the Commission, which has at present only one full-time commissioner, is the Minister aware of any difficulties in obtaining additional commissioners?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will have to seek that information directly from the Attorney-General.

page 1722

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Social Security by referring to a report in today’s Melbourne Age that farmers eligible for unemployment benefit who lodged claims by 10 May 1976 will receive payments retrospective to that date. Is this concession to farmers an indication that the normal 7-day waiting period applying to all other claims for unemployment benefit may soon be abolished?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not read the report in the Melbourne Age to which the honourable senator has referred, but I wish to state in regard to unemployment benefit for farmers that farmers who will become eligible under the new guidelines which were stated last week will have to wait the normal 7-day period after lodging their application. If there are farmers who qualify under those guidelines and who lodged their applications within 7 days prior to the date of our announcement, the farmers making those applications would be considered as being eligible to receive unemployment benefit. In regard to the 7-day waiting period for general unemployment benefit, the statement by the honourable senator that what has been reported in the newspaper article foreshadows the abolition of the waiting period is not accurate. There is a 7-day waiting period for unemployment benefit after the date of lodging of an application.

page 1722

QUESTION

TIMORESE REFUGEES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have received representations from Timorese refugees now residing in Darwin who wish to make arrangements for relatives and friends to leave Timor and take refuge in Darwin. The Timorese in Darwin are prepared to finance air or sea charter arrangements. In view of the reported poor circumstances of people living in Timor, will the Government give urgent consideration to allowing arrangements to be made with authorities in Timor to permit the transfer of Timorese, particularly women and children, to the mainland of Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will pass the honourable senator’s request to my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1722

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Is it true that Cabinet decided last February that the Australian Assistance Plan is to be disbanded? If the Government is to scrap the AAP, would the Minister agree that the cost of holding conferences for State Ministers, regional officers, local councillors and others is a waste of government money? When will the Minister inform those still actively working on the AAP that the 37 regional councils will no longer be financed or supported by the Government?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-The statements in the question that has just been asked by the honourable senator are inaccurate. There is to be a meeting of State Ministers in Darwin later this week. At that meeting the future of the Australian Assistance Plan will be discussed. This is the last conference at which this matter needs to be discussed. As regards previous conferences at local government and regional council level, and other discussions that have been held, we do not consider them to be a waste of money. The very nature of the plan was that at the end of the 3-year period it was to be evaluated and discussed and then its future was to be decided. Having in mind the terms of the question asked by the honourable senator, I think he may be a little disappointed when we do make the announcement from Darwin as to the future of the plan as all of the premises on which he has based his question are inaccurate. Arising from the discussions to be held later this week, I think that the 37 regional councils will have some satisfaction.

page 1723

QUESTION

KENTISH CLOTHES PTY LTD

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce seen reports that Kentish Clothes Pty Ltd, a large clothing manufacturer at Elizabeth in South Australia employing nearly 200 people, is closing down because of fierce competition from imports? Have discussions been held with that company on this matter? If not, will the Minister do so in an endeavour to see what can be done to prevent this important South Australian industry going out of production with the consequent loss of employment opportunities?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I saw the reports in this morning’s Adelaide newspaper. I have had a quick investigation. First of all, the products of that company are subject to quota and the reason for closure is not necessarily import competition. I have to find out a great deal more about this matter but it is under investigation as from the reading of the report this morning.

page 1723

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: If personal income tax payments were indexed on the present tax schedule from a commencement date of 1 July 1976 instead of 1 July 1975 when the present schedule became operative, would the Government receive about $ 1,200m from the phenomenon known as fiscal drag? If so, would that constitute what the Prime Minister calls a vast unlegislated increase in taxation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The term ‘fiscal drag’ is a fairly new one to me. This is a complicated matter. I believe that the honourable senator is entitled to a precise answer to that question. I shall get it for him.

page 1723

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. If the dairy industry is to be substantially curtailed, great sociological problems and considerable financial cost will be involved. Could the Minister institute an investigation that may show the present cost to the producers of selling dairy produce on very low overseas markets which have to be subsidised from the home industry returns on the one hand, against the welfare payments, exit grants and so on on the other hand, and compare those costs with a scheme of ‘payment not to produce’, bearing in mind the easing of personal problems, the lowering of production and the increases in prices to be realised that can be expected to follow such action?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– These are very proper considerations in an area such as this where there may well be a substantial loss of future production and an area of displacement and change. The full factors about which the honourable senator has spoken have been taken note of and are being considered now by the responsible Minister.

page 1723

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

Senator MELZER:

– By way of preface to my question to the Minister for Social Security, I point out that I have had referred to me the case of a woman who was concerned with home duties for 1 3 years and who, being advised that she could qualify as a librarian by doing the higher school certificate under the women’s retraining scheme, was transferred to the National Employment and Training scheme when the women ‘s retraining scheme was transferred to NEAT. She was deserted by her husband shortly after she began the NEAT scheme. Divorce proceedings ensued. Her claim for maintenance was considered in the light of the fact that she was receiving the NEAT payment. Under the new family law provisions, there is little chance that she can have her maintenance payments increased. Her rent and living expenses have increased and she may now have to terminate the course half way through it. Can the Minister advise what action the Government intends to take in such cases?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not clear from the points made in the question whether the woman is in receipt of a benefit or payment from my department.

Senator Melzer:

– No, no payment; she has just the NEAT payment.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– In that case, 1 think that this is a matter that I should refer to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. With regard to the NEAT scheme, it may be that the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in the Senate would wish to comment. Why I asked whether the woman was in receipt of a benefit from my department was to establish the fact in the honourable senator’s mind that if she had been in receipt of that payment she would have in addition to that benefit received the NEAT training allowance. But with regard to the other matters and the determination of the NEAT training scheme allowance, I point out that they are in the area of responsibility of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I am unable to comment further at this stage.

page 1724

QUESTION

CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-As the Minister to whom I wished to address my question is not present, I direct it to Senator Cotton. I refer to the recent report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections which recommended measures to preserve Australia’s cultural and historical materials, both as a means of preserving our natural heritage and of protecting some hundreds of millions of dollars worth of materials in Australia’s major collections, including material valued at over $100m in the National War Memorial. Does the Government propose to take measures, legislative or educational, to preserve such materials in galleries, libraries and museums throughout Australia? In particular, can the Minister say whether a course to train conservators will be established, as recommended in the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am aware of the recent report. I am also aware that the National War Museum has some substantially valuable works of art painted by official war artists in both wars. They are very valuable parts of the Australian national collection. There is equally said to be a need for training art conservators, art restorers and repairers. To my knowledge, there is as yet in this country no course, although certain universities are developing art schools with the idea in mind that these sorts of people may be trained in Australia. The idea generally is very good. I know that the Department of the Prime Minister is working on it. I cannot tell the honourable senator any more than that, but I shall find out more for him.

page 1724

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR: SELF DETERMINATION

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. He may recall, during the time that he has been giving some attention to this portfolio, that several weeks ago the Minister for Foreign Affairs, after speaking to members of the Indonesian Government, said that he had been given assurances by the Indonesian Government that there would be an act of genuine self determination by the people of East Timor. I wonder whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs has received any further advice from the Indonesian Government as to how arrangements for that act of self determination are progressing.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-While my powers of recollection are strong, they are not all that strong. I cannot help the honourable senator any further than to say that I will see that the responsible Minister provides an answer for the honourable senator.

page 1724

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING IN AUSTRALIA

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It follows a question asked earlier today by Senator Jessop regarding shipbuilding in Australia. I refer to the fact that earlier this year I raised the question, and the Minister undertook to obtain some information. By way of brief explanation I should indicate that, having particular concern for the development and expansion of the fishing industry in Tasmania, I would like to obtain the earliest possible answer as to whether the Industries Assistance Commission reference is likely to be completed, as it may lead to the bringing down of the subsidy of 25 per cent to vessels between 70 feet and 50 feet in length.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-Yes, I remember the question, and I know that after hearing it I asked for some details as to when the report might be expected and what its conclusions might be. That has not yet come to hand. I am glad to be reminded of it. It is a matter that interests me very greatly. I am concerned about shipbuilding in Australia. I am particularly concerned that our capacity to build a range of ships is maintained, if possible. This is one of the areas that would interest me very greatly.

page 1724

QUESTION

WOOMERA: FUTURE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister presently representing the Minister for Defence. He may recall that recently there was a statement about Woomera being placed on a care and maintenance basis. In addition there was some evidence that the Service Chiefs were to look at Woomera to see to what extent that base might be used for general tactical exercises or support purposes. Will the Minister give information at this stage as to what success there has been in those investigations and as to whether, with the new changes in the Edinburgh establishment, there may be some support activities possible at Woomera?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This is an area in which I would like to be completely accurate in giving a reply. I know the Government is looking at the whole defence situation very carefully. I remember the references to the care and maintenance proposition for Woomera. I also recall the further suggestion- I am not sure whether it was in the Parliament or the newspapers- that Woomera may have some greater possibility than that suggested in the question asked by Senator Bishop. I think I should get some more detail for the honourable senator. I shall try to do that.

page 1725

QUESTION

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to recent attempts to persuade the Government to move away from its stated intention to restrict cigarette advertising on television and radio. I ask whether the Minister is able to give an assurance that the legislation, which is a potentially important public health measure, will still be introduced and that all advertising of cigarettes will cease on television and radio as planned later this year.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am able to give the assurance which is requested in the question. I think the legislation is close at hand which will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act to phase out and eventually eliminate the advertising of cigarettes on radio and television. I believe that this will take place on the date on which it had been determined that the advertising would conclude.

page 1725

QUESTION

HOUSING FOR THE AGED

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Social Security follows the question asked by Senator Cavanagh. I refer to the aged persons housing survey which was released by Senator Greenwood and which showed that the State with the highest percentage of the aged in unsatisfactory housing was Tasmania where 1 9 per cent were involved, compared with an average of 10 per cent in other States. Is the Minister aware that a close examination of the results of the survey indicate not only that Tasmania has the most unsatisfactory housing situation for old persons on an overall basis, but also that it had the poorest rating for the design, condition and safety of steps, stairs, porch and verandah, interior dampness, structural condition of floors and fire risk. Granted that the survey is being conducted with a view to improving the Government’s programs of assistance for aged persons’ housing, will the Minister examine whether some form of urgent and immediate assistance might be given to those elderly Tasmanians whose living conditions are well below standard?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of many of the factors which have been referred to by the honourable senator and which are contained in the report which he mentioned. I am becoming increasingly aware of the requests which are being made for assistance in the repair and maintenance of aged persons ‘ own homes, in addition to what can be done by the Government with regard to aged persons’ homes and hostels and the pensioner housing units which have been constructed in co-operation with the States. These matters have been receiving my urgent attention. I take this opportunity to mention that very shortly I will be announcing a 3-year program for the Aged Persons Hostels Act. I think that the 3-year program which we have undertaken will enable us to deal with the many hundreds of applications which we have had from voluntary associations to build further homes and hostels for aged persons. I know that that does not overcome the difficulties which many aged people face in attempting to keep their own homes in repair and maintenance. I think that that is a matter which also should have our urgent attention.

page 1725

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I draw the attention of the Minister to the uranium deposit recently discovered near Georgetown in north Queensland. Is the Minister aware that the Australian company involved in this venture is controlled by ANZ through its subsidiary, Stocks and Holdings Ltd. Is the Minister aware that 95 per cent of ANZ shareholders are British residents? Does not the Minister therefore agree that the Australian equity requirements for the development of uranium deposits have not been met in this instance? Will the Minister ascertain whether the companies involved are seeking local participation? If not, what steps will the Government take to restrict the development of this deposit in the meantime?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I listened carefully to the honourable senator. He referred to a discovery in Georgetown. A discovery, of course, is not a development. He referred also to a wholly owned subsidiary of ANZ. I presume he meant the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. He referred to another company called Stocks and Holdings. I have no information which tells me that Stocks and Holdings is in any way associated with the ANZ Bank. In general, his proposition is that this may, if shown to be correct, in some way breach the rules regarding uranium development and mining. Therefore I shall direct his question both to the Minister for National Resources and to the Treasurer, who has a responsibility, through the Foreign Investment Review Board, in this area.

page 1726

QUESTION

MICROWAVE OVENS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. The Minister will be aware of an answer given to me yesterday in reply to my question on notice No. 542 which dealt with the possible danger of radiation from microwave ovens. I now ask the Minister if he has read a report in yesterday’s Adelaide Advertiser referring to microwave research being carried out by the National Measurement Laboratory of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Sydney. If so, are there any urgent steps he can take to publicise widely the safety rules referred to by the spokesman for the CSIRO?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I did note the report in the Adelaide Advertiser yesterday to which the honourable senator referred. Senator McLaren had a question on notice which was addressed to Senator Cotton. The answer was supplied to him yesterday. Senator Cotton replied that relevant State authorities have prescribed microwave ovens for approval purposes and that they apply the provisions of draft standard 1845, issued by the Standards Association of Australia in 1971. He said that work on the draft standard is proceeding and it is expected that an Australian standard will be published soon. I did note the report that the CSIRO has published a set of safety rules for microwave ovens. I think it is important that the public be aware of the concern that the CSIRO has shown by publishing that document. The CSIRO pointed out that exposure to microwaves at close range can cause permanent tissue damage, particularly to the eyes. Microwave oven users should follow basic safety rules as they would with other kitchen appliances. If the honourable senator wishes these safety rules produced by the CSIRO to be made public I shall seek to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Keep a little distance away from the oven when it is operatingan arm ‘s length is recommended, and never allow children to put their faces- particularly their eyes, close to the oven door when it is operating.

Do not operate a damaged oven, or one with warped or loose components. An oven which has been tampered with so heating continues when the door is open is dangerous and must not be used.

Keep the door seal and the area it contacts clean and free of burnt food or food particles which might create gaps in the seal.

Never put any object through the door vents, particularly metal objects such as skewers. They could conduct radiation out of the safety of the oven compartment

Do not operate the oven when it is empty. The absence of food to heat can cause microwaves to feed back into the expensive microwave generator, shortening its life.

Have your oven checked for microwave leakage regularly, say every 12 months. Generally the dealer will do this.

Trust repairs only to a skilled serviceman. The home handyman can endanger himself and others.

page 1726

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS HABITAT CONFERENCE

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, relates to the United Nations habitat conference to be held in Vancouver later this year. I ask: In view of the great importance to women of the issue of housing have any women been included in the Australian Government delegation? Were views of women’s organisations sought in the preparation of the Australian delegation’s brief? Were any women involved in the actual preparation of the Australian Government’s delegation brief?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have been very interested in the preparations for the United Nations habitat conference. I am somewhat surprised that the honourable senator finds a need to ask this question, because the major preparations for the conference were going on throughout the whole of last year. I do not know specifically the composition of the delegation as between men and women but I shall certainly seek the information for the honourable senator and let her have an answer.

page 1726

QUESTION

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Having regard to the concern which has been expressed by the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council about the future of manufacturing industry in that State, particularly in the areas of textiles, vehicle building, rubber, electronics and metals, will the Minister given an assurance that the Government will review the present level of tariff protection for those industries so as to maximise employment opportunities in these areas?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The whole range of problems of Australian manufacturing industry is under review. The honourable senator would know that the Government is preparing a White Paper on the whole of the manufacturing industry and its related problems. The Government is hoping, for the purposes of that White Paper, to get some useful contributions from all the unions involved as to the part that they might usefully play themselves. The Government also hopes for a fairly useful change in Australia’s cost structure, which over the last 5 years has worsened markedly.

page 1727

QUESTION

CRECHE AT NHULUNBUY

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-The Minister representing the Minister for Health will be aware that the Department of Construction is building a hospital creche at Nhulunbuy for the Department of Health. That creche was due to be finished and opened before Christmas 1975. Despite the fact that finance is available, the building is still not completed. In view of the urgent need for this facility in Nhulunbuy, will the Minister investigate the reason for the delay and ask that the completion of the building be given some priority?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I shall do what has been asked of me and refer this matter to the Minister for Health and to see that some priority can be given to the completion of the creche at Nhulunbuy.

page 1727

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

Senator COLSTON:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is it a fact that, due to a lack of funds, the external studies department of the University of Queensland can no longer post notes weekly to external students but now mails them once each 3 weeks? If that is so, is there any way in which the Commonwealth Government can assist to have funds made available to remove the difficulties which are now faced by external students due to these circumstances?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The matter raised by the honourable senator would, of course, be a domestic matter for the university concerned. To my knowledge no cuts have been made to the budget of that university, other than those which the university may make as a domestic internal arrangement. As the honourable senator would know, the Universities Commission made its report. It was adopted for the calendar year 1976. To my knowledge it has not been varied. If the honourable senator has any specific information to throw light on the matter, I shall be happy to pursue it. However, if what the honourable senator says is correct, I would say that it has occurred within the domestic budgeting of the university and, of course, the university must take responsibility for it. If there are other aspects to the matter I would be happy to pursue them.

page 1727

QUESTION

PENSIONERS: VITAMIN DEFICIENCY

Senator PRIMMER:

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that studies carried out by Dr Joan Woodhill of Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney and others have demonstrated a high incidence of vitamin deficiency amongst pensioners? Will not the removal of vitamin preparation from the pharmaceutical benefits list impair the ability of doctors to treat such pensioners? Will the Minister review this decision with a view to improving the general health of pensioners in the community?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I was not aware of the report of Dr Joan Woodhill with regard to this matter. However, I think it is a well known fact that a great number of elderly people do suffer vitamin deficiencies, and I believe that the approach of the former Government with regard to delivered meals and the extra subsidy made available if a vitamin supplement was provided showed an understanding of the difficulty. I shall have the report examined to see what can be done to assist those elderly people who are not receiving the adequate diet that they may require.

page 1727

QUESTION

WOODCHIP INDUSTRY

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development aware of the woodchip industry controversy in Cairns a few weeks ago? Can the Minister indicate whether the woodchip industry is now considering the exploitation of other north Queensland areas? Are those areas near Shelburne Bay and Weipa? Should the woodchip industry attempt to establish a pulp industry in these areas, what environmental safeguards will this Government demand to ensure the protection of the environment?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am aware that the woodchip industry in its various pursuits throughout Australia has raised questions of an environmental nature and that in northern Queensland such questions have been raised in the past. I am not aware of the plans for future development but my understanding is that assuming the industry sought to establish itself in a new area it would be subject to an environmental impact study, as would any other industry, prior to its establishment.

page 1727

QUESTION

DOCUMENT TABLED IN THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– Yesterday Senator Keeffe asked me a question in relation to a document quoted from and tabled on 28 April by Senator Townley. The position is that the document was tabled by order of the Senate pursuant to standing order 364. The Chair is not the judge of the correctness or otherwise of any statement in the document. If any honourable senator considers that some action should be taken in relation to the matter, I suggest that the procedure would be to refer the matter to the judgment of the Senate by the giving of some appropriate notice of motion.

page 1728

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Mindful of the crucial stages that discussions have reached over the question of Concorde flights to Australia and the assurance Senator Greenwood had given that he and his department would be closely perusing the relevant documents from his department, will the Acting Minister also undertake that task before a decision is made?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that Senator Greenwood was conscious of the need to study the aspects of supersonic flight, specifically related to the Concorde aircraft, with a view to preserving the environment. My understanding is that a number of technical studies has been made and a number of technical reports is available to his department. My further understanding is that discussions are now proceeding or are about to proceed between his department and the Department of Transport. Certainly I give an unqualified assurance that this Government will take into account environmental impacts before any decision on the Concorde is made. I will refer to the Acting Minister in another place, Mr MacKellar, the nature of the honourable senator’s question.

page 1728

QUESTION

BAUXITE MINING AT GOVE PENINSULA

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and could well also involve the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. What has been the effect on the fishing industry at Melville Bay in the Northern Territory of the operations of bauxite mining at Gove Peninsula by Nabalco Pty Ltd?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This might be one of those duets which we will get from time to time in the Senate. I do not know of the extent to which the project involves the fishing industry. Senator Carrick might know something about other aspects.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not heard that the activities of Nabalco Pty Ltd have had any deleterious effect. I will refer the question to the appropriate department and see whether I can get any information.

page 1728

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It follows Senator Harradine ‘s question yesterday which suggested that the Solzhenitsyn film had not been shown by the Australian Broadcasting Commission because of pressure from the Russian Embassy. 1 ask the Minister whether he will also look into the fact that the film on the life and death of the republican poet in Spain, Federico Garcia Lorca, had not been shown by the Australian Broadcasting Commission because of pressure from the Government of King Juan Carlos of Spain.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I take it that the honourable senator is asserting that that is a fact. Or is he simply asking whether it is a fact that the program was not shown on the Australian Broadcasting Commission because of alleged pressure?

Senator Button:

– I am asking whether it is a fact.

Senator CARRICK:

– I know nothing about it at all. I will certainly direct the question through my colleague to the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I will be happy to get the honourable senator an answer.

page 1728

QUESTION

FEDERALISM: EFFECT ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator RYAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs and it follows upon my question to the Minister yesterday and his answer to the effect that the Australian Capital Territory will not be included in the federalism program in the next 12 months. I ask the Minister: Should I infer from his answer that the residents of the Australian Capital Territory can expect vast increases in the rates they pay during the next 12 months, since that would appear to be the only means open to the Government to raise the extra revenues it will require to pay for State-like services in the Territory?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not responsible for the inferences that the honourable senator draws. She may wander at large if she so desires. But the conclusion she has drawn in fact would not be true. Stage one of the federalism revenue sharing program is a stage in which the States will be slotted in to a fixed percentage of personal income tax and they themselves will have no power to vary that. Because the Australian Capital Territory is not a self governing territory at this moment, it will continue in exactly the same way as before. Since I am on my feet and since the question has been asked, I make this comment: The honourable senator will know that the Constitution does not permit of any discrimination in taxation as between the States. Strangely enough, apparently it does allow discrimination as between Territories. I say that without any attempt to draw an inference; I merely say that it is so. I assure the honourable senator that whatever steps are taken in further stages to bring both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory into overall federalism, and particularly as the Northern Territory moves to full statehood and the Australian Capital Territory to advanced self determination, there will be no inequity in the burdens borne by taxpayers in either place; there will be equity in these arrangements. If I may say so, there will be no tax havens.

page 1729

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Colston asked me a question and I undertook to investigate the matter for him. As I believe it is of general interest, I should like to expand on the answer I gave yesterday to Senator Colston with regard to his question about a person normally on award wages being required to accept piece work rates to prevent his unemployment benefits being terminated, despite the fact that he may not reach a minimum wage. I advise the honourable senator, and other people who may be interested in this, that it is not the usual practice to require a person on unemployment benefit to accept piece work if he had previously worked under an award. However, where such a person could reasonably be expected to earn an income from piece work equivalent to his previous level of earnings he would be required, subject to normal conditions such as suitability for the work involved, to undertake this work in order to satisfy the work test. There is no hard and fast rule applying in such cases and each case is examined on its merits.

page 1729

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bill reported:

States Grants (Schools) Bill 1976.

page 1729

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales Minister for Education · LP

– For the information of the Senate and pursuant to section 10 of the

States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-1976,I present the report on financial assistance granted to each State under the terms of that Act during the financial year 1974-75.

page 1729

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales Minister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and for the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of the former Department of Environment for the period July 1974 to June 1975.

page 1729

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales Minister for Education · LP

– Again, on behalf of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and for the information of the honourable senators, pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974-75,I present an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Western Australia in relation to the provision of financial assistance for urban and regional development, 1 975-76.

page 1729

REPORT: LIVING AT WORK

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales Minister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and for the information of honourable senators, I present a report prepared by F. E. Emery and C. Phillips titled: Living at Work.

page 1729

PAPERS AND REPORTS

Motions to Take Note

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion in respect of the States Grants (Schools) Act report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion in respect to the presentation of the annual report of the Department of Environment.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the presentation to the Senate of the report Living at Work by F. E. Emery and C. Phillips.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1730

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator BONNER:

– Yes. I wish to state categorically that I have been mis-reported in the Sydney Daily Telegraph newspaper of today’s date. Before I read from the article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph I would like to give some background as to how this matter arose during the course of this week. Yesterday at approximately 3 p.m., while I was doing some work in my office, I received a telephone call from a person who identified himself as a reporter for the Sydney Daily Telegraph. He asked whether he could put to me some questions in relation to the proposal that we have read about in the newspapers about the South Australian Government asking Sir Douglas Nicholls to take up the appointment of Governor of South Australia. A number of questions were asked of me which I believe I answered honestly and sincerely.

After asking the questions relating to Sir Douglas Nicholls the reporter then posed a hypothetical question to me. He asked: ‘Senator Bonner, if a like situation occurred in your State of Queensland and the Queensland Government offered you the position of Governor of that State, would you consider it?’ My answer to the question was: ‘Surely, as an Australian, if a government offered me a position of that type I would give it consideration. I would give it serious consideration, taking into account my parliamentary career, which I believe has some time to go yet, and other factors. Surely, as an Australian, I would be honoured to consider such a proposal.’ Having said that, this mealymouthed reporter then wrote an article it appeared in the Stop Press section, I might addwhich reads:

Senator Bonner wants job too

Queensland’s first Aboriginal politician, Senator Neville

Bonner, last night put his own name up for consideration as the next Governor of Queensland.

He said last night he felt compelled to do this after the appointment of Sir Douglas Nicholls, 69, an Aboriginal pastor, as the next South Australian Governor.

Senator Bonner said: ‘I would only be too pleased to serve as Governor of Queensland, or any other State, for that matter .. . if I were asked.’

Mr President, I believe that what is contained in this article is a complete misrepresentation of the conversation that took place between myself and the reporter. I have contacted the editor of that newspaper and have demanded a retraction of that article and an explanation as to why a reporter would misrepresent a member of Parliament, or any other Australian citizen for that matter.

page 1730

QUESTION

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I inform honourable senators that I have received a letter from Senator Gietzelt requesting that he be discharged from further attendance upon the Library Committee.

Motion (by Senator Cotton)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Gietzelt be discharged from further attendance upon the Library Committee and Senator Colston be appointed to the Committee.

page 1730

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 May on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The legislation which the Senate is now debating is a very important piece of legislation. It represents, from the Government’s point of view, an undoing or a dismantling of some of the important initiatives that were taken by the Labor Government in 1973. The Senate ought to be reminded that during the whole of the postwar years local government throughout Australia has been campaigning, agitating and pressing for the involvement of the Australian Government in the provision of funds for local government. It recognised in the post-war years that it would be essential, if local government was to carry out its correct responsibilities, for local government to receive untied grants from the Commonwealth Government and the State governments. It is a matter of record that for 23 years the Liberal-Country Party Government refused to take any steps in this direction. In point of fact, on the very last occasion on which the Australian Council of Local Government Associations sought audience from the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, in 1972, he declined to see such a deputation.

It was on the basis of the electoral mandate and program of the Labor Party put forward at the 1972 elections that recognition was given to establishing a formula and a principle involving the Australian Government in financial commitment to local government. This piece of legislation seeks to turn the clock back. It seeks to undo that Grants Commission decision in 1973 in which a formula was established which extended the general activity of the Grants Commission as it related to States to include local government. In the 2 subsequent Budgets, local government was to receive for the first time in Australia’s history untied grants from the Australian Government.

Now this coalition Government seeks to change that formula and to return the responsibilities through its so-called federalism policy to the States. This action has created a degree of dismay, uncertainty and concern in local government. It is creating havoc with respect to local government finances and planning. For example, the Bill which is currently before the Senate proposes to delegate to State grants commissions the responsibility of passing on to local government the means by which Australian Government revenue will be made available to local government. It so happens that, of the 6 States, only 2 States have State grants commissions operating for local government purposes within their jurisdiction. So complementary and supplementary legislation by the States is required. No indication is given in the legislation that the States have agreed or will agree to such a proposition. At a time when there is genuine concern about the degree of crisis that exists in local government funding, it ill becomes a government which is supposedly bringing competence and regularity in government finance into its operations that it should be introducing into this most important third tier of government such a degree of uncertainty.

We make no bones about the fact that the Australian Labor Party was committed to the principle of untied grants to local government. It is in our policy. It is in our program. We carried that principle out. In the first year of government in our first Budget in 1973-74 some $56.3m was allocated to local government on a needs basis. The following year this amount was increased by over 40 per cent to $79.9m. That represented only a proportion of the funds that were made available to local government. Those figures represent direct grants to local government authorities. Some 800 bodies had applied to the Grants Commission which, after all, was an establishment which this and former LiberalCountry Party governments had accepted as an authoritative body in the determination of grants to the States. That very self same organisation was given the opportunity to determine the grants to local government. Some 800 bodies out of the 959 local government instrumentalities in Australia subsequently made application to it for untied grants. To the satisfaction of the great majority of local government, that was regarded as a breakthrough.

The Australian Labor Party looks at this legislation with a great deal of concern and dismay. There is no provision in this Bill which maintains any of the principles of the legislation that was passed in 1973. It means that this Government seems to be embarking on a policy of spending the next 3 years repudiating and repealing the legislative efforts of the previous Government. If this is the way in which government is to proceed in Australia, one can imagine the sort of havoc that this will impose on governments right throughout Australia. If Mr Wran is to begin to repeal every piece of legislation carried into effect by the government of his predecessor in New South Wales- the Liberal-Country Party Government- governments in Australia will be spending their time repealing legislation regardless of its value or innovation. We deprecate the attempts that are being made in this legislation to change the emphasis from one of need to one of per capita consideration, which has been suggested as the only formula that ought to be applied in these instances.

No one can disagree with the unanimous view of local government throughout Australia that there was an essential requirement for Australian Government involvement in providing funds for local government. Local government was formulated in this country in the last century in an entirely different environment from that in which it operates today. The various State legislatures in the succeeding years have amended, changed and introduced new Acts of Parliament in order to determine the activity of local government within the 6 State jurisdictions. When one looks at legislation covering local government, the fact is that one can only come to the conclusion in general that that legislation represents something of a hotch potch, something of an ad hoc approach and something which is unrelated to the types of responsibilities which local government has to face in the modern world.

People do look to local government today to provide much of the better things at the locality level. One should not need to stress the point in the national Parliament that the provision of facilities at this level is for the community and is not for the local property owner. The original purpose of local government, which was to provide funds for property improvement, has long passed in terms of the historical development of Australia. In fact, local government now devotes half of its funds to providing community facilities. Its activities are no longer related purely to property enhancement which was the original concept of local government in this country. It was in the circumstances of these experiences that local government began many, many years ago to suggest that the Australian Government should allocate from the common pool of taxation a proportion of those funds to local government.

We take no umbrage at the Government’s suggesting that there should be a fixed proportion of Commonwealth revenue for local government. But what are not defined or stated in this Bill are the proportion and the principle upon which future funding will be made available to local government. I well recall in my local government years as president of a very large and growing shire convening ratepayer conferences, regional conferences of local government bodies and attending State conferences which were convened even by the New South Wales Labor Government in 1962 in Sydney for the express purpose of establishing the principle that there should be Australian Government involvement in the financing of local government and that a fixed proportion of national revenue should be made available to local government.

Nowhere in the second reading speech of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), nowhere in the speech of Senator Chaney, nowhere in the Government’s public pronouncements is there any suggestion of what this proportion will be. When the whole philosophy of the coalition Government is to deprecate public expenditure, I think it needs to be stressed and stressed again that the present Government is endeavouring to create in the Australian community the illusion that spending money in the public sector creates inflation. One needs to look at the sort of money which the Australian Government gave to State governments in the past. I think this matter is relevant to the debate because all honourable senators know that local government was funded by State governments until 1973 when a Labor Government for the first time entered the area and gave funds to local government.

The facts are that in the last Budget of the coalition Government the States received something like $3,6 14m in total loan borrowings, grants, untied grants, etc. A Labor government lifted that figure in its last Budget, in 1975-76, to about $8,566m, which represented something like 40 per cent of Commonwealth revenue being paid directly to the States with their varied and many responsibilities. Our last Budget was a Budget of restraint, a Budget on which we were enjoined and threatened by the media and other forces that unless there was a cut in public spending there would be even greater economic chaos in this country. Even at that time the Australian Labor Government made available to local government $230m. In addition we lifted the sum for sewerage from $27m in our first Budget to $ 115m in our last Budget. That amount was made available to the various States for sewerage works. Yet it is suggested that it was because of our recognition of the needs concept for sewerage and the needs concept for local government that we were contributing to a downturn in the economy and to all the other ills which are shown up by the deficiencies in the present capital system faced by the Australian people.

We believe that this legislation, while agreeing to the principle of a fixed percentage of personal income tax, does not take into account tax indexation. There is nothing in the legislation to indicate that the Government will in any way lift this percentage to accommodate the tax indexation which may be introduced as a result of the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) tomorrow evening. There is nothing to indicate that there will be a sum in excess of the funds that were made available in the 1975-76 Budget. So in these sorts of circumstances we are entitled to take the view that this legislation represents a retrogressive step- a step backward instead of a step forward- in providing a more substantial base for local government finance.

There have been many committees of inquiry and royal commissions into the problems of local government funding. I need refer only to the one conducted by the New South Wales State Government. A copy of its report was made available to the New South Wales Parliament in 1967. The question of a local government grants commission, involving both the Commonwealth and the States, was relevant to the various submissions which were placed before that inquiry. The local government and shire associations made very strong submissions that there be a sharing of national taxation. It could be argued by the Government that it has taken this submission into consideration. Senator Chaney, in his contribution in the late hours of Thursday afternoon, 6 May, said that the question of federalism was a factor that had to be taken into consideration, that this was the new look and that this was the new way forward. Little was he to know that at the election on the following Saturday the New South Wales electors would reject the very simple way in which he had attempted to suggest that federalism was understood by the Australian people. Senator Chaney said:

This concept has been well aired and discussed. It has been subjected to campaigning in the last Federal election campaign. I believe it has been widely embraced in local government circles and, indeed, in the community.

He was not to know, of course, that the electors of New South Wales were to have a very close look at that federalism policy and were to express very genuine concern about the ramifications of that policy. Of course he was not to know that local government, in its 2 subsequent submissions to the Government and to members of Parliament, would express considerable concern. That concern was expressed in recent documents which local government has circulated to members of Parliament. I refer to the comments of Councillor Thwaites. He said:

Ratepayers and councils throughout Australia have high expectations of more stable rates from local government’s promised share in the Commonwealth Government’s new revenue sharing proposals.

It is obvious that there is considerable apprehension in State Government circles and in local government circles about the federalism policy. One needs to look only at the newspaper comments to realise that, particularly at the very reasoned comment in the Canberra Times yesterday by Mr Bergman. Time will not permit me to do other than refer to it. I put this to Senator Carrick and Senator Chaney, the 2 proponents in this place of the scheme. On 3 May Councillor Thwaites wrote:

The whole exercise depends entirely on the level of assistance the Commonwealth Government decides to grant- and the Commonwealth will have to do some hard thinking about just what impact its promised, vital new reforms for local government will have.

Local government recognises that the present stringent economic climate has limited its claim for 1976-77 to 2 per cent of personal income tax. The amount resulting from this will not- and this must be made very clear- mean a whole new future for local government. It will simply mean that the level of untied Commonwealth assistance in that year would be about 20 per cent of the rates which councils will be raising themselves. In other words, it will be just a little more than the expected rate of inflation.

This means there is no magic to be expected from this new scheme, at least in these early days of economic difficulty.

Yet it has been suggested authoritatively that the share which will be applied to the Grants Commission in the revenue sharing arrangement of the Commonwealth-States scheme will be only 1.5 per cent of personal income tax. When we presented our last Budget we were told to exercise maximum restraint. In that Budget 2.2 per cent of Commonwealth income tax revenue was being made available directly to local government. The 1.5 per cent represents a reduction of something like one-third of the funds available to local government. As this starts to filter through the process, as it starts to filter through the community, what does Councillor Thwaites, the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, say in his bulletin of yesterday? He said:

It is still not clear, after some weeks of discussion between Federal and local government officials, that ratepayers around Australia can expect a better deal from the forthcoming Federal Budget.

He further said:

But there is considerable uncertainty as to whether or not they . . .

He means this Government- mean that the system will provide for acceptable levels in the amount of assistance that local government will get.

I was not able to get precise figures about funds which have been provided by the Commonwealth and States to local government authorities because they are not generally available. So 1 sought the assistance of the shire clerk of Sutherland in order to get some indication of what was received from the 2 arms of government for that council’s last Budget. For the sake of the record and for the sake of Senator Carrick and Senator Chaney, who I assume have a genuine interest in really solving problems facing local government in this country, I refer to the official figures which were given to me by the shire clerk. In the first instance I give to the Senate the total amount which that council received from the State government for its 1975-76 budget.

It received from the State in direct grants $582,555. This amount is made up from local government assistance funds, which form part of the Grants Commission process which has been operating in New South Wales for the last seven or eight years. There were grants for Department of Main Roads construction, for transport bus routes, for bush fire protection, for welfare and youth work, for social workers, for after-school payments- that is after-school facilities- for vacational play centres, for library facilities, and for Department of Main Roads maintenance. These amounts totalled $582,555. They are recurrent grants. They are grants from the State which the council can rely upon from year to year. They represent sums in excess of any other moneys which are made available to local government in any other part of Australia. These payments represent the top rank of payments made by States to local government.

Honourable senators may ask: What was the Australian Government’s contribution? In area improvement programs the council received $302,000. For leisure and recreation programsthese are grants from the Commonwealth Government direct to local government- it received $66,000. In direct grants which were untied, and which the council decided how to spend, it received $600,000. For child care centres it received $100,000, and for urban and local roads it received $228,000. These amounts represented in total from the Australian Government to local government at Sutherland $1,296,000. In fact, the amount paid by the Australian Government directly to local government was more than twice the amount received from the meagre resources of the State Government. I accept that the State Government has meagre resources.

Where in the legislation is it indicated that the States will be forced, persuaded or relied upon to continue those grants in the revenue sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States? There is no philosophical disagreement, as far as we are concerned, that there should be a fixed share of revenue given by the Commonwealth to the States, any more than there should be from the Commonwealth to local government. But unless the States give an unqualified undertaking that they will maintain their level of payments then local governments will be in a very difficult financial position. Of course, this is assuming- and remember that Sutherland received close enough to $ 1.3m- that the ratio of Commonwealth income tax will be at the 2.2 per cent level as it was last year. It has been said that that level might be 2 per cent. It has been authoritatively said that it will be 1 .5 per cent. Of course, every time that percentage drops by .1 per cent difficulties are created for local government.

It has to be said that this legislation nowhere seeks to bring about that essential change in the financial relationships between the Commonwealth and the States. We have been attacked very strongly in this place and elsewhere on the so-called federalism policy of the Australian Labor Party. Because Mr Whitlam made statements in about 1957 or 1962 people accept that those statements represent in word perfect expression everything the Labor Party stands for. Basically, I do not find myself in a position which is different from Mr Whitlam ‘s interpretation of regionalism. I put it to the Senate that regionalism is by far a more democratic process than federalism of which Senator Carrick is the main proponent in national politics today. The trend towards regionalism is evident in local government throughout Australia. Clearly, we cannot continue to have 900 local government bodies. Clearly, we have to move towards larger local government organisations. Clearly, there has to be the establishment of regional authorities by which there will be an association between the national government and local government in a proper form of organisation.

While we admit that there may be many flaws in the process of the Grants Commission, the fact is, as Mr Justice Else-Mitchell has indicated, that evolution is taking place, that experience is being gained and progress is being made in the regional concept. In Victoria only last year, at a conference at which Mr Hamer and the Minister for Local Government, Mr Hunt, were present, the people involved in the regional associations of local government endorsed the concept as the best and most equitable way in which funding should be arranged from the Australian Government to local government. It was based on the very principle which Senator Carrick and particularly Senator Chaney repudiated in this place; that is the needs concept. Per capita grants are not the answer, any more than we have found that per capita grants have been the answer to the States’ developmental programs throughout the post-war period. We have had the Grants Commission so that special consideration, topping up consideration or needs consideration could be taken into account. It is only on the basis of establishing regional authorities that we can come to some understanding of the need for local government to look at the matters in a regional concept rather than in a purely parochial concept. We are not trying to establish a bureaucratic centralism. We repudiate the suggestion that all that has to be done is to adopt the new federalism policy which Mr Malcolm Fraser has espoused, a policy that is false, phony and pseudo. It does not take into account the views of local government itself. It does not in any way seek to express in this modern world the sort of needs concept which is essential if local government is to have any equalisation in terms of its responsibilities and the funds to cany out those responsibilities.

It is in the light of this sort of experience that this legislation represents a turn back to the older methods. It does not represent the way forward. The financial mess which local government is in today has to be accepted. I give credit to this Government because at least it is prepared to carry on the concept which we as a Labor government recognised in 1973. We not only sought to give direct grants to local government in 1973, 1974 and 1975, but also we sought to make local government an integral part of the 3-tier system of government in this country. We set out to make local government a genuine partner in the Federal system and to promote equality between regions. Surely Senator Carrick cannot say to me in all seriousness that local government at Blacktown or Bankstown is on an equal footing with local government at Kuringgai or Manly or Waverley in the older developed areas where most of the property improvement and other community facilities have been provided over a great number of years. Surely honourable senators cannot repudiate our concept that there ought to be equality between regions and that therefore we ought to be making greater sums of money available to those councils which have a particular responsibility to provide modern facilities in the modern world of today. Of course we accepted the responsibility to transform local government finance. If it had not been for the last Budget, we would have carried forward the policies which we had begun in 1973.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I listened to the speech made by Senator Gietzelt who, like most members of the Opposition, believes that if he can put a case for spending a lot of money that is the be-all and the endall of it, irrespective of whether the money is spent responsibly or whether the people who have to provide that money can afford to be taxed to the extent that they are. This is a typical attitude of the Opposition. What effect did the previous Government have upon local government. We saw great spending in all sorts of areas, including local government. I will deal in detail with the operation of the Grants Commission later in my speech.

The previous Government’s spending in nearly all areas resulted in a great burden being placed on the taxpayers of this country, particularly on the private sector, which was affected to such an extent that it went to the wall. There was unemployment all over Australia. Instead of allocating money responsibly to the local government authorities, the previous Government implemented such schemes as the Regional Employment Development scheme, one of the most wasteful schemes introduced by a Government as far as value for money is concerned. I do not think that any honourable senator opposite who has had experience with the RED scheme will say that it was a productive exercise, other than in providing employment. It was a completely irresponsible way in which to spend the taxpayers’ money.

We know that the needs of local government have increased over the years. Back in the horse and buggy days the needs of local government were not so great. Sealed roads, which are expensive, were not required. Outhouses have been replaced by expensive sewerage systems. Water reticulation plants have replaced rainwater tanks. The responsibilities of local government have increased from year to year. The finance required to maintain the standard of living required by Australians has increased also. It is only natural that local government authorities are unable to gain all their revenue through the imposition of rates on their citizens. We all know that the old system of rating the unimproved value of land greatly disadvantaged those in the rural and pastoral areas. I can recall that in the shire in which I lived for many years- the Longreach shire- about 10 per cent of the people provided 92 per cent of the rates. We had situations where property owners were paying about $4,000 or $5,000 a year in rates. At that stage, the property owners were operating unprofitable enterprises because of drought and so on. The local doctor in the town, who was employed by the State, was not paying any rates to the local government authority. In comparison with the farmers in the areas the local doctor was receiving a very high income. Therefore the burden of financing local government was not fairly placed. It is only natural that there should be one taxing authority which will even out this burden so that taxpayers generally foot some of the bill for the requirements of local government.

I should like to turn now to the question of the best way to disburse this money. This is where the Government’s attitude differs from the attitude of the Opposition. We believe that the

States- which are far closer to the local government areas than is the Federal Government- are the best authorities to determine how the money allocated to the States should be allocated amongst the local government authorities. We believe that separate States grants commissions in each State will greatly assist local government authorities. After all, there is a variation of needs between States and there is a variation between the needs of local government. It is not true to say that, as suggested by Senator Gietzelt, the distribution would be on a per capita basis. There is provision in this Bill and in the Government’s policy to ensure that whilst the States may receive per capita payments they may receive further payments if a need for them can be shown. Of course, the State grants commissions, when set up, will determine grants not on a per capita basis but on a basis of need. They will determine where the money should go.

When the Labor Government set up the original Grants Commission it did so for the purpose of being a big brother. It wanted to make sure that local government throughout Australia would have to come cap in hand to Canberra. It attempted to bypass the States, therefore, reducing the responsibility of the States. The move towards regional areas was aimed firstly, of course, at undermining local government and, secondly, at undermining the States. The situation would have arisen whereby a great deal of expenditure within a State would have been made by the Federal Government on a regional basis and would have been directed by bureaucrats from Canberra.

Australia is a vast country. It is not highly populated and is certainly underdeveloped. A great deal of the development that is required, from a public point of view, has to be carried out by the local people. The local people know what is required and they know what their needs are. When the Grants Commission was moving around Queensland many of the representatives of shires who went to the cities found that they had insufficient time to put their case. Those who had prepared an excellent case came away with a lot of money. Those who did not have time to prepare as good a case- although the need was there- came away with very little. There is no question about the fact that not enough time and consideration was given to the needs of these shires. There is little doubt that with the introduction of States grants commissions and with local governments so closely connected with the State Governments, time will be given to ensuring that the needs of local government authorities are met.

We must remember the previous Government’s attitude to local government. Senator Gietzelt mentioned that there will be a cut back in money allocated to local government. It is interesting to note, of course, that during the last 2 years of the Labor Government the private sector was hit so badly that the Government lost about $3,000m in tax receipts from the private sector- that is, the company sector and the provisional taxpayers who are mainly farmers. These people are mainly responsible for providing a great part of local government requirements through rating. We believe that to run the country on a businesslike basis, to get everyone back into production, we have to cut taxation if we are going to give incentive to produce to business and individuals. Once that is done we will be in a position to provide schools for local areas and we will be able to provide money to people who require public funds to operate a business. We will have the money available. First, we have to get the business going. The business of this country has to get going if we are going to fill the bucket in order to empty it for the benefit of everyone in Australia. I believe that local government will understand that while the Government is trying to get the economy back on its feet and moving again, it too will have to pull its belt in, like all other sections of the community.

I now turn to the matter of regionalism. It has been said by both Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Gietzelt that it is our policy to get rid of regionalism and that regionalism is the greatest concept that could help develop the nation. There is nothing in this Bill or in our policy which says that we will get rid of regionalism. But we will allow the local authorities in the States concerned to decide how the regions will be worked out. They will not be worked out on an overall basis from a centralist organisation in Canberra. As I said before, once this Government is able to get the economy back on its feet, to get the nation producing again, and to get money into the coffers in order to support all public bodies such as local government authorities, then we will see this country go ahead. I am quite sure that local government, wherever one might find it in Australia, will appreciate the policies that we are expounding. I have no hestitation in supporting the Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– In his brief address I think Senator Maunsell has demonstrated yet again the confused and contradictory attitudes which prevail amongst supporters of the Government on the question of local government grants. On the one hand, Senator Maunsell assured us that, of course, the States know best how money ought to be distributed to local government and therefore the distribution of that money among local government units should be left with the State governments. If that is so, I ask Senator Maunsell why the Government’s policy stipulates that per capita grants will be paid to all local government authorities? If the Fraser Government really believes that the distribution of these moneys ought to be left entirely to the State governments, why has it served notice that it will stipulate, that it will dictate, to the States that a percentage, as yet unnamed, of the total funds must be paid to local government authorities on a per capita basis?

I also found it rather interesting and certainly ironical that Senator Maunsell should have referred to farmers’ incomes, because I just happen to have in front of me a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library which shows on a calendar year basis net farm income at constant 1966-67 prices for the 3 years of Labor Government and the previous 3 years of government under the Liberal and National Country Parties. The table shows that net farm income at constant prices- that is, after allowing for inflationaveraged $982m during the 3 years from 1970 to 1972 of Liberal-National Country Party Government, and net farm income in the 3 years of the Labor Government averaged $ 1,430m; that is an increase of 45 per cent. So if Senator Maunsell was postulating that it became difficult for farmers to pay rates during the last 3 years when their average incomes were, in real terms, 45 per cent higher than during the previous 3 years, I would say that it must have been impossible for them to do so in the preceding 3 years. I am not sure what relevance that has to the Commonwealth Grants Commission Bill but it was Senator Maunsell who raised the issue, not I.

It was interesting also to listen to Senator Maunsell’s references to the alleged extravagance of the Whitlam Government in this area and the very clear implication that it is the intention of the Fraser Government to reduce the amount of money which will be paid in total from Federal sources to local government. I am grateful to Senator Maunsell for having had the honesty, however unwitting it may have been, to make that intention clear and to spell it out. I hope the warning is appreciated by local government throughout Australia.

As is the case with most of the Fraser Government’s new federalism policy- Senator Maunsell has just very clearly illustrated this- there is a great deal of confusion and contradiction between its ends, its stated objectives, and the means by which it will attempt to achieve those stated objectives. Indeed, there is contradiction as to the means themselves. In his second reading speech on this Bill, the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) stated:

The precise role that the Grants Commission will play in the implementation of the Government’s new federalism policy nas yet to be finally determined.

Of course, the Minister’s second reading speech also makes perfectly clear that the only reason for this Bill amending the Grants Commissions Act is, firstly, to remove those sections of the Grants Commission Act under which the previous Labor Government made grants to local government authorities and, secondly, to provide a legal framework within which, in some way which has yet to be defined, the present Government’s new federalism policy can operate. That, of course, there is a frank admission that the role that the Grants Commission will play in the implementation of the Government’s policy has yet to be determined. Yet the Government, by its own admission, is amending the Grants Commission Act, destroying the machinery which was established by the Labor Government, without having any idea in its own mind precisely what it will establish in the Commission’s place. Indeed, it could be justifiably said in regard to the Government’s policy on this particular matter, as is the case with most of the Fraser Government ‘s new federalism policy, that the Government is attempting to gestate, in a social and administrative vacuum, a viable policy from its own ideological prejudices.

Apart from the frank admission in the Minister’s second reading speech that the Government does not know where it is going, we find some other interesting contradictions. We are told repeatedly by this Government that the only purpose of this new federalism policy, in particular, this piece of legislation as one component of that new federalism policy, is to decentralise power. If the Government really believes in decentralising power from Federal sources, I put to Senator Carrick as the Minister now responsible for this legislation- I hope he will take up the question in his reply to the second reading debate- the same question which I put to Senator Maunsell: If the Liberal Party really believes that the States can more competently and more equitably spend whatever amount of revenue may be raised for local government, why is this Government insisting that at least part of the money be distributed on a per capita basis? The Government has not entirely abandoned centralism or the concept of dictation to the States by the central Government. The Government clearly does not know where it is or what it believes in.

Assuming that the decentralisation of economic and administrative power was desirable, we ought to bear in mind the simple fact that the State governments pretty effectively centralise power unto themselves anyway. Federal grants are made to the States, for example, for road construction. The State governments then impose on local government authorities additional restrictions and additional constraints. The State governments insist that local governments match the funds which the State governments hand on to local government from Federal sources. Some constraints are imposed, of course -indeed, this is necessary- by the national Government on the way in which such road funds can be spent. The State governments pass on not only all of those constraints; they add more of their own. So even if the decentralisation of administrative power were desirable, we ought to be very conscious of the fact that some State governments- I can think of one State Premier on the western side of the continent in particular- have no real objection to centralism at all. In fact, the Premier to whom I refer is a very keen centralist, providing he is doing the centralising and not someone else. A Press release issued on 23 April by the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, had this to say:

The Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Nixon, said today he was still seeking legal advice as to whether State Governments could sell off assets purchased with funds made available specifically for roads by way of Section 96 grants under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act.

The subject matter of that Press statement was a proposal by the then Labor Opposition in New South Wales that some land which had been purchased for a freeway in inner Sydney be sold and the State Government retain the funds. Mr Nixon has clearly stated that that is not on. He has stated that the Federal Government will impose its will on the present Government of New South Wales if it can get a favourable judgment from the courts. If Mr Nixon really thinks that this is important, I hope that his legal judgment is sounder than his political judgment because later in the statement he made on 23 April he said that the prospect of the Labor Party being elected to government in New South Wales was so remote that it was unlikely the people of that State would suffer. I hope that his judgment is sounder in other areas than it is in prophesying the results of elections.

Within the legislation which is before us- the second reading speech admits that the Government does not know how this policy will be administered or how the Grants Commission is going to operate- and within the other published documents emanating from the Liberal and Country parties we have this interesting contradiction, a contradiction contained in one sentence, that not only will they pay per capita grants but also the per capita grants will incorporate a weighting formula. Surely that is a contradiction in terms. A per capita grant is a per capita grant and if it incorporates anything else it ceases by definition to be a per capita grant. This is indicative once again of the indecent haste with which the Liberal and Country parties threw this policy together. It is predictable, in view of the indecent haste with which they threw it together, that they have not the faintest idea how they will implement it.

It has yet to be decided what will be the magnitude of the levy on personal income tax earmarked for local government. Before anyone can sensibly state whether this will be advantageous to local government it is essential that the magnitude of the levy be known. It is not known. Nor is it known what proportion of that levy, whatever the levy may be, will be designated for the per capita grants and what proportion will be designed for equalisation grants. Senator Carrick, the Minister responsible for this and other aspects of the Government’s new federalism policy, was clearly confused both before and after Easter, as can be deduced from his replies to questions in the Senate. On 4 May I asked Senator Carrick a question and referred to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the surcharge in stage 2 imposed by the States would be ‘more like in Canada’. In Canada the levy has varied in the most recent year from 26 per cent to 42 Vi per cent. The Prime Minister stated publicly in his Press conference on 23 April that the level of surcharge would be comparable to that applying in Canada. Senator Carrick said on 4 May:

In no way would one contemplate that the kind of variations about which Senator Walsh speaks could or would occur.

So on one hand we have the Prime Minister saying that a surcharge of a maximum of 42 Vi per cent and a minimum of 26 per cent is likely to apply in Australia, since he has likened it to Canada, and on the other hand Senator Carrick saying that in no way is this likely to happen. So from the 2 people who proclaim themselves to be most interested in this subject and primarily responsible for it, we have a clear contradiction on a crucial question of policy. Likewise, when

Senator Carrick was invited to reassure the Senate before Easter that the total amount of money granted to the States in real terms would increase by 58 per cent during the next 3 years as it had increased by 58 per cent under the 3 years of Labor Government, Senator Carrick completely ducked the question. I invite him to comment on that in his closing remarks since he and many other Liberal Party spokesmen have asserted that the States will be better off financially under the new federalism policy than they were under the Whitlam Government. I invite Senator Carrick and his colleagues to give a guarantee that the grants to the States will increase by something more than the 58 per cent by which they increased under the Whitlam Government during the last 3 years. In the second reading speech we find this bald assertion:

The needs of less populated areas and of municipalities and shires with special disabilities will be protected.

I ask: In what way will these needs be protected and the special disabilities compensated for if it is the Government’s objective that the distribution of the money be left as much as possible to the States? If it is the Government’s intention to leave the distribution to the States, the Government is in no position to give any guarantee or to exercise any authority over the distribution of the grants and therefore cannot honestly assert that special disabilities will be protected. The second reading speech also stated:

No longer will local government have to approach the Federal Government ‘cap in hand ‘.

I thought that was a monumental piece of audacity from 2 parties which reigned for 23 years and which gave local government nothing by way of grants directly; parties which not only did nothing for local government by way of direct grants throughout their entire reign of 23 years but also had the audacity to oppose the 1974 referendum which would have given local government direct access to federal funds on a basis comparable with the States. It certainly has been a magnificent conversion by members of the Liberal and Country parties to the needs of local government. More likely, however, it is an empty piece of rhetoric such as we have become accustomed to hearing from all the spokesmen of the Government.

Not only do we have no guarantee or even a reliable indication of the magnitude of the levy or the proportion of personal income tax which will be earmarked for local government, but also we have no information on the future of specific purpose grants, including road grants and grants for sewerage, which accrue to local government.

According to the Local Government Association of New South Wales, about $200m was provided by way of specific purpose grants to local government this financial year apart from the special $79m distributed through the Grants Commission. The Government’s broad intention with respect to specific purpose grants appears to be that they wil be phased out. If the Government is really going to phase out specific purpose grants, local government in order to be on a financial basis equal to the position it was in this year will require $280m plus an inflation factor. This will require a levy on personal income of the order of Vh percent.

The Government also tells us that it intends to index taxation, although in what way we have not been told. It intends progressively to transfer its current fiscal responsibilities through section 96 grants to the States and force the States to take over those responsibilities and pay for them with a State income surcharge, and if all those policies are to be implemented it follows inevitably that the amount of personal income tax collected by the Federal Government must decline. Therefore, since it has been indicated that the percentage of that reducing yield earmarked for local government will remain fixed, funds available for local government must fall in proportion with any fall in the total of federal personal income tax collections. The explanatory notes which were circulated with the Bill by the Minister make it very clear that the regional basis of data collection and planning which is entailed in the existing legislation will be abandoned. They also make it very clear that the distribution of that section, as yet unstated, of the total finances which would be channelled through States grants commissions would be left to those States grants commissions.

Under the existing policy, 2 very pertinent facts emerge with respect to the distribution between regions, particularly the distribution between city and country. Firstly, the proportion of money paid to the less populous States is higher. My own State, Western Australia, with 8.2 per cent of the population, this year received 9.4 per cent of the grants to local governments. On a per capita basis, Western Australia received $6.90 a head compared with a national figure of $6. The discrepancy there is not particularly great, but it does become great when we look at the distribution between very well established urban areas and remote country shires. Within Western Australia, the average per capita grant to urban councils was $4.25 and the average per capita grant to rural councils was $20.12. Within those averages, of course, as one would expect, there are some grants to local authorities in particularly remote areas which are extraordinarily high, and I will give a few examples. These are not all of the highest grants but are examples from the remoter areas of Western Australia. In this financial year the shire of Sandstone received a grant of $150 a head, the shire of Murchison $100, the shire of Menzies $66, the shire of Meekatharra $32, the shire of Lake Grace $25 and the shire of Halls Creek $34. In other words, to a factor of four or five, the existing policy favoured the rural areas as distinct from the capital city areas.

I invite Government spokesmen to give a guarantee that that same distribution pattern will be preserved under their policy. I invite those honourable senators who purport to represent rural areas in the Senate- in particular I invite the National Country Party- to give a guarantee that their Government’s proposed changes will provide a distribution of funds as favourable to rural shires as is the existing policy. If they choose to give that guarantee, I invite them to prove how they can do it when, by their own admission, they have abdicated the responsibility for the distribution of the grants, and indeed have proudly asserted that one of the most attractive features of their policy is that the national Government has abdicated responsibility for distribution of the grants at a regional level and will hand the distribution over to the States.

I want to make 2 more points, Mr Deputy President. The equalisation concept, which was the basis of the Labor Government’s policy, is specifically repealed by this amending Bill. Section 6 of the old Act is repealed, and the explanatory memorandum circulated by the responsible Minister spells out the fact that the equalisation concept has been abolished by this Bill. The second point I wish to make is that, whether it is a deliberate intention or not, one of the effects of this changing concept, the philosophical basis behind the legislation, will be to perpetuate parochial jealousies. The Liberal Party, and even more so the Country Party, has successfully traded on the fear people in remote areas and in country areas generally have of governments, whether they be in Perth or in Canberra. They have peddled this nonsense, this myth that the Labor Party has a conspiracy. It is going to bring in regionalism, it is going to destroy local government, it is going to destroy State governments ultimately; all of this is one component of the great socialist centralist conspiracy. That is the sort of nonsense which was peddled in the countryside by the representatives of the Liberal and National Country Parties. It was peddled so successfully that some particularly gullible local councils, aided and abetted, of course, by Liberal Party hacks sitting on those councils, believed it. I refer in particular to the town council of Northam, which pompously asserted that it was not going to put in for a grant in 1 974 from the Whitlam socialist centralist government, and it did not apply for a grant. Therefore, of course, it did not get one, and at the end of that year the mayor of Northam had the audacity to complain that the Northam town council had suffered financially because of the Whitlam Labor Government.

Senator Withers:

– So it had, too.

Senator WALSH:

– I have not finished the story yet, Senator.

Senator Withers:

– So it had. It suffered from inflation. That is what wrecked it.

Senator WALSH:

– I have not finished the story yet. The President of the Northam Branch of the Liberal Party, Mr Bulloch- I think Mr Kelvin Bulloch- then stated in a letter to the editor of the Northam Advertiser that ‘by arrangement with our mayor I am replying to Senator Walsh’, and particularly to my assertion that the Liberal Party’s political influence on the Northam town council had been responsible for the council’s rejection of that grant. I think it is supremely ironic that the President of the Northam Branch of the Liberal Party, signing himself as the President of that branch, should have said: ‘By arrangement with our mayor, I deny the charge that the Liberal Party has infiltrated the Northam town council and is misusing its power on the Northam town council’. It is most unfortunate for the ratepayers of Northam that, firstly they had active members of the Liberal Party on the town council who were more concerned with pushing the Liberal Party’s political barrow and political nonsense than they were with the welfare of the ratepayers of the town of Northam. It is even more unfortunate, of course, that the whole concept of regionalism, the notion and principle of regional cooperation, was undermined by the vicious, unprincipled tactics which were used by the Liberal and National Country Parties. That was unfortunate. It is tragic that one of the intentions of this Bill is to destroy permanently the concept of regionalism and the concept of regional cooperation. The Bill before us is a hybrid which has emerged from the conflict between the ideological prejudices of the Liberal Party and the reality of the world. Unfortunately, it does not have any hybrid vigour.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I can recall in the late 1950s, when I was at a local government conference at Port Lincoln, moving in a late agenda item, on that occasion in general business, to the effect that a royal commission ought to be set up to examine the methods of financing local government in Australia, with the object of providing a greater share of the taxation pool to that tier of government. I recall that on that occasion the mayor, Mr Lin Riches, who is now deceased and who was a great friend of mine, supported me in the motion. I believe that if he were alive today he would recognise that what we are doing as a Liberal Party is directly what he had in mind in relation to guaranteeing State and local governments a share of the taxation pool. After listening to Senator Walsh’s speech, I believe that Mr Riches would be most disturbed if he were here.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– He was making an harangue.

Senator JESSOP:

-It is true that he did not have a great audience of Opposition members. (Quorum formed) I thank Senator Douglas McClelland, who called for the quorum, for attracting an audience. I realise that he recognises the value of the speech that I am making at the present time. The experience that we had with the former Government in office was quite alarming to honourable senators on this side of the Senate because of the way in which that Government rushed Bills of a centralist nature into the Parliament. Of course, it did this deliberately with the object of weakening the influence of State governments. I believe that this gave birth to the federalism policy document of the Liberal and National Country Parties during the last election campaign. We stated:

The Liberal and National Country Parties are keen to accept the challenge to achieve major and continuing democratic reforms. We are heartened by the significant advances in effective decentralisation already achieved in countries such as Canada, West Germany and America where centralist philosophies have been rejected as dangerous, inefficient and divisive.

For that reason we introduced a policy which I believe will give some comfort to State and local governments. With respect to revenue sharing policies, we stated, under the heading ‘Permanent share of income tax’:

The Liberal and National Country Parties propose to ensure the States permanent access to revenue-raising through personal income tax. In so doing, the existing rights of the less populous States will be fully protected. No State will be disadvantaged and the relative positions of the States will be preserved.

It was interesting for me to read what the Premiers stated after their meeting with the Prime

Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) earlier this year. It was quite interesting to observe that the Labor Premier of South Australia stated that the Fraser plan was a genuine new deal. The article from which I quote, and which appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser, went on to state:

Mr Dunstan left the morning’s talks smiling and said the States had been given almost everything they sought.

It was also interesting to read what the Labor Premier of Tasmania, Mr Neilson, had to say as reported in the Hobart Mercury. He said:

Tasmania almost certainly would be better off under the new Federal-State tax-sharing formula to be applied from next financial year.

The article from which I quote went on to state:

Treasury officials have estimated that the States between them could get up to $350m extra next financial year under the new agreement.

On the basis of that figure, Tasmania’s share would be $17,830,000 in extra tax revenue from Commonwealth income tax collections.

It seems to me that if 2 Labor Premiers were satisfied with the arrangements contained in this Bill, the Opposition has nothing to complain about. I recall the attempts of the former Government to undermine the effectiveness of State governments. I believe that the most sinister of its policies was that which dealt with the proposal to establish 30 or 40 regions throughout Australia comprising local government bodies in those regions which would have to apply to a central grants commission for their revenues. In other words, the requirement would be that decisions would be made for them by a central authority far removed from the areas concerned. Local government authorities could not even buy a grader or a tractor without recourse to this commission. But, of course, that policy is in keeping with the Australian Labor Party’s purported intention to abolish the States. I recall the time a few years ago when Mr Whitlam, who was at the time, I think, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, delivered a speech at the Australian National University in which he referred to this subject and said that the State Labor members of Parliament were all working towards their own dissolution. Senator Chaney delivered a very well-presented speech in the Senate on 6 May 1976. He referred to this matter also and said: . . Mr E. G. Whitlam, who, in a series of lectures starting, I think, in the 1950s and proceeding through the 1960s, sketched Labor’s approach to the Australian Constitution. In those lectures, it is made quite clear that Mr Whitlam and his Party see it as being desirable that the State governments should wither away and that Australia should be served by a central government in Canberra and a series of regional arrangements through building on what is now local government in Australia.

That plan has unfolded over the last two or three years. We believe that our policy of federalism will provide the States with a greater say with respect to the way they spend their share of the pool. It will certainly provide local government authorities with the capacity to look ahead and to plan their road programs and various other local activities in a businesslike way, guaranteed of a certain percentage of the taxation revenue.

Senator Walsh made some comment with respect to the Northam Council in Western Australia. I can tell him that there were many local councils throughout the more remote areas of South Australia that were very concerned about the policies of the former Government, for example with respect to roads. The Labor Government Bill that was introduced into the Parliament provided less money in many categories each year for road programs. The Labor Government, in its judgment, relied on a report which assumed an inflation rate of 6 per cent per annum. But at that time, road construction costs were increasing at between 15 per cent and 20 per cent per annum. Any Government which introduces legislation as the Labor Government did in its roads grants legislation to provide less money over a period places an impossible burden upon local government authorities to plan properly for their road works. This legislation represents a sensible approach so far as we are concerned. I am certain that local government bodies and State governments throughout Australia will recognise that they will be able to plan more carefully and in a more businesslike fashion to spend their allocations in the best possible way.

This Bill not only opens the way for the Commonwealth Grants Commission to continue in operation as a central body. It also makes possible the distribution of money through States grants commissions. It seems to me to be logical that that should take place. Reference is made in our policy to equalisation grants. The policy states:

It is intended that the principle of equalisation and the current advantages accruing to the less populous States vis-a-vis New South Wales and Victoria shall be sustained at all stages.

It goes on:

The Grants Commission will be fully retained with regard to its existing State functions. However, the responsibilities for local government inquiries will be transferred to State Grants Commissions.

Senator Walsh referred to specific purpose grants. For the benefit of honourable senators I will read our policy on specific purpose grants as outlined in our federalism policy. It states:

The coalition parties are convinced that national objectives can be fully asserted and social reforms achieved and maintained with a more selective use of such grants and without heavy-handed interference and duplication of functions.

Many of the existing Section 96 grants are now part of well-established and universally accepted programs within the States. The moneys for such programs could be transferred to general purpose revenue reimbursement and ultimately absorbed in the States’ income tax revenue.

Under such circumstances, the programs would continue in full without prejudice. A Liberal-National Country Party Federal Government would seek agreement from the States that this would be so, prior to making the transfer.

Finally, with reference to specific purpose grants, the policy states:

If a future initiative should prove necessary to maintain or to increase the program, the Government would retain the initiative to invoke an appropriate special purpose grant. We would use such grants, where necessary, to initiate programs in agreed areas of national need, to encourage innovation and to meet special situations.

I hope that this adequately answers Senator Walsh’s question regarding specific purpose grants. I am very pleased to be able to support this legislation which reflects ideas I put forward many years ago and which received popular acclaim in the Eyre Peninsula area. I do not know what happened to the amendment that I moved to the motion regarding this matter. It seemed to lose its way somehow. At the end of the motion I said that we ought to get the support of other local government associations to make appropriate representations with respect to the appointment of a royal commission on this subject. I am pleased that now we see this Bill paving the way for federalism policies which, according to the State Labor Premiers from Tasmania and South Australia, will give them a much better deal. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I wish to speak very briefly about this Bill. Perhaps I should indicate just 3 important matters which the Bill contains and about which the Opposition is concerned. The Senate is debating a Bill to amend the Grants Commission Act. In his second reading speech the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) defined the purposes of the legislation as being threefold. He said that the purpose of the Bill is firstly, to remove from the Grants Commission Act any references to assistance for local government which are no longer appropriate under the federalism policy; secondly, to make specific provision for the Commission to advise the Government on matters relating to assistance to local government; and thirdly, to remove the obligation upon the Grants Commission to report on applications for assistance from local government. In his opening sentence the Minister described this Rill as being a step in the implementation of the Government’s federalism policy.

As we see it, the result of this legislation being passed by the Senate will be the changing of the name of the Grants Commission to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. This carries with it the implication, which is spelt out later in the Minister’s second reading speech, that there will be established 6 State Grants Commissions which will perform in relation to local government a function, in a structural sense, similar to that which has been performed by the Grants Commission in the past. The legislation involves a change to the system whereby the Grants Commission directly inquiries into the affairs and, more particularly, the needs of the 880 local government organisations in this country and makes recommendations to the Government on the totality of the amount of money which should be made available to each individual council. The first point about that proposal which concerns the Opposition is that it is again indicated that the proposal carries with it the implication that at a primary level the concept of consideration of the needs of each local government council will be abandoned. It also carries with it the idea that the universality of interest of local government across Australia is a matter which is appropriately considered at a national level and not in a sort of segmented level, depending on the coincidence of State boundaries.

If one examines the present system one finds that the Grants Commission reports on those needs to the Government and the Government then makes a decision about the total amount which will be made available by the Grants Commission for local government purposes. The Government is quite able to make that decision even though it may disagree with the assessment of the Grants Commission. When this legislation is passed, and we must assume that it will be passed, the Government will tell the Grants Commission at the start, as we understand it, the total amount of Government funds which will be available. The Grants Commission will then make a recommendation apportioning that sum amongst the States. One supposes that the State governments, having enacted legislation to establish their local Grants Commissions, will then charge those Grants Commissions with the task of apportioning that money amongst the local government areas in the State. I will make just one or two comments about that. The first is that although this approach may ultimately involve less cost to the national Government, or indeed greater flexibility to the national Government in deciding what the cost to it of local government will be, it is very doubtful in our view whether the proposed structure of providing grants to local government will involve less cost to the community as a whole. The situation may arise in which the Grants Commission, with 40 years of expertise, will have this function removed from it. That function will be reinvested in 6 State Grants Commissions which will be involved, possibly without the same degree of expertise, in assessing the amount of per capita grants to be made to particular States.

The next point to which I wish to draw the Senate’s attention refers to per capita grants. The Opposition sees this as carrying with it the implication, based on the present Government’s ideological hang-up about these matters, that the richer local government areas will get richer and the poorer local government areas will get poorer. This is so, we believe, irrespective of any equalisation proposals or topping up proposals, if I can use that expression, when the primary criterion of need is abandoned. It is very difficult to say too much about this matter because there is so little revealing information in the Minister’s second reading speech. One suspects, perhaps unkindly, that this matter has been rushed through somewhat in order that the legislation might be on the statute books prior to the next Premiers’ Conference. If one examines the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Administrative Services, there really is very little enlightenment as to what it all means. Senator Withers nods his head with his characteristic charm. If nothing else in politics, I suppose he could be described as a realist. He recognises, having glanced at the second reading speech prepared for him, that the author of that speech really does not know what is going to happen about the final arrangements which must be made in connection with this proposal, in terms of detail. One refers particularly to page 2 of the printed copy of that speech.

Senator Withers:

– Is it that long?

Senator BUTTON:

– If I may say so, it is verbose in view of the actual information which it contains. But that is characteristic of the speeches which the Minister is inclined to give in this place. At page 2, the second reading speech says:

Local government will receive assistance under the new tax sharing arrangements as from the 1 976-77 financial year. Under these arrangements a fixed percentage of personal income tax will be earmarked for distribution through the States to local government to provide per capita grants, possibly weighted, to all local government bodies and an equalisation or ‘topping up’ grant to be distributed through State Grants Commissions.

Senator Withers acknowledges by the vehement nodding of his head and by his interjections that that is an extremely vague statement of intention. It is a statement which indicates that the proposal itself had not been refined or fully thought out at the time of the introduction of this legislation. That is why we say that it is an example of window dressing for the purpose of the Premiers’ Conference.

Again, at page 3 of the printed copy of the second reading speech one reads:

The precise role that the Grants Commission will play in the implementation of the Government’s new federalism policy has yet to be finally determined. While the Commission will continue to exercise its traditional role in relation to the less populous States, its role in relation to local government finances will be considerably modified. The proposed amendments to the Bill reflect this modified role.

Again that is a statement of characteristic imprecision. When I say ‘characteristic’, I mean characteristic of this Government which, after coming to power in December of last year with a number of vague promises, suddenly finds that it has to come down to the reality of implementing those policies into practical proposals. One finds this statement to be an extraordinary example of the scene 6 months after the election in which there is still this calculated vagueness in a proposal as important as this one.

I wish to say something about the hysterical outburst by Senator Jessop on the concept of regionalism. Senator Jessop, I would put to the Senate, has a very limited vision in this matter. In fact, I might say ‘Optometrist heal thyself, if he were here; but he is not. He displayed that limited vision by his references to a speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), as he then was, in 1965.

Senator Withers:

– Has he improved since then?

Senator BUTTON:

– He has had his ups and downs which, as Senator Withers knows, I would be the first to acknowledge. This sort of obsessional desire to raise up the ghost of regionalism and Mr Whitlam ‘s earlier expressed views about the role of State Labor politicians, and then to use it as a stick to support this rather vague and waffling legislation in 1976 seems to me to be a bizarrely imaginative exercise, to put it in the kindliest terms. One of the things which practical experience of the Labor Government’s endeavours to encourage regional arrangements shows is that this enabled councils and local governments to pool their resources, their initiatives and, indeed, their wishes in certain ways which have benefited each of those councils and the whole of the region. For example, I refer the Senate to a conference in May 1976 of the chairmen of local government bodies. This was presided over by Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, the Chairman of the Grants Commission. In describing the Labor Government’s programs for local government, he said:

These programs represented a breakthrough by local government because they manifested the recognition of the obligation of Federal Government to provide financial assistance for local government purposes as a supplement to the revenues which councils were able to raise from their traditional revenue sources.

Discussing the so-called new federalism policy which really seems to be the old federalism policy of 1900 vintage, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell said:

The policy may, however, cause some concern to local government in 2 respects. One is that since the ultimate distribution of funds to local government will be the responsibility of the State Grants Commission, the public hearings which previously took place between local government bodies and the Commission will come to an end. The other is that the passing of responsibility to the State for local government grants will make unnecessary- and perhaps deny to local government- any communication with the Commonwealth Government or any of its agencies.

That criticism, made by the Chairman of the Grants Commission, indicates something of what is envisaged by the expression ‘the new federalism’, because the so-called new federalism is nothing more than a reiteration in some respects of nineteenth century colonialism in its attitude to this question. If we deny communication between the Commonwealth Government and local government in the way which I believe is envisaged by this legislation, the clock is really turned back to that period when the situation with artificiality of colonial boundaries was a key factor in governmental structures in this country.

For those sorts of reasons which concern us, and concern us largely because this legislation is described as an aspect of the new federalism which seems to us to be a very vague and ill defined concept, the Opposition strongly opposes the purposes and the provisions of this Bill. Furthermore, we find it deplorable that, in these sorts of ad hoc arrangements which have been thrown together to constitute the new federalism, we should find a Bill as sloppy and imprecisely defined as the Minister in the second reading speech which he gave in this place indicates it to be. Senator Withers, as I said before, acknowledges that imprecision.

Senator Withers:

-Oh, no, I did not. I said brevity ‘, not ‘ imprecision ‘.

Senator BUTTON:

-He acknowledges that imprecision and indeed embraces it because it provides scope for a multitude of sins both of omission and of commission. Indeed, we feel confident that it will be some time before either sins of omission or commission can be committed under this legislation because nobody really understands where it is going. This is quite apparent having regard to the terms of the Minister’s second reading speech.

For those reasons we oppose the legislation. We think it is an undesirable and a retrograde step. We think it is bad for the structure of government in Australia generally. We think it is particularly bad for local government in Australia. We think it is bad because it severs rather than encourages the development of closer relationships between the 3 tiers of government. We think that in 1976 it is undesirable for Australian government structure and for Australian society as a whole. Accordingly we oppose the legislation, as a reprehensible, if I could use that characteristic expression, step in the structure of government in Australia.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank honourable senators who have spoken in this debate. I especially thank my colleagues on this side who have certainly understood what the Bill is all about and who have given it their unqualified support. It is a matter of regret that the Opposition has been so myopic about the Government’s intentions, if I may pick up a term used by the Reverend John who has just resumed his seat. For at least a year the Government’s intentions on federalism and on the relationship between the Commonwealth Government and local authorities has been quite well understood and well known, especially by the local authorities. It is no use honourable senators opposite, particularly Senator Walsh and recently Senator Button, now attempting to say that what their present Leader, the then Deputy Leader, said in 1965 does not represent the official policy of the Australian Labor Party. Local authorities may not have believed us prior to 1972 that those lectures in 1965 did represent the official policy of the Australian Labor Partymuch as people did not believe Hitler and his Mein Kampf, and they saw what happened in the end. However between the years 1972 and 1975 local authorities felt the effects, and they saw what happened to them over those 3 years. Local government felt the full impact of Labor’s socialist, centralist, madhatter, lunatic economic policies.

It is understandable that honourable senators opposite do not care for this Bill. After all, it dismantles the great centralised bureaucratic machine which they erected over the last 3 years and by which they hoped to establish from Canberra their ascendancy over local authorities. We are implementing our federalist policy and, as far as possible, are bringing about a devolution of power in this country, not just at State Government level but at local government level. Unlike our opponents opposite, I think it is fair to say, we believe in the involvement of as many people as possible in Australia in the decision making process. It is notorious that the Labor Party believes in as few people as possible being involved in the decision making process. As I understand and as I observed, not by reading the newspaper but with my eyes, in the 3 years between 1972 and 1975 the Labor Party believed in the decision making process by kitchen cabinets and one-man bands. In the terrible period that we went through during that time we realised that if local government is to be protected it must be protected by a restructured Commonwealth Grants Commission, with a guaranteed access to a share of Commonwealth personal income tax. This has been spelt out time and time again by my colleague, Senator Carrick.

I think it is enough for me to reply in these broad terms to the speeches in the second reading debate. To answer point by point what has been raised by honourable senators certainly would not convince them to vote for the second reading of the Bill.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You never know.

Senator WITHERS:

-Even I admit that my powers of persuasion are not of that order. It has been indicated by Senator Rae that he has some queries to raise at the Committee stage. Therefore, Mr President, I suggest, with respect to you and to the Senate, that the sooner we conclude the second reading debate, have a vote and see whether the Senate accepts the principle of the Bill and, if it does, get into the Committee stage where the details of the Bill can be argued, the better.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 23

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 5.51 to 8 p.m.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3- by leave- taken together.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Committee of the Senate is debating clauses 1 to 3 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Bill. As we all know this is a Bill to amend the Grants Commission Act 1973-75.I indicate now, as I indicated during the course of my remarks in the debate on the second reading, that the Opposition opposes the Bill. It opposed it at the second reading stage. It intends to oppose the Bill during the Committee stage and at the third reading. However, because we know the Government’s legislative program is getting somewhat tight, it is not our intention to divide on all clauses. But it is our intention to state the Opposition case on each of the clauses. Then I anticipate that when you, Mr Chairman, finally put the question that the Committee report that it has considered the Bill we will oppose that motion and divide the Senate. I emphasise that at this time so that our lines will not be crossed during the Committee stage.

The Committee is dealing with clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill. Clause 1 is the short title; clause 2 sets out the date on which the Bill will come into operation as the day on which it receives royal assent; and clause 3 relates to the title of the principal Act being amended by inserting before the words ‘Grants Commission ‘ the word ‘Commonwealth’. We oppose this amendment, as we indicated in our remarks during the debate on the second reading, because the use of the word Commonwealth’ clearly indicates that the Government intends retaining a Commonwealth Grants Commission and, likewise, having 6 separate State grants commissions. It is for that reason that we offer our opposition to this clause. I emphasise that prior to the Whitlam Government being elected in 1972 and before we amended the Grants Commission Act 1973 this organisation was known as the Commonwealth Grants Commission and it had been known as such from about 1932 or 1933 when it was established.

If we have to have a distinction, naturally we of the Opposition prefer the word ‘Australian’ rather than the word ‘Commonwealth’. I think it fair to say that had there been a number of State grants commissions at the time this legislation was amended by the Whitlam Labor Government we would have added the word ‘Australian’ rather than retaining the word ‘Commonwealth’. The very fact that at that time we deleted the word ‘Commonwealth’ from the title of the Grants Commission indicates clearly that it was the view of the then Labor Government that there should be only one grants commission. As I have said, this clause proposes to change the name of the Act to the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act. I point out that under clause 7 of the Bill section 8 of the principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-clause (7) the words ‘Public Service of the Commonwealth’ wherever occurring and substituting the words Australian Public Service’. There appears to me to be some inconsistency there. It is for the reasons which I have advanced that the Opposition opposes clause 3 of the Bill.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 4 (Definitions)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Clause 4 seeks to amend section 4 of the principal Act by deleting certain definitions now standing. It is proposed to delete from the principal Act the definition ofappropriate Minister’; the definition of ‘approved regional organisation’; and to insert in the definition of ‘Commission’ the word ‘Commonwealth’ before the word ‘Grants’. It is also intended to omit the definition of ‘local governing body’ and substitute a new definition in lieu thereof. I take the time of the Committee to indicate that the definition in the principal Act of ‘appropriate Minister’ which it is now sought to omit by this Bill reads: appropriate Minister’, in relation to a State, means such Minister of the down of that State as is determined by the Premier of that State by instrument in writing, and includes any Minister of the Crown for the time being acting for and on behalf of that Minister;

That definition is being deleted. I mention that because accusations have been made from time to time during the course of this debate that when the Labor Party was in government we did not extend any co-operation to the States. Quite clearly, in the Act which we brought into being, there was provision for Ministers of State governments to be appropriately defined. Now under the Bill the Government seeks to define approved regional organisation’. Also, the Bill omits the present definition of ‘local governing body ‘ which in the principal Act is defined as: local governing body’ means a local governing body established by or under a law of a State;

It is proposed to substitute the following definition: local governing authority’ means an authority, established by or under a law of a Stale, that is, in accordance with provision made by the regulations, a local government authority for the purposes of this Act;

We suggest that the amendments proposed by this clause commence the destruction of the regionalism concept by removing from the definition ‘regional organisations’ and, as I have mentioned, ‘appropriate State Minister’. The definition of local governing authority varies the earlier definition of local governing body. It appears to me that under the new definition a local governing authority means an authority which is to fall within provisions now to be made by regulation. Apparently it is the intention of the Government to confine authorities to elected local government authorities thus, I suggest, including regional bodies such as county councils and other regional local government organisations. But it is not certain exactly what that means. I understand, according to the Minister’s second reading speech as I recollect it, that that matter has been referred to the Grants Commission for further advice.

The problem as I see it is that the types of local government authorities will be determined by way of regulation and not necessarily in consultation with the relevant State governments. Thus, someone in Canberra could well be influential in determining which local government authorities will be prescribed or regulated for under the Act. That person will also be influential in determining those local government authorities which wm be eligible to receive funds under the present provisions. Because the deletions of the definitions in paragraph (d) of this clause virtually mean the destruction of the concept of regionalism as established by the Labor Government, we oppose the passage of this clause.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Unlike Senator Douglas Mcclelland, I wish to raise certain matters for clarification whilst, at the same time, indicating my total support for the Bill, the concept which is behind it and what it sets out to achieve. I wish to ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) whether he will place on the record some clarification of the meaning which is intended as a matter of policy in relation to the definition of local government authority. Senator Douglas McClelland has already read out clause 4 of the Bill. I do not propose to repeat it, but it does raise the possibility that local government authorities could include bodies such as the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works, the Hydro-Electric Commission in Tasmania or other bodies in the various States of Australia. I have no doubt that it is not intended that that type of body should be included within the provisions of this type of legislation. I feel that it would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate on that area if he feels that he would like to, either now or at some later stage.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I rise to draw the attention of the Minister to a question similar to that of my colleague, Senator Rae. I draw the Minister’s attention to the definition of local government authority. I suggest that in the words that are used- I think a superfluity of them is obvious- all that is meant is that local government authority means a State local government authority that is defined by the Commonwealth regulations. That is a pretty wide function to give to regulations. I wish to have some understanding of why it is necessary to resort to that and why in this Bill those categories of local authorities, such as referred to by Senator Rae, might not have been excluded in the definition and the statutory definition of local government authority applied. Why is it necessary to employ regulations to define what is, I think the Minister would agree, an essential definition on which one major part of the Bill will operate?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I think it is fair to say that the original idea behind this broad concept of providing finance for local government was that it would relate, in general, to municipalities and shires as the grants of the previous Government did. When it came to translating that, some legal difficulties arose because local government varies greatly between States, as the honourable senator would know. In some States, particularly South Australia, we have what are called unincorporated areas, and there are other difficulties. So I think that the explanation is twofold. First, the Commonwealth Government, through the Premiers Conference, invited the Commonwealth Grants Commission to look to what might be the definition of a local government authority and to make a recommendation to the Premiers Conference.

Senator Douglas McClelland raised the matter of definitions. I should point out that there will be a continuing dialogue at the Premiers Conference level about this matter. The Commonwealth Grants Commission will report to the June Premiers Conference. There will be discussions and no doubt arising from them the concept of the definition will emerge. It might well be that as time proceeds the more tidy form of legislation would be what Senator Wright envisages- that is, rather than adopting the loose regulatory fashion, ultimately a simple amendment to this Bill by way of a tidier definition would emerge. I shall keep that thought in mind for the future.

Senator Douglas McClelland also mentioned the fact that the aim, in this clause, appeared to be to destroy regions. The Commonwealth Government has no intention of destroying regions. The Commonwealth Government is perfectly happy for regions to emerge spontaneously from the grass roots at local or State level for a variety of purposes. It sees a lot of merit in their arising for a variety of purposes but it is quite emphatic that it does not see the role of a Commonwealth Government of our Liberal or federalist philosophy as being to impose policies by imposing regions from a Commonwealth level throughout Australia. It is not our intention therefore to impose regions to enforce our local government policies. It would never be our intention to impose regions for the indirect purpose of achieving amalgamations. So there is no need, for our part, of regions for this mechanical purpose, but if States or local governments desire regions then they can spontaneously emerge.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I should like to ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) a question. I am more confused now than I was on the question of ‘local government authority’. It may be because of my imperfection in understanding exactly the English language. I am concerned about the words ‘that is’ which have commas around them. Do I understand that ‘local government authority’ means an authority established by or under a law of a State? Then, despite the fact that local government authorities may be established under a law of a State, we describe then what we mean by ‘a law of the State’- that is, one that complies with our regulation.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the purposes of this Act.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– For the purposes of this Act. Alternatively, does it mean that a local government authority has to meet 2 requirements before it becomes eligible for benefits- firstly, that it has to be registered under a law of the State and, secondly, that it has to come under the regulations for the purpose of this Act. If that is so, would it be possible for a local government authority which comes under the law of a State- and recognised by the State as such- to be denied benefits because it does not comply with a regulation under this Act?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (8.18)- I raise a point in this context too. Senator Cavanagh raised a question about the definition of ‘local government authority’. The clause states that a local government authority means an authority which is established by or under a law of the State and so on. I should like to raise the question of local government in Norfolk Island. That island is not a State. So surely there has to be a clearer definition than that. Perhaps the definition of a local government authority should refer to not only an authority established by or under a law of a State but also to such territories of the Commonwealth of Australia which have local governing agencies of one sort or another. I simply use Norfolk Island as an example. I should be grateful if the Minister could address himself to that aspect when he replies.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I wish to raise a matter briefly on the question of regionalism. I do not wish it to be inferred for one moment from what the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) might have implied that a Labor Government was forcing on the States or on local government the concept of regionalism as a result of an arbitrary determination by any Minister of the Australian Government. Senator Rae is trying to interject. I am just putting a case on behalf of the Opposition and Senator Rae had ample time during the second reading debate to make a speech had he wanted to do so. In the original Act the term ‘approved regional organisation’ means ‘an organisation or body that is, under the regulations or an approval under section 17 that is in force, an approved regional organisation for the purpose of this Act’. Section 17 of the principal Act reads:

The Minister for Urban and Regional Development may, after consultation with the appropriate Minister of the State concerned, approve an organisation or body that represents, or acts on behalf of, the local governing bodies established in a region as an approved regional organisation for the purposes of this Act or revoke or alter such an approval.

Clearly under that definition there had to be consultation between a Minister of the Australian Government and the appropriate State Minister for the purpose of the Commonwealth determining and approving the regions that were being drawn up.

However, on the aspect to which Senator Rae and also Senator Wright referred, as I mentioned in the first speech I made during the Committee consideration of this Bill, the definition in the Bill of ‘local government authority’ is ‘an authority, established by or under a law of a State, that is, in accordance with the provision made by the regulations, a local government authority for the purposes of this Act’. Having re-read that definition, I might say that I now realise the force in Senator Cavanagh ‘s argument as to why there is a comma after the word ‘State’ and before the word ‘that’. Quite clearly the problem, as I see it, under this proposed definition is that the types of local government authorities will be determined by way of regulation and not necessarily in consultation with the respective State governments. As I mentioned earlier, it appears to me that rather than there being the consultation that previously existed between the Australian Government and the State governments on these matters by way of regulation, as it were, a public servant will be very influential, to say the least, in determining which local government authority will be eligible for funds under this legislation. I invite the Minister’s comments on those matters.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– As I pointed out, there exists throughout Australia a series of bodies which might loosely come under the heading ‘local government authorities’. Indeed, most of us simplify it- Senator Douglas McClelland would know this- by referring to local and semi-governmental authorities to divide them in 2 categories. Indeed the Loan Council, as the honourable senator would well know, does that itself when it is working out borrowing programs. Within the semi-governmental bodies there are electricity generating authorities, the Tasmanian hydroelectric authority, the

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, and so on.

Again I refer to my reply to Senator Wright. There are some areas of States which are not covered by what we would call municipalities and shires and are unincorporated areas. For example, in South Australia the South Australian Government is itself directly a local government authority in these unincorporated areas. The previous Government denned the fact that its grants would be directed to municipalities and shires. That was its definition. We have already set out in consultations at the Premiers Conference- we will continue those consultations- to arrive at what our meanings will be in this regard. I do not wish to pre-empt them. Certainly we have in mind municipalities and shires, and certainly we have in mind to include city areas of governmentcity councils- in capital city concepts. We have invited the Commonwealth Grants Commission to recommend definitions to the next Premiers Conference. Because there are these disabilities, what this clause provides is that, consistent with bodies being recognised as local authorities by the States, we will then by Commonwealth regulation indicate the types and classifications which, for the purposes of this Act, will receive funds, just as in the past the previous Government determined that only municipalities and shires, and not semi-governmental bodies, would receive funds.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They have got to meet 2 criteria.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes. In fact, I think the honourable senator’s first proposition was the nearest to it, but they have to meet 2 criteria. They have to meet the criterion that they are under State law a local government authority; they have to meet the second one that they are gazetted by us in regulation. There is no difficulty with that. I turn now to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s question. This Bill applies only to States. The Commonwealth currently makes funds directly available to the Territories. So Norfolk Island would be the subject of direct grants from the Commonwealth for local government purposes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Meaning of assistance to a State for local government purposes).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Again I emphasise that whilst the Opposition opposes this clause- we do so naturally because this is a clause in the Bill which deletes what we regard as a weighty section in the existing Act- it is our intention to vote against it on the voices at this stage, but we will be seeking to divide the Committee at the conclusion of the consideration of the Bill in Committee. I merely mention our opposition to the repeal of section 6 of the principal Act. Section 6 relates to the meaning of assistance to a State for local government purposes. For the purposes of the record I shall read section 6 of the principal Act which it is now the intention to repeal. Section 6 reads:

References in this Act to the grant of assistance to a State for local government purposes are references to the grant of financial assistance to a State to enable-

all the local governing bodies in a region to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not appreciably below the standards of the local governing bodies in other regions;

a local governing body in a region to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not appreciably below the standards of the other local governing bodies in that region or of the local governing bodies in other regions; or

an approved regional organization to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not appreciably below the standards of other approved regional organizations or of the local governing bodies in other regions.

It appears to the Opposition that the repeal of that section of the Act would destroy the concept of equalisation which was the very basis of the Bill introduced by the Labor Government. As the Minister said in his second reading speech there will be substituted, firstly, the principle of grants on a per capita basis with grants thereafter being made on an equalisation or topping-up basis, having been assessed by the local government authorities. It is for the reason that the repeal of section 6 of the principal Act rejects the concept of equalisation, as we see it, that we oppose clause 5.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I shall be very brief. I simply want to correct what Senator Douglas McClelland has said. Our policy certainly is not one which rejects equalisation. Our policy is thoroughly misunderstood by the honourable senator if he so construes it. We will establish State grants commissions and all States have agreed to that. I remind honourable senators that Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, now chairman of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, when sitting as a royal commissioner on local government in New South Wales made a recommendation in relation to local government which was adverted to by the Opposition today. However, the Opposition failed to mention that Mr Justice Else-Mitchell recommended that the true and proper way of establishing equity in financing local government, including equalisation, was to establish a State grants commission and it was upon his recommendation that the New South Wales Government set up a State grants commission in which the equalisation principle has been enshrined.

The honourable senator is not right in saying that because there is a second leg to our financing, that is, direct per capita grants to local government, it will in some way prejudice the capacity of the States for equalisation purposes. I remind the honourable senator, and history can reflect it, that the total amount made available by the previous government by way of grants to all the States for some 800 of the 900 local government bodies was less than 1 per cent of personal income tax. It amounted to something like $89m. That is the bench mark by which to measure the future. It is a matter of judgment how in the future we will decide an amount of money and how in individual States a percentage of that will go to per capita grants and a percentage to equalisation, but certainly we will continue equalisation.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7, by leave, taken together.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As I read it, clause 6 is merely a machinery clause related to clause 1. It continues the process of removing from the Commonwealth Grants Commission the power to inquire into local government bodies. Therefore as clauses 6 and 7 are procedural clauses the Opposition opposes them.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 8. (Assistance to States for local government purposes.)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition opposes the passage of clause 8 because it seems to cut the nexus between the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the local governing bodies. It enables the Grants Commission to inquire into matters relating to grants to States for local government purposes as a whole within that State but not for regions within the State. It enables the Commonwealth Government by way of regulation to determine the purposes for which the relevant grants can be used. I suggest to the Minister that this last factor is particularly dangerous as the Grants Commission could be used for purposes quite outside the intent of the Act and thereby could leave Parliament with no control over the purposes of the grants. By clause 8, sections 17 and 18 of the principal Act are repealed. They are the sections, one of which I read earlier, relating to the consultation between the Federal Minister and the respective State Minister on the qualification or approval of regions. Proposed new section 17.(1) states:

The Commission shall inquire into and report to the Minister upon any matters-

being matters relating to the making of a grant of assistance to a State, under section 96 of the Constitution, for local government purposes; or

being matters relating to a grant of assistance made to a State, under section 96 of the Constitution, for local government purposes, that are referred to the Commission by the Minister.

Then it goes on in proposed new sub-section (2) to define a reference to a State for local government purposes. It appears that under this proposed new section the Minister does not have to refer every matter to the Grants Commission for inquiry. The Minister might correct me if I am wrong, but it also appears that the new policy proposed by the Government under this legislation entails the abolition of special purpose grants to local government. If that is so, I ask what steps are proposed to ensure that proper relativity between each State’s share is maintained in any determination that is made by way of appointment by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

I also ask whether provision is being made for the shares of the respective States to be reviewed when the special purpose grants program is abolished or when there is a change, whatever that change might be, in the conditions of a large number of local government bodies in one State. I have in mind, for example, the result of a major flood such as occurred in the north-western region of New South Wales and in Queensland earlier this year. In my and the Minister’s own State, New South Wales, large areas were devastated by floods and as a result the income and resources of local government bodies were very seriously affected and badly eroded. Is this new concept to take account of such happenings or circumstances as that? If not, what provision will be made for the share of the State apportioned by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to be reviewed in the event of a happening of that nature? I raise those questions for the Minister at this stage.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Senator Douglas McClelland has raised a number of matters. First of all I want to make it perfectly clear that the amounts made available to local government under the Federal Government’s new policies will be entirely untied. There will be no directions attaching to them at all. What we are talking about at this moment, and honourable senators should put aside the specific purpose grants that exist today between the Commonwealth Government and local government, is a concept which provides on the one hand for direct per capita grants and on the other hand for equalisation or topping up grants. In stage one on which we are now embarking the amounts and the percentage of total funds we will provide will relate to the first phase about which I have talked. It will relate to giving money to the States for equalisation and direct per capita grants. There is a second phase in which we will look subsequently at individual specific purpose grants, one by one, to see whether, because they are institutionalised and because they are running well, they can be phased into future revenues as such, maybe without condition and maybe by block grant condition or some other way. But that is for stage 2 in the future and is not to be taken into consideration now. Nor is it to be taken into consideration in evaluating the amount that will be apportioned in the immediate fiscal year ahead. The Federal Government has no intention of abdicating its right and responsibility to use section 96 of the Constitution for the specific purpose for which it was written, that is, to make specific purpose grants, particularly in terms of disasters where extreme situations arise and there is a need to reinstate and rehabilitate. I say in direct answer to the honourable senator, that of course there would remain the section 96 type grant in the case of disaster.

As to the inclusion in stage 2 of those specific purpose grants that are now available, if we do merge some of them into general revenue we will certaily consult the Commonwealth Grants Commission as to the formulae which would bring equity to this matter. But one should keep in mind in any case that these kinds of situations will be under review constantly. One should keep in mind also that the future existence of a council for inter-governmental relations will provide a continuing forum to expose inequities, to expose obvious channels of reform, and this Parliament will have the benefit as will the State parliaments, of being able to respond to that council.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish to refer to a specific aspect of this Bill, again for the purpose of clarification. Clause 8 provides for what will become the new section 1 7, and subsection (2) of that section states:

In sub-section ( 1 ), a reference to a grant of assistance to a State for local government purposes shall be read as a reference to a grant of moneys to the State for the purpose of being applied by the State in payments to local government authorities situated in the State, or by way of expenditure for purposes declared by the regulations to be purposes to which this sub-section applies.

I emphasise the words ‘declared by the regulations’ and I go back to the matters which Senator Wright and I particularly raised in relation to clause 4 of the Bill and to the new definition of local government authority’. It becomes a matter of some concern to the members of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations to ensure that from a policy point of view there is no intention that the regulations should do other than is suggested in the Minister’s second reading speech. In relation to this clause the Minister stated:

Clause 8 repeals sections 17 and 18 and substitutes a new section 17 which provides for the Minister to refer to the Commission matters relating to the provision of assistance to the States for local government purposes, as distinct from matters relating to the provision of other assistance to the States. It also defines ‘assistance to a State for local government purposes’ in such a way as to comprehend the unincorporated areas in some States where local government-type services are not provided by the State government -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Are provided.

Senator RAE:

-I am sorry, yes, are provided by the State Government and are not provided by a local government authority because there is not one constituted for that area. I thank Senator Douglas McClelland. Many of the local government authorities in Australia believe, from bitter experience- and it certainly seems to me that they have grounds for this belief- that they have not always had passed on to them in full by State governments amounts of money which were intended to be used for local government purposes and which were made available by the Commonwealth. The States have tended to charge relatively high administration or other sorts of fees which come out of the amounts of money intended to be made available to local government. I understand that it has been indicated by one State that when the new scheme comes into operation it is anticipating being able to purloin some 15 per cent on the way through for its own purposes to cover its cost of administration. I am sure the Minister will be able to confirm that, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, that would not be looked upon with any degree of approval or support. As I understand it, that approach is an indication that old practices die hard.

When one looks at proposed section 17(2) one sees that it is very much wider than the terms of the Minister’s second reading speech. While I understand that the Australian Council of Local Government Associations has no quarrel whatsoever with the intentions set out in the Minister’s speech, it is concerned that because of the wideness of the proposed sub-section there might at some future date be a misuse or an extension beyond the purpose for which the subsection is said to be necessary in the Minister’s second reading speech. I am assured that there are considerable difficulties in drafting a section which would limit the purpose to the words used in the Minister’s speech. Clearly, what is intended is to provide for the manner in which a State can give to an area which has no elected local government authority the services which normally would be provided by a local government authority if one existed, and to provide no further. In other words, it is not intended that at some future date a State should be able to say that under this section it proposes to have its own electricity authority or its metropolitan boards of works or whatever it may be funded out of moneys which were intended to be made available to local government bodies.

This is a matter where, had it been possible readily to amend the Act to make even clearer the Government’s policy intention, I would have been suggesting strongly that that course be followed, but I am satisfied that there are difficulties in drafting such an amendment. I therefore seek from the Minister confirmation that my understanding is correct and that, should there be an attempt at some future date by some future government to make regulations- after all, it is that same regulation making power that is being given- which would enable a State to syphon off some of the funds for purposes other than the simple purpose of providing local government type services in an area where there is no local government authority, then other local government authorities will have available this debate to raise the question of whether any such regulation should be allowed through this chamber. I trust that the Minister will be able to clarify the matter and give that assurance.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Before the Minister replies, I think it is pertinent to ask for his consideration of the structure of this clause. If it were not in the hands of the present Government I would be thrashing it to death. Proposed new section 17(1) states:

The Commission shall inquire into and report to the Minister upon any matters-

a ) being matters relating to the making of a grant of assistance to a State, under section % of the Constitution, for local government purposes; or

being matters relating to a grant of assistance made to a State, under section 96 of the Constitution, for local government purposes, that are referred to the Commission by the Minister.

One part relates to the making of a grant of assistance and the other relates to a grant of assistance which is made. The person with the criptic mind who drew up that proposed section can take what consolation he may from my disappreciation of it. Then we come to proposed section 1 7 (2 ). I point out to honourable senators that it is not in proposed section 17(1) (a) or 17(l)(b) that the matter is expanded. In proposed section 17 (2) it is stated in both of those paragraphs (a) and (b) that:

A reference to a grant of assistance to a State for local government purposes shall be read as a reference to a grant of moneys to the State for the purpose of being applied by the State in payments to local government authorities situated in the State, or by way of expenditure for purposes declared by the regulations to be purposes to which this subsection applies.

Firstly, if any English grammar is still used in the country, will the Minister tell me what is the verb or the adjectival phrase which is qualified by the words in the last part of that proposed subsection ‘or by way of expenditure ‘? This is how I read it:

A reference to a grant of assistance is a reference to a grant of moneys to the State for the purpose of being applied by the State in payments to local government authorities situated in the State or by way of expenditure.

Does that mean that it can be applied by the State by way of expenditure? Which is the previous part of that proposed sub-section that is qualified by the phrase ‘by way of expenditure’? I suggest that those last 2 lines have been added as an afterthought. I am not surprised that their content gives concern to my colleague, Senator Rae. The addition of those words ‘or by way of expenditure for purposes declared by the regulations to be purposes to which this sub-section applies’ gives the regulation-making power to a person to expand purposes for local government purposes that are declared by the regulations. It is competent in the strict construction of this phrase to declare by regulations that an expenditure, for example, on a casino is for local government purposes for the purpose of this proposed sub-section. This appendage to proposed subsection (2) is strictly unnecessary if we take into account what is stated in clause 4 of the Bill. We have already conceded by passing that clause that, inasmuch as the regulations are there, they are sufficient to define those local government authorities that are included or excluded. For a body to be a local government authority for the purposes of the Act, it has to be a body which is in accordance with provision made by the regulations. Therefore, under sub-section (2) of proposed section 17 if the definition of local government authorities were contained in those regulations correctly, I should have thought that the Government would have all the power it wants when there is a reference to a grant of moneys to the State for the purpose of being applied by the State in payment to local authorities situated in that State. I suggest that for the proper purposes of this legislation we really do not need the awkwardly added words ‘or by way of expenditure for purposes declared by the regulations to be purposes to which this subsection applies’. In effect, that means payment for something that is not a payment to local government authorities as defined by the regulations previously set out. Therefore, I shall not pay to the draftsmanship of this clause the compliments which have occurred to me. I submit that it is a piece of awkward construction which makes for difficulties that never should occur to a person who writes English.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I also express concern at my inability to understand the clause. I note Senator Wright’s opening remarks. He said that he would be very suspicious of this proposed new section had it not been introduced by the present Government. Apparently he has sufficient confidence in it and knows that the legislation will be administered properly. I should not have thought it was the job of the legislature to pass legislation to be administered by one particular government. If the wording of a clause is bad we should take steps to see it amended so that regardless of the government in power, the clause expresses its functions correctly and does what the Senate chamber, at the time of its passage, wanted it to do. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) may be able to enlighten me on a question I have. From my examination of the clauses of the Bill and of the Minister’s second reading speech which expressed the Government’s intention, I thought that it was for the State grants commissions to decide how the money is distributed when it is decided that a grant will be paid to a particular local government body. It is obviously for the Federal Grants Commission to inquire into what grant shall be made to each State.

Proposed section 17 ( 1 ) (a) states:

  1. . being matters relating to the making of a grant of assistance to a State, under section 96 of the Constitution, for local government purposes;

The first thing to remember is that that paragraph does not make a grant. It instructs the Grants Commission as to what it shall inquire into and recommend to the Government. Proposed section 17(2), in my interpretation, also does not grant money. It is an interpretation of proposed new section 17 (l)(a) -

Senator Wright:

– No, it relates to sub-section (1); it is not limited to proposed section 17 (1) (a).

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would ask Senator Wright to look at the paragraph. It states:

  1. being matters relating to the making of a grant of assistance to a State, under section 96 of the Constitution, for local government purposes; or
  2. being matters relating to a grant of assistance made to a State, under section 96-
Senator Wright:

– The whole of that expression occurs in both paragraphs (a) and (b).

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No; one relates to the granting of assistance to the States and the other relates to the granting of assistance made to a State after a grant has been made. The matter is interpreted in proposed section 1 7 ( 1 ) (a) which deals with the reference of a grant of assistance to a State. It is not a grant of assistance made to a State when the State already has the money. Proposed section 17 (2) states that in the making of a grant of assistance to a State for local government purposes this shall be read as: a reference to a grant of moneys to the State for the purpose of being applied by the State in payment to the local government authorities situated in the State, or by way of expenditure for purposes declared by the regulations to be purposes to which this sub-section applies.

I do not think that the words ‘a grant of moneys to the State for the purpose of being applied by the State’ can be read as referring to grants that have been made to the State. As a recommendation, perhaps it gives a false interpretation or an artificial interpretation of proposed section 17(1) (a) concerning what the Grants Commission can inquire into. It is not clear what, under regulation, the Commission can inquire into or what the executive can declare, by regulation, the Commission can report upon. The Commission could report on the question that Senator Rae raised. I visualise that under one regulation the Commission could report upon what percentage of the money should be made available by way of grant for local government and what percentage of the money should be used for meeting the administrative cost of the grant. Senator Wright raised another question. He asked whether this provision could include such things as casinos. He asked whether a regulation could provide that a grant should be given to a State for local government purposes for building casinos. I do not know. I suppose it is taking the matter to extremes, but the possibilities seem to be unlimited unless there is some restriction in the regulating power relating to the things that are necessary to be done for the administration of this Act.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It is an unusual use of the regulating power, though.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-This clause would be subject to the regulating power. That regulating power is provided in section 27 of the Act. This clause would be subject to the regulating power. The clause leaves the matter so wide that it is questionable whether the regulations could provide that the Commission could inquire into and report to the Minister on the question of how much he should give to a State and for what purpose he should provide the money. I suppose that ultimately, despite the Commission ‘s recommendation, it is for the Government to decide what amount of money it gives and for what purpose it provides the money.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I mentioned during the course of my initial remarks on clause 8 that it appeared to me that the clause enables the Government, by way of regulation, to determine the purposes for which the relevant grants can be used. I suggested that this factor could be particularly dangerous as it appears to me- the Minister can correct me if I am wrong- that the Grants Commission could be used for purposes quite outside the intent of the Act, thus leaving Parliament with very little, if any, control over the purposes of the grants. I mentioned that during the course of my initial comments on clause 8. Obviously some ambiguity exists and the Minister can clear it up.

The other matter to which I wish briefly to allude is the political content of the Minister’s previous statement in which he said that less than 1 per cent of total tax revenue was devoted by the Labor Government to local government purposes. All I need say to the Minister in that regard is that under our legislation the Grants Commission was charged with the responsibility of inquiring into and reporting to the Government and making recommendations to the Government on the needs of local government throughout the whole of Australia, on an untied and unconditional basis- ignoring, of course, the specific purpose grants and all the other forms of direct assistance that were involved- and the amount of money that should be made available by the Government for local government purposes. The amount of money that was determined by the Government was in fact the amount of money that was recommended by the Grants Commission; no more and no less. In the first year of operation- 1974- the amount, I think from recollection, was $56m, and in the last financial year it was $79m. That was the amount awarded by the Government on an untied and unconditional basis, after detailed investigation and inquiry by the Grants Commission.

I emphasise- I am sure that there is no need to do so for the Minister, because of his knowledge of this subject- that every recommendation made by the Grants Commission to any government, irrespective of its political persuasion, over a period of 40 years has always been accepted by the particular government of the day. Therefore the amount of money which the Government awarded- whether it was 1 per cent or 2 per cent or 0.89 per cent or whatever it was- was the amount of money that had been recommended by the Grants Commission after making a detailed inquiry, and it totally ignored the other specific purpose amounts of money that had been detailed direct by the Government for local government purposes.

I raised the question of certain happenings, such as a change in conditions, so far as a number of local government bodies in one State is concerned. Again I refer by way of example only to the floods in the north-western part of New South Wales which, as the Minister knows, caused a great deal of havoc in that area. Do I take it that a happening of that nature would be a matter relating to a grant of assistance made to a State, under section 96 of the Constitution, for local government purposes, and that such a matter would be referred to the Commission by the Minister under proposed new section 17(1) (b)? That was my understanding of what the Minister said. I emphasise that there is grave ambiguity in this clause. I ask the Minister to comment on those matters.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Firstly, let me say categorically to Senator Rae that it is the intention of the Government, and of this Bill, that all the moneys shall go to local government and that there shall be no capacity in any way for a siphoning off for any indirect purposes. Should there appear to be a defect in the future, or should there be what might be regarded as some act not of good faith arising out of the discussions at the Premiers Conference, it is competent upon this Parliament to remedy that and to tighten up the situation. But the understanding of all the Premiers and of the present Federal Government is that this money shall go untied direct to local government, with the States being virtually the post offices that they have been in the past under the previous Grants Commission arrangements. I repeat: Should any disabilities in this matter emerge, it is competent upon this Parliament to remedy them. But at this moment we act in good faith. We have the clear statement of all 6 Premiers that they will set up Grants Commissions and that they will work upon an equalisation or topping up formular. Until we have cause otherwise to doubt we will proceed in that way.

It is true that the problem concerning clause 8 stems from a number of disabilities in terms of an understanding of what is a local government body. We had some difficulty with this matter previously. But I am instructed that sub-section (1) of proposed new section 17 provides for inquiry by the Commission into and report by the Commission upon grants made or to be made for local government purposes. Sub-section (2) of proposed new section 17 makes it clear that grants of assistance to States for local government purposes are of 2 kinds. The first kind of grant is a direct grant to a State for payment by the State to local government authorities in that State. This type of grant, which is the more typical kind, is directed at assisting local government authorities in the provision of services in the respective areas in which they operate. But there are some areas of particular States- I refer particularly to areas of South Australia which I mentioned before, although areas of some other States are involved as well- which are not serviced by a local government authority at all. It is the State itself which provides in these areas local government type services which would normally be provided by a local government authority.

Consequently, sub-section (2) of proposed new section 17 makes clear that a second type of grant of assistance for local government purposes is envisaged. It is a grant to a State to assist it in the provision of services in an area of that State that would, had a local government authority serviced that particular area, have been provided by that authority. Thus, the intention of the Government is that the purposes declared by regulations made for the purposes of clause 17 (2) will be purposes related solely to the provision by a State of local government type services in those special areas of the State where no local government authority exists to provide such services. I hope that does clarify the situation. It is a difficult situation. It gave the parliamentary draftsmen, I know, considerable headaches in the actual drafting. I repeat, finally, that if in the journey there is a weakness, it is competent for this Parliament to amend that weakness most promptly.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12- by leave- taken together.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I suggested that the Committee should consider these clauses together as they relate to inquiries by the Grants Commission and to certain aspects of the way in which the Commission shall take inquiries. These are really machinery clauses. But because the Government has decided not to allow the Grants Commission to continue to conduct earlier inquiries or inquiries which were referred to it on or after 1 October 1975 in relation to recommendations to be made to the Government under the existing Act for direct, unconditional and untied grants to be made available to local government, the Opposition feels that all of these clauses should be wrapped up together in the one consideration so that we may express our complete opposition to the whole of these provisions of the Bill. Therefore, the Opposition opposes clauses 9 to 12 inclusive of the Bill.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14- by leave- taken together.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Clause 13 seeks to amend the principal Act by omitting the words ‘section 16 or 18 (wherever occurring)’ and substituting the words ‘section 16 or 17’. The purpose of clause 14 is to amend section 26 of the principal Act in relation to savings by omitting the words of this Act’ on the second occasion where they occur in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). These are merely machinery matters. The Opposition also opposes the passage of these 2 clauses.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 15 (Regulations)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Clause 15 repeals section 27 of the principal Act and substitutes a new section which proposes to vary the old regulation making section by, as I understand it, removing all reference to local governing bodies. The Opposition opposes this clause and will vote against it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Revocation of certain references)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This is the last clause of the Bill. Clause 16(1) relates to the revoking of sub-section (3) of section 18 of the principal Act and every reference to the Grants Commission of an application under that sub-section on or after 1 October 1974. It directs that the Commonwealth Grants Commission shall not inquire or inquire further into or report to the Minister on any application so referred to the Grants Commission.

Sub-section (2) provides that notwithstanding the revocation by sub-section ( 1 ) of the reference of an application to the Grants Commission, the Commonwealth Grants Commission may, for the purpose of reporting on the matter referred to the Grants Commission on 31 March 1976 under paragraph 16(c) of the principal Act, have regard to any evidence taken by, and any information provided to the Grants Commission before the commencement of this Act in connection with its inquiry into that application.

In short, sub-clause (1) of clause 16 refers to inquiries which the previous Government intended the Grants Commission should conduct into the needs of local government on an untied and unconditional basis. Sub-clause (2) of clause 16 relates to the conduct of inquiries by the Grants Commission into the needs of applicant or mendicant States. For the reasons that I have earlier indicated, the Opposition intends to oppose this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Question put:

That the Bill be reported.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 23

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readng

Motion (by Senator Carrick) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 23

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1757

MARITIME COLLEGE BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 1 March on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Maritime College Bill 1976 will not be opposed by the Opposition this evening, as this Bill is essentially the same as the Bill which was presented to the Parliament in October 1975 but which did not pass both Houses of the Parliament because of the events of 1 1 November. I do not intend to indulge in the orgy of political rhetoric that was evident in the debate in the House of Representatives in 1975. I think the circumstances of the day probably had a lot to do with that debate. I merely say that there could be very few institutions like the proposed maritime college in the founding of which so many people claim a part. In the debate in 1975 speeches made as far back as 1955 and 1965 were referred to, the speakers claiming that they had been the originators of this College. Dates were carefully cited to show who had first called for the College. Speeches were made, copied in great numbers and distributed in various parts of Australia, each proclaiming the important part that that speaker had had in the conception of the College.

Senator Harradine:

– There will need to be a very big foundation stone.

Senator GRIMES:

– A very big foundation stone, Senator Harradine. I think it is reasonable to say that the decision to build the College and to site it in or near Launceston which some honourable senators may know is in northern Tasmania was contributed to by those who did a lot of leg work and who did not seek and therefore did not receive a lot of publicity. There were people on both sides of the Parliament who did that. They had as much to do with the siting and the building of the College as some of the people who received a lot of publicity about it. I believe there can be very few reports which have been presented to the Senate, certainly in the time that I have been here, which have been written in as simple and as clear a manner as the report by the Commission of Inquiry Into the Maritime Industry into the training requirements of seagoing personnel. The Commissioner was Mr Summers. Mr Summers carried out his inquiry in a very businesslike and forthright manner. He correlated the facts and produced his conclusions with skill and clarity. I believe he should be commended and should be presented as an example to some of the other commissioners which this

Parliament and other parliaments have appointed to produce reports. I accept the fact that the position of training in the maritime industry had clear deficiencies. I give Mr Summers great credit for producing his report and not muddying it with irrelevancies and diversions all over the place and with great discussions on philosophy.

Senator Rae:

– He did not even need Canadian consultants.

Senator GRIMES:

-He did not need very much help at all. In the last 10 years a lot of commissioners could have learnt a lot from Mr Summers. I believe that in the future this report may be used as an example of clarity because even Senator Rae and I can understand what Commissioner Summers said. He set out quite clearly the need for the Maritime College to train officers and other men who will man our ships in the future. The Minister should be impressed by the Commissioner’s words. On the first page of his report, without beating around the bush, when referring to the need of training requirements for seagoing personnel he stated:

This is a matter on which urgent action is needed.

The present situation is obviously unsatisfactory to say the least. It is a hangover from the days of sail and of press gangs. It is quite clear that the training of deck officers and men in our maritime industry is a mixture of the acquisition of experience and of passing examinations for certificates of competency. These examinations are concerned mainly with safety matters. The examinations for the certificates, in the words of Mr Summers which are found on page 3 of the report, are: not always up to date in their references to operational requirements on board. Nor do they thoroughly test an applicant’s practical operation of modern equipment, such as radar, or of hyperbolic navigation systems such as Decca and Loran.

He adds later that one of the difficulties is that the attendance at training courses is not compulsory. People seem to have been acquiring knowledge and passing unsatisfactory examinations. The result is not always satisfactory people for our ships. I think of further and probably of more serious concern is Mr Summers’ view:

Moreover, it is very doubtful that the present standard will continue to attract the type of men whose knowledge allows them to adjust without great effort to changes in types of shipping and cargo handling that are developing.

Obviously from these conclusions the implications for the future of our maritime industry, which is very important, are serious. It is disturbing to find that there is no introductory training, even in safety measures, for the majority of Australian mariners. It is also disturbing that there is no effective training for the crews of fishing vessels. Not all the States require any form of proof of competency for fishing boats and crews. It seems obvious to me that in the 1970s with increasing change and an increase in the sophistication of the various vessels and equipment, in the need for competency and the efficient turn around of vessels- in other words, for the effective commercial operation of vessels, including the effective transfer of cargo- the present system which seems to be a mixture of informal and incomplete training is not adequate for this country which should have a maritime industry par excellence to compete in the world trade.

It is equally important that if we are to produce an efficient fishing industry capable of competing around our own shores with the Japanese, the Russians, the Taiwanese and others who fish here, we must produce the men with the knowledge and skill to efficiently man those modern vessels. This is not to denigrate those fishermen we have now or those mariners we have in our merchant marine. But times are changing. Ships are becoming more sophisticated, as I said earlier. The importance of commercial and competitive operation is obvious to anyone who has taken a close look at the industry as has Mr Summers. I think the findings of Mr Summers make it perfectly clear that it is quite wrong and inappropriate for people to blame the deficiencies of our shipping industry on various unions and union activity. Sometimes the unions are at fault but the tendency is to blame all our troubles in this area on them.

It is ludicrous for a country of Australia’s geographical position to find it necessary to import 50 per cent or more of its officers. It is not only ludicrous but also a sign of the inefficiency and insufficiency of our training. We are a developed country. We are considered to be developed. Really, we should be able to have training facilities which can be used to help mariners from less developed countries. But as it happens at the moment, and as is obvious from this report, in the training of seamen we are an undeveloped country. Of course there is no substitute for experience at sea for our seafarers. But I suggest that experience is more valuable when built on a sound theoretical and practical base which can be provided by a co-ordinated course such as we hope will be available at the Maritime College proposed by this Bill. Mr Summers conclusion is summed up on paragraphs 75 and 76 of his report. He states:

I believe strongly, however, that after so many years of Australia’s fiddling with training for the maritime industry it is time for the Australian Government to take the stand that it wants a much better and much more effective system and provide funds for improving training and education.

However, the cost of spreading the improvements around the States leads to the conclusion that it does not warrant more than one college.

In reaching that conclusion, I recommend that the Australian Government should set up an ‘Australian Maritime College’. The College should be set up as part of an existing College of Advanced Education.

After such a clear recommendation backed by solid evidence, no government- either the present Government or the previous Governmentcould ignore it. I commend this Government for pursuing, by introducing this Bill, the last Government’s initiative. I welcome the siting of the college in Launceston, not for parochial reasons but because this is the best place for it.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about Old Sydney Town?

Senator GRIMES:

-We may need to put something in Old Sydney Town, I gather. As everyone knows, the area chosen in Launceston is near the sea. It is in the vicinity of Bass Strait which is an area subject to changes in weather, climatic changes and tidal changes. It presents navigational problems suitable in training. I gather that my colleague, Senator Rae, who has some intimate experience of this from his sailing activities will be able to elaborate on this point. I believe the presence of the usually navigable River Tamar adds to the attraction of the area although I do not know that the pollution of the River Tamar will make it a very popular place, particularly in the upper reaches.

I believe the site also fulfils Mr Summers’ other criteria in being close to a centre of population, close to an active port and close to fishing industries. The college of advanced education is already established. I hope that, with the implementation of the Karmel report on postsecondary education in Tasmania, the site will become even more attractive and the acquisition of the maritime college will considerably upgrade the college of advanced education. I believe, that the proposed siting will also perform the function of establishing in Tasmania, especially at the college of advanced education, a national institution. We in Tasmania have at the moment no national institution, with the possible exception of Senator Wright. I hope that this institution will be a worthy one and will inevitably provide a base for the further development of the college of advanced education as an autonomous tertiary institution of which Australia and the northern part of Tasmania can be proud. I believe strongly that there is every reason why education, above all industries- if we can call it an industry- can be decentralised without great difficulty, certainly without much pollution, certainly without much of a transport problem being created and can, in some small way, help to remove the burden of population pressure from some of our bigger cities. It is obvious that some of the most prestigious educational institutions in the world are well away from the capital cities and away from the large areas of population. I hope this trend continues. I hope that the siting of this college in northern Tasmania and the application of the Karmel report on postsecondary education will do this in Tasmania. I hope it will be an example of what can be done to the rest of Australia in this field.

There was some difficulty in putting forward a case for northern Tasmania as the site of this college. Indeed, it was quite an interesting experience to be involved in this exercise, however peripherally. It was quite an interesting experience and, I believe, an education. There seemed to be a fair amount of bipartisan support, politically, but some of us- certainly myself, who at the time had not been in politics very longreceived an education in Establishment politics. I was amused all through the publicity battle over the siting of this college by how rough- I believe that is the best term- some of the gentlemen of the various educational establishments in this country can play the game. I was amused at statements made by academics. They were dressed up and aimed, I believe, at empire building and power gaining. Their statements were dressed up as rational and objective judgments. Any statements made in opposition to their proposals, particularly by politicians, were condemned as political game playing. I certainly learnt, I believe, that the exponents of political street fighting and in-fighting are not confined to parties, business or trade unions but are alive and well among some of our supposedly other worldy and objective, distinguished, dispassionate academic circles.

I support the legislation, but I should like to hear from the Minister either in his reply to the second reading of the debate or in the Committee stage, just when the planning committee and the interim council will be announced. I should like him to give me some idea of the time scale of their operations. It would seem to me that a fair amount of the basic work- certainly the basic outline of the plan- has been done by the commissioner, and that a start could be made in the not too distant future not only for the sake of Launceston but also for the sake of the safety, efficiency and welfare of the Australian maritime industry and especially for the sake of those who sail the sea. I believe that in Tasmania above all, but in Australia generally, we need safe, efficient ships manned by well trained seamen on all decks and in all departments of the ship. Certainly we in Tasmania have no desire for any more Blythe Star, Straitsman or Lake Illawarra disasters. We certainly do not want to see any more of our fishermen lost at sea than can be avoided.

I consider that our standing as a seafaring nation and our efficiency as a world trader and as a food gatherer are at stake in this issue, and I urge the Government to proceed with this plan as soon as possible. I urge it to make sure that all hurdles are removed so that this college can be established and that we can have an institution in the Launceston area of which we are proud and can have a maritime training institution in this country which, as is obvious from the report of Mr Summers, has been long needed.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-I wish to congratulate Senator Grimes on the speech which he has just given to members of this chamber. I believe that he has covered a lot of the considerations involved in this matter very well and very accurately. I do not wish to delay the Senate by repeating them. I believe that he has shown us here tonight the same commendable approach that he has shown right throughout to the achievement of something to the benefit of Australia, to the benefit of Tasmania and to the benefit of an area of Tasmania. I join with him in saying that there are some who work to achieve and some who work to achieve nothing more than the maximum of publicity and the minimum of getting on with the job.

I take the opportunity to commend Senator Grimes for his part in ensuring that there was achievement. I am particularly pleased to be able to do so because Senator Grimes is not originally a Tasmanian, so does not have that inbuilt maritime tradition.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You are not thinking nationally now, Senator.

Senator RAE:

– Inborn, I am sorry. Tasmania has a proud maritime history. It probably has a higher percentage of its people associated with the sea than any other State has. It is, of course, the south island of Australia. As was once observed by one of the Ministers in this chamber, being an island it is surrounded by water. That is well known, but it does happen to be water which includes Bass Strait which carries the heaviest daily concentration of shipping of any seaway in Australia. It also does happen to have very good fishing grounds around its coastline. I believe that it is an ideal place, from an historical point of view, from a current usage point of view and from a facilities point of view for the establishment of this maritime college which, as has been mentioned, is something which has been talked about for a long time and which at last is to become a reality. It has been a gleam in the eye of many people for many years. I would just take the opportunity to congratulate anyone who has been associated with converting the gleam in the eye into the impending reality. The passage of this Bill will bring the reality so much closer.

It is important that we get on with the job. The maritime college is of importance in that it will provide the services outlined both by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech and by Senator Grimes. The college is of importance to the development of the area of Launceston as a centre of learning- that is, its association with the College of Advanced Education- and the opportunity that presents to the balanced development of educational opportunities for the State of Tasmania. One of the important aspects of this matter is that, irrespective of whether the full Karmel report in relation to the development of colleges of advanced education in Tasmania is implemented exactly as recommended, the establishment of this maritime college will assist in enabling the much earlier creation of a suitable college of advanced education or tertiary educational institution in the third region of Tasmania- the one which is not currently served, namely, the north west coast of Tasmania. I see the establishment of the college as an important part of the way in which the educational opportunities of all of the people of Tasmania can be enhanced, whilst at the same time the interests of the whole of Australia are being enhanced by the provision of the training opportunities which are to be made available by this maritime college.

I look forward to the appointment of a planning committee to get on with the job and, as soon as possible, to the lie being given to those who, for their own publicity purposes, have been suggesting that in some way this project was not likely to go ahead. I know full well that the Minister has given assurances already on a number of occasions that the project is going ahead, that its completion is planned in the next 3 years from this year, and that there is no doubt at all that it is proceeding. The very fact that this Bill has been brought on for debate at this stage when there is a lot of urgent legislation to which priority could otherwise have been given; the fact that it was one of the very early Bills introduced after the change of government; the fact that it has been pushed forward to completion in this chamber, give the lie completely to those who suggested that this project would not be pursued as soon as possible.

I simply summarise by saying that, although there are many aspects of training which I think it would be useful to debate, we are by means of this Bill setting up a situation in which a planning committee can prepare recommendations. I look forward to debating in more detail some of those aspects when the report is available. In the interests of ensuring that we get this matter under way as soon as possible, I am curtailing my remarks tonight.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I thank honourable senators on both sides of the chamber for their unanimous support for the Maritime College Bill 1976. 1 hold this as a very significant piece of legislation and a new and quite exciting venture in the educational field. I would like to stress 4 main points. There is in process at this moment well advanced discussions between my Department, the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Transport to plan and to bring to the point of execution what was to have been a planning committee but which, with the passage of this legislation, will be an interim council. I hope at a very early date to be able to announce the establishment of an interim council which can then proceed rapidly towards the next step, namely the establishment of a permanent council. At that stage legislation Will be brought before this chamber for much more substantial debate. I hope also at a very early date to announce details of interim financing of the maritime college, because that in itself must be an earnest intent as a first step.

However, there are a number of matters walking hand in hand. I refer, as Senator Rae has done, to the quite incorrect and untruthful propaganda that was spread in some sections of the Tasmanian media regarding this venture. As honourable senators would know, at this moment consideration is being given in Tasmania to the Karmel Committee report- the secondary committee report. That report having been tabled and provided to both this Parliament and the Tasmanian Parliament the initiative, of course, passed to the Premier of Tasmania to make the primary decisions as to its adoption or otherwise because, under the Constitution, tertiary, secondary and post-secondary institutions are matters for the Tasmanian Government. I acknowledge that the Premier very quickly indicated general approval for the report of the Karmel Committee. Following that approval it was necessary to do an amount of planning, and the Premier of Tasmania set up a committee under Mr Cosgrove, Q.C., and that committee is currently active. The Government and my Department will await with particular interest the report and recommendations of that committee and the subsequent recommendations of the Tasmanian Government. Of course, the Federal Government has a considerable interest- if not a constitutional one, then a very strong financial one- in the consequences of this matter.

It must be understood that there arises also a profoundly important consequence of the Cosgrove Committees ‘s deliberations in relation to this maritime college, because one of the recommendations of the Karmel Committee, as honourable senators will know, was that the Newnham campus of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education be made an autonomous body called the Tasmanian Institute of Advanced Education. The nature and shape of that institute will have a very significant effect indeed upon the shape of the maritime college. I think all honourable senators who have referred to this matter have suggested that because of the likely proximity of the site of the maritime college to what is now the Newnham campus there would be an intermingling and sharing of functions between the 2 institutions. I hope that will be possible, but it should be understood that if this maritime college is to achieve a quality of excellence, which it must, then, of course, the Newnham campus and the college itself will have to provide between them quite a range of specialist and technical and scientific education. It is well to remind the Senate that some of the categories of people who will take courses in the college are, for instance, deck officers, engineer officers, radio officers of the larger merchant and fishing vessels, fleet managers, marine superintendents, marine surveyors, fishing technologists, fisheries officers, ratings, and fishing boat crews.

Senator Rae:

– And yachtsmen.

Senator CARRICK:

– Saving the presence of Senator Rae and all blue water sailors, I add yachtsmen, with happy anchorage in the Tamar. I also acknowledge what a pleasant place the Tamar is both for happy existence and for this very purpose. I have read the categories to illustrate the enormous range of educational facilities that we must have from the senior tertiary functions to what might be termed the trade functions in some technical institutes. They are real matters to be considered and we will be looking at them as they come forward. As soon as I received the report of the Committee I wrote to each of the 3 commissions for which I am responsible, the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commissioninviting them to study the report and to be prepared to give recommendations. Those Commissions will have not only a funding function but also something of an advisory function in this matter.

So from the time that this Government took office it has acted with expedition on this matter. As Senator Rae quite rightly said, this was one of the earliest Bills which we got going. Inevitably we had to wait for the publication of the report but we then set in action immediately the study by our 3 commissions. I commend the Tasmanian Government’s study on these matters. I am hopeful that we can announce soon some funding measures and also that we can announce very soon an interim council. In a climate where in every other respect the Government is being forced into severe economic measures, it is a measure of our sense of priority for the Maritime College and of the significance of Tasmania and its particular and unique capacities to cope with and establish this kind of institution that we have given it top priority. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I have a brief question to ask the Minister. I notice that the only difference between this Bill and that introduced last year is in clause 6 which provides for the method of paying or funding members of the interim council. Could the Minister tell the Committee why there is this difference?

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales Minister for Education · LP

– This was an argument of the lawyers and it remains for me one of the eternal mysteries of lawyers and legislative draftsmen. They asked that it be put that way, and who am I to argue?

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– At the second reading stage I was a little at sea in that I did not put my name down on the speakers’ list. I want to ask a question in relation to clause 6 and the constitution of the interim council. I notice that there is nothing there to signify whether the interim council will be representative of any bodies, but undoubtedly the Government will consider organisations when deciding upon the members of the interim council. I am aware that some federal unions during the debate on where the college was to be established were not in favour of its being established in Launceston. Needless to say, the unions in Tasmania were very much in favour of it and supported those who were seeking to have it established in Launceston. However, by simply referring to just those categories mentioned by Senator Carrick I can see some of the unions that will be involved.

There is the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, Professional Radio Employees Institute of Australasia, Merchant Service Guild of Australia, Seamen’s Guild of Australia, and if we are talking of fishing vessels there is the Australian Workers’ Union, Federated Shipwrights and Ship Constructors Association of Australia, and the Australian Shipping Officers Association. We can add to that list the marine cooks and marine stewards unions. They are some of the organisations that may be involved. I suggest that consideration be given to making contact with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its State branch, the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council, when the interim council and any of its committees are established.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales Minister for Education · LP

– I find that a valuable suggestion and I will certainly have the widest consultation possible.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1762

ROADS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 April on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-As with the Maritime College Bill, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill now before the chamber. Why should we? They were originally Australian Labor Party legislation. In the case of the Roads Acts Amendment Bill there has been a distinct change in emphasis and one notes that the National Country Party of Australia, the minority group in the coalition not even necessary in the House of Representatives but highly necessary in the Senate to keep up the numbershas been able to persuade the majority party to change the emphasis in the Bill. The main purpose of this Bill is to provide an additional $64m in Australian Government financial assistance to the States for roads works in 1975-76. As I proceed I want to point out that although this Bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives in about October last year, because of the purposefulness of the then Opposition in holding up the Budget Bills, the program was never implemented. Now, many months later, the same amount of money has been allocated, in spite of the tremendous inflation that has continued totally uncontrolled under the present Administration.

Of the additional $64m to be provided, $ 14.9m is to be allocated to national roads and the remaining $49. lm is to be made available for use in accordance with the Roads Grants Act. The emphasis on the allocation of this additional $64m differs remarkably from previous allocations and this was the point I endeavoured to make earlier. The Labor Party had a distinct national policy on transportation. We did not apply it only to roads but right across the board. We feel that this is a total nation and that everybody needs to be served. Because of the change in emphasis in this field we find that providing one is a member of the Country Party and lives at the end of some long bush track one can even have bitumen on one’s property. Perhaps that is exaggerating a little, but I want to emphasise that point. The people who live in the country, who need to be part of the national road structure, who need to be able to transport themselves from one part of Australia to another, have been totally neglected by the new Government.

Of the additional moneys, $23m was to be appropriated for national roads and of this sum $ 13.94m was for the construction of national highways, $7. 9m for the maintenance of national highways and $1.1 lm for the construction and maintenance of export roads and major commercial roads. An additional $41m was to be expended under the Roads Grants Act. This Bill proposes an allocation for the development of national roads of less than 65 percent- I emphasise that figure- of the amount proposed by Labor in late 1975. That Bill reached the second reading stage in the House of Representatives on 30 October last year. As 1 mentioned a moment ago, this Bill is indicative of the Liberal-National Country Party’s obsession with keeping Australia from achieving a well planned, well coordinated national highway network.

Prior to 1972 there was no national transport plan of any sort. In fact, when my colleague in another place, Mr Charles Jones, made his trip from Cairns to Brisbane over the Bruce Highway and subsequently submitted a very detailed report on the shortcomings he found on that highway, he was the first Minister for Transport ever to travel over that 1000-mile stretch of road. His predecessors in Liberal Party governments used to buy road maps from the Shell service stations to find out where the Bruce Highway was. There is a famous cartoon to which I might make reference. It depicts my colleague in another place, unfortunately in the National Party, the Premier of Queensland. There are other words which I use to describe him sometimes but you might not find them fitting on this occasion, Mr Deputy President. He was able to use his own aeroplane ‘Air Force One’, the Queensland air force, to fly from Townsville to Mount Isa. He would point out of the window at the people travelling below, who were sometimes bogged for three or four months at a time while carrying perishable goods, food that was needed by the people in Mount Isa and other places en route, and say: ‘What the hell are they complaining about? I get to Mount Isa all right.’ Of course, he had his own plane, ‘Air Force One’.

The road legislation enacted by the Whitlam Labor Government was the first such legislation it introduced, and obviously it will be the last until the next election in 1978 or perhaps, with the way things are going in the coalition at the moment, at a much earlier date. This Government is here for only a very short period. Perhaps then we will be able to return to a decent sort of national program instead of having the ad hoc policies that we see today.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Nationalised.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That was a very interesting interjection. There is a senator on the Government side who fears the introduction of a national road program because obviously he has his own little cow cocky farm and he wants to use the taxpayers’ money to build his gate grid to get into his farm and then have a bitumen road to his mansion which he is able to build from his fertiliser subsidy. That is typical of people on the other side of the chamber who are unable to see beyond their own noses or next week ‘s salary or next week ‘s superphosphate bounty.

For the first time the Federal Government was in a situation where it could ensure that roads were considered as part of a national transport network and not as a means of buying rural votes or pandering to the elitists of this country. That brings me back to the rather inane interjection of the honourable senator on the other side of the chamber, who probably would like to see roads as part of private enterprise. What a delightful situation that would be. It is no wonder we are having trouble with Telcom and other statutory organisations that have been built up over many years. Even some of the honourable senators predecessors were quite happy with them. This conservative Government has a new toy that it calls federalism- in other words, the new two-tax system. I wonder how soon it will be before the States are compelled to raise additional finance for their own roads, because that is part of the two-tax system.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Probably it would be a Labor Premier who would bring it in.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the honourable senator would like to repeat that interjection I will be delighted to answer it.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I said that it probably would be a Labor Premier who brings it in.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the honourable senator would speak a little more clearly I could hear what he is saying. The States are running out of Liberal Party and Country Party Premiers, and perhaps in another few months there will be 6 Labor Premiers round Australia and this Government will be in bigger trouble than it is now.

Senator Walters:

– We would be in much more trouble.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the new lady senator from Tasmania is willing to write out her question and send it across I will be delighted to answer it. This conservative Government’s attitude is obvious not only from its new federalism policy and the double taxation system but also from its reduction of Labor’s proposed commitment to national roads by approximately 35.12 per cent. That is what the Government has taken away from national roads in order to put down little by- tracks into some of the wealthy farmers’ properties. It is the Government parties’ own Prime Minister who wants the nearest airport to his homestead upgraded so that he can take the Mystere in and it is only because of a public uproar that to date that has not been done. But it will be done, mark my words. In the same way the Prime Minister will have bitumen roads on his own property.

There is to be a reduction in national road financing so that farmers can drive on bitumenised roads in their own paddocks. I have no quarrel with that. The people who live in the country areas deserve the best of everything, but the available finance has to be shared by everybody. The people who live in Darwin ought to be able to travel south when they want to and not, as happened only a few weeks ago, have transport carrying essential foodstuffs bogged on the main road and unable to get through. The people of Darwin are screaming for some sort of all-weather north-south road, not the sort of road they have at the moment. But the Government has changed the emphasis by its reduction of more than 35 per cent. That is the way it is thinking because the Country Party tail of the coalition is wagging the Liberal Party dog. In addition to the reduction in national road financing, the present Government is hell-bent on undoing all the good work achieved by the Labor Party during its period in Government, and that was after a period of 23 of Liberal Government. Do not say that the Government is interested in country people. It is not interested in the real country people but only in the small segment of wealthy graziers and farmers who get $5,000, $15,000 or $20,000 from the superphosphate bounty, as my colleague from South Australia has been trying to tell Government senators in this chamber for the last three or four months.

I refer to the lack of initiative and absence of a statement of policy by the conservative Government on the amalgamation of the Department of Shipping and Transport and the Department of Civil Aviation into the present Department of Transport. In addition, the present coalition conservative Government has given no indication of its intentions regarding future policies, nor has it outlined the probable size of impending grants for the 1 977-79 triennium, assuming that it is still here, of course. It should be remembered that the long delay in dealing with this Bill is a direct consequence of the politicking of honourable senators opposite and that under the Government’s tight-fisted rule- I use those words advisedly- inflation has not abated. In fact, all the things that the Liberal and National Country Parties said in the period leading up to 13 December 1975 have not come to pass. Let us look at Medibank and the way the Government proposes to annihilate it by its projected legislation. Let us look at what the Government did to Mr Don Chipp when he said that a levy would be needed to pay for Medibank. He was sacked from the Ministry. I think he publicly used these famous words: ‘I have been kicked in the guts’. That is what the Government did with him. But at this late stage the Government is going to implement the very levy that honourable senators opposite blocked when the former Government tried to have it passed by this chamber.

Senator Carrick:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I think it would be hard to relate Medibank to a roads Bill and I invite the honourable senator to try.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- I think that Senator Keeffe was making only a passing reference to the subject.

Senator KEEFFE:

-The Minister may need the services of Medibank in its present form at some future date. The lady senator who was going to send me a question has now left the Senate chamber perhaps to write it out. The Government ‘s present action is most inconsistent with the statements of the present Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) when he was in Opposition. At that dme, he was most critical of the then Government’s policy. The Hansard record shows this. The then Opposition shadow Minister for Transport- the present Minister- had all sorts of things to say about Labor’s policy in relation to the then Roads Grants Bill, the equivalent of the very Bill that is passing through the Senate tonight. Whilst I said at the outset that we are not opposing the Bill, I take the opportunity to criticise the change in emphasis and the manner in which the Government has looked after its friends, the elitists in this country, at the expense of the great majority of the people of Australia.

Senator Jessop:

– Rubbish!

Senator KEEFFE:

-That was a very quiet interjection.

Senator Jessop:

– I said ‘rubbish’.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! I think that Senator Keeffe can disregard interjections.

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 would not ask the honourable senator to withdraw the remark. That is about the only word he has in his vocabulary. The present Minister for Transport and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have indicated to the State Premiers that they would like the States to postpone claims for $20m of the proposed $64m under the scheme until next financial year. This is a very pious sort of request to make. The Government is asking the States toostpone expenditure and is even asking for the 20m. I say this because this Government has not been able to check the present uncontrolled rate of inflation. It is worse now than it has been for the last 5 years. When this $20m is finally provided to the States, it will have shrunk in value to such an extent that it will probably look more like a $10 note.

There are a few other points I want to emphasise. With the agreement of the Senate, I will shortly have a rather detailed table of figures incorporated in the Hansard record. However, I will refer to that in a few moments. One estimate for the year 1976-77 indicates that the probable escalation grant required for this period will be of the order of $235m. I know that the Minister for Education a little while ago objected to my using the example of Medibank. Mr Acting Deputy President, you were quite correct when you said that I was making a passing reference to that matter. It was merely an illustration. Road transport costs generally will escalate in exactly the same way as Medibank costs have escalated and will cause the Government the same trouble. When the Bill dealing with Medibank comes before the Senate, we will have a few scandals to bring forward in relation to that scheme. Again, they will be scandals involving friends of the Government- not patients- and the rake-off group of doctors.

The Budget forecasts by Ministers in the Liberal-National Country Party Government indicate that it is highly unlikely that the States will receive the required escalation grant. This was a strong point of Labor Party policy over the 3 years when we had the administration of this country. In each year, we allowed for the inflationary trends, lt did not matter whether it was in relation to road transport or any other part of the administration of this country. At least we provided in advance to cover likely inflationary rises as they came to pass. However, it is quite obvious that this Government has not even considered inflation, let alone made provision for it. If we consider the sharp cuts in Government spending and the effect that this has in particular on the private sector and the employment levels for road maintenance and construction, it is impossible to reconcile the result with the Government’s policies of low employment and inducement to the private sector. But over the years- to be precise, over the long period of 23 years prior to the end of 1972 and for the 6 months from 13 December 1975 until today, 19 May 1976- we have come to expect ill-considered, ill-planned policies from a Government that is no more than a coalition of distorted ideas and non-policies.

For a truly national approach to road planning in the country, Federal Government policies, State priorities and national interests must be taken into consideration. It is obvious that this Bill represents the first step by this Government to abandon its responsibilities for road planning and programming. As I said a few moments ago, we now have a nice new name for this. It is known as the new federalism- the 2-tax policy. The Minister has been at great pains to indicate to us that the Government will not require the States to seek Federal approval for the construction of urban arterial roads and freeways that are financed wholly by State funds. If that principle were applied to my State, the only areas that would be financed wholly from State funds as opposed to Federal funds, would be areas south of the Kingaroy line. This is because neither the Premier of Queensland, the Prime Minister nor anyone else in either the State coalition government or the Federal coalition Government is aware of any country that exists north of the Kingaroy line. This is one more nail in the coffin of well-planned, co-ordinated transport networks in this country.

It is an established fact that inner city freeways do not solve the problems of our cities. The construction of freeways was long looked upon as a possible way to overcome our transport bottlenecks. However, experience and practice have indicated that it is not the remedy. This Government appears to be unimpressed with the problems of urban areas and seems pleased to allow further poorly guided State management of the transport networks. The Government should have learned a lesson when Labor was elected as the State Government in New South Wales recently. The Liberal and National Country Parties lost that election basically because of 3 policies: Their neglect of farming areas, their neglect of the transport system and their institution of the 2-tax system- the new federalism.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And their treatment of the pensioners.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Of course, they lost also because of their neglect of the pensioners. The Government tried to take away the funeral allowance. As my colleague, Senator Douglas McClelland, points out the pensioners were the first people to be attacked by this Government. It delayed the payment of pensions in order to save a miserly few million dollars at the expense of the lives of pensioners. The position of pensioners has now dropped by a considerable degree below what it was under the Labor Government. I forecast that there will be further cuts in the immediate future, particularly during the Budget session. As my colleague has pointed out, in addition to the 3 policies that I raised, there is the other great mass of people of concern to all of us but whom the Government has decided to ignore in the hope that they will die or fade away.

It is no coincidence that the federal transport portfolio is in the hands of the National Country Party. In the coalition Government in Queensland, the National Country Party has been struggling for years to get the Treasury portfolio. It wants to do exactly what it is doing in the Federal sphere, namely, to look after that small group of elitists in the community who contribute most to National Country Party funds. If things keep on the way they are going and the way the National Country Party would wish, I could well believe the old proverb that Australia rides on the sheep’s back. That will be very true because so far as transport is concerned, there will be nothing else for us to ride on. The Minister’s past record indicates his blatant bias at the expense of urban regions, despite the fact that 78 per cent of this country’s population is urbanised. A breakdown of the distribution of funds being provided presents damning evidence of the bias that I have referred to during my contribution to the debate.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I want to incorporate in the Hansard record a table which shows a comparison of the funds proposed to be distributed under the original Bill presented by my colleague, Mr Charles Jones, in another place with the funds proposed to be distributed by the present Government under this legislation. I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard.

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

Senator KEEFFE:

-When honourable senators examine this table in the Hansard record tomorrow, they will discover that in addition to the reduction in the national roads funding of the order of $8. lm, the present conservative Government is reverting to its age old practice of looking after the landed gentry. I do not mean the ordinary farmer in the bush. I do not mean the ordinary country dweller. I do not mean the people living in the little towns of this country. They are the people whom the Government neglects. It looks after only a selected handful of people. I remember that in days gone by- before 2 December 1972- it was not unusual for tens of thousands of dollars to be spent on putting a telephone line into one farmer’s property. But in the other direction maybe half a dozen small farmers would be told that they could not have the facility unless they were prepared to pay through the neck for it- to pay large sums of money.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– You cannot say that about Queensland.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is exactly what the Government did. Senator Tehan is probably one of the landed gentry on whom several thousand dollars was spent in putting a telephone line into his property. There is no need for him to start crying now because he has already skimmed off the cream. Of the total of $49.1 m committed to the Roads Grants Act- an increase of $ 8.1m on Labor’s proposal- $28.8m or 58.65 per cent of the total will be set aside for rural contingencies, whilst only $ 19.85m or 40.4 per cent of the total is allocated for urban transport networks. This can only be considered to be criminal when one realises that more than 78 per cent- I emphasise that figure, and it does not include the elitist landed gentry- of Australia’s population live in urban areas. Statistically, therefore, this Government is saying that rural people are worth over 9 times more than the people living in urban areas. This reminds me of the gerrymanders that are carried out in two or three States of this nation. That is the way in which the governments in those States value people too. There seems to be a familiar ring about this.

I now turn to the proposed State breakdown of the $64m grant. The total increase in actual funds for each State for both Acts is as follows: New South Wales $ 19.9m; Victoria $ 13.3m; Queensland $13.2m; South Australia $5.8m; Western Australia $8.8m; Tasmania $3m. It is rather amazing that those amounts are in total agreement with those formulated by my colleague in another place, Charlie Jones, the former Minister for Transport. Perhaps the Liberal-Country Party Government has finally decided that its paranoid hatred of anything formulated by Labor is wrong. In fact, this may be the first step towards the re-education, to which I have referred in this chamber many times, of my conservative colleagues. This is apparent not only in relation to the 2 Bills that we will pass tonight because they are both Labor Bills. Judging from Press reports today, Mr Fraser has backed down to Mr Hawke over compulsory union ballots, or at least has gone a long way down the ladder. There will come a time when public opinion, I hope, and the good sense of honourable senators opposite will force them to accept the sorts of policies that were acceptable to the people of this country for 3 years prior to 1 1 November 1975. Inflation is one of the great problems facing this country.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– You brought it in.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It was brought here in the first place in 1972 when $ 120m was injected into the economy by a panic-stricken Prime Minister and a panic-stricken government. They were the ones who set inflation in train at that time. Some honourable senators on the Government side have not been in the Liberal Party long enough to know that there was a Liberal Government at that time. Some of them in the National Country Party would not know. Nevertheless, if they look back in history they will find that that was the first injection of money into the economy of this country. Taxpayers funds were used to try to save the Government of that time but it failed because the then Prime Minister led the Coalition into the jungle, and the main reason he did that was that he forgot to wear his spectacles. But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and, as I have stated constantly in the past and as 1 propose to continue to state in the future, I am always an optimist. I always hope that some day honourable senators opposite will see the light at the end of the tunnel and come out of it. Finally, after making that small contribution to the debate, I indicate that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– As usual, we have been treated to a colourful, sarcastic, vitriolic speech by Senator Keeffe. I am surprised that he dares to rise in this place and cast any aspersions at the conservative Government- that is the way in which he refers to us- which has come in to control the finances of this country. It inherited a deficit of about $5,000m which was created by the previous progressive socialist Government. It amuses me that Senator Keeffe should stand over there and talk about our pandering to the privileged people. He knows that is quite false. In his own State only one Labor member was returned to the House of Representatives at the last election, and that member was lucky to hold his seat, too. There is only one Labor member from Western Australia in the House of Representatives. Tasmania has no Labor member in the House of Representatives. When I listen to the absolute nonsense that Senator Keeffe has been uttering tonight I can understand the attitude of the Australian electorate in opting for a responsible administration.

This Bill that we are discussing tonight is an example of our sense of responsibility and of our determination to revert to a system of government which provides some guarantee for State administration and which gives the States some say in the amounts of money that they wish to spend on their road programs. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1768

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY COLLECTION 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:

The second reading speech on this Bill was presented when I made my second reading speech on the Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill 1976 yesterday.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1768

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1975-76

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:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

I present Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1975-76, in which appropriations, additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1975-76, totalling $161,771,000 are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and other services not being ordinary annual services of the Government. As I will explain in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1975-76, these appropriations are required to enable payments to be made, the need for which has arisen since the Budget was prepared, but for which the appropriations then provided were insufficient or for which no provision was made in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1975-76.

I now refer to some of the major items for which provision is made in this Bill. An amount of $ 17.5m is sought for the National Capital Development Commission to meet unavoidable expenditure on rise and fall obligations under current contracts for rises and adjustments which have occurred since 1 April 1975. An amount of $ 12.5m is also sought for the Darwin Reconstruction Commission to cover the cost of rise and fall provisions of contracts and for the renegotiation of contracts cancelled following the cyclone. An amount of $25m is for expected payments to the States for expenditure on agreed measures of relief and restoration following bushfires, floods and storms in New South Wales, floods in Queensland and Victoria and a cyclone in Western Australia. The amounts of $8. 870m sought under Division 915 and $40.770m under Division 9 1 7 are for capital and recurrent grants for childhood and associated services which would have been met from an appropriation for the Children ‘s Commission if the Act establishing the Commission had been proclaimed. The amounts are fully offset by savings under that appropriation. The amount of $6.3m is for payments to Tasmania relating to the Tasman bridge project and $6. 7m is required for payment to South Australia under the Adelaide-Crystal Brook Railway Agreement. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1768

CUSTOMS 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:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901-1975 by replacing the existing provisions relating to the valuation of imported goods for the purposes of calculating ad valorem duties with a new system of valuation based on the internationally recognized Brussels Definition of Value. The existing provisions require that valuation be based, at the f.o.b. level, on the higher of the actual price paid by the importer or the current domestic value of the goods in the country of export. These provisions which have given rise to increasing administrative and legal problems in recent years were the subject of two cases before the High Court in 1974 and 1975. The decision in both cases substantially eroded the effectiveness of the existing system.

An interdepartmental committee established to review Australia’s customs valuation system prepared a Green Paper in 1975 which canvassed the possibility of adopting the Brussels Definition of Value. The paper was generally well received by industry and commerce and the committee recommended that the Customs Act be amended to provide for the valuation of goods in accordance with the Brussels Definition. The Brussels Definition was developed by the Customs Co-operation Council- an international customs consultative body- and forms the basis for the valuation systems of over ninety countries throughout the world including most of Australia’s major trading partners. The Definition is set out in annexes to the Convention on the Valuation of Goods for Customs Purposes. These annexes are reproduced in the Schedule to the Bill.

The central feature of the Definition is the notional concept that the value for duty of any imported goods is the amount which those goods would fetch on the open market between a buyer and a seller independent of each other. It is a concept for general use irrespective of the terms under which the goods are imported. When the goods imported are the subject of a genuine open market sale the invoice price will generally be regarded as a valid indication of the value for duty.

The substantive clauses of the Bill cover the usual machinery matters and repeal those provisions in the Customs Act relating to the existing system of valuation. In addition sub-clause 4(3) provides for a number of modifications to the Schedule which adapt the Definition to Australian conditions. The most important of these are to be fo. nd in paragraphs (d), (0 and (h). Paragraph (d) modifies the definition in the Schedule to provide that imported goods be valued on an f.o.b. basis. The wording of the modification is taken from a protocol to the Convention which is awaiting ratification at the Customs Co-operation Council in Brussels. Paragraph (f) provides that outside packages, with certain specified exclusions, will form part of the dutiable value of the goods which they contain. This is a change to existing valuation practice recommended by the interdepartmental committee which considered that such a change would considerably simplify customs entry procedures and be more in keeping with commercial practice. Paragraph (h) maintains a concession extended to Canada in the Canada-Australia Trade Agreement of 1960. This concession allows valuation of Canadian exports as if they had been exported from the port of exit in Canada nearest to their place of origin.

The Green Paper to which I referred above considered the tariff implications of a change to the Brussels Definition of Value. Available statistical information did not permit exact calculations but the committee was able to conclude that any difference in total Customs duty payable following the implementation of the Definition was likely to be negligible. However the committee recognised that in particular cases there could be significant variations in amounts of duty payable leading to adverse effects on local industries or importers. The Government has decided that where such significant variations do occur with adverse effects to local industry or importers provision will be made for the Industries Assistance Commission to consider possible tariff adjustments for a period of 6 months after the implementation on 1 July this year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1769

FOREIGN TAKEOVERS 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:

I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard the second reading speech on this Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of the Bill is to correct what are essentially technical deficiencies in the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 and to remove the interlocking provisions between the foreign takeovers legislation and the Trade Practices Act which, in the past, have been thought to give preferential treatment to foreign corporations in their merger applications to the Trade Practices Commission, An outline of the legislation proposals was given by me to the Senate on 1 April 1976 in a statement on foreign investment policy. Briefly, this Bill, which does not materially alter the substance of the Act, is designed to overcome the technical deficiencies in the following manner: Firstly, the wording in the present Act may restrict, relative to the now repealed Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act, the range of control situations caught by the Act. Clause 5 of the Bill closes this possible loophole. Secondly, the Act does not exempt share or asset acquisitions consequent upon proposals which were approved by the Government prior to the commencement of the Act but which had not been effected by that date. Clearly, once approval has been given by the Government, it should not be necessary for the parties to notify the proposal again. Clause 6 of the Bill exempts such proposals from the ambit of the Act.

Thirdly, persons who are required to compulsorily notify a proposal under section 26 of the present Act cannot implement their proposals until the expiration of the 40 days period laid down in that section. This applies even when, within the 40 days, the persons concerned have been advised that the Government has no objections to their proposal. This situation was never intended and clause 7 of the Bill will correct the anomaly. Fourthly, the effect of the present section 26 is such that parties cannot engage in any negotiations, with a view to acquiring or increasing a substantial shareholding in an Australian corporation, without leaving themselves open to the possibility of committing an offence against the Act unless they first notify the Treasurer and wait the prescribed 40 days. This requirement inhibits normal commercial behaviour. It was not intended that the Foreign Takeovers Act should create such difficulties. Clause 7 of the Bill is designed to rectify the situation.

Finally, the wording of the present section 38 of the Act is such as to raise doubts whether transactions, made in contravention of section 26 would be valid at law. It was not intended that such transactions should be invalid and the Government regards invalidity as an unnecssary harsh penalty. The Act contains adequate penalties for non-compliance and clause 10 of the Bill will remove invalidity from the sanctions of the Act. As these amendments are of a technical nature and as persons may already, unwittingly, be in breach of the Act, we intend that the Bill should correct the identified anomalies in the Foreign Takeovers Act retrospectively to 1 January 1976, the date on which the Act commenced.

I turn now to the second matter with which this Bill is concerned, that is, the relationship between the Trade Practices Act and the foreign takeovers legislation. We have for some time been concerned that the foreign takeovers legislation may have provided foreign-owned companies with an advantage over Australianowned companies in respect of merger applications before the Trade Practices Commission. On behalf of the then Opposition the Treasurer expressed concern about this matter during his remarks on the Foreign Takeovers Bill on 20 August last year and the need for legislation in this area was foreshadowed in the foreign investment policy issued by the Coalition Parties in October 1975.

On 4 May, the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs introduced into the Senate the Trade Practices Amendment Bill which provided, inter alia, for the discontinuation of the special treatment under the Trade Practices Act that may be said to have produced this advantage. Clauses 3 and 9 of this Bill complement that legislation. Their combined effect will be to remove the interrelationship between the Foreign Takeovers Act and the Trade Practices Act so that foreignowned companies will no longer be able to obtain automatic approval for the Trade Practices Commission for merger proposals consequent upon approval under the foreign takeovers legislation. All companies- both foreign and domestic- will, from now on, be treated in the same manner under the merger provisions of the Trade Practices Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1771

PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES 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:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The object of this Bill is to obtain the approval of Parliament for ratification by Australia of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances and to make legislative provision to give effect to control in terms of the Convention over consignments of certain psychotropic substances which enter Australian ports or airports in the course of consignment from a country outside Australia to another country outside Australia. ‘Psychotropic substances’ is a term used to refer to substances that have the capacity to produce a state of dependence and central nervous system stimulation or depression resulting in hallucinations or disturbances in motor functions, thinking, behaviour, perception or mood and, in respect of which, there is evidence of a likelihood of abuse so as to constitute a public health and social problem. The aim of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances is to bring about international control of those drugs of dependence which fall into the category of psychotropic substances in a similar way to the international control now operating in respect of narcotic drugs in accordance with the provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1 96 1 , to which Australia is a party.

Like the Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the Psychotropic Convention provides a comprehensive code for international control which limits the manufacture, movement and use of the drugs concerned to medical or scientific purposes and imposes an obligation on parties to combat the illicit traffic, punish offenders and make provision for the medical treatment, care and rehabilitation of drug dependent persons. Drugs covered by the Convention are graded according to abuse potential and controls range from a virtual embargo on substances such as LSD and mescaline to less strict requirements applicable to minor barbiturates, tranquillizers and stimulants.

Import and export controls are provided for in regulations made under the Customs Act. Offences involving illicit importation or exportation, trafficking in, possessing or conveying prohibited imports or prohibited exports are punishable as offences against the Customs Act. Controls in terms of the Convention over manufacture, distribution and use of psychotropic substances within a State are the legislative responsibility of the Government of that State. The laws of each of the States in this regard are in accordance with the Convention provisions. As certain territorial ordinances are yet to be brought in line with Convention requirements, the application of this legislation insofar as ratification is concerned would be contingent on this action.

The Bill now before the House will also give effect to provisions contained in sub-paragraph 3 (e) of Article 12 of the Convention which requires a party to prevent passage through the party’s territory of substances in Schedules I and II to the Convention, whether or not the consignment is removed from the carrying ship or aircraft, in respect of which an export authorisation cannot be produced on demand. Provision is made for regulations to: (a) exempt from the control preparations containing a psychotropic substance (other than a Schedule I substance) compounded in such a way that risk of abuse or of recovery of the substance in a quantity liable to abuse is negligible; and (b) add substances to, or delete substances from, a Schedule or to transfer a substance from one Schedule to another in pursuance of advices received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations or the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, as the case may be. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 1771

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY 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 Wales

Minister for Industry and Commerce) ( 10.46)- I move:

As I mentioned with respect to an earlier Bill, the second reading speech in relation to this Bill has already been made.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1772

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1975-76

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

- Mr President, so that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and others may go home on time at 1 1 p.m., I utilise this procedure of speaking on the first reading of this Bill to raise 2 matters. Normally I would have dealt with them in the course of the adjournment debate. The first matter concerns overtures that I have had from the Australian Conservation Foundation. These followed my action in raising with Senator Carrick a question concerning the Concorde. I know that Senator Carrick is an extremely busy Minister at the moment as he is handling additional portfolios. I simply wish to put on the record the grave fears of the Australian Conservation Foundation that there has been a tendency in recent times for Service aircraft to fly at excessively high altitudes to condition people to sonic booms so that, whatever happens with regard to the Concorde, the argument may be put that people as a whole are not making many complaints about sonic booms.

This is one of those matters which confronts the Government at present with a very difficult decision. The Australian Conservation Foundation is of the opinion that, wittingly or unwittingly, the Royal Australian Air Force has become a party to certain experiments of this nature. I am sure that when Senator Carrick reads the report of my speech in Hansard tomorrow morning he will take appropriate action to inquire into this question.

The second matter that I raise concerns the separation of the former Department of Labor and Immigration under the Labor Government into two separate departments. I know that the viewpoint of the Government is the separation of the 2 elements of the former department into 2 portfolios will result in a speedier servicing of specific questions and grievances. One matter which is causing some concern in the Sydney ethnic community, I feel, is the apparent lack of universal procedures in respect of people seeking tourist visas to come to Australia. On the one hand it is the accepted practice in central Europe and eastern Europe for the applicant to visit the Australian Embassy for an interview. I do not cavil at that, nor do the various ethnic clubs that have raised the matter with me. On the other side of the coin, apparently people from other continents have come here on a tourist visa. They were not interviewed.

I instanced the case some months ago of the 2 Thai bar girls who were arrested in Sydney for soliciting. They were part of a prostitution ring. I have been waiting since 1 7 February for a very simple answer to a question. In the changeover of ministerial functions, the Department of Foreign Affairs became responsible for passport control and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has the function of interviewing tourists. What I am putting is not a hypothetical case. In essence what I am putting is this: If a Yugoslav who wishes to visit Australia has to journey over 500 kilometres to front up to the Australian Embassy in Belgrade, how were these 2 bar girls able to bypass our Embassy in Thailand, come here and become part of a vice ring? I know that vice or virtue is not the prerogative of anybody, whether it be a Liberal or Labor senator.

I want to take the matter a little further. I am perturbed that this evil first surfaced on 17 February. I am referring to the discrimination in relation to the way in which visas are issued. 1 simply say this: It should not take that long to obtain an answer. I can imagine that a please explain went to our Embassy in Bangkok, to find out how these 2 browneyed women were apparently able to charm people. I wish Senator Lajovic was present. We know that a Slovenian girl was given the reverse treatment. She had to wait for hours at the embassy in Belgrade. In the latter case I was told: ‘We expect to see everybody. It was just unfortunate. If she had said she wanted to be interviewed at 10 a.m., arrangements could have been made’. The original objection remains- the lack of uniformity in relation to the way we interview various applicants for tourist visas. In case I sound as if I am making an unfair judgment in the case to which I have made passing reference about the bar girls, I point out that a Sydney magistrate agreed with my evaluation. So I am on sound ground as to the lack of uniformity. I believe that the people who brought in the innovation of severing the Department of Immigration from the Department of Labor felt that we would get quicker service. Frankly we are not. The feedback which we are getting is not good enough. I do not make carping criticism. This applies to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). It applies equally to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). I know he has an assistant, Senator Withers. I raised this matter on 17 February. I do not mind whether Senator Withers comes up with an answer or, conversely, Senator Guilfoyle, who represents Mr Michael MacKellar, does. I think the Senate will appreciate that there is a feeling of discrimination. There may not be discrimination, but I think we are entitled to answers.

I believe the Foreign Affairs Ministry could move a little faster. I asked Senator Withers a question yesterday. As I usually do, I gave advance notice of what was in my mind. I simply wanted a concise statement on the sum total of Australian aid in relation to the recent earthquakes in Italy and Yugoslavia. I was not talking about migrant intake. I was disappointed today when Senator Withers did not come up with an answer. Therefore I leave it to the Senate and to the appropriate Ministers to see that the matters which are recorded tonight are duly answered, I hope tomorrow.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (10.55)- I am breaking a record tonight because it is the first time I have spoken on the first reading of a money Bill. I feel I can follow no finer senator than Senator Mulvihill in trying to save the time of the Senate by speaking on the first reading of a money Bill rather than on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I hope that this reform which has now overtaken Senator Mulvihill will continue. However, I am concerned at the problems that are presented when senators properly seek information from a Minister representing a Minister in another place. The Minister in this place who is asked a question has to rely on information from the office of the Minister who is embedded in the

House of Representatives. I have been very concerned about matters concerning the Department of Health. That portfolio is held by a Minister in the other place. There are 2 things that irritate me about Departments of Health, wherever they are. Firstly, there are the medical administrators in the Departments of Health. They are bad enough. They are generally failed doctors. They know nothing about administration. The second thing is the laymen who become sort of pox doctors clerks. They think they are experts on medical matters.

My complaint is directed fairly and squarely at the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) who is in another place. It relates to the system pertaining to vaccines and preventative medicines, particularly the vaccine for the influenza virus mutation now present in Australia. There is a vast shortage of this serum in every State. I am aware of that shortage because a month ago I went through the system to find out where all the serum is. This afternoon I made a spot check in Canberra because I thought that was a reasonable place to make a spot check. This is the most favoured place among the bureaucracy. If there is anything going around the place, one should find it in Canberra first up.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Anything?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I have some stories I could tell about that, but this is not the occasion. From the information which I obtained from various advisers to the Minister for Health in another place, the problem of the lack of vaccines is a problem of distribution. The problem comes up, very interestingly enough, in the case of Canberra. Canberra has a warehouse which indents upon the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission’s laboratory in Sydney which, I assume, indents upon the Commission’s laboratory in Melbourne. There is at present a deficiency of 6000 vaccine serums in Canberra. Today the Canberra warehouse was promised 6000 serums from Sydney. None arrived. No explanation has been given by the Minister for Health for the administrative and scientific botch-up in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I have heard honourable senators opposite praise the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and say that it should be the nationalised system from which any preventive medicine should be obtained. Since February this year the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has failed abysmally to provide the serums required.

Senator McLaren:

– The Minister for Science has just come in, so be careful.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I must say, with all due humility, if it were not for the fact that Senator McLaren produces eggs we would get no vaccines. So there is some justification for his interest. I consider that when a senator asks for information from a Minister who is embedded in another place, the very least that that Minister can do is produce factual information. If I do not get factual information tomorrow I shall take those steps which are open to a senator to obtain information and get an explanation from the Minister for Health as to why his administration has failed so abysmally in the production of serum for the people of Australia.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I desire to speak on the first reading of a money Bill because of some answers which I have received to questions on notice. The theme of my speech cannot be developed in the time remaining tonight. Therefore I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1774

ADJOURNMENT

Influenza Vaccine

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I simply take this opportunity to refer to the remarks of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack with regard to the supply of the vaccine which he mentioned. The matters which have been raised by him are of concern to us all. I have some information from the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) which I feel it would be appropriate to give at this stage. It is a brief report. I should like to have this information placed on record at the same time as Senator Sir

Magnus Cormack ‘s comments. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratory supplies the vaccine to each State in response to orders which are placed by wholesalers in each State. These orders are made in response to orders made by chemists on wholesalers. Administration and supply of the vaccine to individuals must be by prescription supplied by a medical practitioner. The decision to administer the vaccine to any individual or group therefore rests ultimately with the medical practitioners. There is no power under any Act by which government is able to determine a medical practitioner’s decision in any case.

Following the advice of the National and Medical Research Council, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommended that the pharmaceutical benefits would be paid only for restricted groups of people, namely, children under 5 years of age, pensioners, and people with chronic respiratory or cardiac disease. This means that people in the categories mentioned above are able to obtain the prescribed vaccines at a cost of $2. People who require the vaccine and who are not in the categories mentioned above pay considerably more for the prescription.

There is no real evidence from the last winter in the Northern Hemisphere that this strain of virus is any worse than most other strains. However, the demand for the vaccine in this country is unprecedented. At 12 May 1976 1 129 000 doses of the vaccine had been distributed by CSL. This is considerably in excess of the total amount prescribed for influenza during the winter of 1975. I will refer the other matters which have been mentioned by the honourable senator to the Minister for Health. If there is further information available I shall see that it is given to the honourable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.3 p.m.

page 1775

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Commonwealth Procurement and Disposal Procedures (Question No. 66) Senator Missen asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What changes in Commonwealth Government procurement and disposal procedures have taken place in the last twelve months.

Have any of the recommendations of the Scott Committee been put into effect; if so, which recommendations, and when.

Television and Radio Program Transcripts (Question No. 117)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission recently made a decision to cease supplying to the public, free of cost, transcripts of its radio and television programs.
  2. If so, will the Australian Broadcasting Commission now supply such transcripts to interested persons for a fee, as many Tasmanians keenly interested in public affairs wish to see the service maintained.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. The ABC regrets it cannot adopt this suggestion because a fee of itself would not facilitate the production of transcripts as staff which the ABC is no longer able to engage is also required for this purpose.

Commercial Radio Stations: Projects (Question No. 179)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister received a copy of the results of a special survey conducted by the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters which revealed that 34 of Australia’s 1 18 commercial radio stations failed to make a profit during the 1974-75 financial year.
  2. Is the Government taking any action to assist the Australian broadcasting industry.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. I am aware that a number of commercial broadcasting stations, mainly smaller country stations, have been experiencing some financial difficulties. The question of possible assistance to such stations is not under consideration by the Government.

Postal Services (Question No. 184)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister request the Postal Commission to reintroduce the opening of post offices on Saturday mornings so long as it is justified on a cost benefit basis for the convenience of the public generally and particularly for families where both parents work and for reasons of stimulating an increase in business.
  2. Will the Minister ascertain from the Commission what, specifically, is preventing postal employees from working on a roster basis on Saturday mornings with time off in lieu during the week, as is the practice of thousands of other Australians in essential industries.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Some 4200 non-official post offices throughout Australia are open on Saturday mornings. In addition, minor transactions such as the purchase of small quantities of postage stamps, can be made through stamp vending machines and licensed stamp vendors.

It is possible, of course, for customers to arrange for articles awaiting collection at an official post office to be sent to a nearby non-official post office for collection on Saturday. Many non-official offices also provide money order and savings bank services.

Cost benefit analyses have been made on the re-opening of all official post offices on Saturday mornings: on the basis of providing a counter service only, costs would be to the order of $4.3 million a year. At many of the offices, the costs involved would not be justified by the service demand and. overall, it is most unlikely that any significant additional revenue would be earned.

  1. Official post offices have been closed on Saturday mornings since February 1974 as a result of direct action by certain staff organisations which instructed their members not to attend for duty on Saturdays. Negotiations with staff organisations to re-open those post offices which previously opened on Saturday mornings were not successful. Against the background of community practice in other areas, detailed studies, involving the staff organisations, were conducted. The studies showed that it was not practicable to provide Saturday morning counter services at official post offices on a five day week basis under any acceptable rostering arrangement whereby the Saturday duty could bc regarded as normal duty with time off in lieu during the week.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Expenditure (Question No. 200)

Senator Wriedt:

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and what is the anticipated expenditure for 1 975-76 in each of the States and Territories.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Minister representing the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 192 on 30 March 1976 (Hansard page 892).

Telecom Australia (Question No. 280)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did Telecom Australia make a profit of $67.1 m in the first six months of its operation?
  2. Is it expected that Telecom Australia will make a profit of $ 1 60m in its first year of operation?
  3. Would an annual profit of $160m make Telecom Australia the largest money-making enterprise in Australian history?
  4. Will the Government agree to a substantial reduction in telephone charges in the 1976-77 Budget?
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A surplus of revenue over expenditure of approximately $67m was reported by Telecom Australia during this period.
  2. Telecom Australia expects a surplus of revenue over expenditure of the order of S 1 60m in its first year.
  3. A surplus of SI 60m in this financial year would represent a return of about 3.8 per cent on the value of the capital assets of the Commission. Comparatively, the Commission will perform significantly below the average of enterprises engaged in providing goods and services.
  4. In accordance with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1975 the whole of the surplus is being progressively invested in the provision of plant and equipment. This will enable additional and improved services to be provided. The question of tariffs for 1976-77 is a matter which will be considered by the Government in the Budget context.

ABC Programs: Advertising (Question No. 285)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Australian Association of National Advertisers officially offered to place advertisments on Australian Broadcasting Commission radio and television to help make up the $8.4m cutback in the Commission’s funding for this financial year.
  2. ) Would viewers and listeners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission not accept or tolerate commercial advertising.
  3. Will the Minister affirm that the Government has no intention of seriously considering such a proposal.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Acting Chairman of the ABC, Dr Earle Hackett, has advised me that listeners and viewers who have written to the ABC have, almost without exception, opposed the suggestion that the ABC should carry advertisements.
  3. The acceptance of commercial advertising by the ABC is one of a number of suggestions which have been put forward from various sources to assist in financing the operations of the Commission. No firm proposal of this nature is presently being assessed by the Government. However, the present Inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting System has been directed to give particular attention to the structure, powers and functions of the ABC, as well as other relevant bodies, and this Inquiry will consider alternative methods of funding the Commission.

Political Broadcasts (Question No. 302)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Broadcasting Control Board during the month before the 1975 Federal election issue a directive to all radio and television stations, both commercial and government, which said that all decisions regarding political material were to be made by news editors and not by management; if so, what is the text of the directive.
  2. 2 ) When was it made.
  3. Who was responsible for the issue of the directive.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The directive referred to was a circular letter from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and was sent to all commercial broadcasting and television stations on 18 December 1975-one week after the Federal Election of 13 December 1975.

The letter did not refer to political material but rather to the respective responsibilities of news editors and management. The circular letter referred to the Board’s inquiry into the coverage by commercial television stations of the Report of the Joint Committee on Prices entitled ‘Prices of Household Soaps and Detergents ‘ and other matters.

In particular, it arose from paragraph 27 of the Board’s report and recommendation to the Minister, arising out of the inquiry referred to above. The paragraph in question reads: ‘The Board has noted the evidence given on behalf of several licensees that news personnel have been clearly instructed that news decisions are to be based on editorial judgment alone, subject to managerial direction only on question of defamation or breaches of the Board ‘s standards as to taste. It was however obvious at the inquiry that this instruction was not known to all members of staff- even to all members of the news staff. The Board would propose to request licensees to reduce the instruction to writing and convey it to all staff members. It is not thought necessary to make this a substantive condition of the licence, but rather a requirement that should be policed by the Board from time to time in its general inspections of stations.

  1. 18 December 1975.
  2. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Broadcasting: Darwin Transmitter (Question No. 311)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecom.munications, upon notice:

Was an application made for a licence to operate a radio transmitter, subsequent to the Government’s confiscation on 25 January 1976, of the transmitter operated by Mr Tony Bella in Darwin; if so, when was the application lodged and when can the applicant expect a decision.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

Yes. An application was lodged by Mr W. J. Neilley on 28 January 1976.

The decision on this application was forwarded to Mr Neilley on 5 March 1976 but was returned to my Department endorsed ‘ Unclaimed at Darwin- Return to Sender’.

Since then, through the efforts of Officers of my Department, the letter has been delivered to Mr Neilley.

Pollution: Uranium Mining (Question No. 330)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) How much has been expended in the last five years on the rehabilitation of the Finniss River, to overcome pollution from the Rum Jungle uranium mining operations.
  2. Can the rehabilitation measures undertaken be considered to have returned the river to its former state, or will it be necessary for an annual grant to be made to continue the rehabilitation program.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) In answer to a question from the honourable Senator in 1972 (Question No. 1969, Senate Hansard, 12 April 1972) details were given of rehabilitation work carried out to that time by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The cost of that work was approximately $50,000. Since 1973 an extensive program of investigations has been carried out into the causes and effects of pollution from mining at Rum Jungle and the remedial action required. Separate costing of this is not available but the Commission has spent approximately 20 man-years in various scientific investigations and the Department of the Northern Territory has been engaged in revegetation trials and water sampling and analysis. The work has been described in the publication by the Commission in September 1975 of a report entitled Rum Jungle Environmental Studies’.
  2. The Finniss River and East Branch have not been returned to their former states although the process of natural regeneration has begun. There has been no rehabilitation program as such to date apart from the investigation of suitable methods, which is still continuing. Following a decision to institute a rehabilitation plan, annual expenditure covering the period of rehabilitation work will be necessary.

Loans Affair (Question No. 332)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the inquiry into the alleged Khemlani loans affair, which was instituted by the Premier of Queensland, Mr J. Bjelke-Petersen, cost the Australian taxpayer over $250,000.
  2. Did Mr Wiley Fancher, who was involved in the investigation, have all his fares and other expenses paid by the Australian taxpayer.
  3. Is the Minister aware that, at the time Mr Fancher was investigating the Khemlani loans affair, whilst his own company, Mount Mulgrave Pty Ltd, was declared bankrupt and was this the same Mr Wiley Fancher who came to Australia on, or about, 24 December 1965, reportedly to avoid living beside negroes.
  4. Will the Australian Government take the initiative in recovering the costs of the investigation from the Premier of Queensland and Mr Fancher, in view of the AttorneyGeneral’s declaration that there was no evidence to support the allegations.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Mr Fancher was not employed by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government has made no payment in respect of, and has accepted no financial responsibility for, any enquiries carried out by the Queensland Premier into overseas loan dealings of the previous Commonwealth Government.
  2. It is understood that press reports in December 1975 indicated that Mr Fancher was a director of a company which was wound up in October 1975. The timing of. or reason for, Mr Fancher’s coming to Australia has not been investigated by the Commonwealth Government.
  3. In view of the answer given to question ( 1 ), this question does not arise.

Telephones (Question No. 390)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Government install an automatic telephone exchange at Wallerawang in the Federal Electorate of Macquarie, as the district at present has only an inadequate manual exchange.
  2. Are residents, organisations and industries within the area desirous of such a facility being established at the earliest possible date.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Telecom Australia has advised that representations have been received over a number of years from several interested local bodies and individuals seeking the provision of an automatic exchange at Wallerawang. Subject to resources being available the Commission proposes to replace the present manual exchange with automatic facilities, at an estimated cost of $90,000, during the 1976-77 financial year.

Tertiary Institutions (Question No. 457)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide a summary of tertiary institutions that currently are amalgamating with other tertiary institutions.
  2. To what extent is reciprocity granted in Australian tertiary institutions between subjects credited in Colleges of Advanced Education and Teachers’ Colleges on the one hand and Universities on the other.
  3. To what extent do Universities recognise Colleges of Advanced Education degrees and diplomas as creditation for (a) entrance, and (b) admission, to post-graduate degree courses.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. There are no universities in Australia which are, at present, in the process of amalgamation with other tertiary institutions. However, in Victoria, Deakin University, Geelong, which is expected to commence teaching in 1978, will incorporate two existing colleges of advanced education.

The following Colleges of Advanced Education have recently or are currently in the process of amalgamation:

Wagga Agricultural College- Riverina College of Advanced Education

State College of Victoria, Ballarat- The Ballarat Institute of Advanced Education

State College of Victoria, Bendigo- Bendigo Institute of Technology

  1. ) All tertiary institutions make provision for the granting of credit to students transferring from another institution. In the case of a university the amount of credit granted for work done at another university depends largely on the extent to which the faculty concerned judges that the work is equivalent to sections of its own courses. Credit is not usually granted for units required to complete the final year of a course.

The Commission on Advanced Education in its Fourth Report commented on the transfer of students between postsecondary courses in the same or in other institutions in that rigid subject requirements should not be imposed upon students moving from one course to another’.

Transfers are also possible between colleges of advanced education and universities although, at present, they are not common.

  1. Many students with university degrees take professional graduate diplomas, e.g. Diploma of Education at colleges of advanced education. There are a number of students undertaking higher degree studies in universities on the basis of qualifications obtained at colleges of advanced education. In 1 974 sixty-one students commenced higher degree study at universities on the basis of a qualifying degree gained at a college of advanced education. In 1 975 the figure was eighty-four students.

The assessment of individual students and their qualifications for the purpose of admission and higher degree studies is a matter for determination by individual universities.

Television: Darwin (Question No. 459)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. How much rent does the Darwin commercial television station NTD 8 pay for the use of the Government television tower to transmit its programs.
  2. How much does NTD 8 pay for the use of the Government building which houses both NTD 8’s and the Government transmitters.
  3. How much does NTD 8 contribute to the salaries of Government technicians who maintain the transmitters.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. $l,770p.a.
  2. $1,211 p.a.
  3. $15,290 p.a.

Department of the Northern Territory: Residence of Secretary (Question No. 393)

Senator Robertson:

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

  1. When will the Secretary of the Department of the Northern Territory, Mr Livingston, move permanently to Darwin and meet not only his staff, but the people of Darwin, and fulfil his duties.
  2. When will an announcement be made about the appointment of the Administrator of the Northern Territory.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) It is intended that the Secretary of the Department of the Northern Territory, Mr R. S. Livingston, will move to Darwin when suitable accommodation can be made available. It may be of interest to record that since January, Mr Livingston has visited Darwin on 8 separate occasions and met all the people who have sought an appointment with him.
  2. The appointment of the Administrator of the Northern Territory will be announced as soon as possible.

Pollution: Melville Bay (Question No. 546)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Did officers of the Department of the Northern Territory meet with executives of Nabalco recently to discuss the pollution of Melville Bay; if so, when and where did the meeting take place, and who was present.
  2. Has the Department been aware of the severe pollution of the Bay for the last two years.
  3. Did Mr John Lake of the Department of the Northern Territory tell the Nabalco executives at the meeting, as claimed in the National Times of 1 9 April 1 976, that it would be greatly to Nabalco ‘s and the Department’s disadvantage if the public knew of the degree of pollution occurring at present.
  4. How serious is the level of pollution at present.
  5. Does the Department maintain that Nabalco is responsible for major pollution of the Bay.
  6. What effect is the pollution having on the fishing activities of the Aboriginal community of Nhulunbuy.
  7. What action does the Government intend taking to stop the Nabalco plant polluting Melville Bay.
  8. Will the Minister agree to table in the Senate the minutes of any meeting between the Department officers and Nabalco.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No, but a meeting took place on 28 June 1974 at Nabalco ‘s Office on the Gove Peninsula.

The Department of the Northern Territory was represented by:

Mr M. R. Finger, First Assistant Secretary.

Mr P. Purich, Assistant Secretary.

Mr J. Lake, Assistant Secretary. and four supporting officers.

Nabalco was represented by:

Mr A. Coogan, General Manager.

Dr W. Koeppel, Site Manager. and three supporting staff.

  1. Pollution has never been regarded as severe. Actions over the last two years by the Company, in co-operation with the Department of the Northern Territory, have substantially reduced what pollution that has occurred.
  2. 3 ) It is recorded that Mr Lake did express a personal view in regard to the pollution in June 1974.
  3. It is considered that the pollution is being reduced to acceptable levels.
  4. No. Nabalco’s operations have caused pollution to only a very small portion of Melville Bay.
  5. None.
  6. 7 ) It is not possible for pollution to be eliminated entirely. When all measures presently being undertaken are completed, it will be reduced to a negligible and acceptable level.
  7. No.

Televising of Rugby League Matches

Senator Carrick- On 1 April 1976, Senator

McAuliffe asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice:

I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Will the Minister ascertain details of the financial arrangements with the New South Wales Rugby League which enable the Australian Broadcasting Commission to replay Sydney Rugby League club fixtures on Queensland television channels? Does the arrangement with the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the New South Wales Rugby League entitle the ABC to screen these matches in Queensland without payment of a fee to the Queensland Rugby League? As this source of revenue is most valuable in promoting the league code throughout Queensland, will the Minister use his good offices to ascertain whether the ABC is willing to pay a separate fee?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The ABC has a contract with the New South Wales Rugby Football League which gives it the right to televise Sydney Rugby League football fixtures in Queensland subject to the approval of the Brisbane Rugby League and the Queensland Rugby League.

In past years the Sydney Rugby League Club fixtures have been replayed in Queensland and the Northern Territory without payment of any additional fee. The ABC is not prepared to pay an additional fee to the Queensland Rugby League for the right to replay these matches in Queensland.

Post Office Boxes

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 1 April 1976, Senator Townley asked me the following question, without notice:

  1. Does he agree that the delivery of mail via a post office box saves the Postal Commission a great deal of money and yet there are now considerable fees for post office boxes which benefit the Commission as much as or more than the mail recipients?
  2. Is the Minister able to confirm that due to the high charges for post office boxes, many box holders are cancelling that facility?
  3. Will the Minister ask his colleague to request the Commission to examine the charges for these boxes?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) No. Although it may appear that the provision of post office boxes would save in costs and convenience, the post man still generally needs to pass the boxholder’s premises to deliver to neighbouring households or business premises. There is therefore, little or no saving in costs to offset the substantial expense incurred in the purchase, installation, maintenance and administration of post office boxes. The charges have been set to ensure that the revenue received more closely matches the expense of providing the service.
  2. No. Reconciled statistics giving the actual number of cancellations of post office boxes would not be available until after the end of the financial year.
  3. The Commission has furnished me with a report on this matter, whichIam currently considering.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 28 April 1976, Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice:

Will the Government take the steps which are necessary to provide adequate insurance cover for employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who travel on unscheduled or hazardous flights? In determining what constitutes adequate insurance, will the Minister acknowledge the expressed opinion of the Australian Journalists Association which has called for insurance cover to be based on salary rates rather than a flat sum to guard against erosion of value through inflation?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Adequate insurance cover for employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who travel on unscheduled or hazardous flights is now provided for in the Air Accidents Australian Government Liability Act, the provisions of which the Public Service Board and the Treasury have stated should replace the Commission’s former staff rule for providing cover in these circumstances.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 May 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760519_senate_30_s68/>.